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.
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 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.
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.