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

[Osama Bin Laden]

Nigger, get the fuck over yourself. What even is this faggoty shit about "making people feel isolated and alone"? Are you niggers banding together behind the scenes to fight the evil, no-good, bad, mean, anti-loli bully squad because they said mean things to some of you? Holy shit

i'm glad i read absolutely nothing of what this faggot said and it's just him malding about how much of a little pussy he is.

Yes, the thread subject himself and catalyst of its creation, @COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST, has Ignored not only me, but bragged about setting everyone else who disagreed with him on Ignore until someone can circlejerk with him about his ideas "can have an intelligent discussion" about the matter in question.

still won't change that he's a pedophile

I am going to preface this post with a simple TL;DR:

Now, when I was reviewing the thread I noticed that one of them (the accursed "lolicon defenders") had blocked you, which is really pathetic. That was one of the gayest things in this thread, bar none.

The only thing that's gayer than blocking someone after getting assblasted in your own thread is writing multiple paragraphs on how lolicon isn't real.

There is clearly dogpiling and isolation of anyone in this thread who tries to argue the opposing case to yours, through the aforementioned site features.

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

i'm glad i read absolutely nothing of what this faggot said and it's just him malding about how much of a little pussy he is.

I did. He's not malding over his own status in the thread, but rather worrying about the discussion not being in good faith.

...Which is ironic, considering that his first 4 posts in this thread are all bad faith ad hominem attacks against @WelperHelper99.

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

I did. He's not malding over his own status in the thread, but rather worrying about the discussion not being in good faith.

it's about child porn. I don't think any of this is in good faith.

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

it's about child porn. I don't think any of this is in good faith.

No doubt. I just wanted to point out how funny his ethical grandstanding is given his own actions.

 

[Kovachs]

If you believe that to be true, then why even participate - much less write over a dozen paragraphs across multiple posts - in the first place? Seems to me like a tremendous waste of effort on what you consider to be a foregone conclusion already.

What I see as what I am arguing is not the same as what the lolicon defenders are, and I believed that people can step outside of their own community biases to have a better discussion about having good faith discussions more specifically. Maybe it would translate into a better faith discussion of any topic overall.

So... You acknowledge that a certain community culture has developed and exists among the website, and you even own up to the fact that we all abide by it, and yet it's wrong when I engage in it because you disagree with me.

The issue is the "Community Culture" does not determine the truth or absolute merit of an argument. We are influenced by these things, but I think it is possible to step outside of them..

...Which is ironic, considering that his first 4 posts in this thread are all bad faith ad hominem attacks against @WelperHelper99.

The argument between me and him was very brief and the things I brought up were to point out his hypocrisy and ultimately the double standard applied by many of the people in this thread. He would be a pedophile according to the same level of evidence that people are being accused of being pedophiles for in this thread. It would be an ad-hominem if I said, "You are a pedophile, therefore you are wrong about whether or not lolicon should be made illegal".

it's about child porn. I don't think any of this is in good faith.

I don't even agree with the lolicon defenders.

---

Edit: I am ultimately not a moderator and its not my job to police this thread or any other, so in retrospect I'm wasting my time and effort. I'll let this shit die.

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

The argument between me and him was very brief and the things I brought up were to point out his hypocrisy and ultimately the double standard applied by many of the people in this thread. He would be a pedophile according to the same level of evidence that people are being accused of being pedophiles for in this thread. It would be an ad-hominem if I said, "You are a pedophile, therefore you are wrong about whether or not lolicon should be made illegal".

Ad hominem takes many forms, not just direct attacks.
From Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia:

"Guilt by association, that is accusing an arguer because of his alleged connection with a discredited person or group, can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy when the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

This form of the argument is as follows:

1. Individual S makes claim C.
2. Individual S is also associated with Group G, who has an unfavorable reputation
3. Therefore, individual S and his views are questionable."

The topic of religion was not the focus on discussion until you brought it up to attack Welper's credibility. Therefore, bringing it up in the first place was fallacious. If the focus of the thread was Mormonism, I would agree with you. I think his religion is kooky too and I think what Joseph Smith was terrible, but that wasn't the point of the discussion whatsoever.

 

[Kovachs]

The topic of religion was not the focus on discussion until you brought it up to attack Welper's credibility. Therefore, bringing it up in the first place was fallacious. If the focus of the thread was Mormonism, I would agree with you. I think his religion is kooky too and I think what Joseph Smith was terrible, but that wasn't the point of the discussion whatsoever.

I see your point and I can recognize how I was actually doing a disservice to my goal here. If I am expecting other people to engage in good faith, then I should also be mindful of how I am treating others.

However, while raw guilt by association is faulty reasoning, he does believe in a faith which holds Joseph Smith as a prophet. It's not akin to having a friend or colleague. They literally believe that he received wisdom from god. And he does specifically defend Joseph Smith on the topic of him having married a 14 year old in the Q&A thread.

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

However, while raw guilt by association is faulty reasoning, he does believe in a faith which holds Joseph Smith as a prophet. It's not akin to having a friend or colleague. They literally believe that he received wisdom from god. And he does specifically defend Joseph Smith on the topic of him having married a 14 year old in the Q&A thread.

One could also argue that lolicons masturbating to pictures that they know full well are supposed to be representative of children is not akin to having a friend or colleague. Again, you are right to go after him on that point, but, as @Gravemind said, you should have done so in an argument where it would actually be appropriate to do so.

