Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

14,150 total conversations in 684 threads

+ New Thread


Debate CP

Last posted Jan 14, 2015 at 05:59PM EST. Added Jan 08, 2015 at 08:05PM EST
68 posts from 26 users

So, because a certain Riff Raff thread is being derailed with hardcore debates over whether animated child porn is morally acceptable or not, I made a place where it actually belongs. I just thought it was an interesting debate and thought it should continue where it belongs.


While you guys debate, this man will be observing. He just likes debates and stuff, don't mind him.

The point i made in the riff-raff thread still stands. Sexual attraction to children is fucked up, real or not real does not and should not matter.

TripleA9000 wrote:

The point i made in the riff-raff thread still stands. Sexual attraction to children is fucked up, real or not real does not and should not matter.

What makes it wrong though? It seems like all anyone ever says is that it's wrong because it is. Could you support that at all? Just because it sickens you personally doesn't make it wrong. Homophobes use the same logic for gays. They don't like it even if it hurts no one so they think it should stop. Of course real cp has obvious negatives, but what problems does animated cp bring up that make it totally wrong?

@i can't make original names

The same goes for you. What makes it bad other than your own preferences? You have to support your side. If it's truly harmless who gives a fuck what people do with their own time. Unless you can prove it actually harms other people than they should be able to watch what they watch despite your disgust.

Last edited Jan 08, 2015 at 08:16PM EST

Truthfully, no. Unless in context or to build the world (Aka: Akira) it's just pathetic to make or watch it. I usually assume that anyone on this site who says they watch or make it are just joking, but this site has suprised me with idiotic things before…

And my point still remains. At the core of it all, yes, it sick, wrong, and fucked up. But none of it is necessarily a crime until it affects an actual person in a legitimate, and realistically negative way. Going after a person for liking fictional children makes as much sense as going after a person who likes fictional rape, murder, etc.

TripleA9000 wrote:

Start at 5:08 for my response to sam

My point isn't "it's not real, so what's the big deal". My point is regardless of how you, me, or anyone else feels, those people are the way they are. It's alright to disagree, disregard, or even hate them for it, but the idea that they deserve to die or rot away in jail just for the simple thought of it is what I take issue with.

In the end, let's face it, we live in a fucked up world. But It's nothing new, it's always been this way and likely will always stay this way. The only thing that's changed is people being able to be slightly more open about this kind of stuff. Policing people with pushy social morality and personal feelings won't erase these issues, to put simply, it's just one more thing that we all gotta either ignore, hate, or accept and move on.

Last edited Jan 08, 2015 at 08:54PM EST

The vid doesn't explain why it's wrong though. It just uses sarcasm and says it is wrong. It's just rewording what you said. He says the idea of it is sickening so it's wrong. That's not a valid reason. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad. The idea of it influencing people to do it for real is also flawed logic as particle explained with simulated murder and simulated rape and all that. My points still stand.

@Fidchell

I'd go a bit farther and say you shouldn't hate them for something they mostly can't help. It's like hating gay people but supporting their right to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Is it a valid option? Yes it is, but hating people for something harmless because you think it's gross isn't a very good attitude to have. I'm not going to try to argue that much over whether you should like them or not though, just the overall morality.

Last edited Jan 08, 2015 at 08:50PM EST

Slutty Sam wrote:

What makes it wrong though? It seems like all anyone ever says is that it's wrong because it is. Could you support that at all? Just because it sickens you personally doesn't make it wrong. Homophobes use the same logic for gays. They don't like it even if it hurts no one so they think it should stop. Of course real cp has obvious negatives, but what problems does animated cp bring up that make it totally wrong?

@i can't make original names

The same goes for you. What makes it bad other than your own preferences? You have to support your side. If it's truly harmless who gives a fuck what people do with their own time. Unless you can prove it actually harms other people than they should be able to watch what they watch despite your disgust.

It feels like it gives the idea that first of all watchers of anime will be stereotyped as loli fapping losers and that it will be a substitute for all porn, think of some fucked up teen boys fapping off to drawn cp made by, say some teen girls oc that represents her. Sure it a specific sounding situation but that dosen't mean it won't happpen. Also there could be double standards, say some on makes child porn anime with boys ( Boku no pico). People would flip out like they did, but no one would do it if it was a girl if we treat it as not harming anyone.

