Topic: UK convicts man over manga sex images of children.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY started this discussion 12 years ago #37,703
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/uk-convicts-man-over-manga-sex-images-of-children/
If I were you, I'd think twice before leaving that copy of GTA V out, unless of course you want to be convicted of murdering a virtual character. And don't even think about leaving CoD out, you'll be charged with multiple virtual war crimes!
If I were you, I'd think twice before leaving that copy of GTA V out, unless of course you want to be convicted of murdering a virtual character. And don't even think about leaving CoD out, you'll be charged with multiple virtual war crimes!
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #506,277
I guess Bobby2Sox had it coming.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,301
lol cool, im glad, the only people that defend the stuff are pedophiles
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,302
@506,277 (B)
But he's a wee 15 year old British schoolboy in a wheelchair. Certainly they wouldn't arrest him.
But he's a wee 15 year old British schoolboy in a wheelchair. Certainly they wouldn't arrest him.
Falco !a7Q.SWNEJw joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 34 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,306
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,308
ShitArse !!2TbW0trec joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,309
> Robul Hoque
Clearly a dirty immigrant and most likely a muslim. He was probably using this in pratice to groom under age white girls.
Clearly a dirty immigrant and most likely a muslim. He was probably using this in pratice to groom under age white girls.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 25 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,313
@506,308 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
> I don't believe that you should be arrested for viewing drawings of children.
I don't believe that you should be arrested for viewing any kind of drawing at all.
@previous (ShitArse !!2TbW0trec)
Like those Rottenham girls huh?
> I don't believe that you should be arrested for viewing drawings of children.
I don't believe that you should be arrested for viewing any kind of drawing at all.
@previous (ShitArse !!2TbW0trec)
Like those Rottenham girls huh?
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,315
@506,306 (Falco !a7Q.SWNEJw)
> > lol cool, im glad, the only people that defend the stuff are pedophiles
> > lol cool, im glad, the only people that defend the stuff are pedophiles
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,319
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 25 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,326
@506,315 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
> > > lol cool, im glad, the only people that defend the stuff are pedophiles
> > > lol cool, im glad, the only people that defend the stuff are pedophiles
ShitArse !!2TbW0trec replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,328
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,336
ShitArse !!2TbW0trec replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,337
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Notice I just singled you out. Don't try to hide behind pedophilia or ism's to defend yourself you stupid little worm.
Notice I just singled you out. Don't try to hide behind pedophilia or ism's to defend yourself you stupid little worm.
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,339
Fight! Fight!
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,347
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 12 years ago, 46 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,348
ShitArse !!2TbW0trec replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,351
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Don't bother, you're replying to a brainwashed autistic fool. You'll only get a canned responce he was taught on tumblr.
Don't bother, you're replying to a brainwashed autistic fool. You'll only get a canned responce he was taught on tumblr.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,352
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,355
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 8 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,421
Hooo man, Britfags! I just played Postal 2 and you won't believe what I got away with! Oh, man if you guys had that game you would be put in prison for life...
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,422
@506,348 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I think the sexualization of children is a different matter. If we think that there is danger in child pornography because of the way it normalizes sexual attraction to and abuse of children, I don't see a particular problem with criminalizing artificial forms of it as well.
I think the sexualization of children is a different matter. If we think that there is danger in child pornography because of the way it normalizes sexual attraction to and abuse of children, I don't see a particular problem with criminalizing artificial forms of it as well.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,424
This thread is retarded and so is OP. Found any feminie dick yet, @OP?
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,425
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,426
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 30 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,427
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,429
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 16 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,430
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,432
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 31 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,433
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Sorry for not being clear, I was still referring to your face. I agree it should be made illegal.
Sorry for not being clear, I was still referring to your face. I agree it should be made illegal.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 54 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,434
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 44 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,436
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,438
@506,422 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Call me crazy, but I think that if we let them have their lolicon/shotacon images/videos and whatever weird sex dolls/toys, they might be less prone to going out and harming real children.
http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/30/The-Science-Pornography-Can-Actually-Reduce-Rapes
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/child-sex-robots-pedophilia/
Call me crazy, but I think that if we let them have their lolicon/shotacon images/videos and whatever weird sex dolls/toys, they might be less prone to going out and harming real children.
http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/30/The-Science-Pornography-Can-Actually-Reduce-Rapes
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/child-sex-robots-pedophilia/
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,442
@506,426 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
No, of course not.
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
This question is far from settled. The Springer.com link just looks at national rates - trends over time, with no ability to isolate variables. I think it's just as likely that in a culture that has decided getting off to kids is okay, actually molesting them is more accepted and is reported less often, prosecuted less often, and overall taken much less seriously. The same way that the percentage of rapes that go unreported or unprosecuted varies with a society's general attitude toward women.
No, of course not.
