Lolicon is child pornography, and if you masturbate to it, you are a pedophile. - General - Facepunch Forum

Lolicon is child pornography, and if you masturbate to it, you are a pedophile.

986 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=Dabu]Your post would make a whole lot more sense if there was a universal definition of morals. Everyone's morals are different, which makes your post like a cake soaked with turpentine. Delicious, but you wouldn't let your neighbors eat it [unless you hate your neighbors [I know I do]] Sorry for the shitty analogy.[/QUOTE] I suppose you're right.

[QUOTE=Dabu]Child = someone that has yet to develop fully Porn = acts of sexuality, documented in video or images Lolicon = people that have yet to develop and/or mature participating in suggestive acts or acts concerning sexuality therefor, lolicon = child porn.[/QUOTE] Consequentially, the child doesn't exist in loicon, and thus; lolicon != child pornography.

[QUOTE=Dancersize]On the other hand i'm argueing that the child aspect of it is wrong, and the excuse "but they're drawings" comes up which would only cover them if it was the drawing factor which turned them on. In which case they could stop with the child part.[/QUOTE] And I submit that thoughts are not wrong. I also submit that actions can only be wrong when the individual's perceived gains outweigh the perceived losses. Since no one is harmed by merely being attracted to children, or even looking at drawings of children performing sexual acts, there is nothing wrong.

[QUOTE=Dabu]Delicious, but you wouldn't let your neighbors eat it [unless you hate your neighbors[/QUOTE] So if we hated our neighbors we would let the eat it?:raise:

[QUOTE=BricknHead]and what I'm saying is that they really aren't comparable besides the fact that the individual involved is under the age of consent, and the grouping of them together is pointless and fruitless The main issue is that with this general grouping you see both as bad things. Putting drawn child pornography as the same group as child pornography creates a negative connotation towards the lolicon, where it is not deserved. Someone getting off to lolicon is not a bad thing, nor is someone getting off to furry, nor is someone getting off to scat or foot fetish porn. To illustrate my point - would you put child pornography and adult pornography into the same group? Could you manage to call child pornography just pornography?[/QUOTE] I'm also not saying lolicon as wrong. I never said it was wrong. Just like you can't view an entire genre of music as bad, you can't view an entire category of something [like porn or movies or comedy or weapons] as bad. [b]Edit:[/b] [QUOTE=kloaz]So if we hated our neighbors we would let the eat it?:raise:[/QUOTE] a cake soaked with turpentine

[QUOTE=ryandaniels]And I submit that thoughts are not wrong. I also submit that actions can only be wrong when the individual's perceived gains outweigh the perceived losses. Since no one is harmed by merely being attracted to children, or even looking at drawings of children performing sexual acts, there is nothing wrong.[/QUOTE] It would be losses outweighing the gains. And actions can't be wrong if thoughts don't dictate what we think is wrong. I.E. If thoughts can't be wrong, neither can actions.

[QUOTE=Dancersize]It would be losses outweighing the gains. And actions can't be wrong if thoughts don't dictate what we think is wrong. I.E. If thoughts can't be wrong, neither can actions.[/QUOTE] Thoughts do not harm anyone. Acting upon these thoughts might/do. Cake soaked with turpentine, cake soaked with turpentine.

It is a fetish. Loli is not illegal. Child Porn is. Pedophilia is when an [b]adult male/female[/b] has a sexual preference to children. Teenagers that look at underage porn are not pedophiles because they are not adults yet. They are interested in their age group.

[QUOTE=Dabu]I'm also not saying lolicon as wrong. I never said it was wrong. Just like you can't view an entire genre of music as bad, you can't view an entire category of something [like porn or movies or comedy or weapons] as bad. [/QUOTE] In the perfect world, you wouldn't. However, in our world, one bad occurrence can create a negative connotation for the others in its group. Why do you think people freaked out at the idea that Obama could be a Muslim? The actions of a few created a negative connotation for everything associated. The same thing happens here - on the surface, people will only see "child pornography" - they won't care that it's artificial, that it's fake. They'll see those nasty pedophiles that rape their kids. Once you group them together, bad things happen. Stereotypes and generalizations emerge.

