Thought-Crime in America

[itsnotoutthere]

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

Of course there is. But there is also a correlation between internet pornography & rape, so do we ban the internet?

[momentarylapseofreason]

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

Of course there is. But there is also a correlation between internet pornography & rape, so do we ban the internet?

Don't you guys get it that it's about the virtue of children? And not advertising them as sexual objects?

Children are the most defenseless!

The problem is that these images reinforce an indecent image of children.

A woman has a fighting chance against rape and abuse, not so with small children.

Edited May 30, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[Leonardo]

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

Of course there is. But there is also a correlation between internet pornography & rape, so do we ban the internet?

Ummm, why ban the internet when it is the pornography that is the issue? To be honest, if two consenting adults want to show the world how poorly they can act, or display their sexual prowess to anyone who wants to watch it, then that is their business. If they are legally able to do what they do, (i.e. don't contravene any obscenity laws) then we all realise that adults are sexual beings. Children are not, and should not be portrayed as such.

I am not advocating we ban all comics, but why are these lolicons not banned (although they are illegal in some countries)?

[momentarylapseofreason]

Ummm, why ban the internet when it is the pornography that is the issue? To be honest, if two consenting adults want to show the world how poorly they can act, or display their sexual prowess to anyone who wants to watch it, then that is their business. If they are legally able to do what they do, (i.e. don't contravene any obscenity laws) then we all realise that adults are sexual beings. Children are not, and should not be portrayed as such.

I am not advocating we ban all comics, but why are these lolicons not banned (although they are illegal in some countries)?

EXACTLY!

[momentarylapseofreason]

Speaking of internet pornography just as with normal adult sexual desire, whether real or virtual, the outcome of child pornography is the same, it creates and/or intensifies the lust of sexual relations with minors

Does anyone care to explain how I'm wrong?

Do not some if not many couples use it as an aphrodisiac of sorts?

[Leonardo]

Speaking of internet pornography just as with normal adult sexual desire, whether real or virtual, the outcome of child pornography is the same, it creates and/or intensifies the lust of sexual relations with minors

Does anyone care to explain how I'm wrong?

Do not some if not many couples use it as an aphrodisiac of sorts?

Good point, MLOR.

My opinion would be that the adults who have not viewed pornography (in societies where pornographic media is commonly available) for the purpose of titillation or as an aphrodisiac would be in the serious minority of the population.

The purpose of pornography is not to be art - although pronography can be art coincidentally to its purpose - but to incite lust, to be a simulated companion to lust, or as part of two adults foreplay. To presume that child pornography is only ever used as a simulation is speculative and probably incorrect.

[sam12six]

Don't you guys get it that it's about the virtue of children? And not advertising them as sexual objects?

Children are the most defenseless!

The problem is that these images reinforce an indecent image of children.

A woman has a fighting chance against rape and abuse, not so with small children.

I absolutely get that your issue with these comic books is about the virtue of children and not advertising them as sexual objects. I've agreed fully that I feel the same way.

That said, the point here is that a drawing of a small humanoid is not a child. It's a character. King wrote The Shining, where a man tries to kill a <GASP> defenseless small child. Do you think he should go to jail? Do you believe people with no mental disorders who read this book are likely to start chasing children around hotels trying to smash little kids with a mallet?

The point here is that the jury is out (with psychology professionals, but not convicted child murderers facing a noose) over whether these comic books help, harm, or have no effect on society.

The reason "real" child porn is (and rightly so) is illegal is that the production of such things harm real children. It's not about protecting the character, it's about protecting the "actor". These comic books have no actor. No humans at all behind the characters.

The reason these comic books are illegal in some places is because some people cannot separate fiction from reality. Because of this, these people illegalize fiction they find distasteful. The same type of person illegalizes "hate speech" because they can't seem to grasp the concept that it is subjective (like what constitutes pornography), so it can be applied to anything simply by declaring that the law to be applicable to the given subject.

Leonardo dodged the question (because he does seem to understand that he's wrong and just hopes the emotion of discussing children will compensate for the weakness of his position), but it was asked before:

Do you believe all books, drawings, movies, all media of any type that depicts fictional criminal activity should be illegal to produce or view?

