Forum

Hannish Lightning wrote:

What's trolling and ignorant is thinking that it's okay for pedophiles to perpetuate their fantasies/desires by letting them look at loli porn .

NOWHERE has it been indicated Handley was pleasuring himself with this material. Get your mind out of the gutter.
Because the titles have never been released, we do not know if they were hentai, or passing images in stories that these incidents played some role in.
Do you remember Xena & Hercules? Before being cast as Xena, Lucy Lawless played a human woman who married & had a child with a centaur. I still cannot wrap my head around a human giving birth to a centauyr, but whatever.
In the Xanth series by Piers Anthony humans & creatures interbreed all over the place.
So going back to the epic I will never make since I cannot do squat artistically with my computer, maybe I want to follow Xanth's idea & have a pure virgin 15 yr old have sex with a unicorn to create a race of centaurs (because we all know unicorns only let virgins touch them, right?) The sex isn't there for fapping, but for plot development. Maybe the stories Handley had were for plot development.
How better to show a monster than to have him rape & slaughter a child, the embodiment of purity & the hope for our future?

I've worked in law enforcement for 15 yrs. Most law enforcement people I work with are more interested in catching actual criminals, not potential ones. No one I know wants to play thought police (though I'm sure there are some law enforcement types who do like the thought police bit)

I have been told by more than one supervisor we don't really care about the guy stealing a can of soup to feed his family-we care about the guy breaking into your house while you're asleep putting your life at risk.
How is protecting fictional children a cost-effective option in a country that's in debt past it's ears? In my state to save money they're letting inmates out of prison-not jail, but prison. Doesn't it make much more sense to work on the ACTUAL criminals & not the ones manufactured by paranoia?
Jails & Prisons are full to the brim & you want to lock up someone pleasuring himself to Miley Cyrus pix? That's right. You're worked up about KIDS THAT DON'T EVEN EXIST.

Buy a vowel here.
Isn't this human nature? Are we all not potential lawbreakers, but we control whatever impulses to remain law abiding. Is it not some little voice (whatever) in our heads that keeps most of us on the straight & narrow? There but for the grace of God go I?

Hannish Lightning wrote:

Society has nothing to lose if we banned all forms of CP and we have nothing to gain if we allow it to continue.

Back on page 5 I linked to the Wiki entry on the author of Alice in Wonderland. He wrote that for a girl when she was 7. Some suggests a missing page in his diary was removed to hide his proposal to the girl when she was 11 while others refute this. What no one can get away from is he took nude & semi-nude pictures of underage girls & never had any apparent adult romantic relationships, though most now believe he had pedo tendancies he never actually acted on.
So we would not have Alice in Wonderland if all potential pedos were locked away in the darkest dungeons you want them tossed into.

Hannish Lightning wrote:

And what's ridiculous is thinking I should be banned because I am so adamantly opposed to letting some smuck be allowed to fap to loli smut. If you look at real CP you should go to jail, but if you like to look at fake CP then you need psychological help because their has to be something wrong with you if you enjoy looking at the form of a naked child doing sexual acts.

Would you kindly post the university from which you have earned your degree in psychology?

Quote:

Cohen notes that Dodgson "apparently convinced many of his friends that his attachment to the nude female child form was free of any eroticism", but adds that "later generations look beneath the surface"

I have a large number of pictures of my daughter naked under the age of 5. She was a nudist at heart. I'd send her out into the fenced back yard, turn around, & her clothes were in a pile while she was running around being free. There was something beautiful & innocent in her actions so I took lots of pictures, not focusing on her crotch, but on her face. She was like some little woodland fairy with the SoCal sun glistening off her sun-bleached blond hair.
How can I say an adult male looking at a picture of a gothic lolita girl isn't seeing that same innocence? What if he's seeing his own child in that art?

