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

[Endless Torment]

Well well...
I used google lens on his pfp so I could verify what you said since you didn't link any source or screenshots
View attachment 7094973

So the image links to a certain site and what did I see when visiting this link? The most haram thing

Spoiler: HARAM

View attachment 7094969

Link (HARAM)

Could you please stop talking about how much you want to fuck eevee for 5 seconds?
Stupid retarded faggot would rather view porn than put in any actual effort.
https://x.com/f0xlett

 

[UERISIMILITUDO]

Well well...
I used google lens on his pfp so I could verify what you said since you didn't link any source or screenshots
View attachment 7094973

So the image links to a certain site and what did I see when visiting this link? The most haram thing

Spoiler: HARAM

View attachment 7094969

(Gay cub zoophile porn)

Link (HARAM)

I shouldn't have to defend a guy with a Pokemon avatar. I don't believe e621 to be the primary source for anything. The source is listed on that page:

https://x.com/f0xlett/status/1892288286082945532

From there, the artist's pages and terms of service can be found.

 

[NotClavicular]

Could you please stop talking about how much you want to fuck eevee for 5 seconds?
Stupid retarded faggot would rather view porn than put in any actual effort.
https://x.com/f0xlett

Like I showed in the screenshot the only site that popped up when I used google lens was a porn site.
This zoophile pedo probably got the image from there.

 

[Day of the Cope]

So, you're full of shit and I was right that you're only "amenable to discussion" when people agree with you. Good to know.

Mate, I have no idea what your point is half the time. Not to mention that when you respond like this:

So... What SHOULD they go after in order to curb people away from consuming CSAM content in any form? The people who produce it? Oh, wait.

It's almost like they're doing exactly that. How strange.

I get the feeling that you're not actually arguing in good faith and are instead trying to catch me in a "gotcha". You could have simply asked what I think they should do and have let me respond. But instead, you need to preempt me because the goal is to make me look bad.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Look at the War on Drugs. Instead of going after the cause (helping people get off drugs, locking up drug dealers, etc) they go after the effect (locking up people for non-violent drug use).

Why not both? Drug users are dangerous, a public nuisance at best, so they should be arrested too, and forced to undergo long-term rehabilitation.

Yeah, great idea... until people who disagree with you get into power.

So ban nothing then, just because someone who disagrees with me will eventually get into power? Are you an anarchist? Is there nothing you think is rightly banned, or should nothing be since you fear the slippery slope so greatly?

Law and culture influence each other. Laws promoting conservative values will make the culture more conservative, you then have less liberals weaseling into power, and when they do they're constrained by the will of the people who are more conservatively minded. We allowed liberalization to rot both law and culture, but we finally pried back government power by what can only be described as a miracle, so it's time to fucking use it because the libtards have been and will continue to do so anyway.

You know, that's the main thing actually. "Oh boy, it sure would suck if we wielded government power, because the opposition would then do so! Can you imagine?" As if they haven't been flagrantly abusing power for decades already. Yeah, I can imagine, because I saw Obama and Biden. It's like being afraid to throw a punch in a fight because the other guy might punch you, even though he's already busted your lip and blackened your eyes, and is currently swinging back for a haymaker to put you down for good.

 

[Endless Torment]

Like I showed in the screenshot the only site that popped up when I used google lens was a porn site.
This zoophile pedo probably got the image from there.

Google image search fucking sucks now and for some retarded reason if you use it on a web browser vs a phone browser you will get different results.
I found this out when I tried to find @Hardline Traditionalist profile picture source. If you use it on your phone you will find it's from Knives for Aries by Roar and if you use it on a PC you will get kiwifarms as the first result instead.

 

[Day of the Cope]

Why not both? Drug users are dangerous, a public nuisance at best, so they should be arrested too, and forced to undergo long-term rehabilitation.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? We aren't doing both.

You know, that's the main thing actually. "Oh boy, it sure would suck if we wielded government power, because the opposition would then do so! Can you imagine?" As if they haven't been flagrantly abusing power for decades already. Yeah, I can imagine, because I saw Obama and Biden. It's like being afraid to throw a punch in a fight because the other guy might punch you, even though he's already busted your lip and blackened your eyes, and is currently swinging back for a haymaker to put you down for good.

You know "Elon's" Department of Government Efficiency, right? Well, DOGE started during the Obama era as the United States Digital Service. Under Trump, it was turned into DOGE and we're seeing the results right now. Basically, yes, it's possible for one party to set up something and have it be used against them the following administration.

 

[Gunslinger Spawn]

you're not actually arguing in good faith

"People who point out my bullshit are in bad faith boohoo". With that logic noone can't disagree with you ever. You are only proving him right.
You got too comfortable in your echo chamber. You just want people to submit to you rather than debate. r/circlejerk is probably more suited for you.