If you do, all I can say is, "OK, that's your opinion but I disagree".

If you don't, then I'd suggest that your own emotion toward this particular subject is overcoming the logic with which you view the rest of the world.

I'm not going to post in this thread again, because I've had my say and I believe the horse has flatlined...

To restate my position - I value freedom. Until something has been proven (Not the testimony of a couple of individuals, but a true trend) that something is (is - not might be, or could be) harmful to someone in our society, then governments have absolutely no business criminalizing that something.

[Leonardo]

The reason these comic books are illegal in some places is because some people cannot separate fiction from reality.

I absolutely agree with this. Witness that man who abused and murdered that young girl in Nara, Japan because he watched virtual child pronography and lost touch with what was reality and what was fantasy!

The reason child porn (and virtual child porn) should be made illegal everywhere is exactly because some people cannot separate fantasy from reality when they have something trigger what may be a deep-seated or subconscious desire.

Thank you for supporting the argument MLOR and I are making.

Leonardo dodged the question (because he does seem to understand that he's wrong and just hopes the emotion of discussing children will compensate for the weakness of his position), but it was asked before:

No, I didn't dodge any questions. There are some here who argue for virtual child pornogrpahy being legal because they do not seem to understand the actual issue though. I answered your question with respect to what this thread is discussing and that any instance of offensive, or allegedly offensive, material should be treated individually - not all lumped together carte blanche.

That you don't understand the concept of treating/dealing with child porn separately from violent imagery is not an indication that I "dodged the question".

To restate my position - I value freedom. Until something has been proven (Not the testimony of a couple of individuals, but a true trend) that something is (is - not might be, or could be) harmful to someone in our society, then governments have absolutely no business criminalizing that something.

Do you agree that this thread has shown there is a link between child porn (even virtual child porn) and child abuse (please read back several posts/pages before you leap into answering this)? If so, why would you argue that child porn does not damage society?

Do you believe that a certain amount of child abuse linked to virtual child porn is okay, that we should "just let it slide"? Because that is what the basis of your "not just a couple of individual cases" argument amounts to.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Leonardo

[aquatus1]

Out of curiousity, asides from Leonardo and Momentary...

Who here, if anyone, is talking about VCP as artwork? Or even as freedom of speech?

I keep hearing Leo and Mom mentioning it, but I haven't seen anyone else on the other side talk about it.

There have even been a few posts specifically saying that it isn't art.

[Max.L]

15 years in jail and 250k fine ? Ridiculous , maybe a few forced appointments with a psychiatrist.... Not jail , he may be sick in his head , but he never actually hurt anyone.

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

Okay, so basically you take whatever information someone posts, and add your own bias and assumption to it because then you can dismiss the information if it rebutts your argument?

No and you missed the point completely... What I am saying is that there is no way to know for sure what happens in this guys head, can you say with 100% certainty that it was the vcp that made him a psychopathic, sadistic, child molester/torturer and child murderer? Maybe he's done this before and this was the only one he got caught for?

There are simply to many questions without answers. The best I can do is to try and psychologically profile him somewhat and say what I think, you can agree with it or not it's entirely up to you. If you can't come up with a counter point, it's not my problem.

All I did was take what you posted and then told you what I believed to be the case....

The whole quote in context:

Anyway I think he's lying, in fact I would go as far to say that he would have raped a child anyway eventually. What tells me he is lying is because of how our psychology and biology work regarding physical sexual attraction... People in their teens already know what they like in a potential mate whether it be same sex, interracial, older women/men... the list is near endless.

In regards to this man he already had a clear sexual attraction to children, the evidence here being that he sought out for and watched child porn. If there was no previous sexual attraction he would have never sought out the porn knowing what it was.

Anyone who can inflict this kind of harm onto a child already has underlying issues like a complete and total lack of empathy among other traits that make them dangerous. These men are in a lot of cases truly psychopathic, compulsive liars, cheats, killers, rapists and so on. All this being said I can't believe this guy because his claim doesn't equate to the conclusion given by you.

