UK's dangerous cartoons act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absinthe said:
I wasn't trying to answer your question because it didn't matter.

Who collects drawings like these? I don't care. I'm not going to assume the character of people who may draw or collect this kind of artwork, which is what this act basically does.

I may not be able to play a reel of futa on Fox, but I'm perfectly entitled to look it up or draw it on my own time.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what that is but a quick wikicheck says it's not child pornography but rather chicks with dicks porn ...didnt know you were into that ..not that i wanted to know but anyways with this new law you're perfectly able to draw chicks with dicks to your heart's content
 
CptStern said:
I'm not entirely sure what that is but a quick wikicheck says it's not child pornography but rather chicks with dicks porn ...didnt know you were into that ..not that i wanted to know but anyways with this new law you're perfectly able to draw chicks with dicks to your heart's content
Click to expand...

What about lolis with dicks?
But not shota. Specifically, lolis with gigantic dicks.
 
Willsmith.fan said:
i think anyone can tell the difference between art and child porn...likewise the difference between someone who appreciates the work of artists who do use children (lewis carroll used to do photography of children this way but not sexual) or someone who is looking up smut
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter.

Artistic depictions of children in sexual acts has no victim, no harm, and are not shown to be a statistical indicator for identifying criminals who actually do molest children. There is no real reason for them to be prohibited from personal possession. Besides, this kind of broad-stroked legislating can potentially prohibit more than one realizes.
 
Absinthe said:
It doesn't matter.

Artistic depictions of children in sexual acts has no victim, no harm, and are not shown to be a statistical indicator for identifying criminals who actually do molest children. There is no real reason for them to be prohibited from personal possession. Besides, this kind of broad-stroked legislating can potentially prohibit more than one realizes.
Click to expand...

Come on dude, you really think that people who would posses such a thing aren't more likely to molest children? Someone with that kind of material has some serious mental issues and is probably a danger to society.
 
No Limit said:
Come on dude, you really think that people who would posses such a thing aren't more likely to molest children? Someone with that kind of material has some serious mental issues and is probably a danger to society.
Click to expand...

By that logic owning a gun makes you more likely to kill people. Or having liberal editorials makes you more likely to be gay.

Yup, that's the argument we're going on about in this thread.
 
Acepilotf14 said:
By that logic owning a gun makes you more likely to kill people. Or having liberal editorials makes you more likely to be gay.

Yup, that's the argument we're going on about in this thread.
Click to expand...

Umm, I think that's a bit of a leap to compare those 2 things. Guns are perfectly legal and most people don't buy them to go out and kill but they buy them for self-defense.

Someone that needs pictures of little boys or girls to get off is a danger. I like women, I go out and chase women when I can as a result of that attraction. What makes you think some asshole that gets off on little children won't do the same?
 
Absinthe said:
It doesn't matter.

Artistic depictions of children in sexual acts has no victim, no harm, and are not shown to be a statistical indicator for identifying criminals who actually do molest children. There is no real reason for them to be prohibited from personal possession. Besides, this kind of broad-stroked legislating can potentially prohibit more than one realizes.
Click to expand...


such as?

also even in the US you'er not given carte blanche to possess drawn child pornography

"Pseudo-photographs will be subject to the Miller obscenity test and other federal laws dealing with obscenity but not child pornography. It will be up to the defendant to prove that the creation of the pictures did not involve minors"

http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/uscases.htm

there was a US law that prohibited possessing drawings of child pornography but that was overturned due it's constitutionality ..however the US is unique in that the consititution is written and is less flexible because of it. in canada all you'd have to do is introduce a new law into the charter and rights. you dont actually have to amend it like you would the US constuitution. it's just a matter of time before a similiar law is implemented. it's already in practice in some jurisdictions:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-3698.pdf
 
Absinthe said:
It doesn't matter.

Artistic depictions of children in sexual acts has no victim, no harm, and are not shown to be a statistical indicator for identifying criminals who actually do molest children. There is no real reason for them to be prohibited from personal possession. Besides, this kind of broad-stroked legislating can potentially prohibit more than one realizes.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter? the difference between using child nudity as a form of art and smut doesn't matter? thats the stupidest thing Ive ever heard... yea your right there is no victim, but you're missing the point..if someone draws something like that they obviously fantasize about victimizing someone else..to say these people are somehow not being treated fairly or that this will make all child nudity illegial is absurd considering much of art history shows children nude, but if anyone hung up a picture of a child performing a sexual act there would be outrage for obvious reasons that you clearly dont get. To me that might as well be saying that the person drawing it agrees with the act being ok.
 
No Limit said:
Umm, I think that's a bit of a leap to compare those 2 things. Guns are perfectly legal and most people don't buy them to go out and kill but they buy them for self-defense.

