The girls of Denki Gai raise an interesting question about lolis and how western culture perceives age taboos.
The girls in Denki Gai technically aren't lolis, but the art style presents them so they pretty much look like them. I know that alot of countries have archaic laws on the books that outlaw loli hentai, calling it "child porn." But under their own logic, would they be able to outlaw denki gai hentai, since the characters are not actually underage in the canon of the show? If that is the case, could we slap "this character is over 18" on all loli hentai and just say they are midgets or its an art style? Its all a matter of the artists perspective really.
And this is what is really damning about anti-loli laws. Because doesn't that ultimately show that what these lawmakers are really trying to outlaw, are certain thoughts and fantasies? You can fap to this drawing as long as you dont "think" it is a 6 year old girl. That is the definition of thought crime. But in our culture of pedo paranoia, its seen as ok to have such Orwellian laws, that criminalize fiction and art.
and its funny, in some countries where they really take obscenity laws seriously (Australia, in this case) they actually ban flat chested women from making porn. That is where this line of reasoning leads.
Why are you talking about this here? It's liked to your unique google profile now and they are as anti-loli as it gets, they've blacklisted it so if it's on your site you can't get ads and you're blacklisted from the search engine.
>That is where this line of reasoning leads.
This line of reasoning never ends anon, it's a witch hunt pure and simple, the same as it was for communists during the red scare and heathens during the inquisition.
The new Captcha takes more information than before including your IP, user agent, browser addons, and unique CPU ID. They know everything you have posted and will use it against you at any turn possible.
Laws you call "thought crime" can make sense from a simple practical point of view. For example, Germany "banning nazism" (not sure about the details; you probably can't get arrested for literally just writing that you're a nazi but rather would have to do some organized stuff) is perfectly sensible, for obvious reasons.
They think the same goes for loli/CP. It just makes sense to them, because that's the reality they live in.
For this reason I think it's immature to use the "thought crime" argument in this case.
It essentially tells them to "suck it up" anyway, instead of actually solving the problem that people *are* offended by lolicon/CP.
I would much rather show people the lovely side of lolicon and child love, point out to them that lolicon and pedos can be nice people, etc.
Don't ask me about hardcore loli hentai though. I guess it would be fine to expect people to "tolerate" it as long as it stays "underground" in some way. Regulated, partly censored, but ultimately tolerated to be sold here and there or distributed through the Internet. That's how it goes for many "officially illegal" things anyway.
Instead of being bitter, cynical, counter-productive, overly edgy, misogynistic, etc., lolicon and pedos should come at peace with themselves and understand that society at large is simply grossly misunderstanding them.
Mutual understanding, respect, and a strong adherence to ethics is what will unite lolicons, pedos, and the rest of society.
It would be strongly encouraged for lolicon and pedos alike to support feminism, LGBT rights, minority ethnicity rights, and be overall positive on so-called "social justice" issues, since ultimately the freedom and health of lolicons and pedos is exactly one more such social justice issue.
I never said thought crime wasn't "practical" or useful for certain people in power. Authoritarianism has always been the easy way to go and was the norm for thousands of years in human society.
But the point remains that these are victimless crimes and crimes of fantasy. And the "problem" of people being offended, im sure you will agree, is not a sound basis for lawmaking. There is no explicit "right to not be offended" in the constitution, but, last I checked, the very first thing listed is freedom of speech and expression. It seems common sense that it would take priority, and it does, in every single case except for with artistic depictions of underage girls/boys, because of cultural taboos.
Obscenity laws really should begin and end with how a product is packaged and labeled, or how they are viewable in public spaces.
LGBT, sure, since a core tenant of their ethical philosophy is consent and are against an invasive government that regulates sexuality.
But feminism? Uhhh, no. They have been at the forefront of censorship for many years now. They routinely attack normal porn and fictional depictions of rape (or even supposed allusions to rape). Do you really think they wont turn on lolicons?
Ideas don't commit crimes, people do. Someone acting on an idea is no reason to ban the idea, the person is the problem there.
Thought crimes are created when idiots who don't want to actually combat the cause of crime want to look like they're doing something, so they ban something harmless that offends them and makes their constituents happy. None of this idiotic shit that has come of obscenity or virtual CP laws has ever saved a real child, quite the opposite where statistics are concerned.
It is amazing how you cant see the implications of your reasoning here.
By your logic we could outlaw just about any form of media that depicts violence and crime. Or even political ideologies that we deem dangerous.
