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

sapphi_snake on 26 June 2011
brendude13 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kudistos Megistos said:

Moralfaggotry at its finest. Anti-loli laws are the perfect example of a thought crime: people are criminalised for thinkingthings other people don't like, even though no-one gets harmed.

The US needs to declare war on Canada!

Seriously. You had to use such a homophobic term?


Don't you watch South Park? The definition of "faggot" or "fag" has now been changed and it doens't insult homosexuals =D.

And this is pathetic, if this "law" applies to the UK as well then I will be arrested for CREATING child pornography after they see some of the shit that I draw during lunch break.

I've always thought South Park is lame, and never given it much attention.

Also, why would you create child pornography? Do you want to go to jail?



"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
naznatips on 26 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:
naznatips said:

And in the same time the Japanese thought it was acceptable to have sex with young boys, the Europeans had no such thing as laws against rape nor child molestation, and the average age of marriage was 11.

The Japanese have some of the most efficient and effective law enforcement in the world, and very very few crimes go unreported. Part of this is it's a country where people are crammed so close together that you alway sknow what everyone else is doing. It's great that you're so sure of your misguided beliefs that you're willing to deny overwhelming statistical data (less than 1% of child molestations in the world are comitted by Asians and Pacific Islanders, while more than 50% are comitted by white people in countries in which we have such laws). What? There are 4 times as many Asians as Whites in the world too? Oh so White people in countries with laws against lolicon material are actually about 200 times more likely to commit the crime? Well, I'm sure it's just the police thing. Keep telling yourself that. 

But the thing is that these laws exist as a response to child abuse. You're trying to suggest that they're the cause, which is quite silly. If what you're saying is true about those statistics, it only shows that asians are less likely than whites to abuse children. Relaxing laws for child abusers would essentially doom children in Western countries.

Regarding your first paragraph, children were actually molested at that time in Europe. Are you suggesting otherwise?

No no not at all. The laws were not created as a response to child abuse, they were created in fear of a behavior leading to child abuse. A fear completely unsubstantiated by any real data. I'm not saying they're the cause (although who knows, maybe if people did vent their desires on fictional material it would happen less, there's no data to support this either). I'm saying it's simply proven to not be connected to sexual abuse. And even if it were remotely connected (which again, it's not) your'e still punishing people for something which might happen, not which has happened. Otherwise what people do in the privacy of their own minds is hardly the business of the government. 

Also, all my data is accurate. http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm

Rate of child abuse by race:
  White = 51%
  African American = 25%
  Hispanic = 15%
  American Indian/Alaska Natives = 2%
  Asian/Pacific Islanders = 1%



brendude13 on 26 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:
brendude13 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kudistos Megistos said:

Moralfaggotry at its finest. Anti-loli laws are the perfect example of a thought crime: people are criminalised for thinkingthings other people don't like, even though no-one gets harmed.

The US needs to declare war on Canada!

Seriously. You had to use such a homophobic term?


Don't you watch South Park? The definition of "faggot" or "fag" has now been changed and it doens't insult homosexuals =D.

And this is pathetic, if this "law" applies to the UK as well then I will be arrested for CREATING child pornography after they see some of the shit that I draw during lunch break.

I've always thought South Park is lame, and never given it much attention.

Also, why would you create child pornography? Do you want to go to jail?

Yes.

South Park sucks and I want to go to jail.



shuraiya on 26 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

@shuraiya:

Pedophiles can very much control themselves, otherwise all instances of their... violations would not, and in fact, could not be a crime.

Yeah, see, the thing is that this argument is based more on wishfull thinking, and the the desire to neglect the real problem. Paedophiles are insane, they cannot control themselves, and their violations should not be considered a crime. They're dellusional (they have twisted ideeas, like "people reach full sexual maturity at the age of 5"), and they require psychiatric help. Sending them to prison will do as much help as sending someone who hears voices telling him to kill people to prison. Prison only really works with sane people who think rationally. Most people ignore this because it's much simpler to pain paedophiles as diabolical monsters who should rot in jail, rather than what they really are: mentally ill people who need help.

