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

[Osama Bin Laden]

Wasn't it more unless stated otherwise?

maybe idk, i watched the newest doc on him and that's what the dude said or I just misremembered the quote

shadman is a massive pedophile so who knows

 

[Diggus Bickus]

>thread slowly moves into shadman talk

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Whether it harms other people or not.

That's not what defines morality. Plenty of things which don't harm people aren't allowed, in fact that's why obscenity laws already exist, society acknowledged that.

Going after the ones who involve real children into their works or are creepy about their lolicon fetish.

How can someone not be creepy about their loli shit though? At best they can keep it in their circles and not spread it outside them nor in public, but that probably wouldn't make people think they're any less creepy.

Probably, but again, that doesn't mean they always condone that in real life. However, there is always a chance of that person not being able to tell fiction from reality or projecting their already twisted kinks onto gore hentai. That's the problem.

Maybe they don't but the further you get outside vanilla shit the more deviant a person is, and as LGBT have proven to us beyond the shadow of a doubt, it needs to be suppressed.

The problem is that the material is readily accessible in the first place. Sites and stores shouldn't be allowed to host degenerate hentai. Amazon bans actually good books for wrongthink, and every social media site (until Musk) was on top of "hate speech" and "misinformation" at the speed of light. That proves it's really easy to make things disappear online so use that for a good purpose for once.

What if the disclaimer says "All characters are 18+, even if stated otherwise"

I'd assume a judge would decide if the characters can actually be reasonably interpreted to appear 18 or not.

 

[Tad Loaf]

I sincerely appreciate the irony a website that not too long ago had to fight tooth and nail just to exist because most of society sees it as weird, degenerate and toxic is full of people who are fine with the principle of censoring and outlawing things they don't like as long as it's in the right direction. The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself.

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

who are fine with the principle of censoring and outlawing things they don't like as long as it's in the right direction.

The “thing they don’t like” in question here being child porn

 

[Gunslinger Spawn]

history book on the shelf is always repeating itself.

Yeah people always hated pedophiles wow no shit.
Get that passive aggressive bullshit out of here.

 

[Tad Loaf]

The “thing they don’t like” in question here being child porn

It's unfortunate you view real children and drawings on equal footing, but instead of owning people you don't like on the internet all it does is trivialize actual child abuse and the trauma they suffer from it. You can even see it here, the term "legit pedophile" becoming more common because now when people hear pedophile or child porn they have to second guess "Wait, do they mean actual children or just drawings?"

Yeah people always hated pedophiles wow no shit.
Get that passive aggressive bullshit out of here.

Nothing passive aggressive about it, but using words and terms correctly seems to be a challenge for you doesn't it, little guy?

 

[Gunslinger Spawn]

drawings

Of what?

the term "legit pedophile" becoming more common because now when people hear pedophile or child porn they have to second guess

No they don't. If you fantasize about kids you are a pedophile. Simple as that. Every normal person thinks that.
Only terminally online retards like you are in denial and putting words in people's mouth.

little guy

You would be jerking it off if I was wouldn't you?

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

It's unfortunate you view real children and drawings on equal footing,

They are, considering that many of them are modeled off real children. Do you remember when that one troon webcomic maker got exposed for tracing cub porn off of real pictures of people’s kids at his local pool?

Furthermore, some AI models have been confirmed to have been trained off of illegal CSAM, meaning that any loli images they spit out likely pull from that data set.

trivialize actual child abuse and the trauma they suffer from it.

That’s entirely the fault of the lolicons. Since they’re running defense for their CP drawings 24/7, they’ve thoroughly poisoned the well, which allows pedophiles to go unnoticed.

 

[Po's Cootah]

So, it all comes to how lolicon should be regulated, but not outright lead to complete censorship of rule 34 in general. I may continue this in DMs in order to not derail the thread because this outright leads to a debate on whether pornography should be banned.

That's not what defines morality. Plenty of things which don't harm people aren't allowed, in fact that's why obscenity laws already exist, society acknowledged that.

It depends on the obscenity law. Laws about public defecation also include health concerns. Laws about public drinking also include safety concerns. Laws about public nudity also include concerns involving traumatizing children. However, laws about not swearing, "obscene cartoons" or women's dress codes in Afghanistan are just dumb.

How can someone not be creepy about their loli shit though? At best they can keep it in their circles and not spread it outside them nor in public, but that probably wouldn't make people think they're any less creepy.

Exactly. Keep it in their circles and not spread it in public. If they show any threats to society, such as involving actual child porn in them or inviting minors to them, then that's their problem and they should be held accountable for it.