Sorry I just can't simply take a psychopaths word for it just because they say it's true... Especially since it doesn't make a lot of sense either.

Well, I apologise for suggesting you can't read then, Mr D1amond, because your lack goes far beyond that. You are deliberately building a case of speculation based on your own prejudice, then suggesting that is a valid 'reason' for the argument you put forth.

I have done nothing but try to make valid points

You know the best alternative to being right is to swipe at the person currently debating you.

I would ask, if you cannot put forth a case in your defence that is based only on the information we have available, then you please do not respond further. I find it extremely hypocritical that I was castigated for 'speculation', yet those who argue against me are seemingly immune to criticism for the same act and I don't want to be drawn into any further accusations of 'childishness' when I respond to such blatant hypocrisy with the disdain it deserves.

Just a friendly request... When you quote me please do not do it out of context either, respond point to point instead of just claiming invalidity due to the person typing it and just because you don't agree.

Speaking of internet pornography just as with normal adult sexual desire, whether real or virtual, the outcome of child pornography is the same, it creates and/or intensifies the lust of sexual relations with minors

Does anyone care to explain how I'm wrong?

Do not some if not many couples use it as an aphrodisiac of sorts?

Pornography does not increase, decrease or desire. It simply does the job your imagination can do... As for child porn or in this case a comic book it did not create the man that killed and molested a child. No one is actually really sure what causes the attraction to children, the other behavior can be to some degree.

As for using porn as a sex aid with couples, I wouldn't really call it an aphrodisiac so much as I would visual inspiration for couples who want to spice things up.

My opinion would be that the adults who have not viewed pornography (in societies where pornographic media is commonly available) for the purpose of titillation or as an aphrodisiac would be in the serious minority of the population.

The purpose of pornography is not to be art - although pronography can be art coincidentally to its purpose - but to incite lust, to be a simulated companion to lust, or as part of two adults foreplay. To presume that child pornography is only ever used as a simulation is speculative and probably incorrect.

The first part we are both 100% on the same page...

Pornography or just seeing it for me doesn't make me horny... I'm usually horny and then i load up the internet lol.

I won't disagree that child molesters probably have used porn as an aid during rape... I still refuse to accept that it is a cause as opposed to an effect of a certain segment of the global population who lusts for children.

I absolutely agree with this. Witness that man who abused and murdered that young girl in Nara, Japan because he watched virtual child pronography and lost touch with what was reality and what was fantasy!

You don't know that's what happened 100%

"Kaoru Kobayashi, 36, who is on trial for the kidnap-murder of a 7-year-old girl in Nara Prefecture last November, has testified in court that he began to have an interest in small girls after watching an animated pornographic video when he was in high school.

Kobayashi was convicted of molesting small girls in 1989 and served time in prison for the attempted murder of a young girl in 1991." Japan Times

This man is clearly psychopathic and sadistic, in regards to his testimony I don't buy it. The reason for me is pretty simple, people who have psychopathy are also compulsive liars and will lie to shift blame elsewhere.

I get the above but sexual arousal to in this case children already existed, you just don't automatically become sexually attracted to children because you watched a shady animated *spam filter*. The very fact he decided and chose to watch this movie automatically tells anyone with a half a brain that there always was sexual attraction to children.

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

Out of curiousity, asides from Leonardo and Momentary...

Who here, if anyone, is talking about VCP as artwork? Or even as freedom of speech?

I keep hearing Leo and Mom mentioning it, but I haven't seen anyone else on the other side talk about it.

There have even been a few posts specifically saying that it isn't art.

The conversation changed direction as a result of the claims made by Leo and Mom.

[momentarylapseofreason]

15 years in jail and 250k fine ? Ridiculous , maybe a few forced appointments with a psychiatrist.... Not jail , he may be sick in his head , but he never actually hurt anyone.

I pretty much agree that they (artists) should not be punished, but a few psychiatric appointments might prove useful. It's like reckless driving.

Even pedos need help not so much punishment. But deep down they know its wrong otherwise they would not plan, collect and hide it.

We simply want the artist to rethink their positions

[momentarylapseofreason]

Out of curiousity, asides from Leonardo and Momentary...

