I hear this argument a lot:

Nice trips you weirdo

Attached: 1554886389574.jpg (625x832, 54K)

The reason why CP is wrong is because of child abuse and endangerment. While I agree it is degenerate, you cant endager a drawing

>Is it still not CP if an artist were to draw a hyper-realistic depiction of a nude child that could easily be mistaken for a photograph?
imo it wouldn't
the real reason behind cp being illegal is that a child has to suffer in order to produce it, and the cp that has already been made is illegal because it creates a market that exploits children
in that sense there's nothing wrong about drawings as long as it depicts imaginary children
but that's just my opinion really; there is no real discussion about cp going on because no one wants to touch that topic and start a serious public debate based on something more than emotions about it. I suspect because of the fear of what demons it could unleash, which is honestly something we need exactly because it's so vague. I believe however a debate like that would turn out it wouldn't lead to a normalization of cp, as ban on cp is something that would easily defend itself in such a discussion

Thats stupid as fuck. You can do plenty of moraly wrong things that are legal. Drinking, smoking, mastrubation, deviant sex, plenty of shit. The idea that lawmen care if your a degen or not is rediculos. They only care when you're actions are harming other physically or monetarily

I agree with you 100%, OP. Just look at this picture I found on Google Images. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is literally being traded freely online. Think about how she feels and all the trauma she must be facing right now. My thoughts and prayers go out to this brave little girl.

Attached: 563AF647-6061-4C39-9A3E-CE37CF807525.jpg (347x280, 5K)

>They only care when you're actions are harming other physically or monetarily
Best joke of the day.

Attached: 10710532-orig.jpg (1024x678, 475K)

While extremely degenerate loli is one of many victimless crimes. The eu and uk are just retarded shitholes. It really isn't much worse than other forms of sexual deviancy. But the UK already banned face sitting and that kind of stuff, so they arnt a valid example

>They should
Phone posting sorry

Jokes at least have a punchline what user said was basically just retarded.

Why is doing drugs illegal but alcohol isn't. The only reasons for laws are money and appearances. They tried to randomly illegal alcohol and look how that turned out. They learned their lesson and twisted the public's perception of drugs so when they made them illegal it stuck. Sex with children was completely normal until just a couple hundred years ago but then people were like "children are morons we have to protecc so no more sex" and it stuck.

If it doesn't make politicians money or make them look good they don't give a shit. Why do you think no one tries to change the age requirements for drinking/smoking it make camping illegal. Nothing would come from it and they are socially accepted norma.

That being said the current path of LGBT and SJWs mean child sex will be legal again eventually (my bet is within the decade)

CP is illegal because it directly contributes to the traumatization and exploitation of children who cannot reasonably understand what they're doing. Even if it's consenting and the child is enjoying it, they are not capable of understanding the long term ramifications of what is occuring.

Loli does not directly contribute to child trauma. But it does multiple things in lieu of this.
>Increases the likely hood of the viewer to seek real child porn
>Normalizes the idea that children are capable of sex on a regular basis
>Overestimates child maturity

And it also indirectly contributes to child trauma because of the likely hood of viewers seeking cp. The mere view or download of CP encourages others to make more. And loli indirectly exacerbates this.

That being said. I don't care about loli and look at it regularly.

>Increases the likely hood of the viewer to seek real child porn
No it doesn't. Loli doesn't magically turn non pedos into pedo. Anyone looking at loli would already have been wanting cp anyways handbook gives an outlet so the don't have to. I've been viewing loli for well over a decade and guess how much cp I have? Literally none. Have I thought about it? Sure, I'm a fucking pedophile. But every time I do I just say fuck it and grab some loli because of how.much easier and safer it is.

>Normalizes the idea that children are capable of sex on a regular basis.
Literally how? It's fantasy. Do you thing GoT normalizes the idea that hot chicks are fireproof and if and ugly dude with blue eyes kills you you turn into his zombie bitch? Nobody looks at loli and thinks "hmm I bet a 6yo would love having a dick the size of her arm in her"
>Overestimates child maturity
See point 2. It's literally fantasy, and only retards take fantasy as fact.

Also, why is your "it also" just literally restating the first point. Are YOU literally retarded? It seems so.

What loli does is save children. It allows an outlet that causes no harm to anyone. For ever loli image stained with real semen a REAL child has been saved

not gonna read the whole thread, sorry if im repeating someone

the law actually has a distinction for depictions of children and depictions of children which are indistinguishable from real children.
or in the US it does

I've always been a little confused by what that means. Like even if the loli in question is fictional of it LOOKS real you get in trouble, or is it pictures that are drawn of specific real children.

I feel like if the kid in question doesn't actually exists it just looks real it should be fine.

The reason why CP is illegal is because of the damage done to the child. It's not like children's body is sacred or magical.

Drawings cause 0 damage to people. Drawings aren't bad. People is bad. It's not the drawings fault that there are child rapists.

Attached: ae1bdbff177a8549057c8051dfdd9d0f.jpg (2508x3541, 1.32M)

there is also a distinction between fictional depictions and non-fictional depictions regardless of the realisticness of the art, lmao

Wait so
>real kid=trouble wether realistic or not
But
>Realistic=trouble real kid or not?

here's the law in a readable format

Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age).
Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor
and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.
so an actual child, or a depiction of a non-fictional child.
boringly, most 'loli' porn gets thrown under obscenity law which is awful and antiquated as hell.

again this is only the US.