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
This question is far from settled. The Springer.com link just looks at national rates - trends over time, with no ability to isolate variables. I think it's just as likely that in a culture that has decided getting off to kids is okay, actually molesting them is more accepted and is reported less often, prosecuted less often, and overall taken much less seriously. The same way that the percentage of rapes that go unreported or unprosecuted varies with a society's general attitude toward women.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,443
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,447
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I don't see it encouraging the exploitation of an entire vulnerable population that's largely unable to speak for itself, like child porn is. It's just a kink.
I do start to question things like rape porn, but I cannot think of any legal test that would work to separate the "kinks" from things that (IMO) are dangerous. I do get a bit uncomfortable with trying to draw the lines. So I guess I'm fine with focusing on the age thing.
I don't see it encouraging the exploitation of an entire vulnerable population that's largely unable to speak for itself, like child porn is. It's just a kink.
I do start to question things like rape porn, but I cannot think of any legal test that would work to separate the "kinks" from things that (IMO) are dangerous. I do get a bit uncomfortable with trying to draw the lines. So I guess I'm fine with focusing on the age thing.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,449
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Okay, should porn that dresses females in child associated clothing be illegal? Should mlp porn be illegaL?
Okay, should porn that dresses females in child associated clothing be illegal? Should mlp porn be illegaL?
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,453
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I don't think so. It bothers me but shouldn't be illegal. Just kids, I think.
I don't think so. It bothers me but shouldn't be illegal. Just kids, I think.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,454
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
But just as looking at artwork of children depicted in a sexual manner, pornography that dresses adults as children, is just using those things as a placeholder for actual underage people. I see no difference.
But just as looking at artwork of children depicted in a sexual manner, pornography that dresses adults as children, is just using those things as a placeholder for actual underage people. I see no difference.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,455
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,456
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Now dont be like that. Its okay to think about why certain things disgust you.
Now dont be like that. Its okay to think about why certain things disgust you.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 36 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,466
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,468
Anonymous L replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,469
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,471
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,546
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
The two females in your picture appear to be under 18. I have reported to you to the mods and the mods are trying their best to contact local authorities to get you away from our children, my children.
The two females in your picture appear to be under 18. I have reported to you to the mods and the mods are trying their best to contact local authorities to get you away from our children, my children.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,548
@previous (O)
> The two females in your picture appear to be under 18. I have reported to you to the mods and the mods are trying their best to contact local authorities to get you away from our children, my children.
They have pretty big tits for underaged girls
> The two females in your picture appear to be under 18. I have reported to you to the mods and the mods are trying their best to contact local authorities to get you away from our children, my children.
They have pretty big tits for underaged girls
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 23 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,549
This is good. Just because an underage character is fictional doesn't make you any less of a sick fuck for fapping to them.
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,560
@506,548 (P)
Breast size discrimination? That's hardly helpful to this discussion. Are you implying drawings of women with small breasts should also be illegal?
Breast size discrimination? That's hardly helpful to this discussion. Are you implying drawings of women with small breasts should also be illegal?
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 31 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #506,561
@506,549 (Q)
Should guro be made illegal too? What about murder simulators?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3PhvCf_Jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PR2apfLBzw
Should guro be made illegal too? What about murder simulators?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3PhvCf_Jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PR2apfLBzw
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,575
@506,422 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
How would this "18 USC 2257" for manga even work, though? A lot of fictional characters don't have specific dates of birth. And what's to stop an artist from making lolicon and putting in a disclaimer that all imaginary characters depicted are over 18? How could it be proven otherwise? The highly distorted and unrealistic Japanese drawing style can make ascertaining the age of a character without such information impossible.
As I see it: things are criminalized because they either cause or are very likely to cause harm to others. Child pornography causes irreparable harm to the children involved which is why it's (rightly) illegal. But imaginary characters in manga, abhorrent as the depicted actions may be, are not real and cannot be harmed.
How would this "18 USC 2257" for manga even work, though? A lot of fictional characters don't have specific dates of birth. And what's to stop an artist from making lolicon and putting in a disclaimer that all imaginary characters depicted are over 18? How could it be proven otherwise? The highly distorted and unrealistic Japanese drawing style can make ascertaining the age of a character without such information impossible.
As I see it: things are criminalized because they either cause or are very likely to cause harm to others. Child pornography causes irreparable harm to the children involved which is why it's (rightly) illegal. But imaginary characters in manga, abhorrent as the depicted actions may be, are not real and cannot be harmed.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,583
These books should be burnt! People are reading things and having thoughts they shouldn't have!
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,584
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,585
I am wondering now if that film called mysterious skin is illegal in the UK.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,587
Anonymous T replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,588
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
True, but a lot more disturbing then what some manga can produce. Since it was actual children you know?
True, but a lot more disturbing then what some manga can produce. Since it was actual children you know?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,589
ShitArse !!2TbW0trec replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,590
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,591
Anonymous T replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,592
@506,589 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Just the opening would freak out most. A little boy masturbating while watching his mom fuck a drunk guy. Your watching the movie and your like oh boy, why am i watching this with my family?
