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

[Inco G. Nito]

I find it difficult to justify directly equating lolicon and actual CSAM in severity. One is a fictional depiction of a heinous act or imagery, the other is a direct product of inflicting said heinous actions on a real child. If only to avoid devaluing the utter severity of actual child abuse by putting it on the same level as what is ultimately a morally objectionable cartoon. I feel like the bar is lowering and the fact that everyone seems so happy to throw around the term pedophile in the thread with it now carrying next to no weight is proof of this.

 

[Day of the Cope]

I feel like the bar is lowering and the fact that everyone seems so happy to throw around the term pedophile in the thread with it now carrying next to no weight is proof of this.

Racist. Nazi. Transphobe. Grifter. Woke. I've seen countless terms that have been rendered completely meaningless do to them being overused and thrown around willy-nilly.

 

[Generic Anime Girl]

Everyone found with loli porn on their devices should be rounded up and shot

 

[TV's Adam West]

Remind me, how old was Aisha bint Abi Bakr when Muhammad married her?

He married her when she was six, but it's okay, he didn't rape her until she was 9, he had his other child brides to keep company.

 

[Day of the Cope]

Everyone found with loli porn on their devices should be rounded up and shot

 

[Tablet County]

Anyways, this entire thread is a good demonstration of the 'security vs freedom' debate. Make note that I am not making any differentiation between 'good' and 'bad' freedom when I say freedom.

Nevermind, I'll take a stab at it.
WRONG. You have fallen victim to the lolicon's false dilemma. A ban on loli is harmful to no one but the consumers and producers of loli. There is no sacrifice of freedom for the sake of security in the instance of banning lolicon as Texas has.
Taking away the rights of a wrongdoing minority to protect the majority is perfectly just, ethical, legal, and moral. Taking away the rights of everyone just to potentially catch the relative minority of offenders in the net is where problems arise.
Anyone who advocates for fewer rights for the sake of safety is an unironic bugman and if anyone ITT has actually called for that they're subhuman and hate freedom.

I find it difficult to justify directly equating lolicon and actual CSAM in severity. One is a fictional depiction of a heinous act or imagery, the other is a direct product of inflicting said heinous actions on a real child. If only to avoid devaluing the utter severity of actual child abuse by putting it on the same level as what is ultimately a morally objectionable cartoon. I feel like the bar is lowering and the fact that everyone seems so happy to throw around the term pedophile in the thread with it now carrying next to no weight is proof of this.

I agree with this in the sense that I think the psychological/neurological components of being a true blue diddler and a lolicon are different, but ultimately I think those differences pretty much academic, and even if it was significant enough to consider different there's likely no easy way to tell the two apart.

 

[Day of the Cope]

Taking away the rights of a wrongdoing minority to protect the majority is perfectly just, ethical, legal, and moral.

I'm just going to stick that riiiiiiight on the fridge for everyone to see.

 

[Tablet County]

I'm just going to stick that riiiiiiight on the fridge for everyone to see.

If you stopped coping and read the rest of what I said you might actually agree with me. Criminals are a minority of the general population, I don't think it's unjust to punish them for commiting crimes and I doubt you do either. If everyone was forced to wear ankle bracelets that allowed the government to geolocate you at any time or they started putting mandatory mind-control chips in the skull of every US citizen just to get rid of criminality, that would be morally objectionable.

 

[Day of the Cope]

If you stopped coping and read the rest of what I said you might actually agree with me. Criminals are a minority of the general population, I don't think it's unjust to punish them for commiting crimes and I doubt you do either. If everyone was forced to wear ankle bracelets that allowed the government to geolocate you at any time or they started putting mandatory mind-control chips in the skull of every US citizen just to get rid of criminality, that would be morally objectionable.

Yeah, no, the motte-and-bailey shit don't work on me. Prohibition started because of "a minority of wrongdoers". The Five Eyes started out because of "a minority of wrongdoers". The fact you need to take your shoes off at JFK airport is because of "a minority of wrongdoers". The fact that people had to say goodbye to their loved ones through Plexiglas is because of "a minority of wrongdoers".

 

[brazilsucksdick]

Nigger nigger nigger

 

[COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST]

I'm just going to stick that riiiiiiight on the fridge for everyone to see.

The argument can end right here as far as I'm concerned. If this is a fundamental pillar of your views, you aren't really interested in the ideas that the United States was founded on. Politics for you is a matter of "Mom said it's my turn to drive the authoritarian shithole". Yes, I believe lolicon crap and saying Nigger and many, many other things are fundamental to maintaining that liberty.

 

[Tablet County]

Yeah, no, the motte-and-bailey shit don't work on me. Prohibition started because of "a minority of wrongdoers". The Five Eyes started out because of "a minority of wrongdoers". The fact you need to take your shoes off at JFK airport is because of "a minority of wrongdoers".

These are examples of punishing the majority to get at the minority which is the exact thing I said was bad. Thus far there has been no law put in place which punishes the garden-variety hentai coomer for the actions of the minority of lolicons. If someone other than lolicons were being punished by the texas bill then I would object, but as far as I can tell the only people affected by the loli ban are the people who like loli. This ultimately infringes on no-one's freedoms whatsoever.

View attachment 7094506
The argument can end right here as far as I'm concerned. If this is a fundamental pillar of your views, you aren't really interested in the ideas that the United States was founded on. Politics for you is a matter of "Mom said it's my turn to drive the authoritarian shithole". Yes, I believe lolicon crap and saying Nigger and many, many other things are fundamental to maintaining that liberty.

What about lolicon is important in a free society? How is a society made less free by the exclusion of lolicon?

 

[Day of the Cope]

These are examples of punishing the majority to get at the minority which is the exact thing I said was bad.

