The problem with this argument is that it always falls back onto the legal weasel word "obscenity." Which is entirely subjective and varies massively from person to person. The current bill included, cites the obscenity laws within it.
And those are by design meant to be "what would a random person consider not art?" Except oops, a Piss Christ or abortion "exhibit" wouldn't be considered art by normal people but that's given exceptions because The Degenerate Elites like it and not the things those filthy nerds enjoy.
So at the end of the day, the law always just becomes "I think its gross, and think you are gross for liking it." They act like they have some moral highground, but they cannot actually defend their position without falling back on the line that was already a cliche meme back then:
It's quickly becoming the 'racist' of the right. In that it's being thrown at everyone and anyone ever remotely smelling like they have one leftist idea. I've seen many instances where there will be some random story like "Clinton appointed judge rules Trump tax returns are admissible in fraud trial" with multiple "throw this pedo in the woodchipper" comments. Even though there's actually nothing indicating the judge, or whoever it's being thrown at, is actually a pedo. And it's going to end up watering down the term to the point of being meaningless and having no effect.
Plus the "why are you defending pedos? are you a pedo?" is relevant because the accusation is so serious and charged that no one on the right wants to be within 100 miles of anything that could remotely suggest they might be. There are laws on the books for shit like a sub-18 being charged with CP because they took a nude pic of themselves and just had it on their own phone, or two sub-18s being charged with statutory rape of each other because they had sex while dating. Those kinds of laws shouldn't really apply in those situations, but they'll never be changed because anyone on the right who even mentions is, no matter how logical it might be, will be immediately accused of wanting to water down CP laws.
This law in Texas will probably pass and become law. Not because it makes any sense, but because any debate against it no matter how well reasoned or factual will be immediately be met with attacks from the right.
It would make a lot more sense if people could just be less emotional and keep accusations for things restricted to those who actually qualify for those things, but that is a pipe dream. Honestly the entire right in general is becoming more and more emotional, more and more easily manipulated with anger, and more and more hysterical every year. It's tricky because a lot of it is a response to very real and escalating degeneracy on the left, but there is a very real danger in that the right is become increasingly untethered to any actual reasoned positions and principles based on anything more than "this makes me mad". It's a dire symptom of the fact that each election cycle, more of the right is not actually in favor of XYZ, they're just anti-left. Which is fine as part of a set of ideals, but when you're just against something, and not actually for the converse, you end up without any actual principles or consistent worldview to keep you grounded and sane.
More and more I fear that if there ever is some kind of second civil war, which the right would almost certainly win, that the aftermath will look a hell of lot less like the heady days of the founding of these United States by great men, and a lot more like the bloody mania of the French Revolution where any indication of being even slightly less zealous than whoever is calling the shots that week will be lined up and shot. Only for those people to be lined up and shot next week by someone even more zealous.
Its worse than racist, because you can be a proud racist and a lot of people will cheer for you. The pendulum can swing back on that and make it normal.
No one will be open or proud pedos, its against our very instincts. We will always hate them, and even those who are proud of being one only do so because it makes them feel evil and edgy.
keep accusations for things restricted to those who actually qualify for those things
People are using pedo, the attraction to prepubescence, to apply to teenagers all the way to young adult women. Its not meant to have a qualification, its just meant to be an I Win Button to destroy someone. There are 90 good reasons why you shouldn't legally or morally be attracted to teenagers, but that's too complicated so its easier to say "pedo" to evoke images of children instead of 5'6 girls with mostly developed bodies.
A retarded giga-nigga on this very forum has been arguing with me for like 10 days now that because Trump knew Epstein, they are both baby raping monsters. And he is sure to say "BABY RAPER" over and over.
When Epstein's youngest known victim is 11. Still bad, still evil, still should be given no difference in treatment. But the argument is coming from a place of pure emotion, and is attempting to use the same emotional argument that worked on them. And cannot understand why it isn't working, so clearly you must be evil too!