It's an ongoing discussion. Same with child sex dolls. Is it fucked up and maybe even leads to more people getting into cp and should therefore be forbidden or is it actually a good thing since the pedo can look at drawings and fuck his kiddie sex doll therefore not harming real children in any way.

>1
You're not everybody, niggerfaggot. Loli DOES turn you into a pedophile. Or rather, youre likely born a pedophile. But accepting loli and denying you're into children is retarded and wrong. Regardless of online safety, it will and does lead people to search it out. You don't speak on behalf of everybody.

>2
Your statement and analogy are fucking retarded and I'm starting to think you are as a whole

>3
Wow, you might actually be brain dead.

Loli doesn't, in any way, save children. Accepting loli is a compromise to allowing pedophiles to think it's okay to have those thoughts. Something even most pedophiles agree is not okay. Sure it allows an outlet. But it's not a safe outlet. Again, because it increases the chance people will seek out child porn and therefore loli, period, indirectly affects the rates of child abuse.

ADDITIONALLY: Loli is most heavily consumed in Japan, where the age of consent is 13 and has some of the highest sexual abuse statistics in the world. Where girls, including school girls, are groped and harassed and sometimes raped even on public transit.

Quit being daft.

No, it depends on whether or not an actual child was involved. "No actual child = not child porn" ruled US supreme court, end of question.

Good thing there are VPN Services. Also, I've met many lolicons who happen to live in countries where loli images are totally legal. Also, I've heard that artists from the US depict children all the time but they don't go to jail because... First ammendment. I don't know US laws but I suppose artists should be allowed to create things even if people or the government don't like them.

Attached: 46133725_p0.jpg (1280x1560, 683K)

Wrong, that's the definition section for the recordkeeping requirements of all porn producers. Child porn is under 18 usd 2252, not 2256, and it defines it as:

"(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) such visual depiction is of such conduct;"

An actual minor must be involved.

>Loli DOES turn you into a pedophile
half of the doujin creators are pedophiles?
why is it that the west has more child abuse crimes, rather 10-fold as opposed to Japan?
nice logic there plebbit

just because hitler drank water doesn't mean that everyone who drinks water is a nazi

Attached: big breasts and loli.jpg (1080x489, 33K)

1. Calling people "niggerfaggot" is not an argument and doesn't help your case
> Loli DOES turn you into a pedophile
Where is the evidence? Any source? Are you one of those people that say that the jews are hideing the truth about loli?
> accepting loli and denying you're into children is retarded and wrong
Why? Children can be hurt. Drawings cannot. how are they not different?

>Your statement and analogy are fucking retarded and I'm starting to think you are as a whole
The analogy makes sense. GoT is fiction. Loli hentai is fiction. They are similar.

>Loli is most heavily consumed in Japan, where the age of consent is 13 and has some of the highest sexual abuse statistics in the world.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Thats your evidence?

>1
>aww shit these pictures of children made me wanna fuck.children when.I otherwise wouldn't
Yeah I bet you think 2g1c made people want act porn and Mr hands got people into horsefucking. The existence of a fetish does not rely on depictions of the fetish. The idea that you can look at loli whenever you want will make some people choose loli over cp, literally the only people who choose cp over loli are people who strongly desire real porn of children, which would happen regardless of the existence of loli. Loli doesn't stop all cp, but it literally cannot contribute to cp because enjoying it requires you to like it beforehand. Otherwise you would just think it's gross.

>2
You implied people would take fantasy literally so I jumped down that slippery slope (fallacy fallacy look it up) to show you just how fucking tetarded you are. You thought my analogies were retarded? Good now maybe you can realize your own statement was retarded as well.

>3
>rather than defend myself I'm just gonna call him names

>millions of people masturbate to lolis instead of increasing demand for real CP
>loli has literally saved no one
>pedo release urges and no child is harmed
>but it's not a safe out let
>again, I'm going to insist my first point (which I've repeated as almost every other point) is true despite being completely unsubstantiated and illogical

cont.

2252 is about distribution what are you talking about

Cont.

Let's say hypothetically your favorite talking point were true. Lolis give pedos and outlet that eventually makes them want real cp. The fact that they have this outlet STILL holds off that eventual point, and the longer people go without cp the less demand their is so in the end it still reduces the demand for CP. Another factor is the availability of loli. See you have to work to find cp whereas loli is highly available. This means when you reach that point you can take your time because you at least have loli to help curb your urges. Meanwhile a pedophile who does not have access has to look for real cp a lot earlier to ease sexual stress. CP is so much farther and fewer between and way too risky to save and hoard while also periodically being deleted.forcing them to have to gind more, that sexual stress could build to intolerable levels. You know what's easier to find than even loli? Real children. I live with 3 of them (4th on the way). Pedos who can't get their. Fix may be tempted to abduct and abuse real children because they have no outlet for their lust. Imho the mere existence of loli saves actual children from being actually raped.

Attached: east vs. west.jpg (896x1024, 280K)

nevermind, sorry, i see my error. reading law is difficult.

But what about 16 year olds in a 16-consent state? There are actually more of those than 18-consent! You can fuck her, she can love it, but if she takes nude selfie she can be prosecuted for production of child porn. In that case, all the "trauma and harm to the child" comes from the CP laws. She could even be married and fuck every nigh like a bunny, but we need to protect her by putting her on the sex offender registry?

