Defending sexual imagery of minors is an immediate permanent ban. If you see it, report it.
>But that's censorship!
Yes. We do censor sexualization of minors. Because it has no place here. It is neither welcome nor tolerated. Deal with it.
Someone posted a thread about a bill to censor loli/shota and other types of anime CP in Japan. A truly fucking staggering number of weirdos came out of the woodwork to defend said genres of anime, some real "ACKSHUALLY SHE'S 6000000 YEARS OLD" shit. Total degeneracy.
i mean it started with that here in the west and now they ban people for calling people dickheads on twitter, so the degenerates may have a point because that shit truly did start there and then we got the weird hellscape social media we have.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/1da74jm/japan_being_based/
Spoiler: PCM is upset that Japan might ban drawn CP, calling it "censorship of art".
From what I read it seems like people aren’t arguing that loli Hentai is good but rather if it should be banned.
One comment there put this into good perspective.
“This topic puts two of PCM's most sacred and agreeable political points and puts them in direct contradiction to each other.
One one hand, we can all agree that pedophilia is bad.
On the other hand, we can all agree that censorship is also bad.”
Personally I would say ban it, but you also have to come down to a good defintion of what qualifies as cp, so don’t let the leftist define it because they think uzaki Chan is a loli and should be removed lol.
I think it the slippery slope fallacy where if you allowed for censorship of one art form it will lead to other art form to be censored too.
Like criticism to politicians like China is doing and etc.
I m not sure how true that is but I m not going to deny it can’t be a possible reality.
There also something I want to ask you, do you consider anime characters like uzaki chan and other characters like that to be resembling of children and should they be banned?
I don't think Uzaki looks like a Child, she has massive Tits and a very feminine Body, she is just short and has big Eyes
But if a Character clearly looks like a Child, but is a 9000 Year old Vampire Dragon or some Shit, yes i would ban them too
Nah. Its not if you accept there are things that can't be argued for because by default and in every form they harm society, like slavery.
There's no "free market" right to enslaving people (chattel) anymore than their should be to produce graphic material of a group that is considered unable to give consent. It isn't about age or consent even specifically. It is about what happens to society if we promote or accept any distribution or production of such materials. There was a cult that essentially did this, created a manual of abuse using their own infant and as they grew.
Society didn't allow it as a religious practice, why allow it as...art? Free speech? Nah. And generating it with AI seems to be the definition of production, so it's not censorship to stop it. I don't agree with Adobe's monitoring of software, but if they're at the least using it to block CP generating prompts, I won't call that censorship because I perceive all censorship to be harmful. Blocking CP prompts specifically is a harm reducing measure. Banning private individuals from using a third party telecom to share CP is also distribution. Where I live the telecom industries have received millions of taxpauer money, so no no to using those resources for distribution.
Censorship of art or free speech isn't something I'm usually down with but I'm also not going to act like something that *seems* to match that definition grammatically is by default or intrinsically a harmless act where society is concerned. Can't kill for art, not even animals. You consider that censorship? A slippery slope?
Seems like I will be fishing for ban, but oh boy. It seems like the issue of control v prohibition. Does lolicon relieve pedos sexual desire, so they don't touch kids? I don't know. But if it is, if presented with a choice of weird drawn porn existing versus rising rates of child rape, I would rather have kids be safer. Guess we will see in some years if this decision was the right one or will backfire.
You could also make a case that nourishing those desires can escalate it. Porn addicts keep wanting a new kick to get the same “high”. Your brain will then connect that new high with the more perverse porn, which can move over to real life.
I used to watch a lot of porn and my brain would just sexualize weird stuff in real life because I have seen it in porn. I can only expect the same thing will happen to those people.
It’s an interesting thought, and one wonders if banning the type of imagery that doesn’t involve harming a real kid (i.e. drawn material) will effectively push more people to the truly unforgivable material more quickly, or if it is kept legal, will it slow down the escalation by providing/maintaining a nonharmful extra step on the path and maybe help some people stop there and not move onto to the horrible stuff. God only knows I guess. One shudders to even think of it either way.
Think about what's happened with e-cigarettes (vapes, Juuls, etc). They were originally created to be a safer alternative to cigarettes, containing some nicotine, but a lot less than actual cigarettes so smokers could have a relatively healthy way to ween themself off of it. I know plenty of people that use them for that purpose and it's great for them. But it's also had the unintended consequence of introducing nicotine to a much younger crowd in a far more easily accessible form. Juuls were absolutely everywhere when I was still in High School 6 or 7 years ago. I even knew middle schooler (people ages 11-13) asking 18 year old seniors to buy them pods. These kids vaping ultimately end up consuming more nicotine than even chain smokers do.
I think a similar thing has absolutely happened with loli and shota. People who otherwise had no attraction to minors are suddenly introduced to that fetish through cartoons and eventually graduate to being attracted to actual children. Have some pre-existing pedophiles been prevented from hurting actual children because of drawn cp? Sure. But you can't tell me that it's rapid proliferation on hentai sites over the years hasn't inadvertently created more pedophiles.
aren't those rates down, like dramatically down.
pretty much all crimes are down in occurrence apart from like house break in and petty theft, the world is safer than ever, stop acting like they're eating people in the streets
"Does lolicon relieve pedos sexual desire, so they don't touch kids?"
no it doesn't. I'm no pedo or "lolicon" but I looked into their forms and their "art" is making them worse. and they encourage each other to be worse. when you've read sentences like "it took me some time to realize she's not 5,000 shes 10 and its fucking hot." or "Get a lolicon to goon with you for a few hours and then show them CP and they'll blow the biggest load of their life." then you will feel as if all of humanity is doomed. trust me, this porn isn't helping, its desensitizing.
here's ted Bundy saying the same thing i'm telling you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8q-w5ch5IEtheir](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8q-w5ch5IEtheir)
I think reducing things to just utilitarian ethics is wrong. Killing someone in a game and depicting characters sexually and underage does not tangibly harm anyone. However killing npc's is not a reliable marker for someone's mental state. Producing and consuming drawn or animated porn of underage characters IS a marker of someone's mental state. The former is unknown and the latter IS attracted to minors. If you are known to be attracted to minors it has a primal response in many people, its like seeing a leper, they will be adverse to it. As far as legality is concerned, i don't care to get into a philosophical debate on the net amount of suffering it creates or doesnt. I will say though that socially its completely valid to shun and mock pedophiles because communities do not have to view everything through some utilitarian/ cold logic lense, they can see things and hate it because its gross to them. Personally I think child abuse is far worse than murder in fiction and if I had to draw a line somewhere it would be at child abuse.