People are using pedo, the attraction to prepubescence, to apply to teenagers all the way to young adult women. Its not meant to have a qualification, its just meant to be an I Win Button to destroy someone.
Something I've always found really interesting is that the life cycle of a woman can basically be broken down into three phases. 0-14/15ish, 15-25 or 30, and 25/30+. Basically childhood, prime years, and post wall years. The exact ages aren't set in stone, but that's the rough framework. For literally all of recorded human civilization, it was understood that the 15-25/30 year period was the peak for a woman, and that a man marrying her had about that amount of time to marry, have as many kids as possible, and because he had enjoyed her during those prime years and was her first in basically everything, they had a bond that would last for decades, well past when she stopped being 'hot'.
So out of those 3 phases, 1 of them is the one where it was always normal and expected for a man to be attracted to a woman, and the other two; childhood and post-wall (or spinster as they called it), were the phases that were not considered normal for a man to be looking for a wife. Mohammedan savages excluded of course, Christendom at least understood that actual pedophilia was evil, and a woman who had not gotten a husband by the time she as in her late 20s to 30s clearly had something wrong with her.
What are the two phases that the left is actively encouraging people to be attracted to now though? Childhood and post-wall. What is the one phase where they will attack you if you're attracted to a woman in that phase? Her prime. They will simultaneously defend and make excuses for degenerates who are sexually attracted to an 8yo, and then immediately turn around and call the 22yo guy who thinks the 16yo he saw on the beach in a bikini is hot a pedo. To the point where they even call any man in his 30s who is attracted to even an 18 legal adult a pedo.
Pure satanic inversion. Call that which is good and normal evil, and call that which is vile and abnormal good.
"call the 22yo guy who thinks the 16yo he saw on the beach in a bikini is hot a pedo. To the point where they even call any man in his 30s who is attracted to even an 18 legal adult a pedo."
And they won't take into account when, not if, the 18-year-old "girl" has been whoring around for years (hopefully no more than a few years, preferably two if there must be an "s" at the end of "years") but the guy is a kissless virgin who needed to work on becoming good husband material first by making money (that women have multiple options of not making, first, in order to find a decent man).
Most 18-year-old American guys shouldn't be having sex, unless they somehow have lots of money or resources at such a young age. This is precisely why a 30-year-old guy is entitled to a much younger woman; most women his own age are already married, or are whores*, or are divorced, and generally are not mother material. It makes sense if a guy is a 30-year-old virgin: modern women's standards are idiotic and delusional. If a woman is 30 years old and a virgin she generally deserves less sympathy, as she will almost never be called a creep or accused of "harassing" a "poor guy" with her "creepiness".
And enough of shaming a 22 year old guy for losing his virginity to an 18-year-old high school senior graduating in a few months with the "she's still in high school!" nonsense. Like graduating from government-enforced indoctrination camps at at 12th grade is some rite of passage that officially makes young women competent for sex, and she's a few months away from being qualified for your virgin 22-year old ass.
ASTERISK section:
*If you had sex outside of marriage once, or at least not in a very committed relationship, you are a whore/slut, and I say the same of any man.
The reason why "slut-shaming" is seen as a thing that is mistreating women, and not men, why it is a "double standard", is because women are the upholders of that double standard, Women and the small amount of men who are successfully promiscuous.
It is primarily some women who are okay with men being sluts, until it directly affects them. Until their hot boytoy who they delusionally believe is their exclusive partner, goes and fucks a younger woman.
Any man who is not a womanizer alpha male "Chad", who then celebrates such male promiscuity being done with lots of women, is a cuck.
By its literal definition, if you lust after depictions of children (real or fake), you are a pedophile. The problem is the term encapsulates multiple levels of degeneracy that range from distasteful to evil:
Fake child porn and nothing else? I wouldn't send you to jail but I would also make sure you never coach my kid's soccer team, or work with kids in general.