>but we need to protect her by putting her on the sex offender registry?
Didn't this legit happen to some 12yo kid? He was sexting his gf and she asked for dickpic and he sent. Then her parents found it and he had to register for producing pornography and sending cockpits to minor?

This is what evidence and reason looks like, I'll steal this image

Attached: 1195901959002.png (800x600, 591K)

Mexico's federal age of consent is 12, but since they count a newborn as 1 year old, we would consider those girls 11. Some states have higher ages. Just south of Arizona has 12, as does Southern Baja.

But American sex tourists can be prosecuted for fucking any girl anywhere if she's under 16, or for bringing under 18 photos back.

Based megumin

>Loli DOES turn you into a pedophile
This is wrong. You'd have to already have pedophilic tendencies to go from finding drawings sexually enticing to actual children. Such a broad claim is misrepresentative to the true nature of human psychology and sexuality.

>in Japan, where the age of consent is 13 and has some of the highest sexual abuse statistics in the world
First one is a half truth. The age of consent is actually dictated by the individual principality you're in, kind of like in the US. And NONE of them have it set up to where people under the age of 18 can consent to sexual activity. And the second one is a flat out lie. Sexual abuse rates are low in Japan all across the board when taken into account their obscenely high population and population density, and although there are arguments about the effectiveness of enforcement and reports of said crimes, such claims are left up to hearsay. As for gropes and rapes on trains.. I've heard of gropings but no rapes. Especially none on such a notable level (unless you take into account 'female only' tram cars).

>Loli doesn't, in any way, save children. Accepting loli is a compromise to allowing pedophiles to think it's okay to have those thoughts. Something even most pedophiles agree is not okay. Sure it allows an outlet. But it's not a safe outlet. Again, because it increases the chance people will seek out child porn and therefore loli, period, indirectly affects the rates of child abuse
This has been factually disproven by multiple studies over the course of the past 20 years, with two notable recent ones being conducted by scientists in Denmark and Japan. In these studies, they were able to find no link which supports the contention that they increase rape statistics, yet have found that they lower them by offering a valid, safe outlet for such desires.

Attached: 03c30ae064808853e4c99e7dc9994a740919fc0e75a6f4585024295dc7860c20.jpg (700x988, 735K)

funny how that image also proves that having more loli content in Japan leads to them having less crimes, while lewd lolis were banned from Google (and most of the western internet) since 2009, and you can clearly see an increase in child abuse cases

it's almost as if there's a pattern
oneangrygamer.net/2019/04/sjw-artist-who-wanted-loli-images-banned-apologizes-for-sexual-misconduct-involving-minor/83198/#disqus_thread

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation

Attached: Un pedo 4.jpg (543x523, 54K)

I agree with you in the fact that there seems to be a pattern. However correlation doesn´t mean causation.

In this case it seems to me that there is a relation but more solid evidence would be wonderfull to have.

Attached: 0f87e6022919ff13d761c0589e3c67c9e641d194f24933c66f956fc46b53016a.png (768x1240, 579K)

Here's the problem;
If a child was used for a reference, directly or indirectly, the drawing is a further exploitation of that child for sexual purposes. Therefore, the only truly safe option is to ban anything that could, under any reasonable suspicion, be based on the form of a real child.

AKA, Chibi is whatever. Stylized is whatever.

This shitThat's jailtime.

Fyi, Japanese police earn bonuses depending on their level of solving crimes, which means that they don't register crimes they don't think they can solve. Hence on paper they have tremendously low crime rates. When in reality, teachers are sacked ridiculously often in japan for raping and assaulting children in schools. They just don't go to jail, they get a slap on the wrist.

tl;dr You can't trust a single crime statistic from Japan.

Attached: 1556752363005.jpg (1400x932, 237K)

>you'd have to already have pedophilic tendencies
Such as finding the proportions, mannerisms, and appearances of children erotic? Like the kind featured in loli art?

>valid, safe outlet
How exactly is visually enticing material safer and more valid than mental fantasy alone? Doesn't exactly ring true.

source?
i've heard people claim that, but i couldn't find any valid article about it either
most of the time it's from feminists who claim that "looks can rape you"

Attached: 4a0df086b9e26285f4ef5c28797999b0eda66f6c60b41f99be3fedf07385bc57.jpg (1563x1800, 1.04M)

Attached: 7e7f93f05e3de0bafb148ed2984f5a17a38dcc31ceb6b45e4bd33a4421ffbc38.jpg (1320x1800, 856K)

>form
Don't use that word it's too vague.
It's either based on a real child or it's not. When you start throwing out words like "form" it leaves things open to interpretation.
>well that loli looks vaguely like my child jail him

It also opens up the floodgates for unfair persecution if people hate a loli artist they can try to get their kid to look like the loli than BAM jailtime

Not saying you're wrong, cause you aren't, just choose words carefully.

1>
Sure but I have never heard of an artist that uses chid models for loli hentai. Usualluy they yake the features of women and draw something similar.

2>
That is not the only safe option. Information and common sense should be used. Do you agree that nobody should buy cars because there is a risk that the people that works in the manufacturing industry might have been exploited? No. You buy cars unless you know that the bussines is doing something illegal.

Attached: 1422104889240.png (1100x1100, 983K)

Dunno man, I've lived in Japan for a while and it really does feel extraordinarily safe, and thats coming from a Canadian.