 

[Gravemind]

I get the feeling that you're not actually arguing in good faith and are instead trying to catch me in a "gotcha". You could have simply asked what I think they should do and have let me respond. But instead, you need to preempt me because the goal is to make me look bad.

Because you do look retarded. In fact, while I was typing the post, I was originally going to leave it at that question but then I stopped, re-referenced the bill, then looked up the Penal Code citation used here:

And, what do you know? I found the answer to both my own question, as well as something which addresses your grievance (i.e., "Instead of going after the cause (helping people get off drugs, locking up drug dealers, etc)").

It's almost like you're the one not arguing in good faith when you initially refuse to engage because... Reddit or something, and because the only argument you can come up with when you DO engage the point I made is, "I don't like what you're saying because you're calling me out and trying to make me look stupid". Oh, and let's not forget the recurring theme of "muh run-on sentences" and now "dude I totally don't know what you're saying lol".

 

[Day of the Cope]

"People who point out my bullshit are in bad faith boohoo". With that logic noone can't disagree with you ever. You are only proving him right.
You got too comfortable in your echo chamber. You just want people to submit to you rather than debate. r/circlejerk is probably more suited for you.

I mean, I've been been responding to you people all day as you pile in.

It's almost like you're the one not arguing in good faith when you initially refuse to engage because... Reddit or something, and because the only argument you can come up with when you DO engage the point I made is, "I don't like what you're saying because you're calling me out and trying to make me look stupid". Oh, and let's not forget the recurring theme of "muh run-on sentences" and now "dude I totally don't know what you're saying lol".

Have a point and I will respond to that. It's that simple. Right now, all you're doing is crying about my responses.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? We aren't doing both.

We are mostly, just not very well. Lock up those who make and sell drugs for much longer, and instead of lengthy prison sentences for users (short periods in jail is fine) we really do need proper rehab programs.

You know "Elon's" Department of Government Efficiency, right? Well, DOGE started during the Obama era as the United States Digital Service. Under Trump, it was turned into DOGE and we're seeing the results right now. Basically, yes, it's possible for one party to set up something and have it be used against them the following administration.

DOGE is different, you're correct only by technicality. Under Trump DOGE does more and does things differently, in practice it's an entirely new thing. It's like somehow converting a bb gun into a real gun, it does more and serves a different purpose now.

Regardless, sure, you're right but like I said, they already do whatever they want anyway, why not fight back and reclaim some of the culture? We need a vision for society that people can get behind, making America great again isn't just twiddling our thumbs until Harris is sworn in next term and maybe lowering taxes or something.

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

CSAM is how whatever group is behind the Maxwell/Epstein organization have asserted and maintained control over public figures around the world for decades. People being able to share such content freely would significatly reduce the value and effectiveness of the blackmail material.

 

[Day of the Cope]

We are mostly, just not very well. Lock up those who make and sell drugs for much longer, and instead of lengthy prison sentences for users (short periods in jail is fine) we really do need proper rehab programs.


DOGE is different, you're correct only by technicality. Under Trump DOGE does more and does things differently, in practice it's an entirely new thing. It's like somehow converting a bb gun into a real gun, it does more and serves a different purpose now.

Regardless, sure, you're right but like I said, they already do whatever they want anyway, why not fight back and reclaim some of the culture? We need a vision for society that people can get behind, making America great again isn't just twiddling our thumbs until Harris is sworn in next term and maybe lowering taxes or something.

As much as I'm enjoy this conversation, I think we're completely off track to the point of this thread.
Though, be willing to continue elsewhere. Probably tomorrow since it's getting late.

CSAM is how whatever group is behind the Maxwell/Epstein organization have asserted and maintained control over public figures around the world for decades. People being able to share such content freely would significatly reduce the value and effectiveness of the blackmail material.

Oh yeah, that's right! The Epstein Files! Weird how we still haven't gotten a proper release from the government.

 

[Gravemind]

Have a point and I will respond to that. It's that simple.

Just because you keep ignoring the point doesn't mean I didn't establish one. That point is, you're retarded and your arguments don't hold water.

It's okay. You can still admit that you're trying to "ragebait" at this point. I won't think you're any less retarded for it, but it'd go a longer way towards saving face or whatever gay thing it is you think you're doing here.

As much as I'm enjoy this conversation, I think we're completely off track to the point of this thread.

Funny, that didn't stop you several pages ago.

 

[Gunslinger Spawn]

Right now, all you're doing is crying about my responses.

And here comes the projection.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

CSAM is how whatever group is behind the Maxwell/Epstein organization have asserted and maintained control over public figures around the world for decades. People being able to share such content freely would significatly reduce the value and effectiveness of the blackmail material.

So legalize it to prevent some rich retards from being blackmailed? Great plan!

As much as I'm enjoy this conversation, I think we're completely off track to the point of this thread.
Though, be willing to continue elsewhere. Probably tomorrow since it's getting late.

