Nocilol

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Even if I feel it is justified for lolicon style imagery to qualify as child porn (which my country also seems to think) that doesn't mean that it should be treated in all instances as 100% identical either.

I mean, hitting someone is hitting someone, and there are a great many different types of assault charges.

Stop dodging the question. What's inherently harmful or immoral about lolicon imagery?

[Wlfwnd91]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

ps have you guys seen that guro ****? I'm pretty sure all of it is loli and that **** is brutal. Imagine murder + rape + S&M + loli. If you're gonna argue for anything to be illegal it should be that ****.

Guro can actually be very artistic and express a lot if it's done right. Yes, some is horribly done and just retarded, but if you find good guro it's an amazing art form.

[Wlfwnd91]

Originally Posted by djshox

Links to these studies please.

Anyways, as you say it does go in both directions, would you really want to take a chance and let the people who became more interested into pedophilia continue to look at lolicon until it no longer satisfies their desires and they finally take their sexual frustration out in the real world? Even if looking at lolicon reduces the desire in some people, the ones wanting more are more of a THREAT than they were before.

Also, there's no way you could correlate violent games to lolicon. Video games are for entertainment, not to satisfy sexual cravings. The industry is regulated so that parents are able to decide what's best for their children. They're simply pure entertainment value; nothing more, nothing less. However lolicon constitutes as a sexual satisfaction or a fetish.

It is very easy to correlate the two. Who would play a game like Grand Theft Auto (seems to be the popular one, so I'll use it) if some part of them didn't enjoy shooting innocent people, running red lets, or hell, driving through anything and everything they can find while trying to get away from the cops? If none of that lifestyle appealed to these kids or adults they wouldn't play the game. Some people find youth to be attractive, and that's the underlying factor of it all. The same as some enjoy the adrenaline rush of out-running a cop or killing a hooker to get their money back. It doesn't mean they're going to go out and do it, but there is the possibility that it feeds those urges and sets them over the edge, but in that case they had more underlying problems than a video game.

I enjoy loli, but I think child porn is disgusting and evil beyond a lot of things, and would have serious urges to slaughter anyone who engaged in it (but I wouldn't because I have *gasp* self control)

[Wlfwnd91]

Originally Posted by djshox

Like I said, video games are for entertainment only and everyone for the most part realizes that. Yes, there are a few who take it to the extremes and reenacts those acts in public and video games are taking the heat for it already, but this is dealing with a sexual desire.

Desires are desires, and the same as some people lose control of what's real and what's not with violent video games there's those who lose control of what's real and what's not with loli, but just because of a few bad apples you can't just outlaw something (well... I forgot that in America if one person screws up and blames it on something then that something is immediately banned.) All I'm saying is that, yes, loli may end up causing some to engage more-so in their desires, but for others it's simply an artform or an escape to feel like they can be themselves, and those are just 2 reasons some people may like it. There's certainly plenty more.

[Squeek]

It's not that they're condoning drawings of children involving sexual situations.

It's that it infringes on the Freedom of Speech.

That is why it was shot down in the Supreme Court four times.

Anyway, the biggest argument that anti-video game activists have is that we're all getting more and more violent because of games. I can look at the Department of Justice website and see the exact opposite. Around the same time PlayStation became popular, crime began to fall dramatically. That decline continues today, even after GTAII, VC, SA, and all of the violent FPS games to date.

Why? Kids are no longer bored enough to go out and buy/sell drugs or be in gangs. They have things to do. Games.

I could say the same here. It's a legal outlet that keeps sickos from affecting real children.

[devonin]

On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A which criminalizes both Miller Test obscene cartoon depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and, as noted by the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, cartoon depictions of a minor or what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) and need satisify only the third part of the Miller Test, that it lack serious artistic value. In February 2006, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year sentence in jail to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act

Originally Posted by The Miller test, for reference

- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
- Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary and/or artistic, political, or scientific value.

So evidentally, unless the depictions have "serious artistic value" they are not only illegal in the United States, but some legislators are looking to make it quite punitive.

[devonin]

Er...then how, in 2006 was a proposal put forward to -add- to that law, if that law had been struck down?

Edit: Further searching reveals:

On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The Williams court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable. The government did not appeal this ruling.

So even though it is in fact still illegal, it was ruled unconstitutional to stop you from trying to convince people that they ought to look at it.

[devonin]

Er...no, the addition I was talking about was Senator McCains that said "If you use the internet to violate the terms of the PROTECT act, you should get an additional 10-year minimum sentence."

[jamuko]

Shox, I don't think alcohol is really the best example for this. For one thing, it literally intoxicates you and causes you to not function as you normally would. Loli does no such thing... I don't even know how to compare the two. Bad things come of drunkenness because people are incapable of making the same good judgments they do when sober. Loli... really has no direct harmful effect.

And for the bigger loophole... even though there are restrictions, drinking is actually legal. But wait! They actually did decide to make it completely illegal one time! That worked pretty well, didn't it? Oh wait....

But seriously, I can't understand how you're making such a large distinction between this and violent video games. Pretty much every argument you've had could be applied to games as well. Sure, games are just "entertainment"... but so are sexual fetishes, are they not? They're just more taboo and embarrassing, and sure, I guess you could say they are more powerful, but I still wouldn't put them on such a different level that another set of logic has to be used on them.