Fair enough, it wasn't meant to be used as actual legal diction. Just to communicate the idea. I agree, real laws have to be much more inflexible.

Attached: 46803980_p0.jpg (2480x3125, 1.64M)

Attached: 50465793_p0.jpg (2252x3101, 1.31M)

Assuming you are right, how would we know that there are crimes that aren't reported? How would we get the evidence? are the sources reliable?

Just asking

Attached: 1493270135473.jpg (865x1200, 563K)

Attached: 56473129_p0.jpg (1240x1754, 454K)

and horror movies are based on real people getting killed
cool story bro

Attached: 8127282721.jpg (1866x1620, 192K)

I think I've read that, according to the laws of my country at least, sexual depiction of a real underage individual is considered CP.

>those censors

Attached: 1447383058401.jpg (536x536, 25K)

Attached: 70918536_p0.jpg (1920x1187, 1.45M)

Attached: 70918536_p2.jpg (1920x1187, 1.24M)

Attached: 70954604_p2.jpg (1920x1187, 1.8M)

>never heard of an artist that uses child models
Seriously? I've seen side by side comparisons of the real deal against popular loli drawings and they're nearly identical. Not always, but just take people like rustle for instance. I also did add "direct or indirect". As in, the child doesn't have to be in the room with them, it can just be based on a photo.

As for the second point, cars and pornography are two different businesses. A car has no "subject", it's just a machine. Pornography REQUIRES a subject. If that subject happens to be representative of a child, then you're damn right there needs to be more scrutiny than would be applicable to the construction of a machine.

Not necessarily. I know plenty of women irl who meet the proprortions of a 'loli' you see in anime. Pic related is a character my ex cosplayed as when we went to a con in our hometown.

And it gives them a harmless, legal alternative to deal with such urges. You can't combat a mental illness by holding it back and repressing it. That's basic psychology.

Not to pander to emotion or invoke sympathy, think of it like a literal demon many of these people have to live with for the rest of their lives, plagueing their existence like they're some kind of subhuman cursed to live in the shadows lest they harm someone, by extension themselves. Knowing that the majority of society would much rather see them killed on sight for being afflicted by something as simple and out of their control as a sexual desire, without actually harming or imposing upon anybody's rights or safety.

at that point, what you're claiming is that we should ban all cars because of the small chance that they run over people

>1.
Again, correlation doesn't mean causation. We don't ban FPS just because there are murders with guns. Like you just said: loli is art. Humans decide wether or not they bring art to reality. Humans can be stoped and jailed. Drawings shold not be banned. Artists are just artists.

>2
The fact that something "Doesn't exactly ring true" doesn't make it false. You would have to prove that "visually enticing material" is not safe. The burden of proof is on you. Don't try to run away from it.

Uhh, Rustles' work doesn't even look real-ish like

do you even know what most loli porn is based on? most of them are either based on legal women, or other loli drawings

Thanks for the reminder that, afaik, rustle is kil

Attached: giphy(2).gif (500x375, 978K)

That's not what I'm claiming at all. Not sure how you could come to that conclusion.

Though it easily free form drawing without models.

>most

Okay, and? That's not really relevant to my argument.

>thought it was mostly
Fucking autocucumber

>I've seen side by side comparisons of the real dea
So you have seen CP? And you are trying to ban totally legal loli? WOW.
Also, saying you think they are identical doesn't make it truth. Every clain must be sustained by evidence.

> A car has no "subject"
Sure. Adrawing it's not a subject. What's your point? What I was saying is that even if the creator commits a crime, you have to jail the creator, not the creation. Also, we were talking about "the risk that the creatos might have done a crime" which was the purpose of the car analogy. I see you trying to divert the point.

> Pornography REQUIRES a subject
Again, you are providing no evidence of this. I'ts just you opinion.

> representative of a child
Do you think drawings in hentai are alive and "are sobjects"? Representative of a child is, by definition, not a child!!!

Attached: 1434082177942.jpg (1600x2400, 1.75M)

I'm fucking tired to see these filthy PEDOS. U R DISGUSTING FAGGOTS!!!

Attached: g1433631166642144707.png (550x687, 213K)

Sexual exploitation isn't the same. Most people experience sexual feelings, most people do not experience homicidal feelings. It's much easier to conflate normal sexual feelings with actions that can cause real harm than it is to conflate basic anger or aggression with murderous tendencies. Especially if those harmful actions are portrayed as harmless or even enjoyable to the victim.

Again, I'm not arguing against truly harmless cartoons. But if something is exploitative of a child, you don't take chances on it. Mentally ill people don't get to dictate how they live their lives with no regard to the impact on those around them. If there is none, then great. If there is, we have to be the ones to decide what impact that it's going to have.

>don't drop the soap
Jokes on you I'm also a faggot and if I went to jail I'd cement myself as, not A but, THE prison bitch. I'm a pedo I'm not gonna make it out of prison alive might as well get what I can out of it.

>WOW
Didn't say I sought it out. It appears on Yea Forums occasionally. In this particular instance, it was a reply to a loli image to PROVE that it was modeled on a real child.

>A drawing is not a subject
No, but it is OF a subject. Don't try to subvert the point with word games.

