Nocilol

[devonin]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

shox, again, what about the people who use loli as a legal outlet for wanting to get their rocks off to kids? Were that illegal, too, what's to stop them from going straight to the CP source?

A watery argument, sure, but just as strong as your slippery slope, if you ask me.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

So as long as the people who are sexually aroused by little kids only look at fake drawings of little kids its okay, because if we made it illegal they -might- therefore be tempted to go after real little kids?

I mean, it's one thing to point out that you can't punish someone for a crime they -might- commit in the future, but its another to be functionally encouraging them to foster this sexual interest in little kids, but only think that's bad if they later on decide to act on it.

Nobody in Canada has even been convicted on child porn charges for -just- lolicon style imagery, but the -vast- majority of people convicted of possession of child porn have -both- not -just- real kids.

A connection between the two is there, and causal (Though I know someone is going to try and raise the usual and silly objection anyway)

[AOL_blows911]

Originally Posted by devonin

So as long as the people who are sexually aroused by little kids only look at fake drawings of little kids its okay, because if we made it illegal they -might- therefore be tempted to go after real little kids?

I mean, it's one thing to point out that you can't punish someone for a crime they -might- commit in the future, but its another to be functionally encouraging them to foster this sexual interest in little kids, but only think that's bad if they later on decide to act on it.

Nobody in Canada has even been convicted on child porn charges for -just- lolicon style imagery, but the -vast- majority of people convicted of possession of child porn have -both- not -just- real kids.

A connection between the two is there, and causal (Though I know someone is going to try and raise the usual and silly objection anyway)

I think the point he was making is that if both are illegal, then some people might go the whole nine yards straight to CP, rather than keep it at loli. I suppose some poeple might stay purely to loli, but I expect that more people would skip loli entirely for pure CP if they were both illegalized. And in the long run, whats better? Some pictures that are suggestive of CP or actual, abusive CP? I would say CP would be worse than loli, overall. Thats my take on it, anyway.

[GuidoHunter]

The only problem with loli is its connections to CP, and how the former might lead to the latter.

Do you really think that making loli illegal would at all reduce the CP problem enough to justify the blow delivered to free speech? Such a law would only target people who had never been exposed to loli or CP, who saw the loli and liked it, only looked at it because it was legal, did NOT find CP morally objectionable or have an issue with its being illegal, and decided to go after the CP for greater sexual gratification.

Anyone else would either go after or refuse to touch CP regardless of whether or not the loli was legal.

Am I missing something?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[All_That_Chaz]

yay, Guido and I can agree on something!

[Squeek]

Shox, Loli is illegal for registered sex offenders.

I forgot the guy's name, but he's in jail now. He ordered loli manga from Japan and it was intercepted at the airport and confiscated. He had a criminal background as a sex offender, so he was punished.

[archbishopjabber]

It seems like I was able to start off a lively debate. I think basically anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not infringe upon another persons rights and does not harm the environment. I'm not a huge fan of this sort of thing but hey, it's not bothering me if some creepy fifty year old is doing some hand to gland combat in his mothers basement to a crudely drawn five year old. That's his business. Now if the artist had a five year old pose... that is a different story...

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by djshox

Yeah but that argument goes both ways. Sooner or later some sick guy is going to get bored of drawings and computer images and want more and more to have the real thing.

Well, he would have just gone to real photographs of children if he didn't even know that lolicon existed.

It's like with drugs. If someone is interested in drugs, they'll probably try alcohol or marijuana first. However, if they didn't know about these, they'd just try coke or speed or meth.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

So as long as the people who are sexually aroused by little kids only look at fake drawings of little kids its okay, because if we made it illegal they -might- therefore be tempted to go after real little kids?

I mean, it's one thing to point out that you can't punish someone for a crime they -might- commit in the future, but its another to be functionally encouraging them to foster this sexual interest in little kids, but only think that's bad if they later on decide to act on it.

Yes, they are two different things. Brilliant observation. "Functionally encouraging", lol. And here I thought you of all people knew what was an abuse of language. Permissiveness is hardly encouragement for something people would do anyways, and there has never been a link shown between pornography and criminality, with the exception specifically being pornography which displays extreme violence. Snuff films and the like.