Yeah, it's almost like things never stop at just "the minority".

What about lolicon is important in a free society? How is a society made less free by the exclusion of lolicon?

A free society isn't about what's "necessary". Junk food isn't "necessary" to a free society.

 

[UERISIMILITUDO]

Taking away the rights of a wrongdoing minority to protect the majority is perfectly just, ethical, legal, and moral.

Explain to me why the first amendment doesn't protect all drawings, since protecting children is more important, but it does protect mutilating real children, because religion makes it okay so long as it only happens to infant boys.

ZOG doesn't give a fuck about children, and this example makes it obvious. The circumcision of infants causes real harm, makes a market for both the instruments and harvested body parts, and it gets even worse outside of a hospital.

I'm being told to give a fuck about fictional children, this kind of shit will erode freedom of speech in political contexts, and am simultaneously told that it's okay when real children are harmed, so long as they're not girls. Texas already tries to make it illegal to boycott Israel. Texas is part of ZOG too.

 

[draggs]

I'm just going to stick that riiiiiiight on the fridge for everyone to see.

above, below, or right next to your manifesto explaining why the pillars of western civilization crumble and indeed the dignity of the human race is sullied if sexualized drawings of 7 year olds aren't protected

 

[COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST]

What about lolicon is important in a free society? How is a society made less free by the exclusion of lolicon?

If the way Texas is handling this catches on, hack lawyers are going to point to any drawn depiction of anything and insist it "looks like a child." The purity spiral is not going to end at literal pornography, it will veer into whether or not Meg Griffin being punched in the face (remember she is a teenager) is obscene and harmful to society. The end result of all this is a country where it's no longer conducive to produce anything because obscenity laws, dealing with hack lawyers and determining what qualifies as "art" is not worth the squeeze.

But that's all speculation, right? You want something concrete. Let's instead look at something that actually happened, like United States vs. Handley.

On May 8, 2007, Defendant Christopher Handley (Defendant) was charged in a three-count indictment with receipt of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) (count one) and possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual *999 abuse of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b) (count two). Count three was a notice of forfeiture.

On October 17 2007, the Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment: charging Defendant with receipt of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) (count one), possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b) (counts two through four), and mailing obscene matter in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1461, 2 (count five). Count six was a notice of forfeiture.

There is no dispute the images in this case do not involve real children, thus Ferber is inapplicable. Subsections 1466(a) (1) and (b) (1) require the visual depictions to be obscene and thus must satisfy the Miller standard.

This is the closest thing we have to a concrete ruling on the topic. The 22 years since then have been various states pressing charges, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, with absolutely no side gaining ground one way or another. I don't believe "actually these drawings are bad and must be outlawed, free expression doesn't apply to them" would hold up in any future ruling.

 

[Day of the Cope]

above, below, or right next to your manifesto explaining why the pillars of western civilization crumble and indeed the dignity of the human race is sullied if sexualized drawings of 7 year olds aren't protected

I've watched as abortion went from "safe, legal, and rare" to became "whenever I want, for whatever reason, paid for by the taxpayer". I've watched as immigration went from "only the best and brightest" to "flooding your country with unlimited jeets". I've watched as the "it's called human decency" chant evolved into "suck the girl cock, bigot". In Canada, I watched as the government put the Kodiak Defence WK180C, a rifle designed to comply with all the current firearm legislation, on the prohibited list which turned it into a safe queen overnight. All in real time. I am old enough to remember the history I've personally lived though. I know, first hand, that people will never stop if it means they can impose their personal will onto others.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

Nevermind, I'll take a stab at it.
WRONG. You have fallen victim to the lolicon's false dilemma. A ban on loli is harmful to no one but the consumers and producers of loli. There is no sacrifice of freedom for the sake of security in the instance of banning lolicon as Texas has.
Taking away the rights of a wrongdoing minority to protect the majority is perfectly just, ethical, legal, and moral. Taking away the rights of everyone just to potentially catch the relative minority of offenders in the net is where problems arise.
Anyone who advocates for fewer rights for the sake of safety is an unironic bugman and if anyone ITT has actually called for that they're subhuman and hate freedom.

The more I read this the dumber it gets. It makes sense on the surface but you act like you can just cherry pick the results of these kinds of things and then everybody will be happy forever the end. As far as I've seen, everyone in the thread arguing against this is arguing on the side of caution of not wanting to give the government even just one inch vs the security of not allowing this content to be legal in the first place.

I agree with this in the sense that I think the psychological/neuroloigcal components of being a true blue diddler and a lolicon are different, but ultimately I think those differences pretty much academic, and even if it was significant enough to consider different there's likely no easy way to tell the two apart.

I mean they either offend or they don't. Some people aren't going to have the capacity to do something like that to a child to begin with, and actual pedophilia is a pretty severe, obsessive disorder that consists of more than just mere fetishism. Now I wouldn't let some lolicon babysit my kids but you can't just put someone in jail for something they haven't done.

 

[TV's Adam West]

Taking away the rights of a minority is perfectly just, ethical, legal, and moral.

Based!

 

[LifeAlert]

Those of you here who so fervently support the idea of thoughtcrime sicken me.

So by your own admission, you think about AI-generated or japanese cartoons where little girls get raped? Wow, you're a sick fuck!

I can see the rest of your sperging is somehow trying to use muh pedojews and penis mutilation (which are also bad) to defend japanese cartoons where little girls get raped instead of trying to suggest that all of it is bad and should be stopped immediately. I can see you're yet another angry animefaggot who wants the world to cater to your garbage cartoons and doesn't like that more people are being made aware of some unpleasant truths about the medium you base your identity on. Please continue to cope and seethe down below.