Where is the justice?

[The Lunatic]

There is no reality. It doesn't really exist, therefore it has to placed upon what it depicts.

That would be the rough equal to photoshopping age reduction into images of Emma Watson, to have her appear to be 15. If you tried to call that child porn, you would get laughed out of the courtroom, because everyone knows the original used for the image is over 18. This should be no different.

... Really...

Did you just compare the existence of Emma Watson to the existence of a 150 year old anime character?

Right... Well, here's the key dividing factor between them. One is real.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

Well, i find it fair they judged drawings of minors in sexual context as child pornografy.

Im a dad and a manga reader.

While you have your rights as a parent to that, the fact remains that no one was hurt in this process, and the law was far overstepped.

As someone with a fairly large lolicon collection, I find this to be stupidity beyond reason. Am I a pedophile because I have these images? No. I find the idea of doing something like that to an actual human under the age of 16 disgusting, consent or not.

Makes no sense. Why would you have the pictures in the first place?

What do you do with those pictures?, be hornest. No..ok.

I wank to those pictures. Why? Because I find all animated characters attractive. My lolicon archive is about 100 Megs. My entire hentai (animated porn) archive is about 10 gigs. Rei Ayanami is hot (technically lolicon since she's 14). But does this make me a pedophile? No.

Oh...my.... ....well then, go right ahead . But when stuff like this end some of you up in jail and at the bottom of the prison food chain, don´t say society didn´t warn you.

In my mind it´s wrong on so many levels to depict children in sexual context, and fortunally im not the only one.

And your perfectly fine with what amounts to a witch hunt to put us away for owning loli art?

Sure, in my mind it´s child pornografy, try and keep that in mind please.

But it is that kind of view that creates a hostile and negative area for people like me, who do not wish to harm children, but find animated drawings arousing. It is the same argument I hear all the time that "I don't hate gays, but I don't feel they should have equal rights". It is using your morals to persecute others.

Nooo, you can go ahead and find animated pictures arousing, thats ok. It´s the child part that´s not. I just don´t understand WHY they must be of children? WHY?

Because they can be rather adorable. And WHY the fuck does it bother you? WHY do you feel personally offended at drawings that aren't even life like. WHY?

Im a dad and a member of my society that´s why. Please refrain from profanities in the future.

Im a father as well and I dont care and I dont see why you should...to each there own.

That´s says more about you than me. I care for other peoples children, i care for all children. And depicting them sexual is just not ok. That´s gonna be the last i contribute. It´s like talking to a brickwall in this thread.

whos children? the piece of papers? we are talking about drawn images and if you want me to get into reality In most country as soon as a girl is able to have children of her own shes married off...and if i remember the youngest recorded pregnancy was a little African girl who was...four i think so before you go trying to defend your kids against those sick bastards who fap to loli how about getting on a plane flying to africa and saving some real little girls from some real pedophiles.

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Condemning someone over images of non-existent children in sexual scenarios is like condemning someone over the robbery of a non-existent store or the murder of a non-existent person...

Every single person that murdered an NPC in a video game should be sentenced according to this level of logic.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

There is no reality. It doesn't really exist, therefore it has to placed upon what it depicts.

That would be the rough equal to photoshopping age reduction into images of Emma Watson, to have her appear to be 15. If you tried to call that child porn, you would get laughed out of the courtroom, because everyone knows the original used for the image is over 18. This should be no different.

... Really...

Did you just compare the existence of Emma Watson to the existence of a 150 year old anime character?

Right... Well, here's the key dividing factor between them. One is real.

But you just said reality didn't exist. Which way is it?

 

[Thaluikhain]

That would be the rough equal to photoshopping age reduction into images of Emma Watson, to have her appear to be 15. If you tried to call that child porn, you would get laughed out of the courtroom, because everyone knows the original used for the image is over 18. This should be no different.

Actually, that sort of age-reduction stuff is illegal in some of the same sorts of places that would ban this sort of thing, because, as you say, it should be no different.

The ignorance in this post is alarming. There is as much correlation between hentai images and pedophilia as there is between gays and pedophilia. No child is harmed, or even used as a model. These are images of creatures that do not exist, cannot exist, and will never exist.

Um, you seem to be confusing pedophilia and child molestation there.

If you are sexually inclined towards children, you are a pedophile, you are only a child molestor if you act on it.

[In most country as soon as a girl is able to have children of her own shes married off...and if i remember the youngest recorded pregnancy was a little African girl who was...four i think so before you go trying to defend your kids against those sick bastards who fap to loli how about getting on a plane flying to africa and saving some real little girls from some real pedophiles.

That argument doesn't hold true. The existence of a serious crime, in of itself, does not invalidate lesser crimes. You can argue the images are harmless, but not that there is worse somewhere else.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

I think it's awesome that society is getting more open-minded.

I hope, however, that child-porn (including images of fictional characters) will always carry with it social stigma and taboo.

I've seen pictures of adult fictional characters, hentai, I mean. I wasn't turned on, but had no problem with it.

However, drawing a 13-year-old sucking a cock? Now that I do have a problem with. I think justice is served here. I would even go so far as to say I think everyone in possession of this "lolicon"(is that the preferred nomanclature?) material should undergo a mental evaluation.

...yeah lets go back about oh i dont know lets say 30 years...people like you said the same thing about gays...please come out of the media closet and think for yourself for a change.

 

[Rachel317]

Real or drawn, if children are depicted in a certain way in order to solicit a sexually reaction from the audience then, yes, it's child pornography. It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up, someone imagined those children in that situation and committed them to paper in order to arouse.

Fair enough, the guy was only a translator so maybe the blame should rest solely with the artists, but maybe he should have chosen the job carefully. Of course, it's easy to be all moral and self-righteous when it's not you that has to put food on the table for yourself and a family, but this kind of thing would disgust most people.

True, no one was hurt, but they could have drawn sexual adults instead of children. There wasn't any valid reason as to why they COULDN'T have drawn adults, and left children alone.

 

[s0denone]

Fail post.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

That would be the rough equal to photoshopping age reduction into images of Emma Watson, to have her appear to be 15. If you tried to call that child porn, you would get laughed out of the courtroom, because everyone knows the original used for the image is over 18. This should be no different.

Actually, that sort of age-reduction stuff is illegal in some of the same sorts of places that would ban this sort of thing, because, as you say, it should be no different.

The ignorance in this post is alarming. There is as much correlation between hentai images and pedophilia as there is between gays and pedophilia. No child is harmed, or even used as a model. These are images of creatures that do not exist, cannot exist, and will never exist.

Um, you seem to be confusing pedophilia and child molestation there.

If you are sexually inclined towards children, you are a pedophile, you are only a child molestor if you act on it.

[In most country as soon as a girl is able to have children of her own shes married off...and if i remember the youngest recorded pregnancy was a little African girl who was...four i think so before you go trying to defend your kids against those sick bastards who fap to loli how about getting on a plane flying to africa and saving some real little girls from some real pedophiles.

That argument doesn't hold true. The existence of a serious crime, in of itself, does not invalidate lesser crimes. You can argue the images are harmless, but not that there is worse somewhere else.

im saying

if your house was on fire and some guy ran out of your house with your tv would you try to save your tv or your entire freaking house!

 

[s0denone]

Condemning someone over images of non-existent children in sexual scenarios is like condemning someone over the robbery of a non-existent store or the murder of a non-existent person...

No.
Look at it this way:
You draw a child. You're an exceptionally good drawer, so it looks super real.
The kid is maybe 12-years-old, and performing some sort of sexual act in the drawing. (The thought alone sounds disturbing, doesn't it? Be honest)

I could then assume that you are turned on by children.

On the other hand, you may have a guy.
He came into the possesion of the floor plans of a bank, and has a notepad lying around with how to break into the bank.

I can then assume that this person is going to rob the bank.

That would be a more suitable comparison. I personally think it's very valid, even.

...yeah lets go back about oh i dont know lets say 30 years...people like you said the same thing about gays...please come out of the media closet and think for yourself for a change.

Eh, no. Look above.

I'm not a bigot, sexist, racist or any other kind of -phobe for not wanting people jacking off to the pictures(or drawings) of children.
Get fucking real. You think being aroused by pictures depicting children (fictional or not) is cool and totally acceptable?
With the risk of offending here, I'm going to say that I think you should be put into prison.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

Im just going to say this if looking at loli becomes illegal whats next thinking of loli? Is everyone going to have to be bashed in the head at birth so they dont think of loli?

 

[Thaluikhain]

if your house was on fire and some guy ran out of your house with your tv would you try to save your tv or your entire freaking house!

Um...because banning images depicting children in a sexual context stops the government from prosecuting child molestors?

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Condemning someone over images of non-existent children in sexual scenarios is like condemning someone over the robbery of a non-existent store or the murder of a non-existent person...

No.
Look at it this way:
You draw a child. You're an exceptionally good drawer, so it looks super real.
The kid is maybe 12-years-old, and performing some sort of sexual act in the drawing. (The thought alone sounds disturbing, doesn't it? Be honest)

I could then assume that you are turned on by children.

On the other hand, you may have a guy.
He came into the possesion of the floor plans of a bank, and has a notepad lying around with how to break into the bank.

I can then assume that this person is going to rob the bank.

That would be a more suitable comparison. I personally think it's very valid, even.

Again, that doesn't make any sense, it's the same as assuming that someone simulating a murder or a bank heist in a video-game or any other form of media would be preparing to actually commit murder or rob a bank.

You cannot pre-emptively arrest people for crimes they haven't committed just because you think they might do so.

 

[Danish rage]

Well, i find it fair they judged drawings of minors in sexual context as child pornografy.

Im a dad and a manga reader.

While you have your rights as a parent to that, the fact remains that no one was hurt in this process, and the law was far overstepped.

As someone with a fairly large lolicon collection, I find this to be stupidity beyond reason. Am I a pedophile because I have these images? No. I find the idea of doing something like that to an actual human under the age of 16 disgusting, consent or not.

Makes no sense. Why would you have the pictures in the first place?

What do you do with those pictures?, be hornest. No..ok.

I wank to those pictures. Why? Because I find all animated characters attractive. My lolicon archive is about 100 Megs. My entire hentai (animated porn) archive is about 10 gigs. Rei Ayanami is hot (technically lolicon since she's 14). But does this make me a pedophile? No.

Oh...my.... ....well then, go right ahead . But when stuff like this end some of you up in jail and at the bottom of the prison food chain, don´t say society didn´t warn you.

In my mind it´s wrong on so many levels to depict children in sexual context, and fortunally im not the only one.

And your perfectly fine with what amounts to a witch hunt to put us away for owning loli art?

Sure, in my mind it´s child pornografy, try and keep that in mind please.

But it is that kind of view that creates a hostile and negative area for people like me, who do not wish to harm children, but find animated drawings arousing. It is the same argument I hear all the time that "I don't hate gays, but I don't feel they should have equal rights". It is using your morals to persecute others.

Nooo, you can go ahead and find animated pictures arousing, thats ok. It´s the child part that´s not. I just don´t understand WHY they must be of children? WHY?

Because they can be rather adorable. And WHY the fuck does it bother you? WHY do you feel personally offended at drawings that aren't even life like. WHY?

Im a dad and a member of my society that´s why. Please refrain from profanities in the future.

Im a father as well and I dont care and I dont see why you should...to each there own.

That´s says more about you than me. I care for other peoples children, i care for all children. And depicting them sexual is just not ok. That´s gonna be the last i contribute. It´s like talking to a brickwall in this thread.

whos children? the piece of papers? we are talking about drawn images and if you want me to get into reality In most country as soon as a girl is able to have children of her own shes married off...and if i remember the youngest recorded pregnancy was a little African girl who was...four i think so before you go trying to defend your kids against those sick bastards who fap to loli how about getting on a plane flying to africa and saving some real little girls from some real pedophiles.

Yes i protect children, even those depicted, as a princible.

No going to Africa isn´t a option, i have a my work. But i do contribute with what amount´s to 80-100 USD every month via my active membership of UNICEF for the past 7 years.

 

[The Lunatic]

It's more a case of people being deluded enough to think there's no taboo about jacking off to depictions of children.

Law is subjective, in a lot of people's views, what you're doing is very close if not the same as paedophilia. No amount of claiming you're right is going to change that, and if caught, the law is very clear on these things.

The ignorance in this post is alarming. There is as much correlation between hentai images and pedophilia as there is between gays and pedophilia. No child is harmed, or even used as a model. These are images of creatures that do not exist, cannot exist, and will never exist.

Yes, comparing animated paedophilia to homosexuality. That's not insulting at all.

How do you know there's no child used as a model?

How do you know the people drawing this stuff aren't into real children?

Hell, for that matter, how do you know that, the money you're (Or not.) spending on this stuff isn't going towards somebody who's into that kind of thing, who is then buying the real stuff, which in turn is fuelling demand for that kind of thing.

But, anyway, the point is, it's a depiction. It depicts a child getting raped.

... Really...

Did you just compare the existence of Emma Watson to the existence of a 150 year old anime character?

Right... Well, here's the key dividing factor between them. One is real.

But you just said reality didn't exist. Which way is it?

... What?

Stuff in anime is not "Reality". I fear you may be a bit too into it, if you believe that's the case.

And that is my point. If I photoshopped an image of Emma Watson so that she appeared 14, did some work on the image so that she was naked (copy, overlap, etc) and posted it online, someone who had never seen or heard of Emma Watson could have me arrested for possession of child porno. And that would make as much sense as arresting someone for possession of drawings.

In the UK that'd come under the Pseudo-photograph law (As well as animated paedophilia.), which would probably mean you're arrested for "Inappropriate material".

You're not going to try to defend that trying to make Emma Watson look like a child isn't inappropriate now, are you?