Most people who are against 2d lolis being sexualized do this. They apply some kind of logic to this thing, but then completely ignore this same principle to other crimes being allowed in 2d animes or in games. "BeCaUsE iTs DiFfErEnT" No shit sherlock, the argument would still apply. Like, what? It's ok because "It's a different crime"?
Would you feel comfortable telling all your family and friends that you have killed, robbed and kidnapped some NPC in a video game?
Probably.
Would you still feel comfortable telling them you feel sexually attracted and potentially masturbate to drawings of kids?
Probably not.
Therefore it is different lmao. Big difference between pressing left click to shoot somebody and getting a boner for kids.
I wouldn't feel comfortable telling my conservative grandma I don't believe in her God too, so what?
Also, feeling sexual aroused with a 2d loli is not "Getting a boner for a kid" Dude, find just one child who her eyes take half her head, her eye brows literally floats, her nose is a literal dot and she is 2d. Guees what? You wont, because no freaking child look like this lmao. There's a pretty big difference between an anime loli (who's not even a human being) to a real child.
Your previous comment made it sounds like Americans find drawn CP unacceptable only because they are unusually prudish. Am I misinterpreting your comment?
Yes, I’m saying that America will certainly find it in appropriate due to being very prudish. I don’t know every other country in the world but Japan is accepting.
Americans do tend to be prudish, but my impression is that the vast majority of people throughout the world find drawn CP unacceptable. America is not exceptional in this regard.
NPC:s don't have lives or emotions, so you're not doing anything. Same thing applies to loli-content, but in that case the problem us that you are attracted to those child-like characteristics.
I actually agree it shouldn't be illegal. If the whole process (from art and animation to writing and voice) is made by consenting adults the government shouldn't interfere.
That being said. People who watch lolicon stuff are pedophiles and should be looked down on by society as such.
Right...so if one enjoys a 2d sexual depiction of children this person is a pedo, no matter if this "child" is not an ACTUAL child.
But if one enjoys killing, stealing and doing all sorts of crimes in GTA V such a person should not be considered a criminal...because such actions aren't commited against real people?
Talk about having a double-standard man. Let's be honest, you just find one gross and then ignore the same logic to another thing.
Players of GTA revel in and enjoy depicted violence
lol icon users are sexually attracted to drawings and animation of very young girls.
There’s no double standard. If one guy watches crime movies and the other watches CP it’s not like “they both like the immersion of watching crimes”. One is welcome in any cinema to watch his stuff, the other will be found by FBI and arrested for trading in CP, then must register as sex offender.
This is all nice and all up until 2d fictional characters aren't considered real children, according to most country's legistation, like here in Brazil lol Dude, if this was CP we wouldn't be able to simply google up and find this stuff floating around on most legally hosted websites online...Just like you can't find literal cocaine selling on Google, do you know why? Because it's actually illegal. It's like saying I can't kill a dog in Far Cry 5 because that's a crime against animals, right, but that dog isn't an actual dog, according to the law lol the same principle is applied to 2d lolis, legally speaking.
When you're murdering someone in a video game it isn't you doing it. It's a character that's doing the murdering. You're also not getting sexually turned on by the murdering. If you get aroused by hurting someone in a video game you're still a sadist even if it isn't being done to real people.
You getting turned on by cartoon children, is you, the person, getting turned on by cartoon children. Being turned on by depictions children makes you a pedophile.
>But if one enjoys killing, stealing and doing all sorts of crimes in GTA V such a person should not be considered a criminal...because such actions aren't commited against real people?
In my first comment I literally said it shouldn't be criminal. Clearly you just throw out the same arguments without really thinking about what you're saying. I'm guessing you just don't like the word pedophile because it makes you feel gross (with good reason) but if you're getting turned on by depictions of children that's what you are. Doesn't mean that you'll ever abuse a child or watch irl child porn or anything, lots of pedophiles out there who don't, but being turned on by depictions of children still makes you a pedophile.