Maybe they don't but the further you get outside vanilla shit the more deviant a person is, and as LGBT have proven to us beyond the shadow of a doubt, it needs to be suppressed.

All pornography (and LGBT) doesn't need be suppressed. What needs to be suppressed is people taking their fetishes too far and hurting other people with it. Fetishes have always existed since the dawn of time and no anti-obscenity law can stop that. Again, I have commented on how countries which ban lolicon (and pornography in general) and go "PORN BAD SODOMY BAD CHASTITY GOOD" are factories of child pornography and have high rates of rape and child sex abuse. Lolicon can be used as a weapon to groom and sexualize children, but it is not the only one. It does groom children if a pedophile grooms children with lolicon, and it does sexualize children if the artists model their hentai after actual children. That's a huge problem with lolicon and it does equal many pieces with child pornography. Perfectly valid concern. I get you.

The problem is that the material is readily accessible in the first place. Sites and stores shouldn't be allowed to host degenerate hentai. Amazon bans actually good books for wrongthink, and every social media site (until Musk) was on top of "hate speech" and "misinformation" at the speed of light. That proves it's really easy to make things disappear online so use that for a good purpose for once.

(what are these good books, exactly?)

If it's used to persecute people who actually trace over pictures of real children and distribute it as hentai, then it is a good purpose If it's used to persecute people over simply drawing Froppy hentai, then it's not a good purpose and no different from wrongthink. There is nothing wrong with non-vanilla porn if it's not sexualizing real people or using them as references (such as Shadman's drawings out of Mia Keem), and it is up to the consumer if they get addicted to it and are not able to tell fiction from reality or not. The "degeneracy slippery slope" is no different from the radical loli defenders' "censorship slippery slope" as long as the person does not project their actual sick desires onto them or if they aren't downright addicted to it and cannot tell fiction from reality anymore. Not everyone who consumes pornography will go down that path.

I'd assume a judge would decide if the characters can actually be reasonably interpreted to appear 18 or not.

That's the issue. A judge may also try to arrest someone over a character's canon age, even when they are aged up and appear to be adults. I want the law to focus on the real threats. No "sodomy" or "indecent cartoons" shit, just the "using children in prompts and references or realistic-looking child porn" parts. Otherwise, it will become something authoritarian, and lunatics on the internet can and WILL abuse this law to falsely report people and try to ruin their lives. That's my concern.

 

[Tad Loaf]

Of what?

A fictional character.

No they don't. If you fantasize about kids you are a pedophile.

Good thing drawings aren't kids.

They are,

They aren't. One has emotions, thoughts, feelings, sentience, blood, sweat, tears, and the other doesn't. Have you been tested for schizophrenia?

that many of them are modeled off real children.

Define "many", it's kind of a vague term.

Do you remember when that one troon webcomic maker got exposed for tracing cub porn off of real pictures of people’s kids at his local pool?

Yeah I do remember that one time, and how does that reflect on the "many" times that isn't the case?

 

[Not 6 Foot]

"A drawing of a fictional character," that just happens to be a minor engaged in sexual activity, drawn by someone who totally doesn't have the proclivities of a pedophile, and is totally not basing their drawing on anything real at all.

The issue with drawing child porn isn't that it directly harms an actual real individual. It's the purpose of that drawing, how and why that drawing even exists. It's not about thought crimes. It's about excising predatory behavior.

Don't sit there and act like when your buddies come over and you're all talking about things you're in to that you don't specifically avoid mentioning lolicon. Don't act like your friends would ensure their children had nothing to do with you if they saw you looking at totally fictional and not based on anything in reality drawings of 12 year old little kids.

 

[National Defense Advocate]

The main problem is this is an inherently unenforceable law, by any metric.
Loli artists typically don't live in the South and the consumers can just right click and save image, no TOR or shady telegrams required.

You could use them to add charges to somebody caught with real CP, which is what some states do, but you're not gonna be able to lock somebody up over loli, it's been tried and failed.

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

It's unfortunate you view real children and drawings on equal footing, but instead of owning people you don't like on the internet all it does is trivialize actual child abuse and the trauma they suffer from it. You can even see it here, the term "legit pedophile" becoming more common because now when people hear pedophile or child porn they have to second guess "Wait, do they mean actual children or just drawings?"

cool, face the wall pedo. i'm not surprised you have the most fucked opinion on lolicon since your pfp is a Japanese porn star

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

lolitroons are so annoying and try their best at mental gymnastics like just embrace that you're a MAP

this guy is from skibidifarms so disregard anything he has to say

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

A fictional character.

1: And what is that fictional character supposed to represent?
2: Not always. The most infamous incidence of this was when Shadman drew loli porn of Keemstar’s daughter, who is not fictional.