Another thing: animated child pornography feeds the paedophiles dellusions. Because it's animated, and it involves fantasy characters, the children will be shown actually enjoying the sexual acts, thus the paedophile will recieve confirmation of his/her dellusions from such material.

This is the very distinction I was trying to make; you are viewing all pedophiles in a worst-case senario. Everyone may agree that pedophilia is disgusting, depraved, or even sinful, but what we must not forget is that it isn't a crime. Pedophiles choose whether of not to act on their desires. Those that do end up justifying their crime in the manner you described above: people reach full sexual maturity at the age of 5. This extreme view is not characteristic of all pedophiles, but merely of those make the decision to act on their desires and then attempt to avoid punishment through desperate rationalization.

On the point of animated child pornography, we will have to agree to disagree. There are two sides to the arguement. The other side is of the belief that it can provide a means of satisfying most of the pedophiles urges--urges that would be directed at real children--thus reducing the chances of criminal behavior. It could even be further argued that outlawing such material outright could lead to an increase in cases of child molestation by pedophiles.



brendude13 on 26 June 2011
shuraiya said:

This is the very distinction I was trying to make; you are viewing all pedophiles in a worst-case senario. Everyone may agree that pedophilia is disgusting, depraved, or even sinful, but what we must not forget is that it isn't a crime. Pedophiles choose whether of not to act on their desires. Those that do end up justifying their crime in the manner you described above: people reach full sexual maturity at the age of 5. This extreme view is not characteristic of all pedophiles, but merely of those make the decision to act on their desires and then attempt to avoid punishment through desperate rationalization.

On the point of animated child pornography, we will have to agree to disagree. There are two sides to the arguement. The other side is of the belief that it can provide a means of satisfying most of the pedophiles urges--urges that would be directed at real children--thus reducing the chances of criminal behavior. It could even be further argued that outlawing such material outright could lead to an increase in cases of child molestation by pedophiles.

What exactly do you mean by that, are you sure you didn't mean 15?



Around the Network
fordy on 26 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

@shuraiya:

Everyone who molests a child is in fact not a pedophile. Pedophilia--the public perception at least--involves sexual attraction to undeage children.

Yes, quite true. Not everyone who sexually abuses a child is a paedophile. Some people do it just to cause harm. Paedophiles generally like children a lot (obviously) and they do not want to harm them (they do not think that their actions are harming the child).

To add to this, not everyone who is a pedophile sexually abuses children. That's where you're missing the point. DO FPSes claim a 100% conversion rate to mass murderers? How about we get rid of those, too?

sapphi_snake said:

Pedophiles can very much control themselves, otherwise all instances of their... violations would not, and in fact, could not be a crime.

Yeah, see, the thing is that this argument is based more on wishfull thinking, and the the desire to neglect the real problem. Paedophiles are insane, they cannot control themselves, and their violations should not be considered a crime. They're dellusional (they have twisted ideeas, like "people reach full sexual maturity at the age of 5"), and they require psychiatric help. Sending them to prison will do as much help as sending someone who hears voices telling him to kill people to prison. Prison only really works with sane people who think rationally. Most people ignore this because it's much simpler to pain paedophiles as diabolical monsters who should rot in jail, rather than what they really are: mentally ill people who need help.

Another thing: animated child pornography feeds the paedophiles dellusions. Because it's animated, and it involves fantasy characters, the children will be shown actually enjoying the sexual acts, thus the paedophile will recieve confirmation of his/her dellusions from such material.

I want to see where you picked this fact from, that 100% of pedophiles are considered clinically insane, have no control over their desires whatsoever. You shouldn't alienate an entire group of people based on the bad apples in the bunch. That's when you cross the line into prejudice.

So you're saying that pedophiles have no idea what they're doing is wrong? Is that the same for rapists? Do rapists commit crimes and then when caught say "Whoops. I didn't know I was doing wrong!"? Pedophilia is just as it's name applies: a -philia; an attraction to. It has no correlation to self control responses whatsoever. 