[QUOTE=garry]I don't think it is child porn though, somehow. In the same way that Bruce Willis didn't get arrested for killing loads of people after making Die Hard.[/QUOTE] The amazing garry has spoken, now read his wise words three times and be quiet.

[QUOTE=BricknHead]and what I'm saying is that they really aren't comparable besides the fact that the individual involved is under the age of consent, and the grouping of them together is pointless and fruitless The main issue is that with this general grouping you see both as bad things. Putting drawn child pornography as the same group as child pornography creates a negative connotation towards the lolicon, where it is not deserved. Someone getting off to lolicon is not a bad thing, nor is someone getting off to furry, nor is someone getting off to scat or foot fetish porn. To illustrate my point - would you put child pornography and adult pornography into the same group? Could you manage to call child pornography just pornography?[/QUOTE] I see what you are saying, and it is an unsolvable matter of opinions. For the sake of organization, I would classify photos and drawn images as both cp, and cp part of porn. But if I wanted to sepperate ideas based on connotation, I would do what you are doing. Personally, I don't really grasp the full implications of the connotations mixing, and therefore, would just go for an organizational approach. Not to say that I wouldn't vote the other way if it were actually up for vote in the lawbooks, or if you gave me some hard facts on the issue.

It is a fetish. Loli is not illegal. Child Porn is. Pedophilia is when an adult male/female has a sexual preference to children. Teenagers that look at underage porn are not pedophiles because they are not adults yet. They are interested in their age group. [QUOTE=Dabu] Cake soaked with turpentine, cake soaked with turpentine.[/QUOTE] Mmmm, cake soaked with turpentine... *droool*

Illustrations and real people are two totally different things as well, I don't mean in the sense that one is physical and one is a drawing, I mean it in the way that drawings aren't always correct on looks. Loli images are meant to be sexually attractive, and by no means actually look like [b]real[/b] little girls. I fap to loli, particuarly ones that [b]look[/b] around the ages of 15 to 17. Anyways my point being, someone who is interested in real little girls is probably not going to be interested in Loli Hentai, in the same way a guy (me) isn't going to be interested in real little girls even though he gets off to Lolicon. Ugh, in a short two line statement: Real Little Girls = Ugly, Snotty, and Non-Attractive. Lolicon = Hot, Cute, and drawn to be attractive.

[QUOTE=Killerhurtz]Lolicon and child porn are not same. Child porn = young children get raped and menaced to show off. Some of them even get KILLED after doing it. Lolicon = some perverted dude thought he'd draw a kid sexing. Worst thing that happens is that the author gets a sore wrist from drawing.[/QUOTE] If attraction to perverted children is wrong, then why isn't attraction to exposed females or males above a legal consented age, wrong? The only wrong of which can apply to any form of life in existence is... a) To commit any form of act against anothers will without or with consent; that is if they had refused and you had forced it upon them - or had committed an act upon them subject to their awareness or subject to their consent; you did something without asking them. i) It caused a form of negative response, whether it was a chain reaction led form a positive commitment or a negative commitment upon the individual; the form of life (conscious; regardless as to whether it was human, alien or mammal, primate or another form of human predecessor). ii) If you had committed the act intentionally upon them for a negative response; to cause harm. iii) If it had been inflicted upon them physically; whether it was a mental-physical or physical-biological commitment upon them; psychological commitments may not always apply. iv) If you had inflicted upon severe damage psychologically; causing physical damage as a result in terms of damaging the gray areas. You could probably figure the rest; anything of which had inflicted upon negative nature [b]intentionally[/b] should be classified as wrong and illegal, nothing of which is committed upon under observation, such as: -Experimental violence; videogames and such, whether it to be used for entertainment or research purposes -Observed imagery; whether it be motional - video, or still image; mental or physical, you should not be held responsible for the formation of such imagery if illegal acts had been carried out in order to achieve such an affect, and to not be deemed as wrong or to be criminalized for observing non-illegally produced imagery; lolicon in this case.