It is not the government's job to preemptively punish people for crimes that have not been committed. There is a huge difference between fantasy and premeditation.
How can you claim that someone is too paranoid in this day in age after the NSA leaks and the Pentagon Papers and the recent zero day bugs in tor? What possibly will convince you that you aren't safe anymore? When you actually get dragged off and tortured in some black bag somewhere without any explanation?
You've been brainwashed by /pol/.
That's not what you call a slippery slope. We're talking about moving from the idea of the crime to the act of the crime, not from one act to another act.
Spreading racist ideas strongly enough surely leads to some white supremacists being fueled with motivation and starting to act out on it. The same thing happened/happens with GamerGate/MRA and misogynists.
The key point here is that racism, anti-feminism (MRA), etc. are fundamentally "aggressive" and "negative" positions. Which is why I'm saying that lolicon/pedo should take a confidently positive position. Don't ever show aggression, unless you're *really* sure it's justified by an equal or greater amount of aggression from the opposite side. For instance consider the fights for homosexual rights. Homosexuals were imprisoned and executed, but did you ever hear of homosexuals imprisoning and executing anti-homosexuals? Now ask yourself which side would more likely want to literally imprison and execute the other side: feminists, or MRA? (Of course you might give the wrong answer if you've been brainwashed by /pol/. Curing that is, unfortunately, too difficult in a single post.)
This is an overly naive perspective. In practice, as mentioned above, spreading ideals which have aggression in their very roots quite unsurprisingly leads to people acting out on that aggression.
The problem is that people think lolicon and pedos are fundamentally aggressive and bad-willed. Some of them actually are, unfortunately. Which is why I'm telling you: don't be like that.
>By your logic we could outlaw just about any form of media that depicts violence and crime.
This is where you apply common sense. Don't fall for the coercive force of "logicality" and lose touch with reality. Not every form of media that depicts violence and crime encourage people to commit those.
If I was promoting ISIS or something, maybe there would be cause for concern, but I dont think they are dragging lolicon apologists off to gitmo. there are like 2 billion google users. I think they have better things to do than harass us loli fans.
Stop spending time on the shittiest possible parts of tumblr?
You're also saying that as if it's any comparison to what GG/MRA do. Tumblrina feminists yell inane crap around; GG/MRA shitstains send people constant rape and death threats and threaten feminists with school shootings.
That should be enough said, really.
>We're talking about moving from the idea of the crime to the act of the crime
That is literally what "slippery slope" means you ignorant piece of trash.
>Not every form of media that depicftts violence and crime encourages people to commit those
So just this one? So basically the theory only works when you want it to work? That's not how anthropology works anon.
>Ideals which have aggression in their roots
>Virtual rape leads to real rape
Nice absolute zero percent of the sociological and anthropological community that thinks that.
>Ideas lead to people acting out on it
No, there is no evidence at all that spreading an idea leads to anything other than the idea being spread, and not letting every idea compete with one another is the most shit idea there is. Censorship only leads to people drawing the conclusions that the people censoring want, and ideas cannot be criminal no matter how much you want to argue that there is this slippery slope between the two that argument is still as far from reality as it was 50 years ago.
Didn't we just have 40 thousand feminists petition to ban GTA5 from stores? And you had prominent figures in the US praising them? Yeah. I totally trust this movement.
Don't get me wrong, im not right wing by any means, but I trust the SJWs with my expression rights like a trust an anaconda with my pet gerbil.
ahh, the "appeal to common sense" fallacy. Totally opens the door to cultural biases and double standards. You know, its not like lolicon hentai and fiction is saying "go out and do this" any more than GTA is saying "go out and commit crimes."
Fiction glamorizes and idealizes just about everything for the purpose of entertainment and enjoyment. If someone is actually coming out and blatantly inciting violence and crime, THAT is where you draw the line. At least that is my "common sense."
It's a little difficult to put in words but it's basically what you see above:
>By your logic we could outlaw just about any form of media that depicts violence and crime.
The above sentence is *logical* in itself, but plain wrong in reality. Racist and MRA propaganda make people actually act out on aggression; random violent movies don't. You could delve into both and create some distinctions like one being an "encouragement of an ideology" (even if subliminal) while the other is a mere representation of violence, but that's going to be *really* difficult to put in concrete, objective terms, so we use common sense instead.
>That is literally what "slippery slope" means
No, it isn't. An idea of a crime inherently includes the thought of actually doing it.
