Forum - View topicHey, Answerman! [2006-07-28]
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mint Mania IIDX
Posts: 77 Location: Central |
|
|||||
This post makes me want to bang my head against my keyboard. You begin by saying you only represent yourself and then you tell everyone else who may not/probably don't have the same past experiences or current problems you face to seek therapy for being people with a seemingly lethal interest. I don't equate lolicon and child porn at all, because I know a nude picture of Misty/Kasumi from Pokemon is not a picture of a real person, does not make me want to touch a real person, and does not want to find a park full of little girls and "catch 'em all." Child porn is pretty disgusting, and I really find most children repulsive and irritating. |
||||||
selenta
Subscriber
Posts: 1774 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
|||||
I would post my arguments/counterarguments in this thread, but I've read about half of it, and here's what I garnered as the general gist of it:
Poster #1: Roricon is bad because I'm not into it! Poster #2: It's not your place to decide what other people should and should not like so long as it doesn't harm anyone. Poster #3: Roricon is evil! poster #4: ZOMGZ lolicon makes my skin crawl Poster #5: I don't see any problem with it. Poster #6: Anyone who ever thinks of a young looking person sexually should be castrated. Unless the second half of this thread greatly improved (and based on the speed of the posts, I am sure it did not), there is no way this is a logical debate or conversation on the topic of lolicon. Perhaps I will wait a few days and start a logical debate on it or something, that way people can actually discuss this like rational people rather than having 33 pages of spamming: "ZOMGZ, I am better than you at everything including arts and crafts, playing the guitar, and high moral ground. I am a tool." |
||||||
Mint Mania IIDX
Posts: 77 Location: Central |
|
|||||
Hey, look, someone watches Family Guy. |
||||||
Hajime06
Posts: 39 Location: South Carolina |
|
|||||
Try reading some of the newer pages and especially Tempest's posts. There are some legit arguements in this thread if you bother to look.
|
||||||
loliconer
Posts: 7 |
|
|||||
I said they were both bad.
I can't argue with that. People can throw out studies all they want but they bottom line is people who watch lolicon (like me) and/or CP(unlike the present me) are sick. And for the record, since I've stumbled upon lolicon, I haven't dled any CP. Will I in the future? I can only hope I won't. |
||||||
Hajime06
Posts: 39 Location: South Carolina |
|
|||||
I made a mistake and later edited to say that people are not necessarily going to progress from lolicon to real child pornogrpahy. You already have a mental inclination to like children. The arguement I am trying to make is that lolicon will not convert you to a real pedo. I think real CP is wrong and you may really need psychological help, but the average lolicon viewer is not likely to be in your same position.
|
||||||
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
Your simplistic summation of all of the arguments in this thread shows me that you're not really reading very closely nor are you really paying attention to arguments you don't agree with. Also, your insistance that somehow you're the most logical and even-handed person and only you are capable of "starting a logical debate" on it is pure arrogance and, dare I say, you're probably wrong. |
||||||
loliconer
Posts: 7 |
|
|||||
I was talking about my experience with CP and lolicon. I'm sure there are people who enjoy lolicon and have never wanted to watch CP. That doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with them. I can see where this is going..."wrongness...morality...normalcy...socially acceptable..." I still stand by my "loliconers: get help" statement. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the therapist will tell you, "There's nothing wrong with you because you don't like sexualized images of real children, just drawn children." |
||||||
cyrax777
Posts: 1825 Location: the desert |
|
|||||
not really they did keroro gunsou. no loli's there. |
||||||
Malintex Terek
Guest
|
|
|||||
That says nothing. How would we know the person is a "pedophile" with the exception of their own admission, which would unreliable (and irrelevant) at best? Modern pedophiles are defined through action, for which stern and swift punishment need be administered. Fantasising about odd erotic situations is deemed "typical" and "natural" among all humans (male and female), but we do not label the "average Joe/Jane" pedophiles, do we? They need do something extraordinary to convey the physical message that they are predators of children. Simply saying, "oh, they're attracted to children" does not cover the full scope of argument. |
||||||
Steroid
Posts: 329 Location: At home, where all good hikikomori should be |
|
|||||
Incitement to commit criminal acts does not require their commission. It's the responsibility of those who do not desire criminal acts to speak equally persuasively against them. Libel and slander I do not defend, but simply remind that truth is an affirmative defense. I can speak as meanly as I like against someone if it is all true. I don't see why hate speech is "worse" than non-hate speech. It's all just sound vibrations. Banning hate speech discriminates against people who hate. People have a right to hate--it's part of free thought. People have the right to talk to and share with their fellow haters--that's part of free assembly. It's not incumbent upon anyone to eradicate hate--that's purely a matter of choice.
But harm, by that definition, is almost always done. If you tell me that we should all get along, I can claim that it harms me by making me feel bad for not getting along. If you say that all people should be equal, I can claim discrimination for being extraordinary. Also, I checked the Libertarian Party's web site and found no uses of the phrase "soft harm," nor any platform statement that would tend to corroborate that view. What it does say (Cite) is that they oppose any "government censorship, regulation, or control" of 'Obscenity, including "pornography', as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression." The only caveat on that platform is that people may not use other people's property without their permission. I recommend reading the entire statement.
So what you are saying is that all [persons speaking that which you determine to be bad speech] are [outside their rights] and deserve to be [muzzled]. |
||||||
loliconer
Posts: 7 |
|
|||||
I...think you're confusing "pedophile," someone who fantasizes about having sex with children, with "child molestor," someone who's followed through on his/her fantasies of having sex with children. Child molestors are pedophiles, but pedophiles aren't necessarily child molestors. Get pedophiles help, but don't lock them up if they haven't done anything. |
||||||
Kilgamayan
Posts: 275 Location: Location, Location. |
|
|||||
This is true, I forgot about the entire journalism industry. In retrospect, it was silly of me to do this, because as an avid ESPN viewer I've been enduring the obnoxious "doom and gloom" attitudes toward steroids of morons like Jay Mariotti and Bill Plascke (sp) for about a week now. Thankfully, it seems only the vocal people are ignorant, and not the people with any real power (e.g. the Supreme Court). The journalists can produce whatever tripe they want, but in the end the consumer decisions will still be made by the consumers. |
||||||
Mint Mania IIDX
Posts: 77 Location: Central |
|
|||||
Not all child molestors are pedophiles, as I have exemplified earlier in the thread. |
||||||
loliconer
Posts: 7 |
|
|||||
Yeah, it gets complicated from there. I just wanted to dumb it down for Mr. Thoughtcrime. |
||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group