This shit is why the left wants to legalize pedophilia: because their precious LGBT are knee-deep in it.
the gay movement has lost touch with its past … It was founded to a large extent by men who were attracted to adolescent boys in Germany in the beginning of the 20th century
Literal Weimar degeneracy.
I said that teenage boys aren’t children, but are in fact sexual
And then one day, for no reason at all, people voted Hitler into power.
So long as drawn or animated, don't care I'll just not watch/read it.
But as soon as you try saying "well if you like these drawings you should like the real childr.." I'm immediately getting the napalm as all you are is an individual that wants to look for any excuse or position to justify your want to abuse others.
Yeah then it falls into the old video game complaint "Why are you showing my kids this stuff?!" well they're not supposed to be seeing it, if you did your job parenting you can teach them that.
The drawings encourage degenerates in their desire to molest children. I've literally posted studies here multiple times showing the direct link between deviant sexual arousal and child molestation yet retards on here keep defending the people who watch it as being functional and totally not pedophiles
I'd probably argue schools encouraging prepubescent kids to talk about masturbation and setting up 'sexy summer camp' is a bigger threat to kids than drawings and animation. My list of priorities to defend kids is the following:
1.Healthcare
2.Education
3.Police
4.social services
5.political elites
6.illegal immigration (lack of action on this really helped child trafficking)
7. Media and social media
That's the order, of course if you see a child getting groomed and you can prevent it, for gods sake do it but drawings are last when they are already moving to sterilise the innocent children.
You can condemn all of those. Wtf is this idea that you can only decry one set of pedophiles/degenerates but not the other.
Why the fuck is it necessary to pretend that these people are not pedophiles? Do you think you're going to form some unholy alliance with pieces of shit who jerk to loli?
It's consumed by people whose innermost heartfelt desire is to rape children, and made by people who either share that or are cynical enough to want to make their money catering to that inclination.
I'm sorry--what part of that is "don't care" territory? Would you leave your own child in the presence of either a producer or a fan of this content? If not, you recognize that these people represent a level of danger. Do you only care about danger to yourself, and not to others?
And thus begins the slide towards puritanism. It begins with "these pictures depict something obscene and degenerate, those that consume this must desire this" so you start looking down on those that consume it even if they do so privately.
But that isn't enough, in your mind their consumption of this material makes them a threat to your moral values and possible innocents. You start thinking in your head "maybe, maybe if it is harder to consume this material, less people will have these desires and even act on them"
So you start supporting censorship, because you feel it will protect innocent lives being abused. You're successful, these materials get banned, artists that work on them either draw something else or lose their paychecks. You no longer see the materials online and are happy with the change you made in the world.
But it doesn't stop, the urge to remove other things you find degenerate continues until you can feel that the world better matches your moral code. And the reality of what happened to a lot of the artists and consumers, a lot of them simply moved to areas not viewed by the public to continue, when before they were easy to find and talk with people of other interests to be constantly reminded of "one is reality, the other is fiction ", now they are in a place not viewed by the public so are in a small bubble to continue, one that could easily be corrupted and not have the reality checks needed to make this an innocent hobby.
TLDR: I say 'don't care' because the consequences of acting on fictional work might not just lead to more censorship but actually drive people into the darker places where they become predators.
This isn't about "obscene," it's about a very specific and particular form of obscene action, and that action is predation upon children. Yes, I am going to look down on that particular inclination and no amount of finger-wagging by you is going to dissuade me from making that particular value judgment. Fucking kids, wanting to fuck kids, buddying around with those who fuck kids, and catering to those who want to fuck kids, is all capital N, capital O, Not Okay.
You say this is a slide, I say slide be damned, this particular obscenity, and let's get back on the slide for moment to observe the slide itself, and not your imagined destination by way of sliding, is FUCKING KIDS. Get it through your thick skull that THIS, is NOT OKAY.
You say "oh dear oh no oh my just imagine where this may lead if we proscribe kid-fucking content as Not Okay," and I say motherfucking go for it. This is one slide I'm willing to slide down, which I don't even agree with you that it is, and find it highly "sus" as the kids say that this is the particular kind of content you'd dedicate this many paragraphs of clutched pearls in defense of.
In the world of actual catching of criminals using criminal psychology, and not the pedophile-enabling trope of "oh no depriving pedophiles of their outlet might lead them to real action instead of constraining their activities to jerkin' it to cartoons," literally every kid-fucker has used this fantastical content to prepare themselves for the real thing. You have to theorize the non-offending pedophile and theorize that his stash of CP keeps him from acting out.