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

for what it's worth derailing is allowed in riff-raff. I guess this thread can serve the kind of people who wish to defend pedophiles, but would not like to be called rude names over it.

this is basically the same thing as blaming the videogames for making someone violent, blaming something that has no relation other than fiction makes no sense. look at japan. it has strong perversions (murder/rape/lolicon) yet still holds one of the lowest crime/rape rate in the world.

Last edited Jan 08, 2015 at 08:54PM EST

Children in my porn disgust me. Children being exploited disgusts me more. I am intolerant of rape in my porn and especially intolerant if that involves kids.

So what do I do? We'll I simply don't look at loli/shota. If I don't like it I can choose to filter it out on my porn sites.

Do I judge people who do like loli? No!

It isn't fair at all to blatantly assume that everyone who likes little japanese girls must be an actual kiddie toucher. Do I find it fucked up? Yea I kinda do, just like I think scat is fucked up too. But let's look at the fact here: The nature of many fetishes is that they are fantasy for the people who enjoy them. I know many scatophiles have never touched shit. Many zoophiles will never touch an animal. And many loliphiles have never touched kids. Perhaps some might, but you can't throw around crass accusations like that without incriminating evidence

Frankly some people here are just being bigoted and superficial

Talk to many loli fans and they'll tell you that they just like the artwork and have no intention of fiddling with real kids. In the same way that gamers like me who grew up committing virtual manslaughter on mass scales; have no intention of harming anyone. I can't even stand the thought of causing pain to anyone

Do actual pedo's like loli? Maybe some do. However did they become pedo's for looking at loli? Or did they like loli for being pedo's in the first place?

We need substantial proof before we claim the former and pretend that all the loli fans here are currently doing something illegal

Speaking of illegalities, any photography that shows real kids being exploited is indeed very illegal. But last I checked, fictional artwork is not.

So going back to this particular site:
We're a meme site. We are not the internet police. It's not our job or our interest to start banning/harassing users over some fetish they have.

That said, I hope CP stays off this site and never graces it.

Last edited Jan 08, 2015 at 10:16PM EST

Alright, let me think up a good analogy…
Aha, got one.
So imagine this- a guy's got a boss who's a real asshole and treats him like shit (at least from his perspective). As a result, when he's alone and bored, he often finds himself fantasizing about murdering the guy. He really can't help it, and he also can't help but enjoy these ideas very thoroughly. Is he actually going to pull it off? Does he even think that would be a moral thing to do? Probability says no to both of those, because a human, being a social creature, is supposed to have a build-in rudimentary code of ethics that would tell him it's wrong to take another life for almost any reason.
Now let's say that the guy has dreamed for many years of being an author. He's going to finally attempt to seek that dream, partly so he can maybe escape his nightmare of a job. But it's got to be something he's really interested in and would enjoy writing, or he won't have the motivation to pull it off. So ultimately, it's those fantasies that he chooses as his inspiration. Does he literally write about himself assassinating that jackass. No, because… well, that'd be fucking stupid, and debatably wrong. Instead, all the characters and everything besides the basic situation are totally fictional. And with it being fiction, he adds fantastical elements to the story that most likely wouldn't happen in a million years.
And so it becomes a huge bestseller- largely due to those disgruntled workers all across the world. Though they're thrilled and ask to themselves "what if", just like the man who's name is on the cover they know it's wrong to murder someone just because they're kind of a jerk. Perhaps someone would be "inspired" by the text to actually attempt something crazy like that. But guess what? That person was a psycho anyway. So, was it wrong to write the book and to sell it, and for those people to buy and relish in it, just because the basic act depicted is heinous, despite the fact they pretty much all agree with that sentiment?

Of course, this doesn't make for a perfect comparison, but I think it's at least clear what I'm getting at.

Papa Coolface wrote:

Anyone who views CP should be whipped.
Anyone who produces CP should be gassed.

… Perhaps you should move this to the Riff Raff version of this thread…

0.9999...=1 wrote:

To that man, all of KYM is his Riff-Raff.

Um, did you just call me a "man"? I identify as a minor-key tonal harmonic concerto-kin, please check your privilege.