>you ignorant piece of trash
Fuck off to somewhere else if you just want to fling shit. I'm trying to have a discussion.
>So just this one? So basically the theory only works when you want it to work?
Use common sense. E.g. see above.
>That's not how anthropology works anon.
I'm sure you're an expert on anthropology.
>>Virtual rape leads to real rape
Nice straw man.
I've been explaining you where they're coming from, not trying to prove them right. Maybe if you stopped with the absolute "them vs. us" mentality that makes you immediately group me with "them" you would have seen that.
>there is no evidence at all that spreading an idea leads to anything other than the idea being spread
Sure, because the Holocaust happened purely through direct commands cast down by Hitler, and not for a large part due to the *extreme* anti-Jew ideas that went viral.
Exaggerated example to get the point across. inb4 you start yelling Godwin or some shit.
>ideas cannot be criminal
Actually, directly encouraging a person to kill themselves or another is probably a crime in almost every modern country. Where do you draw the line between encouragement and mere representation?
>You're also saying that as if it's any comparison to what GG/MRA do. Tumblrina feminists yell inane crap around; GG/MRA shitstains send people constant rape and death threats and threaten feminists with school shootings.
> not true scotswoman with feminists
> proceeds to strawman MRA
>Don't fall for the coercive force of "logicality" and lose touch with reality
You are asking people to abandon both rationality and empiricism to see through the lens that you have laid out, but there is no reason to, "Common Sense" is not a valid way to see the world when it is proven wrong through science and logic. Simply because something is widely believed doesn't make it true, so why are you asking people to not listen to racists when your argument holds no more water than theirs? You are saying that science and logic don't apply when it comes to lolicon, thought crimes, and the spread of ideas but it does apply when the shoe is on the other foot?
If spreading loli causes people to rape children on the only argument that has ever been leveled that way "Common Sense" or what many people believe then it is impossible to disregard that "Common Sense" also says that black people commit more crimes and the jews are running the world.
Empirical studies have shown that the legality of lolicon and child porn have decreased the rate of actual child molestation. The rations of logic would reason that reality and fiction are separate and anyone who cannot separate them is mentally ill so the only provision we should have should be to keep the mentally ill from having lolicon.
The only pillar of reasoning left is one that you are asking us to ignore in all cases but your own. What kind of argument is that?
exactly. alot of people assume that people who dont support feminism are neocons, republicans, and generally right wing. Its not true at all in alot of cases. Feminism today is just RIDDLED with problems. Double standards, questionable ethics, attacks on freedom of speech and due process, legit sexism towards men, oversensitivity, and so on.
but goddamnit, I try to make a topic on the loli issue, which i find very interesting, and feminism still somehow creeps into the discussion. You just cant get away from it.
>Didn't we just have 40 thousand feminists petition to ban GTA5 from stores?
It's a fucking video game so I give zero fucks when the other side is nearing on rape and murder.
>my expression rights
Because the whores in GTA are a fucking piece of art, right?
I played many GTA games and I can say that the whores were not part of the artistic value of the game. They're generally stupid gimmicks.
>ahh, the "appeal to common sense" fallacy.
No, just an invitation to use common sense.
>Totally opens the door to cultural biases and double standards.
We don't live in a cultural void. That's what the "coercive force of logicality" means: you take an approach where you act as if every mind is in a pure culture-less void and derives all its actions from pure logic. That's not how it goes.
>You know, its not like lolicon hentai and fiction is saying "go out and do this" any more than GTA is saying "go out and commit crimes."
Right. And then many racist and misogynist media do. And GTA and whatever might instead help uphold a bad status quo. It's hard to draw lines on what media causes what, and I'm NOT saying that GTA or lolicon actually cause anything (see above post too), but denying that mass media affect the overall cultural atmosphere which again affects the behavior of people, is fairly stupid. So don't use that as an argument; instead point people out the *difference* between lolicon media and, say, some actually misogynist media.
>If someone is actually coming out and blatantly inciting violence and crime, THAT is where you draw the line.
Sounds like a bit too late, no?
Men and women have different privileges in 1st world countries at the moment but I'm not an expert so let's not go there. I'm inclined to believe that idealizing masculinity is still more or less the norm though. Women are still subliminally seen as secondary as far as I can tell from vague observations of the whole cultural atmosphere. This is my subjective experience as a man.
>It's time. threads are Samurai Champloo threads.
Ohhhh. That's Mugen. You know I've been here for like two and a half years now and I always wondered who that was but I didn't want to go in there and ask.