Who here, if anyone, is talking about VCP as artwork? Or even as freedom of speech?

I keep hearing Leo and Mom mentioning it, but I haven't seen anyone else on the other side talk about it.

There have even been a few posts specifically saying that it isn't art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder-but the point is that some art can induce distorted/or indecent perceptions of children in the minds of people. People are also vulnerable in their perceptions. Especially when immature males are exposed to it.

Freedom of speech has limits.

I don't approve of racist condescending images either, but children are truly helpless and vulnerable and why take any chances with them? There are enough dangers lurking, why multiply them? For the sake of expression and freedom of speech.

These kids simply have priority for many of us.

The research shows different results and as I stated before I always take the better safe than sorry option-especially when children are extremely vulnerable as they are

Edited May 30, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

Art is in the eye of the beholder-but the point is that some art can induce distorted/or indecent perceptions of children in the minds of people. People are also vulnerable in their perceptions. Especially when immature males are exposed to it.

Immaturity has nothing to do with pedophilia, as for lolicon anime it's just an x-rated cartoon.

Freedom of speech has limits.

Your right... Freedom of speech is not the issue although some seem to think it is.

To me it's more a matter of your right to consciousness and what you put into it. Also freedom of expression as well is also at risk here for artists.

I don't approve of racist condescending images either, but children are truly helpless and vulnerable and why take any chances with them? There are enough dangers lurking, why multiply them? For the sake of expression and freedom of speech.

There is no evidence to say that lolicon animation and imagery multiply any risk to kids...

These kids simply have priority for many of us.

They do for me as well since I have one on the way... I just think some people are over paranoid and worried over nothing.

The research shows different results and as I stated before I always take the better safe than sorry option-especially when children are extremely vulnerable as they are

How do you know it's safer to completely eliminate lolicon.... Perhaps some of these guys use it to keep themselves under control etc.

Regardless it can't be stopped, when there is a demand for something there will also be a supplier...

I pretty much agree that they (artists) should not be punished, but a few psychiatric appointments might prove useful. It's like reckless driving.

It's not like reckless driving at all... It's about getting a paycheck.

Even pedos need help not so much punishment. But deep down they know its wrong otherwise they would not plan, collect and hide it.

Or maybe they collect it and hide it because they don't want to go to jail...

While I agree on a personal level that these guys are to put it simply 'deranged', on a professional level I believe that 98% of them are non-violent and wouldn't hurt a child. The ones who do choose to hurt and even kill kids have other issues aside from sexual attraction.

We simply want the artist to rethink their positions

As an artist I have only 1 position create whatever comes to mind regardless of how others may feel about it... While I am sure many of the artists making the stuff also share pedo fantasies I would still be willing to bet many of them make the art for the money as it is a billion dollar unregulated market.

[aquatus1]

I pretty much agree that they (artists) should not be punished, but a few psychiatric appointments might prove useful. It's like reckless driving.

You do understand that drawing lolicon is the Japanese comic artist equivalent of singing at seedy bars before making it big, right?

You basically just said that the hundreds of aspiring artist who just started on their careers and are looking to pay the rent, are psychiatric suspects.

Even pedos need help not so much punishment. But deep down they know its wrong otherwise they would not plan, collect and hide it.

And now you are accusing all these artists of being pedophiles. Or did you just accuse the 100,000 odd purchasers of these comics of being pedophiles?

We simply want the artist to rethink their positions

Heck, if you are willing to pay them for other kinds of comics, I'm sure they would be more than happy to oblige.

Art is in the eye of the beholder-but the point is that some art can induce distorted/or indecent perceptions of children in the minds of people. People are also vulnerable in their perceptions. Especially when immature males are exposed to it.

But we aren't talking about art. We're just talking about comic book porn.

Freedom of speech has limits.

We aren't talking about freedom of speech either. We aren't talking about people being arrested for saying anything. We are talking about people being arrested for thinking it.

I don't approve of racist condescending images either, but children are truly helpless and vulnerable and why take any chances with them? There are enough dangers lurking, why multiply them? For the sake of expression and freedom of speech.

Children aren't being exposed to these comic books (for the sake of freedom of speech or otherwise), so it doesn't really matter how helpless and vulnerable they are in this regard.

These kids simply have priority for many of us.

The research shows different results and as I stated before I always take the better safe than sorry option-especially when children are extremely vulnerable as they are

Have you considered that perhaps you are what is referred to as a "helicopter mom"?

[momentarylapseofreason]

You do understand that drawing lolicon is the Japanese comic artist equivalent of singing at seedy bars before making it big, right?

You basically just said that the hundreds of aspiring artist who just started on their careers and are looking to pay the rent, are psychiatric suspects.

And now you are accusing all these artists of being pedophiles. Or did you just accuse the 100,000 odd purchasers of these comics of being pedophiles?

Heck, if you are willing to pay them for other kinds of comics, I'm sure they would be more than happy to oblige.

But we aren't talking about art. We're just talking about comic book porn.

We aren't talking about freedom of speech either. We aren't talking about people being arrested for saying anything. We are talking about people being arrested for thinking it.

Children aren't being exposed to these comic books (for the sake of freedom of speech or otherwise), so it doesn't really matter how helpless and vulnerable they are in this regard.

Have you considered that perhaps you are what is referred to as a "helicopter mom"?

How do you know that children aren't being exposed to these comic books? I knew a man in Georgia that let his 9 yr. old daughter watch pornos. he was my mothers girlfriend's husband. My mom thought it was weird but ok. (she was extremely liberal more than I-but now I just call it stupid not liberal-and yes I loved my mom dearly-she changed later) He kept pornos on his video player all day I couldn't believe it, then I found out my mother let my 5 yr. old son take a shower with him. Later we found out he was arrested for molesting 8,9,10 yr. old boys and his daughter.

I'm certainly not a helicopter mom, I have seen the damage that has done to my father.

Well then we will simply have to disagree

Respect is not complicated and you'll never convince me that these artists have respect for children- this is why they will never get mine

I'm simply stating that I disagree and that it is wrong-period.

Intentionally nurturing pedophilic tendencies with child pornography, animated or otherwise, and knowing that it is decidedly unacceptable,because they tend to become desensitized to anything that is decidedly unacceptable among that strain.

Edited May 31, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

How do you know that children aren't being exposed to these comic books? I knew a man in Georgia that let his 9 yr. old daughter watch pornos. he was my mothers girlfriend's husband. My mom thought it was weird but ok. (she was extremely liberal more than I-but now I just call it stupid not liberal-and yes I loved my mom dearly-she changed later) He kept pornos on his video player all day I couldn't believe it, then I found out my mother let my 5 yr. old son take a shower with him. Later we found out he was arrested for molesting 8,9,10 yr. old boys and his daughter.

This argument has no real bearing on the topic at hand... This is just an example of stupidity, pedophilia and psychopathy.

Unless they are exposed to it by a guy like this they will never lay eyes on lolicon art... Unless they seek it out as was clearly the case in Leo's example.

I'm certainly not a helicopter mom, I have seen the damage that has done to my father.

You certainly talk and come off as a helicopter mom.

Respect is not complicated and you'll never convince me that these artists have respect for children- this is why they will never get mine

They don't get respect just because they make a living making art you don't like? You don't even know these people and your judging them...

I'm simply stating that I disagree and that it is wrong-period.

Intentionally nurturing pedophilic tendencies with child pornography, animated or otherwise, and knowing that it is decidedly unacceptable,because they tend to become desensitized to anything that is decidedly unacceptable among that strain.

It doesn't work like this.... I highly suggest that you go and learn about psychiatry/psychology.

[aquatus1]

How do you know that children aren't being exposed to these comic books? I knew a man in Georgia that let his 9 yr. old daughter watch pornos. he was my mothers girlfriend's husband. My mom thought it was weird but ok. (she was extremely liberal more than I-but now I just call it stupid not liberal-and yes I loved my mom dearly-she changed later) He kept pornos on his video player all day I couldn't believe it, then I found out my mother let my 5 yr. old son take a shower with him. Later we found out he was arrested for molesting 8,9,10 yr. old boys and his daughter.

