By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - UPDATE Man Faces Minimum 1 Year in Prison for Bringing Manga to Canada On His Laptop

Torillian on 25 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

But if he does have sexual attraction towards small children, then he is a potential threat. Paedophilia is a mental diorder, and paedophiles generally don't think rationally, and make up bizarre excuses to justify their actions (things like "a person reaches full sexual maturity at the age of 5"). Heck, even the book Lolita presented a situation like that. Making this guy go to a psychiatrist isn't punishing him, it's helping him, and possibly saving a poor child in the future. Igf he really is sexually attracted to small children, then he'll eventually crack if he doesn't recieve help.

Paedophilia is indeed a mental condition, but unless the person is a threat to others you can't force treatment on them.  If they want treatment they will seek it out, it is not the government's place to tell them how to think.  

Paedophilia is a crime because it has a victim: children.  Children aren't deemed old enough to make decisions about sex on their own and therefore sex with someone who can make decisions (anyone over 18) is illegal and I totally agree with this law.  Sure sometimes you get silly situations like when a 19 year old dates a 17 year old but a line had to be drawn in the sand and stuck with.  But child pronography created without the involvement of any actual children doesn't hurt any of them, and therefore it should not be a crime.  Just the same as rape fantasy porn with women pretending isn't a crime as long as noone was actually raped (and therefore no victim)

The bolded statement is what the crux of the whole argument is, and until you prove that anyone sexually attracted to the underaged will eventually crack without help then you are punishing someone for their thoughts and I just can't see that as something the government should do.  I'm a strong believer in the old saying that your rights to swing your arms around stop at the other person's nose and therefore your rights to think should only stop when they affect others in a negative way.  Until that point you can think about any crazy thing you want.



...

Around the Network
Garnett on 25 June 2011

Fry the fucker!!!

If these idiots who searched the guy ever goes to Japan, hes gonna RROD IRL!



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

o_O.Q on 25 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Torillian said:
sapphi_snake said:
I'm curious though, what kind of person actually reads such material, if not a paedophile.


Well that depends what it was since all we know is that some guy at a customs office considered it child pornograpy, could just be some high school manga with a few risque scenes or it could be full on loli hentai.  If it's the second than yes he's a paedophile, but if he doesn't act out on his desires I see no reason he should be punushed for thinking whatever he wants long as the material wasn't made by exploiting children (which it wasn't) then the law shouldn't have a say.

But if it really was lolicon then shouldn't he be forced to at least see a psychiatrist. I mean, today he reads a lolicon mag, tomorrow he rapes a pre-schooler. It's not as if porn prevents people from commiting such crimes.

i watched a movie last night where the protagonist cursed randomly, had sex with hookers and shot people and funny enough when i went out today i was still able to act civil are you saying all violent or sexually suggestive material must be banned?



Xen on 25 June 2011

Fuck, what DON'T they search these days?

What a retarded fucking case.



sapphi_snake on 25 June 2011
Torillian said:
sapphi_snake said:

But if he does have sexual attraction towards small children, then he is a potential threat. Paedophilia is a mental diorder, and paedophiles generally don't think rationally, and make up bizarre excuses to justify their actions (things like "a person reaches full sexual maturity at the age of 5"). Heck, even the book Lolita presented a situation like that. Making this guy go to a psychiatrist isn't punishing him, it's helping him, and possibly saving a poor child in the future. Igf he really is sexually attracted to small children, then he'll eventually crack if he doesn't recieve help.

Paedophilia is indeed a mental condition, but unless the person is a threat to others you can't force treatment on them.  If they want treatment they will seek it out, it is not the government's place to tell them how to think.  

Paedophilia is a crime because it has a victim: children.  Children aren't deemed old enough to make decisions about sex on their own and therefore sex with someone who can make decisions (anyone over 18) is illegal and I totally agree with this law.  Sure sometimes you get silly situations like when a 19 year old dates a 17 year old but a line had to be drawn in the sand and stuck with.  But child pronography created without the involvement of any actual children doesn't hurt any of them, and therefore it should not be a crime.  Just the same as rape fantasy porn with women pretending isn't a crime as long as noone was actually raped (and therefore no victim)

The bolded statement is what the crux of the whole argument is, and until you prove that anyone sexually attracted to the underaged will eventually crack without help then you are punishing someone for their thoughts and I just can't see that as something the government should do.  I'm a strong believer in the old saying that your rights to swing your arms around stop at the other person's nose and therefore your rights to think should only stop when they affect others in a negative way.  Until that point you can think about any crazy thing you want.

But in modern society we aim to prevent crime. You approach does exactly the opposite of that. When a person suffers from a mental condition that makes them a threat to others (in this case children), it's quite normal to force that person to go to a specialist. You have to remember that paedophiles are insane people, who are not thinking rationally and cannot control themselves. I never advocated that people who are caught with animated child pornography go to prison, I said they should recieve HELP, which is not the same thing. Prevention is key.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 25 June 2011
o_O.Q said:
sapphi_snake said:
Torillian said:
sapphi_snake said:
I'm curious though, what kind of person actually reads such material, if not a paedophile.