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

There is no debate to be had, if you're actively seeking out images of underage girls for fap material (even if its a drawing, not real or whatever) then you are a paedophile. Saying "but muh anime girl is ackually 400 years old she just looks 10" is an almost laughable scapegoat at trying to convince yourself, and others, that you're not a fucked up deviant.

We live in a modern day society with laws and standards. CP exists illegally if you are viewing it you are committing a crime no matter what way you twist it.

Also why are people defending paedophiles in here?

@Kapitän Laika

Child Pornography is illegal because it is harmful to and takes advantage of the under-aged. I don't see how an inappropriate drawing of one of the girls from pokemon is very harmful. And as a fucking drawing it falls under freedom of speech and cannot be illegal.

When you give people the authority to police others based on what they might do or what they think, that's thought-policing. It is not anyone's right to tell people how they think or what they want to feel, As long as it doesn't infringe upon people's human rights, what's wrong with having a fantasy life? Just because you have rape fantasies doesn't make you a rapist.
I have heard the same BS about MLP, "You like MLP, you must be a pedo" and "yo like MLP, you must want to fuck animals". Same goes for liking furry art. Fantasy can be what ever you want. If you are into fantasies about homestuck kids is that more acceptable than that of anime loli, furry, or pony?
I grew up before the internet and always had a great imagination. I still got into some very kinky fetishes when I was still a teen. One of my favorite ones right now is wincest and I don't even have a sister. I just always liked the more taboo fantasies. I like reading it more than seeing pics of it.

Laika wrote:

There is no debate to be had, if you're actively seeking out images of underage girls for fap material (even if its a drawing, not real or whatever) then you are a paedophile. Saying "but muh anime girl is ackually 400 years old she just looks 10" is an almost laughable scapegoat at trying to convince yourself, and others, that you're not a fucked up deviant.

We live in a modern day society with laws and standards. CP exists illegally if you are viewing it you are committing a crime no matter what way you twist it.

Also why are people defending paedophiles in here?

Really… really? We're going back to square one with this? sigh…okay.

So if I actively seek out gore pics I'm a deranged killer in the works? If I actively seek out hentai, or movies that involve rape I'm a rapist? If I enjoy playing games where I rob stores and steal goods I'm a thief? if I enjoy looking at furry porn does that mean I wanna go to the local zoo and plow all the animals in the exhibits?

Obviously no, so why wouldn't this issue be any different? Oh, that's right, because "muh morality says it's wrong". Is that honestly the best argument you, and others like you can come up with? It wrong because you say it is? Or because the "law" says it is. Hey, wanna know something crazy? Those laws were made by people like you, not people who look at situations rationally and in an unbiased manor to come to the best possible solution for all parties. Just, plain, average people who's thought process and decision making are often dictated by emotions, personal feelings, and whatever that society's general sense of morality is. Need an example? Look at Japan, their age of consent is 13, an age that would seem ludicrous in most other places, but according to "their" society and "their" morals, it's a-ok. Does that make them wrong? No, because it's how "their" sense of morality views it.

So no, looking at fictional work isn't legitimately or fundamentally wrong, it's "morally wrong". Morals are determined by people, and are therefore inprecise and easily altered to fit whatever criteria calls for it. As started before, your morals, his morals, her morals, and my morals are more than likely all different, and at the core none of them are right, but at the same time none of them are wrong.

Case in point, get over yourselves. Things don't have to be "right" to "you" for people to do or enjoy them. If yo have a problem with it, that's fine, but don't try to take a self deluded moral high ground and proclaim to the world that the way you and/or that society views things are how it should be.

(Obviously viewing actual CP is wrong for a number of reasons that go FAR beyond what was listed above, but that's not what this topic's about.)

Last edited Jan 09, 2015 at 05:02AM EST

Here's a thought. We are at a point where (most of) society accepts that if you're gay, that's something that's out of your control. You can't choose what you are attracted to.

The same goes for something like this. And if people are having a hard time supressing their urges they need to get help, because unlike with homosexuals, you can't act on that attraction.

IMO, loli and similar things in stuff like hentai is a good alternative for people who are into that kinda stuff. I don't like it myself, but it doesn't hurt anyone. Besides, liking loli =/= liking real underage kids automatically.

Obviously, if you go rape a minor (or anyone, really) or produce or watch CP, you should be punished. But if someone's attracted to younger kids, that's not their choice. Just like if you're attracted to the same sex. Or to nothing at all.

So, is it wrong, even if nothing illegal ever happens? I don't see why.

Tbh I rather have (potentional) pedophiles check out loli/shota on the internet for their fap fuel than checking out actual CP.

I'm not going to excuse them for actual preferring CP, whether real or animated. But if they can hold themselves back from actually harassing kids because they are able to release themselves with media of animated lolis/shotas, then I'll just look at them checking out animated porn as a necessary sacrifice.

For comparison, priests harassing young kids got to that level because they were never able to release themselves otherwise. If people have to repress their sexual urges, that's when they become dangerous on the long term. And I rather prevent that from happening.


Here's an addition to the topic though:

What if the person looking up the animated CP is still underage him/herself? Would you still consider it pedophilia, disgusting, and not socially acceptable? I'm not talking about large age gaps here, so for an example lets take a 15-16 year old looking at 10-12 year old loli/shota stuff.

@laika

Also why are people defending paedophiles in here?

Nobody is defending pedo's. Nobody likes pedo's. CP is illegal and those who indulge in the exploitation of kids can an hero themselves

What people ARE defending however is the basic right to indulge in whatever fucked up fictional artistry they fancy (because whenever CP is mentioned, loli always gets dragged into it).

Points to consider:

1. lolicon is not necessarily the same as actual CP
2. Drawn fictional accounts are not committing the same crime as the real thing.
3. Desiring loli artwork does not directly translate to a desire for child predation

@RandomMan

A person has to be at least sixteen years of age and five or more years older than the object of sexual interest in order for the attraction to be medically classified as paedophilia. Technically speaking, a fifteen-year-old could be attracted to a child as young as eleven without said attraction being any indication of mental health issues.

Those are the facts as biology has it; the teenager in your scenario would not be classified as a paedophile. "Socially acceptable" is an entirely different beast – there is no doubt that there are people out there who believe that any sexual attraction towards a child, regardless of the age of the person displaying interest, is innately wrong. I can't find any data on what the general public thinks, unfortunately, so there's not much I can contribute here in the way of facts.

I fully agree with the bulk of your post. Having access to pornography makes it far easier for a person to repress their sexual desires in real life. Fun fact: Utah, arguably the most socially conservative state in the US, leads the nation in consumption of pornography.

@Mare

Laws and definitions differ per nation, so you can't say your post applies globablly.

Also, this is a thread about opinions, so I don't exactly care how biology describes it, so please don't be a smartass now. What I'm interested in is how people look at the person when he/she is below the age of 18, and if they will judge them the same as a person above 18 looking up loli/shota.

Also similar fun fact: The most christian places and communities in my country are known to consume the most porn. So yeah that applies elsewhere as well.

Last edited Jan 09, 2015 at 06:04AM EST

@RandomMan

My post isn't about subjective laws, though. The technical definition of "paedophilia" is a matter of universal medical documentation of human biology and psychology; it is not up to opinion. You specifically asked in your post whether or not the teenager would be considered a paedophile, and I gave you your answer.

Like I said – social acceptance is a different beast, and that is where the conversation should take place, because that is where the subjectivity is.

Last edited Jan 09, 2015 at 06:26AM EST

I think CP (as in actual CP made with real kids) is bad, but if you look at loli manga/anime or pictures, it's not horrible because you can vent your fetish without resorting to anything horrible.

honest question: do lolicon fans actually deny that children's bodies turn them on?
imo the difference between violent movies, games and such, is that the sensible viewer can still distance himself from what happens on the screen. if i shoot my friend in battlefield, i don't actually fantasise about killing him.
but i find it hard to believe that you can distance yourself from the fiction if you're really into lolicon, since you still direct your desire towards a sexualised child's body (what you obviously do, IF you jerk off to lolicon). yes, it's fictional, no, you don't harm real children, but you do fantasise about bodies with undeveloped primary and secondary sexual characteristics, no matter how old they are "in lore".

i'm not really buying the "it's better for the pedos to fap to 2d children" argument either, people who already have that kind of preference will only gain an illusion of control and maybe some short-term relief and "satisfaction" of their desires, but if you're really having such tendencies, lolicon will most likely do more bad than it does good over mid- to long-term. therapy is the only thing these people need.