Oh for heaven's...

Mom, there are people who expose children to manga, to porn, to child porn, to carnal knowledge, to child abuse. But we aren't talking about them. We are talking about adults with no criminal records being arrested for purchasing comics books that were never seen by children. Stop making straw-men.

I'm certainly not a helicopter mom, I have seen the damage that has done to my father.

You may not believe yourself to be (my understanding is that this is a common perception), however you have certainly given that impression.

Respect is not complicated and you'll never convince me that these artists have respect for children- this is why they will never get mine

They aren't asking for it. They just don't want to be called pedophiles. Or arrested

But the reason I don't find your argument valid is because the opposite of it is as nonsensical as the argument. In other words, watching cartoons of intelligent young children who solve problems intelligently and help out the other adults and children in their lives, does not engender any respect for small children in my mind. I simply cannot reconcile drawings of children with real children, and in the same way that I cannot respect a child based on what a cartoon child has done, I cannot disrespect a child based on what a cartoon child has done.

I'm simply stating that I disagree and that it is wrong-period.

And we are stating that your argument isn't valid. Rather, that it doesn't make logical sense.

Intentionally nurturing pedophilic tendencies with child pornography, animated or otherwise, and knowing that it is decidedly unacceptable,because they tend to become desensitized to anything that is decidedly unacceptable among that strain.

And if we were talking about children being exposed to virtual child porn, that would be relevant. But we are not, and so it is not.

And it also doesn't reflect what we understand of child psychology. Children as you as 6 have shown the ability to not only distinguish between fantasy (cartoons) and reality (actors), they have also shown an understanding of how one cartoon reality does not overlap into another (for instance, a child will understand that a pokeman will not exist in a Batman universe).

[eqgumby]

I absolutely agree with this. Witness that man who abused and murdered that young girl in Nara, Japan because he watched virtual child pronography and lost touch with what was reality and what was fantasy!

The reason child porn (and virtual child porn) should be made illegal everywhere is exactly because some people cannot separate fantasy from reality when they have something trigger what may be a deep-seated or subconscious desire.

Thank you for supporting the argument MLOR and I are making.

What's scary is that the same logic can be applied to so many things!

Alcohol abuse is directly tied to cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, etc etc. Shall we outlaw that too? Violent movies? Anything at all that depicts, or even glamorizes illegal activities, immoral activities, any activity that is harmful to anyone? The Anarchists Cook-book?

I don't disagree with the morality of illegalizing virtual murder, rape, abuse, etc. I just disagree with the logic applied to it. Law can NOT be based solely on a moral decision. There is more to it than that, and once one group of people decide what is morally acceptable for other people...it gets ugly.

Remember the military and the "don't ask don't tell" policy? It basically states that it's OK to BE gay, but not OK to ACT on it! In other words, be gay, don't have a gay relationship or tell anyone your gay. It's stupid. For some reason this reminds em of that policy.

[Leonardo]

What's scary is that the same logic can be applied to so many things!

Alcohol abuse is directly tied to cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, etc etc. Shall we outlaw that too? Violent movies? Anything at all that depicts, or even glamorizes illegal activities, immoral activities, any activity that is harmful to anyone? The Anarchists Cook-book?

I don't disagree with the morality of illegalizing virtual murder, rape, abuse, etc. I just disagree with the logic applied to it. Law can NOT be based solely on a moral decision. There is more to it than that, and once one group of people decide what is morally acceptable for other people...it gets ugly.

Remember the military and the "don't ask don't tell" policy? It basically states that it's OK to BE gay, but not OK to ACT on it! In other words, be gay, don't have a gay relationship or tell anyone your gay. It's stupid. For some reason this reminds em of that policy.

My apologies for dropping off this thread for a few days, I've been indisposed.

Egg, your likening what I said to alcohol abuse does not bear comparison.

While alcohol abuse may facilitate child abuse (by lowering social inhibitions against such abuse) it is not, in itself, the trigger for such abuse. Normally, that trigger will be another factor, such as financial pressure, low self-esteem, previous abuse of the abuser by a parent etc.