Well, I don't subscribe to your theories of kid-fucking, the content you're protecting by way of a thin veneer of Principle is straight-up fucking Evil, and you are either in love with making horrible arguments in favor of evil things, on the internet, or you're an interested party to this, in which case [redacted thanks Dom free speech uber alles].
You need a standard , and in this rambling and moral grandstanding you haven't presented one
You say this is a slide, I say slide be damned, this particular obscenity, and let's get back on the slide for moment to observe the slide itself, and not your imagined destination by way of sliding, is FUCKING KIDS. Get it through your thick skull that THIS, is NOT OKAY.
Ok let's view this, you say this material comes from a desire to abuse children so those that view this material will have this desire and act on it. Where else have we heard this before?
The shooter played Doom before his rampage, clearly this material affected his cognitive behaviour and made him more inclined to act on it
Same argument, different material and conclusion. This is an appeal to morality with no safeguards that allow for overreaction and overreach.
I go by two points, what is my objectives and is it effective. I want to stop child abuse so what might be effective, at this point removing them from state education, having more community schooling and keeping them out of all media companies. Does banning these fictional drawings help that, no, might it make my objectives harder, yes because the ones that would've just viewed these materials might go to more private parts of the Internet to continue viewing them and that puts them in contact with the actual predators.
You're puritanical view would probably create more abuse than stop it, you'd just be happy you don't see the degenerate art anymore.
That's the standard. Only KID FUCKERS spent their time upon this Earth making impassioned arguments for the utility of KID FUCK MATERIAL.
You can take your kid-fuckery, and your "harumph good chap well and all" crap and fuck yourself and your kid-fuckery to the Moon and back, except not back.
Again with the purity spiral, is the common leftist way of arguing nowadays. Though the right can do it too as I remember in the 90s and 2000s with video games, ah those where saner times.
Other than you apparently calling everyone that disagrees with your arguments a pedophiles, what are your goals? What is your objective? What is your evidence that A: fictional drawings depicting taboo acts leads to B: real abuse on children?
And if your argument is only "BECAUSE ONLY KID FUCKERS VIEW THIS MATERIAL WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THIS YOU KID FUCKER!" Then you are little more than a moral grandstanding busy body with no plan or solutions in place that will cause the problem to get worse by trying to hide or ban the material that you find degenerate that going for the real issues (human trafficking, loose immigration laws or just not enforced immigration laws, state education/indoctrination, elites using it as a form of blackmail control, media personalities abusing their fame and access to commit these crimes)
I put them WAY ahead for dealing with than a few drawings on the Internet.
There is no "spiral," bud, there is just a simple DON'T FUCK KIDS.
This isn't hard. Just don't fuck kids. Don't pretend to fuck kids. Don't talk about fucking kids. Don't draw pictures of fucking kids. Don't sell pictures of fucking kids to people who want to fuck kids.
I have no idea (I have some idea) why this concept is so fucking hard for you.
Because it's a good fucking argument, idiot. That was the second part, which if you answer "no" to the first part, you do so for a reason. That reason, which you deleted, was the point, which was that you recognize that by answering, you acknowledge that there are such things as danger signs, and if you had to actually put skin in the game, you would abide by danger signs that a paramecium could detect. Or, you wouldn't. This would identify you as having rudimentary decency or at least a baseline desire to protect your own children, or as being a child-fucker.
I'm sorry, was this exercise so tough for you that you had to delete the operative part before you felt comfortable chiming in?
My mentally sub-human colleague, drawings are not real. You cannot "fuck children" through drawings or your mentally ill mind. Because you cannot fuck a child through fictitious things, we do not care if you happen to possess a cartoon that you want to jack off to.
It's true, we won't necessarily trust you with you our children if we're aware of it; it's also true, unless one is a braindead cretin, that same lack of trust would apply against vocal 'anti-pedophiles' because most pedophile rapists are smart enough not to out themselves before the deed, you intellectually challenged dolt.
It's called the English language, retard. Hollywood is in California, since you really hate pedophiles you can go there and become a hero to society anytime. Of course you won't do anything, like the little ineffective bitch you are.
i got fucking nauseous reading just snippits of this degenerate's thoughts summarized in this news article. It speaks volumes about the 2-3 peers and the editor who were reviewing this piece that they gave it a tick and didn't just call the cops after the abstract.
No, I was being completely serious. Until I read this:
Andersson came under widespread scrutiny earlier this week after it was revealed he had written an academic article in which he admitted to masturbating to fantasy child sexual abuse material for three months as part of his “research.”
What kind of "research" is that!? And since he is a PhD student, that means he got paid to wank over hentai and then write about it. And not even ordinary hentai.
Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers.3,4 Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud
People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. I regularly received letters from authors who were upset that the BMJ rejected their paper and then published what they thought to be a much inferior paper on the same subject. Always they saw something underhand. They found it hard to accept that peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process.
The most famous piece of evidence on bias against authors comes from a study by DP Peters and SJ Ceci.6 They took 12 studies that came from prestigious institutions that had already been published in psychology journals. They retyped the papers, made minor changes to the titles, abstracts, and introductions but changed the authors' names and institutions. They invented institutions with names like the Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential. The papers were then resubmitted to the journals that had first published them. In only three cases did the journals realize that they had already published the paper, and eight of the remaining nine were rejected—not because of lack of originality but because of poor quality.
If "peer review" cannot detect fraud, error, or wholesale plagiarism of an article already published in the same journal, why should we lend it any credence at all?
This is not the first or even the most thorough 'review' of what is called the peer review process, but it is the most accessible to the layman.
Describing one such masturbation “session”, Anderson wrote in his notebook in September of last year: “Started reading on the toilet: Boy who is staying with relatives happens to see his same-age friend masturbate… The boy who has admitted to everything has nothing to lose, so he throws himself over Tokio-kun and starts sniffing his cock and licking his smooth balls, and while waiting for the shot I came!”
Man, as someone who defends loli/shota on the grounds of free speech, I fucking loathe this man.
That is not research. That is a wank diary.
Research would be trying to find out how many consumer of loli/shota art/comics also pursued real photo and video content, or heaven forbid, physcial contact with children.
Research would be trying to find an answer to the simple question of 'how likely is it that someone who looks at this artwork is a danger to children?' That is research.
Whether or not you can nut over it is not research. I could nut over picture of a wooden chair if I wanted to.
Totally not surprised this dude is into the real thing.
You consistently declare that people using it aren't pedophile.
I would definitely never say anything so ridiculous as 'there aren't any pedophiles looking at this'. Of course some of the people looking at it are going to be pedophiles.
Many more, I suspect, will be remembering their past selves and their crush on their teacher. You would call someone a pedophile if they are imagining their past self as the cartoon boy? What are you accusing them of? Psychic time-travel rape of themselves? Absurd!
This is to say nothing of those who simply don't view cartoon characters as human. ...Which they aren't.
This shit is why the left wants to legalize pedophilia: because their precious LGBT are knee-deep in it.
Literal Weimar degeneracy.
And then one day, for no reason at all, people voted Hitler into power.
I’m old enough to remember when Milo said it and it was a bad thing
At the same time George Takei said the same thing too
So long as drawn or animated, don't care I'll just not watch/read it.
But as soon as you try saying "well if you like these drawings you should like the real childr.." I'm immediately getting the napalm as all you are is an individual that wants to look for any excuse or position to justify your want to abuse others.
Plus the anime sjw hates so much and obviously hentai was never promoted to kids. Its for 16+ and young adults.
While groomer shit is.
Yeah then it falls into the old video game complaint "Why are you showing my kids this stuff?!" well they're not supposed to be seeing it, if you did your job parenting you can teach them that.
Yep. I could not give less of a shit about fiction.
But as soon someone tries to pull that shit into the real world, I'm basically ok with summary execution.
Yep fiction, don't care, you could draw Cuthulu raping a school girl for all I care
But the second you try to abuse the trust, autonomy and freedom of another for your own selfish desire, the woodchipper feet first.
The drawings encourage degenerates in their desire to molest children. I've literally posted studies here multiple times showing the direct link between deviant sexual arousal and child molestation yet retards on here keep defending the people who watch it as being functional and totally not pedophiles
I'd probably argue schools encouraging prepubescent kids to talk about masturbation and setting up 'sexy summer camp' is a bigger threat to kids than drawings and animation. My list of priorities to defend kids is the following:
1.Healthcare 2.Education 3.Police 4.social services 5.political elites 6.illegal immigration (lack of action on this really helped child trafficking) 7. Media and social media
That's the order, of course if you see a child getting groomed and you can prevent it, for gods sake do it but drawings are last when they are already moving to sterilise the innocent children.
You can condemn all of those. Wtf is this idea that you can only decry one set of pedophiles/degenerates but not the other.
Why the fuck is it necessary to pretend that these people are not pedophiles? Do you think you're going to form some unholy alliance with pieces of shit who jerk to loli?
A non-zero number of those drawings are made using real CP as references.
It's consumed by people whose innermost heartfelt desire is to rape children, and made by people who either share that or are cynical enough to want to make their money catering to that inclination.