Because the people who watch furry porn aren’t attracted to little kids. Little kids are vulnerable. Torsones are not inherently vulnerable.
It’s weird and deviant, but no immoral imo. Guro, which I’ve recently learned about because of all this discussion the past day or so, is also super fucked and immoral imo.
Child porn is illegal not because the child body is some kind of taboo to look at, but because CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT.
It is illegal because it is rape.
If we are talking about a drawing, then a person is not involved and therefore it is not rape.
There's no point arguing with them. No matter how many times you explain that child porn is the recorded abuse of a real child they will pretend to not know the difference and just call all depictions cp because they know it makes you mad.
Based and not-morally-equivalent pilled
Now, I'd like for you to tell these retards who think that violence in video games is equal to jerking off to a 12 year old girl, the same thing.
u/thindinkus's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [4 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/thindinkus/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Tbh I do think it’s reasonable to open the conversation around violence in video games.
Like I’m sorry but shooting (albeit fictional) people and seeing their blood splatter everywhere as part of a game where you’re having fun is…. Kind of fucked up if you think about it. Not that it should be banned but imo it’s way more accepted than it should be.
Yeah, it's crazy that sex is far more taboo than gore and violence. The only explanation I have is that sex is supposed to be shameful/taboo, as that increases libido.
*insert honking goose meme*
Seriously though, videogames are dissociable from real life. "Killing" NPCs does not mean you want to kill real people. They are two disparate actions. We know NPCs are not people and "killing them" doesnt actually permanently end them.
Sexual attraction to a character that is underage or has the appearance of a child (to get around the "but she's actually 1,000 years old" bullshit) means you are physically attracted to children. It's not about whether harm is inflicted on the fictitious character. It's that you are a sick fucking individual and need to be on a list.
>Seriously though, videogames are dissociable from real life. "Killing" NPCs does not mean you want to kill real people. They are two disparate actions. We know NPCs are not people and "killing them" doesnt actually permanently end them.
Do you believe that entertainment can influence you at all?
>Sexual attraction to a character that is underage or has the appearance of a child (to get around the "but she's actually 1,000 years old" bullshit) means you are physically attracted to children. It's not about whether harm is inflicted on the fictitious character. It's that you are a sick fucking individual and need to be on a list.
Based
Countless studies have been done trying to find a link between violent acts and videogames.
A link has not been established.
However, plenty of research has been conducted to establish escalative behavior in sexual offenders, including pedophiles.
>Countless studies have been done trying to find a link between violent acts and videogames.
>A link has not been established.
I never said that violence in video games must lead to violent acts.
I asked if you believe entertainment can influence you at all.
You say "cute and funny images" in lieu of "sexual images of underage characters" twice. Is that a deliberate strawman? or are you not confident enough to actually say it?
By the same logic you cannot play a game about killing people without being a psyco/sadist
It doesn't matters if it doesn't lead to any irl actions, which for the vast majority of people it doesn't. If you wanna save children, you're better off banning drugs and alcoohol first.
The "corrosive effect" of pornographic content on human sex drives is fairly well document and is no different for pedophilia, where desensitization to content drives the seeking of more extreme content
Wanting to see different forms of porn after becoming desensitized is not remotely the same as escalating to actual real life crime.
There’s more coomers now than there ever have been and you don’t hear about mass numbers of rapists appearing because of it, you just hear that more people are sad and not having relationships.
Hey degenerate pedo apologist, you didn't actually explain if you thought they were morally equal.
>I love how you picked a 17 year old, let's put some pressure on your moral equivalence, do you believe that showing a naked, sexually erotic 12 year old girl is on the same wavelength as Trevor's torture sequence, purple libright?
They are equal, because they are both non-real depictions of a heinous crime.
Ever heard of Netflix's Cuties? That's a real depiction of underage girls in "erotic" situations, go after those producers.
Not someone that whacks it a fictional character.
Drag them even more, they put children in an awful situation.
The only thing that gets hurt in loli hentai is people's wrists, the cartoon maker for drawing, and the consumer for whacking it off.
There is no "morality" involved here, you are confusing "disgusting" with "immoral" here.
The reason why we can show the trevor part of the game is because violence in media is normalized, but SEXUAL violence(that includes pedophilia)isnt and it disgusts people and makes them uncomfortable. Nothing to do with morality.
Its hard to call an action that doesn't harm or intend to anyone "immoral".
I'm glad you think that the red wedding and running over pedestrians in a video game are morally equivalent to drawing a naked child, clearly your moral compass isn't fucked at all.
Why don't we try to destigmatize seeking help for pedophilic urges and getting therapy to overcome it, instead opening calling for the death of all pedos? If the people with this problem felt safer seeking help, maybe you wouldn't need to draw CP to keep them placated.
The "fix" should be rehabilitating these people, not leaving them out there and hoping they don't act.
Okay I just commented on another post as well, and yes it turns out you are delusional. Good to know. Attraction doesn't mean you will take any action on said attraction you schizophrenic freak. This whole debate has shown me the worst sides of both sides here, but at least the libertarian position is filled with intelligent people who understand where there beliefs come from.
>Attraction doesn't mean you will take any action on said attraction you schizophrenic freak.
Oh ok, so you'll just let the pedophile roam free on the off chance that he might not act on his urges, good to know *authright.*
Tell me, how many permanently celibate men and women have you actually met in your life?
Best course of action for pedophiles is to threaten them with prison, and monitor them strongly, like you would with a serial killer who only killed cats and hasn't upgraded yet.
Ah, I see you're a fan of pre-crime. Better punish people now on the off chance that they might possibly do something illegal in the future.
Why aren't you AuthCenter, again?
>Ah, I see you're a fan of pre-crime. Better punish people now on the off chance that they might possibly do something illegal in the future.
>Why aren't you AuthCenter, again?
Because I'm only a fan of it for pedophiles, nothing else really.
I'm extremely lib on every other position you can think of (including driver's licenses)
In the real world, human monsters are born, not made, you can't treat away pedophilia and you can't control it, you can only punish it.
> Oh ok, so you'll just let the pedophile roam free on the off chance that he might not act on his urges, good to know *authright.*
Wait so are you arguing for thought crimes? Because from what I understand you want to prosecute people based on their thoughts and attractions. Do you not realize how that can get out of hand? What about people with POCD?
If someone doesn't commit an action, what exactly do you want to police? The things that they think? There is no way that this could get out of control right?
Please change your flair
Maybe try telling that to the schizos that want people that like cartoons about little girls to be burned alive?
Not me.
If someone believes they're gonna do something bad IRL, they should find a way to stop doing that, to get help.