Another question for you to dodge: What harm is a thought or feeling independently of an action? If the answer is that the thought or feeling sometimes leads to an action, then what's your recourse for all the times it doesn't. Actually, what's your proof for a causative connection?

but the -vast- majority of people convicted of possession of child porn have -both- not -just- real kids.

Do you think perchance this has to do with the nature of the desires that bring these people to the material in the first place and not with some sort of magical animistic property of the subject material itself?

A connection between the two is there, and causal (Though I know someone is going to try and raise the usual and silly objection anyway)

You keep repeating this claim. How about proving it?

You've also continued to ignore the fundamental question in play behind the whole subject: What's wrong about lolicon, or about looking at lolicon, IN AND OF ITSELF?

[FishFishRevolution]

fukken saved

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Yes, they are two different things. Brilliant observation. "Functionally encouraging", lol. Permissiveness is hardly encouragement for something people would do anyways, and there has never been a link shown between pornography and criminality, with the exception specifically being pornography which displays extreme violence. Snuff films and the like.

I removed the personal shot as irellevant. Permissiveness is encouragement when what you're doing is giving permission for something that is illegal simply by changing the form slightly. People would "do it anyway"? It would be -illegal- for them to do it anyways, and if caught would be punished. So yes, giving them a legal out to engage in otherwise illegal behavior seems to go slightly past permissive to me.

What harm is a thought or feeling independently of an action? If the answer is that the thought or feeling sometimes leads to an action, then what's your recourse for all the times it doesn't.

I removed the personal shot as irellevant. You and I, we've already been over how we differ in the defintions of 'action' and 'inaction' A "thought or feeling" isn't independant of action, because it is an action. Choosing to not translate your desire into action is also an action. If you are -often- prone to thoughts of say, carefully plotting out how you would murder someone, or are often prone to sexual thoughts about young children, even if you never -act- on them, I'd still suggest that they are indicative of perhaps a greater problem for which you ought to seek help.

Do you think perchance this has to do with the nature of the desires that bring these people to the material in the first place and not with some sort of magical animistic property of the subject material itself?

I don't recall stating they had any magical properties at all. I rather think that the point I've been making is that the nature of the desires is inherantly problematic.

You've also continued to ignore the fundamental question in play behind the whole subject: What's wrong about lolicon, or about looking at lolicon, IN AND OF ITSELF?

I find the concept of being sexually aroused by young children to be deviant and inappropriate, and thus morally problematic. To me it doesn't matter whether you express your sexual desire for young children through media containing real children or just drawings of children, the desires in your head are most certainly not differentiating between the two, and just because you have a recourse to get yourself off legally while still indulging your desire for young children doesn't make it any less inappropriate in my mind.

I mean, as a means of doing so, I prefer that lolicon exist over child porn, but the lesser of two evils, while lesser, isn't therefore -good-

[devonin]

Originally Posted by FishFishRevolution

fukken saved

Please follow the rules of the forum listed as a sticky at the top of the forum section. Even in context of the discussion I have no idea what this post was supposed to signify, and it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion at hand.

[Chromer]

Look, all I've heard from this entire conversation is:

Pro-Lolis: "Looking at Lolicon isn't a crime because we're not acting on our desires but expressing them in another medium."

While the other side is saying:

Con-Lolis: "It doesn't matter, the fact that you are looking at Loli is wrong because it presents the chance that the action could be carried out by those who want to."

Well you know what I think?

Lolicon are drawings of naked children engaged in sexual acts. It is drawn by people who find the art engaging and exhilirating. It is not mine or your place to judge anyone despite your moralistic views. If you want to condemn Lolicon then go ahead and condemn the enitre Italian Renaissance for painting naked Cherubs aka. Children in their paintings. If you like Lolicon, okay. If you don't like lolicon, okay but don't try to explain why we shouldn't like it and why you're right and were wrong. As long as the medium is being used and is not expressed in a violent way towards children, it's fair game.

GG Crit Thinking. GG.

[devonin]

If you want to condemn Lolicon then go ahead and condemn the enitre Italian Renaissance for painting naked Cherubs aka. Children in their paintings.

That's rather akin to going to a nudist colony and calling all of them pornographers. A cartoon of a naked little kid having sex is nowhere near the same thing as including in a painting, cherubs who happen to be portrayed as flying nude babies.