>The above sentence is *logical* in itself, but plain wrong in reality. Racist and MRA propaganda make people actually act out on aggression; random violent movies don't. You could delve into both and create some distinctions like one being an "encouragement of an ideology" (even if subliminal) while the other is a mere representation of violence, but that's going to be *really* difficult to put in concrete, objective terms, so we use common sense instead.
Im sure that when writing this comment it started to dawn on you how utterly convoluted the world of censorship truly is. Talking about "subliminal messages" "encouragement of an ideology" and certain ways that certain media affects certain people. Who gets to decide all of this? you? of course. Because your glorious "common sense" will show you the way.
Sorry dude, but I utterly reject your methodology and your reasoning here. I would rather have "too little" censorship than too much. Because at the end of the day, the factors that cause people to lack empathy and act cruelly towards others are not borne in them through media and entertainment. It is environment and upbringing. So have fun straining your brain over what should be censored. You will never save or help anyone that way. And people like me will be against you 100% of the way
Whores are a part of the criminal world, and thus should be represented in GTA. As they exist in that world then they should be able to be interacted with in the same ways as any other part of the world. Sage for /v/ shit.
As much as I want to contribute to this conversation, this shit-recaptcha doesn't work well with ChanX, and the vanilla method of posting is absolutely rancid.
I don't know how I used to, or how anyone today manages to use it.
no no no. we need something like minority report. because clearly that movie was an idealistic instruction manual for the future of our justice system. This whole "innocent until proven guilty thing" just gets in the way of true justice. We need to arrest and jail people on suspicions and thoughts. That way we can create a shining crime free utopia.
What your saying can be summed up as that you don't like the morals someone is preaching and you think that make them harmful. But the fact of the matter is that there is empirical no link between violence in videogames and violence in real life, and none of your personal "common sense" will change that fact. Your argument is the same as every other slippery slope argument throughout history, and thus has the same flaws, the main one being that it has nothing backing it up other than your word. Why should you get to decide what other should see simply because it offends you? It's fine if you're the only one who is going to get shorted on seeing the material, but to go out and say that because you don't like it it must be harmful without any logic or science behind it only pisses off anyone who actually wants to see it.
>I'm sure you're an expert on anthropology.
Personal attacks really work well anonymously on the internet.
Egalitarianism is when there's 6 pounds on one side of the scale and 12 on the other, and you try to balance it by putting 6 pounds to each side.
In MRA, aggression and damage is the norm, serious concern for human well being is the exception. In feminism, serious concern for human well being is the norm, aggression and damage is the exception.
Keep talking in memes. It suits you.
>You are asking people to abandon both rationality and empiricism [... rest of the paragraph ...]
Rationality and empiricism shows us that people act out on offensive ideas once they go viral. The problem is not whether to use ration and empiricism at all; it's about whether applying it in its full complexity, or applying it to some grossly simplified model of reality.
>If spreading loli causes people to rape children
For the nine thousandst time, I'm not saying that.
Can you try to write more proper sentences by the way? I seriously had a hard time understanding the rest. I might be tired.
>black people commit more crimes and the jews are running the world
Right. If we would like to draw an analogy to that here, I guess I could say you're claiming that black people cannot possibly be committing more crimes and Jewish people cannot possibly own a great deal of big companies because science tells us that they're not inferior or superior to any other race. But the reality is different. Does that mean science is wrong? No, it means you're trying to apply science way too flatly.
>Empirical studies have shown that the legality of lolicon and child porn have decreased the rate of actual child molestation.
Sure about lolicon? I only know that to have been studied about CP.
Now seriously, stop being so paranoidly black&white with your thinking and realize that I'm merely inviting you to use better arguments. I'm for legalization of CP (at the consent of the producers including the children), adult-child sex when it's harmless (which it seems it can be), etc.
>contributing money to this god-awful, and getting worse, site.
"Please support 4chan by disabling your ad blocker on *.4chan.org/*, purchasing a self-serve ad, or buying a 4chan Pass."
I don't frequent 4chan actually. I only come on /a/ every other day to check on any anime I may be missing.
This recaptcha bullshit is seriously making me consider making the move to 2x-chan.
>Sure about lolicon
See statistics in Japan.
>Right. If we would like to draw an analogy to that here, I guess I could say you're claiming that black people cannot possibly be committing more crimes and Jewish people cannot possibly own a great deal of big companies because science tells us that they're not inferior or superior to any other race. But the reality is different. Does that mean science is wrong? No, it means you're trying to apply science way too flatly.