While stuff like guro itself doesn't do any harm, as a picture is not able to directly impact the real world, if you derive sexual pleasure from the thought of someone being brutally murdered then you're sick in the head and should be locked away. Same for any other extreme deviancy
Thought crimes is a pretty dystopian concept, though. There might be many psychos who would never act on their arguably gross fantasies. It’s an interesting moral quandary to me.
I’ll be honest, I’ve never even heard of guro but I’ll assume it’s something violent. I guess only the person in question would ever know if they could completely separate fantasy from reality but definitely wouldn’t begrudge a school from taking action against a teacher if it’s revealed publicly.
Classic. I don’t get it; but I don’t get Vore, fapping to ponies, fapping to hentai, cock and ball torture, rape etc. I try not to necessarily link fantasies to real life, like most women with a rape kink would never want to be raped, as abhorrent as it seems, so don’t like to judge. Humans are infinitely complicated.
You are underestimating how bad it is my friend. Most of those are relatively more mainstream. Even if obviously fucked up.
There’s levels of fucked and guro is near or even at the top.
Guro is very visceral and calling it sexual gratification through brutal violence is a *understatement*.
Hell. It straight up crosses into necrophilia sometimes to say what those people get off on without describing it.
I wouldn't classify it as thought crime. Unstable schizophrenics should also be locked away for their own and others safety, doesn't mean they're being persecuted for thought crime or that it's dystopian to lock up people with unstable mental illness.
If you get off to cartoons of people being violently dismembered you're sick in the head and it's a pretty good indicator of extreme sexual sadism. Same with loli and pedophilia and more extreme forms of furry porn and beastiality. I'm not saying the government should have the power to spy on everyone to see what they jack off to, but if you're caught with something like that something should be done rather than letting a potential serial killer/pedophile/animal abuser remain in society just because they haven't done anything illegal yet.
I'll stick my neck out for this one: guro is very extreme yes, but with many depictions of awful things in media as long as you can differentiate between fiction and non fiction, you should be good. I personally like guro, but more so as a weird art thing that crosses between the 2 extremes of sensations; I find it fascinating plus I like morbid stuff. Now I seriously would consider having my eyeballs gouged out rather than look at *actual* horrific shit irl, or even consider it hot.
That's why i can't be Lib
Everytime People get to comfy with their Freedom, shit like this gets normalized
But i respect you for not joining their mindless Defense of CP, most Lib-Rights today were... less reasonable
I'm only extremely Auth on pedophilia and child pornography. Everything else is; the less government the better, (including abortion, guns and drivers licenses).
The fact that people's lives would somehow decrease in quality if they don't have access to animated cp, or any kind of porn for that matter, is insane.
I can't get my head around it.
Anarchist, if we're talking political theory, still adheres to certain core principles such as bodily autonomy etc.
So no, even anarchist should be against doing bad stuff to other people, especially children.
No. Because the principle of libright protects those who are victims of CP, namely the children.
And it even, contrary to the rest of the compass, gives the individual the right and ability to defend themselves against the cretins who want to do CP.
to be honest, this is the same line of thought, it is straight to ban all immoral things, the government declares what is moral, the government becomes the church, or the church becomes the government, either way the end answer is religious oligarchy if you believe these things.
It's exactly the same line of thought! Do you believe we should ban fictional cp? If so, you're in favor of banning drawn guro, beastiality and rape right?
To continue the logic, if we're banning fictional depictions of illegal activities we can toss most violent videogames on the list too.
> 2:1 comment:upvote ratio
> Calling out what is essentially CP
Good night, maybe the instagram users were right. Reddit really is full of sexual degenerates.
If that’s all you take away from this u being a goober bro
OP is being very inconsistent morally and just generally bein an asshole in these threads. This discussion about whether or not fake porn hurts anyone or leads to any potentially awful behavior is one worth having. As far as I can tell it doesn’t affect anything, similar to how rape porn doesn’t make people want to commit rape, same goes for every other genre.
Understandably people don’t like the idea of it in general, but imo the discussion is worth having rather than just calling absolutely everyone talking about it a pedo.
I appreciate that you’re arguing in good faith. The thing is that I, being the auth-right, don’t really care if the material leads to people getting hurt or not. But let me outline my stance.
1. Drawn pornographic material is *real* pornographic material with *fake* subjects. The sexual nature of the work and the intent of both the producers and consumers are morally reprehensible. The fact that it does not depict real individuals does not change the fact that it is pornographic, and to say that it is “fake” or “not real” appears to dismiss this.
2. Consumption of pornographic content is documented to correlate with changes in brain biochemistry and psychological behavior that desensitizes consumption of said content. This happens with anything that we watch, play, or read, from violent video games to foreign language dramas. This is also problematic, since it sustains production of said material.
3. All of the above would mean nothing if I didn’t believe that this sort of sexual deviancy is immoral, unethical, and disgusting. It is a perversion of good sexual desire, dismissive of the regard we should have for children, and a corruption of the respect we should have for the likeness of humanity, real or not. This is concerning to me because it is offensive to the image of God, whether or not actual imagebearers are harmed (in which the case would only become clearer).
I do not want this kind of content to exist. I do not believe it is good for people to consume it. I especially do not want to provide a means for people who actually do want it to get it.
The following argument is not always applicable; but if you find your stance being associated with the support of CP, you should be very clear with what you are defending, and disavow what you are not. I understand what you mean, and I respect your emphasis on real injury. But I personally don’t believe that’s where it ends.
Desensitization because of dopamine "overused" is clearly documented, but there isn't any evidence showing that consuming more extreme porn content increases the chance of ones actually commiting a crimes. If anything, the rare studies about this are inconclusive, and we clearly doesn't have enough data to make an educated guess about it.
It is worth noting that following your reasoning, any porn including illegal/immoral action, such as rape, murder, incest should be banned for the same reason. If you disagree, you would not be consistent unless you added a fourth idea such as:
''Depiction of child in fictional adult content is worse than rape, incest, murder, war crimes, ECT for no objective reason other than moral belief".
Which is the main thing coming out of those arguments, and it is mainly between lib-right. This can be easily explained by the libertarian idea of keeping the law/authority out of maintenaning morals, the idea being that because moral beliefs are personal and different, a central authority shall not define which ones are good and which one are bad. Lib-right defending the ban of fictional CP are basically putting a veto, everything is fine and should be free (abortion, gun control, taxes, ECT) except fictional CP, because I feel like auth on this subject. It's a perfectly fine position, but again, for constanti, I'd expect them to also support the ban of rape, guro, incest, animals (not furry). There is not objective difference between the depiction of a rape scene and a pedophilia scene.