Just the opening would freak out most. A little boy masturbating while watching his mom fuck a drunk guy. Your watching the movie and your like oh boy, why am i watching this with my family?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,593
Anonymous T replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,594
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,595
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,597
Why? They're fucking drawings.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,712
@previous (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
Besides, there are bigger problems when it comes to child sex abuse in England... Jimmy Savile, anyone? What about the 1400 in Rotherham?
Besides, there are bigger problems when it comes to child sex abuse in England... Jimmy Savile, anyone? What about the 1400 in Rotherham?
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,714
Anonymous W joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,731
@506,712 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
shhhh, that never happened
This seems like a move to appease the masses after Rotterham. Since they didn't anything then, now they get some easy scapegoat to show that they are doing their job.
shhhh, that never happened
This seems like a move to appease the masses after Rotterham. Since they didn't anything then, now they get some easy scapegoat to show that they are doing their job.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,734
@previous (W)
Funny how it seems to have backfired, at least when it comes to stateside opinions. But yeah, that does make an awful lot of sense.
Funny how it seems to have backfired, at least when it comes to stateside opinions. But yeah, that does make an awful lot of sense.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 56 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,738
@506,575 (Meta)
I do think laws will have to be rewritten to account for this stuff, whether we decide cartoons are acceptable or not, because computer generated images are so good now. It would be bizarre to have identical-looking pictures (one CGI, one not) where one is legal and one is not. It doesn’t seem sensible to me to still have a law centered on the date of birth only.
> How would this "18 USC 2257" for manga even work, though?
I can think of things like secondary sexual characteristics, whether the character seems to be engaging in acts with a similarly-aged character or an older one, the apparent intent of the image (which is something the criminal code takes into account in basically every crime). Pornography can still be criminalized in many contexts as long as the law takes into account the apparent artistic value/worth of the imagery. It’s just hard to define well.
And the CP laws have a safe harbor for people who have just a bit of it (3 or fewer, and/or try to delete it, if memory serves). So I think you could make a sensible law that also takes into account what other stuff the creator or downloader has.
> And what's to stop an artist from making lolicon and putting in a disclaimer that all imaginary characters depicted are over 18? How could it be proven otherwise?
Disclaimers don’t mean a lot; prosecutors don’t have to prove a negative. Just look at the picture and apply some criteria.
> As I see it: things are criminalized because they either cause or are very likely to cause harm to others. Child pornography causes irreparable harm to the children involved which is why it's (rightly) illegal. But imaginary characters in manga, abhorrent as the depicted actions may be, are not real and cannot be harmed.
But things can be criminalized simply because they cause harm to society in general -- decrease our trust in a system (many financial crimes don't all have a specific target), have a theorized connection to violent crime (drug offenses), or are offensive to morals generally (prostitution). You include “very likely to cause harm” here, and I think a society that accepts various simulations of child porn is one that is a society that is harmful to children generally. I’d be interested to see other studies like what Walter was talking about earlier. But a specific, identifiable victim is not something criminal laws demand.
I do think laws will have to be rewritten to account for this stuff, whether we decide cartoons are acceptable or not, because computer generated images are so good now. It would be bizarre to have identical-looking pictures (one CGI, one not) where one is legal and one is not. It doesn’t seem sensible to me to still have a law centered on the date of birth only.
> How would this "18 USC 2257" for manga even work, though?
I can think of things like secondary sexual characteristics, whether the character seems to be engaging in acts with a similarly-aged character or an older one, the apparent intent of the image (which is something the criminal code takes into account in basically every crime). Pornography can still be criminalized in many contexts as long as the law takes into account the apparent artistic value/worth of the imagery. It’s just hard to define well.
And the CP laws have a safe harbor for people who have just a bit of it (3 or fewer, and/or try to delete it, if memory serves). So I think you could make a sensible law that also takes into account what other stuff the creator or downloader has.
> And what's to stop an artist from making lolicon and putting in a disclaimer that all imaginary characters depicted are over 18? How could it be proven otherwise?
Disclaimers don’t mean a lot; prosecutors don’t have to prove a negative. Just look at the picture and apply some criteria.
> As I see it: things are criminalized because they either cause or are very likely to cause harm to others. Child pornography causes irreparable harm to the children involved which is why it's (rightly) illegal. But imaginary characters in manga, abhorrent as the depicted actions may be, are not real and cannot be harmed.
But things can be criminalized simply because they cause harm to society in general -- decrease our trust in a system (many financial crimes don't all have a specific target), have a theorized connection to violent crime (drug offenses), or are offensive to morals generally (prostitution). You include “very likely to cause harm” here, and I think a society that accepts various simulations of child porn is one that is a society that is harmful to children generally. I’d be interested to see other studies like what Walter was talking about earlier. But a specific, identifiable victim is not something criminal laws demand.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,752
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
> I do think laws will have to be rewritten to account for this stuff, whether we decide cartoons are acceptable or not, because computer generated images are so good now. It would be bizarre to have identical-looking pictures (one CGI, one not) where one is legal and one is not. It doesn’t seem sensible to me to still have a law centered on the date of birth only.
