Alg Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 I don't think cartoons should have restrictions. There's been depictions of murder and whatnot which I personally think is a little more dark than child porn. The argument that it encourages actual acts of pedophilia reminds me of the argument that pot is a gateway drug to meth/heroin or that playing GTA games make you want to kill people. Obviously there is going to be some correlation there, but it doesn't really mean anything. I bet there's a correlation between entering a store and stealing. :smile:I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I don't want to commit rape, in spite of at least two scenes with graphic rape. Also had a bit of pedophilia in it, apparently that's okay with literature, but not other media. Though even with those there was no outcry, as far as I know. I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_bert Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 Paedophiles can be nice people.I doubt they just woke up one day and thought "Oh, I'm going to be sexually attracted to children" I don't like judging people based on things they have no control over. Thoughts don't make someone a bad person, actions do.Just like how all paedophiles aren't child molestors/abductors. You shouldn't judge people on a crime they haven't and may never commit. So it's ok to be a kiddlefiddler as long as you are only "thinking" about what you want to do? I will judge people on their thoughts just as much as their actions. It is not ok to "think" about things which are twisted, illegal, undeniably morally wrong. Do not tell yourself it is: seek help. If you meet someone new, and your conclusion (though you don't say it) is that they are <whatever negative adjective you can think of>, but you don't say it - does that mean that you are friends with that person? This is a very different example; nowhere near as serious, but you're basically saying that it's ok to talk crap about someone behind their back so long as you don't 'do anything about it' Of course they didn't wake up and decide to molest children: doesn't make it ok. They still do. Not all, sure, but that's not good enough. indulge me, what is your preference? To Lolicon? CP? There is no preference. Lolicon (AND CP) will always exist and this is bad: but trying to regulate it would be as stupid as looking for a needle in the atlantic. The internet is simply far too large and far too dark to trap down every instance of both, but for [bleep]s sake, paedophiles are not nice people who want to be your friends. I do not approve of Lolicon, or CP, obviously, but what shocks me most is how many people are defending paedophiles. People who fiddle with kids. People who, through CP or Lolicon, get off on kids being fiddled with. 'Tis I, 'tis Vindice, 'tis I! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icuownage Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 This thread worries me greatly, I know a person who is a paedophile could have been a good person but I agree, the minute they think being with a little kid is okay that is when they enter my book for people I avoid. It's a creepy fetish, but then again most fetishes are creepy. It is not ok to "think" You're going to make a great dictator Dungeonal. It's a REALLY big shaft.I didn't catch fire, I used the can of hairspray as a flamethrower and pointed it at my arm.how are you going to ignore my posts when I'm offering to let you live as my vassal in two weeks time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadiochao Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 Paedophiles can be nice people.I doubt they just woke up one day and thought "Oh, I'm going to be sexually attracted to children" I don't like judging people based on things they have no control over. Thoughts don't make someone a bad person, actions do.Just like how all paedophiles aren't child molestors/abductors. You shouldn't judge people on a crime they haven't and may never commit. So it's ok to be a kiddlefiddler as long as you are only "thinking" about what you want to do? I will judge people on their thoughts just as much as their actions. It is not ok to "think" about things which are twisted, illegal, undeniably morally wrong. Do not tell yourself it is: seek help. If you meet someone new, and your conclusion (though you don't say it) is that they are <whatever negative adjective you can think of>, but you don't say it - does that mean that you are friends with that person? This is a very different example; nowhere near as serious, but you're basically saying that it's ok to talk crap about someone behind their back so long as you don't 'do anything about it' Of course they didn't wake up and decide to molest children: doesn't make it ok. They still do. Not all, sure, but that's not good enough. I didn't say they woke up and decided to molest them, I just said to be attracted to them. Which is very different.I had bad anxiety for a while and that can cause disturbing thoughts. I was worried I would hurt someone and that I was going insane. I couldn't control the thoughts and and I didn't want them but I don't think it would be fair to judge me and call me violent because of them. I'm sure most people have had thoughts about something illegal in their life, but it doesn't