>providing no evidence
It's self evident. Describe any kind of pornography that doesn't involve a subject. Meaning, no people, objects, scenarios, or any topic of any kind. These are all examples of subject matter.

you're still conflating reality with fiction. And it whether which particular feelings are more prevalent is irrelevant to the conversation, as that's not the topic at hand. The context here is whether it's appropriate to indulge in such things on a fantastical level, and so far, in that respect, they're the same thing.

If you really wanna argue context you can just bring up artistic merit. Are you implying that stories that invoke rape or sexual exploitation for plot points just to convey a message that pleases the masses is any different than a pornographic comic book that depicts minors getting dicked on by a wild pack of niggers?? How daft and feeble minded can you fucking be??? They're FICTIONAL!! The idea that they should be perceived as anything but is up to the intent of the writer/artist and up to the audience to interpret or accept. What you're pitching here is that mere disgust with a particular topic should justify moral or criminal wrongdoing by attempting to blur the line between make-believe and real life actions with dire consequences, no different than the soccer moms and right-wing christian parents in the 90s who wanted to ban Mortal Kombat and Doom because they found them offensive and tried to use school shootings as a strawman.

Attached: 02f4fe1cd173a7461a7e69d030e9fba0.jpg (1052x744, 546K)

>indirectly
>under any reasonable suspicion
>based on the form of a real child
Which means all of it?
sjws and feminists would say so
which is why it's completely unnecessary
if it's a drawing, it's merely a drawing and nothing more

anyone could draw a 6 year old girl in stick figure with a real name above, labelling it, and put her in really promiscuous poses
but that won't and shouldn't get anyone into trouble

CALLING PEOPLE FAGGOTS IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT AND DOESN'T HELP YOUR CASE.

This is the type of people that doesn't care about facts and wants to control the private lives of everybody because that makes him feel powerfull. Facts don't care about your feelings

At least this other guy it's giving his opinions.

Attached: no u.jpg (2880x1600, 712K)

Nice scum bag. Stop stealing oxigen. Put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

NOW!!

Close enough for me to be okay with taking him on a long walk in the woods. I err on the side of protecting children. Might seem excessive, but I think the defense of children is one area where excessive force is justifiable.

I tend to err on the side of protecting people in general, therefore people who enjoy games in which they can murder innocents ought to be lynched. Sounds good to you?

I wanna break up with my fiance so I can get a sex doll instead of her :(

Nope. Again, my point from the beginning was that fantasy is normal. Exploitation is not. There needs to be a clear delineation between art created from the exploitation of real people, and art created from imagination to stimulate fantasy.

Or are you saying we should be free to use real snuff films to make violent video games? Because that's reprehensible.

>I know plenty of women irl who meet the proprortions of a 'loli'
Good. Have you heard that all lolis are actually 18+ yo in the cannon? It's true .They are just like those women except that not real, and are drawings... Also, totally legal.

In the end, if people want to look at lolis and there is no real serious evidence from a peer reviewed source to say that loli harms people, there is no reason to ban it. Simple as that.

Attached: 1546603806343.png (1000x1000, 1007K)

Kill yourself Pedo. U r not even human anymore.

Attached: 5mybe.jpg (357x341, 17K)

what chance are you implying there be? Are you implying that all cartoons HAVE to have a subject behind it simply because "muh reasoning"? You've never taken an art class, watched a speedpaint tutorial, or actually taken the time to research the creative process. Yes many artists use reality as a starting point, but in the case of pornographic cartoons where such references are few and far between they make do with 3D models, dolls, and legal references. The idea that the possibility of these being the justification for "taking chances' rips asunder the entire purpose of the creative medium in the first place.

Attached: 0cd2569448cd92401c25ceeab882cfe9.jpg (1156x1920, 798K)

Not a good idea. Sex dolls sounds nice on paper, and are for some time, you'll be missing out on tons of things a doll cannot provide.

Nope. Adults vs Children, clear distinction for me. If you don't see it that way, then we can agree to disagree.

Kek.

> I've seen side by side comparisons of the real deal against popular loli drawings
You've been outed as a pedo you utter faggot. Memes do write themselves.

Attached: 50613545_247159826181180_2195644799917228032_n.jpg (320x223, 10K)

Most are hundreds of years old!

Attached: 39b3a5217895769b30e1ee67c2e06460.jpg (1422x2000, 924K)

Nah man, common sense is more applicable here than you might be willing to admit. A stick figure with a label is clearly not based on real imagery. You have to gauge genuine harm caused, not potential harm caused.

shit forgot pic. She cosplayed as Rikka and a bunch of sweaty specimens took pics with her. Would include a side-by-side comparison to show how well she pulled off the cosplay, but I respect her privacy and knowing Yea Forums finding her would be no hard feat.

Attached: 1550552240316.jpg (477x948, 50K)

>agree to disagree
Either you can support your claim, or your claim ought not be considered. murder is murder, violence is violence. Whether the target is a child or an adult is a moot point unless you want to make a case that there is something -inherently- unique that we ought to protect our children to a different degree than any other citizen.

You I'd be okay with killing just because you're a mongoloid.

Kill yourself pedo. U r not even human anymore.

Attached: wallpaper-2774313.jpg (1920x1080, 108K)

then it's a non-problem then
bullying and "being left alone" causes more harm to a child than some unknown neckbeard drawing them into lewd poses

Children are more vulnerable, and have had no chance to develop defense mechanisms to protect against violence and exploitation.

Again, if that's not good enough for you, we can just agree to disagree.

