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.
It is a shortened term for the Japanese word “lolita” which means an underage girl who has not yet reached the age of sexual consent. Origin of Loli. The term originated in anime. These are typically young females drawn with baby-like big eyes, a chubby face and a small build.
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.