Why do we put so much stock into loli/underaged characters as a direct link to being a pedo?

[Gog & Magog]

Because now they can use edge cases like fictional pictures and they don't have to plant real CP to convict. A defense lawyer might have the sense to look at the upload source, but if it isn't technically connected to the FBI, he has a harder time defending you when you were the one on Rule 34.

I can't believe the FBI planted those horsechildrapehentai pictures onto Vaush's computer.

 

[Spud]

I can't believe the FBI planted those horsechildrapehentai pictures onto Vaush's computer.

What ever did happen to Steven Paddock's brother in the end?

 

[Danann]

As usual, this thread brings out the most vile of some people.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

"We shouldn't demonize lolishota porn because the FBI MIGHT PUT PHOTOS ON UR COMPUTER"

Is there any actual evidence that the FBI has done this? The only case I can find is the FBI using a snooping program that accessed areas of a computer that it wasn't supposed to which is why the case got thrown out when the software detected cp that wasn't on the accessable parts of the computer.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

if the Left ever stopped being weirdos and went back to how they were in 2001

You mean back when they "only" wanted fags but not trannies, "only" killed babies without celebrating it openly and siding with literal Satanists, and "only" wanted to slowly infest USA with the 3rd world instead of opening the floodgates? There's never been a time when the left was sane, just a time when their insanity hadn't progressed as much to its logical conclusion yet.

If he did, conservatives are obligated to call him a pedo regardless of the facts.

No we're not, this is a strawman. Nobody actually thinks that fucking an adult is pedophilic.

Conservatives definitely don't give a damn about the nuances of what constitutes acceptable loli anyways; it's all degenerate to them and all of it, to them, should be banned.

We still know there's different degrees of degeneracy despite wanting it all banned, trying to paint us as unthinking idiots is disingenuous. I thought you were a conservative for some reason, disappointing to find out you're a lolbertarian...

Lets all remember that a lot of the anti-loli crusaders always end up being actual pedos. Dr. Pizza and Amir0x to name a couple. Then we have the people in the UN raping children for food and trying to ban loli.

Drawing aren't real. Neg, dumb, whatever you want.

So your defense is some anecdotes, whataboutism, and the classic "drawings aren't real" strawman. That's weak as hell, nobody said they're real, know what else isn't real? Transgenderism, you can't change genders, but it is still harmful to society.

It's not until the government decides to plant CP on your PC to make the charges stick. You really want that CP to be well-defined as such before using it as a legal definition.

That's retarded, they wouldn't even need to plant cartoons, they could plant real porn. Plus, only a few retards want to treat cartoon porn exactly the same as real porn, you can ban it while still categorizing it differently.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

No we're not, this is a strawman. Nobody actually thinks that fucking an adult is pedophilic.

If she's under 18, she's pedo bait according to you people, regardless of how developed she is. Conservatives are arguing for an expansion to include fictional images as a legal punishment. It reeks of moral panic because of the incredibly fluid definitions I see in this thread. It ain't about proportions, as shortstacks can be interpreted as oversexualized children. It's not about lack of realism, since anime is used as an example of pedo bait.

Sorry, in this case, the Conservatives are the ones manipulating the law to suit their tastes and engaging in the moral panic hysteria they accuse Democrats of doing.

 

[Gog & Magog]

If she's under 18, she's pedo bait according to you people, regardless of how developed she is.

Have you considered not fucking minors?

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Have you considered not fucking minors?

Have you considered accusations of pedophilia combined with your guilty until proven innocent attitude is the reason why LGBT+ is what dominates culture, not you?

 

[Gog & Magog]

Have you considered accusations of pedophilia combined with your guilty until proven innocent attitude is the reason why LGBT+ is what dominates culture, not you?

You are obviously guilty of being a whiny faggot.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

You are obviously guilty of being a whiny faggot.

The only thing I'm guilty of is wanting precise definitions for what constitutes criminal charges. And wanting to follow court precedent.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

If she's under 18, she's pedo bait according to you people, regardless of how developed she is.

That guy clearly said the woman he was talking about was an adult, not under 18.

Conservatives are arguing for an expansion to include fictional images as a legal punishment.