>1
Again, sexual exploitation of whom? No evidence has been provided that looking at an image is sexual exploitaion of anyone. You are looking at images or thumbnails ITT. You aren't a criminal, are you?

> most people do not experience homicidal feelings

Most people don't feel pedo feelings. What is the point?

> It's much easier to conflate normal sexual feelings with actions

Again. Are you just saying that or do you have peer reviewed evidence? Your own experience is not evidence, btw.

> Especially if those harmful actions are portrayed as harmless

You think humans can't differenciate real from fiction and good from evil? Harm from no harm? Are you saying that people have no morals? Every body just goes arround doing whatever they saw on a Yea Forums image?

Attached: lolibooru_21432_barefoot_blonde_hair_brown_eyes_futaba_anzu_hidekichi_09075470338_highres_idolmaster (1200x1600, 1.1M)

REACTION. FORMATION.

This damage control lmao.

Attached: 50434619_128184968220864_342139010354774016_n.jpg (498x615, 33K)

>I can't tell the difference between a fictional portrayal of something so I just err on the side of caution and assume drawings and stick figures are the same as photographs
Nice red herring.

Attached: 1526849156133.png (707x1000, 592K)

Frankly, if I could rid the world of violence and exploitation of children, or people in general, but it would require the cease of art, I'd be fine with it.

Jokes on you I'm bi and would accept the schlong with mad skillz

Attached: 1556647582058.jpg (540x754, 94K)

As I've said repeatedly, I'm talking about real tangible harm. Stimulation of fantasy isn't the same as exploitation of real people. Don't know why I have to keep saying this.

Again, material created entirely from imagination isn't what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the actual exploitation of children. Last time I'm making that point.

it's like weebs jacking it to a legal and harmless medium they like while these literal kidfuckers have to hide their sick and evil crimes from the public just pisses them off.

"agree to disagree" is inherently a cop-out mechanism. Either continue defending your position or its an irrelevant appeal to emotion.

1) A drawn image isn't exploitative of anyone.
2) A child isn't "more vulnerable" than many adults, I.E mental/physically disabled.
3) An adult can be equally unable to defend themselves given skewed power-relations. like that between a child and an adult Vs. an adult who is armed and an adult who is not.

Should have known you were a nigger all along

Attached: giphy (1).gif (268x152, 304K)

I have a friend who would end it soon afterwards. I hate living and legitimately want to kms but I can't do that to him he's got enough shit to deal with without losing a friend to suicide.

what? I'm assuming you aren't responding to me.

But aren't you like its dad?

Attached: zqKaboF.jpg (624x768, 66K)

1) It can be.
2/3) On average my point holds true. Rules are made for the average, not the outlier

Nobody here (with a brain at least) will argue the point that exploiting children is wrong. It's when people use it as a strawman to take away a valid form of speech and censor shit is when people jump the shark and go all berserk.

Attached: lolibooru 167454 sample.jpg (956x1500, 569K)

>exploitation of children
That's a feminist SJWfaggotry meme. Drawings can't exploit children bud. Doesn't matter what they are or where they've come from.

This.

Perfect. Then the onus is on the accuser to prove that there was an actual human subject used to create the loli depiction. I don't think anyone here is arguing -for- the exploitation or abuse of human children.

I disagree with your last two points. Children are notoriously gullible and easy to manipulate due to their young age and lack of any real-world wisdom to guide their intuition. They deserve more protection than anyone, in my opinion, even if it goes a little over the top when compared to the plights of exploited adults. That's where the term "women and children first" comes from.

eh idk. we don't have sex anymore, she's autistic, and it's tiring emotionally caring for her

i'd rather just get a $2k loli sex doll and live by myself instead.

>1.
Yeah, sure budy. Whatever. I'll let this go because it's not relevant to the argument.

>2.
Not a word game. It's very different. For starters if you can prove that an artist of loli explited a human, that artist should be jailed. On the other hand, you cannot put moral and legal responsabilities on an image.

Prove that all loli artists uses children irl and then you have a case.

>3.
Not self evident. You have purposefully moved the goalpost now. Now you are saying that all people and objects are subjects (objects are in principle no subjects but I'll let it pass).

Here is the problem now, Should we give rights and protection to dorknobs? There is hentai of dorknobs. Are you saying that they are being exploited and hence hentai should be baned?

You can't have it both ways.

Attached: e3d4d0bce3b3de7654f3d15368eb9c0130184a818a198f384cec1970bb35bdca.png (816x1500, 933K)

Seeing loli's makes me wanna fuck so hard my best friend 8 year old daughter..so fresh and must be so tight hng..but its something ill never do just imagine ofc.

>Is it still not CP if an artist were to draw a hyper-realistic depiction of a nude child that could easily be mistaken for a photograph?
I mistook you for a straight man but we all know that's not true.

this thread should be a lot shorter if you had just compared loli to the thousands of murder simulators we glorify and ask why aren't those banned? There are a lot worse things we should go after than drawing sexual drawings of kids. Like ensuring the earth is actually habitable for the real ones.

>Hyper-realistic lolis/shotas
>3D models
>Games based on the above or real children

These are the primary problems. When you see the blurred line between real life and drawing, you can see what the problem is with loli and shota content. My opinion is that the above should be banned or considered CP. Almost anything else is fine by me.