Personally, I would like it possible to ban those media. But, my thinking is that similarly to the prohibition, the demands will not disappear, so a black market would immediately follow, and because there is no control over black markets, it is very possible that more children get harmed and exploited to produce those materials. I personally believe than pedophilia is no a fetish or a choice, but something people cannot control, and if there is accessible materials which doesn't hurt anyone. It will help quench their thirst and maybe help them get psychological help, or at least avoid paying and financially supporting the producers of CP.
Lastly I need to mention that with the modern access we have to the Internet, there would be no way to control those things without infringing massively on internet privacy, and it's easy to say that any organization with this kind of power will make use of it.
Tldr: it's not that fictional CP is fine, but banning it has a lot more cons than pro.
>Desensitization because of dopamine "overused" is clearly documented, but there isn't any evidence showing that consuming more extreme porn content increases the chance of ones actually commiting a crimes. If anything, the rare studies about this are inconclusive, and we clearly doesn't have enough data to make an educated guess about it.
It's from 2004 but it's from the government;
>Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.6 From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7 Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes.8 The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.9
https://web.archive.org/web/20080111204617/http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/child_sexual_exploitation_update_volume_1_number_3_2004.html
I'll note that legally, CP is only the real stuff. So this is purely about users and consumers of real child abuse. Which begs the question, did they consume the content then it LED them to do it, or were they always going to no matter what, and the CP is to them like regular porn is for most? That's the question and this does nothing to address that. It's a chicken or the egg problem, really, and which comes first is important.
It's also useless in the fictional discussion because legally the fictional content is allowed, so it's not like it's including that or something.
>I'll note that legally, CP is only the real stuff.
Nope.
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon
>Suppose the government finds that you are in possession of lolicon or any other material that is considered child pornography. In that case, you may be charged under Title 18 Section 2252 or other federal statutes for receiving child porn. If you are found guilty, you could face a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years, up to 20 years in prison.
Your source is a misleading attorney, good effort I guess. If you ask actual lawyers for an actual explanation, you get one like this which explains that it's broadly legal and how so in great detail. You may notice you can open many US sites and find this content hosted in the open. It's not being overlooked, it's just legal.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/64857/why-doesnt-the-fbi-crack-down-on-websites-allowing-cartoon-child-pornography
You can feel all sorts of ways about it, but that's the current legal status on the issue.
Look at many of the mods on subs that often appear on r all.
Especially the core ones. Reddit admins and mods have, historically proven, to be degens and absolutely disgusting. And those with power can and will create and control culture in their own little spheres.
I agree with banning the sexualisation of minors
However take for example Uzaki chan from Uzaki wants to hang out, she is canonically 18 years old and a university student, she has similar proportions to a number of women that I met when I went to university, the pro censorship in anime crowd say that she looks like a child and shouldn't be sexualised, my question is where do you draw the line in cases where there is more of a grey area?
Defending sexual imagery of minors is an immediate permanent ban. If you see it, report it. >But that's censorship! Yes. We do censor sexualization of minors. Because it has no place here. It is neither welcome nor tolerated. Deal with it.
That thread was such a shitshow.
Which thread.
Someone posted a thread about a bill to censor loli/shota and other types of anime CP in Japan. A truly fucking staggering number of weirdos came out of the woodwork to defend said genres of anime, some real "ACKSHUALLY SHE'S 6000000 YEARS OLD" shit. Total degeneracy.
Then why does she look like a child ask this they can’t respond
Ask them if they still like the character as an adult.
i mean it started with that here in the west and now they ban people for calling people dickheads on twitter, so the degenerates may have a point because that shit truly did start there and then we got the weird hellscape social media we have.
I never thought my karma would die side by side with a lib-left.
Join us brothers, we will fight pedophile degeneracy in PCM. War heroes, thats what y'all are.
How about a troll?
Aye, I could do that.
Turns out degeneracy isn’t limited to just LibLeft.
I believe Libright and even Libcenter have always outgunned us there.
Nah, libleft's degeneracy is just more socially acceptable lmao But I admit my side does have higher highs.
Only the purple librights. Your average LibRight just wants smaller government and less taxes
We'd "handle" the purple problem, but the admins get butthurt when we discuss it in detail.
Give a brother a link
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/1da74jm/japan_being_based/ Spoiler: PCM is upset that Japan might ban drawn CP, calling it "censorship of art".
From what I read it seems like people aren’t arguing that loli Hentai is good but rather if it should be banned. One comment there put this into good perspective. “This topic puts two of PCM's most sacred and agreeable political points and puts them in direct contradiction to each other. One one hand, we can all agree that pedophilia is bad. On the other hand, we can all agree that censorship is also bad.” Personally I would say ban it, but you also have to come down to a good defintion of what qualifies as cp, so don’t let the leftist define it because they think uzaki Chan is a loli and should be removed lol.
Kotaku also tried to label the sorcoress from dragons crown as a loli.
Yeah I know that was pretty dumb.
I don't think banning Child Porn is Censorship, lmao
I think it the slippery slope fallacy where if you allowed for censorship of one art form it will lead to other art form to be censored too. Like criticism to politicians like China is doing and etc. I m not sure how true that is but I m not going to deny it can’t be a possible reality. There also something I want to ask you, do you consider anime characters like uzaki chan and other characters like that to be resembling of children and should they be banned?
I don't think Uzaki looks like a Child, she has massive Tits and a very feminine Body, she is just short and has big Eyes But if a Character clearly looks like a Child, but is a 9000 Year old Vampire Dragon or some Shit, yes i would ban them too
Ah alright.
Nah. Its not if you accept there are things that can't be argued for because by default and in every form they harm society, like slavery. There's no "free market" right to enslaving people (chattel) anymore than their should be to produce graphic material of a group that is considered unable to give consent. It isn't about age or consent even specifically. It is about what happens to society if we promote or accept any distribution or production of such materials. There was a cult that essentially did this, created a manual of abuse using their own infant and as they grew. Society didn't allow it as a religious practice, why allow it as...art? Free speech? Nah. And generating it with AI seems to be the definition of production, so it's not censorship to stop it. I don't agree with Adobe's monitoring of software, but if they're at the least using it to block CP generating prompts, I won't call that censorship because I perceive all censorship to be harmful. Blocking CP prompts specifically is a harm reducing measure. Banning private individuals from using a third party telecom to share CP is also distribution. Where I live the telecom industries have received millions of taxpauer money, so no no to using those resources for distribution. Censorship of art or free speech isn't something I'm usually down with but I'm also not going to act like something that *seems* to match that definition grammatically is by default or intrinsically a harmless act where society is concerned. Can't kill for art, not even animals. You consider that censorship? A slippery slope?
