Lolicon is child pornography, and if you masturbate to it, you are a pedophile.
986 replies, posted
I have a knife and have only used it as a non lethal utility with no threat of violence, just unpackaging, repairs too and shit.
Lies. You kill puppies.
[QUOTE=Sir Xenu]
I actually see child pornography as a bad thing[/QUOTE]
wait what
[QUOTE=chris0132]So is every other form of pornography.
Maybe that magritte guy had a point and people do need this explaining to them, images of things are just images, regardless of how realistic they look, if someone rendered a CP scene using 3ds max to be so realistic nobody could tell then it would be as much CP as would a hand drawn one, or a film of actual child molestation.
Images are images, the crime lies in how the images are made, not in the images themselves. A drawing is no more wrong than a film [I]as an image[/I]. But a film means that somebody has been harmed to produce it, and that's the bit that's wrong. If someone drew loli from life, that would be as wrong as a film would be.
So 'it's just a picture' is not relevant.[/QUOTE]
I was comparing lolicon to actual child pornography, where kids were actually taken pictures of naked. There's a difference because it actually happened, and the injustice is against the child.
You didn't do it very well.
[QUOTE=gnome]I was comparing lolicon to actual child pornography, where kids were actually taken pictures of naked. There's a difference because it actually happened, and the injustice is against the child.[/QUOTE]
Pictures of naked children are not illegal. Pictures of naked children with a dick in their mouth is illegal. There's a huge difference.
And yes, I'm aware that porn doesn't need a penis to be porn, but with some people if you dance around shit they're fuck with your words and still try to make themselves sound right.
Actually picture of Naked Children are already borderline. There was a couple that took a picture (you know like your parents did when you were younger, in the age of 35mm film cameras), of their toddler as they were washing him, the photo tech called the fucking Police and they were arrested and charged.
I do think some of this shit is overhyped from time to time, other times it's too fucking lax, etc.
But wouldn't this shit actually do something if they fucking stopped it at the source?
[QUOTE=LeonSKennedy]Pictures of naked children are not illegal. Pictures of naked children with a dick in their mouth is illegal. There's a huge difference.
And yes, I'm aware that porn doesn't need a penis to be porn, but with some people if you dance around shit they're fuck with your words and still try to make themselves sound right.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure a naked child even without a penis involved is still child pornography.
Pictures of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturism]Naturists and their children[/url] are perfectly legal.
[QUOTE=jlbmw2002]Actually picture of Naked Children are already borderline. There was a couple that took a picture (you know like your parents did when you were younger, in the age of 35mm film cameras), of their toddler as they were washing him, the photo tech called the fucking Police and they were arrested and charged.
[/QUOTE]
Then they should have fucking appealed it. That isn't illegal.
[QUOTE=Rusty100]I'm pretty sure a naked child even without a penis involved is still child pornography.[/QUOTE]
Well no, it's not, because by that logic all nudity is pornographic, including as I said before, medical textbooks.
guys guys...
i think we forgot why we're here:
[IMG]http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n446/buttonsx4xeyes/Facepunch/1227867877516de0.gif[/IMG]
Isn't she about nineteen though?
[QUOTE=chris0132]Isn't she about nineteen though?[/QUOTE]
17 actually
[QUOTE=Rusty100]I'm pretty sure a naked child even without a penis involved is still child pornography.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://blankaperidot.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/vietnam_napalm_girl.16314440_std.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=chris0132]No, Pornography = sexual imagery. Children = adolescent humans.
Ergo, sexual imagery of adolescent humans = child pornography, regardless of how it's created.[/QUOTE]
LC is not CP.
[QUOTE=Kalibos][img]http://blankaperidot.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/vietnam_napalm_girl.16314440_std.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]Fuck the what
[media]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/b148991df485776d1de9f0902a4f92b5.jpg[/media]
What are ya talking about
i see no lolis
:q:
[b]Edit:[/b]
[media]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/652aec85140c960e003cc10eb55faeb9.jpg[/media]
Seriously i don't
:q:
Post above is win material.
Where my disagree rating at ?
[QUOTE=DesertRaptor]
What are ya talking about
i see no lolis
:q:
[b]Edit:[/b]
Seriously i don't
:q:[/QUOTE]
I don't know whether to laugh or to be creeped out in various ways
Actual children = Bad. Because that's real life, that's a real mind being molded, real emotions being thrown around.
Drawn children = Not bad. Because that's the drawings, I can draw a dinosaur fucking an apple, that wouldn't mean I have a reptile fucking fruits fetish.
Children period = Bad. Because it happens too often in real life to be portrayed in a drawing.
So, it's a lose-lose situation either way you look at it.
Pedophiles often times can't help their attraction to children - it's as apparent to them as a straight man's attraction to women.
I'm not saying that acting out on these impulses is ok, because it's not. If they actually go out and have sex with a child, that child is harmed either physically, psychologically, or both.
I don't look at it, but I'm all for lolicon. It doesn't hurt anyone, there's no real child involved, and it's a vent for those pedophilia impulses.
The way I see it I'd rather have guys fapping to lolicon in their house than going out and kidnapping children.
[QUOTE=NqWanté]LC is not CP.[/QUOTE]
No, sorry, that isn't how this works.
I make an argument, then you make a counterargument, repeating an assertion is not a counterargument.
One last point I'd like to add.
"[b]Loli[/b]con"
The 'loli' part is obviously a referal to 'lolita' and after a bit of research I've found out that 'lolita' is used to describe a young girl (More than likely under the age of 16) seducing a much older man.
Therefore, lolicon IS related to the sexualisation of young girls and as we all (By all I mean normal people with respectful morals) agree has no place in society.
Personally I think people who base their views solely on their own morality without tempering them with pragmatism have no place in society.
I can't believe I went through eight pages talking about whether loli is moral or not (as well as its legality) without a single mention of shota...
[QUOTE=DesertRaptor][media]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/b148991df485776d1de9f0902a4f92b5.jpg[/media]
What are ya talking about
i see no lolis
:q:
[b]Edit:[/b]
[media]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/652aec85140c960e003cc10eb55faeb9.jpg[/media]
Seriously i don't
:q:[/QUOTE]
You never cease to amuse me.
[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]One last point I'd like to add.
"[b]Loli[/b]con"
The 'loli' part is obviously a referal to 'lolita' and after a bit of research I've found out that 'lolita' is used to describe a young girl (More than likely under the age of 16) seducing a much older man.
Therefore, lolicon IS related to the sexualisation of young girls and as we all (By all I mean normal people with respectful morals) agree has no place in society.[/QUOTE]
To bad you don't dictate who can fap to what [b]drawings[/b].
[QUOTE=slogsdon]To bad you don't dictate who can fap to what [b]drawings[/b].[/QUOTE]
I can't fap to drawings anyway. Especially anime. If you do, you're a bit... weird.
Seriously people, redtube is your friend...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
