Well... here we go. Obscenity in Manga trial.

[Nimbus]

Yes, lets use the "no children were harmed in the creation of child hentai argument"

And to be honest, for that reason, it should not be allowed to be sold to minors, but it's not child pornography. The differences between pornography (affectionately dubbed, "Adult") and it's daughter child pornography is just the age of the actors/actresses. Due to fact that legal emancipation takes place at age 18, anything below that is considered technically "child pornography" even if said actress is 17 years, 365 days old an a leap year.

But the "Do what floats your boat" argument does not hold up nearly as well

However, like i said earlier, it should still be monitored. Just because you can create pornographic imagines yourself (and "you" being a 15 year old pervert), does not mean that you have any business viewing it. For example, imagine that "you," in all your programming glory, have just created a game so violent that GoW3 could get released on the wii in comparison. Does that mean that you have any (legal) business playing such game? The answer is no.

I personally see viewing hentai as one of those "you can, but why?" choices that people make only due to their own personal love for it, or hate for what it is replacing. Regardless of how vile and disgusting I find masturbating to 10 year old girls with eyes the size of the moon, breast to match, and random animal parts placed all over their bodies... I still cannot make a reasonable argument against it (as long as your over 18, 21 in some states). If no children are harmed, than the premise of the Lolita laws is all but non-existent.

But at least keep in mind that you may be masturbating to you're daughters favorite cartoon character you sick bastard! Lol, just kidding.

I agree with you to an extent. The only disagreement is that you seem to be assuming that right=legal and wrong=illegal and vice versa.

 

[Caliostro]

On the other hand it's child porn.

Start censoring things because people don't like it and we're only 1 step away from a full blown dictatorship. The first thing to go is always freedom of expression.

No, the idea that "IT'S CHILDPORN! IT'S SICK!" is no good. We don't put child molesters away because they love the idea of having sex with a child. We put them away because they hurt a child to get off. It's not what they like, it's what they DO.

One of my greatest dreams is to kill someone by biting their neck off. Call it sick, call it deranged, call it awesome... None of that matters the slightest, it's my dream, and I have no intent of fulfilling it. Should I be put away for thinking it? Should a guy be put away because he enjoys drawn kiddy porn? Should anyone be incarcerated for their thoughts? Again, the idea of "Thought Police" is a bit too close for comfort to a brutal totalitarian regime or a New Age Salem Witch Hunting.

But once again, the root of this is that people are ignorant, and fail to understand what freedom is. Freedom isn't about forcing other people to live how WE think it's right, it's about allowing everyone to live in any way they want so long as they don't hurt others.

Anyone can share their disgust all they want over drawn out kiddy porn... It's all irrelevant. No children were hurt for it. No children are hurt with it's existence. In fact, odds are, LESS children are hurt with it's existence as pedophiles can "get off" on seeing drawings of children instead of kidnapping or endorsing REAL child porn.

 

[KarmicToast]

And before you say "letting people look at animated minors doing sexual things increases the chance of people abusing children in real life" let me just say that there are worlds of bondage/rape porn out there but no one seems to mind. Isn't that causing rape? Aren't video games causing violence? Seriously people...stop being judgmental and just STFU.

Yes, people do mind entertainment that features rape. And ending your arguement with a STFU doesn't really elevate your point to that upper trata of intelligence.

If you had a kid, and you knew that a male babysitter was heavily into pedophile manga would you let him babysit your kid? This isn't a baited question, I am just curious as to how far you'd follow your rhetoric.

What exactly is "pedophile manga?" Since that isn't actually a genre I'm a bit confused. Is this hypothetical manga one that is commonplace, such as "high school aged girls in skimpy school girl outfits having sex with their teachers", or is this some "40 year old man rapes 8 year olds" manga which is something I have never heard of. If you knew everything everyone was into I doubt you would let anyone lay a finger on any member of your family. As it stands, think of how many strangers affect your life? Teachers who influence your children, mechanics who make sure your car is safe, factory workers who produce the items you use in your homes, farmers who grow your food...how many of them ascribe to something you aren't comfortable with? How many of them are regular drug users, furries, wife beaters, or worse? So yes, hypothetically if I knew a babysitter was into watching 8 years olds being raped by nasty old men, then I probably wouldn't feel comfortable because there are many other people who have all sorts of "disturbing" sides of them which I don't know about, and can therefore coexist with me in denial. And, even if I did choose to not let him babysit, that doesn't mean I judge him for his interests. I'm not Christian, but Jesus had it right when he said not to cast the first stone. Oh, and sorry. You're right. Ending my argument with STFU is not a sign of intelligence. You're probably saying that because it's an acronym...so let me spell it out for you this time. Shut the fuck up.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Oh, and sorry. You're right. Ending my argument with STFU is not a sign of intelligence. You're probably saying that because it's an acronym...so let me spell it out for you this time. Shut the fuck up.