Attached: kermit.gif (500x280, 1.03M)

Shh you'll make the pedos look bad

1) "can be" isn't grounds for murdering or imprisoning people. If there is evidence that actual exploitation or abuse then we are talking about someone who -IS- a child abuser/molester. Someone who draws or looks at loli images do qualify for that criteria.

2/3) It is -exceedingly- easy for one adult to skew their power-relation against a -vast- majority of citizens, adults inclusive.

Then let people see the drawings alone. Unless you have video of the tangible harm LOLI IS LEGAL AND CUTE!

Attached: 51632688_1052584468278743_2428381793422934016_n.png (1500x2000, 1.27M)

1) What a petty deflection. I've never been dishonest or insulting in this entire exchange.

2) That's precisely what I've been arguing for. However, if the person is jailed, the possession of their creation should also be criminalized, IMO.

3) Comparing inanimate objects to children. And I'M shifting the goalposts? KEK. My point in making that statement was to argue with the previous point someone made that pornography doesn't necessarily involve subjects, which is just fundamentally untrue.

Awesome loli BTW

Attached: 53711576_409380563195771_2005753914825113600_n.jpg (720x540, 34K)

>the possession of their creation should also be criminalized
only if it's actual pictures since drawings can't exploit children

lel

In what way does the production of images (without human subjects) remove protections for children?

1) Yep. Glad we can agree.
2) Didn't really address my argument

Also, I should add, the "agree to disagree" thing isn't copping out. I just have limited time and energy to argue these things as an anonymous person to an anonymous person. The stakes on here are fairly low. If your mind isn't going to be changed, then agreeing to disagree is just pragmatism. Other people can also read my opinions, and come to their own conclusions. If we were having this discussion in a public forum with our names attached, I might feel differently.

They can if they're based on actual pictures.

No, I don't think there's anyone disagreeing about the obvious exploitation of children. I just think there's a deeper disagreement about what constitutes said exploitation.

>can
more than 99.9% of the time they aren't
i would only agree if it's causing public nuisance however

2) Good. we agree that child exploitation is bad. now record every loli artist explioting a girl. Then we'll ban loli.

3) I just didn't wanted to make this a "wordgame" but your argument it's entirely based on wichever definition you want to use of "subject". My point is that your current ideas are inconsistent with your previous comments.

>1) It can be.
I don't think people should be put in jail for drawing Barron Trump skullfucking Shillary Clitton.

Attached: 56178582_417687335725500_229619457134166016_n.jpg (353x353, 8K)

>do not qualify
what a time for a typo.
Yes it did address you, on average your point -does not- hold true given the exceedingly easy access to skewing ones power-relation to -anyone-.

2) Never argued for the banning of loli outright, nice strawman.

3) I disagree, I think I've been fairly consistent. Again, we can agree to disagree because of the point I made here.
I don't know your motivations or who you even are. I've made my point, maybe I could have made it better. Let the chips fall where they may.

Nah, I disagree. On average, the point holds true. Children are fundamentally more susceptible to exploitation. Adults have more options on average.

Probably my final post. Agree to disagree.

Are you are claiming that a depiction with no human subject constitutes as exploitation? If so, what is being exploited?

Yeah yeah, but I think everyone on both sides of this argument can agree that you should DEFINITELY kill yourself

Attached: 21320-ab12_61508.jpg (640x480, 53K)

No, that doesn't even make sense. I think we're getting off in the weeds at this point.

>what is being exploited
according to steam, it's simply about "representing" them

oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/niplheims-hunter-lust-brand-prostitute-dlc-banned-from-steam-for-exploitation-of-minors/79756/
oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/hentai-nation-banned-from-steam-for-child-exploitation-even-though-it-contains-no-kids/79230/
oneangrygamer.net/2019/01/ayura-crisis-was-banned-from-steam-for-prurient-representation-or-exploitation-of-minors/75552/
oneangrygamer.net/2018/12/valve-now-bans-games-on-steam-for-child-exploitation-school-settings-according-to-dev/73665/
oneangrygamer.net/2018/12/cross-love-episode-1-banned-from-steam-for-child-exploitation/72941/
oneangrygamer.net/2018/11/imolicious-reportedly-banned-from-steam-for-allegedly-exploiting-children/72008/

Sio sorry

Attached: 1555775984376m.jpg (576x1024, 42K)

FUCK
You didn't hjave to post this

Attached: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg (633x758, 56K)

Well, Steam is a different story. Steam has a goal to cater to a wider audience, I think they're probably smart to just err on the side of more restriction than is strictly necessary to maximize profits. There's plenty of outlets to support loli fans, and Valve isn't obligated to be one of them

LOLIS ARE AWESOME. No need to argue about anything related to them. Just enjoy.

The subject of matter of loli hentai aren't children because children aren't drawings. The subject of matter of loli hentai are fictional characters that happen to haver certain looks similar to legal women over 18 yo with small features. Be happy and here is a loli for you. Don't worry, no explosive girls were harmed in the creation of this image

Attached: 48c95262bd2db39275b1915a8da661ca0170b90e293e2d1cc3598be3d35afd79.jpg (480x642, 49K)

steam said they're going to be indiscriminatory when it comes to content, but that doesn't seem to be the case
>MUH ADVERTISERS
certainly isn't a valid argument
wouldn't they want more people to buy their products?
there are tons of people who were looking forward to releases that steam banned, that it wasn't just about lolis

My position is: depictions (without a subject) of anything, rape, lolis, murder, etc. are just that, depictions. Depictions of this type -cannot- by their nature be exploitative.