However, this lolicon is an actual trigger, as evidenced by the statement made by the man who killed that 7 year old girl. Paedophilia is not (as far as we know) caused by low self-esteem, prior abuse etc, etc, it is simply, as Aquatus has said earlier in this thread, a sexual preference. While we allow varied sexual activities between consenting adults in society, we do not - for very good reasons, allow sexual activity between an adult and a minor. That lolicon can trigger this activity (not the preference - but the activity) shows how dangerous it is to children.

The reason for banning lolicon is not 'just' a case of moral outrage, it is a case of protecting children.

[aquatus1]

However, this lolicon is an actual trigger, as evidenced by the statement made by the man who killed that 7 year old girl. Paedophilia is not (as far as we know) caused by low self-esteem, prior abuse etc, etc, it is simply, as Aquatus has said earlier in this thread, a sexual preference. While we allow varied sexual activities between consenting adults in society, we do not - for very good reasons, allow sexual activity between an adult and a minor. That lolicon can trigger this activity (not the preference - but the activity) shows how dangerous it is to children.

This is what we are waiting to see definitive evidence for, however. Calling something a trigger isn't enough. If you are going to use it as an excuse to arrest someone, then there has to be a very clear trend, one which shows, if not inevitability, then at least a very strong likelyhood, of causality. Not only has lolicon not done that, but the exposure vs criminal connection is so off that it is actually evidence against the connection.

A trend is a representative sample of the population. A handful of cases (let alone one) is not a trend, particularly when they do not even originate in the same culture and country.

"Protecting children" is a cliche. Granted, it is a cliche for a reason, and there are few instincts more strongly held by humanity than that of protecting the children, but it is really used so much that it is even parodied in various cartoons, with usually an overly religious lady clapping her hands to her face and yelling out "Won't someone think of the children?" at the first sign of questionable morality. It is a reaction that is directly connected with our deepest emotional instinct, and because of that it tends to justify, reasonably so, a certain bias. It is not an exaggeration to say that a child's welfare is often even more important than the life of any single adult.

But we cannot assume as a default that a child, or even a child's welfare, is a stake. If a significant connection exists, if there is indeed a psychological link, between cartoon child pornography and real child abuse, then we can act to protect the children, however if we do not have that link, if all that we are doing is assuming that there is a link, then we are not "protecting children", because children have not been shown to be in danger. At that point, we cease to be protectors and become dangers ourselves. We waive our role as responsible adults, and instead become one of the dangers to the community that our child will grow up in.

A person who kidnaps a child from a home will have to prove that there was a clear and imminent danger to the child. Having done that, a great deal of leniency will be given, because we are naturally biased towards protecting children. However, if that person cannot prove that the child was in danger, if the person cannot show a link between the behaviour of the guardians and the welfare of the child, then the kidnapper becomes the monster. The kidnapper becomes the one who is the danger to the child.

Here we have a case were no child was involved at any level. There are no charges of child pornography being brought against this person. There are no charges of child pornography being brought against the publishers. No children were involved in the making of this comic book. Out of the dozens of countries that have these comics, of the hundreds of thousands of these comics that are sold in Japan alone, the closest we can get to a link is a single criminal who claims that comics made him do it.

It has been assumed that readers of lolicon are pedophiles, that they are child abusers waiting to be triggered, that they are an imminent threat to children, and even that these comics are a gateway to honest people to become child abusers.

It's time to stop assuming. And it's past time to stop justifying arresting people based on nothing more than assumptions.

[Leonardo]

This is what we are waiting to see definitive evidence for, however. Calling something a trigger isn't enough. If you are going to use it as an excuse to arrest someone, then there has to be a very clear trend, one which shows, if not inevitability, then at least a very strong likelyhood, of causality. Not only has lolicon not done that, but the exposure vs criminal connection is so off that it is actually evidence against the connection.

A trend is a representative sample of the population. A handful of cases (let alone one) is not a trend, particularly when they do not even originate in the same culture and country.

*snip*

It's time to stop assuming. And it's past time to stop justifying arresting people based on nothing more than assumptions.