Dabiddo - Kun wrote:

honest question: do lolicon fans actually deny that children's bodies turn them on?
imo the difference between violent movies, games and such, is that the sensible viewer can still distance himself from what happens on the screen. if i shoot my friend in battlefield, i don't actually fantasise about killing him.
but i find it hard to believe that you can distance yourself from the fiction if you're really into lolicon, since you still direct your desire towards a sexualised child's body (what you obviously do, IF you jerk off to lolicon). yes, it's fictional, no, you don't harm real children, but you do fantasise about bodies with undeveloped primary and secondary sexual characteristics, no matter how old they are "in lore".

i'm not really buying the "it's better for the pedos to fap to 2d children" argument either, people who already have that kind of preference will only gain an illusion of control and maybe some short-term relief and "satisfaction" of their desires, but if you're really having such tendencies, lolicon will most likely do more bad than it does good over mid- to long-term. therapy is the only thing these people need.

So what your saying is because you like something in fictional form you automatically like it in it's realistic form as well? And there's apparently "no denying it" because you say so? Or does that only apply to this specific issue because it makes you uncomfortable and you disagree with it?

And ya know there's a reason why a lot of people flock to sexualized animated characters rather than actual people. It allows they to project whatever unrealistic attributes and characteristics they want on them, attributes that would otherwise be impossible on an actual person.

So to answer your question, yes, that type of body form obviously does turn them on, but that doesn't mean everyone's who's into it's gonna pop a boner when they walk next to a grade schooler…no. And if you honestly and who hardheartedly stand by that kind of thinking, then you're thinking with your morals and emotions, not your brain.

Last edited Jan 09, 2015 at 09:05PM EST

Dabiddo - Kun wrote:

honest question: do lolicon fans actually deny that children's bodies turn them on?
imo the difference between violent movies, games and such, is that the sensible viewer can still distance himself from what happens on the screen. if i shoot my friend in battlefield, i don't actually fantasise about killing him.
but i find it hard to believe that you can distance yourself from the fiction if you're really into lolicon, since you still direct your desire towards a sexualised child's body (what you obviously do, IF you jerk off to lolicon). yes, it's fictional, no, you don't harm real children, but you do fantasise about bodies with undeveloped primary and secondary sexual characteristics, no matter how old they are "in lore".

i'm not really buying the "it's better for the pedos to fap to 2d children" argument either, people who already have that kind of preference will only gain an illusion of control and maybe some short-term relief and "satisfaction" of their desires, but if you're really having such tendencies, lolicon will most likely do more bad than it does good over mid- to long-term. therapy is the only thing these people need.

"therapy"
Oh boy.
Yeah well, there's a problem there. Sexual preferences cling to the human brain for dear life like barnacles on the bottom of an old boat. Obviously, if we could just zap the attraction to children away with a magic lazer or something that'd be great (and I think most would volunteer for it too), but it ain't gonna happen until we make fuck knows how many dozens of advancements in neurology and surgical technology. (BTW, this excludes very rare cases where the onset of a brain tumor seemed to have actually caused such feelings to emerge, though even there it's virtually impossible to actually prove that.)
So what we're left with is "therapy" to solve the problem. And guess what? You know how everybody with a functioning neuron knows "conversion therapy" is twenty-seven tons of bullshit? There's no concrete studies that show such a process would work any better for pedophiles. At the very best, you'd get someone who seems to be "cured", but is really just a walking time-bomb a la A Clockwork Orange.

Also, if you're going to claim that viewing animated porn makes those people more likely to assault real children in the "mid- to long- term", you'd better damn well have some evidence to back that assertion up. Your "feelings" on a matter don't constitute the truth.

Last edited Jan 09, 2015 at 10:35PM EST

When it comes to lolicon, i think it should be legal: It keeps pedophiles from doing shit like watching or making ACTUAL CP, sexual harassment directed at children, etc.
It should be legal.
You should be able to do anything when it comes to animation.

