Forum - View topicNEWS: 30% of Adult Manga involve
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
mistress_reebi Posts: 736 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||||||||||
Studies aren't that accurate. Studies have proven homework is bad, while others prove it is benifical. Usually, researchers only study around 30 or 100 people, which is small because 100 people don't represent the entire population. I agree that it is a person's decision to do things, but if they are aroused at seeing drawn children who is to say they wouldn't rape a child? Even if they don't rape a child, that doesn't change the fact that they are attracted to children sexually. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| burzmali Posts: 143 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Really, this ought to get interesting.
Ah, so putting someone at risk counts as doing harm... I see.
Really, the vast majority you say, you must really be at the pulse of the Loli Hentai community.
Because animals are people too!!!
Nope, in every one of these arguments, my sole point is to show that every argument that supports the side in favor of Loli, supports the legalization of the possession of regular Child porn as well. Well, that or to show that the argument itself is idiotic ("its not doing any harm therefore it can't be illegal)
The argument is usually pretty simply. Anyone who likes loli is sick, as pedophilia is a mental disorder. And the first step in dealing with sick people is to take away whatever is feeding their illness, i.e. loli. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
omar235 Posts: 1569 Location: Florida, Jacksonvile |
|
|||||||||||||||
Well if you want to be sarcastic about it burzmali...
The point that he is trying to make is that while drunk driving and shooting at people puts people at risk watching drawn porn puts no one at risk. After all risk leads to harm.
I don't know him...he might. 
No but they are living creatures that should be respected.
AH yes because drawn characters are people too!!! Come on I would never support material that got REAL children hurt. And the argument is about as idiotic as "it isn't hurting anyone but I don't like it so lets get rid of it" if we did that then we wouldn't have much since everyone has a problem with something in this world even if it isn't hurting anyone EX. violent video games.
This is true people that ALREADY have violent dispostions play violent video games and people who have predisposition to abuse children probably read loli but they don't make anyone rape children they already are thinking about it...so again it doesn't hurt anyone or make them do anything, just cause sick people read it doesn't mean it should be banned. Pedophiles like to watch alot of things does this mean we should get rid of everything they watch. No.
Oh yes lets take away the loli so they can focus completely on real litte kids. Taking away loli won't change anything, the only way to stop them from abusing real children is to arrest them. For all you know loli could be keeping the child rapes down by keeping them away from real little children, course they could just watch it as a past time but either way if you take it away nothing will happen unless you catch the pedophiles themselves.
True the studies aren't always accurate they just tell you estimate and what may happen. This can be said about the studies that condem violent video games and loli also. I personally feel that someone having a sextual desire towards children doesn't really bother me but if they act on that desire then they should be arrested and taken of the street since they obviously can't control themselves and are a danger to society. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
J-Syxx Posts: 1203 |
|
|||||||||||||||
| I'm not going to read through 7 pages of this, but for me it boils down to the fact that you can't put an age of consent on a drawing. People can hate lolicon all they want and despise it for every reason, but in the end they're only drawings. Restricing drawings is restricting art, and restricting art is restricting speech. Whatever the intentions are of the artist or those who look at it is irrelavent. It is still just a drawing. I don't see any firm connection at all though. Simularly, I don't think John Carpenter intended on killing a bunch of teenage girls when he directed Halloween, nor do I think the fans of that film watch it because they wish to do so some day. In the end I would hope free speech will remain free in the US, as well as Japan. | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Tumalu Posts: 17 |
|
|||||||||||||||
I found it interesting all along, actually.
I would say so, yes. This is just a matter of semantics though. My reasoning (regarding why risk should be evaluated as if it were harm) is that if a particular act raises the chances that someone will be harmed by, say 10%, then if the act is commited 1000 times, it's very likely that some people have actually been harmed (you said you worked with statistics, correct?). Mathematically, you might say that a dangerous activity has fractional victims. That may sound silly, but the concept is still applicable and (in my opinion) justifies making foolishly dangerous activities illegal. So yes, since non-zero risk will invariably lead to harm if the population is large enough (or if the activities are aloud to continue for long enough), I would classify risk as a form of harm.