So much for the conversation.

 

[KarmicToast]

Oh, and sorry. You're right. Ending my argument with STFU is not a sign of intelligence. You're probably saying that because it's an acronym...so let me spell it out for you this time. Shut the fuck up.

So much for the conversation.

Sorry for my harshness, but I don't quite see the need to continue my thoughts here. My mind will not be changed, and I don't want to continue to try and preach understanding to a bored forum. I do apologize for telling you to shut the fuck up though, that was a bit uncalled for. Feel free to continue to express your opinions (which you don't need my permission to do)

 

[Zac_Dai]

Its fucking sick that someone could be put away for 20 years for this.

 

[Akas]

Oh, Mr. Handley, haven't you ever heard about 4chan? Or danbooru? Or...well, you get the point.

Somehow, all I can think of when thinking about this is "The Bible Belt of the United States of America vs. 4chan."

 

[not a zaar]

So obviously from the debate here it's clear that this is a gray issue. For one thing you have people trying to pass off the child part as an "art style", or saying the characters are 18, as if that's a magic number where people suddenly become sexual mature. Well it's easy for the creators/fans of this type of work to use those justifications, but the point is those characters are symbolizing children. That's what they look like, that's what people are getting off to: children in sexual situations. Since a lot of you seem to think that jail time is too harsh, why not public exposure/humiliation? The reason so many of these subcultures and deviants thrive on the web is because they are isolated in their community and anonymity, all they get is positive feedback from their peers. Let society do its work and shame them back into acceptable behavior.

 

[Nimbus]

If drawings, wether erotic or not, are classified as child porn, you've crossed over into applying REAL WORLD laws on FICTION. Meaning that if drawing hentai, loli, or whatever is producing child porn, then drawing someone getting killed is commiting murder.

And why draw the line there? Why aren't erotic drawing of adult women being raped and killed as important as fictional children? People are picking and choosing different tastes to legislate and its wrong. Putting people in jail for cartoons is wrong.

If this passes:

Seth McFarlane produced child porn for this S&M scene done to an infant

Creators of simpsons obscenely showed bart's dick in the movie

You can say "OMG ITS SUPPOST TO BE FUNNY", but it doesn't matter according to the law, its an underaged character in a sexual situation.

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

You sir, have hit the nail on the head.

 

[Caliostro]

Since a lot of you seem to think that jail time is too harsh, why not public exposure/humiliation? The reason so many of these subcultures and deviants thrive on the web is because they are isolated in their community and anonymity, all they get is positive feedback from their peers. Let society do its work and shame them back into acceptable behavior.

Yes sir. Shall we then move on to whipping the infidels and stoning all the women that show their face in public? Or perhaps a more western tradition: Burning people at the stake.

I don't get this... What's the difference between someone who watches FAKE (very important word there) drawn kiddy porn and someone who plays videogame about killing people? I'm assuming you play games otherwise you wouldn't be here.

I'm assuming you have simulated killing another living being in a game at some point. Should we punish you? You killed someone in game. The action of killing itself is frowned upon modern societies, therefore you should be jailed or subjected to public humiliation for the game. Correct?

I'm guessing that if you have some sense you're now shouting "Wtf?? Why? That's ridiculous!"... Off course it is... Just as much as it is to punish someone for watching cartoons, however "amoral" for you they may be.

 

[not a zaar]

Since a lot of you seem to think that jail time is too harsh, why not public exposure/humiliation? The reason so many of these subcultures and deviants thrive on the web is because they are isolated in their community and anonymity, all they get is positive feedback from their peers. Let society do its work and shame them back into acceptable behavior.

Yes sir. Shall we then move on to whipping the infidels and stoning all the women that show their face in public? Or perhaps a more western tradition: Burning people at the stake.

I don't get this... What's the difference between someone who watches FAKE (very important word there) drawn kiddy porn and someone who plays videogame about killing people? I'm assuming you play games otherwise you wouldn't be here.

I'm assuming you have simulated killing another living being in a game at some point. Should we punish you? You killed someone in game. The action of killing itself is frowned upon modern societies, therefore you should be jailed or subjected to public humiliation for the game. Correct?

