Debate @COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST on the slippery slope of making loli porn illegal - At the user's own request.

"free speech absolutist" is code for nonce.
The "I just want to be able to say nigger" free speech absolutist when the "I just want to jerk off to little girls" free speech absolutist starts speaking:
tumblr_b0b035b99c47565c3f90d61008387e7c_eeabd6a1_1280.jpg
 
The government is not your babysitter.
You simply asserting that doesn't actually constitute an argument. Their job is to work toward the common good, that's what age verification is and why it exists.

If you can explain why you need to be carded in person to buy a Playboy magazine but not to watch the most depraved porn videos in existence online, I'd quite like to hear it.

I mean, I could apply the same thing to violent video games being "murder simulators".
This is the second worst talking point after fear-mongering about the age verification slippery slope or whatever. Violent games and sexual games are different, you don't play violent video games to get off, and it isn't the author's intent. These games serve different purposes, and thus should be and are viewed differently by society.

In short, it's an unequal comparison.

You fencesitting faggot, you were talking about it should be banned while also saying "lol lolicon isn't real". Stop being a disingenuous retard
I mean, that is a perfectly logical and consistent position. It isn't real but it should still be banned.

Free speech includes speech you don't like. People can say "hate speech serves no purpose".
Too bad porn isn't speech then, huh?
 
I mean, that is a perfectly logical and consistent position. It isn't real but it should still be banned.
I disagree because if you're already consuming loli porn, I think you're on the fast track actually to harm a child. There's a reason why killing animals as a young kid has links to being a serial killer
 
I've seen people argue that porn falls under free speech but what exactly is it saying? I've yet to encounter any that has any deep nuance or clever writing. Nobody has cp because they thought it was thought provoking or intellectually stimulating. They just have it because "brain feel good"

So yeah I agree porn isn't speech at all. Perhaps it could accompany speech, but any speech worth hearing doesn't need porn attached to it.
 
thats fucking gross too and im a bit annoyed you didn't even spoiler this
You're pathetic. The people who think like you and agree with you are pathetic. If Christian paintings of cherubs no different from what you'd find in an Italian monastery make you feel such revulsion, you're probably possessed by a demon. I can't tell if it's you or the demon who is retarded.
 
You're pathetic. The people who think like you and agree with you are pathetic. If Christian paintings of cherubs no different from what you'd find in an Italian monastery make you feel such revulsion, you're probably possessed by a demon. I can't tell if it's you or the demon who is retarded.
I can enjoy Christian paintings without looking at baby dicks, you retard
 
I've seen people argue that porn falls under free speech but what exactly is it saying? I've yet to encounter any that has any deep nuance or clever writing. Nobody has cp because they thought it was thought provoking or intellectually stimulating. They just have it because "brain feel good"

So yeah I agree porn isn't speech at all. Perhaps it could accompany speech, but any speech worth hearing doesn't need porn attached to it.
While this is true 99% of the time, I would argue that the occasional sex scandal among officials should be possible to verify. For example, if there was footage of Xi Jinping plowing Kamala Harris, that's a national security concern that the nation has a right to know, and we shouldn't have to take a politician's word for it that that's what happened. Independent observers should be able to verify it.

But in spirit, I agree.
 
I disagree because if you're already consuming loli porn, I think you're on the fast track actually to harm a child. There's a reason why killing animals as a young kid has links to being a serial killer
I'm not sure that's an equal comparison. Killing an animal is still real killing, just lower stakes. A more fair comparison would be watching Happy Tree Friends or Saw or something.

Anyway, it's objectively not real if it's a cartoon, but that doesn't change that it's still immoral. It may even still be true that it's a pipeline kinda thing too.

17th century Christian art would be considered CSAM under that new Texan law, by the way.
View attachment 7093732
Nudity isn't necessarily pornographic by default, and the artist's intent matters too. A reasonable person can tell the difference between Loli-chan blowing her teacher in an anime and some angel thing made hundreds of years ago with genuine artistic value.
 
It's ok day of the cope, I support you. Don't let these peons bully you.

As for the law I guess I'm not certain what the underlying point is. Normally the reason child porn is an issue is because it involves the victimization (and monetization of victimization) of a child, so what's the conceit here?
Like is it just supposed to be social cleansing because it's repulsive, and nobody likes people who jerk off to cartoon porn of children? If so then that's pretty bold and I respect it, but I don't assume being mean to gross people is becoming an establishment process at this point.

So is the idea that it could lead to consuming the real thing down the line? That's probably true, but getting into regulation over "____ could lead to something criminal down the line" is an idea that opens up a lot of doors.
That's the same reasoning that nonsense like stochastic terrorism is based upon, and it doesn't matter how disgusting something is, it doesn't change the underlying principles of it.

Experience also suggests that the government doesn't actually give a fuck about pedophiles for the most part, because they're easy to control and don't threaten the status quo. The powers that be seem WAY more interested in figuring out ways to reinterpret laws to toss people they don't like in prison, exactly like they did with their "child protection" laws in New Zealand.

Basically I'm not especially offended by the law, but I had similar thoughts.
 
17th century Christian art would be considered CSAM under that new Texan law, by the way.
View attachment 7093732
You're pathetic. The people who think like you and agree with you are pathetic. If Christian paintings of cherubs no different from what you'd find in an Italian monastery make you feel such revulsion, you're probably possessed by a demon. I can't tell if it's you or the demon who is retarded.
Let me highlight specifically how retarded you are.

1741999448889.png1741999517311.png
Source 1, Source 2
 
You're pathetic. The people who think like you and agree with you are pathetic. If Christian paintings of cherubs no different from what you'd find in an Italian monastery make you feel such revulsion, you're probably possessed by a demon. I can't tell if it's you or the demon who is retarded.
>comparing 18th century artwork of angels and cherubs to japanese cartoons of little girls getting raped
Kill yourself ponyfaggot
 
Back