mean they took or wanted to take it further than just thoughts. I don't have anything against gay people either but I think they're a good example to use in most my arguments here. People have tried to get help for being gay, especially when it was viewed as wrong by most people. It is different as an adult member of the same sex can give consent to whatever they want to do. Also I'm not saying it's alright to do whatever with a child if they give consent. I'm sure most people hate paedophiles because you will only ever hear about the bad things they do. But that is because the ones who know it's wrong to do things to children and will not because of that will most likely keep quiet about it or try to get help. Them trying to get help is also a good reason not to judge them, as there is no cure for paedophilia.I'm sure a large amount of paedophiles will never attempt to touch a child. just like a large amount of people will never rape someone. Some people do rape though, but is that a good enough reason to say all people are dangerous rapists? I'm not gay or a paedophile so I'm not claiming to fully understand them even though I keep bringing them up. I just have experience with having thoughts I don't want or can't control thanks to anxiety and it annoys me to see people consider other people a criminal based on fetishes they don't want to act on.If you asked someone what they thought being gay meant and they said they genuinely thought it was to want to have sex with members of the same sex regardless of if the other person agrees or not, would their ignorance not annoy you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 So it's ok to be a kiddlefiddler as long as you are only "thinking" about what you want to do? I will judge people on their thoughts just as much as their actions. It is not ok to "think" about things which are twisted, illegal, undeniably morally wrong. Do not tell yourself it is: seek help. What harm is caused by thinking about something but not acting upon it? It's a common thing people do all the time and it at least shows moral restraint. It isn't immoral unless you decided to actually go through with it and cause the harm. If you meet someone new, and your conclusion (though you don't say it) is that they are <whatever negative adjective you can think of>, but you don't say it - does that mean that you are friends with that person? This is a very different example; nowhere near as serious, but you're basically saying that it's ok to talk crap about someone behind their back so long as you don't 'do anything about it' It's pretty rude to verbalize every flaw you see in someone. I don't think you really meant to say that because you're implying that it's wrong not to go up to a fat person and call them fat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racheya Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 So it's ok to be a kiddlefiddler as long as you are only "thinking" about what you want to do? I will judge people on their thoughts just as much as their actions. It is not ok to "think" about things which are twisted, illegal, undeniably morally wrong. Do not tell yourself it is: seek help. You're NOT a kiddiefiddler if you don't fiddle kids - thinking about it doesn't make you a child rapist. Sure, it makes you a bit of a creep, but lolicon doesn't HARM children and there's no evidence that it leads to the harming of children either. I've thought about killing people, I've read stories with rape - I've read those real life stories where children get raped, but I don't do it. It is perfectly fine to THINK, it's the actions that are the problem. Nobody here will condone real CP, or child molestation, but drawing a cartoon of it isn't any of those things. People who fiddle with kids. People who, through CP or Lolicon, get off on kids being fiddled with. Just because they get off on reading lolicon, does not mean they'll fiddle kids themselves. I edit for the [Tip.It Times]. I rarely write in [My Blog]. I am an [Ex-Moderator]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_bert Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 What harm is caused by thinking about something but not acting upon it? It's a common thing people do all the time and it at least shows moral restraint. It isn't immoral unless you decided to actually go through with it and cause the harm. "You get points for only thinking about [bleep]ing toddlers!" It's not immoral to think about [bleep]ing children. Is this really what you mean to say? Cause in my book: sure as hell is. So it's a fantasy, everyone has fantasies, not everyone fantasizes about completely messing up someones psycholigcal make up. I'm sure your response to this will be either "but they're not doing it! just thinking about it", or "my best friend was fiddled with and shes FINE!". Thinking is still powerful: Everything done is thought about first, even if for a fraction of a second. If you start to condone thinking about [bleep]ing children, watching loli, it's not that big of a jump for our suspect-paedo to start watching real CP, or actually carrying out his fantasies. It is simply ridiculous to say it's fine to think about it. I don't even know how you can say that. You're NOT a kiddiefiddler if you don't fiddle kids - thinking about it doesn't make you a child