Not to mention the possibility of the CGI models being laser scans of actual children...
> I do think laws will have to be rewritten to account for this stuff, whether we decide cartoons are acceptable or not, because computer generated images are so good now. It would be bizarre to have identical-looking pictures (one CGI, one not) where one is legal and one is not. It doesn’t seem sensible to me to still have a law centered on the date of birth only.
Not to mention the possibility of the CGI models being laser scans of actual children...
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,753
This very issue has come up in Japan, where the manga contains all sorts of characters, underage and older. The issue is one of creativity and freedom of speech, which is very important to anyone who believes in those concepts. Akamatsu has taken the stance that there should be no such censorship, not because he supports child pornography, but because he's for freedom of creation. He's the one who made both Negima and Love Hina. Censorship would kill manga like that because not all the characters are 18. That isn't an issue but it could easily become one should the right wingers get their way.Anonymous Z-1 joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #506,756
@506,738 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
@506,752 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
I think that there can be laws made especially for this kind of a identity theft. You know i am very sure that pedophiles only really like the real porn, whenever pedophiles are arrested you rarely ever hear and there were drawn images of children on his pc! but instead they find the real thing.
I remember seeing a documentary with louis theroux and the woman there was telling about how her favorite fantasy was to be an adopted little girl. So you see, like people who like bdsm, the people
who have the fantasies like that of the woman i spoke about will like the manga stuff.
This criminal case is reckless, its like a way to scare people. They were trying to set an example for people who simply aren't even sought after by the law itself. People who may just be using it for their own masturbation fantasies of age play or whatever you want to call it. I mean shit, i have seen this shit on tumblr and just yesterday the simpsons had a joke where bart thinks he has a crush on his teacher (while being in hell) and so the teacher says down here we can make it happen. So this kind of a judgement that the court has placed on that manga owner has nothing to do with justice at all, but to make an example. Probably initiated by some PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! conservative type who thinks society is sexualizing children when the fact is that we live in a golden age of child abuse prevention (compared to previous years). So to make this kind of a law is not only going to require a massive enforcement of it where harmless people are imprisoned and freedom lowered, but its also stupid and based on false ideas of society.
@506,752 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
I think that there can be laws made especially for this kind of a identity theft. You know i am very sure that pedophiles only really like the real porn, whenever pedophiles are arrested you rarely ever hear and there were drawn images of children on his pc! but instead they find the real thing.
I remember seeing a documentary with louis theroux and the woman there was telling about how her favorite fantasy was to be an adopted little girl. So you see, like people who like bdsm, the people
who have the fantasies like that of the woman i spoke about will like the manga stuff.
This criminal case is reckless, its like a way to scare people. They were trying to set an example for people who simply aren't even sought after by the law itself. People who may just be using it for their own masturbation fantasies of age play or whatever you want to call it. I mean shit, i have seen this shit on tumblr and just yesterday the simpsons had a joke where bart thinks he has a crush on his teacher (while being in hell) and so the teacher says down here we can make it happen. So this kind of a judgement that the court has placed on that manga owner has nothing to do with justice at all, but to make an example. Probably initiated by some PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! conservative type who thinks society is sexualizing children when the fact is that we live in a golden age of child abuse prevention (compared to previous years). So to make this kind of a law is not only going to require a massive enforcement of it where harmless people are imprisoned and freedom lowered, but its also stupid and based on false ideas of society.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 18 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,854
@506,753 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
> This very issue has come up in Japan, where the manga contains all sorts of characters, underage and older. The issue is one of creativity and freedom of speech, which is very important to anyone who believes in those concepts.
You're a pedophile though. That's the concept you're interested in - kiddie rape.
@previous (Z-1)
> You know i am very sure that pedophiles only really like the real porn
Really, are you sure? Ask Negi about that.
> This very issue has come up in Japan, where the manga contains all sorts of characters, underage and older. The issue is one of creativity and freedom of speech, which is very important to anyone who believes in those concepts.
You're a pedophile though. That's the concept you're interested in - kiddie rape.
@previous (Z-1)
> You know i am very sure that pedophiles only really like the real porn
Really, are you sure? Ask Negi about that.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous Z-2 joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,883
Anonymous R replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,890
@506,738 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
I'm glad you are the one who decides which books should be burnt.
What about stories that don't contain drawn images but still have the same subject matter? Are they more or less harmful, and are people allowed to read them only if they promise to not masturbate about it? How are drawings of murder different?
I'm glad you are the one who decides which books should be burnt.
