Where is the justice?

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I'm going to bed but if you want to continue this discussion, just pm me. I think I'll play DeathSmiles when I get up. *smirk*

 

[The Lunatic]

So it is not as much the crime as the idea of the crime occuring in real life? Doesn't mean I should be jailed for my hentai collection.

I am getting off for tonight, since I've been arguing for 2 hours now, and I'm tired.

Technically, your child porn collection is illegal, in both the UK and the US.

 

[The Lunatic]

No one in this thread is a pedophile, and if someone is, I urge them to get their head examined. But we also don't believe an image of a character that has not existed, cannot exist, will not exist, and is not based on anything or anyone that does exist constitutes child pornography.

Paedophilia is the attraction to children, which you're clearly attracted to, otherwise you'd have regular old hentai rather than under age stuff, wouldn't you?

You get off on them being under age, I can't really see how that doesn't consist as being a paedophile.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

I wouldn't exactly call that messed up. Let's look at it objectively for a moment here:
Although these aren't images of real children, they are still images of children in what you could call a pornographic situation. Whether they are hand drawn scenes or photographs, they're still depicting the same (illegal) scenario.
Consider the laws on drink driving; whilst somebody can drive under the influence and safely reach home without even hurting a single living thing, they can still be arrested and fined because they could have hurt or even killed somebody. I believe this has been done as a similar kind of deterrent. The images he had could well have been a precursor to actual child pornography. After all, if you're perfectly content with looking at drawn children, photographed ones wouldn't be much of a step up...

I'm not arguing that it was necessarily right to fine him this amount or pursue the matter as they did. I'm simply pointing out that the connection they found isn't quite so ridiculous.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

So it is not as much the crime as the idea of the crime occuring in real life? Doesn't mean I should be jailed for my hentai collection.

I am getting off for tonight, since I've been arguing for 2 hours now, and I'm tired.

Technically, your child porn collection is illegal, in both the UK and the US.

canada ans the land down under to but the us law only supports pictures of real people like putting a little girls head on a grow womans body is illegal loli...ehh not so much

 

[The Lunatic]

If any of my collection was child porn, I could be, should be, and would be arrested. But it's not. It's all images of drawn characters, not based on any living organism, that has never, can never, and will never harm a living being.

Please look up the Pseudo-photograph law.

For the US.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt

Search for 18 USC Sec. 1466A.

You'll see quite clearly, that in the eyes of the law, it's child porn.

Paedophilia is the attraction to children, which you're clearly attracted to, otherwise you'd have regular old hentai rather than under age stuff, wouldn't you?

You get off on them being under age, I can't really see how that doesn't consist as being a paedophile.

I get off on hentai, whether or not they are percieved as being under age or not is irrelevent. I have never been sexually attracted to a real child, and never will be, and that is what is important.

Yeahh.... Given your posts in this thread, I can't say I believe you.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

I wouldn't exactly call that messed up. Let's look at it objectively for a moment here:
Although these aren't images of real children, they are still images of children in what you could call a pornographic situation. Whether they are hand drawn scenes or photographs, they're still depicting the same (illegal) scenario.
Consider the laws on drink driving; whilst somebody can drive under the influence and safely reach home without even hurting a single living thing, they can still be arrested and fined because they could have hurt or even killed somebody. I believe this has been done as a similar kind of deterrent. The images he had could well have been a precursor to actual child pornography. After all, if you're perfectly content with looking at drawn children, photographed ones wouldn't be much of a step up...

I'm not arguing that it was necessarily right to fine him this amount or pursue the matter as they did. I'm simply pointing out that the connection they found isn't quite so ridiculous.

The same can be said about video games.

 

[CCountZero]

Perhaps because it's a picture of a child in a pornographic situation? Real or not, that's going to look a hell of a lot like CP to the majority of people.

It looks like child porn, and the majority of the people are going to see things like that and count them as child porn.

Because Lolicon is depiction of that. Is it not?

Regular pornography is not illegal. The reason CP is illegal is because the child would be harmed/doesn't understand what it is doing etc. That is why CP is bad and illegal and regular porn isn't, on the other hand, drawing harms no one. The pictures that are drawn come from a pencil, not from an actual child being harmed.

While that is true, it's mearly just sugarcoating it..
Though I'd rather have people watch images than going out and abusing children.

Presto!

This is just another example of people using a law to suit a personal need which it was not designed to combat, all because they're uncomfortable with the subject matter.

Now, I'm not denying that CP is bad, and I'd certainly agree that Lolicon and similliar is... taboo, at best, but the way to deal with it is certainly not to fine people and/or lock them up.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

I wouldn't exactly call that messed up. Let's look at it objectively for a moment here:
Although these aren't images of real children, they are still images of children in what you could call a pornographic situation. Whether they are hand drawn scenes or photographs, they're still depicting the same (illegal) scenario.
Consider the laws on drink driving; whilst somebody can drive under the influence and safely reach home without even hurting a single living thing, they can still be arrested and fined because they could have hurt or even killed somebody. I believe this has been done as a similar kind of deterrent. The images he had could well have been a precursor to actual child pornography. After all, if you're perfectly content with looking at drawn children, photographed ones wouldn't be much of a step up...