rapist. Sure, it makes you a bit of a creep, but lolicon doesn't HARM children and there's no evidence that it leads to the harming of children either. I've thought about killing people, I've read stories with rape - I've read those real life stories where children get raped, but I don't do it. It is perfectly fine to THINK, it's the actions that are the problem. Nobody here will condone real CP, or child molestation, but drawing a cartoon of it isn't any of those things. No, you're not. But you're damn close to it. I'm going to bite myself in the foot here and make a comparison with shooting games. Games like Modern Warfare 2 (the airport level especially), Manhunt, even GTA are all games which promote killing, and breaking the law. I'm not going to say these games make you into a killer: but I'd if I said that while playing GTA I didn't think about it, how easy it'd be, etc. There are no consequences to doing any of these things: hell sometimes it's the objective. It's the same with loli: according to you guys, it's fine. There's no consequence. Just because they get off on reading lolicon, does not mean they'll fiddle kids themselves. To say there is no evidence it leads to harming of children is kind of all right: but on the other hand, to claim it would stop someone is also a very iffy statement. It might not make someone say "ok well I'm gonna go do this", but it's not going to make them say "well thats me done for the day". And probably, the vast majority of people who watch loli won't, but it'd be naive to say that there aren't some who do watch loli, and do say to themselves, "ok well I'm gonna do this". I didn't say they woke up and decided to molest them, I just said to be attracted to them. Which is very different. So it's ok to 'fancy' that 3 year old living on the other side of your garden fence? No, it's not. And my point stands: some do jump the gap from being 'attracted' to molesting. And it's worth fighting it just to stop those few. I'm sure a large amount of paedophiles will never attempt to touch a child. just like a large amount of people will never rape someone. Some people do rape though, but is that a good enough reason to say all people are dangerous rapists? Not all people fantasize about raping someone. Apart from which, fantasizing about rape isn't good either. S&M is all well and good, but at the end of the day you are probably practicing it in a safe enviroment with persons you trust. Rape isn't like that. When you fantasize about rape: you are fantasizing about completely humiliating a person, stripping them of their humanity and individuality, destroying their worth as a person. That's part of what rape does.. And it's the same with fantasizing about kids. If you asked someone what they thought being gay meant and they said they genuinely thought it was to want to have sex with members of the same sex regardless of if the other person agrees or not, would their ignorance not annoy you? Are you saying I'm annoying you by judging people who think about molestation? That I should treat them the same as anyone else? Normal people do not contemplate [bleep]ing children and get off on it. End of. The people who do may be perfectly kind on the outside, perfectly kind in every other aspect of the life, but in the end they are still fantasizing about the same thing as that guy doing time. For what he did to another human: a child. Some of my arguments are flawed, I admit, I'm not hugely clever, but for gods sake: how can you ever say it is ok to have fantasies about fiddling with kids? 'Tis I, 'tis Vindice, 'tis I! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaaveli Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 [bleep] to cartoon children? Yeah, it's wrong and I personally wouldn't ever support/encourage it, the very concept idea itself just isn't right. BlasphemyWe choose to go...not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard, because that goal will serve to measure and organize the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win. ~ Blasphemien Way "Rest In Peace, Muelmar - A True Modern Day Hero" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 "You get points for only thinking about [bleep]ing toddlers!" It's not immoral to think about [bleep]ing children. Is this really what you mean to say? Cause in my book: sure as hell is. So it's a fantasy, everyone has fantasies, not everyone fantasizes about completely messing up someones psycholigcal make up. I'm sure your response to this will be either "but they're not doing it! just thinking about it", or "my best friend was fiddled with and shes FINE!". Thinking is still powerful: Everything done is thought about first, even if for a fraction of a second. If you start to condone thinking about [bleep]ing children, watching loli, it's not that big of a jump for our suspect-paedo to start watching real CP, or actually carrying out his fantasies. It is simply ridiculous to say it's fine to think about it. I don't even know how you can say that. It's not so much that I think it's acceptable to think about that stuff, because thoughts are surely free game to argue against (although that's not really the case with fetishes). It's just that I think it's irrelevant to the field of morality. Something should only be considered "immoral" if