But you can depict a child being murdered in film. Murdering a child is sureley worse than the sexual abuse of them?
Note to MI5: I'm just playing Devil's advocate.
Goooooogle blocks 100,000 search terms for kiddyporn!
- Thread starter Orionaut
- Start date
But you can depict a child being murdered in film. Murdering a child is sureley worse than the sexual abuse of them?
Note to MI5: I'm just playing Devil's advocate.
Different things are different, you say?
Murder is different from rape/abuse.
Stealing cars is different too!
OK, I'm glad we sorted that out.
You want to know something else that's different? Real children and imaginary children. Very different!
The law recognises this by making *most* crimes against imaginary children... well, not crimes at all. You can murder as many imaginary children as you like, and no one will arrest you (phew!).
But rape/abuse of imaginary children *is* a crime. You *can* get on the sex offenders register for it.
Isn't this odd? Are imaginary children in need of protection or aren't they? If we need to protect them from rape/abuse, don't we need to also protect them from murder? From torture? From domestic violence?
"not fall foul to your "we deem this unacceptable as a society" rule". Its not "my rule" its societal law. Hence why its now illegal.
Anyways to answer your question (which has no baring on this particular topic, because again it is a different thing):
Murder and violence has been thrown at us via films, games and other such things. We as a collective are desensitized to murder. You see someone get the head blown off in a game and don't think anything about it.
That is why, we already find it socially acceptable to shoot people in video games. So whats the point of changing it. Psychological studies have proved that we are desensitized to it from an early age. How ever there have been no concrete studies to prove that violent "rap" (see early 2000's eminem/etc) or violent video games cause a direct increase in violence or murder. However there are always going to be a few small cases the media latch onto about video game related violence.
In short, its too late to worry about murder in games and films. We dont think anything of it. After the 10000 films of people getting hacked apart, shot, torn up.
*not that i condone murder, the above is just the reality of the situation.
That is why as a society we allow images of children being murdered in place. I'm not saying i agree with it. However that's the reality.
We originally were talking about images (pictures/cartoons/etc) of children being used to "Get off to" (Foxeye a few posts up) and how that should be "Ok because no real children are involved".
Playing a game and shooting people in the head (hihi bf4) doesn't equate to wanting to shoot people in the head in real life. However viewing sexual <<< content of minors would only be done for one reason, because you enjoy it. There is literally no other reason for the average person to look at that stuff. You look at it because something about CHILDREN turns you on.
Anyways to answer your question (which has no baring on this particular topic, because again it is a different thing):
Murder and violence has been thrown at us via films, games and other such things. We as a collective are desensitized to murder. You see someone get the head blown off in a game and don't think anything about it.
That is why, we already find it socially acceptable to shoot people in video games. So whats the point of changing it. Psychological studies have proved that we are desensitized to it from an early age. How ever there have been no concrete studies to prove that violent "rap" (see early 2000's eminem/etc) or violent video games cause a direct increase in violence or murder. However there are always going to be a few small cases the media latch onto about video game related violence.
In short, its too late to worry about murder in games and films. We dont think anything of it. After the 10000 films of people getting hacked apart, shot, torn up.
*not that i condone murder, the above is just the reality of the situation.
That is why as a society we allow images of children being murdered in place. I'm not saying i agree with it. However that's the reality.
We originally were talking about images (pictures/cartoons/etc) of children being used to "Get off to" (Foxeye a few posts up) and how that should be "Ok because no real children are involved".
Playing a game and shooting people in the head (hihi bf4) doesn't equate to wanting to shoot people in the head in real life. However viewing sexual <<< content of minors would only be done for one reason, because you enjoy it. There is literally no other reason for the average person to look at that stuff. You look at it because something about CHILDREN turns you on.
Last edited:
So you have proof that watching imaginary children being sexually abused leads to the sexual abuse of children? Because your basis for violence not being an issue is that there's no evidence; where's your evidence?
Also you make it sound like the only reason it should be illegal is because we're not used to it. Does this mean R* should start making games where children are sexually abused so we become desensitized to it and we won't need to make it illegal? Also, I wonder how many kids join the Army after being influenced by their favourite modern combat games.
FoxEye I'm done responding to you.
You are trying to condone the viewing of explicit material involving children. Regardless of it is in a cartoon or what ever. You go as far to suggest that it is perfectly fine for someone to fantasize and view content just because its not "real".
I find you disgusting, even if you are arguing the matter of liberty rather than the real point (at least I HOPE you are).
You are trying to condone the viewing of explicit material involving children. Regardless of it is in a cartoon or what ever. You go as far to suggest that it is perfectly fine for someone to fantasize and view content just because its not "real".
I find you disgusting, even if you are arguing the matter of liberty rather than the real point (at least I HOPE you are).
lolz
Sounds like you just can't think outside the box and have been brainwashed into a mode of complicit and non-independent thinking. Like most people.
You're the one that thinks it's okay to watch children be killed in a film. At least fox-eye's children are cartoons.
totally off topic but i bought my last name and gave my parents their own e-mail address the number of calls I got from them when their internet went down blaming me for losing the connection lol
No I don't have proof that watching children being sexually abused leads to real world sexual abuse. Nor do I care to look for such subject matter.
However it is well documented that people who frequently masturbate to porn need to keep watching progressively more hardcore porn reach orgasms. It is also been proven in some people that the expectations carry over to real life encounters too. Which is fine in the context of consenting adult vs adult.
However is smaller cases of people who are attracted to CHILDREN, if said cartoons involving imaginary children were viewed and watched and masturbated over regularly, how long do you think that individual would take to get onto more hardcore stuff? Stuff a bit more real? stuff a bit more graphical? If that person was really attracted to children, I am very sure in saying eventually it would lead to that person looking for material of children being abused.