Someone that needs pictures of little boys or girls to get off is a danger. I like women, I go out and chase women when I can as a result of that attraction. What makes you think some asshole that gets off on little children won't do the same?
Click to expand...

We've already had this argument before in like two other threads. I can compare little girls to guns all day but it's not going to get us anywhere; this is a sensitive topic. Most people have unchanging stances when it comes to this.

The point is;
Like Absinthe said, it doesn't matter. People should be allowed to draw what they want. That's the point of net neutrality; sites can host whatever they want, whether it be drawings of little girls and no arguments or arguments about drawings of little girls and no drawings.

If someone rapes a little girl they probably would have done it without drawings of loli anyway.

How do you plan to enforce this law anyway? Force all ISPs to give up information regarding every person who lives in the UK and figure out which ones are downloading loligetspounded.jpg? Or is the nice government going to block certain websites because they may or may not have drawings with no victims on them?

The UK is just edging closer and closer to censorship of whatever they want. Which is surprising seeing as a lot of brits like to blast the U.S. for how much we care about nudity in television.
 
Acepilotf14 said:
By that logic owning a gun makes you more likely to kill people. Or having liberal editorials makes you more likely to be gay.

Yup, that's the argument we're going on about in this thread.
Click to expand...

yes however it's already been proven that it is the case earlier in this thread


However, many organisations offered experience to suggest that the material is frequently found alongside images showing the sexual abuse of real children and is often possessed by offenders, whilst one organisation offered evidence to suggest that the material is commonly intercepted on the way into prison and in particular, sex offender treatment establishments. In this instance, it was suggested that the demand for the material was created by the decreased likelihood of confiscation
Click to expand...
 
Willsmith.fan said:
It doesn't matter? the difference between using child nudity as a form of art and smut doesn't matter? thats the stupidest thing Ive ever heard... yea your right there is no victim, but you're missing the point..if someone draws something like that they obviously fantasize about victimizing someone else..to say these people are somehow not being treated fairly or that this will make all child nudity illegial is absurd considering much of art history shows children nude, but if anyone hung up a picture of a child performing a sexual act there would be outrage for obvious reasons that you clearly dont get. To me that might as well be saying that the person drawing it agrees with the act being ok.
Click to expand...

People draw murder and acts of destruction every day. You could also argue that there are people who fantasize about committing those acts as well. Where's your ****ing moral high horse about that? Wanna go ban Michael Bay and Saw movies?

Have you ever even seen loli? I think most of its fans get off on the style itself as opposed to using it as a substitute for having sex with children. Even if there are pedophiles who use it as an outlet for their urges, they have committed no crime except the very one this kind law fabricates. And so what if they think child molestation is okay? They have an opinion, and so long as they're not actually preying on toddlers down at the playground, there's no foul.
 
I don't know how to enforce the law, I'm not even saying I support it (because I havent payed much attention to it as Im not from the UK and really dont care).

But my point is that to pretend that people that download this type of shit are just normal average human beings is absolutely absurd. No, they are sick perverts that get off on little children. And there is a very good chance they will harm children in the process of trying to fulfil their fantasies. When did porn become a subsitutue for sexual interaction? It hasn't. People that watch porn will still want to get laid.
 
Yeah, that Ash and Misty loli collection drawn in MS Paint is really gonna inspire some mass infant rape.

Your strong detest for such people would be understandable and even agreeable to me if we were talking about pornography with real participating children. But we're not, and are a lot of people out there and who look at and create this kind of stuff yet somehow we haven't had a molestation pandemic.
 
Acepilotf14 said:
We've already had this argument before in like two other threads. I can compare little girls to guns all day but it's not going to get us anywhere; this is a sensitive topic. Most people have unchanging stances when it comes to this.

The point is;
Like Absinthe said, it doesn't matter. People should be allowed to draw what they want. That's the point of net neutrality; sites can host whatever they want, whether it be drawings of little girls and no arguments or arguments about drawings of little girls and no drawings..
Click to expand...
what? none of you get it, the title in the article says

non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse
That is being banned, and it should. Also sites cannot host whatever they want...no pictures of child abuse is not legal, so why should any graphic representation of such be legal? There is a big difference between the two and yea it is a sensitive subject you know why? because the only people who want to look at depictions of child sexual abuse is a ****ed up individual (not saying you are).

Acepilotf14 said:
If someone rapes a little girl they probably would have done it without drawings of loli anyway.

How do you plan to enforce this law anyway? Force all ISPs to give up information regarding every person who lives in the UK and figure out which ones are downloading loligetspounded.jpg? Or is the nice government going to block certain websites because they may or may not have drawings with no victims on them?

The UK is just edging closer and closer to censorship of whatever they want. Which is surprising seeing as a lot of brits like to blast the U.S. for how much we care about nudity in television.
Click to expand...
this law specifies that it applies only to images created for sexual gratification
Click to expand...
 
