I know it is, but why?
1 Like
We dont need more perversions in our culture.
What do you mean by perversions?
Yes, we do. Got to trigger all the snowflakes and strike fear into all the stupid peasants.
8 Likes
Same reason that is stupid to criminalize apples, because although itâs possible to do it and there are incoherent people who will like it, the ban will accomplish nothing. It will only penalize a lot of people who are doing nothing wrong. That would be just a stupid law that makes the world a worse place to live. In other words is stupid simply because there is no good reason to do it.
2 Likes
Because either all art is ok or nothing is. If itâs based on subjective feelings, well, the law isnât concrete on who is and isnât a criminal and just becomes a case of criminalizing things based on what people feel should be illegal.
Killing fictional characters feels like a criminal offense to people even if nobody is being hurt IRL.
Porn feels immoral to other people, and therefore illegal, even if nobody IRL is being hurt.
Imagine I arrest someone for drawing a morbid picture. Itâs a victimless crime, but I feel like it should be criminal and enough other people agree with my feelings and⊠Now a person is behind bars for no reason beyond, âEh, I felt like it.â
China and North Korea put people behind bars because, âI felt like it.â And if people want to be ok with being criminals due to the subjective feelings of others, I think theyâd love it over there.
3 Likes
Exactly. In terms of fictional crimes, whenever someone tries to shame me about them, I double down and do much worse things. Dies irae ïœInterview with Kaziklu BeyïœăăŽăŁă«ăă«ă ăæ»æŁźăźèèéšćŁ« (ă€ă«ăă€) - YouTube Do I get off to the girl wearing nothing but rags? Sure, but I also consider her son (yep, because vampires) in the Hugo Boss uniform pretty cool, too.
Excuse me, but what the cinnamon toast fuck are you talking about?
1 Like
Iâve been pretty consistent in my attitude and beliefs. Why question me now?
No I know that, you just phrased it weird.
3 main points, really. Normally when I argue against the criminalization of speech I do it from an American perspective, considering our First Amendment rights and all, but Iâll generalize it.
1.) You do more harm than good by criminalizing a form of free, victimless expression.
By criminalizing it, you innately validate the superstitions and paranoia associated with any prospective harms, cementing the stigma involved with having these desires while not doing anything to prevent predators from committing contact offenses against real child victims, who will violate the law and harm children regardless of whether or not they consume this material.
Stigma and paranoia associated with having pedophilic desires are considered, by many, to be high risk factors when evaluating a personâs likelihood of committing a hands-on offense. They may coast through life, carrying this chip on their shoulder being told that theyâre a monster, theyâre evil, and an innate, inhuman threat or ticking time bomb that will inevitably commit a CSA offense in their life, all the while suppressing their sexual desires which only adds to the stress they may already be feeling.
This contributes to a sense of âIâm already dead, might as well snap.â and they find themselves losing any empathy they may have all the while opportunities become more apparent and attractive. Itâs a long, twisted cycle of psychological torture and dehumanization that robs them of their personhood, all because they were born with an undesired sexual orientation.
By codifying this unfounded, unnecessary prejudice by way of criminalizing a safe, victimless sexual outlet that allows them to remain part of society while not harming real children, you cement their suffering and dehumanization, creating a subclass of person in much the same way religious conservatives in America did with the LGBT community until 2003.
- Pornography consumption does not cause sexual aggression or contribute to the commission of subsequent sex crimes.
It simply doesnât, regardless of what the content depicts and who itâs catered towards. Scientists have been studying the effects of pornography on society for the past half century and to this day, there is not sufficient evidence to affirmatively declare a causal or meaningful link between pornography and aggression or crime.
Population statistics on reported sex crimes even indicate that, after controlling for the âdunkelfeldâ, in locales and jurisdictions where pornography of a pedophilic nature is heavily consumed and widely available, they are significantly lower!
Studies on non-forensic populations and representative samples even fail to show a meaningful, let alone causal, connection between pornography consumption and sexual aggression and the commission of sexual crimes like rape and CSA.
The most they seem to find are instances where criminals or abusers may consume pornography that happens to coincide with their sexual interests, as these findings are always nullified by the fact that the majority of these consumers do not exhibit sexual aggression, nor are they aggression-prone.
What is established, however, is that the factors and variables which predispose a person to committing acts of sexual aggression are not related to their pornography consumption.
Pornography is harmless, so long as the persons employed to produce it were not harmed.
3.) Itâs not healthy to censor.
Censorship is, in my opinion, a flagrant and deliberate denial of the fact of the human condition, and to impose oneâs own views on another without just cause is a violation of their rights and reflects a lack of mutual respect for your fellow man.
You can dislike them, you can disagree with them. But you canât harm them unless youâre willing to risk your own life and interests being impeded on. You undermine them.
11 Likes
Okay well Why not, see it works in reverse.
There are multiple reasons, but the main one for me comes down to this:
In a constitutional state, something should only be criminalized if it causes harm.
Fictional child pornography obviously does not cause any direct harm, as apart from the creators there are no real people involved in it.
There is absolutely no evidence that fictional child pornography causes indirect harm by e.g. lowering peopleâs inhibitions towards child sexual abuse. On the other hand, it might even help people by providing a safe and harmless outlet for their sexuality.
As there is no direct harm, and no tangible evidence for indirect harm, there really is no grounds on which to base the criminalization.
6 Likes
Yeah if I were rich I would buy up those roads sing advertisements and put X number of americans are pedophiles. And it would be disguised for some âawareness campaignâ Not sure of the morality of that but god it would be satisfying.
1 Like
Thing is, those in favor of bans usually tend to use appeals to emotion, especially with personal experiences from completely unrelated victims of actual child molestation, like so:
Lolicon is disgusting and people need to stop treating it as if it isn't - Anime and Manga - Other Titles Message Board - Page 25 - GameFAQs (specifically the posts from the so-called âRedDevilCatâ)
Then they get triggered when you call them out for their obvious fallacy.
6 Likes
I was commenting there, and OF COURSE, they close the topic, since talking about stuff that makes people uncomfortable is not profitable, and so, is not interesting for the people who are controlling things there.
But thank you anyway. I, different from many other lolicons, am convinced that we must talk MORE about this. Because we have the arguments in our favor. Being silent about it only benefits the other side.
2 Likes
They canât get past the phrase âItâs just a drawingâ without resorting to making a scientific argument.
When that inevitably fails, they retract back to making logically incredulous points that can only resonate within those who have to choose to believe them.
8 Likes
Or they try to appeal to emotion to bringing up RL victims being willfully ignorant that that also applies to things, like murder. Of course, theyâre banking that you cannot see past those tears because
1 Like
It could be argued that censorship has a greater effect on our democratic freedoms than denying âFreedom of Speechâ or denying âFreedom of Expressionâ. Rather than impeding someoneâs right to put forward a concept, thought or opinion, it impedes the right for people to learn, understand or evaluate the faults or merits of possibility, thus limiting human philosophical and social understanding, and hence progress.
2 Likes
GameFaqs has long since been a haven of censorship loving zealots.
Even when Sony started censoring Japanese games they were literally like âGood. Anyone who likes fanservice is a pedo!â
2 Likes