Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[NPC_]

 

[Rembrandt]

How the fuck is this thread over 60 pages. One of the biggest threads on this board and it's literally just debating back and forth that drawn children having sex is or isn't pedo shit.

Kiwi farmers man. Autism supreme in this thread.

Same type of thread as of that one tranny making a thread about themselves - it just became a bus stop for people to say "fuck you" alongside a few dedicated debates.

 

[Kerr Avon]

If you are talking about Chidols (Child idols or young idols), they don't do anything explicitly erotic; its a form of gravure and they mainly pose in swimsuits and uniforms, and never get naked or do anything explicit

I think you need to step back and take a breath for a minute. You are way too emotionally invested in this.

Take your own advice

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Take your own advice

Nothing about my statement made me come off as emotionally invested. So I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

How do you know? Have you studied the subject?

STUDIED THE SUBJECT OF DUDES JACKING OFF TO DEPICTIONS OF FICTIONAL GAY DUDES HAVING SEX?????????

Once again, how do you know? I'm sure there's some little old church lady somewhere that would find stick figure sex obscene.

Hence "virtually"; outliers are irrelevant, some people would like murder to be legal, so what? And even if the majority wanted murder legalized it'd still be wrong because objective morality isn't dependent upon a vote anyway.

Women aren't treated like property? Black people aren't treated like property? Child Marriage is generally looked down upon, if not outright illegal? Child prostitution is illegal? Human rights recognized? We don't torture prisoners?

Women weren't treated like property, but blacks were, which many of the Founding Fathers had qualms with from the beginning, even ones who owned them.

The child marriage stuff was popular around the globe, America got rid of that faster than any place, same with slavery. Things don't change overnight. I don't think child prostitution was ever legal in America, but I'm sure if it was then we lead the way on banning it ahead of any other nation. Human rights is too broad a topic here, and what constitutes torture is hotly debated.

Since the Founders were morally upstanding men they opposed all or most things we still despise today, or at least what conservatives do. Trying to make them out to be child fucking nigger torturers is ahistorical and bereft of historical context. I also never said things were perfect, that's impossible.

Because that's factually true? Its still just lines on a paper, regardless of what it visually is meant to represent.

What's represented is the problem, as you're well aware.

your right; this is how our system works, which is why I don't trust it not to fuck up.

So if we want something banned we just DON'T ban it? How's that work exactly? Just have no limits on society, a free-for-all? Only libertarians want that, I even respect the left more for actually wanting a coherent culture, as shitty as it would be under them. Lolbertarian are spineless cucks.

Did I argue for anarchy?

In essence, yes, you just aren't using that term per se.

I don't think there are any conceivable regulations, because any attempt to regulate would be regulating expression based on nothing but people's personal distaste of something, and personal distaste shouldn't be part of anyone's legislation.

And what's wrong with that? If something is bad, get rid of it. Do you think loli benefits society? Is that conducive to a better life for those fapping to it?

Drugs are banned, why not porn? Drugs are more harmful, yes, so I'm not equating their degree of destruction.

THERE'S NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE.

What the hell does this even mean? What's a "functional difference" in this context? You can't say there's "no difference" so you chose this vagueness instead, which I presume is meaningless.

I doubt anyone on either side of the debate cares about this nuance as much as you do.

Technically I don't care about this nuance at all, I want loli banned entirely, but in lieu of that it'd be a step in the right direction to regulate how it can be depicted. That means nuance is important, whether anybody cares or not, and I suspect you're wrong about that anyway.

You didn't say "best outcome", you said "ideally".

Which is what the ideal is, the best outcome, and is what you should strive for.

If you can't actually prove a negative outcome of this material, then you can't actually justify banning it.

Is there historical precedence for that? Are you saying DeSantis was wrong for limiting LGBT propaganda for kids in school because he didn't "prove it" was bad with sTuDiEs backed by The Science™?

People claim to know a lot things that are bullshit.

It should be easy to debunk then.

And they probably aren't technically wrong.

You're right, they're not just technically wrong, but entirely wrong. They can show all the studies they want, these McKinsey ass pedophile mother fucking faggots can suck start a shotgun.

How about we actually encourage more studies so we can come to fully understand the effects of this situation?

I'm not against studies, they just don't dictate politics, which literally means "for, of, or relating to citizens". CITIZENS. Not researchers, citizens, they don't dictate how politics operate.

Does research factor in? Sure, insofaras they can sway people (which is why they're largely leftist propagandists now), but we don't look to see if a study exists and then just give up if not. This whole line of thinking you're presenting as normal is ahistorical and not respected by politicians on either side of the aisle.

