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:
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!
"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:
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!
"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.
If you have no legitimate moral foundation, then yes, you can justify anything. That’s the whole thing.
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.