It's articles like this that make me think that the whole point of the initial instatement of the law has been lost along the line. Yes child sex abuse is a crime, and should still be. However, this sort of stuff is treading into fallible "future crimes" territory.



shuraiya on 26 June 2011
brendude13 said:
shuraiya said:

This is the very distinction I was trying to make; you are viewing all pedophiles in a worst-case senario. Everyone may agree that pedophilia is disgusting, depraved, or even sinful, but what we must not forget is that it isn't a crime. Pedophiles choose whether of not to act on their desires. Those that do end up justifying their crime in the manner you described above: people reach full sexual maturity at the age of 5. This extreme view is not characteristic of all pedophiles, but merely of those make the decision to act on their desires and then attempt to avoid punishment through desperate rationalization.

On the point of animated child pornography, we will have to agree to disagree. There are two sides to the arguement. The other side is of the belief that it can provide a means of satisfying most of the pedophiles urges--urges that would be directed at real children--thus reducing the chances of criminal behavior. It could even be further argued that outlawing such material outright could lead to an increase in cases of child molestation by pedophiles.

What exactly do you mean by that, are you sure you didn't mean 15?

It should be, but I was directly quoting sapphi_snake to use it as an example of how justification usually comes after the crime has been commited, or at least the decision to commit the crime made.



Seece on 26 June 2011

I don't think Peadophiles are insane, I don't even think it's an illness tbh. Just like you get some people that have a thing for red heads, or overweight people, these people are attracted to children, doesn't make it any less wrong of course but I do think it's just a case of preferences.

That said it probably runs a bit deeper than that, arnt most peadophiles victims themselves from childhood?

I don't think you should be arressted for anime porn, but if it indicates something like peadophilia, then you should be put on the watch list. It definitely shows you have tendencies ....



 

Potable_Toe on 27 June 2011
Seece said:

I don't think Peadophiles are insane, I don't even think it's an illness tbh. Just like you get some people that have a thing for red heads, or overweight people, these people are attracted to children, doesn't make it any less wrong of course but I do think it's just a case of preferences.

That said it probably runs a bit deeper than that, arnt most peadophiles victims themselves from childhood?

I don't think you should be arressted for anime porn, but if it indicates something like peadophilia, then you should be put on the watch list. It definitely shows you have tendencies ....


When you say that I hope you don't mean the 'Sex Offenders Register'... although going by the general tone of your post I would imagine not, just checking though.

 

brendude13 said:


Don't you watch South Park? The definition of "faggot" or "fag" has now been changed and it doens't insult homosexuals =D.

And this is pathetic, if this "law" applies to the UK as well then I will be arrested for CREATING child pornography after they see some of the shit that I draw during lunch break.

It very much does, last year the Labour party introduced it, stealthily I might add, in the wash up period before the election by 'rushing' it through parliament. By the way, the bill that this was part of also now means that it has since become illegal to view 'fetish' porn in the UK, i.e. bondage, domination etc... anything regarble as "obscene", lovely wording right?.

 

sapphi_snake said:

...

Is a rapist not just as "insane" as a paedophile? Is anyone who watches rape-porn insane?

Not really, unless the rapist has dellusional thoughts. The problem is that you're only thinking of the act itself, and not the motivation behind said act.

For example two people can shoot someone. One of them shot his father because he wanted to inherit his money. The other shot an old lady on the street because a voice in his head told him she was the antichrist. Which one of them is the crazy one? I think it's obvious.

The person watching rape-porn isn't really insane, unless they cannot distinguish reality from fiction.

...

(PLEASE NOTE THE ITALIC LINE IS A QUESTION BY FARMAGEDDON, THE REST IS 'sapphi_snake's REPLY)

And that is the crux of the argument pretty much, this alone disagrees with and disproves your whole argument because the fact is the vast majority of people who would ever view such material (I would like to say all but there really are some properly disturbed people out there) are perfectly capable of distinguishing manga/anime/cartoons/games from reality, no matter what they depict. Your entire point is that this isn't the case and that ultimately they are mentally fucked up.



Galaki on 27 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

When everyone is arguing against you, the probability that you're wrong is very high.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms