either way, there are methods via computer generation to make a consenting 18 year old look like a 13 year old, making it victimless
making this stuff legal, regulated, and available is much better than some creep in a mask filming a video of him raping a little kid, soooo...
yeah.
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;35488298]Is homosexuality a crime against nature? Because you're born with that too.[/QUOTE]
Homosexuality doesn't utterly destroy people. There's no comparison. And to try to draw one to make a point is really shitty.
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;35488393]Homosexuality doesn't utterly destroy people. There's no comparison. And to try to draw one to make a point is really shitty.[/QUOTE]
Why? I don't think pedophilia destroys you either if their urges aren't acted on. It's just a weird urge that's different. If you don't act on sexual urges then nobody knows if you're gay, straight, or get turned on by anything specific, you're just a person.
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;35488393]Homosexuality doesn't utterly destroy people. There's no comparison. And to try to draw one to make a point is really shitty.[/QUOTE]
When comparing homosexual sex with child molestation, they are totally different.
When comparing gay porn with child porn, they are totally different.
When comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, they have similarities.
If a pedophile watches drawn child pornography, then neither does he [I]"utterly destroy people"[/I].
He's making this comparison because Red scout? seems to be saying that pedophilia, even just the feelings, and even when no harm is being done, is a crime against nature. Basically that feelings and harmless actions are crimes against nature based on nothing but an idea that it is disgusting.
Hate child pornography, hate child molesters, but if you hate pedophiles in the way that Red scout? seems to do, then you're about as logical as a homophobe. Hence the comparison.
pedophilia =/= child rape
[editline]8th April 2012[/editline]
or pretty much what that guy said
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;35488458]When comparing homosexual sex with child molestation, they are totally different.
When comparing gay porn with child porn, they are totally different.
When comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, they have similarities.
If a pedophile watches drawn child pornography, then neither does he [I]"utterly destroy people"[/I].
He's making this comparison because Red scout? seems to be saying that pedophilia, even just the feelings, and even when no harm is being done, is a crime against nature. Basically that feelings and harmless actions are crimes against nature based on nothing but an idea that it is disgusting.
Hate child pornography, hate child molesters, but if you hate pedophiles in the way that Red scout? seems to do, then you're about as logical as a homophobe.[/QUOTE]
He's right, you need to remember there's a difference between pedophiles and child molesters, just like there's a difference between straight people and rapists. If you're attracted to women, does that mean you're going to rape one? No. Not all pedophiles will hurt a child.
but they like something that im not attracted to!!
that measn there the devil
My point: When homosexuals act on their urges, nobody is hurt. When pedophiles do, it does real, lasting damage.
There is no comparison.
[QUOTE=danielplazzy;35488528]but they like something that im not attracted to!!
that measn there the devil[/QUOTE]
pedophiles deserve the stigma that is attached to them. whether or not they act on their urges doesn't matter
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;35488553]My point: When homosexuals act on their urges, nobody is hurt. When pedophiles do, it does real, lasting damage.
There is no comparison.[/QUOTE]
But we're not talking about pedophiles who act on their urges. Here's where the comparison came from:
[QUOTE=Red scout?;35488017]All kinds of child porn, real or not should stay illegal[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;35488139]What's wrong if it's not real? Then it's [i]not real.[/i][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Red scout?;35488245]it's pretty much like saying. "Oh, you cant smoke weed, but this artificial weed is perfectly legal though"
I think pedophilia is a crime against nature[/QUOTE]
He's not talking about when pedophiles act on their urges. He's talking about when they look at drawings. If you can claim that pedophilia is a crime against nature when you look at drawings, then it is just as logical to claim that homosexuality is a crime against nature when you have sex with other adults of the same sex. There is no harm in either case, both claims are bullshit. Hence, comparison.
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;35488553]My point: When homosexuals act on their urges, nobody is hurt. When pedophiles do, it does real, lasting damage.
There is no comparison.[/QUOTE]
yeah that's true
it's in a really weird gray area
[QUOTE=Sanius;35488616]pedophiles deserve the stigma that is attached to them. whether or not they act on their urges doesn't matter[/QUOTE]
May I ask why? Again, if they don't act on their urges, isn't that [i]all[/i] that matters?
[QUOTE=Sanius;35488616]pedophiles deserve the stigma that is attached to them. whether or not they act on their urges doesn't matter[/QUOTE]
they aren't pedophiles by choice, you know
you can't control what you're attracted to
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;35488648]May I ask why? Again, if they don't act on their urges, isn't that [i]all[/i] that matters?[/QUOTE]
in a vacuum, yes
I don't want a pedophile any where near my niece or my hypothetical future children
[QUOTE=Sanius;35488616]pedophiles deserve the stigma that is attached to them. whether or not they act on their urges doesn't matter[/QUOTE]
Why, because it is disgusting? If they don't harm anyone, then what justifies the hate? Or is it because of the child molesters? So it is okay to stigmatize a big group of people based on the actions of a few?