 

[Kovachs]

One could also argue that lolicons masturbating to pictures that they know full well are supposed to be representative of children is not akin to having a friend or colleague. Again, you are right to go after him on that point, but, as @Gravemind said, in an argument where it would actually be appropriate to do so.

Well I think lolicons are pedos but I don't think that by virtue of not believing it should be banned you are a lolicon and therefore a pedo, if that makes sense.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Bro I go to bed and awake with 10 messages in my inbox. Get off my dick you spergs. It is too fucking early for this shit.

 

[harmy.kook]

You're mostly wrong. While I would be unbothered by the summary execution of pedophiles, what I was saying I agree with was what @FuluFuckwit originally posted here:
Maybe follow the reply chain next time before you start reaching.

Honestly I can do you one better that summarizes all this BS:
The BittyCat drama last month.

- she had a child molester as a roommate
- she would have him Larp as her brother
- she did pedophile ASMR over Lolicon/Shotacon
- all of the Defenders came out initially screeching about how it was all "fictional" and "just a Witch Hunt"
- and was found to be doing ASMR over MAP propaganda.

But we still need to have this debate over the slippery slope of "banning drawn/AI CP is an attack on Free Speech"?

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

Well I think lolicons are pedos but I don't think that by virtue of not believing it should be banned you are a lolicon and therefore a pedo, if that makes sense.

It does, but under that thought process, those arguing against a ban are still supporting pedophiles.

For the record, I also don’t believe that those arguing against a ban in this thread are pedophiles - for instance, @UERISIMILITUDO was simply worried about government overreach in the field of software and was arguing on principle. He bowed out when I pointed out that laws banning AI CP and lolicon wouldn’t effect his open source projects and that he shouldn’t feel obligated to defend people who he views as abhorrent just on principle alone.

Those continuing to willfully engage in this discussion who are against banning lolicon, while they may not be pedos themselves, are still willfully associating with pedophiles.

 

[taxisguy]

Some of you nigga needs Jesus.

 

[Kovachs]

Those continuing to willfully engage in this discussion in defense of not banning lolicon are still associating with pedophiles though

There was never any contention from me over whether not banning lolicon would support pedophiles or that these people might be pedophiles. Any misunderstanding on that point should be clear.

I'll bow out now since there is no point staying in this thread any longer.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

What a rollercoaster. But every time I'm swayed I remember it's just a drawing. There is no child being abused, no life being irrevocably altered by these acts. You want it to be illegal, okay. I can get behind that too. But don't equate it to actual child abuse. Jesus it feels like the people here have gotten so swept up in their moral side-taking that they've lost sight of what child sexual abuse is. It's just an internet debate game of red vs blue. That a fucking drawing, lines on a background that memetically represent something is at all comparable in horror to the real thing. that's why there are differentiations between murder and theft, or trespassing and destruction of property. I am all on board with the death sentence for child molesters. They've played their hand their way and nobody fucking wants them on the board anymore. Don't even waste tax payer dollars prolonging their life so they can offend again if they ever somehow get out. But it's complete and utter lunacy to argue that a drawing is the 'exact same thing, bruh'.

I don't think anybody specifically said it's "the exact same thing". Some users' language may make it seem kinda like that but nobody's made that explicit claim, at least that I've seen.

You've admitted to playing an eroge which would, by your own standards, be considered child pornography.

If this is about that Fate game then he played the censored version, not sure about Nekopara though, I forgot.

Might as well call them nazis or groomers or wokists or Jews or grifters or any other manner of term that used to carry meaning but has since eroded into a mean name to call someone you don't like.

Wokeist still carries meaning, libtards just want to convince everyone it doesn't since it's been such an effective term.

 

[COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST]

People who produce and people who view those drawings are a potential danger to children. All are pedophiles. No normal person is attracted to children. What's so hard to understand here?

This isn't even correct. If we took every single person who produces lolicon drawings or looks at them, the amount who go on to abuse children is probably less than a single percent. Unless you have some empirical proof otherwise, I assume this to be the case because if it was the case lolicon art would already be outlawed.

Now, when I was reviewing the thread I noticed that one of them (the accursed "lolicon defenders") had blocked you, which is really pathetic. That was one of the gayest things in this thread, bar none.

You're right, but I also believe you're going to want to do the exact same thing I did once you realize logical essays and appeals to reason don't work on him.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

the amount who go on to abuse children is probably less than a single percent.

Holy fucking
I mean obviously it's not going to be 1:1 but still sub 1% is crazy optimistic.

 

[COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST]

Holy fucking
I mean obviously it's not going to be 1:1 but still sub 1% is crazy optimistic.

I've said this previously in the thread, I liken lolicon to the Grand Theft Auto games and believe it's the same phenomenon. People with an existing lust for extreme violence against large groups of people will gravitate toward Grand Theft Auto games, but they don't "convert" people into becoming violent. Violence is just as ingrained into the human psyche as sex so I wouldn't consider this a stretch. I figure the same is true of lolicon until evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[lolcow yoghurt]

. If we took every single person who produces lolicon drawings or looks at them, the amount who go on to abuse children is probably less than a single percent

But 100% are pedophiles

 

[draggs]

Once again, notice how the loli defenders and loli-defender adjacents wish to talk about everything but drawn sexualized images of children. Muh alleged slippery slope, muh alleged bad faith behavior/unreasonability/illogic of loli haters. Everything and anything except whether images of fictional eight year olds drawn in such a fashion as to arouse prurient interest are appropriate