To be honest, Aquatus, your asking for a 'trend' of children being abused, murdered etc so that we can causitively justify removing lolicon and other virtual child pornography from public circulation is an anti-ethical argument.

How many children do you want to be abused and/or murdered, Aquatus?

Is one not enough?

[aquatus1]

To be honest, Aquatus, your asking for a 'trend' of children being abused, murdered etc so that we can causitively justify removing lolicon and other virtual child pornography from public circulation is an anti-ethical argument.

Nonsense. It is a perfectly rational request. If one wishes to avoid an effect, one must show a cause. If one wishes to punish others for an effect, you need more than an accusation.

How many children do you want to be abused and/or murdered, Aquatus?

None. However, my personal desires do not dictate my actions.

And, and I pity you again, that you can only descend to this level in what should be an adult discussion.

Is one not enough?

No, Leonardo, one is not enough. One is never going to indicate a trend. One is never going to prove a point.

Could this child abuser have been "triggered" by a comic book porn? Possibly. It's more likely that he was looking for clemency by claiming he wasn't at fault (something criminals have shown a trend of doing). Would he have abused a child if he had never seen comic book porn? Probably. Again, the answer lies in looking at the trends, not at individual claims.

The trends give us a very definitive pattern. People who attempt to deny their desires tend to end up acting on them. It's the gunnysacking effect. It may work in the short term, but inevitably, the urge will get too strong, and the internal stress will trigger an action. How many people joined the clergy in an effort to rid themselves of their sinful pedophilic thoughts? How many found it a futile effort?

Again, no individual cases, but entire trends.

Alternatively, people who get a regular outlet for their desires show much lower stress levels, and thus don't get triggered to act. While there are no pedo clubs that I am aware of, there are plenty of alternative lifestyle clubs with many, many members, and very few of them have ever gone Pulp Fiction on someone.

And, again, please cease the very sad accusatory arguments. Either discuss like an adult, or do not discuss.

[Leonardo]

Nonsense. It is a perfectly rational request. If one wishes to avoid an effect, one must show a cause. If one wishes to punish others for an effect, you need more than an accusation.

No, Aquatus, it is not a rational request. No 'rational request' should be to see a trend of children being abused and/or murdered before any action be taken on causes/triggers for such acts. This person (in the OP) was punished because what he owned was illegal. He appealed and, because the prosecuation failed miserably, in my opinion, to defend the right of children to full protection under law, he managed to get his conviction overturned.

None. However, my personal desires do not dictate my actions.

And, and I pity you again, that you can only descend to this level in what should be an adult discussion.

No, Leonardo, one is not enough. One is never going to indicate a trend. One is never going to prove a point.

Could this child abuser have been "triggered" by a comic book porn? Possibly. It's more likely that he was looking for clemency by claiming he wasn't at fault (something criminals have shown a trend of doing). Would he have abused a child if he had never seen comic book porn? Probably. Again, the answer lies in looking at the trends, not at individual claims.

The trends give us a very definitive pattern. People who attempt to deny their desires tend to end up acting on them. It's the gunnysacking effect. It may work in the short term, but inevitably, the urge will get too strong, and the internal stress will trigger an action. How many people joined the clergy in an effort to rid themselves of their sinful pedophilic thoughts? How many found it a futile effort?

Again, no individual cases, but entire trends.

Alternatively, people who get a regular outlet for their desires show much lower stress levels, and thus don't get triggered to act. While there are no pedo clubs that I am aware of, there are plenty of alternative lifestyle clubs with many, many members, and very few of them have ever gone Pulp Fiction on someone.

And, again, please cease the very sad accusatory arguments. Either discuss like an adult, or do not discuss.

I'm not the one throwing a tantrum, Aquatus. If you don't like the truth of the arguments against you, then I suggest you retire from arguing. The rest of your post about the motivations of this child-murderer/abuser are entirely speculative. He said that virtual child pornography triggered his interest (sexual) in young girls. That is as far as the article goes in reporting what he stated and the article does not hint or speculate why. Neither will I and neither should you because speculation cannot support an argument.