There's a reason that before something in this medium can be called obscene, it is subjected to a test that includes, among other things, an investigation into the artistic worth of the piece in question, as well as whether 'in the opinion of the population at large' it portrays something objectionable.

Plenty of parents have photos of their baby in the bathtub, or running around the house with no diaper on. But to say that simply because it contains a naked child it is the same as a picture of a little kid being portrayed overtly sexually really doesn't work for me.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Permissiveness is encouragement when what you're doing is giving permission for something that is illegal simply by changing the form slightly. People would "do it anyway"? It would be -illegal- for them to do it anyways, and if caught would be punished. So yes, giving them a legal out to engage in otherwise illegal behavior seems to go slightly past permissive to me.

First of all, legality and morality are FAR from identical. Second of all, the nature of law is as a construct. Everything starts out unrestricted until a law is passed on it. Something which is unrestricted is definitionally, in terms of government, "permissive" not "encouraging".

And the form is most certainly not just slightly different, unless you seriously want to argue that removing the severe sexual, psychological, and physical abuse of children from the production process is an insignifacant variation.

I removed the personal shot as irellevant.

How is it either a personal shot or irrelevent to point out an action you've been taking which has to do with the fundamental question of this discussion? Or rather, an inaction, but considering you think action and inactions are both actions I see no reason not to treat you according to your own philosophy.

You and I, we've already been over how we differ in the defintions of 'action' and 'inaction' A "thought or feeling" isn't independant of action, because it is an action. Choosing to not translate your desire into action is also an action.

Yes, I remember clearly. You still haven't quite come to grips with the absurdity of this position, but no matter. Without removing this fallacious way of thinking from you I nonetheless have a way of rendering it incoherent. Answer this: How can an action with no result be immoral? In the discussion about railroads you had the fallback that the proximity of one (in)action and a seperate undesirable chain of events which could have been altered makes the two inseperable. Now you have no such recourse.

Or perhaps you will argue that one person is responsible for the actions of all who share anything in kind with him? How biblical this would be. Ultimately I just think you need to stop looking for a place where emotion and logic converge, because there is none.

If you are -often- prone to thoughts of say, carefully plotting out how you would murder someone, or are often prone to sexual thoughts about young children, even if you never -act- on them, I'd still suggest that they are indicative of perhaps a greater problem for which you ought to seek help.

I would suggest you seek help if you don't like these feelings, or if you feel yourself unable to avoid letting them drive you to action. Otherwise I see no fundamental problem with them. Suggesting that a person seeks help is in any instance fine; having them locked up in a lunatic asylum or in a prison for their thoughts is something I thoroughly oppose, and I also believe it's the inevitable outcome of following your conceptions of action and morality to their end.

I don't recall stating they had any magical properties at all. I rather think that the point I've been making is that the nature of the desires is inherantly problematic.

Right. And the desires are independent of the materials, even if they are capable of subjegating the materials unto themselves. However, the conception of objective problems that exist purely in an individual (which is to say, spawn no interactions with other individuals) is ultimately untenable in a very large number of ways.

I find the concept of being sexually aroused by young children to be deviant and inappropriate, and thus morally problematic.

"Deviant". "Inappropriate". I'm not sure I really understand. Are you suggesting the commonality of an affect is its justification? Or rather that its rarity is its criminality? Isn't appropriateness a matter of context, and if so how is something that exists purely inside the individual invalidated by a backdrop? Surely you don't mean to say the private innards of every man are public property!?

To me it doesn't matter whether you express your sexual desire for young children through media containing real children or just drawings of children, the desires in your head are most certainly not differentiating between the two, and just because you have a recourse to get yourself off legally while still indulging your desire for young children doesn't make it any less inappropriate in my mind.

I think, my friend, that you have yet to learn where your mind stops and the world begins.

I mean, as a means of doing so, I prefer that lolicon exist over child porn, but the lesser of two evils, while lesser, isn't therefore -good-

And what justification have you for the good in itself? Outside of the agreement of countless others, which in the end only means your subjective values match the larger context, not that they compose the only context and are thus objective.

Oh yeah, also:

the desires in your head are most certainly not differentiating between the two

Prove it. You've made claims of this nature repeatedly, as well as the claim of a causative relationship between loli and child porn. Put up or shut up.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

as well as whether 'in the opinion of the population at large' it portrays something objectionable.

