Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

Others would say that is the victimisation of a child and therefore paedophilic porn. You see how this can be a problem? Once you censor one thing you censor others.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

---

Here we go again....



You were speaking of addiction, I countered with a parabl about a different kind of addiction.

It is apples to apples.

and you are wrong.



It picks my pocket because law enforcement is not free.

We have to pay taxes to fund this sort of prohibition.

Therefore, by makeing something illeigal, you are essentially saying that I have to foot the bill to ENFORCE its status as illeigal.

Therefore, your perspective on the matter is ignorant.



You are missing the point entirely.

You are claiming that Drawings of child porn should be illeigal because no one is adult enough to take responsibility for their own actions after viewing such a thing.

By making it illegal, you are effectively saying that NO ONE has the personal ability to abstain from child molestation after viewing it.

Therefore, you are wrong.



Your argument is patently childish...

Just because you have seen someone struggle with addiction does not mean that EVERYONE struggles with this same addiction.

You speak of the people who are slaves to their addiction, but you leave out the *VAST MAJORITY* who are not subject to this same problem.

Therefore, you are wrong.



So, you are saying the main problem here is NOT criminal, but MEDICAL.

Like alcoholics anonymous, and should be treated as an addiction, instead of a *MIGHT HAPPEN SO LETS PUNISH IT BEFORE IT DOES* criminal offense?

Agreed.



But the porn does not create the predisposition to ACT upon these desires.

To claim this is to claim that after watching too many action movies, then you will inevitably be drawn towards murder.

Therefore, you are wrong.

@DaddyBare

Agreed.

@ManBehindTheMask


I was just asking myself the same thing about you.

Just because some people desire children, and look at depictions of them, does not mean that One ALWAYS leads to the other.

You are trying to state that just because something *COULD* happen, then it *WILL* happen.

And this is a logical fallacy.

Your argument is ill informed, and flawed.



You are claiming knowledge that you do not possess.

Your argument is invalid.

@zerbot565



No, you must NOT.

it is a drawing.

You are ultimately saying that we are not responsible for our own behavior, and that we should be protected from things that *MAY* cause us to MAKE OUR OWN CHOICE to molest a child.

This goes back to my alcohol argument.

Alcohol *MAY* cause people to act violently.... this is true.

But it is the ACT of violence that is the crime, not imbibing a substance that MAY cause us to act this way.

You cannot blame a child molester's actions on a cartoon.

His (or Her) actions are there OWN, and it is no ones fault but their OWN for their own conduct.

IF I were to go out and murder someone, and then in court blame YOU for saying things that angered me enough to kill.

Would it then be right to restrict your freedom of speech to protect lives?


@ManBehindTheMask




This is why you are wrong, and either a REALLY bad lier, or just have a really bad memory.

You DID say addiction.

Just for clarification....



@TurkeyBurgers

Yes, I agree...

The LINE IS, if a REAL child was involved, than it is a crime.

If a *REAL* child was NOT involved, then it is NOT a crime.


-Edrick

Right , im a liar......hmmm my answers make a lot of sense to those who work in the field I do....

Sounds to me the people who want to do this would rather enjoy watching it.....would that be YOU and the fellows who think we should do this?

go ahead, hope the feds dont catch you

one has to think doesnt one?

You were called a liar because you insisted you did not say addiciton. Anyone can see you repeatedly used the word addiction and then denied using it.



Ahh classic, you have been utterly out matched and your only way out is to try and personally accuse people of something horrible. You have shown yourself as dishonest, your arguments as deeply flawed and alltogether pretty bad at this debate stuff.

Come back when you can present a better case without the personal accusations.

You're going into a dangerous area, OP.

Banning something that's not child pornography is only asking for many other things to be banned in it's case.

LOLICON IS NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Erm i never said to ban it so not sure how i'm in the dangerous area. I said i was undecided and tbh i have made up my mind and think it should be allowed. The UK government disagrees and i believe there is now a ban in place, or coming into place anyway.

Amazed this thread still gets replies after all this time, thanks for reading.