Well that depends what it was since all we know is that some guy at a customs office considered it child pornograpy, could just be some high school manga with a few risque scenes or it could be full on loli hentai.  If it's the second than yes he's a paedophile, but if he doesn't act out on his desires I see no reason he should be punushed for thinking whatever he wants long as the material wasn't made by exploiting children (which it wasn't) then the law shouldn't have a say.

But if it really was lolicon then shouldn't he be forced to at least see a psychiatrist. I mean, today he reads a lolicon mag, tomorrow he rapes a pre-schooler. It's not as if porn prevents people from commiting such crimes.

i watched a movie last night where the protagonist cursed randomly, had sex with hookers and shot people and funny enough when i went out today i was still able to act civil are you saying all violent or sexually suggestive material must be banned?

Probably because, unlike a paedophile, you are not insane. You gotta understand, I never said such material turns someone into a paedophile, I said the person who would view such material is a paedophile, and needs help before he ends up hurting a child. The kew is to prevent crime. If a person had violent outbursts would that person not be made to take anger management classes? If a person manifested alarming racist ideeas, would that person not be made to take sensitivity training? Most of all, a paedophile is a mentally ill person, therefore they do not think logically, and cannot be treated as rational-thinking persons.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

hatmoza on 25 June 2011

In my opinion, You're still a sick pedophile even if you twist reality with fantasy via manga to justify your sickness.

About the OP, was it underage hentai movies, manga?



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

Galaki on 25 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

Probably because, unlike a paedophile, you are not insane. You gotta understand, I never said such material turns someone into a paedophile, I said the person who would view such material is a paedophile, and needs help before he ends up hurting a child. The kew is to prevent crime. If a person had violent outbursts would that person not be made to take anger management classes? If a person manifested alarming racist ideeas, would that person not be made to take sensitivity training? Most of all, a paedophile is a mentally ill person, therefore they do not think logically, and cannot be treated as rational-thinking persons.

Be careful where you're going. Are you trying to push for thought crime?

Everyone here wished death upon others at one point or another, doesn't mean they are going to act on it.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

Baalzamon on 25 June 2011

How did they even get the right to search the documents that were on his computer, that is my question.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Torillian on 25 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Torillian said:
sapphi_snake said:

But if he does have sexual attraction towards small children, then he is a potential threat. Paedophilia is a mental diorder, and paedophiles generally don't think rationally, and make up bizarre excuses to justify their actions (things like "a person reaches full sexual maturity at the age of 5"). Heck, even the book Lolita presented a situation like that. Making this guy go to a psychiatrist isn't punishing him, it's helping him, and possibly saving a poor child in the future. Igf he really is sexually attracted to small children, then he'll eventually crack if he doesn't recieve help.

Paedophilia is indeed a mental condition, but unless the person is a threat to others you can't force treatment on them.  If they want treatment they will seek it out, it is not the government's place to tell them how to think.  

Paedophilia is a crime because it has a victim: children.  Children aren't deemed old enough to make decisions about sex on their own and therefore sex with someone who can make decisions (anyone over 18) is illegal and I totally agree with this law.  Sure sometimes you get silly situations like when a 19 year old dates a 17 year old but a line had to be drawn in the sand and stuck with.  But child pronography created without the involvement of any actual children doesn't hurt any of them, and therefore it should not be a crime.  Just the same as rape fantasy porn with women pretending isn't a crime as long as noone was actually raped (and therefore no victim)

The bolded statement is what the crux of the whole argument is, and until you prove that anyone sexually attracted to the underaged will eventually crack without help then you are punishing someone for their thoughts and I just can't see that as something the government should do.  I'm a strong believer in the old saying that your rights to swing your arms around stop at the other person's nose and therefore your rights to think should only stop when they affect others in a negative way.  Until that point you can think about any crazy thing you want.

But in modern society we aim to prevent crime. You approach does exactly the opposite of that. When a person suffers from a mental condition that makes them a threat to others (in this case children), it's quite normal to force that person to go to a specialist. You have to remember that paedophiles are insane people, who are not thinking rationally and cannot control themselves. I never advocated that people who are caught with animated child pornography go to prison, I said they should recieve HELP, which is not the same thing. Prevention is key.

they should seek help, they should not have it forced upon them because that is a punishment for something they haven't done.  Prevention is all well and great but you can't encroach on the rights of others to think what they want until they do something to prove that they are a danger to others.  YOu can't just assume that every person with sexual tendencies towards the underaged is insane and will one day act upon those desires.

Just like any of the other crimes people are allowed to think about as long as they don't commit them.  



...