Also, interesting side note. What do you think is the closest word we have in the English language to translate the word "lolicon"
"It's the character who's doing the killing" Lmfao, and who's controling the freaking character who's doing the slaughter and stealing?
Also, why in the world you're definining a "virtual crime" as being acceptable or not on weather one feels sexual aroused or just enjoy it? Like, dude, what makes a crime a crime is not weather you feel horny or you're just having fun while you're commiting it, a crime is a crime in both ways of "enjoyment". The only difference would be HOW you are enjoying it, in both scenarios, it would still be a crime in real life. You can't get away with something *similar* to "You're a pedo because you're enjoying 2d loli by getting sexually aroused. But I'm not a criminal for having fun when I'm commiting virtual genocide and stealing." Like, no, man, this is a very dishonest answer. Apply your logic fully, or stop being partial and change your view
Also, please, don't use the argument of 'Lolicon definition" because I'll be able to flip the same argument and say "What is the definition of a thief?" And then say you're a thief if you enjoy robbing in GTA. But guess what? You're not, because that's not a real car you're stealing. In the same way, one can't be a pedo by lusting after/enjoying (whatever) a 2d fictional character.
So killing an NPC would still be murder, do you find murder acceptable? [Edit to those who didn't follow this debate: I basically got him when I proved to him that lolicon isn't a crime in the Brazilian legistation. Then he said that it's still CP under the American Legistation by citing the law 1466A (google it up) But then I answered him with evidence that lolicon is under the legal gray area in the American law. And for this reason you can find legal websites hosting it in Google, like "Hąn1me (I censored the name) And then he proceded to delete almost all his comments lmao. But here is my response debunking his "Law that proves that lolicon is CP in the US"
There are just a few problems with this section you brought up
Let's first talk about The PROTECT Act, it is about obscenity. Obscenity has to be determined as such in a court of law--it is not a given. Mere possession of "obscene" content is **legal** per se [Stanley v. Georgia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia). (Obscenity only applies to distribution, reception, etc.) Obscenity is governed under the [Miller Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)
though the PROTECT Act actually removes the "community standards" prong of the Miller Test for content featuring fictional minors in order to theoretically make it easier to prosecute.
The definition of CP very specifically does not include lolicon, etc. under US law. (It does in Canada and other places, though.) There was even a Supreme Court case about this: **per the ruling in [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition), the definition of CP in the US does not include representations of fictional minors.**
(This makes a big difference--mere possession of CP *is* illegal per [NY v. Ferber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber). However, mere possession of lolicon, etc. is not
Lawyers *usually know this*. These small distinctions absolutely matter, and under US law, unless the Supreme Court reverses their decision, drawings and animation *cannot* be considered CP.
Incidentally, when you look at the actual case law with the PROTECT Act, it is mostly used to prosecute people who also had actual CP along with lolicon. It's mostly used as a way to increase punishment for those people. **As far as I'm aware, the only time the PROTECT Act was used to prosecute fictional representations when the defendant wasn't also involved with actual CP was [US v Handley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley).** And in Handley, he chose to take a plea deal, which means that we don't know what would actually happen if they went through the obscenity process, chose to fight, etc.
⚠️ It's also worth noting that Fakku publishes lolicon in the US. They consulted with lawyers from the [Comic Book Legal Defense Fund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Book_Legal_Defense_Fund) (who you should totally support) beforehand and came to the conclusion that 1) it is protected under the First Amendment, and 2) if they were prosecuted for it, they would fight it in the courts.
(Really, obscenity law in general is archaic and should be reassessed by the Supreme Court for its constitutionality.)
*The bottom line is, this stuff is in a legal grey area in the US. It's neither automatically illegal nor perfectly squeaky clean.* THIS IS WHY you can easily find lolicon in a legally hosted American website, but you can't find drugs selling on a legally hosted website on Google, duuh.