Any depictions (with a subject) of rape, lolis, murder, etc. -are- by their nature exploitative.

Are we out of the weeds now?

Technically yes as long as they could prove it was just a drawing. I honestly wouldn't even be attracted to a hyper-realistic lolis because of it feel too real for me to actually enjoy it. Because the idea of actually fucking a real child is repulsive to me and I'm attracted to properly developed women IRL. It's mainly the detachment from reality and the creation of situations that would most likely be impossible

Attached: pedotine.png (885x1200, 876K)

Nah dude, you don't get it. I live in a shithole where the banks are cunts that won't accept purchases of anything +18 (it's not illegal, they're just cunts), also paypal
Steam is one of the only outlets of which i can support and legally purchase these games, but now they're also taking the SJW route, like Sony.

Maybe? By subject, I'm not necessarily referring to ONLY the situation at hand. Like the subject of a picture can be the person in the picture, or it could be the situation, or it could be many things. For instance, in photography, your subject is whatever is meant to be paid attention to in the photo. Whether that be a person, a tree, pitch blackness, etc. I'm maybe using subject in a different context, sorry if that's where the confusion came in.

Fuck onehungry gamer cpbessoin

No actual child involved. No harm done.
Legality can be whatever they want it to be.

Is it child molestation if you GF is 18, but looks and dresses very young to the point that everyone thinks she's a child? No.

Kys

Ehh, if I was valve, and I felt the threat of my mainstream audience leaving was greater than the threat of a niche audience leaving, I'd cater to the mainstream. But I'm a filthy capitalist, so there.

>live in a shithole
Well there's your first problem, son. I'm an American. I don't have time to care about places like that.

Kidding of course, I do agree that unnecessary government censorship is a problem anywhere in the world. But Steam is a private corporation, so I don't think they have the same obligation to libertarian values that the government does.

But the only part of a picture that -could- be exploited would be a living subject, not the things around it. Unless someone can explicitly point to the actual living subject of a loli image, there is no pretext to assume that it -did- have a a living subject. Ultimately the onus is on the accuser to prove that a loli image is based on an actual subject.

Yes, in fact it's violent rape, and even if she lives, it would be considered murder to any reasonable person. In fact, for simply putting those words in that order, you should be gassed.

In fact, for even allowing you to live this long, I should also be gassed.

>I felt the threat of my mainstream audience leaving
this is a meme
in reality it doesn't really happen
steam could easily just implement a region lock if they think that a game is violating a country's law
another thing they could easily implement is a separate hentai or porn section, it's not that hard
most of the time, complaints from plebbit are like
>HURR DURR i don't want this hentai garbage in my front pageee

as far as i'm concerned,
real child = crime
drawn child = no crime
you base your real looking porn off real porn = a nearly black grey area
you make a realistic drawing with no real porn reference = you disgust me, but no crime

this is how I see it. I care that a real person was harmed, not the rights of imaginary creatures.

That's not entirely unreasonable, and I'd have to ponder it a bit more to know if I agree entirely, but I think we're a lot closer to agreeing than before.

I think the argument got off because someone claimed that pornography doesn't necessarily involve subjects. Which is just a wacky claim, and I maybe should have just let it go.

The law was also challenged and found to be in violation of the first amendment. In the supreme court. Drawn images that were produced without the use of real references are consodered artistic.

US law is not only written law but case law and precedent. Obscenity laws are still on many state books but no one is prosecuted JUST for obscenity.

Memes is moneh baybeh. Memes is moneh.

Attached: d5c.jpg (297x365, 36K)

Misread, you covered already. Very nice quads though, I do say so myself.

I mean, any depictions of anything have a subject in one way or another except maybe abstractions.

>Steam erring on the side of restriction
Wew lad, have you seen the shovelware and exploitative games about mass shootings they sell?

Attached: 1532469907575.jpg (197x255, 7K)

Yeah, exactly. Glad that one got worked out, I was kinda worried the argument turned into too much of a hot mess to actually suss that one out.

Well... okay you got a point there. We're all hypocrites, friendo. Especially when shekels are involved.

user is onto something here. It's the act of producing the CP that is the crime.

I think the real reason it's not being debated is that no one wants to take such a case into the legal system and fight it to the death. We argue about shit all the time, but the real discussions come in court. Look at Trump right now -- he's refusing to comply with laws/customs/tradition. No one really knows how to proceed, because no one has done this before. These fights will make their way to the courts, where we will have to really figure out where the line is.

Some states in the south are passing laws restricting abortion as a strategy to start a fight that makes it to the Supreme Court, which they hope will change its stance.

Imagine if someone did that with CP -- purposely used it but in a way that dances right on the line between legal and illegal. Pleads not guilty. Hires top notch legal team and makes his case directly to the people on Twitter and TV. Would force us to answer some of these questions.

Shh, don't say Trump. This thread was fiery enough without bringing him into it.

I think another question is where does modeling fall?
I saw some anons in another thread say it's legal, but I dunno.

Apologies, I don't want /pol/ coming in either; those were just the first analogies that came to mind.

The thread is proving my point -- everyone is pointing to various laws and judicial rulings (which are often in conflict with each other). Imagine if someone spent years planning the perfect case, one designed from the start to end up in SCOTUS. Would be fascinating.

Can't argue with that

Attached: giphy.gif (500x236, 498K)