No, if we draw that analogy here we can say that they are both not backed up by statistics and they are both based only on "common sense" of the people spreading them.
>For the nine thousandst time, I'm not saying that.
That is exactly what you're saying, that because you are offended by something it clearly propagates a completely different thing, being child rape versus the spreading of loli.
>Stop being black and white about this
But this is a black and white issue, either the spread of drawings increases rape or it doesn't and the fact is it doesn't so there's no reason to ban it.
Welcome to why every single Japanese eroge has that "Every single character appearing in this work is over the age of 18" titlecard.
Yes, Saya is definitely 18, she only looks like she is 10, right? Right?
it reminds me alot of when Jack Thompson was saying GTA caused an increase in crime, but crime rates were actually plummeting as the sales of games went up.
The same applies here. Crimes of all kinds in America and the western world have been going down steadily, but people keep coming along with "new ways" to combat the "crime epidemic." and it involves imprisoning people for victimless crimes and banning certain media. Isnt that interesting
Right. But social problems can be so incredibly complicated that simple logic leads you to utterly stupid conclusions that contradict reality. You'd need to apply some crazy heuristics and use chaos theory or whatever the fuck if you wanted to argue social stuff in a *purely* logical fashion.
Who are you quoting?
Are you trying to imply that feminists do the same? That feminists have long been sending people literal rape and death threats?
>It's better to punish someone after the crime than before.
Huh? So you wouldn't like to prevent the crime in first place?
I know you meant to say something different, but I'm not going to strain myself to make your argument for you.
>Who gets to decide all of this?
Those who strain themselves to make thoughtful and credible arguments rather than spouting memes, ignoring academia, acting as if everything happens in a cultural void, etc. etc.
Some arguments are more credible than others, more rooted in the goal of human well being than the dogmatic ideal of free speech, etc., and without much surprise, those tend to pass during lawmaking.
Another way to look at things is that all the oh-so-logical arguments being made here are basically extremely amateurish, which is why nobody in higher positions take them serious. I don't know about the USA, but say Germany isn't ruled by religious retards or some other hyper-emotional weirdos who are absent of logic; and do you think the decision to ban nazism is a good or a bad one?
>It is environment and upbringing.
Media & entertainment = culture = environment and upbringing
You are absolutely missing the point of everything I'm saying, and your post is hard to read, and there's many other posts here, so allow me to ignore you for now.
>there's 12 pounds on one side of the scale and 12 on the other
>you wouldn't like to prevent the crime in first place?
Obviously, prevention is good, but not when it affects the lives of other people who would not commit the crime.
Prevention is not punishment. I stand by what I said to the letter.
>Media & entertainment = culture = environment and upbringing
Wow dude. are you serious? Here I thought you had at least some semblance of knowledge about sociology, but I guess I was wrong.
We are talking about the home environment. Like poverty, bad neighborhoods, and/or neglectful/abusive parents (or parents who simply didnt instil good values in empathy and respect). And maybe a sprinkle of metal illness, either inborn or due to the environment.
Jesus christ, dude. There are so many factors that cause crime, violence, and a lack of empathy. Media has never been shown to be a significant one.
>See statistics in Japan.
If you know a good study or so then link me please; would be interested.
>No, if we draw that analogy here we can say that they are both not backed up by statistics and they are both based only on "common sense" of the people spreading them.
Not sure what exactly you're trying to say. There's no statistics I know of about how many big companies are owned by Jewish persons, but "common sense" (just looking around a little) indeed shows us that they own many. Is there anything wrong with this? Also note though that discrimination against women and such has often been studied academically so that particular case isn't even just "common sense" anymore. In the case of CP, the few (only?) studies (study?) been made contradicts the common sensical thought, but don't make a strong enough case (study results aren't absolute truth either) which is why I'm telling you to help correct people's common sense which is wrong in this instance.
>That is exactly what you're saying
No, for fuck's sake, that is not what I'm saying. Stop arguing with a straw man and see that I'm trying to help you here.
>But this is a black and white issue, either the spread of drawings increases rape or it doesn't
You're just showing how simplistic your thinking is. It might do so in some places, at some times, due to these and those other aspects of these and those cultures, and not do so in other places, times, and cultures. You have to make a case on that it doesn't cause problems here, in our times and the foreseeable future, in our culture. And you might help doing that not by being overly aggressive and gushing out amateurish hyper-logical arguments that people who depend on "common sense" a lot won't want to hear, and instead by understanding them, and showing them the precise ways in which their common sense is wrong in this case.