I'm sorry--what part of that is "don't care" territory? Would you leave your own child in the presence of either a producer or a fan of this content? If not, you recognize that these people represent a level of danger. Do you only care about danger to yourself, and not to others?
And thus begins the slide towards puritanism. It begins with "these pictures depict something obscene and degenerate, those that consume this must desire this" so you start looking down on those that consume it even if they do so privately.
But that isn't enough, in your mind their consumption of this material makes them a threat to your moral values and possible innocents. You start thinking in your head "maybe, maybe if it is harder to consume this material, less people will have these desires and even act on them"
So you start supporting censorship, because you feel it will protect innocent lives being abused. You're successful, these materials get banned, artists that work on them either draw something else or lose their paychecks. You no longer see the materials online and are happy with the change you made in the world.
But it doesn't stop, the urge to remove other things you find degenerate continues until you can feel that the world better matches your moral code. And the reality of what happened to a lot of the artists and consumers, a lot of them simply moved to areas not viewed by the public to continue, when before they were easy to find and talk with people of other interests to be constantly reminded of "one is reality, the other is fiction ", now they are in a place not viewed by the public so are in a small bubble to continue, one that could easily be corrupted and not have the reality checks needed to make this an innocent hobby.
TLDR: I say 'don't care' because the consequences of acting on fictional work might not just lead to more censorship but actually drive people into the darker places where they become predators.
Ok groomer.
This isn't about "obscene," it's about a very specific and particular form of obscene action, and that action is predation upon children. Yes, I am going to look down on that particular inclination and no amount of finger-wagging by you is going to dissuade me from making that particular value judgment. Fucking kids, wanting to fuck kids, buddying around with those who fuck kids, and catering to those who want to fuck kids, is all capital N, capital O, Not Okay.
You say this is a slide, I say slide be damned, this particular obscenity, and let's get back on the slide for moment to observe the slide itself, and not your imagined destination by way of sliding, is FUCKING KIDS. Get it through your thick skull that THIS, is NOT OKAY.
You say "oh dear oh no oh my just imagine where this may lead if we proscribe kid-fucking content as Not Okay," and I say motherfucking go for it. This is one slide I'm willing to slide down, which I don't even agree with you that it is, and find it highly "sus" as the kids say that this is the particular kind of content you'd dedicate this many paragraphs of clutched pearls in defense of.
In the world of actual catching of criminals using criminal psychology, and not the pedophile-enabling trope of "oh no depriving pedophiles of their outlet might lead them to real action instead of constraining their activities to jerkin' it to cartoons," literally every kid-fucker has used this fantastical content to prepare themselves for the real thing. You have to theorize the non-offending pedophile and theorize that his stash of CP keeps him from acting out.
Well, I don't subscribe to your theories of kid-fucking, the content you're protecting by way of a thin veneer of Principle is straight-up fucking Evil, and you are either in love with making horrible arguments in favor of evil things, on the internet, or you're an interested party to this, in which case [redacted thanks Dom free speech uber alles].
You need a standard , and in this rambling and moral grandstanding you haven't presented one
Ok let's view this, you say this material comes from a desire to abuse children so those that view this material will have this desire and act on it. Where else have we heard this before?
The shooter played Doom before his rampage, clearly this material affected his cognitive behaviour and made him more inclined to act on it
Same argument, different material and conclusion. This is an appeal to morality with no safeguards that allow for overreaction and overreach.
I go by two points, what is my objectives and is it effective. I want to stop child abuse so what might be effective, at this point removing them from state education, having more community schooling and keeping them out of all media companies. Does banning these fictional drawings help that, no, might it make my objectives harder, yes because the ones that would've just viewed these materials might go to more private parts of the Internet to continue viewing them and that puts them in contact with the actual predators.
You're puritanical view would probably create more abuse than stop it, you'd just be happy you don't see the degenerate art anymore.
The standard is NO FUCKING KIDS.
FUCK OFF KID FUCKER.
That's the standard. Only KID FUCKERS spent their time upon this Earth making impassioned arguments for the utility of KID FUCK MATERIAL.
You can take your kid-fuckery, and your "harumph good chap well and all" crap and fuck yourself and your kid-fuckery to the Moon and back, except not back.
Again with the purity spiral, is the common leftist way of arguing nowadays. Though the right can do it too as I remember in the 90s and 2000s with video games, ah those where saner times.
Other than you apparently calling everyone that disagrees with your arguments a pedophiles, what are your goals? What is your objective? What is your evidence that A: fictional drawings depicting taboo acts leads to B: real abuse on children?