Actual CP it should be pretty obvious why it's illegal and why it should be illegal.

thanks for reading out what you'd like to read being a dick.
obviously pedophilia, other than paraphilias directed towards lifeless objects, or sexual orientations like homosexuality, zoophilia etc. can not live out their sexuality, because they can never have consensual sex with the object of their desires (does not apply to lifeless objects).
therapy doesn't necessarily mean "conversion therapy", but obviously these people can't be let alone as "walking time-bombs", as you've described them, which would be in the interest of both parties. i think you might have enough neurons to understand that. i know very well that you can't "zap things away" with "magic lasers", and i sure know that the inhibition thereshold to admit you're a pedophile is very high, but anonymous help exists, various self-help groups and therapy (meaning suppressing/ controlling those desires, not magically becoming attracted to grown human beings). medication is rather problematic, effects are questionable and side effects rather dramatic.
i deliberately said that the first was a question (not knowing any professed loli-fan personally) and mentioned at the beginning of the second part that it was a opinion. i also never said that there's "no denying" that lolicon must fondle real children. but apparently anyone who strays from the general "it no real, so it ok" consensus isn't welcome to post here and will get his words twisted.

So we're dicks for picking apart what you wrote and interpreting it for what it appeared to imply?

Dude, this is a debate thread, the whole point is to pick apart one another's opinions and arguments. If we all just rubbed each other on the back and supported whatever came out of everyone's mouth then what the heck's the point of a debate?

But getting back to the topic. Since when was the general consensus "it no real, so it ok"? Who in this thread has tried to argue that specific point? Also really? Slandering the opposing side by personifying them as illiterate idiots, just because your feelings got hurt? What are you, 10?

Last edited Jan 10, 2015 at 08:17PM EST

I say it's not real, just like the stories on 4chan
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Anyone who takes fictional stories and says it's damaging is a retard (my opinion).
As for how people react to such stories, I could write an erotic story, you could read it, get turned on, and you don't find out till the end that it's a 12 year old. Are you know a Pedo for being turned on by the story? Are you going to go out and rape little kids because you read it?

Baron O Beefdip wrote:

So we're dicks for picking apart what you wrote and interpreting it for what it appeared to imply?

Dude, this is a debate thread, the whole point is to pick apart one another's opinions and arguments. If we all just rubbed each other on the back and supported whatever came out of everyone's mouth then what the heck's the point of a debate?

But getting back to the topic. Since when was the general consensus "it no real, so it ok"? Who in this thread has tried to argue that specific point? Also really? Slandering the opposing side by personifying them as illiterate idiots, just because your feelings got hurt? What are you, 10?

i consider assuming the least intelligent vis-a-vis possible to be quite a dickmove, i never even hinted that i believe in any kind of "conversion therapy"-style approach.
i find it funny you take offense in my wording of "it no real, so it ok", only to give me "what are you, 10?" as a follow-up and assuming my feelings got hurt.
scrolling through this thread it's probably the only reasonable argument i've seen (how witty, to ask me to point my finger at certain posters), mostly paired with the "animited violence doesn't turn you into a killer" analogy, which i find lacking.
i expected some reasonable answer, but got my words nit-picked. yes, "debate".

TripleA9000 wrote:

Start at 5:08 for my response to sam

Yeah, the funny thing is that his reasoning is pretty much the same as the one used by conservatives on why ultra violent video games should be banned. When used in that context people ridicule it, saying things like " if GTA makes me a murderer, FIFA makes me a soccer player, surgeon simulator makes me a surgeon, etc"
Why is it a valid point when speaking about lolicon? Saying lolicon is wrong just because it sickens you isn't a valid point either.

Last edited Jan 11, 2015 at 10:49AM EST

Dac wrote:

Yeah, the funny thing is that his reasoning is pretty much the same as the one used by conservatives on why ultra violent video games should be banned. When used in that context people ridicule it, saying things like " if GTA makes me a murderer, FIFA makes me a soccer player, surgeon simulator makes me a surgeon, etc"
Why is it a valid point when speaking about lolicon? Saying lolicon is wrong just because it sickens you isn't a valid point either.

Exactly, i'm sick of morons who can't understand that the law shouldn't abide to their feelings.
I mean, imagine if I tried to make /b/ illegal with my only argument being that it sickens me (it doesn't IRL, but whatever).
I would be ridiculed, and deservedly so.

My point is, your/mine/anyone's feels have no basis in an argument, and could easily be qualified as a ''appeal to emotion'' fallacy.