Absinthe said:
People draw murder and acts of destruction every day. You could also argue that there are people who fantasize about committing those acts as well. Where's your ****ing moral high horse about that?
Click to expand...
If someone is jacking off to pictures of murder victims then that person has a number of screws loose in their head and will probably end up hurting someone. Does that mean I want them locked up before they do something crazy, not neccessarly, but you can't sit here and pretend that this is normal behavior.
Have you ever even seen loli? I think most of its fans get off on the style itself as opposed to using it as a substitute for having sex with children. Even if there are pedophiles who use it as an outlet for their urges, they have committed no crime except the very one this kind law fabricates. And so what if they think child molestation is okay? They have an opinion, and so long as they're not actually preying on toddlers down at the playground, there's no foul.
Click to expand...

No I have no seen it. But what they are getting off on is the images of underaged children. You can't possibly be telling me they are jerking it to the art style. Seriously?

And the point is that these people will probably very likely end up preying on children. I watch porn because I like to have sex with women. By watching porn that desire doesn't go away and I continue to hunt for sex. What makes you think someone that gets off on little children works differently? eventually they will try to fulfil their fantasies and innocent children will get hurt.
 
Absinthe said:
People draw murder and acts of destruction every day. You could also argue that there are people who fantasize about committing those acts as well. Where's your ****ing moral high horse about that? Have you ever even seen loli? I think most of its fans get off on the style itself as opposed to using it as a substitute for having sex with children. Even if there are pedophiles who use it as an outlet for their urges, they have committed no crime except the very one this kind law fabricates.
Click to expand...

it's been in existance for over 50 years now. delayed outrage?
 
Absinthe said:
Yeah, that Ash and Misty loli collection drawn in MS Paint is really gonna inspire some mass infant rape.
Click to expand...

Usually you are a lot more rational when you make arguments. You know as well as I do what 3D programs are capable of these days. We are not talking about stick figures drawin in paint, and you know that.
 
There are three people on this forum that I know possess such images.

None of them are ever going to go and interact with underage kids in an even remotely related manner that this thread implies.

But oh, this is a Stern thread, so anecdotal evidence only applies to him; protect the children; work hard young man; stay at home and keep watching American Gladiators, &c.
 
Viperidae said:
There are three people on this forum that I know possess such images.
Click to expand...

You want to name names? That way I know which creeps to stay away from.

You are right. You have sexual fantasies about young children but you will never go out and try to act on those fantasies. :rolling:
 
Absinthe said:
People draw murder and acts of destruction every day. You could also argue that there are people who fantasize about committing those acts as well. Where's your ****ing moral high horse about that? Wanna go ban Michael Bay and Saw movies?
Click to expand...
yea you're right i can already see where you are going with this ...entertainment is blamed for nearly everything and those cases shouldn't be banned or censored..but you're not really comparing like to like when there has been a correlation found between sexual molestors and them owning this kind of pornographic material (refer to stern's post)....where as it is not found in the normal population. Why? again cause the only people who seek out these images are ****ed up individuals. it is a psychological disorder. are you telling me that if you came across a site full of drawing depictions of children being sexually molested that that wouldn't set off bells in your head that tells you this is wrong? or that these people who are posting this should be highly suspect?

Absinthe said:
Have you ever even seen loli? I think most of its fans get off on the style itself as opposed to using it as a substitute for having sex with children. Even if there are pedophiles who use it as an outlet for their urges, they have committed no crime except the very one this kind law fabricates. And so what if they think child molestation is okay? They have an opinion, and so long as they're not actually preying on toddlers down at the playground, there's no foul.
Click to expand...
no i never have and don't want to, but the idea that someone can get off to drawings of children makes me sick to my stomach. Also what I underlined makes no sense considering that if you are a pedophile that implies (atleast to me) that you have commited the act at some point so no it isnt a matter of them getting rid of their urges..but that they should be suspected of possibly commiting this act again.
 
Viperidae said:
There are three people on this forum that I know possess such images.

None of them are ever going to go and interact with underage kids in an even remotely related manner that this thread implies.
Click to expand...

how can you possibly guarentee that? how do you know with any certainity that they havent already?
 
CptStern said:
how can you possibly guarentee that? how do you know with any certainity that they havent already?
Click to expand...
Oh god, you're a robot, aren't you.

The whole forum is full of them! I'm having a nihilistic paradigm shift!
 
Viperidae said:
But oh, this is a Stern thread, so anecdotal evidence only applies to him; protect the children; work hard young man; stay at home and keep watching American Gladiators, &c.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with anything?
 
CptStern said:
yes however it's already been proven that it is the case earlier in this thread
Click to expand...