And if your argument is only "BECAUSE ONLY KID FUCKERS VIEW THIS MATERIAL WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THIS YOU KID FUCKER!" Then you are little more than a moral grandstanding busy body with no plan or solutions in place that will cause the problem to get worse by trying to hide or ban the material that you find degenerate that going for the real issues (human trafficking, loose immigration laws or just not enforced immigration laws, state education/indoctrination, elites using it as a form of blackmail control, media personalities abusing their fame and access to commit these crimes)
I put them WAY ahead for dealing with than a few drawings on the Internet.
There is no "spiral," bud, there is just a simple DON'T FUCK KIDS.
This isn't hard. Just don't fuck kids. Don't pretend to fuck kids. Don't talk about fucking kids. Don't draw pictures of fucking kids. Don't sell pictures of fucking kids to people who want to fuck kids.
I have no idea (I have some idea) why this concept is so fucking hard for you.
Sign me up for puritanism then
I wouldn't leave a child with any of you fuckers, be it pro-loli or anti-loli. Why do you people have such retarded arguments?
Because it's a good fucking argument, idiot. That was the second part, which if you answer "no" to the first part, you do so for a reason. That reason, which you deleted, was the point, which was that you recognize that by answering, you acknowledge that there are such things as danger signs, and if you had to actually put skin in the game, you would abide by danger signs that a paramecium could detect. Or, you wouldn't. This would identify you as having rudimentary decency or at least a baseline desire to protect your own children, or as being a child-fucker.
I'm sorry, was this exercise so tough for you that you had to delete the operative part before you felt comfortable chiming in?
My mentally sub-human colleague, drawings are not real. You cannot "fuck children" through drawings or your mentally ill mind. Because you cannot fuck a child through fictitious things, we do not care if you happen to possess a cartoon that you want to jack off to.
It's true, we won't necessarily trust you with you our children if we're aware of it; it's also true, unless one is a braindead cretin, that same lack of trust would apply against vocal 'anti-pedophiles' because most pedophile rapists are smart enough not to out themselves before the deed, you intellectually challenged dolt.
"We." Interesting tell, that. Fuck off, pedo.
It's called the English language, retard. Hollywood is in California, since you really hate pedophiles you can go there and become a hero to society anytime. Of course you won't do anything, like the little ineffective bitch you are.
Exactly, the existence of people like him encourage the wasting of police resources in the name of scorched earth tactics.
A lot of academics were also defending him. I archved several today.
Academics means fucking nothing, nowadays. It's nothing but a bunch of midwits agreeing with each other because they have an expensive piece of paper.
Yup, that's pretty much how I expect him to look.
Seriously, he looks like a fucking soyjack.
leftism is nothing but excuses for child rape.
The article he wrote was peer reviewed so I don't see what the issue is? I didn't realize that everyone here was anti-science.
i got fucking nauseous reading just snippits of this degenerate's thoughts summarized in this news article. It speaks volumes about the 2-3 peers and the editor who were reviewing this piece that they gave it a tick and didn't just call the cops after the abstract.
This is sarcasm right?
No, I was being completely serious. Until I read this:
What kind of "research" is that!? And since he is a PhD student, that means he got paid to wank over hentai and then write about it. And not even ordinary hentai.
So typical ScIeNcE then.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
If "peer review" cannot detect fraud, error, or wholesale plagiarism of an article already published in the same journal, why should we lend it any credence at all?
This is not the first or even the most thorough 'review' of what is called the peer review process, but it is the most accessible to the layman.
"Peer review" should be by AI only, when they've finally developed the technology.
I should also mention the shotacon paper got the guy in trouble with the British government because he openly admitted to violating the UK lolisho ban.
Man, as someone who defends loli/shota on the grounds of free speech, I fucking loathe this man.
That is not research. That is a wank diary.
Research would be trying to find out how many consumer of loli/shota art/comics also pursued real photo and video content, or heaven forbid, physcial contact with children.
Research would be trying to find an answer to the simple question of 'how likely is it that someone who looks at this artwork is a danger to children?' That is research.
Whether or not you can nut over it is not research. I could nut over picture of a wooden chair if I wanted to.
Totally not surprised this dude is into the real thing.
You go well beyond defending it as speech. You consistently declare that people using it aren't pedophile. These are the people you're enabling
I would definitely never say anything so ridiculous as 'there aren't any pedophiles looking at this'. Of course some of the people looking at it are going to be pedophiles.
Many more, I suspect, will be remembering their past selves and their crush on their teacher. You would call someone a pedophile if they are imagining their past self as the cartoon boy? What are you accusing them of? Psychic time-travel rape of themselves? Absurd!
This is to say nothing of those who simply don't view cartoon characters as human. ...Which they aren't.
Wow it's almost like people into that shit tend to be pedophiles