[QUOTE=Sanius;35488665]in a vacuum, yes
I don't want a pedophile any where near my niece of my hypothetical future children[/QUOTE]
Sure, I don't blame you. But please bear with me.
What if there's a pedophile who hates who they are but just wants to live a normal life. They get a job away from kids, don't have kids themselves, etc. Don't they deserve a normal life if they try to make one for themselves? Why should being born with a weird fetish change that?
This just in, legalize something and suddenly crime rates in that specific field decline!
No shit?
In my opinion, pedophilia is just another fetish / sexual orientation, however a very unfortunate one. Of course children should be protected from sexual actions, but demonizing pedophiles isn't going to make the issue go away.
I believe there a hundred more pedophiles out there for every one that comes in the news, yet they restrain themselves and have sufficient social control around them. Really, throwing them a rope with harmlessly produced content is the least society could do.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;35488867]No shit?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=draugur;35488778]This just in, legalize something and suddenly crime rates in that specific field decline![/QUOTE]
You seem to misunderstand this. You see, this is not like legalizing murder, which would result in 0 homicide crimes. While that is true, it would [I]not[/I] result in fewer deaths by murder.
This situation is different. The argument is that legalizing child porn will result in fewer child molestation crimes.
If the idea was that legalizing child abuse would lower child abuse crimes, then your mockery would be well founded. But the idea here is to allow one thing which is essentially harmless, which will result in less actual child abuse.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;34667036]"artificial" child porn, like lolicon, is already legal. Except in UK, afaik.[/QUOTE]
And Australia, don't forget, Simpsons porn over there is equal to real people. :v:
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;35489443]And Australia, don't forget, Simpsons porn over there is equal to real people. :v:[/QUOTE]
Think of the fictional children!
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;35489443]And Australia, don't forget, Simpsons porn over there is equal to real people. :v:[/QUOTE]
Didn't Australia also at some point like, ban women with A-cups from modeling because their flatchests promoted pedophilia?
[QUOTE=Clavus;35488959]
I believe there a hundred more pedophiles out there for every one that comes in the news, yet they restrain themselves and have sufficient social control around them. Really, throwing them a rope with harmlessly produced content is the least society could do.[/QUOTE]
Just to be clear you are talking about lolicon?
[QUOTE=Red scout?;35488017]We should allow rape too because that make all rape crime dissapear.
Yeah, this is just a bunch of baloney. All kinds of child porn, real or not should stay illegal[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree.
Also murder simulators should be illegal as well.
To the people who rated me dumb I am not defending actual child porn.
[quote]All kinds of child porn, real [B]or not[/B] should stay illegal[/quote]
It is this particular part that I am arguing against. Give me one good reason why you think drawings of any kind being illegal would be a good idea. If a drawn image of something you find disturbing, in this case lolicon, is ok to be made a criminal offense then explain to me why something like media that allows you to simulate brutal murder should be any different.
Wow where did my automerge go?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;35488676]Why, because it is disgusting? If they don't harm anyone, then what justifies the hate? Or is it because of the child molesters? So it is okay to stigmatize a big group of people based on the actions of a few?[/QUOTE]
You don't want it to become accepted otherwise they'll start to believe that it's okay to act on it. The stigma is what keeps them in check.
As for the child porn stuff, as long as it's only drawn or rendered I don't really care, but real child porn should stay banned and those who view it should at least be made to see Councillors (unless it was an accidental viewing)
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35495159]You don't want it to become accepted otherwise they'll start to believe that it's okay to act on it. The stigma is what keeps them in check.[/QUOTE]
That's an assumption, and I don't think it is true. There's simulated rape porn out there, and there's violent video games, and you can watch videos of murder online. Just because people engage in those don't mean that they're suddenly going to believe that acting out those things is okay. You're making them out to be mindless zombies that change their way of thinking radically just if they're allowed to view it. Maybe some of them will believe that it's okay, but they will believe so either way.
Stigma and hatred doesn't do anything to prevent anything. If a person is subject to hatred and is being stigmatized, I'd contend that he's more likely to be stressed and depressed.
Symptoms for depression include self-loathing, anger and reckless behaviour. Stress is the same thing. Throwing hatred at someone and making them feel like shit doesn't keep anyone in check, ever. If anything, it makes them more volatile and dangerous.
[editline]9th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35495015]
It is this particular part that I am arguing against. Give me one good reason why you think drawings of any kind being illegal would be a good idea. If a drawn image of something you find disturbing, in this case lolicon, is ok to be made a criminal offense then explain to me why something like media that allows you to simulate brutal murder should be any different.
[/QUOTE]
I might have said this more eloquently earlier in this thread, [I](That means in February)[/I] but you can extend this to real child porn as well...
Why can images or videos of any kind be illegal? You're allowed to view images and videos of murder, brutal violence, beatings, robberies, war, accidents and naked little girls who have just been showered with napalm.
Why is sexual imagery any different?
-snip- Mjeh, let's just drop this thread
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.