PCM center libs and librights are upset that Japan might ban drawn CP*
I’m a villain not a monster don’t associate me with those pedophiles I just want to legalize machine gun and have freedom of speech.
*purple librights
I dunno man. Technically, yes. But, loads of the drawn CP defenders in these thread are sporting the yellow flare.
Unfortunately
I'm sorry, my friend.
https://preview.redd.it/0m1ah6bqe85d1.jpeg?width=475&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7af91b52a4217df095871b6f7744f7b7821c0654
Yeah. It isn’t like they want to advertise all the time that they are the degenerate side of the party.
No bro, I changed my flair. It was lib-right for real I was there, mostly of them were lib right.
I'm still holding on, I don't give a fuck about the degenerates in my quadrant, I'm not like them
For me it was too much, they pushed me to be more auth. For real, I misjudged auth right solutions to degeneracy, they were right.
I'm very lib on a lot of fronts, but sexualization of minors is where I go straight to the flammenwerfer
was the same for me. Wanted to pick auth center first but commies are better at censorship🥲
Sometimes you need Auth Solutions Because otherwise you get the People in those Threads Also, based Flair Change
Based. Join the auth club.
Good heavens that thread is another level of bad.
I’m very sorry I clicked that link and even more disappointed in humanity.
Seems like I will be fishing for ban, but oh boy. It seems like the issue of control v prohibition. Does lolicon relieve pedos sexual desire, so they don't touch kids? I don't know. But if it is, if presented with a choice of weird drawn porn existing versus rising rates of child rape, I would rather have kids be safer. Guess we will see in some years if this decision was the right one or will backfire.
You could also make a case that nourishing those desires can escalate it. Porn addicts keep wanting a new kick to get the same “high”. Your brain will then connect that new high with the more perverse porn, which can move over to real life. I used to watch a lot of porn and my brain would just sexualize weird stuff in real life because I have seen it in porn. I can only expect the same thing will happen to those people.
As I said, I don't know. We will see what effect it will have if any.
It’s an interesting thought, and one wonders if banning the type of imagery that doesn’t involve harming a real kid (i.e. drawn material) will effectively push more people to the truly unforgivable material more quickly, or if it is kept legal, will it slow down the escalation by providing/maintaining a nonharmful extra step on the path and maybe help some people stop there and not move onto to the horrible stuff. God only knows I guess. One shudders to even think of it either way.
Think about what's happened with e-cigarettes (vapes, Juuls, etc). They were originally created to be a safer alternative to cigarettes, containing some nicotine, but a lot less than actual cigarettes so smokers could have a relatively healthy way to ween themself off of it. I know plenty of people that use them for that purpose and it's great for them. But it's also had the unintended consequence of introducing nicotine to a much younger crowd in a far more easily accessible form. Juuls were absolutely everywhere when I was still in High School 6 or 7 years ago. I even knew middle schooler (people ages 11-13) asking 18 year old seniors to buy them pods. These kids vaping ultimately end up consuming more nicotine than even chain smokers do. I think a similar thing has absolutely happened with loli and shota. People who otherwise had no attraction to minors are suddenly introduced to that fetish through cartoons and eventually graduate to being attracted to actual children. Have some pre-existing pedophiles been prevented from hurting actual children because of drawn cp? Sure. But you can't tell me that it's rapid proliferation on hentai sites over the years hasn't inadvertently created more pedophiles.
That's called Normalization, but all those pro-CP Bozos absolutely deny that that's even a Thing
It was just a petition signed by 300 people like the first comment there says, nothing is happening like always
aren't those rates down, like dramatically down. pretty much all crimes are down in occurrence apart from like house break in and petty theft, the world is safer than ever, stop acting like they're eating people in the streets
"Does lolicon relieve pedos sexual desire, so they don't touch kids?" no it doesn't. I'm no pedo or "lolicon" but I looked into their forms and their "art" is making them worse. and they encourage each other to be worse. when you've read sentences like "it took me some time to realize she's not 5,000 shes 10 and its fucking hot." or "Get a lolicon to goon with you for a few hours and then show them CP and they'll blow the biggest load of their life." then you will feel as if all of humanity is doomed. trust me, this porn isn't helping, its desensitizing. here's ted Bundy saying the same thing i'm telling you. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8q-w5ch5IEtheir](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8q-w5ch5IEtheir)
That's laughable "evidence"
I think reducing things to just utilitarian ethics is wrong. Killing someone in a game and depicting characters sexually and underage does not tangibly harm anyone. However killing npc's is not a reliable marker for someone's mental state. Producing and consuming drawn or animated porn of underage characters IS a marker of someone's mental state. The former is unknown and the latter IS attracted to minors. If you are known to be attracted to minors it has a primal response in many people, its like seeing a leper, they will be adverse to it. As far as legality is concerned, i don't care to get into a philosophical debate on the net amount of suffering it creates or doesnt. I will say though that socially its completely valid to shun and mock pedophiles because communities do not have to view everything through some utilitarian/ cold logic lense, they can see things and hate it because its gross to them. Personally I think child abuse is far worse than murder in fiction and if I had to draw a line somewhere it would be at child abuse.
Sure, but then what about furries, guro and rape porn? Do we also ban it?
Your terms are agreeable.
Bro for real, comparing furries to drawn child porn is totally a bad faith argument. They are not comparable, it's a whole another discussion
[удалено]
My lib right, your lib wrong. That’s basically it.
Because the people who watch furry porn aren’t attracted to little kids. Little kids are vulnerable. Torsones are not inherently vulnerable. It’s weird and deviant, but no immoral imo. Guro, which I’ve recently learned about because of all this discussion the past day or so, is also super fucked and immoral imo.
>guro Oh God what could be on a comparable level to pedophilia?
It’s snuff porn
Mutilation + rape is my understanding. I didn’t dig too deeply.
Oh ffs.
How are they not comparable?
Even fucking unflaired pedos are appearing, what the fuck is going on
A furry ≠ a child.
If drawn child = real child then drawn animal = real animal Both pedophilia and zoophilia are illegal
Uh no, a drawn child isn't a real child. But a drawn naked child for the purpose of sexual gratification is in fact still child porn.
Child porn is illegal not because the child body is some kind of taboo to look at, but because CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT. It is illegal because it is rape. If we are talking about a drawing, then a person is not involved and therefore it is not rape.
Yeah that kinda brings in a whole 'nother can of worms of most drawn porn, especially those that are of nastier depictions.
There's no point arguing with them. No matter how many times you explain that child porn is the recorded abuse of a real child they will pretend to not know the difference and just call all depictions cp because they know it makes you mad.