Have Real Child Porn? Jail.
Distributing real child porn? Death.
Grooming Children? Woodchipper.
Raping children? Drawn and quartered (and fed to a woodchipper).
Running a child sex ring? See above, but not before you are tortured mercilessly to catch your accomplices.
The problem is, everything you listed after the first is already not only illegal, but so heavily illegal they will send in Swat teams to arrest you for it even if there is no imminent danger to be found.
I'd go so far as to say the amount of detail you went into regarding the same handful of crimes with minor differences shows this isn't nearly as much about justice or protecting innocents, as it is bloodthirst and having a free target to let it out on.
I don't even disagree with you in doing so, but its that exact reaction that The Powers That Be are banking on. You being blinded by indignant rage and righteous anger on a free target that you cut down every law in the land to get the devil. Because those Elites aren't going to be beholden to these laws, Podesta will never get arrested for having wierd child-porn esque art all over. And yet they rape more kids in a single lifetime than a state's worth of common child predators.
I was just putting the fact that there are layers into comedic terms. The fact is people who consume loli are in denial that they are pedophiles, but they are not inherently evil (just deranged).
Consume it how? This may seem pedantic but its a very important question.
Consume actual pornographic images of girls drawn to look young? Consume content with loli characters in it that isn't meant to be pornographic in any way? Consume anime at all?
Because the big deceit here is that most of the people here arguing in favor of banning are only looking at that first category (the one of obvious pedos) while the people actually writing the laws and screaming the loudest about this make no distinction between the first and the second/third.
Something dumb and milquetoast like Ichigo Mashimaro is filled with loli characters, but has no sexual elements in the slightest. The only difference between it and a Western cartoon centered around little girls is one is anime, which means its now loli specifically and thereby in the same category as hardcore pornography for people discussing this.
These little minute details are meaningless squabbling when its just a conversation, but once you enter the realm of legally binding they become the difference between a dude with weird hobbies and a felony sex offender.
The problem with this argument is that it always falls back onto the legal weasel word "obscenity." Which is entirely subjective and varies massively from person to person. The current bill included, cites the obscenity laws within it.
And those are by design meant to be "what would a random person consider not art?" Except oops, a Piss Christ or abortion "exhibit" wouldn't be considered art by normal people but that's given exceptions because The Degenerate Elites like it and not the things those filthy nerds enjoy.
So at the end of the day, the law always just becomes "I think its gross, and think you are gross for liking it." They act like they have some moral highground, but they cannot actually defend their position without falling back on the line that was already a cliche meme back then:
If you have no legitimate moral foundation, then yes, you can justify anything. That’s the whole thing.
It's quickly becoming the 'racist' of the right. In that it's being thrown at everyone and anyone ever remotely smelling like they have one leftist idea. I've seen many instances where there will be some random story like "Clinton appointed judge rules Trump tax returns are admissible in fraud trial" with multiple "throw this pedo in the woodchipper" comments. Even though there's actually nothing indicating the judge, or whoever it's being thrown at, is actually a pedo. And it's going to end up watering down the term to the point of being meaningless and having no effect.
Plus the "why are you defending pedos? are you a pedo?" is relevant because the accusation is so serious and charged that no one on the right wants to be within 100 miles of anything that could remotely suggest they might be. There are laws on the books for shit like a sub-18 being charged with CP because they took a nude pic of themselves and just had it on their own phone, or two sub-18s being charged with statutory rape of each other because they had sex while dating. Those kinds of laws shouldn't really apply in those situations, but they'll never be changed because anyone on the right who even mentions is, no matter how logical it might be, will be immediately accused of wanting to water down CP laws.
This law in Texas will probably pass and become law. Not because it makes any sense, but because any debate against it no matter how well reasoned or factual will be immediately be met with attacks from the right.