I'm guessing that if you have some sense you're now shouting "Wtf?? Why? That's ridiculous!"... Off course it is... Just as much as it is to punish someone for watching cartoons, however "amoral" for you they may be.

Congratulations, you really tore into that strawman. I don't see any part of my post where I suggested punishing the offender. I said public exposure, and I don't see how that's anywhere near public executions such as stonings or burnings. As for your point about "simulated killings", glorifying violence is a long proud tradition in human affairs (just see how it manifests itself today as violent games, action movies, military honors, etc...) and therefor is not subject to societal censure.

 

[Caliostro]

Congratulations, you really tore into that strawman. I don't see any part of my post where I suggested punishing the offender. I said public exposure, and I don't see how that's anywhere near public executions such as stonings or burnings. As for your point about "simulated killings", glorifying violence is a long proud tradition in human affairs (just see how it manifests itself today as violent games, action movies, military honors, etc...) and therefor is not subject to societal censure.

Since a lot of you seem to think that jail time is too harsh, why not public exposure/humiliation? Let society do its work and shame them back into acceptable behavior.

It starts with a "since a lot of you think blabla is too harsh", which means you yourself seem ok with the idea of jailing someone for their taste, and then you suggest public exposure, which would undoubtedly end in lynchings... I mean, we all know the officials are ever so sensitive about these things and the ignorant masses ever so comprehensive...

Also, you're saying violence is glorified so it's ok to do it (...what?...logic not found...)... is there ANYTHING more glorified in our society than sex? Murder is still wrong. You still go to jail for murder. 25 to life. Check Mate.

 

[TheDean]

From scanning, i get the idea you don't like hentai invloving children. THere is this one hentai video i watch from time to time where some girls (who i think are not the 18) are being raped by a large part woman part spider thing on a web. I guess you think this is also wrong, well, perosnally, i enjoy it.

Nothign hould be censored, ever, and no one was harmed so it's all good.

Well 'from scanning' you missed the point. Try reading.

And actually the main argument against such products isn't that they cause people to become slobbering pedo monsters. Every idiot knows that isn't true. The argument is that they normalize illegal behavior and help build a community based around said behaviors.

nothing builds a community based aeround anytrhing. People can make up their own minds about things. And i'm fairly sure you're point was that childporn is bad. If no one is harmed, then it isn't. It's jsut immoral is all.

 

[not a zaar]

Congratulations, you really tore into that strawman. I don't see any part of my post where I suggested punishing the offender. I said public exposure, and I don't see how that's anywhere near public executions such as stonings or burnings. As for your point about "simulated killings", glorifying violence is a long proud tradition in human affairs (just see how it manifests itself today as violent games, action movies, military honors, etc...) and therefor is not subject to societal censure.

Since a lot of you seem to think that jail time is too harsh, why not public exposure/humiliation? Let society do its work and shame them back into acceptable behavior.

It starts with a "since a lot of you think blabla is too harsh", which means you yourself seem ok with the idea of jailing someone for their taste, and then you suggest public exposure, which would undoubtedly end in lynchings... I mean, we all know the officials are ever so sensitive about these things and the ignorant masses ever so comprehensive...

Also, you're saying violence is glorified so it's ok to do it (...what?...logic not found...)... is there ANYTHING more glorified in our society than sex? Murder is still wrong. You still go to jail for murder. 25 to life. Check Mate.

You're making a lot of assumptions here and then basing your arguements on those assumptions. I never said that I thought this person should go to jail. You think that a public exposure will only lead to violence, I disagree. Violence is not the the first reaction to an aberration, although it certainly a possibility. I'm not saying put this guy in a stadium, project on the big screen what he read, and then hand out rope and torches. Take a psychological profile of him, and if indeed he was buying those books to jack off to, then make him register as a sex offender.
For the second argument you made, you assume that I think it's okay to perform violence. I did not give my opinion on the topic of violence, I simply said that trying to publicly expose somebody as a "violence lover" would not work because our society does not look down on violence, in fact it looks UP to it.

 

[Caliostro]

and if indeed he was buying those books to jack off to, then make him register as a sex offender.

First it raises the question of why. That person would not have committed any crime at all. Should people who play videogames about killing people be forced to register as criminals? Ever played an FPS? You might be a potential murderer then. You need a wrap sheet (sp?).

Also, do you have ANY idea what being registered as a sex offender does to someone's life? It's quite possibly one of our greatest idiosyncrasies. We say we believe people can change give time, that's why we jail them instead of killing them... The stamp them for life with the record of the bad things they did so they're permanently identified by it. One of the major reasons ex-cons end up back in jail is that they up ostracized by society for the crimes they commit and that very same society told them they paid for. They don't get a job, or get a pretty bad one, they're permanently associated with criminality... Eventually they break... They do what they know how... Why not, they're being blamed for it anyways?