What's wrong with that exactly? As long as the law primarily concerns itself with banning the hosting and distribution of such cartoons, punishing sites and creators who disregard the law, then that's sufficient because nobody cares if someone draws degenerate shit in the privacy of their own home.

It reeks of moral panic because of the incredibly fluid definitions I see in this thread. It ain't about proportions, as shortstacks can be interpreted as oversexualized children. It's not about lack of realism, since anime is used as an example of pedo bait.

There's some ambiguity, but as the great late Potter Stewart said, "I know it when I see it", there's definitively problematic content and you know it too.

Sorry, in this case, the Conservatives are the ones manipulating the law to suit their tastes and engaging in the moral panic hysteria they accuse Democrats of doing.

How so? Obscenity laws aren't new, in fact what is new is trying to defend any and all degeneracy under the First Amendment.

Have you considered accusations of pedophilia combined with your guilty until proven innocent attitude is the reason why LGBT+ is what dominates culture, not you?

And how exactly is that the case? Fags dominate because we allowed Christian values to be ripped out of the culture.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

That guy clearly said the woman he was talking about was an adult, not under 18.

But the loli dragon-bait girl is 6000 years old. You don't have a problem calling that pedo bait.

What's wrong with that exactly? As long as the law primarily concerns itself with banning the hosting and distribution of such cartoons, punishing sites and creators who disregard the law, then that's sufficient because nobody cares if someone draws degenerate shit in the privacy of their own home.

Because it's fictional. Anime gets accused all the time for being pedo bait regardless of content in it. Didn't matter that no minors were actually involved in its creation.

There's some ambiguity, but as the great late Potter Stewart said, "I know it when I see it", there's definitively problematic content and you know it too.

And that's a shitty definition then too. You want to expand the definition, but make the criteria so nebulous that having pictures of Gura or Uzaki-chan can qualify as child porn. Well, now not everyone intuitively agrees with "I know it when I see it."

How so? Obscenity laws aren't new, in fact what is new is trying to defend any and all degeneracy under the First Amendment.

You define artistic freedom as degeneracy because you don't like it. Not everyone agrees with that and the First Amendment defends expression you don't like. You criticize SJWs for weaponizing the term racist, but you're doing the same thing with pedophilia.

And how exactly is that the case? Fags dominate because we allowed Christian values to be ripped out of the culture.

Christian values fell out of favor because of the Christian moral crusade against anything fun. Fedora-tipping atheists came about as a reaction to Bible-thumpers saying Harry Potter and Pokemon were devil worship. Engaging in moral panics is why LGBT+ are engaging in it themselves and artists know that you Christians will turn on them afterwards. That's why they don't take your side; you continue to make the same mistakes as in the 90s.

Also, the Slippery Slope justification means dumb women use pedophilia to accuse 40 year old men dating 21 year old women.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

But the loli dragon-bait girl is 6000 years old. You don't have a problem calling that pedo bait.

If it looks like a little kid it's hard not to conclude that bro.

And again, the guy was talking about an adult woman he knew, not a kid, and you said if he fucked her conservatives would have to admit he's a pedophile. That's nonsense.

Because it's fictional. Anime gets accused all the time for being pedo bait regardless of content in it. Didn't matter that no minors were actually involved in its creation.

You seem to think saying "it's fictional" is an argument on and of itself, but that fiction is immoral. I'm not saying it's real.

Sure, it's annoying that some people condemn all of anime because loli hentai exists, it's like condemning all western animation because porn of western characters exists, it's stupid.

And that's a shitty definition then too. You want to expand the definition, but make the criteria so nebulous that having pictures of Gura or Uzaki-chan can qualify as child porn. Well, now not everyone intuitively agrees with "I know it when I see it."

We don't need everyone to agree, we have judges for that, like the one I quoted there. I don't know those characters.

You define artistic freedom as degeneracy because you don't like it.

I define certain abuses of artistic freedom as degeneracy because they are degenerate. You don't think plenty of these artists would acknowledge that fact themselves? You think each one sees themselves as Michaelangelo? They know they're getting their own and others' rocks off, not making beautiful art.

Not everyone agrees with that and the First Amendment defends expression you don't like.