[QUOTE=Dancersize]It would be losses outweighing the gains. And actions can't be wrong if thoughts don't dictate what we think is wrong. I.E. If thoughts can't be wrong, neither can actions.[/QUOTE] You are wrong. Usually I would say that this is a merely opinion-based argument, and it technically is. But, you can't prove that thinking about killing hurts anyone, and yet you can prove actually killing does hurt people.

I fap proudly to Lolicon.

No really,talk to Raptor if you want to know more about being a pedophile. [url]http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/member.php?u=23738[/url]

[QUOTE=kloaz]No really,talk to Raptor if you want to know more about being a pedophile. [url]http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/member.php?u=23738[/url][/QUOTE] It sounds like you're criticizing him for being a pedophile as you also seem to be a fan of Elfen Lied...

Read my previous post for a solution.

[QUOTE=Kilgannon][img]http://thisrecording.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/lolicon.jpg[/img] Ceci n'est pas une CP See, it's just images of CP.[/QUOTE] That picture isn't CP or lolicon. People who say it is are the reason for idiots like OP.

It's cute.

[QUOTE=chris0132]It's cute.[/QUOTE] that it is, my british friend

It'd be nice if whoever did the lighting could follow me around and do my lighting. I'd like to go everywhere bathed in the radiant glow of manifest calmness and serenity. How unfortunate that I do not live in a cartoon. Although I suppose if I did I'd have crossover tenticle hentai drawn of me which could be considered a downside. If anybody wonders that is part of the attraction of hentai in general, you get much better images than you do from filmed porn which is extremely flat and insubstantial by comparison.

[QUOTE=chris0132]It'd be nice if whoever did the lighting could follow me around and do my lighting. I'd like to go everywhere bathed in the radiant glow of manifest calmness and serenity. How unfortunate that I do not live in a cartoon.[/quote] Very. :( [quote]Although I suppose if I did I'd have crossover tenticle hentai drawn of me which could be considered a downside.[/quote] Maybe a downside for [i]you[/i]

Even if it is just retarded drawing done by a lonely Japanese man, how is jacking off to drawn child pictures normal? It's fucking weird. If anyone "came out of the closet" and told people they liked lolicon, they would be shunned.

It's pretty implied what the viewer is meant to be thinking.

[QUOTE=aman II]Even if it is just retarded drawing done by a lonely Japanese man, how is jacking off to drawn child pictures normal? It's fucking weird. If anyone "came out of the closet" and told people they liked lolicon, they would be shunned.[/QUOTE] Fetishes are normal.

[QUOTE=Dabu]Fetishes are normal.[/QUOTE] ... a fetish is an abnormal sexual infatuation/whatever. it's defined by it's abnormality. If you're saying that people having fetishes in general is normal, with today's society we live in, you're absolutely right.

[QUOTE=ChronoPhobia]... a fetish is an abnormal sexual infatuation/whatever. it's defined by it's abnormality. If you're saying that people having fetishes in general is normal, with today's society we live in, you're absolutely right.[/QUOTE] Well that's kind of the point, everyone has a fetish, lots of people have really weird fetishes, so I tend to assume that fetishes are normal. It's like saying that having a particular hairstyle is abnormal, it's different yes but it's not unexpected, everyone has a hairstyle.

[QUOTE=ChronoPhobia]... a fetish is an abnormal sexual infatuation/whatever. it's defined by it's abnormality. If you're saying that people having fetishes in general is normal, with today's society we live in, you're absolutely right.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what I was saying. Everyone has fetishes. Some for feet, some for blondes, some for children. I have a glasses fetish, so what?

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.