However it is well documented that people who frequently masturbate to porn need to keep watching progressively more hardcore porn reach orgasms. It is also been proven in some people that the expectations carry over to real life encounters too. Which is fine in the context of consenting adult vs adult.
However is smaller cases of people who are attracted to CHILDREN, if said cartoons involving imaginary children were viewed and watched and masturbated over regularly, how long do you think that individual would take to get onto more hardcore stuff? Stuff a bit more real? stuff a bit more graphical? If that person was really attracted to children, I am very sure in saying eventually it would lead to that person looking for material of children being abused.
Who is being harmed in a cartoon?
Do you also disagree when you go to the movies and see people being shot and blown up? Does that sit ok with you. Hey it's ok because it's an adult being blown up?
What about cartoons where jerry blows tom up and vice versa?
S&M has already been demonised in this country because the daily mail readers say so.
Oh and the paedos can now use bing, yahoo, ecosia or the 1000+ other search engines....
If it saved 1 child from being a victim I'd say it is a success but the police already have technology to catch people this is just a publicity stunt nothing more.
As I said Desires I didnt at anyone point say its ok for children to be killed in a film. I stated why as a society we dont put as much thought into murder. Not at one point did I condone it.
Lysander;
You are entitled to your own opinion, and so am I. Personal attacks just make you look silly.
Lysander;
You are entitled to your own opinion, and so am I. Personal attacks just make you look silly.
Surely a lot of the anime scene is exactly this.
One of my staff at work is Anime mad.
He is always Anime having stuff delivered from Blurays to plastic models. Most of them are based around scantily clad school girls that look about 12 years old.
I am sure he locks his self away in his man cave and faps away to it, he's intimated as much to us.
While he's not bothering anybody by doing (well maybe his wife!) I have to question the mindset of a bloke that finds cartoon drawings of schoolgirls arousing, it just seems weird and wrong in my mind at least.
However should that be deemed an offence? Of course not.
I don't know. I'm just glad you've finally admitted you're basing your stance purely on your own made-up assumptions.
And finally we get to the nub of the matter. As a fan of the Tories, I can objectively say this is nothing but Cameron trying to get more votes in 2014 in an EASY way so the stupid working and middle class members of the country can say, "yes, he understands, he's doing something!"... I remember hearing him say he will not stop until every child porn image is off the web.
That is impossible and will never happen. Ever.
Remember all that crap in the 90s with paediatricians, Brass Eye, Sarah Payne, Millie Dowler, exactly the crap Brookes is being taken down for now when it's been proven she never gave a **** and only introduced Sarah's Law to sell more papers while advocating voicemail hacking of the very people she was saying she was protecting? Paedos are an easy target. Votes-wise it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
They may do, I wouldn't know, I haven't made one!
Last edited:
While I'm not in anyway going to say what he is doing is even close to normal, my understanding is that anime is just anime. They look like school girls to you and me and we'll raise an eyebrow, but to anime fans I believe they are just anime characters, and it's actually the characteristics and features of the drawn anime character that is admired.
I covered the murder aspect a post or two above. My personal thoughts on the matter dont count, considering we are talking about what is ILLEGAL and what is LEGAL. I stated why as a society we dont put more emphasis on violence in games/films.
As for who is being harmed in a SEXUAL cartoon of children. No one is being directly harmed. But as described in my post above, if people are watching and masturbating to cartoon of children having sex with other children, they enjoy it it gets them off. If they keep watching it maybe a few of those people WILL want to go further on and watch more hardcore stuff.
Maybe that will save one life?
Porn is addictive, all over the world people are treated for porn addictions. It is foolish and naive to think that allowing people to watch cartoons of underage children wouldnt lead to some individuals who get into too much wanting more and more hardcore.
As for who is being harmed in a SEXUAL cartoon of children. No one is being directly harmed. But as described in my post above, if people are watching and masturbating to cartoon of children having sex with other children, they enjoy it it gets them off. If they keep watching it maybe a few of those people WILL want to go further on and watch more hardcore stuff.
Maybe that will save one life?
Porn is addictive, all over the world people are treated for porn addictions. It is foolish and naive to think that allowing people to watch cartoons of underage children wouldnt lead to some individuals who get into too much wanting more and more hardcore.
Anything that has a positive enforcement is addictive. Porn isn't addictive it's the feeling of euphoria that goes with it and the association of that euphoria with the porn. Fat people are fat because they get a positive reinforcement every time they have a donut. It doesn't mean we should ban donuts because some people can't control themselves. An obesity epidemic is a great threat to society through donuts, you don't see Krispy Kreme getting penalised though.
But that is a ridiculous approach to legislation. You can't just start making stuff illegal because you think it might help based on nothing but your own opinion. We live in an age of science, where trials can be held and a degree of proof can be presented in favour of a particular position. We shouldn't be in an era where we simply try things out in the hope it will make things better.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, people like this guy make people think that this is what anime actually is about. Anime is simply cartoons, it's the word Japan uses refer to animated content, it's a derivative of the word animation in fact.
The dodgy stuff is as a result of Japan's culture rather than "anime", in that sort of content is socially and or culturally acceptable there, and cartoons aren't typically seen as being only for kids like they are in the "west".
But yeah, personally I don't really understand the appeal to that sort of stuff, and collecting the figures of them too, considering how ridiculously expensive they seem to be, it's a bit odd.
Well cameron is already tell ISPs to get rid of porn by default and have an opt-in system. Next it will be anything relating to drugs, then the internet will simply be the number 10 website and BBC iPlayer.