Sure. And reply whenever you want, but to get it back on track, just answer this part of the post directly:

So ban nothing then, just because someone who disagrees with me will eventually get into power?

 

[Tablet County]

@SSj_Ness (Yiffed) is more or less picking up what I put down (even if I disagree that christianity is the best path or that morality is directly a legal matter).
Yeah, I understand the trepidation regarding government overreach; they can and will steal your rights from you if you let them, no matter how heccin zased the ringleader at the time is.
Yes, I even understand the worries of slippery slope from banning repugnant art to Entartete Kunst. That is, using the banning of something which is universally reviled as a stepping stone to stamp out things the lawmakers themselves find personally distasteful. A lot of retards talk about how awesome the Germans were for burning all the tranny books, but the other shit that got labelled degenerate art never fails to slip their minds. A good chunk of them probably even like The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari.
On the other hand, there is nothing inherently wrong with things being illegal. If lolicon was banned nationwide tomorrow I don't think our lives would be poorer for it. Unless drastic, draconian, privacy-invading measures are put in place to ensnare lolicons at the expense of everyone else then I don't see where the moral failing is here and I frankly don't care.
To make myself clear: Until Texas's loli ban affects anyone who it isn't supposed to affect, there is no infringement and there is no issue.

 

[Day of the Cope]

So ban nothing then, just because someone who disagrees with me will eventually get into power?

I'm not saying "ban nothing", but rather than bans should be treated as a short-term solution in service to long-term changes.
For example: bans on camp fires. Yes, banning people from starting camp fires during dry seasons is useful, but it shouldn't replaces things like controlled burns and cleaning forest beds.

 

[Combustion Engine]

I feel compelled to post an observation, and will then pay the tax and write my irrelevant opinion. This thread reads as if it were written for the most part by tumblrinas resetards bluesky fags (must keep up with the times as those "people" change platforms), with all the mentions of "dogwhistles" worthy of an ADL page about the latest /pol/ word for "niggers" and "jews", talk in the same rhyme of "call of duty players will go shoot schools" that's almost old enough to run for Senator, low effort "I found this image on a website that people upload any images they find online, this somehow means you browse that site and consume whatever is also uploaded there" and so on. I have the impression a number of posters haven't been on the internet (or this planet) very long to post some things going for the maximum outrage farming, but that doesn't seem to stop other people from digging their grave falling for what is functionally equivalent to bait: good job for that, nothing else. And by that I mean looking for quick owns (like one's avatar) and committing <insert fallacy of choice here> every other paragraph.
The proposal in question (that doesn't seem overly encompassing at a quick glance, EU and UK have repeatedly tried to pass things much, much more dystopian) and similar things will probably become commonplace regardless of what you think about it, because generative software (for image, audio and now video) has gotten too good, too quickly, disrupting the previous conception of laws covering this topic and anything new would expand on, and it's understandable why, soon enough (if not already) the average individual will be able to create any sort of content that looks realistic to the casual viewer, at their leisure and however they want it. That's what seems to be the focus of it, and I don't think its authors even know (and/or care) it may affect some guy's stash of anime screenshots or what that even means. Could it be abused by your three letter agencies of choice to empower them? No doubt, but that's for any law, and this stuff isn't new, some have been warning about it for decades.. but I'll refrain from citing some uber-autist like Stallman about it.
This is the age of shrinking personal freedoms (what must be a brief anomaly) and tech companies (the surveillance arm of every government) tracking and monitoring everything you do at all times even without this law or some other (see: Google scanning some father's phone and reporting him to the police wrongly, a story that would lead Apple to stop their own announced local monitoring tool), nobody is allowed to be up there proposing and passing any law that protects you from the slippery slope those surveillance systems allow. And most of those people have never had any idea how a computer works or what technology allows, further justifying vague and obtuse legislation up for all sorts of inane interpretations until they're tested in court. That's only going to get worse with every new advancement in any field, but this one may be the most disruptive I can think of until they can read and upload your very thoughts from your personal XLink brain implant (give it some time), so any sort of regulation is going to be a mess (and I wonder why they haven't gone straight for the sites distributing models, as that would benefit coporations too).

Everything will get worse no matter what the excuse for it is, there will be others that rile people up just as much and work just fine to pass laws. Enjoy the ride, shit is fucked and will be in ways you can't imagine yet. And maybe get rickrolled by your own government when they pretend to release the Epstein files, that seems on topic.

 

[Abella]

I’m surprised these kinds of threads aren’t enough to draw back in Damien Daughtry, AKA Akemi Makoto, AKA the lolicon defense task force leader with an account here under the same alias, who’s a huge advocate for lolicon. All joking aside, lolifags are annoying and have a problem with containing their fetishes. Their response to this law, which came to pass because of unrelated issues pertaining to increasing incidents of AI generated images of CSAM is the same as the fags reacting to Florida giving child molesters the death penalty. It’s a case of hit dogs hollering.