It isn't absolute. There's myriad restrictions on speech already, it's not some unprecedented notion to restrict certain speech.

You criticize SJWs for weaponizing the term racist, but you're doing the same thing with pedophilia.

I genuinely do not understand this, how so? How is that even a comparison? Libtards literally say Whites are inherently racist like a Wokeism version of Christianity's concept of original sin, they're quite literally insane and use the term racist in crazy ways, even redefining it. Please explain how I or any other conservative does an equivalent to that.

Christian values fell out of favor because of the Christian moral crusade against anything fun.

I wonder why. Hm, almost as if "fun" becomes Sodom & Gomorrah 2.0 when allowed to fester.

Fedora-tipping atheists came about as a reaction to Bible-thumpers saying Harry Potter and Pokemon were devil worship.

Harry Potter is literally glorifying witchcraft, so it's understandable. The Pokemon thing was more like culture shock, anime was pretty new to the mainstream, and was very weird, so there was a strong knee-jerk reaction to it which was admittedly overblown during Pokemania.

Engaging in moral panics is why LGBT+ are engaging in it themselves and artists know that you Christians will turn on them afterwards. That's why they don't take your side; you continue to make the same mistakes as in the 90s.

We don't want the porn industry on our side, it'd be a sign we're doing something very, very wrong as conservatives

Also, the Slippery Slope justification means dumb women use pedophilia to accuse 40 year old men dating 21 year old women.

A few @Android raptor tier retards do say that, but they're in a very small minority, basically just jealous gross hags, nobody to take seriously. If a man isn't physically attracted to a 21 year old woman he's either gay or virtue signaling so hard his hard drive needs to be checked even harder than a loli fag's.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

If it looks like a little kid it's hard not to conclude that bro.

And again, the guy was talking about an adult woman he knew, not a kid, and you said if he fucked her conservatives would have to admit he's a pedophile. That's nonsense.

This is pure double-think in action. A grown woman had the unfortunate luck to end up with child-like proportions, but attraction to her is not pedophilia, but a drawing of fictional person--meaning not an actual child--is grounds for criminal charges which even Shadman isn't in jail for (his actual charge is for assault with a deadly weapon). I only demand a consistent standard, which this thread has failed to provide because the goal isn't to have clear standards for what constitutes a child in art, it's to cancel culture artists. That is how you're the same as SJWs. A short, small woman with an enormous ass and big tits is somehow oversexualizing children? Or is it depictions of actual prepubescent body types? Because the only consistent definition I've seen is anyone under 18, which also includes bodies undergoing and have nearly finished puberty. As you are fond of criticizing SJWs for, biology trumps social constructs.

I define certain abuses of artistic freedom as degeneracy because they are degenerate. You don't think plenty of these artists would acknowledge that fact themselves? You think each one sees themselves as Michaelangelo? They know they're getting their own and others' rocks off, not making beautiful art.

Anyone capable of sculpting Michelangelo's David is someone who loves the male form a little too much. And to say that there's no sexual appreciation for Venus rising from sea is to ignore the whole point of that painting. Art often has a sexual component to it because the artist has both the passion--which is illogical--and actual talent to create it. There is no difference between a nude sketch and pornography in an objective sense, which matters when you use the law to punish deviancy. Expanding it to include fiction is how the Right tried to use pedophilia to accuse James Gunn such a charge, only to find that the evidence presented was not evidence. It is also not support by the law either, as fiction is a hard distinction between whether an obscenity standard needs to be applied.

Harry Potter is literally glorifying witchcraft, so it's understandable. The Pokemon thing was more like culture shock, anime was pretty new to the mainstream, and was very weird, so there was a strong knee-jerk reaction to it which was admittedly overblown during Pokemania.

This is why you lost the culture war. Instead of developing a discerning eye, you collectively freaked out. Alinsky is absolutely right about whoever is not fun is a drag, as that is how the Puritans got themselves kicked out of England for hating on Shakespeare and fashion. Where is Christianity now? Relying on Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh to argue its relevance.

A few @Android raptor tier retards do say that, but they're in a very small minority, basically just jealous gross hags, nobody to take seriously.