Good thing drawings aren't kids.

Again, what are the drawings of? You can’t throw a fictional character out again because of the point above.

They aren't. One has emotions, thoughts, feelings, sentience, blood, sweat, tears, and the other doesn't. Have you been tested for schizophrenia?

Lolicons often fantasize about “le heckin drawings” having all of those. To them, there’s no difference.

Define "many", it's kind of a vague term.

Unlike you I don’t jack off to children so I can’t give you an exact number, but it’s a proportion that is significant enough to comment on.

Yeah I do remember that one time, and how does that reflect on the "many" times that isn't the case?

See response 1 in this post RE: Shadman.

I noticed that you conveniently left out my point about AI CSAM feeding into AI loli. This is probably because you’re unable to refute it.

The main problem is this is an inherently unenforceable law, by any metric.
Loli artists typically don't live in the South and the consumers can just right click and save image, no TOR or shady telegrams required.

You could use them to add charges to somebody caught with real CP, which is what some states do, but you're not gonna be able to lock somebody up over loli, it's been tried and failed.

Finally, a criticism of the law in the thread that’s not an implicit defense of pedophilia. Unironically very glad to see that. You are right - the logistics of this law make it inherently hard to enforce. However, it will become easier as more states adopt similar measures.

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

I noticed that you conveniently left out my point about AI CSAM feeding into AI loli. This is probably because you’re unable to refute it.

because he's a pedophile

wow, a 30 something year old coomer with a JAV pornstar is defending his right to jerk off to his animated child drawings? what's next, he's into questionable anime as well like TheWhiteBowser?

 

[Tad Loaf]

"A drawing of a fictional character," that just happens to be a minor engaged in sexual activity, drawn by someone who totally doesn't have the proclivities of a pedophile, and is totally not basing their drawing on anything real at all.

Saying totally is totally valid evidence to support a totally rational perspective.

The issue with drawing child porn isn't that it directly harms an actual real individual. It's the purpose of that drawing, how and why that drawing even exists. It's not about thought crimes. It's about excising predatory behavior.

So it's not about thought crimes but it is about assuming the intent behind the drawing? Despite being only a single line of text you've contradicted yourself because you know your stance is wrong and you're desperately trying to jump through hoops to justify it.
There is nothing predatory behind creating fictional art, regardless of what it is. This standard or assumption isn't applied to any other forms of media or concepts.

Don't sit there and act like when your buddies come over and you're all talking about things you're in to that you don't specifically avoid mentioning lolicon. Don't act like your friends would ensure their children had nothing to do with you if they saw you looking at totally fictional and not based on anything in reality drawings of 12 year old little kids.

This is a cute fanfic but unfortunately like your other assumptions, it's wrong.

1: And what is that fictional character supposed to represent?
2: Not always. The most infamous incidence of this was when Shadman drew loli porn of Keemstar’s daughter, who is not fictional.

1. Depends on the character.
2. Yeah and that is also not always the case, so why bring it up?

Again, what are the drawings of? You can’t throw a fictional character out again because of the point above.

"You can't give me an answer I don't want to hear, I'm going to keep asking over and over until you give me the answer I want"

Lolicons often fantasize about “le heckin drawings” having all of those. To them, there’s no difference.

Doesn't matter, they don't have them regardless of whoever fantasizes about what.

Unlike you I don’t jack off to children so I can’t give you an exact number, but it’s a proportion that is significant enough to comment on.

So you don't have a number but you just vaguely know it's enough to suit your narrative...spoiler alert, it's not.

See response 1 in this post RE: Shadman.

See above, and? How does examples of people doing (x) reflect on (y)?
"Using hammers to build a house is wrong because there have been times people have used hammers to bash someone's skull in"

I noticed that you conveniently left out my point about AI CSAM feeding into AI loli. This is probably because you’re unable to refute it.

There's nothing to refute. Loli existed for countless years prior to AI being a thing, and countless lolicon content has been made without it's use. AI generated images that feed off real kids is bad, and doesn't reflect the times it's not used or involved.

All this boils down to is

"Fictional content of any kind is okay, including loli"
"OKAY BUT WHAT ABOUT NON-FICTIONAL CONTENT?"
lol

wow, a 30 something year old coomer with a JAV pornstar

I'm 57, for the record

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

There's nothing to refute. Loli existed for countless years prior to AI being a thing, and countless lolicon content has been made without it's use. AI generated images that feed off real kids is bad, and doesn't reflect the times it's not used or involved.

you chuds adopted the lolicon, he was born into it, molded by it

 

[National Defense Advocate]

I'm 57, for the record

Grim