AS I SAID I love horror. You also seem to feel violence is ok.
So what is different between you who feels it's ok to view mass destruction on a massive scale as in 2012 & the guys who flew those planes into the Twin Towers?
Impulse control, maybe?
Your moral standards?
What separates you when you become angry with someone & any of these school shooters?
You haven't acted ony any impulses, yet by your very words, if people viewing naked children are future pedos, you, dear Hannish, are a mass murderer waiting to be sent over the edge.

Thank god in the US one is innocent until one is proven guilty (or pleads like Handley did). We don't need citizens ratting out one another to the government over every little thing

Die Gedanken sind frei

[Mod Edit: You made a couple of valid points, but unfortunately insisted on not only attacking other users, but also took the liberty of attacking religion in general, as well as calling out for their deaths. You then finished the thread off in an entirely inappropriate manner that was not only unnecessary, but way over the line. Feel free to try this again when you've calmed down and can formulate an argument without soapboxing against religion, and calling for others to be severely injured or killed. Also, I heard you can speak without swearing constantly, that might be a good thing to try too. - Keonyn]

I don't see why it matters if I am so against someone looking at loli porn, I am not creating victims or hurting anyone with my way of thinking.

R315r4z0r wrote:

I really don't see the difference it makes between looking at fictional child porn or real child porn.

The only slight difference I see is that in the case of real children, it might be possible to get arrested if you know the children are being raped regularly and you keep quiet about it. But in the case of fictional characters, no one is physically hurt in the process (bar writers cramp for the artist.)

Unless the person looking at the content was either directly involved with making it or, if the content was recent, fails to report it to authorities, then I don't see why they should be charged with a crime.

Because one involves a market encouraging the actual abuse of real, living human beings, while the other encourages the market of drawn, fictional characters. There's a very real, tangible difference between the two that I'm somewhat horrified you failed to recognize.

Considering the general consistency of the position that one should not be legally punished for reading or watching, your post is seriously not needed.

Hannish Lightning wrote:

I don't see why it matters if I am so against someone looking at loli porn, I am not creating victims or hurting anyone with my way of thinking.

1) Can you explain why, implicitly through your posts, you're not a hypocrite for codemning certain sexualities in fiction, but are A-OKAY with violence?

2) Can you explain what people who look at lolicon material -- which is not child porn, just as material of "older characters" is not "adult porn" -- are doing wrong? I don't care for it, but they aren't, y'know, harming other people. And unless you want a nanny state where we keep people from harming themselves -- and jeez, there'd be a fudge-ton of material to cover -- then what is your argument against it?

[Mod Edit: Alright, first off, you don't need to quote a whole page of text to post two lines in response. Also, if you're just going to response with attacks and insults, then you're not adding to the discussion and are just trolling. As the rules state, you are expected to be civil and disagree respectfully or don't post at all. This is a civil discussion, not a schoolyard argument. - Keonyn]

Hannish Lightning, you're not even responding to other people's arguments a lot of the time. You also seem to assume that everyone who disagrees with you likes to look at loli porn, which is false.

Also...

Quote:

I don't see why it matters if I am so against someone looking at loli porn, I am not creating victims or hurting anyone with my way of thinking.

This thread is not about you. Or at least it's not supposed to be. You're right, it doesn't matter if you are against someone looking at loli porn, it doesn't matter if you think it's disgusting or horrible. I don't care if you feel that way, I'm sure most of the posters here don't mind either.

But it does matter if you think that someone should be arrested for looking at loli porn. If your way of thinking goes beyond what you merely believe is the way best for people to behave, and starts influencing laws that can destroy a person's life, than yes, it does matter.

What's odd is that unless I am mixing you up with another poster, even you said you don't believe that prison is the right answer in this case. So I'm confused as to what you are even arguing here. That loli porn is disgusting? I'm not going to try and argue against that, but that doesn't even matter as far as the case is concerned. What are you trying to say here? What do you believe the laws regarding loli content should be?