people are being harmed or negatively effected. If someone were to think, "I would like to rape a child today, but I don't want to put them through that pain so I won't," what exactly did they do wrong that has a relevance to the world/society? They made the decision not to, so why punish them? Perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that the specific thoughts are immoral, but the act of thinking itself is not immoral - if that makes any sense. Kind of like how you can have a violent thought, but you're not being violent unless you actually act upon it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_wits Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 Anyone under the age of consent is considered a child in the eyes of the law.. and you'd be considered a pedo if you were say 18 and dated a 12-15 year old with the age of consent being 16... >_> yet you won't be considered a pedo for being attracted to someone who is the same age as you if you are under the age of consent... sexting among teens is considered CP.http://www.pottstownmercury.com/articles/2010/03/29/news/srv0000007906417.txt Right now.. teenagers are getting criminal records and having their names put on the "sex offender registry" list. I personally think that pedos should be able to have a registry, which would prevent them from having close contact with children... and where society would not view them as lepers and stay far far away from them.. I mean come on.. it's not as if they're interested in Adults... >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 This all boils down to "Can harmless thoughts and actions lead to harmful ones?" So we'll have to see factual evidence of this shift before we should go on. "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alg Posted September 15, 2010 Share Posted September 15, 2010 This all boils down to "Can harmless thoughts and actions lead to harmful ones?" So we'll have to see factual evidence of this shift before we should go on.Even then, "Is it alright to punish others for something that they may do?" That entire art style has characters looking younger than they are. It's almost like it's impossible to draw someone to look over 30 in it. I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexek Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 It looks and sounds weird, but that's just my personal opinion. I can't say whether or not to outlaw it as child porn, although that example picture looks extremely young. Thing is.. it's not illegal to have sex with an adult who looks extremely young, so it's a real tough call as I'm unaware of the "artist"'s intention on the age of the character. Then again it is a character, so I don't see how that's illegal. I can only think of it in the way that a pedophile might hunt down images of adults who look young, so they pretend they are children and get their jollies from it. Yet you can't outlaw pornography with adults who look young. That's actually what many pornographic starlets are hired based upon. It's a real slippery slope. If it was up to me I'd ban it on the reasoning that it's one less things for pedos to get their jollies from, until I start to think, and wonder if maybe when they're in cartoon land getting off, they aren't considering performing illegal acts in real life. Maybe it helps to prevent crimes? [bleep]ed if I know.. it's an odd subject. :wacko: PoetryIndexed Picture 1Indexed Picture 2 Killed my maxed Zerker pure April 2010 Rebooting Runescape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orpheus Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Imo it should be legal, seeing the point of outlawing CP is to protect children, while nobody is harmed in the making of this.But such images could entice people to go for real images, which does hurt children and therefore is not protecting anyone. I'm happy with the restrictions the UK has on such imagery.Got a link proving this? I really haven't seen a link about this, ever. No studies have been done on it either, or if there have, I don't know of it. I was going to eat hot dogs for dinner tonight. I think I will settle for cereal. OPEN WIDE HERE COMES THE HELICOPTER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alg Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Got a link proving this? I really haven't seen a link about this, ever. No studies have been done on it either, or if there have, I don't know of it.I'm not sure a study on it can be done safely or accurately. That kind of thing would break a few of the ethics guidelines for Psychology I believe. I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orpheus Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Got a link proving this? I really haven't seen a link about this, ever. No studies have been done on it either, or if there have, I don't know of it.I'm not sure a study on it can be done safely or accurately. That kind of thing would break a few of the ethics guidelines for Psychology I believe.Precisely. Then there's moral red tape involved. I don't know if you really can prove something like this empirically or otherwise. I was going to eat hot dogs for dinner tonight. I think I will settle for cereal. OPEN WIDE HERE COMES THE HELICOPTER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 This all boils down to "Can harmless thoughts and actions lead to harmful ones?" So we'll have to see factual evidence of this shift before we should go on. That's what it boils down to. Your thoughts on CP/Lolicon/Pedophiles aside it still boils down to are they actually going to hurt anyone?. I mean I find it all disgusting and wrong but if someone is simply thinking about it... you can't really arrest anyone for thoughts. I don't know... it's a hard thing to think about, is a pedophile who doesn't actually act out on their urges an immoral person? Surely they are wrong in the head but it's tough to really draw a line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dupin Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 I mean I find it all disgusting and wrong but if someone is simply thinking about it... you can't really arrest anyone for thoughts. I don't know... it's a hard thing to think about, is a pedophile who doesn't actually act out on their urges an immoral person? Surely they are wrong in the head but it's tough to really draw a line.A pedophile who resists the urges actually has better morals than an average person. We don't "fiddle" children, but we don't feel the irrational urge to. The pedophile, on the other hand, is resisting his/her instincts in a manner one might call "moral". We shouldn't get into the whole morality thing though. Morality does not have any solid lines. These pedophiles could very easily be resisting simply because they fear legal repercussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 I mean I find it all disgusting and wrong but if someone is simply thinking about it... you can't really arrest anyone for thoughts. I don't know... it's a hard thing to think about, is a pedophile who doesn't actually act out on their urges an immoral person? Surely they are wrong in the head but it's tough to really draw a line.A pedophile who resists the urges actually has better morals than an average person. We don't "fiddle" children, but we don't feel the irrational urge to. The pedophile, on the other hand, is resisting his/her instincts in a manner one might call "moral". We shouldn't get into the whole morality thing though. Morality does not have any solid lines. These pedophiles could very easily be resisting simply because they fear legal repercussions. You're right, it's a really tough 'debate' to get into because it is so subjective. I guess my thoughts would be that the inherit thought of pedophilia is immoral. However I don't think that actually thinking about it is immoral if you don't act out on any desires. I hope that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 I never understood why pedophila was so immoral. Besides kids being forced into sexual acts (I'm not talking about "legal" consent) there's not much difference of liking kids to older people, or being homosexual or hetrosexual, or liking animals or humans. Sexuality is such a wide, pointless desire, why are some more right than others? "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 I never understood why pedophila was so immoral. Besides kids being forced into sexual acts (I'm not talking about "legal" consent) there's not much difference of liking kids to older people, or being homosexual or hetrosexual, or liking animals or humans. Sexuality is such a wide, pointless desire, why are some more right than others? Societal norms. Really though the difference I find is that a child might not fully realize the possible consequences of having sex with an older man or woman. (note that I'm talking about actual pedophilia here, when it starts getting into like that 15-17 year old range it's much more of a gray area I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 I never understood why pedophila was so immoral. Besides kids being forced into sexual acts (I'm not talking about "legal" consent) there's not much difference of liking kids to older people, or being homosexual or hetrosexual, or liking animals or humans. Sexuality is such a wide, pointless desire, why are some more right than others? Societal norms. Really though the difference I find is that a child might not fully realize the possible consequences of having sex with an older man or woman. (note that I'm talking about actual pedophilia here, when it starts getting into like that 15-17 year old range it's much more of a gray area I think).I suppose so. But I mean, people are shocked and call pedophiles or beastiaphiles (?) as monsters when I'm sitting here already expecting it. There's fetishes and sexualities of all kinds are we just that close minded we don't realize how sexuality can expand so freaking much? But yeah, social norms is what dictates this all. But don't act so friggen surprise, jeez. :wall: "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 I think it's more of calling pedophiles who actually rape children monsters which, it's true, they are. I can understand (to a degree) being sexually attracted to something like a child. However it is inexcusable if they go through with their desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Well of course. "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ss_J9_Goten Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 [bleep]ing thought police make me sick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now