Dabiddo - Kun wrote:

i consider assuming the least intelligent vis-a-vis possible to be quite a dickmove, i never even hinted that i believe in any kind of "conversion therapy"-style approach.
i find it funny you take offense in my wording of "it no real, so it ok", only to give me "what are you, 10?" as a follow-up and assuming my feelings got hurt.
scrolling through this thread it's probably the only reasonable argument i've seen (how witty, to ask me to point my finger at certain posters), mostly paired with the "animited violence doesn't turn you into a killer" analogy, which i find lacking.
i expected some reasonable answer, but got my words nit-picked. yes, "debate".

And "I" find it funny that you assume I took offense to your arbitrary zinger, pointing something out doesn't mean it bothers you. And no, you aren't looking for a "reasonable answer", you're looking for a response that goes along with and caters to your standpoint on this issue.

Dabiddo - Kun wrote:

i consider assuming the least intelligent vis-a-vis possible to be quite a dickmove, i never even hinted that i believe in any kind of "conversion therapy"-style approach.
i find it funny you take offense in my wording of "it no real, so it ok", only to give me "what are you, 10?" as a follow-up and assuming my feelings got hurt.
scrolling through this thread it's probably the only reasonable argument i've seen (how witty, to ask me to point my finger at certain posters), mostly paired with the "animited violence doesn't turn you into a killer" analogy, which i find lacking.
i expected some reasonable answer, but got my words nit-picked. yes, "debate".

Bullshit.
I didn't nit-pick your words, I picked your flimsy "arguments" apart. And when I said no solid evidence existed to show that therapy works for pedophiles, I wasn't just referring to the direct equivalent of conversion therapy but any kind of therapy that professes to make them not act on their desires in any way. Perhaps if you wanted to make me the fool, you could have thought about trying to find some.
But for course I could criticize your language, because man-oh-man is it easy here. Like… "which I find lacking". Yeah. Nice refutation there. Really complex rebuttal. So much detail.
Also, I might be wrong, but I don't think you have any idea what "vis-a-vis" means.

Dabiddo - Kun wrote:

i consider assuming the least intelligent vis-a-vis possible to be quite a dickmove, i never even hinted that i believe in any kind of "conversion therapy"-style approach.
i find it funny you take offense in my wording of "it no real, so it ok", only to give me "what are you, 10?" as a follow-up and assuming my feelings got hurt.
scrolling through this thread it's probably the only reasonable argument i've seen (how witty, to ask me to point my finger at certain posters), mostly paired with the "animited violence doesn't turn you into a killer" analogy, which i find lacking.
i expected some reasonable answer, but got my words nit-picked. yes, "debate".

Nah, I find you find it lacking because you don't agree with it, but it is a solid point. You however are just using your personal views and assumptions as a basis for an argument against lolicon. I find that lacking. You have brought nothing to the table. I should just say


But I will elaborate a bit.
You mentioned that you don't think that killing people in a video isn't the same because you don't fantasize about killing people in real life, while lolicons do fantasize about sex with real kids. That's a pretty bold claim. what people find attractive In anime, manga, or hentai doesn't always reflect what they like in real life. I love Miia from monster musume, but I can't imagine finding a real life snake monster attractive. I like the h scenes in demonbane, but I don't find children attractive.

I have no problem with Loli/Shota existing, I understand it's a drawing and such, however I personally feel it is pretty sick shit and no offense to the people who like that stuff but I will probably think less of you. I don't understand how anyone could like it but that's just me, maybe I can't grasp the appeal of watching pretend children in situations which are at best horrible. In the end I think it's disgusting but if you're not causing any harm it's OK I guess.

I know you wont care what I think (because I will probably not care about your opinion) but I still feel like I have to say that the people who watch that sick stuff are disgusting people.

Last edited Jan 11, 2015 at 04:50PM EST

You fap to your loli porn, but didn't actually fuck a underaged girl? Good then. It's good to love anything unless you'll hurt people.

It's like clop too. I fap to ponies, but do I go to a fard and shove my dick in a ponut? Of course not. That'd be ridiculous.

TL;DR: Like whatever fetishes you like, unless you don't actually commit any sort of crime, I won't judge.

Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Hey! You must login or signup first!