One final note that I found ironic, is that your comment that you are not " creating victims or hurting anyone with my way of thinking" is exactly the defense used by many people who believe loli porn should be legal.

When discussing hot-button social issues, some participants aren’t really interested in the debate itself, but rather in using the debate as a platform from which to shout just how much they condemn current moral panic taboo. They will condemn anything and everything even remotely associated with moral panic taboo because to do otherwise might lead someone somewhere to think they don’t hate moral panic taboo as much as they’re supposed to.

They have no need to win the debate because that’s not why they’re posting. It’s effectively a declaration of religious faith, intended to broadcast their deep emotional adherence to tribal rules, lest a fellow tribe member accuse them of being a moral panic taboo sympathizer and thus in need of death by stoning.

Trying to have a discussion with someone like that about freedom of expression or freedom of the arts or freedom to fantasize is like trying to argue the merits of yaoi/slash fiction to Fred Phelps.

LordRedhand wrote:

The assumption here is that you find the event normal/okay so a depiction of say a murderer should also be met with the same response, regardless of real or fictional, if everything is consistent. Thus the portrayal of the act may not be the isue but the response around that depiction. As if you were to say for example "Murder is okay." in response to a fictional murder instance, it becomes harder to say "Murder is wrong." as we have an instance of "you" saying the opposite, as it can't be both ways, it's one or the other in this case. (Not assuming that you approve of murder, but laying out/clarifying what I mean.) Thus when someone glorifies such an event it becomes more concerning, i.e. a person of interest.

You appear to give no credence to any notion of context-sensitivity for moral judgements, even though one can do so without abandoning the moral realism you appear to be a proponent of.

Note that because of the offending persons and events in question being fictional, it might be apt to approach this issue within the context of fictionalism. (Not necessarily fictionalism as a broad meta-ethical stance, but moreover as a means of discussing fictional characters.) It should be noted that such a field of discourse was not a mature one in Kant's day, and as you appear to be an adherent of his, you may wish to consider how one could adapt his ethics for applying to the strange ontology of fictional characters and fictional acts.

Alright, some people here seem to be taking this too far, and are going out of their way to insult and outright attack other users. Even if that user attacks you, then report the post to the mods; but if you just respond with attacks and insults then you're also part of the problem.

Consider this a warning to those who can't seem to behave themselves. Personal attacks will not be tolerated; they add nothing to the discussion and it's simply unnecessary and degrades the thread in to a shouting match. Keep it clean or the thread gets locked, and possibly more if the admins see fit to take further action towards the problem posters. So let's just try to avoid that and try and keep this civil.

Now, you see, this is why people who don't know whats going on with the material, need to stay out of the conversation.

People like Hannish Lightning, who is on note with saying people who look at real child porno is a sicko.. are confused with the materials at topic here.

Japanese "loli" is not child porn. It can be used in that context, if the age difference is huge (kids like 6 or 8 years old), even then it's to make a joke though). 16-18 year old girls, who are drawn to LOOK like their really young. It isn't because of some desire to be a pedo, it's because its "Kawaii" (Cute in Japanese).

And the American Courts can't really see the difference, because we don't think it's "kawaii"... we think it's "sick". Even though these girls are of age, and just drawn to look cute, we take it upon ourselves to think this poor dude is a pedophile.

Silvanoshei wrote:

And the American Courts can't really see the difference, because we don't think it's "kawaii"... we think it's "sick". Even though these girls are of age, and just drawn to look cute, we take it upon ourselves to think this poor dude is a pedophile.