...That's, off course, not to say anything about the cases of lynching... Sure he paid his debt to society and came out a new man... But we still wanna kill him for what he did 20 years ago and we (the society) told him he was paying for in all those years in a shithole.

So... You'd take a guy that did nothing wrong but like something you don't and turn him into a criminal... Good plan.

For the second argument you made, you assume that I think it's okay to perform violence. I did not give my opinion on the topic of violence, I simply said that trying to publicly expose somebody as a "violence lover" would not work because our society does not look down on violence, in fact it looks UP to it.

Actually, I didn't, you did. But yeah... I'm sure society has no problem with murderers, that's why we put them away in jail for duzens of years, cause we just find them ever so snuggly.

 

[GothmogII]

Congratulations, you really tore into that strawman. I don't see any part of my post where I suggested punishing the offender. I said public exposure, and I don't see how that's anywhere near public executions such as stonings or burnings. As for your point about "simulated killings", glorifying violence is a long proud tradition in human affairs (just see how it manifests itself today as violent games, action movies, military honors, etc...) and therefor is not subject to societal censure.

Since a lot of you seem to think that jail time is too harsh, why not public exposure/humiliation? Let society do its work and shame them back into acceptable behavior.

It starts with a "since a lot of you think blabla is too harsh", which means you yourself seem ok with the idea of jailing someone for their taste, and then you suggest public exposure, which would undoubtedly end in lynchings... I mean, we all know the officials are ever so sensitive about these things and the ignorant masses ever so comprehensive...

Also, you're saying violence is glorified so it's ok to do it (...what?...logic not found...)... is there ANYTHING more glorified in our society than sex? Murder is still wrong. You still go to jail for murder. 25 to life. Check Mate.

You're making a lot of assumptions here and then basing your arguements on those assumptions. I never said that I thought this person should go to jail. You think that a public exposure will only lead to violence, I disagree. Violence is not the the first reaction to an aberration, although it certainly a possibility. I'm not saying put this guy in a stadium, project on the big screen what he read, and then hand out rope and torches. Take a psychological profile of him, and if indeed he was buying those books to jack off to, then make him register as a sex offender.
For the second argument you made, you assume that I think it's okay to perform violence. I did not give my opinion on the topic of violence, I simply said that trying to publicly expose somebody as a "violence lover" would not work because our society does not look down on violence, in fact it looks UP to it.

Note the bold part. And again, -who- would such a person be committing an offence against? It's already been stated a few times. A drawing does not equal a person, ergo committing a sexual act using such an object does not cause harm to come to another individual.

Second, from what I've read on the matter, being put on a sex offenders register is -not- a considered a good thing, obviously, however are we to assume that any such persons caught with such material is also therefore liable to commit far more real, and possibly violent sexual acts against another individual/s based on their possession of such?

 

[not a zaar]

Actually, I didn't, you did. But yeah... I'm sure society has no problem with murderers, that's why we put them away in jail for duzens of years, cause we just find them ever so snuggly.

Who's talking about murder? You brought up the subject of violent videogames. As long as we're talking about mainstream commercial products, the victims of your violence in games are always aliens/zombies/terrorists, whatever, some kind of morally reprehensible figure to take out our aggressions on, and as I said before society promotes this kind of behavior.

 

[Caliostro]

Actually, I didn't, you did. But yeah... I'm sure society has no problem with murderers, that's why we put them away in jail for duzens of years, cause we just find them ever so snuggly.

Who's talking about murder? You brought up the subject of violent videogames. As long as we're talking about mainstream commercial products, the victims of your violence in games are always aliens/zombies/terrorists, whatever, some kind of morally reprehensible figure to take out our aggressions on, and as I said before society promotes this kind of behavior.

We are. It's an analogue situation. If jerking off to drawn kiddy porn = sex offender, then killing people in a game = murder. Also crashing your car in a driving game = Wreckless driving. Enjoying a movie about robbers or swindlers = fraud. Etc. And no. Plenty of games about just killing people (first that comes to mind: GTA series...pretty damn popular).

 

[Dr Pussymagnet]

How old is the child that is in question?

Given some of the hilarious shit i've seen, anywhere from a week old upwards.

I kid you not.

It gets worse than that, you're not familiar with the origin of 'AWWRIGHTTT!!!' are you?

WHAT THE FUCK?!!?