You have a hard-on for studies? Fine, but it has no authority on what loli should be considered by people, so it's about time you drop that.

And many of them are bullshit.

Maybe, but many aren't too.

Those laws would fall under people's rights to not be exposed to sexual content without their consent, as an extension of general sexual consent.

Nudity is not sexual per se, not in all legal, moral, or social contexts. Conflating nudity with sexual content is an error on your part.

restrictions to freedom of speech and expression are clearly delineated and quite limited, falling into a few specific categories.

Which were and are subject to change.

That was a single outlier case that, as I said, will more than likely be overturned on appeal.

I don't think it will be overturned even if it should. It may be an outlier but Internet and Internet image memes are relatively new, as is the social media spreading them, so naturally there's not been much legal testing of them. Expect MUCH more of this.

What mores are you specifically trying to enforce?

Now that would be a rabbit hole. Let's just say banning/regulating porn is one of them.

And as I already said, the cat's out of the bag dude. Its not going back in.

It will if it's illegal, simple as that. Shut these porn companies down and you've irreparably damaged the supply and the culture will begin to heal. It won't disappear, but again, nobody's goal is making it vanish like magic.

you don't know what Socratic dialogue actually is.

You really think you're debating properly?

Once again, that is NOT HOW THIS WORKS. You make the claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

And I did, if you find it insufficient then where's your rebuttal? "STUDIESSSS!!!" isn't one btw.

Lolis can be lolis and actually be adults, hence the 1000 year old vampire loli meme.

But it's precisely a meme because everyone knows it's a technicality. Pan is "literally a toddler" to quote you, which she obviously is, but if she's retconned into a vampire of 9001 years age then suddenly fapping to her isn't fapping to a "literally a toddler" anymore, even though nothing changed about the art.

That's the issue, child anatomy being depicted, nobody cares about the canon, people object the IMAGERY.

All the title asks is whether or not lolicon/shotacon is drawn child pornography. It doesn't mention or call out age at all.

It DOES, the definition of loli was already shown to you.

So what, do you think blasphemy laws back too, my man? Blasphemy laws are the hill you want to die on? Really? Really?

It's better than your vision, which seems to be anything goes. That's extremely short-sighted, it predictably hasn't produced good results.

The only logical explanation is that you are simply trying to obfuscate the point to win the argument.

Solid projection.

I quoted your literal words. Its not my fault you are careless with language.

Then if we're devolving into nitpicking, you've said Pan is "a literal toddler", so now you're conflating fiction and real kids too. See why we shouldn't do that?

It would be an infringement on individual rights and free expression with no material benefit to society.

The "right" to fap to cartoon toddlers in exchange for society reducing the amount of degenerate content available? Seems like a fair trade, especially considering how dubious that right is in the first place.

I mean, you obviously are. You've been going on rambling diatribes about morality and good vs. evil for days. If you weren't invested, why would you bother?

I'm not terribly invested, I care enough to argue and debate is fun, but if you see me debate abortion or transgenderism then I clearly care more. I'd have triple my post count if I wasn't threadbanned from the abortion thread lol.

On this, we actually agree.

Precious little as it may be, at least we agree on a couple things I guess.

Gasp* Its almost like Toriyama draws most of his women to look like young teenagers!

It's more like you got it reversed, Toriyama draws most of his teenagers to look like adults. Unless they're particularly young there's not much way to artistically differentiate an older teenager from an adult in his art style. That's why Goku and Yamcha and Chichi and Bulma all look the damn same as when they were 16-18 as they do in their 40's.

There. Was it that hard just to admit this?

I never denied it, the point is the existence of such studies is irrelevant. A lack of studies on the fact that only fags fap to gay hentai doesn't mean it's not true, we can know things without studies dude.

There are plenty of studies showing the negative aspects of transgenderism

Which are explained away by the same groups. For example they blame the high suicide rates on bigots not accepting them. So the studies essentially equate to "transgenderism is only bad because of NAZIS!!1!" And there's also studies which suggest it's normal, hence why the DSM has shifted away from considering it a mental illness at all. So you're wrong.

The ancient philosophers had nothing better to do all day but sit around and talk about life. The scientific method didn't exist then. There were no peer reviewed studies. Knowledge was not as vast, and collated as it is now. Now, we have infinite knowledge at our fingertips. There's no reason not to cite relevant information other than such information simply not existing.