(Common sense is valuable despite leading to problems. See banning nazism/racism etc.)
It's not. Feminism in the past was important as women lacked basic rights, which they now have. Now that they have those rights the movement is inherently flawed as a progressive movement since it tries to solve the social issues on the female side if the spectrum while ignoring the ones on the male side. Feminism should've been abolished for a general humanitarianism long ago.
How else are you going to prevent? Whatever option you bring forth, ask yourself whether it's absolutely logical or empirically proven that it will work. Whatever logic you use, you'll likely be to notice that it's no better than the common sense those people are using, and will have as little empirical evidence.
>Wow dude. are you serious? Here I thought you had at least some semblance of knowledge about sociology, but I guess I was wrong.
You're trying hard to sound smart but not succeeding at it, please stop.
>There are so many factors that cause crime, violence, and a lack of empathy. Media has never been shown to be a significant one.
Maybe because it's a difficult one to test.
Look at what feminists are doing then look at what MRA/GG are doing then tell me with a straight face that men and women are totally treating each other equally.
You make an incredible amount of sense, OP. But it doesn't matter. Reason doesn't rule the world; emotions do. No amount of logical arguments will change people's minds as long as their feelings stay the same
>Look at what feminists are doing then look at what MRA/GG are doing then tell me with a straight face that men and women are totally treating each other equally.
Please read what I said properly if you're going to reply at all. It has nothing to do with who's being shit on more but acknowledging and working on both sides having problems as opposed to only caring about one or the other.
All lolicons should just become aryan ubermensch.
All of us will be so sexy we'll be associated with the light of good and truth instead of whatever we're associated with now.
We don't need to capitulate to the feminists and gay degenerates.
>How else are you going to prevent?
You make a good argument. I think realistically, for at least the short term, you are right; just look at the USAs prisons to see that deterrents don't work. However that doesn't mean there aren't other ways. Education seems to work quite well, though it is much more long term. In a sense it is better that it is long term.
I agree that virtual CP should be legal for various reasons. I even think that the age of consent should be replaced by some kind of maturity test. Some 12yos are more mature and reasonable than 18yos.
btw: the constitution of fatty nation is immoral and dumb anyway, so it doesn't matter what it says.
It's not always "feelings" but sometimes common sensical heuristics and "gut feeling" more or less.
Germany doesn't need any scientific studies or some super-logical justification to ban nazism. The reasons are absolutely fucking obvious to any sane citizen of Germany. In some cases like this loli/CP one, or video games and misogyny, etc., it's not *that* obvious, but still relatively obvious to someone who has been seriously concerning themselves with the topic for a long time.
And in those cases, when some people who just "don't get it" spew some arguments which are ostensibly logical, it can be really hard to explain them why they're wrong.
>It has nothing to do with who's being shit on more
Yes, I'm afraid it does. There's the judicial side to women's issues, and then there's the cultural side. When an abundant amount of men are being senselessly aggressive towards women, and this behavior spreads easily between sub-intellectual people (not even just men; see women MRAs) you can't tell me feminism isn't needed.
Fuck yes, exactly what I'm saying.
I don't get what's so fucking hard to understand.
You're talking about scientific evidence from a very limited set of studies; possibly a single one. That won't convince lawmakers.
Yes, thank you based anon. I guessed education would come up. I also think it's the best long-term solution for more or less everything.
If a culture reaches a seriously "enlightened" point some time, then it can get rid of most censorship and whatnot. Sadly I don't think any culture is quite there yet.
Now I gotta go.
>But social problems can be so incredibly complicated that simple logic leads you to utterly stupid conclusions that contradict reality.
So you're saying because you lack the ability or drive to refute logical-sounding but bad arguments using the same logical-sounding rhetoric that proponents of said arguments use this somehow justifies your appeal to common sense? Why not analyze your own feelings on the matter and see the underlying logic that causes you to feel that way so that you may explain why your common sense is correct in a logical-sounding way that is appealing to those people?
>Germany doesn't need any scientific studies or some super-logical justification to ban nazism. The reasons are absolutely fucking obvious to any sane citizen of Germany.
