Why hasn't Japan banned child-porn comics?
- Thread starter ubersonic
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 4,909
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 4,909
I guess a lot of people in general have problems distinguishing fantasy from reality.
Reality = real people, real crime, real victims.
Fantasy = drawings, imaginary people (or actors), no victims, no consequences for the victims.
People say that if you look at lolicon you must be interested in child sex. That you will probably go on to become a child abuser (there is no evidence for this). There is evidence that child-abusers can also be in to lolicon. But there is no evidence of progression from one to the other.
Ever fantasised about having sex with a pin-up model or actress (I'm sure we can all name many hot ones
)? Yes? So why aren't you in jail? You are clearly about to stalk them followed by rape and murder. Obviously, duh! Thinking about it means you must want to do it for real, no?
There's a huge problem in assuming that what we watch determines how we act.
Ever seen Saw? Did you violently torture and murder someone after? Probably not.
Ever played Call of Duty? Did you end up joining the forces? Probably not.
Ever look at lolicon? Did you rush out to find a child to abuse? Probably not.
We're already part way down the road to future-crime being a thing. Or thought crime, if you prefer. The laws of this country already make looking at pictures of girls/cartoon girls dressed like schoolgirls illegal, if the suggestion is that they are underage. Even if they aren't (in some cases because they don't exist!).
It's nonsensical populist legislation to ride on the wave of "think of the children" emotion. It shouldn't be a crime of there is no victim. Simples.
Reality = real people, real crime, real victims.
Fantasy = drawings, imaginary people (or actors), no victims, no consequences for the victims.
People say that if you look at lolicon you must be interested in child sex. That you will probably go on to become a child abuser (there is no evidence for this). There is evidence that child-abusers can also be in to lolicon. But there is no evidence of progression from one to the other.
Ever fantasised about having sex with a pin-up model or actress (I'm sure we can all name many hot ones
)? Yes? So why aren't you in jail? You are clearly about to stalk them followed by rape and murder. Obviously, duh! Thinking about it means you must want to do it for real, no?There's a huge problem in assuming that what we watch determines how we act.
Ever seen Saw? Did you violently torture and murder someone after? Probably not.
Ever played Call of Duty? Did you end up joining the forces? Probably not.
Ever look at lolicon? Did you rush out to find a child to abuse? Probably not.
We're already part way down the road to future-crime being a thing. Or thought crime, if you prefer. The laws of this country already make looking at pictures of girls/cartoon girls dressed like schoolgirls illegal, if the suggestion is that they are underage. Even if they aren't (in some cases because they don't exist!).
It's nonsensical populist legislation to ride on the wave of "think of the children" emotion. It shouldn't be a crime of there is no victim. Simples.
I can tick yes to at least 6 of these
For me I'm not so much worried that a person might view something then go and do something, I just don't like people who view any sort of image sexualising kids, real, cartoon or fantasy. It's got nowt to do with if kids got hurt or might get hurt a non active paedo might as well kill themselves for all I care.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Do you worry that people playing Call Of Duty will cause them to go on to use real guns on real people?
Or are you selective with your fallacies?
But that's categorically not what I said lol, is it even possible to have a worse comprehension failure?
Last edited:
Doug Stanhope, despite being just a comic, makes a good point about this, much like you do. He goes on to defend child pornography. Essentially he makes the point that he'd rather paedophiles be in their homes jacking off over online porno rather than heading out into the world preying on kids. I'm not saying I agree with that point, but it does make you wonder. After all, you don't just simply make a person stop being attracted to adolescents by making child porn illegal, surely that would come about by therapy. So if cartoon child porn means no exploitation of children whatsoever then surely that must be better than the worse case scenario?
And this is why laws shouldn't be made based on what people dislike. Populist laws, in other words.
Otherwise it'll be illegal to eat Marmite
Seriously, if there is no victim and no harm is done, why should our justice system be at all interested in it?
We lol when Muslims rage at drawings of Mohammed, because it's just a drawing. But we think it's justified to be outraged at other drawings, because we find them distasteful? Where's the difference?
lol, Sailor Uniforms ARE school uniform in Japan.
Fortunately for me the law is on my side, go and make then distribute some cgi child porn and see how your nobody was hurt arguments go in court.
Society in this country has decided that people who view child porn are disgusting, beyond the pale, not acceptable.
Agreed, but simply making it illegal doesn't make the problem just go away. Paedophiles will still be Paedophiles, just look at drug abuse. Instead of simply censoring everything and hoping the problem disappears,we would be better vesting efforts into addressing the issue in other ways.
Like paedo island or lobotomies you mean? I suppose they could work if we caught them all.
Fortunately for you in this case. Pretty sure you wouldn't be too happy if something you enjoyed/were interested in was suddenly made illegal for no reason.
Indeed, after all, if both the real child porn and the cartoons are classed as the same, a paedophile will just go for the real child porn.
Why smuggle beer prohibition when you could smuggle whiskey.