[jamuko]

But.... the age limit was upped for alcohol as a direct result of the effects of being drunk. It was determined for one reason or another that people below age 21 were not capable of handling the substance with good judgment.

They tried outlawing it completely and that was a miserable failure.

For loli, there is no age at which you would be able to take it better than another.

I don't think I'm forming this argument very well, but the point I'm getting at is that the alcohol "bad apples" scenario isn't a close enough parallel to this one, so it doesn't really make good backup for your argument.

Edit: I want to make clear that I mean no offense with any of my arguments; a good debate is no fun without someone on the opposing side. :P

[Wlfwnd91]

Originally Posted by djshox

It was due to the MADD group pushing Reagan to up the limit due to drunk driving incidents, but anyways..

If ANYTHING, it should illegal for sex offenders to look at lolicon.

THAT I agree with. If you do have a history of it then anything that would get you going again should be made heavily illegal. I don't have a study to base this off of, I wish they would do one, but chances are if you asked most sex offenders what lolicon is they'd probably say "wtf is wrong with you?" or something like that. I also may be wrong though, cause like I said, I don't believe there's been a study on it or anything. I just don't think that drawings of anything should be outlawed to the general public. There are people who are into the whole child sex thing, and loli helps those urges, but if we outlaw it then these people will sit and fantasize and think and want more and more and more and with no outlet they'll blow and just go around trying to get every kid they can.

[Wlfwnd91]

Eh, this debate is running in circles. I think we can all agree that there are people out there who see loli as art, people who use it to get their jollies off and it helps suppress desires, and those who use it to get their jollies off and it helps build their desires. The question is how much of each is out there.

[Moogy]

I have no problem with it. Perhaps I've been on the internet so long that I'm desensitized to everything, but I don't care what kind of porn people enjoy.

[Pippin667]

Originally Posted by Moogy

I have no problem with it. Perhaps I've been on the internet so long that I'm desensitized to everything, but I don't care what kind of porn people enjoy.

Dido, i would rather have a 40 year old balding 400 pound guy wack off to this stuff then have him do it to a 7 year old asian girl in a swim suit.

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by djshox

Links to these studies please.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_ar...y_rape_jp.html

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/...hlight=#306424 for the important parts.

Obviously it's not definitive, it merely points out that an increase in access to lolicon can lead to a decrease in sex crimes against children, but that's still a hell of a find since it goes completely perpendicual to the slippery slope argument.

Originally Posted by djshox

Anyways, as you say it does go in both directions, would you really want to take a chance and let the people who became more interested into pedophilia continue to look at lolicon until it no longer satisfies their desires and they finally take their sexual frustration out in the real world? Even if looking at lolicon reduces the desire in some people, the ones wanting more are more of a THREAT than they were before.

Given the alternative would be thought police, yes, I'm willing to live with that risk. If you're worried about your kids, be an active defense force for them as a parent.

Originally Posted by djshox

Also, there's no way you could correlate violent games to lolicon. Video games are for entertainment, not to satisfy sexual cravings. The industry is regulated so that parents are able to decide what's best for their children. They're simply pure entertainment value; nothing more, nothing less. However lolicon constitutes as a sexual satisfaction or a fetish.

One could argue that some people play GTA and the like because they desire to kill/steal/destroy/what-have-you, not because the games are successful forms of gaming entertainment. I would expect studies to back up such a claim, but it's not out of the realm of reasonability.

[Pippin667]

Nice...

[DJ Reality]

I don't see what the big deal is about loli. Loli isn't animated CP. It's a bunch of anime 18 and 19 year olds that look REALLY YOUNG. People need to realize this. HOLY **** THEY LOOK LIKE KIDS THEY MUST BE KIDS! My brother is 14 and he looks like he's still in 6th grade.

Originally Posted by djshox

Anyways, as you say it does go in both directions, would you really want to take a chance and let the people who became more interested into pedophilia continue to look at lolicon until it no longer satisfies their desires and they finally take their sexual frustration out in the real world? Even if looking at lolicon reduces the desire in some people, the ones wanting more are more of a THREAT than they were before.

This may be true IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, but most of the time it's either the parents fault for not being as protective as they should be, or it's the kid's fault for being really stupid and trusting people they "know" online. This would be why whenever someone looks at me in vid chat and they don't have a cam also, I pretty much make fun of them.

Originally Posted by Moogy

I have no problem with it. Perhaps I've been on the internet so long that I'm desensitized to everything, but I don't care what kind of porn people enjoy.

This was expected.

[Wlfwnd91]

Originally Posted by Pippin667

Nice...

Do you have anything significant to add to the conversation in any way shape or form? If not then stay out. And Reality brings up a good point. Who's to say they're not perfectly consenting cartoons who are of age to make their own decisions, but simply look real young?

Toddlerkon is pushin it though..

[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

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by djshox

If that person played a video game to satisfy an urge to kill someone or destroy something, then they need psychiatric help of some kind.

A lot of the type of people being discussed in this topic could use psychiatric help.

Originally Posted by djshox

Also, what the hell is Moe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_%28slang%29