We're a schizophrenic society, what can we say? We proclaim our shock & dismay over child porn in public, yet in the privacy of our homes or to our closest friends we drool over underage teen flesh.
I knew a church-going gal-single mother of 3 who commented her fantasy was to get her hands on a 15 yr old & groom him to be her perfect lover. I've seen more than my share of To Catch a Predator & very few of those guys actually come off as pedophiles--at least half (& I'd say more) seem again, looking for that ideal untrained lover they can manipulate into doing all their desires. On a certain level it seems they know it's wrong, but the desire to score is greater & frankly most of them don't seem as though they're all that skilled with the opposite sex or they'd be looking there. Less Pedos, more looking pathetic losers score the only way they think they can. When I worked in Juvenile Justice, I'd get 2-3 calls a month from "friends" ratting their military buddies out saying their buddy was trying to get a teen girlfriend pregnant to get some sort of extra cash allowance. A teen girl, looking to be free of her parents & more than a little naive & romantic, seemed the easiest to control, particularly when they guy in question is 18-21 himself.
Less Pedo, more control freak. You get up there in age & gals usually have a will of their own. They tell creeps to "***-off & die" A lot of those guys on To Catch a Predator seem to be the sort who'd get that a lot. As do the stereotype otaku. (just check out the portrayal of the date-sim otaku in Otaku no Video)

CCSYueh wrote:

We're a schizophrenic society, what can we say? We proclaim our shock & dismay over child porn in public, yet in the privacy of our homes or to our closest friends we drool over underage teen flesh.

And the good thing is that no matter how much I age, teenagers will always be the same. Good life this is.

CCSYueh wrote:

I knew a church-going gal-single mother of 3 who commented her fantasy was to get her hands on a 15 yr old & groom him to be her perfect lover.

I thought I had heard that story before. Good to know that it wasn't a glitch in the matrix.

Last edited by Mohawk52 on Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

CCSYueh wrote:

Hannish Lightning wrote:

What's trolling and ignorant is thinking that it's okay for pedophiles to perpetuate their fantasies/desires by letting them look at loli porn .

NOWHERE has it been indicated Handley was pleasuring himself with this material. Get your mind out of the gutter.
Because the titles have never been released, we do not know if they were hentai, or passing images in stories that these incidents played some role in. .......and other stuff.

I'm going to guess your profession is causing you to be that naive as a means to an end, because if a defence lawyer tried that line on me as a member of the jury, I'd be struggling not to laugh out loud in court. That's like saying one only reads Hustler for the articles. You're right we don't know what the content is, but unless Iowa is the ultra right wing evangelical capital of the world, let alone the US, it had to be something mightily offensive to warrant him staring down the barrel of 15 to 20 years and $250K. Besides let’s not forget that he's being done for interstate trafficking using the US Postal Service, not possession.

Well, I don't know about "the capital" but Iowa is a pretty conservative state. If Handley lived in another state, I doubt this would have happened. Basically, the folks at the postal service saw something they didn't understand and jumped to conclusions. There is nothing is this guy's history to suggest that he's a pedophile. He's just a manga collector and this stuff, from what I understand was part of a large collection ordered online. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know what exactly was in it but then I don't think he even got a chance to see it. I'm sure I have stuff that the Iowa postal service would consider "obscene" and I'm not even into loli.

So I don't think CS is being naive. I agree with her and everyone else here that thinks this is a travesty of justice.

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Handley's Sentencing for 'Obscene' Manga Delayed

This Week in Anime - Are This Season's Isekai Anime Any Good?

Tatsuki Fujimoto's 'Look Back' Anime Film Unveils Trailer, Theme Song, More Staff

Voice Actor Dave Underwood Dies at 57

The Spring 2024 Anime Preview Guide

Fans Say Farewell to Yokohama's Life-Size Moving Gundam

This Week in Anime - What Do You Do When Your Fav Anime Isn't Simulcast?

Ragna Crimson Manga Volume 11 Review

Gundam SEED FREEDOM's Rie Tanaka, Sōichiro Hoshi Share Memories at Los Angeles Premiere

Forum - View topicNEWS: Handley's Sentencing for 'Obscene' Manga Delayed

Forum

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Handley's Sentencing for 'Obscene' Manga Delayed