Right, if the studies exists there's no reason not to cite them. However, there's two other facts. 1), them not existing doesn't mean something is untrue. 2) Even if studies do exist, their conclusions are not final.

You set up studies as the be-all, end-all, but that's simply not the case. It wasn'tbefore, it isn't now. Politics do not rely on studies no matter how much you think they should, and this issue is no exception. It's like we're all going off a cliff and you want a study before we swerve.

Because good science is still being done. Despite certain a lobby's attempts to suppress and control information, the science is still being carried out, and the truth is still being made clear. Because people with integrity do still exist in the scientific field, and they deserve to be heard and to have support for what they do.

I don't share your faith, and would only even consider such studies if the researcher's identities and politics were transparent, there's too much agenda pushing going on to just give the benefit of the doubt and assume objectivity.

Except you don't lay out your reasoning.

I did, you didn't. You hide behind the fact it's legal, and that it's just art. No, that's not an oversimplification of your position, it is accurate. What you DON'T DO is explain what actual merits loli has, and why I'm wrong. You can't so you run RIGHT back to "it's just art, where's your study, it's freedom of expression".

Yes, it's just art, no I don't have any studies, and currently it's technically (erroneously imo) protected as freedom of expression. I'm addressing your points, shallow as they are, now address mine instead of dismissing every pontification as irrelevant because "muh studies". You're a just obviously afraid if you don't, frankly.

Pedophilia is attraction to children, as in other people's children (or your own).

It's just an attraction to children period, your own self is not an exception to my knowledge and logically shouldn't be.

The overlap of yugioh players who prefer digital to physical has no barring on anything else outside of the overlap of yugioh players who prefer digital to physical. (owned)

Just answer directly, how much of the Yugioh video game players have interest in the real Yugioh card game? You owned yourself by sidestepping this.

I agree so so much with this, while i myself don't mind the cheeky fan service and occasional panty shot, we as a society have gone full blown degeneracy where now people are arguing if it is ethical to be fucked by your dog....those discussions shouldn't even occur!!. There is no shame, chastity, self control, at this point we as a society are worse than animals who only fuck when they are in heat. Perverts should be kicked back to the dark side of the internet, seedy dark alleys, questionable clubs, and any normalization of degeneracy should be met with laughter and a flamethrower.

I agree pretty much, though it's funny considering your avatar and title lmao

 

[Tad Loaf]

Just answer directly, how much of the Yugioh video game players have interest in the real Yugioh card game? You owned yourself by sidestepping this.

Zero percent.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Zero percent.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Zero percent.

Ok. I guess my tub of cards I have doesn't exist, nor does my DS with 2008 world championships. Kys.

 

[Tad Loaf]

Your concession is accepted

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Ok. I guess my tub of cards I have doesn't exist, nor does my DS with 2008 world championships. Kys.

I preferred 2007 myself.

Your concession is accepted

Just like your lolis, your victory is fictional.

 

[Tad Loaf]

Just like your lolis, your victory is fictional.

Then I guess quite a few posters in this thread would say it's a literal victory

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Then I guess quite a few posters in this thread would say it's a literal victory

But it still speaks to your desire, you want to have victory. And, so also...

 

[Kiwisee]

View attachment 5565754

I wasn't the one who misrepresented what the convicted pedos said in a poor attempt to cover your own pedophilia

Kill yourself, nigger faggot.

 

[The Last Stand]

It doesn't have merit. Lisa Simpson is more cartoony than many manga characters. So what? THERE'S NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE. Its all the same. You are the only one arguing for there being some difference, when you can't even articulate what that is besides one character's anatomy being less cartoony and slightly closer to realism than the other.

Don't tell me you fantasize about Lisa Simpson in a sexual way.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

STUDIED THE SUBJECT OF DUDES JACKING OFF TO DEPICTIONS OF FICTIONAL GAY DUDES HAVING SEX?????????

Yes dude, studied. You know, that thing you do when you want to LEARN about something.

Hence "virtually"; outliers are irrelevant, some people would like murder to be legal, so what? And even if the majority wanted murder legalized it'd still be wrong because objective morality isn't dependent upon a vote anyway.

You literally said "It will not be seen as obscene by virtually any honest person." In that sense, outliers do matter, because if an honest person does in fact consider it obscene, your statement is false. Adding in that "virtually" is just a weasel word to try to skate by on technicality.

Women weren't treated like property, but blacks were, which many of the Founding Fathers had qualms with from the beginning, even ones who owned them.

Women were treated as property by their husbands, who owned everything and had sole control over the family. They were basically wards of their husbands. The fact that many of the founding fathers found slavery abhorrent is irrelevant to the fact that slavery was legal and accepted.