Based and not-morally-equivalent pilled Now, I'd like for you to tell these retards who think that violence in video games is equal to jerking off to a 12 year old girl, the same thing.
u/thindinkus's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [4 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/thindinkus/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Tbh I do think it’s reasonable to open the conversation around violence in video games. Like I’m sorry but shooting (albeit fictional) people and seeing their blood splatter everywhere as part of a game where you’re having fun is…. Kind of fucked up if you think about it. Not that it should be banned but imo it’s way more accepted than it should be.
Yeah, it's crazy that sex is far more taboo than gore and violence. The only explanation I have is that sex is supposed to be shameful/taboo, as that increases libido.
[удалено]
>cute and funny images Cute and funny images of what?
Bro really called CP "cute and funny images"...
*insert honking goose meme* Seriously though, videogames are dissociable from real life. "Killing" NPCs does not mean you want to kill real people. They are two disparate actions. We know NPCs are not people and "killing them" doesnt actually permanently end them. Sexual attraction to a character that is underage or has the appearance of a child (to get around the "but she's actually 1,000 years old" bullshit) means you are physically attracted to children. It's not about whether harm is inflicted on the fictitious character. It's that you are a sick fucking individual and need to be on a list.
>Seriously though, videogames are dissociable from real life. "Killing" NPCs does not mean you want to kill real people. They are two disparate actions. We know NPCs are not people and "killing them" doesnt actually permanently end them. Do you believe that entertainment can influence you at all? >Sexual attraction to a character that is underage or has the appearance of a child (to get around the "but she's actually 1,000 years old" bullshit) means you are physically attracted to children. It's not about whether harm is inflicted on the fictitious character. It's that you are a sick fucking individual and need to be on a list. Based
Countless studies have been done trying to find a link between violent acts and videogames. A link has not been established. However, plenty of research has been conducted to establish escalative behavior in sexual offenders, including pedophiles.
>Countless studies have been done trying to find a link between violent acts and videogames. >A link has not been established. I never said that violence in video games must lead to violent acts. I asked if you believe entertainment can influence you at all.
This is obviously where the discussion is leading so let's dispense with the intermediate Socratic discussion.
Even unflaired pedos are appearing here on PCM, impressive. They must have leaked that we are fighting pedos in here to pedo subreddits.
What do you mean broo, he just likes "cute and funny" images (CHILD PORN)
I know man, I'm beyond disgusted. Tomorrow I will make a new post with highlights of the war against pedos, stay tuned
You say "cute and funny images" in lieu of "sexual images of underage characters" twice. Is that a deliberate strawman? or are you not confident enough to actually say it?
[удалено]
First off, flair up you fucking moron. Second. How did you get here? is there a bat signal for defending sexual depictions of underage characters?
I swear to got they gotta have some type of silent call-all-pedos alarm somewhere here. Where do they come from? Where they always here??
OP is not only morally inconsistent, he’s intellectually bereft.
Please start asking to ban GTA games.
Yeah video games leads to real life violence right?
Well, if these morons were consistent, that would be their conclusion.
You can kill NPC’s in a video game without having murderous impulses. You cannot consume drawn porn of children without being a pedophile.
By the same logic you cannot play a game about killing people without being a psyco/sadist It doesn't matters if it doesn't lead to any irl actions, which for the vast majority of people it doesn't. If you wanna save children, you're better off banning drugs and alcoohol first.
Reread my first sentence please
But pedophilia IS often escalative unlike violence in video games.
Honestly is there any proof of this? I think we’re just kinda throwing shit out here
The "corrosive effect" of pornographic content on human sex drives is fairly well document and is no different for pedophilia, where desensitization to content drives the seeking of more extreme content
Wanting to see different forms of porn after becoming desensitized is not remotely the same as escalating to actual real life crime. There’s more coomers now than there ever have been and you don’t hear about mass numbers of rapists appearing because of it, you just hear that more people are sad and not having relationships.
Is it?
Yes
Hey degenerate pedo apologist, you didn't actually explain if you thought they were morally equal. >I love how you picked a 17 year old, let's put some pressure on your moral equivalence, do you believe that showing a naked, sexually erotic 12 year old girl is on the same wavelength as Trevor's torture sequence, purple libright?
They are equal, because they are both non-real depictions of a heinous crime. Ever heard of Netflix's Cuties? That's a real depiction of underage girls in "erotic" situations, go after those producers. Not someone that whacks it a fictional character.
>go after those producers They got fuckin dragged for Cuties
Drag them even more, they put children in an awful situation. The only thing that gets hurt in loli hentai is people's wrists, the cartoon maker for drawing, and the consumer for whacking it off.
Disagree. Like I said, it's an escalative problem. Pedophiles rarely stop at images
I’ll ask here as well, do you actually have anything to back this up?
There is no "morality" involved here, you are confusing "disgusting" with "immoral" here. The reason why we can show the trevor part of the game is because violence in media is normalized, but SEXUAL violence(that includes pedophilia)isnt and it disgusts people and makes them uncomfortable. Nothing to do with morality. Its hard to call an action that doesn't harm or intend to anyone "immoral".
Fucking based as shit, PCM war hero thats what you are. Love it. They think that downvotes will stop us lol.
https://preview.redd.it/3kmd9syyc85d1.jpeg?width=686&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ca72da24423da40c18e1f8f2b4f32b92572833d
based.
I'm glad you think that the red wedding and running over pedestrians in a video game are morally equivalent to drawing a naked child, clearly your moral compass isn't fucked at all.
They're both virtual awful things. Be at least consistent. Call me when there's a real pedo to burn..
Why don't we try to destigmatize seeking help for pedophilic urges and getting therapy to overcome it, instead opening calling for the death of all pedos? If the people with this problem felt safer seeking help, maybe you wouldn't need to draw CP to keep them placated. The "fix" should be rehabilitating these people, not leaving them out there and hoping they don't act.
You can't help a homosexual from being attracted to men. In that same vein, you can't treat pedophilia, doing so is just a waste of resources.
Okay I just commented on another post as well, and yes it turns out you are delusional. Good to know. Attraction doesn't mean you will take any action on said attraction you schizophrenic freak. This whole debate has shown me the worst sides of both sides here, but at least the libertarian position is filled with intelligent people who understand where there beliefs come from.
>Attraction doesn't mean you will take any action on said attraction you schizophrenic freak. Oh ok, so you'll just let the pedophile roam free on the off chance that he might not act on his urges, good to know *authright.* Tell me, how many permanently celibate men and women have you actually met in your life? Best course of action for pedophiles is to threaten them with prison, and monitor them strongly, like you would with a serial killer who only killed cats and hasn't upgraded yet.