And the UK is foolish.

Banning lolicon only then means that soon afterwords, they'll ban hentai, then all of eroge.

What about pornography after that?

But why stop there?

They already don't allow free speech. They've banned several people from entering the country on what they preach, such as Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, and others.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, but they have the right to say it...

Wow, this country is falling down the tubes...

reply to post by Mak Manto

---

I don't like the idea of this stuff but yes, in the end it's not harming a child and therefore should be allowed. Hentai is next on there list btw as it often depicts men and women of "questionable age". Anyone who watches anime (for those that don't know anime isn't porn) will sometimes find this hentai stuff whilst searching for new series. Sometimes it is very obvious the characters are drawn to be very young, but again, they're not real! Surely that should be the point.

We allow violent films de3picting real life actors and actresses being murdered, tortured, raped etc etc and yet ban something else that not only isn't real but is a cartoon. The real problem they have is defining what is and isn't illegal with hentai as you would need a definitive test. If it is down to the discretion of the police then court cases will fall apart.

I also wonder about the violent hentai, the UK recently banned the violent pornography (again who knows why) so what about the violent hentai?

It's all very very stupid.

unfortunately it is not necessarily the act itself but the compulsive behavior drive this sexual 'fetish'. It's been documented that pornography of such nature can increase the addictions and lead if not aid in an actual incident.

Mu argument is we would not give a terrorist black powder, pvc piping and other household goods to see what he can macgyver up.

So with this in mind, If we allow the tools or "weapons" to be used, which are the fuels for addiction then are we not creating the monster, then punishing it?

reply to post by Edrick

---

This makes me want to toss my cookies? This argument sounds like you are for child pornography. It is not the act of molesting a friggen child that makes it illegal, its that watching it is inappropriate and vial.

reply to post by Jessicaviv

---

Actually, Jessica, seeing hentai and lolicon has been in Japan for a VERY LONG time, reports and groups have stated that Japan's rape and sex crimes are extremely lower then many countries.

Many think that since lolicon and hentai are easily available, it has a good impact.

Err no sorry stop. No definitive study has said it does and some studies have said that pronography can halt compulsive acts.



Your argument doesn't stand because your inital premise that pornography use leads to violent acts by some is flawed. Whilst some people may use pornography and then gravitate to actual real life crime, these people were more than likely going to do the act anyway. The pornography could be argued to have delayed their actions. Offenders of all kinds, rapists, paedophiles and serial killers all have rich fantasy lives according to psychologists.



That was nothing but a personal attack to try and discredit someone. You should be ashamed of that comment. I am with you in saying that the material is vile and innapropriate but once again, no child is being harmed. If we are to ban anything that is innapropriate then who decides what is and isn't? Some of the things i like you may find highly wrong, things you like i may find highly wrong.

Slippery slope. This is the thing about freedom of expression. You can only ban something if it is directly harmful. This pornography, whilst horrible is not harmful and once again, there are many art works depicting naked children, should we rip those off of gallery walls as well?

In interest of fairness the counter argument to that is that Japanese society is big on shame and a daughter or son being raped could bring great shame on a family and so often it goes unreported.

Personally i agree with you but only right to put in the counter argument

They're drawings.

You can come up with all the long, drawn out speeches you want. You can delve into the psychology of pedophiles all day long. I could go back and read the 24 pages of (I'm sure) stimulating discussion. We could debate whether or not children can be saved or harmed when people view it, but at the end of the day...

They're drawings.

I ask you all, at what point do we consider it too real? If it's a photorealistic computer generated image? If it's a detailed anime image? If it's a Simpsons character? What about a stick figure?

How about never. How 'bout we don't ban them, because they are drawings.

Come to think of it... flat chests, no muscle tone, skinny as a twig... Yeah, if I draw a picture of two stick figures doing the nasty, that's definitely child pornography. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find my eyeballs. They just rolled right out of my head.

In certain countries, and this is no joke, if you make a couple of stick figures having sex, and you put under them the ages five and six, that's legally considered child pornography...

It's completely dumb...