The child marriage stuff was popular around the globe, America got rid of that faster than any place, same with slavery

Child marriage is still legal in the United States, the fuck are you talking about? Its just generally looked down upon. But even today, there's nothing stopping you from marrying a preteen in many states.

Since the Founders were morally upstanding men they opposed all or most things we still despise today, or at least what conservatives do.

They may have despised slavery, but not enough to push to make it illegal at all costs.

Trying to make them out to be child fucking nigger torturers is ahistorical and bereft of historical context.

Jesus Christ man, you really need to stop raising these straw men. I didn't even mention the Founding Fathers in my original post.

What's represented is the problem

Says you.

So if we want something banned we just DON'T ban it?

Well, yeah? Just because YOU want something banned doesn't mean it should be banned.

Just have no limits on society, a free-for-all?

It our current society a free for all? No it isn't. And I'm not calling for one. So you can just drop that straw man.

Only libertarians want that,

Libertarians want limited government, not a free for all. That's the lazy straw man of libertarianism by people who don't understand what libertarianism is. Libertarians still believe in the necessity of government or at least see it as a necessary evil. Its anarchists who believe in the abolition of government. The only libertarians who come close to those beliefs are anarcho-communists (for left-libertarians) and anarcho-capitalists (for right-libertarians), and most anarchists don't even see the latter as true anarchists, because they consider true anarchism incompatible with capital markets.

In essence, yes, you just aren't using that term per se.

Cut the weasel words ("in essence", "per se"). Either I did, or I didn't. The correct answer is I didn't. I see you like to invent new arguments for your opponent when you can't actually argue against what they are saying. Speaks to how weak your actual argument is.

And what's wrong with that? If something is bad, get rid of it. Do you think loli benefits society? Is that conducive to a better life for those fapping to it?

We don't ban things because they don't "benefit society". Plenty of things don't benefit society. Television doesn't benefit society. Sports don't benefit society. Tootsie Rolls don't benefit society. We ban things because they present an active harm to society. You know, things like murder, rape, and arson.

Drugs are banned, why not porn?

Drugs are banned because they do active physical harm to people. And even with that said, the drug bans have been so counterproductive that there is an active, ongoing movement to reverse or reform them. Drugs are also far easier to ban and don't necessarily entail setting up a police state to interdict (not to day that current drug law are not terrible in many ways).

What the hell does this even mean?

It isn't hard, dude. I'm using plain English. THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO DRAWINGS. They are just drawings. They are both the same thing, in a functional, real world context. Saying there's "no difference" is the same saying there's no functional difference. The point is, there's no real tangible, real world difference that would justify treating these two objects differently in the real world.

Don't tell me you fantasize about Lisa Simpson in a sexual way.

I haven't said I fantasized about anyone in a sexual way in this thread, so I don't know why you would jump to that conclusion.

Technically I don't care about this nuance at all, I want loli banned entirely,

So basically, this entire argument is pointless then? Then why are we continuing it? We could literally just drop this and cut down the size of these posts.

but in lieu of that it'd be a step in the right direction to regulate how it can be depicted. That means nuance is important

The problem is that there is no objective way to regulate this. How could you? How could regulate based on art style or perceived realism? This is entirely subjective and dependent on the artist's style. Its impossible to regulate and would be unworkable. Where would you even establish the line between something being acceptable and non-acceptable? You couldn't.

Which is what the ideal is, the best outcome, and is what you should strive for.

Words are important my friend. You should chose your language carefully before you use it. And ideal situation is literally "the ideal". The perfect situation. Not just the "best outcome", but the best possible situation, if literal ideal situation.




Look man, these posts are getting long as fuck. Its taking me upward of an hour to answer one, and God forbid something happens, and I click away from the page, and the damn save draft function doesn't automatically save. Lets just call this shit here. Its clear neither of us is going to convince the other, so we are just going around in circles and not coming to any actual conclusion.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Yes dude, studied.

Unnecessary, that's like saying you need a study to prove hungry people want food, it's asinine, these are basic understandings which are intuited about simple concepts. We don't need researchers for this.

Adding in that "virtually" is just a weasel word to try to skate by on technicality.

I'm sorry you dislike the word, I guess...?

Women were treated as property by their husbands

No they weren't.

But even today, there's nothing stopping you from marrying a preteen in many states.

Maybe by some kind of technicality, like how drag queens get away with grooming just because there's no law explicitly outlawing it, which is why DeSantis had to ban it.

They may have despised slavery, but not enough to push to make it illegal at all costs

Almost nothing is worth banning at "all costs".

Says you.

And? That's the whole point of the thread.

Just because YOU want something banned doesn't mean it should be banned.

As an individual who doesn't hold office I have very little political power, so yeah, but what's your point? I could join an anti-loli movement or something if I were so inclined, that's how politics works, then what I want could be banned if we were effective.

It our current society a free for all?

It's much closer to one than it's ever been and grows closer every day, so yes, it is, relatively speaking.

Libertarians want limited government, not a free for all.

They want as close to a free for all you can get, if the only limit is "don't shoot me in the skull unprovoked and I won't shoot you in the skull unprovoked" then that's effectively a cultural free for all.

We don't ban things because they don't "benefit society".

It's a factor. If it serves no benefit and is a detriment then you have a pretty good candidate for banning.

Plenty of things don't benefit society. Television doesn't benefit society. Sports don't benefit society. Tootsie Rolls don't benefit society.

Those are arguable, but one example is some people want smartphones banned or regulated. There's discussion to be had, but you want to shut it down.

Drugs are banned because they do active physical harm to people.

So you have a justification for banning it then. See? Things can be banned with justification, not just willy-nilly.

Drugs are also far easier to ban and don't necessarily entail setting up a police state to interdict

It'd be plenty easy to ban porn, I'm not sure how you think otherwise, or that banning drugs is far easier.

Cut the weasel words ("in essence", "per se"). Either I did, or I didn't. The correct answer is I didn't. I see you like to invent new arguments for your opponent when you can't actually argue against what they are saying. Speaks to how weak your actual argument is.

You can communicate something without saying the exact thing verbatim.

The point is, there's no real tangible, real world difference that would justify treating these two objects differently in the real world.

Yes there is, you admitted there's objective differences in what's depicted despite not being real.

So basically, this entire argument is pointless then?

The purpose of debate is to sway your opponent, which is what I'm attempting to do. I'm against loli, you're for it. If I can at least get you to agree to regulation then that's progress.

How could regulate based on art style or perceived realism?

"Perceived" realism? Either something is realistic or not. We use realistic illustrations in medical textbooks precisely because they're realistic, not "perceived" as such. They'd be useless if they featured stick figure anatomy, wouldn't they?

Look man, these posts are getting long as fuck. Its taking me upward of an hour to answer one, and God forbid something happens, and I click away from the page, and the damn save draft function doesn't automatically save. Lets just call this shit here. Its clear neither of us is going to convince the other, so we are just going around in circles and not coming to any actual conclusion.

If it is too long you can ignore the previous stuff and just answer this:

How many Yugioh video game fans have ZERO interest in real Yugioh cards?

Now, yeah, maybe they don't all actually want to play the real card game, sure. It's more expensive, time consuming, inconvenient, perhaps even embarrassing, etc to play the real game, and those practical reasons are probably why the bulk of gamers who don't play the real games choose digital Yugioh instead.

However, the vast majority would play real Yugioh if they were rich, had unlimited time, could play in private; they'd fly to Epstein Yugioh Island, grab their decks, and blow their Life Points using real cards. That's the undeniable reality, with their practical reasons for abstaining from real Yugioh removed there's no barrier to engaging in their real interests anymore.

I will concede there's possibly a negligible minority who just truly have no interest in playing the actual card game, maybe some minutiae exclusive to the video game experience is somehow integral to their interests for them. Perhaps the UI, music, monster animations, etc which cannot be replicated in real Yugioh are enough to be a dealbreaker on their own. But that doesn't change the fact that the overlap is like 99%.

Alternatively, we can just agree to disagree if you want as well, it's up to you. I think this analogy is pretty solid though.

 

[Father Fornicatio]

I agree pretty much, though it's funny considering your avatar and title lmao

Alas, i am only human, a failed being driven by temptations of the flesh.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Alas, i am only human, a failed being driven by temptations of the flesh.

I need my damn stickers back

 

[The Last Stand]

Child marriage is still legal in the United States, the fuck are you talking about? Its just generally looked down upon. But even today, there's nothing stopping you from marrying a preteen in many states.

So in your eyes, that's still okay?

 

[Kiwisee]

How the fuck is this thread over 60 pages. One of the biggest threads on this board and it's literally just debating back and forth that drawn children having sex is or isn't pedo shit.

Kiwi farmers man. Autism supreme in this thread.

It's 62 pages of Kiwis bullying Lolicons, since they need to be bullied way harder on the internet than they currently are.