I guess I'm an insane citizen of Germany, because I don't think that Strasserism is evil. Just because one form of national socialism caused my nation to fall into ruin and shame doesn't mean that all forsm of national socialism are bad and can never be tried out again. Not to mention that Hitler and his rabble weren't really ideologically pure. They just did whatever they fucking wanted most of the time. Yet, even they were more harmless than the BRD and its "allies" are today.
>You're talking about scientific evidence from a very limited set of studies; possibly a single one. That won't convince lawmakers.
Of course not. No amount of evidence will convince lawmakers as long as the evidence suggests something that is incredibly unpopular. Rind's study, for instance, is still the best evidence we have with regards to how harmful sex with minors actually is. But since the conclusions of the study were unpopular, it hasn't changed anything.
>I guessed education would come up. I also think it's the best long-term solution for more or less everything.
>If a culture reaches a seriously "enlightened" point some time
It won't. Humans haven't developed at all. Our technology did, sure, but we're still just jumped-up apes and our brains were only designed to understand the mundane details of how to survive in the Stone Age African savannah. The struggle of our species for many ages will produce nothing but sordid, aimless, ugly, confusion. This will never change.
exactly. Human psychology makes us want things that we cant have and that are taboo. the more you try to ban something, the more people will want it. If people can jerk off to Kodomo No Jikan hentai and then go about their day, then there is no issue.
If you tell them that it is dirty and it is illegal and they cant lay eyes on it, all that will make them do is want it even more and it might escalate things. Because you implant this idea in people that they are deviants, rejected by society and that what they are doing is no different than looking at actual child porn or actually harming a child.
Imagine if someone gets caught with loli hentai and gets branded a sex offender for life. Now society has told them that this defines them, ostracizes them from everyone else, and leaves itheir "pedophilia" as the only thing they can even pursue. This is why many sex offenders repeat offenses. It is because they really have nothing left to lose or gain in life and their ability to move on or seek other avenues have been destroyed.
Anon the reason sex offenders commit crimes is because they lack the empathy to understand why their actions are harmful to other people. That alone is the essential determining factor and whether or not they're able to do other things makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.
>This is why many sex offenders repeat offenses. It is because they really have nothing left to lose or gain in life and their ability to move on or seek other avenues have been destroyed.
Yeah sure, but I think that all criminals should be killed anyway. At least as long as a shitton of innocent people die preventable deaths. Why waste resources on criminals and give them food, a warm bed and medical assistance while innocent people die a wretched death?
>GG/MRA shitstains send people constant rape and death threats and threaten feminists with school shootings.
Source or proof that those weren't sent by trolls pretending to be GG?
>Yeah sure, but I think that all criminals should be killed anyway.
>Killing some innocent people for the sake of the greater good is justifiable.
This is an 18+ website, anon.
Holy shit is this an entire thread of off-topic shitposts?
There are nuances and subtleties that need to be considered. Not all sex offenders are psychopaths. Sometimes a minor actively pursues a sexual relationship with an adult. An adult in such a situation doesn't necessarily lack a sense of compassion when he has sex with the minor, because he could honestly believe that the child isn't harmed by it. Or perhaps he just satisfies his desires without thinking about the consequences too much. That's what virtually all people do. A lot of our actions cause suffering, but we simply don't care. Non-human animals, future generations, people in 3rd world shitholes - they're all royally screwed.
Of course there is a certain number of people who manage to be born, or perhaps raised, without a conscience. Those people truly are psycopaths, but we shouldn't use this absolutist category for all sex offenders. Time spent in understanding and studying somebody's behavior is always time well spent, and absolutist categories may distort our understanding.
So? Are you also against using deadly force in order to rescue hostages because there is "no such thing as 100% certainty"? What if somebody aims a rifle at a celebrity and screams "I'll kill you!" Are the bodyguards not allowed to take the rifleman down in such a situation because they cannot be 100% sure that he has a change of heart at the last second, or is being mind controlled, or is just a crazy comedian?
Those cases are different to someone being punished after the crime. Sometimes it can take years. If no one witnessed the crime, and the evidence suggests that a certain person committed it, there is still a chance they didn't.
That's how a lot of loli threads end up. Being a lolicon is suffering
We were born too late for living during a time when nobody gave a fuck, and too early to live in a time with perfect virtual reality lolis. It sucks.
This isn't a "loli thread."
It's an off-topic thread about "how western culture perceives age taboos" and politics that's tangentially related to anime.
This is possibly the most cancerous thread on the board right now. Isn't there some other board where people can go to have political debates? I really wish they would fuck off to said board.
Fucking hell, I just wanted to talk about how much I love Fugarru
Do you think we should judge a medicine's efficiency based on how it affects one person or should we use a large sample size? Do you think under some circumstances it would be permissible to let pharmacies sell a medicine that can have fatal side effects?
>Isn't there some other board where people can go to have political debates?
Not any more. Check out what moot did to /pol/. It's been that way for 3 days now I think. It's not a wonder we're getting some runoff.
That's why loli threads should always be limited to posting pics and talking about the pics.
Like this. How many fetishes can you spot?
There is nobody on the face of this Earth who could say they are the victim of a cartoon drawing.
There is no statistical evidence to support that an interest in drawings will translate into an interest in real children.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime; a crime must produce a victim. A victimless act punished, becomes Sin, or a crime against God, the power of state. Such laws exist for no other purpose than to produce symbolic human sacrifices from otherwise innocent people, to affirm faith in power.
Laws can be made and unmade for any reason or no reason at all, there is no reason to feel guilty for being the target of a thoughtless persecution. The average voter has little or no control over which laws get made, so their indignation is little more than thinly-disguised casual malice. We are all sinners in the hands of an angry God.
You're a bit late to chime in m8, the SJW anon fucked off a while ago.
Have some Rin.
is the concept that cartoon drawings can indirectly cause harm via making pedos feel like their fetish is normal hard to understand anon?
we as a society should send the message that having a sexual fantasy about harming people is a sick sick thing and make it a very socially unacceptable thing
this doesn't mean we should imprison people who fap to loli or whatever other thought crime strawman argument you think anti loli people are making
I don't give a fuck about all this moral debate, I just wanted to say that I love that cute art style and I enjoy this show.
I also love the Japanese lewd fanart for it. Cute lewd is the best lewd. Loli is the best as well.
>is the concept that cartoon drawings can indirectly cause harm via making pedos feel like their fetish is normal hard to understand anon?
No, but the idea is not supported by evidence. See: >>118123740
The idea that violent video games cause actual violence is much more plausible, because there is at least a positive correlation. So before we ban lolicon, we should first ban violent video games.
>is the concept that cartoon drawings can indirectly cause harm via making pedos feel like their fetish is normal hard to understand anon?
It's not hard to understand, but it's also not hard to understand that it's total bullshit that doesn't happen.
Cause that's the exact same argument concerned parents have used against video games and television for decades: that it "desensitizes" audiences to violence.
Here's how you take apart this claim:
1. How do you even prove this claim? Can it be proven?
2. Even if you can prove it, so what? Where's the harm?
Cause despite all the manufactured outrage over violence in video games, violent crime has been trending downward since the 1980s. Youth crime hit record lows in the last 5 years. As in, for as long as they've been tracking youth crime, it's never been lower than it is right now.
So the only conclusion you can reach is that either desensitization is not happening or it just makes society safer overall.
So my ultimate question is so what if it makes them think it's normal? Show me why that's a bad thing.
>thread is entire walls of text debating political bullshit like pedophilia, feminism and thought crimes
Kameko best girl.
tfw doomed to never find the right one ;_;
I feel like I've gained a lot of good info for my pro loli argument today
I like how when loli threads stat on topic they get autosaged and/or deleted, but this one is totally fine. Maybe redwood thinks we were getting btfo
the claim isn't that watching porn of something stimulates the areas in the brain related to that fetish or whatever bullshit videogame violence argument you seem to think i'm making. it's not even about the porn
it's only about social acceptability. do i have to justify the radical idea that making pedos feel like they're in good company and it's ok to be a pedo is liable to make them feel different than if you tell them this is bad you shouldn't do this? is this not how children are raised to not do stupid shit? again it's not the porn even well intentioned anime that sexualise little girls via harmless innocent fan service can make that 20 something confused guy who doesn't understand his urges think that it might be ok to like little girls since nobody told him otherwise. it's our job as a society to make it absolutely clear that fucking kids is wrong and japan is way too casual about it.
>it's our job as a society to make it absolutely clear that fucking kids is wrong
>It's wrong because I say so and I don't like it
>All evidence that supports my position is always valid
>All evidence that says I am wrong is fabricated
i'm sorry are you arguing that actual child fucking is not harmful i thought this was about fictional depictions of that and whatever effect they might have on the minds of pedos?
>Egalitarianism is when there's 6 pounds on one side of the scale and 12 on the other, and you try to balance it by putting 6 pounds to each side.
And feminisim is trying to remove 12 from the other.