Shit ban all rape porn, and blackmail, and snuff.

That's the first good comment I've seen on the other side of this thread because it actually made me sit down and reassess my entire position (not because I thought I was wrong, but to make a sincere effort to reevaluate whether I was being reasonable rather than emotional). My first reaction was, predictably, "fuck yeah, ban it too" but to extrapolate from that, should we ban , media that includes rape scenes, murder, etc. No, of course not. So what's the difference? It's a question of degree. One is very clearly fictional, the other is (frequently) deliberately designed to convince the viewer it is real, to the extent that people watching it might often think, "Shit, do I need to call the FBI?" But what if it has disclaimers, the actors appear to say they're fine, etc. No. If its entire purpose is to stimulate unhealthy desires (unless you want to say that sexual stimulation from the idea of rape and murder are healthy? And don't say "women fanatize about rape. female fantasy and realistic rape are v. v. different things) it is not something that is in the interests of the vast majority of society.

"But we need to protect the interests of minority groups, we can't deprive them of their needs just because they don't match the majorities". There are certain groups who don't get to indulge their natural instincts because the welfare of the group supercedes them (psychopaths) or because the safety of a different vulnerable group (children) is a higher priority. Determining where that line were something crosses from edgy, to actually dangerous, is always going to be a judgement call but all rights have similar boundaries based upon our ability to make rational judgements.

You shot yourself in the foot with the last comment. "Gay marriage was the mistake that led to SJW insanity." Allowing gay marriage was perfectly fine (though I personally think it is was unnecessary) the fault in society lay in its/our failure to apply the breaks. Every minority group that is conceded some measure of power eventually uses it to reach beyond what they deserve, it's an established pattern. That doesn't in any way delegitimize their initial problems or concerns. The problem is shifting from one extreme control group (ban everything, no liberalization) to a different extreme control group (let do what thou wilt be the whole of the law). Our issue as a society is letting the extremists hold control and promoting the slippery slope argument is just arguing for one form of extremism over another.

Finally, not that the slippery slope isn't fallacious (it is) but if you want to employ it the closer fit is Japan were decades of indulgence of this shit has led to the growth of the j/k sex industry, trains that need women only carriages because of the chikan that frequently specifically target school girls, and the chaku ero and junior idol sub industries that lead to crap like this https://twitter.com/kabukicho01/status/1235452171832811522

Once again, the slippery slop is bullshit. Its always possible to apply the breaks if you fight for the right things and rejecting Z doesn't mean you need to reject A. This is a specific example of where that culture goes when allowed to develop without reins. I'm saying this is the specific point where intervention is warranted. Not banning all art and comics, not letting anything go. This point - sexually explicit loli art - is the reasonable tipping point.

Shit ban all rape porn, and blackmail, and snuff.

That's the first good comment I've seen on the other side of this thread because it actually made me sit down and reassess my entire position (not because I thought I was wrong, but to make a sincere effort to reevaluate whether I was being reasonable rather than emotional). My first reaction was, predictably, "fuck yeah, ban it too" but to extrapolate from that, should we ban , media that includes rape scenes, murder, etc. No, of course not. So what's the difference? It's a question of degree. One is very clearly fictional, the other is (frequently) deliberately designed to convince the viewer it is real, to the extent that people watching it might often think, "Shit, do I need to call the FBI?" But what if it has disclaimers, the actors appear to say they're fine, etc. No. If its entire purpose is to stimulate unhealthy desires (unless you want to say that sexual stimulation from the idea of rape and murder are healthy? And don't say "women fanatize about rape. female fantasy and realistic rape are v. v. different things) it is not something that is in the interests of the vast majority of society.

"But we need to protect the interests of minority groups, we can't deprive them of their needs just because they don't match the majorities". There are certain groups who don't get to indulge their natural instincts because the welfare of the group supercedes them (psychopaths) or because the safety of a different vulnerable group (children) is a higher priority. Determining where that line were something crosses from edgy, to actually dangerous, is always going to be a judgement call but all rights have similar boundaries based upon our ability to make rational judgements.

You shot yourself in the foot with the last comment. "Gay marriage was the mistake that led to SJW insanity." Allowing gay marriage was perfectly fine (though I personally think it is was unnecessary) the fault in society lay in its/our failure to apply the breaks. Every minority group that is conceded some measure of power eventually uses it to reach beyond what they deserve, it's an established pattern. That doesn't in any way delegitimize their initial problems or concerns. The problem is shifting from one extreme control group (ban everything, no liberalization) to a different extreme control group (let do what thou wilt be the whole of the law). Our issue as a society is letting the extremists hold control and promoting the slippery slope argument is just arguing for one form of extremism over another.

Finally, not that the slippery slope isn't fallacious (it is) but if you want to employ it the closer fit is Japan were decades of indulgence of this shit has led to the growth of the j/k sex industry, trains that need women only carriages because of the chikan that frequently specifically target school girls, and the chaku ero and junior idol sub industries that lead to crap like this https://twitter.com/kabukicho01/status/1235452171832811522 Once again, the slippery slop is bullshit. Its always possible to apply the breaks if you fight for the right things and rejecting Z doesn't mean you need to reject A. This is a specific example of where that culture goes when allowed to develop without reins. I'm saying this is the specific point where intervention is warranted. Not banning all art and comics, not letting anything go. This point - sexually explicit loli art - is the reasonable tipping point.

Shit ban all rape porn, and blackmail, and snuff.

That's the first good comment I've seen on the other side of this thread because it actually made me sit down and reassess my entire position (not because I thought I was wrong, but to make a sincere effort to reevaluate whether I was being reasonable rather than emotional). My first reaction was, predictably, "fuck yeah, ban it too" but to extrapolate from that, should we ban , media that includes rape scenes, murder, etc. No, of course not. So what's the difference? It's a question of degree. One is very clearly fictional, the other is (frequently) deliberately designed to convince the viewer it is real, to the extent that people watching it might often think, "Shit, do I need to call the FBI?" But what if it has disclaimers, the actors appear to say they're fine, etc. No. If its entire purpose is to stimulate unhealthy desires (unless you want to say that sexual stimulation from the idea of rape and murder are healthy? And don't say "women fanatize about rape. female fantasy and realistic rape are v. v. different things) it is not something that is in the interests of the vast majority of society.

"But we need to protect the interests of minority groups, we can't deprive them of their needs just because they don't match the majorities". There are certain groups who don't get to indulge their natural instincts because the welfare of the group supercedes them (psychopaths) or because the safety of a different vulnerable group (children) is a higher priority. Determining where that line were something crosses from edgy, to actually dangerous, is always going to be a judgement call but all rights have similar boundaries based upon our ability to make rational judgements.

You shot yourself in the foot with the last comment. "Gay marriage was the mistake that led to SJW insanity." Allowing gay marriage was perfectly fine (though I personally think it is was unnecessary) the fault in society lay in its/our failure to apply the breaks. Every minority group that is conceded some measure of power eventually uses it to reach beyond what they deserve, it's an established pattern. That doesn't in any way delegitimize their initial problems or concerns. The problem is shifting from one extreme control group (ban everything, no liberalization) to a different extreme control group (let do what thou wilt be the whole of the law). Our issue as a society is letting the extremists hold control and promoting the slippery slope argument is just arguing for one form of extremism over another.