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

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]I have a feeling that the people who are trying to justify viewing this material are the kind of people who also look at it.[/QUOTE]

I have a feeling it doesn't detract from their argument if they do.

I have a feeling you're trying ad hominem because you don't have a proper argument.

[Pekey_1]

[QUOTE=chris0132]
Nobody loses liberties because of lolicon, nobody suffers, there is no reason to illegalise it.[/QUOTE]

It seems like the only reason morons here wants it to be illegal is because "It's gross".

[Rusty100]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]These pictures are depicting underage girls, it may not be real but it's still trying to simulate something that's morally and legally wrong, it's a loophole in the law, nothing more so it is still considered as child porn in the eyes of every normal human, anyone who objects is clearly in denial about the fact that they are a sick paedophile.[/QUOTE]
you are having trouble distinguishing opinion from fact again

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=Kombayn]I didn't have the time to totally read the six pages of replies that popped up while I was sleeping, I'll read them soon.

There are a lot of people who are assuming that my argument is about my moral stance on pedophilia, yes, I do have my moral stance, but that is not what I am arguing. I'm not saying that lolicon leads to people raping kids, I'm saying that lolicon and child pornography are basically the same.

You people have already said that lolicon doesn't involve real children, but the genre's aim is to replicate the proportions of naked kids in sexual situations (y'know, save for anime's trademark malformed lumps for heads). Hell, I think I've already said that part. One excuse that really bothers me is that the children depicted in lolicon are really over the legal age, just shrunk down to childlike size and given smaller breasts, some of these same people make the same point that you can't verify the age in the porn. If you can't verify the age, how can someone assert that they are actually legal? Either way, the same image is acheived: child proportions, sexual situations, same thing that pedophiles want.[/QUOTE]

By that definition, yes, it is child pornography. But it isn't the actual rendering that is morally wrong or questionable, it is the means used to produce it. If no one is harmed by producing a material that represents something that is morally corrupt to most of society, then there is no reason to take away the liberties of the few who want to produce and consume such materials. More would be lost to restrict this right, than to let it continue, albeit with the scorn of general society.

[Tropical]

Quick note here;

Coppa defines the term "child" as any person under the age of 13. So if you're a fourteen year old, and your fourteen year old girlfriend sends you a naked picture of herself, you're not a pedophile. But you'll still go to juvie for two weeks if any government official finds that picture, so don't be bragging over AIM about it.

[Pekey_1]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]I have a feeling that the people who are trying to justify viewing this material are the kind of people who also look at it.[/QUOTE]

"Those who dissagree with me are sick, filthy pedophiles"

[Kombayn]

Some people also think that be cause you don't rape kids, you are not a pedophile. How does that make sense? You are still attracted to the material, you just don't act on it.

[Rusty100]

[QUOTE=Pekey_1]"Those who dissagree with me are sick, filthy pedophiles"[/QUOTE]
how dare you find something attractive that i find disgusting. i am right and you are wrong go to jail.

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=Kombayn]Some people also think that be cause you don't rape kids, you are not a pedophile. How does that make sense? You are still attracted to the material, you just don't act on it.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen anyone argue that.

[samclarke.1990]

[QUOTE=Kombayn]Some people also think that be cause you don't rape kids, you are not a pedophile. How does that make sense? You are still attracted to the material, you just don't act on it.[/QUOTE]

This is what I'm getting at.

You may not carry out the acts but you're still in the frame of mind that the sexualisation of CHILDREN is perfectly OK, which it is not.

There are people out there who fantasize about killing another human or raping a woman, they are too cowardly to carry it out but they still think it's OK to commit this act.

I'm sorry but I'm right on this one, this may be the wrong place to put my argument across since half of the people here probably whack off to this stuff but if you asked the general public I can bet that over 90% would agree with me.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=Kombayn]Some people also think that be cause you don't rape kids, you are not a pedophile. How does that make sense? You are still attracted to the material, you just don't act on it.[/QUOTE]

I think it's because people associate 'pedophile' with 'evil horrible scum of the earth'.

So if people don't consider themselves evil horrible scum of the earth they will have problems calling themselves a pedophile.

But really pedophile is just like 'criminal' it encompasses everyone from people who drop litter on the street to serial killers, and has an equivalent range of reprehensibility.

[b]Edit:[/b]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]This is what I'm getting at.

You may not carry out the acts but you're still in the frame of mind that the sexualisation of CHILDREN is perfectly OK, which is is not.

There are people out there who fantasize about killing another human or raping a woman, they are too cowardly to carry it out but they still think it's OK to commit this act.[/QUOTE]

Fucking thoughtcriminal bastards.

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]This is what I'm getting at.

You may not carry out the acts but you're still in the frame of mind that the sexualisation of CHILDREN is perfectly OK, which it is not.

There are people out there who fantasize about killing another human or raping a woman, they are too cowardly to carry it out but they still think it's OK to commit this act.

I'm sorry but I'm right on this one, this may be the wrong place to put my argument across since half of the people here probably whack off to this stuff but if you asked the general public I can bet that over 90% would agree with me.[/QUOTE]

But it's okay to them, and if they're not acting on these impulses, there's nothing wrong with them thinking this way. Otherwise we end up with the thought police.

[Rusty100]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]This is what I'm getting at.

You may not carry out the acts but you're still in the frame of mind that the sexualisation of CHILDREN is perfectly OK, which it is not.

There are people out there who fantasize about killing another human or raping a woman, they are too cowardly to carry it out but they still think it's OK to commit this act.

