They are both called "pedos" according to these zealots and according to laws like the ones that Texas is trying to push, and that they are increasingly trying to make this opinion in to law by giving anime characters the same human rights as real people. .
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (173)
sorted by:
Lol, lmao even.
So we can have 13 year old prepubsecent boys be fulled naked on screen, as long as everyone pinky promises to never ever jerk off to it?
Got it, I see we are working with a very well defined and strict set of principles that will work very well when turned into laws that define our land.
If you can't see the difference between a gag manga from the 80s and hardcore porn graphic material depicting little girls having sex and being raped (which loli porn does) then you may have some serious issues.
Lol, lmao even.
Any argument can be won if you specifically ignore the point being made, and then keep adding additional evocative adjective to one side to make it sound worse and worse while minimizing the other with two words. Shows how poor your position is.
Also, my point from the start wasn't that I can't, its that the law won't. There is no way to write it in which it can other than broad subjective means that make it useless.
Ignoring what point? Anyone being intellectually honest can tell the difference between fucking DB and loli porn. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want, it's not a hard distinction to make and normal people would have zero problem making it. It's why every normal person who knows what loli is thinks it degenerate pedo shit and there's never been someone calling DB child porn and trying to ban it.
Lol, lmao even.
So explain to me, Mr. Intellectual, when does an underaged boys dick turn from gag to sexual? At which exact point? This is important, because you are working with legal proceedings that need these exact lines ironed out.
Also, my point was and continues to be that "everyone just knows!" is a laughably bad position by a person who not only knows nothing about the topic, but people and politics and general.
You may as well attest that National Geographic photos of topless natives are pornography. We all know the difference between Goku's caricature and erotica.
Child Porn is a strict liability crime.
If the law or legal officials declare an image as child porn (which is subjective) then just having it on your computer is enough for a conviction.
"Your honor, our legal process identified one pornographic image on @The_Shadow_of_Intent 's computer. It was a full frontal nude of a thirteen year old boy.
There is no question that this image was on his computer, therefore he is guilty."
Your only defense in this case is to admit that you did have an image of a nude boy, and then argue that it is a) a drawing, and b) not porn.
Under laws like this, the court does not have to accept your arguments.
Remember, this is strict liability. Someone sending this image to your email is sufficient to see you charged.
So, how keen are you to place yourself in this position, fully trusting that the legal process will produce a just result?
Any legal sanction on lolicon should be avoided for the above reasons. I'm speaking to the de facto definition of porn, although I just realized this thread was mostly about the legality of it.
This thread is a discussion of new, proposed laws. About half the respondents are for it.
My point, as illustrated in my first response to him, isn't that I believe there is no difference. Its that the difference is meaningless to the people who push these kinds of laws, and that they and the law will err on the side of "its all bad."
I know the difference between a small chested woman and a child, but for some reason Australia said there wasn't one. You can tell something like Uzaki is clearly just a short college girl, but we had a mass kerfluffle that she was clearly a loli.
Also, I'd wager topless natives are not as common as they once were in those magazines and those specific magazines are for sure no longer allowed in schools because of the same issue I'm talking about. People changed the culture by expanding what they found offensive, and now we do not have nuance. Its all evil and bad to them.