No, this is the standard position of every woman over the age of 30. They are jealous hags about it, but they absolutely have problems with men dating women young enough to be their daughters. I almost agree with them as it is jarring to look at and of dubious marital value, but a vague definition of pedophilia gives them license to criticize this kind of relationship. If he's 40 and she's 21, that means than when he was 21, she was 2. Optically pedophilia regardless of the actual facts. In fact, those hags have the safest definition of pedophilia according to the Slippery Slope.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

This is pure double-think in action. A grown woman had the unfortunate luck to end up with child-like proportions, but attraction to her is not pedophilia, but a drawing of fictional person--meaning not an actual child--is grounds for criminal charges which even Shadman isn't in jail for (his actual charge is for assault with a deadly weapon).

That's not double-think at all, keywords there are "grown woman". Even a blind person can distinguish children from adults. They don't sound, talk, or behave the same.

Nobody really cares if someone draws something in private, we're not the thought police kicking in doors to check sketchbooks, creators just can't be allowed to disseminate their obscene materials. That's more than fair.

I only demand a consistent standard, which this thread has failed to provide because the goal isn't to have clear standards for what constitutes a child in art, it's to cancel culture artists. That is how you're the same as SJWs.

The standard for obscenity has already been established legally via the Miller test, you just don't like it.

"You want loli porn banned, you're no different than SJWs who want to turn kids transgender!"

How can I even take you seriously?

A short, small woman with an enormous ass and big tits is somehow oversexualizing children?

Those proportions are exclusive to adults, so... obviously not. Even petite women with small breasts and butts look distinctly adult, actually.

As you are fond of criticizing SJWs for, biology trumps social constructs.

Yes, see above.

Anyone capable of sculpting Michelangelo's David is someone who loves the male form a little too much.

I don't care to read the mind of the artist. Now, if David was stuffed full of cock and stuffing his own cock into other men it'd no longer be true art, just a form of pornography.

Art often has a sexual component to it

Maybe, but the subject should be appropriate if it's sexual, and even then there's a line where if crossed it simply becomes pornography.

There is no difference between a nude sketch and pornography in an objective sense

False, again I reference the Miller test.

Where is Christianity now?

Awaiting the next crusade.

No, this is the standard position of every woman over the age of 30.

Lmao I highly doubt that.

If he's 40 and she's 21, that means than when he was 21, she was 2.

By that schizo logic you can't even have a difference of 5 years in a relationship, because if you're 37 and she's 32, then when you were 17 she was 12. Nobody but the most obtuse lunatic would argue that, I assure you it's not a common view, not even among liberal white women.

 

[lamppost]

@Drag-on Knight 91873

Mate, what are you doing man

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

I'll say what I've been saying on this forum for years it's an inanimate object it's still disgusting but I'd rather have the resources going after people producing CP that's actually harming real flesh and blood children.
That all being said everyone I've known who's been into that type of stuff is a disgusting freak who I later stopped associating with

same thing with furries I do not associate with various people who have lolicon profile pictures

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

@Drag-on Knight 91873

Mate, what are you doing man

I do not like moral panic behavior, especially from the side that allegedly loves to defend the Constitution.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I do not like moral panic behavior, especially from the side that allegedly loves to defend the Constitution.

Just say you can't defend your position, concede. No need to ignore my incisive rebuttal and vaguely grandstand about the Constitution and how George Washington would kill me and then himself just because I think loli hentai should be banned.

 

[lamppost]

I do not like moral panic behavior, especially from the side that allegedly loves to defend the Constitution.

All you've achieved is making yourself look like a paedophile though.

I'll say what I've been saying on this forum for years it's an inanimate object it's still disgusting but I'd rather have the resources going after people producing CP that's actually harming real flesh and blood children.
That all being said everyone I've known who's been into that type of stuff is a disgusting freak who I later stopped associating with

same thing with furries I do not associate with various people who have lolicon profile pictures

Why would banning loli take any resources away from "people producing CP that's actually harming real flesh and blood children"

Banning child porn, whether drawn or real, from being freely distributed doesn't consume any resourse by itself.

However anyone going out of their way to obtain it at that point can reasonably be assumed to be an actual danger to children, put on a register, and monitored.