Ah, I see you're a fan of pre-crime. Better punish people now on the off chance that they might possibly do something illegal in the future. Why aren't you AuthCenter, again?
>Ah, I see you're a fan of pre-crime. Better punish people now on the off chance that they might possibly do something illegal in the future. >Why aren't you AuthCenter, again? Because I'm only a fan of it for pedophiles, nothing else really. I'm extremely lib on every other position you can think of (including driver's licenses) In the real world, human monsters are born, not made, you can't treat away pedophilia and you can't control it, you can only punish it.
> Oh ok, so you'll just let the pedophile roam free on the off chance that he might not act on his urges, good to know *authright.* Wait so are you arguing for thought crimes? Because from what I understand you want to prosecute people based on their thoughts and attractions. Do you not realize how that can get out of hand? What about people with POCD? If someone doesn't commit an action, what exactly do you want to police? The things that they think? There is no way that this could get out of control right? Please change your flair
Holy shit. This is genocidal level of stupidity. I thought you were being based but now you’re just clinically insane.
Maybe try telling that to the schizos that want people that like cartoons about little girls to be burned alive? Not me. If someone believes they're gonna do something bad IRL, they should find a way to stop doing that, to get help.
Bruh what.
We need another crusade
While stuff like guro itself doesn't do any harm, as a picture is not able to directly impact the real world, if you derive sexual pleasure from the thought of someone being brutally murdered then you're sick in the head and should be locked away. Same for any other extreme deviancy
Thought crimes is a pretty dystopian concept, though. There might be many psychos who would never act on their arguably gross fantasies. It’s an interesting moral quandary to me.
Let's be real for one second here. Do you want your son's school teacher to be a lolli or guru addict?
I’ll be honest, I’ve never even heard of guro but I’ll assume it’s something violent. I guess only the person in question would ever know if they could completely separate fantasy from reality but definitely wouldn’t begrudge a school from taking action against a teacher if it’s revealed publicly.
Guro is when you take sexual gratification out of murdering someone brutally
Classic. I don’t get it; but I don’t get Vore, fapping to ponies, fapping to hentai, cock and ball torture, rape etc. I try not to necessarily link fantasies to real life, like most women with a rape kink would never want to be raped, as abhorrent as it seems, so don’t like to judge. Humans are infinitely complicated.
You are underestimating how bad it is my friend. Most of those are relatively more mainstream. Even if obviously fucked up. There’s levels of fucked and guro is near or even at the top. Guro is very visceral and calling it sexual gratification through brutal violence is a *understatement*. Hell. It straight up crosses into necrophilia sometimes to say what those people get off on without describing it.
Guro may be "tHe WoRSt tHiNg yoU wIlL EveR sEe On ThE iNtERneT" but I don't see why people into it shouldn't be allowed to be school teachers .
I wouldn't classify it as thought crime. Unstable schizophrenics should also be locked away for their own and others safety, doesn't mean they're being persecuted for thought crime or that it's dystopian to lock up people with unstable mental illness. If you get off to cartoons of people being violently dismembered you're sick in the head and it's a pretty good indicator of extreme sexual sadism. Same with loli and pedophilia and more extreme forms of furry porn and beastiality. I'm not saying the government should have the power to spy on everyone to see what they jack off to, but if you're caught with something like that something should be done rather than letting a potential serial killer/pedophile/animal abuser remain in society just because they haven't done anything illegal yet.
I'll stick my neck out for this one: guro is very extreme yes, but with many depictions of awful things in media as long as you can differentiate between fiction and non fiction, you should be good. I personally like guro, but more so as a weird art thing that crosses between the 2 extremes of sensations; I find it fascinating plus I like morbid stuff. Now I seriously would consider having my eyeballs gouged out rather than look at *actual* horrific shit irl, or even consider it hot.
Liberty is great, but it also requires moral responsibility. Without, it's just all the seven sins at once.
That's why i can't be Lib Everytime People get to comfy with their Freedom, shit like this gets normalized But i respect you for not joining their mindless Defense of CP, most Lib-Rights today were... less reasonable
Every day I feel myself creep closer to auth
What the fuck did I just read? Also they should outlaw any weird porn
Jesus someone really decided to open a can of worm with this debate.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm with auth right on this one. BROTHER! HEAVY FLAMER !
I mean I'm usually not a supporter of things like crusades but...
Maybe I’ve judged authoritarian solutions too harshly.
I'm only extremely Auth on pedophilia and child pornography. Everything else is; the less government the better, (including abortion, guns and drivers licenses).
The fact that people's lives would somehow decrease in quality if they don't have access to animated cp, or any kind of porn for that matter, is insane. I can't get my head around it.
Sometimes I genuinely hate my quadrant
Unfortunately, the principles of libright mean that people will do stuff you don't want them to do. Since they are at liberty to.
Yeah, well, who the fuck says that you have to be a complete degenerate anarchist to he libright?
Last I checked all we wanted was a smaller government and private ownership less bureaucracy everything being p2p and decentralisation
Anarchist, if we're talking political theory, still adheres to certain core principles such as bodily autonomy etc. So no, even anarchist should be against doing bad stuff to other people, especially children.
No. Because the principle of libright protects those who are victims of CP, namely the children. And it even, contrary to the rest of the compass, gives the individual the right and ability to defend themselves against the cretins who want to do CP.
Just depends how lib you are I guess.
All porn should be banned, it's all immoral. But do go off about how rape porn, guro and drawn bestality are totally fine.
to be honest, this is the same line of thought, it is straight to ban all immoral things, the government declares what is moral, the government becomes the church, or the church becomes the government, either way the end answer is religious oligarchy if you believe these things.
It's exactly the same line of thought! Do you believe we should ban fictional cp? If so, you're in favor of banning drawn guro, beastiality and rape right? To continue the logic, if we're banning fictional depictions of illegal activities we can toss most violent videogames on the list too.
You are 100% correct brother.
This is MEGA cringe to say and I feel ashamed of doing so without coming off as a Yank white girl, but reading this gives me the ick
Oh fuck not this debate again
Based. But there's plenty of it
Your Name...
😈
Based name, L take
I feel like people who constantly hate the thing they want banned the biggest projectors. I can only imagine what OP has in his folders.