Do you contend my claim then? It was just speculation on my part, but here was my reasoning: Looking at it from the perspective of a lolicon artist (living in Japan we'll say), what would be the benefits of using real children (or photographs of them)? As it stands, loli drawings are legal in Japan; child pornography is not. I don't know what kind of sentence someone caught using real children would get, but when they could easily do their work using adults as a reference (or books for that matter - I'm pretty sure reference books are sold which would show proportions, etc. for people of all different ages), why would they bother? Regardless though,there's no question that it's possible to create loli drawings without exploiting real children. And I think it's safe to assume that there are a lot of lolicon artists that do just that. If something needs to be cracked down on, it's those who are abusing children, not the loli fetish as a whole. Some posters in this thread advocate banning loli drawings to stop people from creating them illegally. Outside of these forums, I've seen people advocate that pornography in general should be illegal because it harms women and children. Doing either of these things would be akin to banning driving because some people do it illegally (without a license or even under the influence of alcohol!). Maybe if people weren't wasting their money doing surveys of the propagation of loli art throughout the manga industry, they'd have more finances to focus on going after the people who are actually harming children.
? I'm not sure what your implication is with this. Referring to an animal as a "victim" isn't uncommon. Humans may be more intelligent that other animals (and one might assume we're more self aware too), but that doesn't mean that animals don't feel pain. If this is another argument over semantics, then to be clear, when I made the statement: "I'm against condemning activities that don't cause harm to anyone." I intended "anyone" to mean any self aware being (humans and animals included). If I had thought that wasn't obvious, I would have said it differently to begin with.
Then you must have missed the point made a few pages ago that child pornography necessitates the abuse of children in it's very creation - loli drawings do not. As long as you're not claiming that the existence of loli drawings puts real children at risk (as you just said you weren't), then you seem to agree that loli drawings don't cause harm to children (if created legally of course).
Oh, it certainly can be illegal. I was arguing that it shouldn't be. If you truly believe that some things should be illegal even if they don't cause harm to anyone (animals included), then I doubt there's much I could say that would convince you otherwise. As I stated before, so long as a particular activity doesn't cause harm to anyone (again including animals just to be clear), I don't think it should be illegal. Generally, the purpose of laws in society has been to prevent one person from trampling on the rights of another (or so I've been told). Like anything else, this principle can be extended to absurdity, but it does provide a basis for the legal systems in many countries.
I'm not an expert regarding these studies, but for the moment I'll assume the above is true. As you said, the corollary here is that people who read, look at, or watch loli have a predisposition to abuse children. My point, however, is that (like video games), loli may very well serve as an outlet for these people, thus stopping them from actually harming children. As far as I'm aware, most studies of video game related violence have indicated that playing violent games does not make you more likely commit acts of violence yourself. The corollary here is that loli does not make people more likely to harm children.
Finding children (real or drawn) sexually attractive is certainly a "mental disorder." Speaking in terms of evolution, sex is simply a means to propagate your DNA. Having sexual desires for any person animal or object that cannot help you to this means is a mental disorder. In fact finding any anime characters sexually attractive is a mental disorder - you can't really have sex with them. Finding characters from video games sexually attractive is a mental disorder - you can't procreate with them either. Some people argue that finding a particular celebrity with whom "you don't stand a chance" sexually attractive is a mental disorder. It gets you worked up over someone who doesn't even know who you are. My point with all of this is that not all mental disorders are actually dangerous. The legal system shouldn't be wasting it's time with "sick" people unless the sickness in question poses harm (danger included of course), to others. For people who get aroused by loli art, recognize that it's a sickness, and decide that they want to deal with this sickness, they probably should remove themselves from the material in question (and ideally seek professional help as well). But for those who don't see it as a disorder, or just don't care, I don't see the harm in letting them continue to view loli art (since it can be created an viewed without harming children). Last edited by Tumalu on Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:46 am; edited 2 times in total |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
fxg97873 Posts: 172 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||||||||||||
| I was watching Kodocha today (hopefully this is an "approved" show by the DoJ, Neo-Cons of this forum and the "Committee for Clean Thoughts")