What about stories that don't contain drawn images but still have the same subject matter? Are they more or less harmful, and are people allowed to read them only if they promise to not masturbate about it? How are drawings of murder different?
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,912
@506,854 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)I'm not a pedo though. I am backing up the freedom of the manga author to have all ages of character. How does that make me into "kiddie rape" as you so eloquently put it. I am focusing on the area of rights, while you're just insulting me.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 12 years ago, 56 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,919
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,922
Anonymous Z-3 joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,924
@506,738 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
> But a specific, identifiable victim is not something criminal laws demand.
If that's the case, then the law is an ass. We should be more concerned with protecting real children, not wasting time with imaginary cartoon characters.
> But a specific, identifiable victim is not something criminal laws demand.
If that's the case, then the law is an ass. We should be more concerned with protecting real children, not wasting time with imaginary cartoon characters.
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 39 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,939
@506,922 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
I like straight shota, regular shota, girls of all kinds, and even Christmas cake. You're just talking out your ass and know nothing about what I'm sexually attracted to or fap to. Please don't spread more lies and slander.
I like straight shota, regular shota, girls of all kinds, and even Christmas cake. You're just talking out your ass and know nothing about what I'm sexually attracted to or fap to. Please don't spread more lies and slander.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,940
@previous (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
> I masturbate to sexualized images of children but I am totally NOT a pedophile.
> I masturbate to sexualized images of children but I am totally NOT a pedophile.
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,941
This is more of my faves.Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU double-posted this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,942
@506,940 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)I'm not harming anyone. I'm not doing anything worse than what you do. I'm just enjoying a medium that has a huge range of characters of all ages, which most people understand is not disgusting or wrong in any way. Most people who don't hate me or want to think evil of something just because they disagree with them on something. You are just biased because of a reason I can't think of, but one that can't be worth it. Please stop accusing me of shit I don't do and that has nothing to do with you in the first place. I am for freedom of expression and people like you are going to ruin it for everyone with censorship of even manga.
Green joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,943
He should've bought Tesco Value Crumpets.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,947
@506,942 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
You're pretty defensive dude. I never even told you what I think about pedophiles (hint: it isn't nice), I just called you one. I would respond to the other stuff you wrote but I don't know what universe you live in so what is true for me might not be true for you. "Most people understand" that pictures of adults fucking kids isn't disgusting or wrong in any way? Wtf. I'm not going to argue with you because I feel bad every time I do but I just don't get it man.
You're pretty defensive dude. I never even told you what I think about pedophiles (hint: it isn't nice), I just called you one. I would respond to the other stuff you wrote but I don't know what universe you live in so what is true for me might not be true for you. "Most people understand" that pictures of adults fucking kids isn't disgusting or wrong in any way? Wtf. I'm not going to argue with you because I feel bad every time I do but I just don't get it man.
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,949
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,951
@506,947 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Adults fucking kids is gross, manga or not. I don't support that. I support mangaka's right to make their NON PORN manga with characters who are all ages. That's not unreasonable.
@previous (M)
What are you talking about?
Adults fucking kids is gross, manga or not. I don't support that. I support mangaka's right to make their NON PORN manga with characters who are all ages. That's not unreasonable.
@previous (M)
What are you talking about?
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 32 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,952
Anonymous Z-2 replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,954
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,955
@previous (Z-2)
How is this passive aggressive even? I'm being very upfront about my aggressiveness.
How is this passive aggressive even? I'm being very upfront about my aggressiveness.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 57 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,956
@506,951 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
Wait so you masturbate to non-sexual images of drawn children? That I can't even begin to understand. I have no problem with people who just make regular manga with whatever age or species or anything. It has zero impact on me or anything I care about. The only thing I would care about is something that encouraged the sexual exploitation of children and/or depicted children in an explicitly sexual manner.
Wait so you masturbate to non-sexual images of drawn children? That I can't even begin to understand. I have no problem with people who just make regular manga with whatever age or species or anything. It has zero impact on me or anything I care about. The only thing I would care about is something that encouraged the sexual exploitation of children and/or depicted children in an explicitly sexual manner.
Anonymous Z-6 joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,957
@506,952 (M)
If a retard has contributed more to the discussion then you have, then that must make you a genius. (i am calling you a retard in case you don't know)
If a retard has contributed more to the discussion then you have, then that must make you a genius. (i am calling you a retard in case you don't know)
Anonymous Z-2 replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,958
@506,956 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Stop strawmanning his position and defensively projecting your own sick proclivities.
Stop strawmanning his position and defensively projecting your own sick proclivities.
Anonymous Z-6 replied with this 12 years ago, 19 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,959
@506,956 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
How does a drawn image that people masturbate to, encourage anything at all? Why are you so against lines on a paper that you want it outlawed?
How does a drawn image that people masturbate to, encourage anything at all? Why are you so against lines on a paper that you want it outlawed?