It would make a lot more sense if people could just be less emotional and keep accusations for things restricted to those who actually qualify for those things, but that is a pipe dream. Honestly the entire right in general is becoming more and more emotional, more and more easily manipulated with anger, and more and more hysterical every year. It's tricky because a lot of it is a response to very real and escalating degeneracy on the left, but there is a very real danger in that the right is become increasingly untethered to any actual reasoned positions and principles based on anything more than "this makes me mad". It's a dire symptom of the fact that each election cycle, more of the right is not actually in favor of XYZ, they're just anti-left. Which is fine as part of a set of ideals, but when you're just against something, and not actually for the converse, you end up without any actual principles or consistent worldview to keep you grounded and sane.
More and more I fear that if there ever is some kind of second civil war, which the right would almost certainly win, that the aftermath will look a hell of lot less like the heady days of the founding of these United States by great men, and a lot more like the bloody mania of the French Revolution where any indication of being even slightly less zealous than whoever is calling the shots that week will be lined up and shot. Only for those people to be lined up and shot next week by someone even more zealous.
Its worse than racist, because you can be a proud racist and a lot of people will cheer for you. The pendulum can swing back on that and make it normal.
No one will be open or proud pedos, its against our very instincts. We will always hate them, and even those who are proud of being one only do so because it makes them feel evil and edgy.
People are using pedo, the attraction to prepubescence, to apply to teenagers all the way to young adult women. Its not meant to have a qualification, its just meant to be an I Win Button to destroy someone. There are 90 good reasons why you shouldn't legally or morally be attracted to teenagers, but that's too complicated so its easier to say "pedo" to evoke images of children instead of 5'6 girls with mostly developed bodies.
A retarded giga-nigga on this very forum has been arguing with me for like 10 days now that because Trump knew Epstein, they are both baby raping monsters. And he is sure to say "BABY RAPER" over and over.
When Epstein's youngest known victim is 11. Still bad, still evil, still should be given no difference in treatment. But the argument is coming from a place of pure emotion, and is attempting to use the same emotional argument that worked on them. And cannot understand why it isn't working, so clearly you must be evil too!
Something I've always found really interesting is that the life cycle of a woman can basically be broken down into three phases. 0-14/15ish, 15-25 or 30, and 25/30+. Basically childhood, prime years, and post wall years. The exact ages aren't set in stone, but that's the rough framework. For literally all of recorded human civilization, it was understood that the 15-25/30 year period was the peak for a woman, and that a man marrying her had about that amount of time to marry, have as many kids as possible, and because he had enjoyed her during those prime years and was her first in basically everything, they had a bond that would last for decades, well past when she stopped being 'hot'.
So out of those 3 phases, 1 of them is the one where it was always normal and expected for a man to be attracted to a woman, and the other two; childhood and post-wall (or spinster as they called it), were the phases that were not considered normal for a man to be looking for a wife. Mohammedan savages excluded of course, Christendom at least understood that actual pedophilia was evil, and a woman who had not gotten a husband by the time she as in her late 20s to 30s clearly had something wrong with her.
What are the two phases that the left is actively encouraging people to be attracted to now though? Childhood and post-wall. What is the one phase where they will attack you if you're attracted to a woman in that phase? Her prime. They will simultaneously defend and make excuses for degenerates who are sexually attracted to an 8yo, and then immediately turn around and call the 22yo guy who thinks the 16yo he saw on the beach in a bikini is hot a pedo. To the point where they even call any man in his 30s who is attracted to even an 18 legal adult a pedo.
Pure satanic inversion. Call that which is good and normal evil, and call that which is vile and abnormal good.
"call the 22yo guy who thinks the 16yo he saw on the beach in a bikini is hot a pedo. To the point where they even call any man in his 30s who is attracted to even an 18 legal adult a pedo."
And they won't take into account when, not if, the 18-year-old "girl" has been whoring around for years (hopefully no more than a few years, preferably two if there must be an "s" at the end of "years") but the guy is a kissless virgin who needed to work on becoming good husband material first by making money (that women have multiple options of not making, first, in order to find a decent man).