I'm sorry but I'm right on this one, this may be the wrong place to put my argument across since half of the people here probably whack off to this stuff but if you asked the general public I can bet that over 90% would agree with me.[/QUOTE]
I understand your argument but I am quite sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about. Because apparently, you know exactly how everybody else thinks, and they should all think like you. And you are emperor of whether people are afraid of punishment and can differentiate between right and wrong.

[Ephemeral]

[QUOTE=chris0132]It is still not enough to comment accurately on the issue.
Would playing postal 2 likely further to perversion to a point where actual murder becomes acceptable to the person as it becomes an 'extension' to videogames?

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction, it doesn't mean people lose control of themselves and have to go fuck children, some people do, but some people do the same with videogames, so that suggests that the problem is not the lolicon, but simply that some people don't understand the idea of self control.[/QUOTE]

Yup. Probably would. With certain personality traits, it's been shown previously that people carrying them find it much harder to draw the line between real life and fantasies.

That was a pretty redundant response - I'd expected more from you. Surely you know what [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perversion]perversion[/url] means, right?

[Kombayn]

[QUOTE=Kagrenak]By that definition, yes, it is child pornography. But it isn't the actual rendering that is morally wrong or questionable, it is the means used to produce it. If no one is harmed by producing a material that represents something that is morally corrupt to most of society, then there is no reason to take away the liberties of the few who want to produce and consume such materials. More would be lost to restrict this right, than to let it continue, albeit with the scorn of general society.[/QUOTE]

Di...Didn't I just say I wasn't arguing my moral (or legal, by extension) beliefs on the subject? If you want me to say something about it, fine: There is nothing wrong with pedophiles, it is the people who act on that desire and end up raping children who should be criminalized. The problem with the fetish is that satisfying that fetish is illegal in most countries because children aren't considered responsible enough to make that type of potentially traumatic decision. Hell, I think that lolicon is on of the better outlets for the fetish because nobody is being harmed. It's the people who deceive themselves because of their own negative moral stance on pedophilia that piss me off.

[Overv]

If you're the same age as the assumed age of the porn figures you can't call it pedophilia.

[samclarke.1990]

I'm sorry but this is basically diet-paedophillia. Technically not against the law but in the eyes of most decent people is still just as bad as the real thing.

[Tropical]

Also; what the fuck is lolicon?

Can someone explain to me?

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=Ephemeral]Yup. Probably would. With certain personality traits, it's been shown previously that people carrying them find it much harder to draw the line between real life and fantasies.

That was a pretty redundant response - I'd expected more from you. Surely you know what perversion means, right?[/QUOTE]

Don't define your argument on something like that without a source. If it has been shown, show your evidence of this happening in fantasy-prone individuals.

[Overv]

[QUOTE=Tropical]Also; what the fuck is lolicon?

Can someone explain to me?[/QUOTE]

[url]www.aerisdies.com[/url]

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]I'm sorry but this is basically diet-paedophillia. Technically not against the law but in the eyes of most decent people is still just as bad as the real thing.[/QUOTE]

[i]Most people[/i] don't define what the minority does, if they aren't harming anyone.

[Ephemeral]

[QUOTE=Kagrenak]Don't define your argument on something like that without a source. If it has been shown, show your evidence of this happening in fantasy-prone individuals.[/QUOTE]

Look around you. There's my source.

[sp00ks]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]This is what I'm getting at.

You may not carry out the acts but you're still in the frame of mind that the sexualisation of CHILDREN is perfectly OK, which it is not.

There are people out there who fantasize about killing another human or raping a woman, they are too cowardly to carry it out but they still think it's OK to commit this act.

I'm sorry but I'm right on this one, this may be the wrong place to put my argument across since half of the people here probably whack off to this stuff but if you asked the general public I can bet that over 90% would agree with me.[/QUOTE]
Good thing being creep isn't against the law. As long as they don't do anything to real children I couldn't care less what they do.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=Ephemeral]Yup. Probably would. With certain personality traits, it's been shown previously that people carrying them find it much harder to draw the line between real life and fantasies.

That was a pretty redundant response - I'd expected more from you. Surely you know what [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perversion]perversion[/url] means, right?[/QUOTE]

Did you read what I posted?

I explicitly stated that I thought the problem was not with loli or videogames, but with people being incapable of telling the difference between fantasy and reality.

Don't bother replying to me unless you've been paying attention.

[sp00ks]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]I'm sorry but this is basically diet-paedophillia. Technically not against the law but in the eyes of most decent people is still just as bad as the real thing.[/QUOTE]
doesn't matter.

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=Ephemeral]Look around you. There's my source.[/QUOTE]

Oh... That's obviously enough.

Fuck you, go find something from a psychology journal.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]I'm sorry but this is basically diet-paedophillia. Technically not against the law but in the eyes of most decent people is still just as bad as the real thing.[/QUOTE]

Well that rather depends on how you define decent.

All the decent people I know think as I do on the subject.

[samclarke.1990]

ITT: Closet paedophiles try to justify their views

:v:

That's the way it's coming across to me anyway.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]ITT: Closet paedophiles try to justify their views

:v:

That's the way it's coming across to me anyway.[/QUOTE]

Again, this still should not affect your assessment of our views on the subject.

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]ITT: Closet paedophiles try to justify their views

:v:

That's the way it's coming across to me anyway.[/QUOTE]

Ah, [i]argument ad hominem,[/i] the tried and true retreat for people who are losing a debate.