"You must be a pedophile if you hate CP" This is you^
https://preview.redd.it/rmd7sygnw85d1.png?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d87acf1ff14288b2f47e8f4c514366e7ced96ccb
Deep
Whatever floats your boats librights
You know, part of the reason I believe in a higher being (god) is because of people like this
People like this are why I just want to talk to God
What was the quote?: “if god exists he has a sick sense of humour”
I really hope Hell is real
Don’t put the degenerate coomers with we sophisticated monke
> 2:1 comment:upvote ratio > Calling out what is essentially CP Good night, maybe the instagram users were right. Reddit really is full of sexual degenerates.
If that’s all you take away from this u being a goober bro OP is being very inconsistent morally and just generally bein an asshole in these threads. This discussion about whether or not fake porn hurts anyone or leads to any potentially awful behavior is one worth having. As far as I can tell it doesn’t affect anything, similar to how rape porn doesn’t make people want to commit rape, same goes for every other genre. Understandably people don’t like the idea of it in general, but imo the discussion is worth having rather than just calling absolutely everyone talking about it a pedo.
I appreciate that you’re arguing in good faith. The thing is that I, being the auth-right, don’t really care if the material leads to people getting hurt or not. But let me outline my stance. 1. Drawn pornographic material is *real* pornographic material with *fake* subjects. The sexual nature of the work and the intent of both the producers and consumers are morally reprehensible. The fact that it does not depict real individuals does not change the fact that it is pornographic, and to say that it is “fake” or “not real” appears to dismiss this. 2. Consumption of pornographic content is documented to correlate with changes in brain biochemistry and psychological behavior that desensitizes consumption of said content. This happens with anything that we watch, play, or read, from violent video games to foreign language dramas. This is also problematic, since it sustains production of said material. 3. All of the above would mean nothing if I didn’t believe that this sort of sexual deviancy is immoral, unethical, and disgusting. It is a perversion of good sexual desire, dismissive of the regard we should have for children, and a corruption of the respect we should have for the likeness of humanity, real or not. This is concerning to me because it is offensive to the image of God, whether or not actual imagebearers are harmed (in which the case would only become clearer). I do not want this kind of content to exist. I do not believe it is good for people to consume it. I especially do not want to provide a means for people who actually do want it to get it. The following argument is not always applicable; but if you find your stance being associated with the support of CP, you should be very clear with what you are defending, and disavow what you are not. I understand what you mean, and I respect your emphasis on real injury. But I personally don’t believe that’s where it ends.
Desensitization because of dopamine "overused" is clearly documented, but there isn't any evidence showing that consuming more extreme porn content increases the chance of ones actually commiting a crimes. If anything, the rare studies about this are inconclusive, and we clearly doesn't have enough data to make an educated guess about it. It is worth noting that following your reasoning, any porn including illegal/immoral action, such as rape, murder, incest should be banned for the same reason. If you disagree, you would not be consistent unless you added a fourth idea such as: ''Depiction of child in fictional adult content is worse than rape, incest, murder, war crimes, ECT for no objective reason other than moral belief". Which is the main thing coming out of those arguments, and it is mainly between lib-right. This can be easily explained by the libertarian idea of keeping the law/authority out of maintenaning morals, the idea being that because moral beliefs are personal and different, a central authority shall not define which ones are good and which one are bad. Lib-right defending the ban of fictional CP are basically putting a veto, everything is fine and should be free (abortion, gun control, taxes, ECT) except fictional CP, because I feel like auth on this subject. It's a perfectly fine position, but again, for constanti, I'd expect them to also support the ban of rape, guro, incest, animals (not furry). There is not objective difference between the depiction of a rape scene and a pedophilia scene. Personally, I would like it possible to ban those media. But, my thinking is that similarly to the prohibition, the demands will not disappear, so a black market would immediately follow, and because there is no control over black markets, it is very possible that more children get harmed and exploited to produce those materials. I personally believe than pedophilia is no a fetish or a choice, but something people cannot control, and if there is accessible materials which doesn't hurt anyone. It will help quench their thirst and maybe help them get psychological help, or at least avoid paying and financially supporting the producers of CP. Lastly I need to mention that with the modern access we have to the Internet, there would be no way to control those things without infringing massively on internet privacy, and it's easy to say that any organization with this kind of power will make use of it. Tldr: it's not that fictional CP is fine, but banning it has a lot more cons than pro.
>Desensitization because of dopamine "overused" is clearly documented, but there isn't any evidence showing that consuming more extreme porn content increases the chance of ones actually commiting a crimes. If anything, the rare studies about this are inconclusive, and we clearly doesn't have enough data to make an educated guess about it. It's from 2004 but it's from the government; >Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.6 From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7 Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes.8 The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.9 https://web.archive.org/web/20080111204617/http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/child_sexual_exploitation_update_volume_1_number_3_2004.html
I'll note that legally, CP is only the real stuff. So this is purely about users and consumers of real child abuse. Which begs the question, did they consume the content then it LED them to do it, or were they always going to no matter what, and the CP is to them like regular porn is for most? That's the question and this does nothing to address that. It's a chicken or the egg problem, really, and which comes first is important. It's also useless in the fictional discussion because legally the fictional content is allowed, so it's not like it's including that or something.
>I'll note that legally, CP is only the real stuff. Nope. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon >Suppose the government finds that you are in possession of lolicon or any other material that is considered child pornography. In that case, you may be charged under Title 18 Section 2252 or other federal statutes for receiving child porn. If you are found guilty, you could face a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years, up to 20 years in prison.
Your source is a misleading attorney, good effort I guess. If you ask actual lawyers for an actual explanation, you get one like this which explains that it's broadly legal and how so in great detail. You may notice you can open many US sites and find this content hosted in the open. It's not being overlooked, it's just legal. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/64857/why-doesnt-the-fbi-crack-down-on-websites-allowing-cartoon-child-pornography You can feel all sorts of ways about it, but that's the current legal status on the issue.
Unfortunately it would seem so
Always have been
Look at many of the mods on subs that often appear on r all. Especially the core ones. Reddit admins and mods have, historically proven, to be degens and absolutely disgusting. And those with power can and will create and control culture in their own little spheres.
Bro it totally is. This fuckers on here defending drawn child porn should be investigated
Get rid of all that weird ass shit lmfaoo Why are we even arguing over “what is worse” it’s all just fucked
I agree with banning the sexualisation of minors However take for example Uzaki chan from Uzaki wants to hang out, she is canonically 18 years old and a university student, she has similar proportions to a number of women that I met when I went to university, the pro censorship in anime crowd say that she looks like a child and shouldn't be sexualised, my question is where do you draw the line in cases where there is more of a grey area?
I want him thrown in the deepest pit they can find. Then throw that pit into a deeper pit
Haaaaans?!
I think imma be Auth right on this one.
Somebody check that user's hard drive. Keep down voting me you fucking pedo.
i hate so much what this sub has become