And this alone suggests an objective evil? An evil in itself? This alone makes the private deviance of an individual (which could hardly be called deviance at all) the just and legitimate concern of society at large?

My friend, it is impossible that you are not mistaken, by why insist on the reality of truth at all?

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by devonin

Please follow the rules of the forum listed as a sticky at the top of the forum section. Even in context of the discussion I have no idea what this post was supposed to signify, and it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion at hand.

You don't understand the inner workings of the Internet, then.

It's not something anyone can explain, so I won't bother. Rest assured, it totally belongs in this thread even if it's a CT thread.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

First of all, legality and morality are FAR from identical. Second of all, the nature of law is as a construct. Everything starts out unrestricted until a law is passed on it. Something which is unrestricted is definitionally, in terms of government, "permissive" not "encouraging".

But outside the defintion in terms of government, you are saying "We think child porn is disgusting criminal behavior, but if it's a cartoon, it's peachy keen" And I just don't agree, whereas you do.

And the form is most certainly not just slightly different, unless you seriously want to argue that removing the severe sexual, psychological, and physical abuse of children from the production process is an insignifacant variation.

So if I could prove that a child was sufficiently intelligent, reasonable and self-aware to know what they were agreeing to, and the porn was in no way abusive, you would conditionally be okay with porn containing a minor? Or do you simply categorically state that all minors are not sufficiently intelligent, reasonable and self-aware? (I point in these cases to very intelligent and reasonable child actors of the like of Haley Joel Osmond or Dakota Fanning who in their early teens seem to me to be intellectually indistinguishable from plenty of adults)

How is it either a personal shot or irrelevent to point out an action you've been taking which has to do with the fundamental question of this discussion? Or rather, an inaction, but considering you think action and inactions are both actions I see no reason not to treat you according to your own philosophy.

You'll notice that I didn't remove "You still haven't addressed that question" but -did- remove "Here's another question for you to dodge" I assume you see the difference?

Answer this: How can an action with no result be immoral?

I dunno, I'd consider someone becoming sexually aroused, masturbating, and ejaculating while looking at pictures of young children to be a "result"

Or perhaps you will argue that one person is responsible for the actions of all who share anything in kind with him?

Er...no, that would be absurd.

I would suggest you seek help if you don't like these feelings, or if you feel yourself unable to avoid letting them drive you to action.

If I -don't- like the felings of having sex with little kids, or murdering people I should seek help?!

"Deviant". "Inappropriate". I'm not sure I really understand. Are you suggesting the commonality of an affect is its justification? Or rather that its rarity is its criminality? Isn't appropriateness a matter of context, and if so how is something that exists purely inside the individual invalidated by a backdrop? Surely you don't mean to say the private innards of every man are public property!?

I mean to say that just as many things about someone's 'private innards' are deemed inappropriate (A desire to murder people, an obsession with their own suicide and death, and so on) I think that being sexually aroused by little kids is also inappropriate behavior. Yes that's subjective, yes that's societal, but this entire discussion centres around a subjective societal construction anyway.


As I said, potentially several pages ago: For a large segment of the forum population, this whole discussion is a non issue. If you, personally, subjectively think that the -only- thing wrong with child porn as opposed to adult pornography is that children aren't able to make an intelligent reasoned decision to participate, then this whole discussion is moot, because obviously you won't see anything wrong with something that removes that sole objection.

There also appears to me to be no way to convince such a person that there is something intrinsically wrong with children in an overtly sexual context because if you don't believe that something can be intrinsically right or wrong, there is no way to provide you proof that you will accept.

[FishFishRevolution]

Originally Posted by devonin

Please follow the rules of the forum listed as a sticky at the top of the forum section. Even in context of the discussion I have no idea what this post was supposed to signify, and it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion at hand.

OH NO A CITIZEN'S ARREST

All the valid points have been beaten to death, and the only thing I have left to add is how odd it is that what was once a name, Lolita, is now a genre, all thanks to one book.

ps did you not notice that I am a moderator

pps it's a 4chan reference to cp

[devonin]

Originally Posted by FishFishRevolution

ps did you not notice that I am a moderator

And?

[FishFishRevolution]

Originally Posted by devonin

And?

And that I probably don't just go around spamming CT topics with irrelevant posts without good reason.