Most 18-year-old American guys shouldn't be having sex, unless they somehow have lots of money or resources at such a young age. This is precisely why a 30-year-old guy is entitled to a much younger woman; most women his own age are already married, or are whores*, or are divorced, and generally are not mother material. It makes sense if a guy is a 30-year-old virgin: modern women's standards are idiotic and delusional. If a woman is 30 years old and a virgin she generally deserves less sympathy, as she will almost never be called a creep or accused of "harassing" a "poor guy" with her "creepiness".
And enough of shaming a 22 year old guy for losing his virginity to an 18-year-old high school senior graduating in a few months with the "she's still in high school!" nonsense. Like graduating from government-enforced indoctrination camps at at 12th grade is some rite of passage that officially makes young women competent for sex, and she's a few months away from being qualified for your virgin 22-year old ass.
ASTERISK section: *If you had sex outside of marriage once, or at least not in a very committed relationship, you are a whore/slut, and I say the same of any man.
The reason why "slut-shaming" is seen as a thing that is mistreating women, and not men, why it is a "double standard", is because women are the upholders of that double standard, Women and the small amount of men who are successfully promiscuous.
It is primarily some women who are okay with men being sluts, until it directly affects them. Until their hot boytoy who they delusionally believe is their exclusive partner, goes and fucks a younger woman.
Any man who is not a womanizer alpha male "Chad", who then celebrates such male promiscuity being done with lots of women, is a cuck.
Or people could just stop making and sharing pornos of small children.
Literally no-one outside of the satanic elite is doing that anymore.
By its literal definition, if you lust after depictions of children (real or fake), you are a pedophile. The problem is the term encapsulates multiple levels of degeneracy that range from distasteful to evil:
Fake child porn and nothing else? I wouldn't send you to jail but I would also make sure you never coach my kid's soccer team, or work with kids in general.
Have Real Child Porn? Jail.
Distributing real child porn? Death.
Grooming Children? Woodchipper.
Raping children? Drawn and quartered (and fed to a woodchipper).
Running a child sex ring? See above, but not before you are tortured mercilessly to catch your accomplices.
The problem is, everything you listed after the first is already not only illegal, but so heavily illegal they will send in Swat teams to arrest you for it even if there is no imminent danger to be found.
I'd go so far as to say the amount of detail you went into regarding the same handful of crimes with minor differences shows this isn't nearly as much about justice or protecting innocents, as it is bloodthirst and having a free target to let it out on.
I don't even disagree with you in doing so, but its that exact reaction that The Powers That Be are banking on. You being blinded by indignant rage and righteous anger on a free target that you cut down every law in the land to get the devil. Because those Elites aren't going to be beholden to these laws, Podesta will never get arrested for having wierd child-porn esque art all over. And yet they rape more kids in a single lifetime than a state's worth of common child predators.
I was just putting the fact that there are layers into comedic terms. The fact is people who consume loli are in denial that they are pedophiles, but they are not inherently evil (just deranged).
Consume it how? This may seem pedantic but its a very important question.
Consume actual pornographic images of girls drawn to look young? Consume content with loli characters in it that isn't meant to be pornographic in any way? Consume anime at all?
Because the big deceit here is that most of the people here arguing in favor of banning are only looking at that first category (the one of obvious pedos) while the people actually writing the laws and screaming the loudest about this make no distinction between the first and the second/third.
Something dumb and milquetoast like Ichigo Mashimaro is filled with loli characters, but has no sexual elements in the slightest. The only difference between it and a Western cartoon centered around little girls is one is anime, which means its now loli specifically and thereby in the same category as hardcore pornography for people discussing this.
These little minute details are meaningless squabbling when its just a conversation, but once you enter the realm of legally binding they become the difference between a dude with weird hobbies and a felony sex offender.