And loli doesn't involve the idea of kids? Only the appearance? Which isn't an idea? If anything ideas are more well defended by the first amendment than images. You're going to need an x-ray laser to split hair this fine. If the argument is sound in regards to loli it is sound in regards to our mentally disturbed friend here as well.
It's not even about defending kids against rapists, it's more about the base assumption, that those who like said thing may be somewhat deviant. I don't think people who view such things are going to rape a child, but there's a scale of deviancy, and they exist on it somewhere.
I am, um, normal. I don't know if "loli" means - fantasy, art, or rape.
Nabokov's novel was about rape. I agree with age of consent being 18. (Heck, I wouldn't mind raising it to 35 - and voting age as well; then we'd have a chance of winning again.)
But in the 21st century, we'll soon have sex robots and virtual reality that are better than the real thing - for whatever genre anyone wishes. Hopefully this would make actual rape obsolete. But those fantasies should be protected under the Freedom of Thought and Speech.
There is nothing sound about it. Most who kill in games have no desire to kill in the real world. Sexual desire is a preference, and sexual preferences for the most part don't change, so if you seek to satisfy your sexual desire via loli porn, then you are at least somewhat questionable. There was a guy using lib tier arguments on the other threads, stating: "anyone who is against loli is a pedo; an argument not too dissimilar to: "if you argue against racism claims you're a racist". The same poster went on to state he had a preference for petite flat chested women. If you see nothing suspect in that then you're hopeless.
Involving the idea of kids.
Because that argument is indeed sound.
And loli doesn't involve the idea of kids? Only the appearance? Which isn't an idea? If anything ideas are more well defended by the first amendment than images. You're going to need an x-ray laser to split hair this fine. If the argument is sound in regards to loli it is sound in regards to our mentally disturbed friend here as well.
Not really. (And with modern technology we've split things millions of times thinner than hair.)
Someone killing you violates your Rights. Someone fantasizing about killing you does not.
Someone robbing a bank violates Property Rights of the bank owners. Someone fantasizing about robbing a bank does not.
Etc.
We all want to virtue signal about how much we want to defend children from rapists, but our legal philosophy has to be logically consistent.
It's not even about defending kids against rapists, it's more about the base assumption, that those who like said thing may be somewhat deviant. I don't think people who view such things are going to rape a child, but there's a scale of deviancy, and they exist on it somewhere.
I may have misunderstood your prior post. I thought you were saying this situation was different from loli rather than the same.
I am, um, normal. I don't know if "loli" means - fantasy, art, or rape.
Nabokov's novel was about rape. I agree with age of consent being 18. (Heck, I wouldn't mind raising it to 35 - and voting age as well; then we'd have a chance of winning again.)
But in the 21st century, we'll soon have sex robots and virtual reality that are better than the real thing - for whatever genre anyone wishes. Hopefully this would make actual rape obsolete. But those fantasies should be protected under the Freedom of Thought and Speech.
There is nothing sound about it. Most who kill in games have no desire to kill in the real world. Sexual desire is a preference, and sexual preferences for the most part don't change, so if you seek to satisfy your sexual desire via loli porn, then you are at least somewhat questionable. There was a guy using lib tier arguments on the other threads, stating: "anyone who is against loli is a pedo; an argument not too dissimilar to: "if you argue against racism claims you're a racist". The same poster went on to state he had a preference for petite flat chested women. If you see nothing suspect in that then you're hopeless.
What point are you all even trying to make here? Are people into loli pedohiles? Should it be illegal to draw child porn? What?
Comment Removed: Rule 2