How the **** is that proof? You would make a terrible lawyer. Just because people who were convicted of child abuse had those images, means that anyone who has those images is likely to abuse a child? You're a ****ing idiot. Correlation is not causation.

These threads never get anywhere because some people are ****ing retarded and will never understand things that they can't relate to, and because of their emotional investment in the subject.

CptStern said:
how can you possibly guarentee that? how do you know with any certainity that they havent already?
Click to expand...

How can you possibly guarantee anything? What the hell are you trying to prove, seriously?
 
Viperidae said:
Well, you're clearly lying about your wife and children as well, so we're even.
Click to expand...

darn it, you know me so well. I actually smothered them for daring to change the channel when I was watching American Gladiators. I wanted to beat them to death with a giant Q-tip but it was taking WAAAY too long
 
So we're agreeing on reasonable assumptions about online personas? Otherwise, keep at it, as I actually enjoy the image of you suffocating your little ones.
 
Willsmith.fan said:
no i never have and don't want to, but the idea that someone can get off to drawings of children makes me sick to my stomach. Also what I underlined makes no sense considering that if you are a pedophile that implies (atleast to me) that you have commited the act at some point so no it isnt a matter of them getting rid of their urges..but that they should be suspected of possibly commiting this act again.
Click to expand...

A pedophile is somebody who is sexually attracted to children. That is different from a child molester who has actually diddled a kid.

And the children depicted in most loli porn rarely look like actual children. That's what I was referring to when I said some people get off on the actual style of such art rather than real children.
 
No Limit said:
If someone is jacking off to pictures of murder victims then that person has a number of screws loose in their head and will probably end up hurting someone. Does that mean I want them locked up before they do something crazy, not neccessarly, but you can't sit here and pretend that this is normal behavior.


No I have no seen it. But what they are getting off on is the images of underaged children. You can't possibly be telling me they are jerking it to the art style. Seriously?

And the point is that these people will probably very likely end up preying on children. I watch porn because I like to have sex with women. By watching porn that desire doesn't go away and I continue to hunt for sex. What makes you think someone that gets off on little children works differently? eventually they will try to fulfil their fantasies and innocent children will get hurt.
Click to expand...

You're pleading ignorant to the subject matter and I personally think you're grossly overreacting to the shadows of phantom pedos on the internet.

You also heavily simplify what audiences might find attractive. You really have to consider pornographic anime a category to itself. Some people will find subject material in a manga more appealing than in a real-life scenario. Some people like anime more than real porn in general. And I know there have been people on this board who have admitted to liking futa art, but would never want to encounter it in the real world.

People are capable of compartmentalizing this kind of shit, separating what they like in a fantasy from what they would actually subject themselves to in the real world. Why get worried about it?

No Limit said:
Usually you are a lot more rational when you make arguments. You know as well as I do what 3D programs are capable of these days. We are not talking about stick figures drawin in paint, and you know that.
Click to expand...

Says the person who just admitted he has never seen the thing he is talking about.

Yeah, I've seen 3D art boards for this kind of material. They are hilariously atrocious at best and mildly nauseating at worst.
 
Absinthe said:
A pedophile is somebody who is sexually attracted to children. That is different from a child molester who has actually diddled a kid.

And the children depicted in most loli porn rarely look like actual children. That's what I was referring to when I said some people get off on the actual style of such art rather than real children.
Click to expand...

Is it normal to have 3D images that look real of children in sexual positions? Should that be legal?
 
ok fair enough. but you still didnt answer my question about whether if you came across a website filled with graphic depictions of child molestation: do you think its reasonable to be highly suspect of those people or no?
 
Willsmith.fan said:
ok fair enough. but you still didnt answer my question about whether if you came across a website filled with graphic depictions of child molestation: do you think its reasonable to be highly suspect of those people or no?
Click to expand...

Suspect of what? Maybe that they're sad and perverted, but not that they actually pose a threat to children. Legally, it shouldn't matter what I think so long as nobody is actually being hurt or exploited in the making of or distribution of such art. Besides, this really needs to be looked at case by case. I would definitely find some depictions of child molestation more offensive than others...

No Limit said:
Is it normal to have 3D images that look real of children in sexual positions? Should that be legal?
Click to expand...

Show this to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ennui
119th TF2 Update
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
ríomhaire
ríomhaire
Hectic Glenn
Orion Mod Interview
Replies
1
Views
1K
Reginald
Reginald
Hectic Glenn
Jailbreak: Source Interview
Replies
0
Views
2K
Hectic Glenn
Hectic Glenn
P
Incoming Source - Dimension
Replies
1
Views
1K
63
63
B
A social viewpoint on Counter-Strike and it's insults.
2 3
Replies
90
Views
7K
FoB_Ed
FoB_Ed
Back
Top