| sapphi_snake said: Porn is not art. It's jerk off material. |
Yup. Jerking off itself is the art.
I think you missed my point earlier, maybe I didn't make myself clear.
What everyone seems to be having a problem with is how you're trowing the mentally ill label around reffering to anyone who is attracted to children, the child form or even child-like form. All the researches you've pointed though look like they're only talking about those paedophile who have actually abused or tried to abuse a child. The ones who got caught.
Of course a 100% of the people who do something do something. But how can you take that and generalise to any and every paedophile? You can't. If you take all convicted murders you'll find out all of them though about killing someone. Is it true then that anyone that thinks about killing someone is a murder?
Before you cry "mental illness" what I'm talking about defies such qualifications. It's almost mathematical in nature.
See, let P be the class of elements p for which is true p'. If M is then a subset of P such that for every m belonging to M m it's true that m', prove that for every p belonging to P it's true that m'. Hint: you can't.
So yeah, change p with paedophiles (using a broad definitiong to include people who would like lolita material), p' with their said attraction, m with actual molesters and m' with their alleged insanity and there goes your argument.
And that's a way of putting things that leaves other flaws of your case out. For instance, all the research shows is that most m you be considered "insane" (see post above too). Then, you also have to prove people who are attracted to child-like manga are attracted to real children. More than that, you have to prove that the attraction comes from the child or the child form itself, and not some associated factor, of which you act like there are none. I'm sure with some more time I could find more.
Someone quoted earlier "innocent until proven guilty". The day that's gone we're all screwed, including the children.