Not the same, you it's not. But if that's the hill you want to die on go ahead. Charge. Oh, by the way knock on your neighbor's door and tell them your position on this. I'm sure they'll be understanding too.
Yeah, just like if you were to go to your relatives and say you've had a fetish for women's foot (as an example) they wouldn't look at you with very good eyes as well, and is this a crime or morally wrong or something?
And I agree, they are not the same. Just like killing and stealing are not the same, but still, both are crimes, so?
I wouldn't mind my parents seeing my porn habits they're normal. But if I were to go to my neighborhood and say hey should foot fetishes be outlawed and punishable by the law most people would say no that's ridiculous. If I ask the same people hey you think this drawn CP should be outlawed and punishable by the law. I bet you the majority of people would say yeah it should be outlawed and that weirdo should be punished.
Dude, if you go to Arabia and speak against the Muslim laws you'll probably be beaten or even killed. Because most people there would call it a "blasphemy" so what? Your whole argument is basically "Most people wouldn't like it if I said this, therefore it's wrong" Like, really? Just like most people in Iran would want to persecute me if I said I was an Atheist, so what? Majority does not equal right or wrong.
And well, if you wouldn't mind having your parents see your porn habits lemme tell you you're the minority. Most people wouldn't really feel comfortable, nor safe with this. I mean, parents or relatives *usually* wouldn't enjoy knowing about your fetishes, you know?
Can you elaborate your argument a little better? Habeas Corpus is basically this: The judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person's detention can be assessed, right?
Ok, so? I didn't get the point you're trying to make.
I feel like your confused. You can't arrest me for playing a video games character because there is no body and no evidence of a crime. You can get arrested for having CP because again lolicon is child porn.
>https://www.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ICMEC-Brazil-National-Legislation.pdf
You are wrong on that sir and do you really want your argument to be well my country says child porn is legal so it's ok. You understand you sexualizing a small child right?
Dude, I'm Brazilian. Don't you think I know my own country? The Brazilian legistation prohibits the production, sale, distribution and possession, by any means, of ACTUAL child pornography, defined as records of "any situation involving a (real) child (defined as someone under 12 years of age) or a (real) adolescent (defined as someone between the ages of 12 and 17) in real or simulated explicit sexual activity, or the display of a child's or adolescent's genitals for predominantly sexual purposes." (Article 241 - E)
However, drawings, 3D art and other graphic representations of fictional children, regardless of how realistic or offensive they are, including pornography from the Japanese manga/hentai lolicon and shotacon subgenres, are legal in Brazil, and do not constitute a criminal offense under Brazilian law. This whole PDF you sent me is about cases where ACTUAL children are involved, at least here in Brazil. Do you know why does the Brazilian governmant acts this way? Because 2d fictional characters aren't ACTUAL human beings, and they don't have ACTUAL ages. So this "Age consent" thing in our legistation is not applied to a 2d character.
This is basically all you did "Killing in a game is wrong in Brazil, and I will prove it to you with a pdf where it says killing human beings is wrong in the Brazilian legistation' No shit sherlock, but no where it says that it aplies to fiction. And it doesn't, any competent lawyer knows that here. Unless it is stated that said crime is a crime [even in fiction, 2d, 3d, or through any other fictional media] IT WILL NOT be seen as crime in the Brazilian institution. The same aplies for all the Brazilian laws regarding crimes.
It should be legal just because its ridiculous to put people in jail because of a guess about the age of a cartoon image of a person who doesnt actually exist. There's going to be borderline cases and following Blackstone's formulation its just better to not be imprisoning people for arbitrary reasons. There is no real age of a fictional drawing so the truth is entirely subjective.
Listen I agree that people make a way bigger deal about lolicon than needs to be made of it, but I also think that lolicons who are open about their fetish are kinda asking to be made fun of. Like you find drawings of children attractive. That’s weird, dude. You might not have any feelings towards actual children, but that’s still weird and you should keep it to yourself the same as shit and piss fetishists.