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,961
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 21 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,962
Anonymous Z-6 replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,964
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 26 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,965
Anonymous Z-6 replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,966
@previous (M)
I can't imagine them being worthy of the electricity that it would take to read them. Just kidding, what are your insightful other comments?
I can't imagine them being worthy of the electricity that it would take to read them. Just kidding, what are your insightful other comments?
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,967
@506,962 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
I dont think that being a pedophile discounts your argument, but lying about it does ruin your credibility. It's like how we had secret "trans women" here arguing that biological males should be housed in womens prisons, and acting like they were completely impartial parties.
I dont think that being a pedophile discounts your argument, but lying about it does ruin your credibility. It's like how we had secret "trans women" here arguing that biological males should be housed in womens prisons, and acting like they were completely impartial parties.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,969
@506,958 (Z-2)
Fuck you I won't do what you tell me
@506,959 (Z-6)
My concern (and it could be totally unjustified, this isn't an area I've done a lot of investigating into because I don't care about pedos) is that by repeatedly masturbating to images of children getting sexually abused, it makes them "normalize" it and want to act it out in real life.
Also the extreme reductionism you do confuses me and I think is at least a little intellectually dishonest. Do you think chopping off someone's arm is just rearranging carbon atoms? Do you think telling someone you are going to murder them is just the creation of sound waves? I don't think that describing an activity by talking exclusively about what it is on a purely physical level is ever helpful in deciding if it should be legal or not.
@506,962 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
I distinctly remember your youtube account favoriting several videos of little boys getting wedgies. I don't like pedophiles but I REALLY don't like pedophiles who lie about being pedos.
Fuck you I won't do what you tell me
@506,959 (Z-6)
My concern (and it could be totally unjustified, this isn't an area I've done a lot of investigating into because I don't care about pedos) is that by repeatedly masturbating to images of children getting sexually abused, it makes them "normalize" it and want to act it out in real life.
Also the extreme reductionism you do confuses me and I think is at least a little intellectually dishonest. Do you think chopping off someone's arm is just rearranging carbon atoms? Do you think telling someone you are going to murder them is just the creation of sound waves? I don't think that describing an activity by talking exclusively about what it is on a purely physical level is ever helpful in deciding if it should be legal or not.
@506,962 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
I distinctly remember your youtube account favoriting several videos of little boys getting wedgies. I don't like pedophiles but I REALLY don't like pedophiles who lie about being pedos.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,972
@506,966 (Z-6)
Anyone with half a brain would just ctrl+f this thread for "Anonymous M", so I recommend trying that! Just do it, you'll be impressed.
Anyone with half a brain would just ctrl+f this thread for "Anonymous M", so I recommend trying that! Just do it, you'll be impressed.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,973
@506,969 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> My concern (and it could be totally unjustified, this isn't an area I've done a lot of investigating into because I don't care about pedos) is that by repeatedly masturbating to images of children getting sexually abused, it makes them "normalize" it and want to act it out in real life.
I don't know, wouldn't the availability of it mean they can release their urges on some cartoon drawings and make them not want to go out and molest real children? Perhaps it could do that for some and do what you said for others...
@506,969 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I distinctly remember your youtube account favoriting several videos of little boys getting wedgies.
Oh Goddammit I had forgotten about that and I wish it had stayed forgotten.
> My concern (and it could be totally unjustified, this isn't an area I've done a lot of investigating into because I don't care about pedos) is that by repeatedly masturbating to images of children getting sexually abused, it makes them "normalize" it and want to act it out in real life.
I don't know, wouldn't the availability of it mean they can release their urges on some cartoon drawings and make them not want to go out and molest real children? Perhaps it could do that for some and do what you said for others...
@506,969 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I distinctly remember your youtube account favoriting several videos of little boys getting wedgies.
Oh Goddammit I had forgotten about that and I wish it had stayed forgotten.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,976
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yeah that's totally possible, and I'm sure there are some psychologist or sociologists who have written about it, I just haven't read about it. If it is true that it substantially reduces the rate of child sex abuse, then maybe it would be "ok" but regardless it is so incredibly repulsive I don't know if I would ever really want to see it legal.
Yeah that's totally possible, and I'm sure there are some psychologist or sociologists who have written about it, I just haven't read about it. If it is true that it substantially reduces the rate of child sex abuse, then maybe it would be "ok" but regardless it is so incredibly repulsive I don't know if I would ever really want to see it legal.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,978
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I think it is much safer, and easier, to argue in favor of drawings for them, than to even think about legalizing any aspect of child pornography.
I think it is much safer, and easier, to argue in favor of drawings for them, than to even think about legalizing any aspect of child pornography.
Anonymous Z-6 replied with this 12 years ago, 49 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,979
@506,969 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Also the extreme reductionism you do confuses me and I think is at least a little intellectually dishonest
That's fair to say and your series of questions made me understand what you mean a little better. After all we are talking about people who are mentally ill..... Who knows, maybe someone of them was doing a good job of keeping the sickness away until they decided to go look at the manga. But wouldn't you say that if they decided to go and look at the cp manga, then for whatever reason that made them look for that manga is what we should blame, instead of the manga?