I'm not arguing that it was necessarily right to fine him this amount or pursue the matter as they did. I'm simply pointing out that the connection they found isn't quite so ridiculous.

The same can be said about video games.

Then say the same about video games because I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

If any of my collection was child porn, I could be, should be, and would be arrested. But it's not. It's all images of drawn characters, not based on any living organism, that has never, can never, and will never harm a living being.

Please look up the Pseudo-photograph law.

For the US.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt

Search for 18 USC Sec. 1466A.

You'll see quite clearly, that in the eyes of the law, it's child porn.

Paedophilia is the attraction to children, which you're clearly attracted to, otherwise you'd have regular old hentai rather than under age stuff, wouldn't you?

You get off on them being under age, I can't really see how that doesn't consist as being a paedophile.

I get off on hentai, whether or not they are percieved as being under age or not is irrelevent. I have never been sexually attracted to a real child, and never will be, and that is what is important.

Yeahh.... Given your posts in this thread, I can't say I believe you.

Well well im just going to say this harassment is illegal in person and online...just something to think about.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

If any of my collection was child porn, I could be, should be, and would be arrested. But it's not. It's all images of drawn characters, not based on any living organism, that has never, can never, and will never harm a living being.

Please look up the Pseudo-photograph law.

For the US.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt

Search for 18 USC Sec. 1466A.

You'll see quite clearly, that in the eyes of the law, it's child porn.

Paedophilia is the attraction to children, which you're clearly attracted to, otherwise you'd have regular old hentai rather than under age stuff, wouldn't you?

You get off on them being under age, I can't really see how that doesn't consist as being a paedophile.

I get off on hentai, whether or not they are percieved as being under age or not is irrelevent. I have never been sexually attracted to a real child, and never will be, and that is what is important.

Yeahh.... Given your posts in this thread, I can't say I believe you.

Well well im just going to say this harassment is illegal in person and online...just something to think about.

No it isn't. This is just discussion, dude.

 

[The Lunatic]

Fortunately, whether or not you believe is irrelevant. All that matters is that I have never harmed a child, will never harm a child, and believe anyone who would should be castrated. But a drawing is not nearly the same thing.

This doesn't make it any less illegal, as you'll see by what I posted.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

I wouldn't exactly call that messed up. Let's look at it objectively for a moment here:
Although these aren't images of real children, they are still images of children in what you could call a pornographic situation. Whether they are hand drawn scenes or photographs, they're still depicting the same (illegal) scenario.
Consider the laws on drink driving; whilst somebody can drive under the influence and safely reach home without even hurting a single living thing, they can still be arrested and fined because they could have hurt or even killed somebody. I believe this has been done as a similar kind of deterrent. The images he had could well have been a precursor to actual child pornography. After all, if you're perfectly content with looking at drawn children, photographed ones wouldn't be much of a step up...

I'm not arguing that it was necessarily right to fine him this amount or pursue the matter as they did. I'm simply pointing out that the connection they found isn't quite so ridiculous.

The same can be said about video games.

Then say the same about video games because I'm not sure what you mean.

that killing someone in a game is a preciser to killing someone in real life

 

[Danish rage]

No reason to reply to any of the people I'm "discussing" this issue with.
We are clearly of differing opinion, and arguing endlessly would solve nothing. I will just throw in my honest two cents on the subject before I stop replying here. Feel free to quote me all you wish - I'm not going to reply.

Feel free to call me close-minded, tell me my opinions resemble those of fox news, or whatever other insult you feel like throwing my way.

I will happily defend, and openly admit to, the "discrimination" of people looking at images(drawn or otherwise) of children performing sexual acts.

You have a problem with me doing that? As I said, fine. You and I are never going to be friends. Not that I think you are now devastated by that, but I just think you should know that I will never respect you as a human being, and that all of your slander and refusal to accept that, I can only pity.

I know this may seem like a stuck-up position to take. Moral high ground and all, but is it really? I think it is very unusual for people to actively defend this sort of thing, and I am extremely disappointed in the people in this thread who are doing so. Calling me old-fashioned and conservative? It has no relevance. I vote progessive socialist(Native of Denmark), and I *for* the equal rights of just about every minority in society.
At some points, though, I draw the line.

Being aroused by children crosses that line. I have absolutely zero tolerance. I am staggered that people are apparently surprised at the moral stigma something like this carries with it. What the fuck did you people expect?

As an end note: I am sorry if this post comes off as offensive, or otherwise profane or vulgar. I do not mean to offend, but feel I can only express my honest opinion, as I have just done.

QFT. Im so glad to se im not the only one having troubles with people openly admitting to these things.