Anyhow, Sana-chan's mom Misako gives some advice when Sana asks her to side with her and the Girls against the differing ideology of the Boys in her class. Misako says: "We know that it's wrong to wage war, but just take a look at human history." "Forcing your views on others, and the pleasure taken in holding them down- that's what we (humans) cannot give up." "They repeat themselves over and over again, don't they?" The assumption by a large part of the population seems to be that it's okay to force their views onto others. Even if the lifestyles of these other people have no direct impact on them, they somehow believe that its their right to tell others how to look, think and feel. I recently changed my political affiliation to Libertarian because they are the only ones who seem to acknowledge this sad trend. Are Libertarians people of Liberal or Conservative background? They are both. They believe fundamentally that people should be able to choose their lifestyle as long as it doesn't interfere with others. If you want to live liberally (e.g. watch porn every day). Fine. If you want to live Conservatively (e.g. go to Church everyday). Fine. Just mind your own business. Let others live free as long as they do not force themselves against you. Libertarian Principle: "You can live however you want so long as you don't initiate force or fraud against others or their property." Is that too much to ask? mk2000 |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Angel_White_Wings Posts: 40 Location: Up Above |
|
|||||||||||||||
So, according to this source, child pornography is being displayed in manga if children under eighteen years is present on the page. And for those arguing the consent of age --
And what I thought was interesting --
(Note to bold print: Protecting Children Online law.) In my mind, whether on paper or not, this is still children pornography, which, to me, is immoral and wrong. Just curious. How long has this (lolicon and shouta) been around in Japan? How long has this been a cause for concern? And yes, I do agree about the waste of tax dollars. That's disgusting. Though Japan has less violent crimes, that money should be going to something more beneficial to the community rather than the study of manga concerning controversial topics. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| Tumalu Posts: 17 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Possibly, though the wording they used there is a little vague. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but the line "[...] that shows a person who is or is depicted as [...]" seems like it could be interpreted in at least two different ways. Either: any depiction of a person (as in "human") below the age of 18 Or: any depiction of a person (as in an actual person) below the age of 18 In places where loli drawings are legal, I don't think the laws allow for drawn depictions of an actual person (as that would mean that a child was harmed in the making of the image - unless it was actually an adult drawn as a child I suppose). If the second interpretation above was what they meant, then loli manga wouldn't be a violation so long as the characters weren't representations of real people. I'm not arguing either way here though. I don't know which meaning was intended. Given that a fair amount of anime contains nudity involving characters who are proclaimed as being under 18 though, it seems like the companies who publish such shows in the US would be in a whole heap of trouble if it were actually illegal. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| a1b2c3 Posts: 8 |
|
|||||||||||||||
i'm sorry i'm going to have to call you out specifically on this. your responses are so way off base i just have to post.
obviously tumalu's post needs to be read again. he says that the argument is that there isn't proof that READING lolicon makes people more LIKELY to harm real children. i already know that in terms of lolicon, you believe depiction of sexual acts and real sexual acts are one in the same or that the depiction will cause urges to do sexual acts with real children (which already is completely off). also, looking at pictures of drawings is NOT interacting with either the picture or a real child, while video games simulate the killing of people (in which there is a virtual interaction) and (i'll jump off the slippery slope and say) airsoft and paintball competitions are simulations of real killing. i HOPE no one tries to do sexual acts using a piece of paper and ink. this has been said MANY times by others and people still don't get it or even argue against that specific point. if you want to prove that lolicon = pedophile, then prove that a picture will cause sex with a real child - don't shirk the issue. tumalu said the fallacy that "people who play them (video games) MAY kill real people" which means he's saying that playing violent games MAY cause violent tendencies which he knows isn't true. YOUR counterpoint is that "people with a violent disposition play violent games" and that "people who have predisposition to abuse children read loli." WOW. first off that wasn't even close of the original point - he wasn't talking about violent people, he's talking about people in general and about killing, not violent tendencies. most likely "YES" many with violent tendencies will simulate it through video games... but not all. and i can't prove it, but i don't think ALL pedophiles or child abusers actually read loli. if you really do believe that people playing video games can cause people to start killing real people and people who read lolicon will start having sex with or raping minors, that would mean that any person that drinks alcohol has a disposition to drive drunk or cause some form of harm because of intoxication. or anyone who owns a firearm has a tendency to shoot someone. if i watched porn all day does that mean i have the potential to rape someone because of my "urges?" then you go on to say:
so going back to the drinking alcohol, that would mean your point would be that an alcoholic is sick and alocoholism is a disorder. therefore, WE have to take that alcohol away from him because it feeds his illness. easy enough, except that alocholism is a easiest addiction and disorder to fall into (as well as drugs and other substance abuse), so that means we should, for the good of society, get rid of all forms of liquor and drugs and narcotics. i know i'm falling off the slippery slope again, but this is the point everyone else is making about lolicon. i can go so far as to say that cellphone usage while driving will cause more accidents to happen, therefore we should prevent usage while driving. which i agree, but that isn't going to stop the morons from still causing accidents. there's too much focus on the tools and not the users. this ridiculous argument can be used the same way gun control, abortion, and even sex issues are being discussed. taking a gun away from a violent person doesn't mean there's going to be some other means to hurt someone, nor does taking away alcohol means that they wont find a way to get or make some (or find another way to get drunk). in that regards getting rid of lolicon isn't going to make a tremendous impact on what we should be focusing on, which is people who ARE already acting upon those actions we're trying to prevent. who in here really believes abstinence will help deter pre-marital sex or the real issue, STDs? is making marijuana illegal really preventing potheads from smoking up? one reason why child predators and pedophiles still go back to old habits is because we vilify the person instead of trying to help them. sure, we'll put GPS anklets on the sex offenders and picket in front of where they live because of their actions, but all we do is tell them "you're sick and you can't change. so we're going to make sure you know that you're sick and you're not welcome here." they think they can't change so they stick with what they know. prevention will only work with the addict that's willing to change. just because we take away their toy doesn't mean they won't find new one and go back to old habits or something worse. i forgot that one study where it went something like a teacher segregated their class into blue eyed and brown eyed students and told one group they were superior because of their eye color. so the "lower" group did worse on tests. but when they changed it around WITH THE SAME CLASS, the other group did worse. it had to do with ideas of race and whatnot, but the same thing here. i'm sure there're people who look at lolicon that are NOT and WILL NOT be pedophiles, the same as there are people who play video games that will not become violent killers. but if we keep telling them they are, they start to believe and become it. i sure as hell don't agree with people looking at lolicon, but it's like an old record every time some sensationalized topic pops up. don't even get me STARTED on the whole translation and image editing in anime/manga. or Israel/Palestine or Christianity vs Islam and crap. oh, and
does that mean deviant = bad, butt = ass means deviant butt = bad ass? and i'm sorry, i don't think loli actually MEANS a child in general but a young girl. wait.. why is it called lolicon? shouldn't there be another term to make it more all-encompassing?
HUH?
WHAT?!
okay, stop right there. what does Peru and Canada's "rape rate" have to do with Japan's "lower pedophile rate?" and coercion from a rapist for forced marriage has what to do with pedophiles and lolicon? i swear if people want to make intelligent arguments against lolicon, they have to step up. sorry if i sound like i'm trolling but it's way late and i'm way past niceties |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| omar235 Posts: 1569 Location: Florida, Jacksonvile |
|
|||||||||||||||
| Yes as long as the depection being drawn aren't of actual people then it is legal Tumalu.
Since I stated my opinions on this already maybe you guys should read this thread that is pretty recent that is on lolicon. Page seven touches on the law but I would read through the whole thread to understand it. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The Xenos Posts: 1102 Location: Boston |
|
|||||||||||||||
Big brother is watching your thoughts. Maybe the next version of the Patriot Act or Amber Alert Bill will include thought crime. I think you're right about the fake sense of security and political correctness. Though I don't know if I would call it political correctness, because that usually comes from the left and I think most of this fear mongering about 'virtual child porn' is coming from the right. Still, I think my main problem is that it doesn't go after actual child abuse and pedophiles and instead creates a scapegoat and false sense of security. Again, I don't see how a work of fiction where no children are involved can be banned. How is ink on paper a crime? I am a die hard fan of Fahrenheit 451 (and Usher II) and am against the banning fiction. If anything, maybe it can help someone explore their urges safely. Yes, they could also become addicted and move on to hurt children, but that is not the book's fault, it's theirs. Who is the government to come in and just ban these books? They reason people will become sex addicts and pedophiles because of these books? Why not ban alcohol because people could become alcoholics and drive drunk? That makes about as much sense. It's like the whole violent video game argument that games create killers and games shouldn't feature such immoral behavior. These people like Jack Thompson or those who want to ban pornography want to ban fiction. They want to create thought crimes. They think these games or books directly lead to crimes, they possess people like some demonic text. Yet I think any reasonable person knows that it's people that cause the crimes, not a book or a movie or a video game. Do you want your government controlling you thoughts? Do you want your government monitoring what cartoons you masturbate to? Plus how would they they ban all underage porn cartoons. Do you have these fictional characters show IDs? You'd have to ban all cartoon porn to be safe. Then again, what is porn? What's to stop someone from getting off to the Coppertone girl or Powerpuff Girls? They may even just look at regular photos of children if they're sick enough. The real pedophiles will find material. The real pedophiles, unfortunately, will find real children. Meanwhile, the government is busy trying to find out what cartoons you masturbate to. Again, real child pornography is wrong and criminal because it's evidence of the sexual abuse of actual children. I'm in no way advocating that. Yet I think it's a whole different issue when it's words or drawings on a page. I think focusing on that misses the real issue and doesn't help solve real problems of sexual abuse. I am also reminded of when government and people cry out and rely on sex offender registration instead of just watching out for their damn kids. Not all sex offenders have been caught, so why focus on them. Now the worst ones? Well, they should be locked up. Yet I can't help but think politicians focusing too much on sex offender registry creates a false sense of security. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| mistress_reebi Posts: 736 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||||||||||
It is wrong to be aroused over a child. If it is drawn then that is just sad, and needs theropy. If they aren't reading lolihentai, then there isn't something for them to get aroused over. Unless they download child porn, and as mentioned previously downloading child porn off a site, the person downloading the video isn't harming any children, therefore they aren't doing anything wrong because if people aren't harming real child while being aroused, it's ok. Obviously, downloading child porn is wrong, and is a criminal offence. Or how about photoshop? Why not make child porn without harming children by altering photos on photoshop. Now a days people can do anything on computers, so this shouldn't be a problem since they aren't harming children. Again, child pornography must be stopped, even if it doesn't harm real children people are getting aroused at seeing children. Children aren't ment to be sexual objects because they are too young, so why should we tolerate people looking at children as if they are sexual objects? [quote="a1b2c3] okay, stop right there. what does Peru and Canada's "rape rate" have to do with Japan's "lower pedophile rate?" and coercion from a rapist for forced marriage has what to do with pedophiles and lolicon? i swear if people want to make intelligent arguments against lolicon, they have to step up.[/quote] Crime rates can be misinterpreted, the first thing I stated in the sentence you quote. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| The Xenos Posts: 1102 Location: Boston |
|
|||||||||||||||
Well I think it's wrong for people to be aroused by these muder simulators you call video games. People aren't just objects to be murdered. Sure, no one is acutally dying, just like no child is being abused in a comic book work of fiction, but someone's getting off on it and I find that wrong. People shouldn't think like that, so let's delete any material that makes them even have one thought like that. Oh wait. That guy there's jerking off to an episode of Powerpuff GIrls. We need to ban that. That guy there is jerking off to a photo of Dakota Fanning on the Charlotte's Web poster. Let's ban all those posters because some guy gets off to it. Plus we have that horrible book Lolita. All those crazy pedophiles call it a calssic. That needs to go on the burn pile as well. /end sarcasm O.K. Do you see how your comment there doesn't actually work?! You can just go around banning fictional material because someone gets off to it. You can't just ban something because you think it gives people impure thoughts. You'd have nothing left but bare walls. Like I said, the real pedophiles will just find material to get off on. The real pedophiles will still unfortunatley hurt children. Going after cartoons and monitoring what people get off to isn't going to stop that. That, the actual abuse, certainly needs to be stopped. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| burzmali Posts: 143 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Wrong. Please play again though. The Protect Act does have a section banning actual likenesses (as you suggest), however, it also includes a section on obscene images of children in explicit sexual situations. That section effectively bans loli (pending a SLAPS test). And I'll ask the million dollar question once again. If images on paper are not harming anyone, how is loli any different from CP? The loser who downloads a few hundred cp images off the internet didn't harm any children, so how is he any worse than a loli fan? They both just want to wank to pictures of children. Sure a child was harmed to make the CP, but a child MIGHT have been harmed to make the loli. Since CP was legal in Japan until 99, how much loli was traced or used as a reference before then? Maybe the artist drew on their memories of molesting a child to draw the pictures, or on memories of CP mags to draw the pictures. How far does the loli have to fall from the CP tree before it is "not harming anyone"? |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
HitokiriShadow Subscriber Posts: 4908 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Because real child porn inherently requires a real child to be created. That's why adult actresses pretending to be little girls is perfectly legal, or at least it is in the U.S. the last I heard.
And that right there is the difference. A real child COULD, in theory, be used to 'model' for cartoon child porn. Perhaps it has happened, but its not inherent in the material and would have to be proven, in which case the creator should be arrested and charged with all applicable crimes and his works removed from the shelves. That would still be a rare exception, not the rule or a requirement. "Real" child porn inherently requires a real child to be abused and that's why its illegal and people pretending to be little girls in porn is not illegal. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Anime Castle
Robert's Anime Corner Store
AAA Anime Distribution
Big Bad Toy Store