Or do you mean it in a sense that this type of manga creates pedophiles? Because i think that is hardly intellectually honest, at all.
> Also the extreme reductionism you do confuses me and I think is at least a little intellectually dishonest
That's fair to say and your series of questions made me understand what you mean a little better. After all we are talking about people who are mentally ill..... Who knows, maybe someone of them was doing a good job of keeping the sickness away until they decided to go look at the manga. But wouldn't you say that if they decided to go and look at the cp manga, then for whatever reason that made them look for that manga is what we should blame, instead of the manga?
Or do you mean it in a sense that this type of manga creates pedophiles? Because i think that is hardly intellectually honest, at all.
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,982
@506,969 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> videos of little boys getting wedgies
That was intentionally uploaded to get weird comments. I wanted to see how many people would react in a certain way. You don't have to believe me, it was a social experiment on Youtube. You probably know what kind of people like to comment there.
> videos of little boys getting wedgies
That was intentionally uploaded to get weird comments. I wanted to see how many people would react in a certain way. You don't have to believe me, it was a social experiment on Youtube. You probably know what kind of people like to comment there.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,983
@506,979 (Z-6)
Yeah, I think the actual pedophilic urge that the person is experiencing is the major problem. The fact that there is a way for them to find images that satisfy that urge is also gross but I think that finding a way to make pedophiles not attracted to kids is a better answer than banning the media they consume I guess. I don't think the existence of this kind of manga creates pedos really, I think it is just something that people who are already pedophiles seek out.
@506,978 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yeah child porn will never ever be legalized and for many many good reasons, but I guess the drawings, if they really do help reduce the number of kids who are sexually abused, could be "permitted" in a very narrow sense.
Yeah, I think the actual pedophilic urge that the person is experiencing is the major problem. The fact that there is a way for them to find images that satisfy that urge is also gross but I think that finding a way to make pedophiles not attracted to kids is a better answer than banning the media they consume I guess. I don't think the existence of this kind of manga creates pedos really, I think it is just something that people who are already pedophiles seek out.
@506,978 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yeah child porn will never ever be legalized and for many many good reasons, but I guess the drawings, if they really do help reduce the number of kids who are sexually abused, could be "permitted" in a very narrow sense.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,987
@506,982 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
Ok I really do not understand why at this point you are still trying to defend yourself. There is literally not a single person on any forum you use who doubts that you are a pedophile. Just cut the crap and say "You're right, I'm a pedophile and I lied about it earlier because of Reasons X Y and Z." You will never convince me that you are not a pedo. Your explanation is so weak it actually is confusing to me why you would even type it. I would have an easier time understanding if you said "Aliens abducted me and forced me to favorite and comment on those videos while they anally probed me" because it would let me know that you are both delusional and a pedophile, and I would have a modicum of sympathy for you because mentally ill people are not usually given the help they need. But this is so brazenly stupid that I just cannot comprehend what thought process you had that led you to believe that this was an excuse that a person with more than four brain cells would find plausible.
Ok I really do not understand why at this point you are still trying to defend yourself. There is literally not a single person on any forum you use who doubts that you are a pedophile. Just cut the crap and say "You're right, I'm a pedophile and I lied about it earlier because of Reasons X Y and Z." You will never convince me that you are not a pedo. Your explanation is so weak it actually is confusing to me why you would even type it. I would have an easier time understanding if you said "Aliens abducted me and forced me to favorite and comment on those videos while they anally probed me" because it would let me know that you are both delusional and a pedophile, and I would have a modicum of sympathy for you because mentally ill people are not usually given the help they need. But this is so brazenly stupid that I just cannot comprehend what thought process you had that led you to believe that this was an excuse that a person with more than four brain cells would find plausible.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous Z-6 replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,989
@506,983 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I think it is just something that people who are already pedophiles seek out.
So you look at it like:
People who like being degraded look for bdsm porn where people are degraded, and people who like children (sexually) look for porn that has children, manga or not?
> I think it is just something that people who are already pedophiles seek out.
So you look at it like:
People who like being degraded look for bdsm porn where people are degraded, and people who like children (sexually) look for porn that has children, manga or not?
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 56 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,990
@506,983 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well, it's already permitted, at least here in the states. Though we do still have the Miller obscenity test and the obscenity laws, but that applies to all things pornography anyway...
Well, it's already permitted, at least here in the states. Though we do still have the Miller obscenity test and the obscenity laws, but that applies to all things pornography anyway...
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,991
@506,989 (Z-6)
Yeah something like that, except I don't think it is fair to equate BDSM and pedophilia. BDSM is more of a kink and pedophilia is more of a mental illness of some kind I think.
Yeah something like that, except I don't think it is fair to equate BDSM and pedophilia. BDSM is more of a kink and pedophilia is more of a mental illness of some kind I think.
Anonymous Z-6 replied with this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,993
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
except I don't think it is fair to equate BDSM and pedophilia I agree 100%.
Are you aware of rape fantasies? People have fantasies about being raped but know at the same time that being raped is not something they really want. Real rape is an awful thing but in a fantasy its different, its not the same but rather the fantasy is about elements that exist within rape like bondage etc....
Is it not entirely possible that because kids are for example defenseless, that sexually submissive people have fantasies about being a child in a sexual situation with a teacher? Does that make them pedophiles?
except I don't think it is fair to equate BDSM and pedophilia I agree 100%.
Are you aware of rape fantasies? People have fantasies about being raped but know at the same time that being raped is not something they really want. Real rape is an awful thing but in a fantasy its different, its not the same but rather the fantasy is about elements that exist within rape like bondage etc....
Is it not entirely possible that because kids are for example defenseless, that sexually submissive people have fantasies about being a child in a sexual situation with a teacher? Does that make them pedophiles?
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #506,995
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,000
@506,993 (Z-6)
>Is it not entirely possible that because kids are for example defenseless, that sexually submissive people have fantasies about being a child in a sexual >situation with a teacher? Does that make them pedophiles?
This sums up my position wonderfully. Thank you.
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
I got about 5 funny comments over the span of 12 or more videos. It basically flopped because the results didn't match my expectations. Experiment failed.
>Is it not entirely possible that because kids are for example defenseless, that sexually submissive people have fantasies about being a child in a sexual >situation with a teacher? Does that make them pedophiles?
This sums up my position wonderfully. Thank you.
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
I got about 5 funny comments over the span of 12 or more videos. It basically flopped because the results didn't match my expectations. Experiment failed.
Anonymous Z-6 replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,001
@previous (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
you are welcome. Seems though that fake anon went to sleep or something so that kind of sucks because i spent so much time creating the environment to lead to that question.
you are welcome. Seems though that fake anon went to sleep or something so that kind of sucks because i spent so much time creating the environment to lead to that question.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,002
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,013
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
I relocated to break.com and don't have to worry about people DMCA'ing my vids.
http://www.break.com/video/ugc/ultimate-wedgie-2655281
I relocated to break.com and don't have to worry about people DMCA'ing my vids.
http://www.break.com/video/ugc/ultimate-wedgie-2655281
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,014
@previous (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
Im not offended by such things, but you shouldnt pretend that its a social experiment.
Im not offended by such things, but you shouldnt pretend that its a social experiment.
Anonymous R replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,024
Isn't this whole argument the same one as violence on film and in video games makes people who wouldn't normally be that way, violent?
Also, fags used to be as despised as pedos are, and homo pictures were met with the same attitudes as itt drawn or not.
Also, fags used to be as despised as pedos are, and homo pictures were met with the same attitudes as itt drawn or not.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,026
Anonymous R replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,029
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
As disgusted as we are by it, and as unacceptable as it seems in todays society, I believe that social justice warriors will win acceptance for poor discriminated against pedos.
As disgusted as we are by it, and as unacceptable as it seems in todays society, I believe that social justice warriors will win acceptance for poor discriminated against pedos.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,135
@506,941 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
@506,942 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
Okay, maybe next time you attempt to argue the social value of cartoon child porn, you could try NOT FUCKING POSTING the pictures of kids you fap to.
@506,942 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
Okay, maybe next time you attempt to argue the social value of cartoon child porn, you could try NOT FUCKING POSTING the pictures of kids you fap to.
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,170
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,176
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,179
@507,170 (Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU)
Given your, um, appreciation of Negi you must see how people would come to that conclusion.
Given your, um, appreciation of Negi you must see how people would come to that conclusion.
Negi Springfield !CyR.DZQRRU replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #507,181
@previous (Meta)It's an internet persona, one that I pretty much do for the sake of playing a role. I don't have any sexual attraction to Negi Springfield or children in general, real or not. I am legitimate in being asexual and have no desire to engage in any sexual acts. I don't expect you to believe me, but it would be nice to have someone know that I'm telling the truth. I can see why people would think I have a crush on Negi, but that's very mistaken.
@507,176 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
I do not masturbate to pictures of Negi Springfield or any other animu little boy. I would find those who do reprehensible and disgusting. I have very normal, if nerdy, sexual fetishes involving girls. Believe me or not, it's your choice.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 3 days later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #508,060
It's completely OK to strap a naked baby down, fondle his penis and cut off the end of his dick, but drawing teens having sex is going too far!!!!
Anonymous Z-7 joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #508,078
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #508,101
@506,447 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
What is the magic age where, in one nanosecond, it suddenly becomes ok?
What is the magic age where, in one nanosecond, it suddenly becomes ok?