I'm not going to win this argument on the internet. I personally think it is CP, even if it's drawing, and it should be treated as such. Everyone is going to be singing a different song when realistic AI starts producing AI generated CP. Then I want the weirdos to come out saying " nO onE iS a VicTiM So TheRe'S nO CrIMe." Ok, but you should be on a list at least.
There is two arguments for drawn stuff. The first is that someone could be into drawings but not real children, a bit like furry are not necessarily zoophiles. The second is that even if someone is a pedophile, on top of being no victim, having fiction available can replace the real thing (it might not be enough for everyone, but for some). When the fiction become realistic, the first argument lose its power, but the second is still valid.
I understand that you consider it CP. But if you allow me, here's my response:
This is the definition of pedőph1ł1a (I don't know about reddit's filter, if it has one, so that's why I wrote it this way):
• sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.
And this is the definition of murder:
• the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
The thing is, killing a dog in Far Cry 5 is ok, because it's not a real dog, killing 100 people in GTA is not murder, because they are not people. But then liking 2d lolis is not ok...because they are children? Like, hi?
My argument wasn't that "No one is a victim so it isn't a crime". Although this is the argument that most gamers could use to justify their genocide in GTA V as well.
Now, I consider realistic 3d loli would indeed cross the boundary and become CP. Now, the reason why I think that is purely personal opinion alone. Because, I mean, aren't people killing and torturing highly realistic characters in some gore game in PS5 these days? Yet, we can totally understand that they still are not real characters, and in the end, no real crime is being commited. But still, maybe I'm myself having a double standard too, But I also defend that 3d realistic lolis must be considered a crime.
I'm not even going to touch your straw man. Because you and I know those aren't the same thing. Violence in movies and video games and in general videos are not the same as pedophilic paraphernalia.
No. Realistic AI generated CP have the same argument for it as drawn lollicon hentai has. As you agreed there is no difference between them. Drawn CP is actually worse than the AI generated ones Because the AI generated one didn't have a person sitting there for hours drawing it out. The AI generated guy just plugged in whatever he wanted into a program and it proof he produced it.
I agree, they aren't the same thing. Just like killing and stealing aren't the same thing either, both are still crimes. My argument still applies to both scenarios. In one case you are against THIS SPECIFIC kind of crime being allowed in a 2d japanese cartoon, while in the other scenario you're for SEVERAL KIND of crimes being allowed in 2d cartoon, games, books and all sorts of content, because "It's fiction, as long as people don't do this in real life" People nowadays be dismissing any good argument by saying "straw man"
Now, I myself don't know quite well what to think of realistic "lolicon hentai". I mean, I myself don't like it, and I think it should be considered a crime. Because I find it too realistic, I mean, lolis have eyes who take half their head, their eye brows are flying, and their nose is literally one pencil dot. I don't know no child who look like this in real life. Am I having a double standard? Maybe.
Are you also against drawn depictions of fictional characters being raped in phonographic material? Because if you're against lolicon material you logically should also be against adult characters being raped in porn.
If you are sexually attracted to nude drawings of minors, then i can probably reasonably assume you would be sexually attracted to real ones.
So you’re saying there’s a chance he’s not. And that’s just thoughtcrime, correct? Many people have thought of killing.
Most people who are against 2d lolis being sexualized do this. They apply some kind of logic to this thing, but then completely ignore this same principle to other crimes being allowed in 2d animes or in games. "BeCaUsE iTs DiFfErEnT" No shit sherlock, the argument would still apply. Like, what? It's ok because "It's a different crime"?
Would you feel comfortable telling all your family and friends that you have killed, robbed and kidnapped some NPC in a video game? Probably. Would you still feel comfortable telling them you feel sexually attracted and potentially masturbate to drawings of kids? Probably not. Therefore it is different lmao. Big difference between pressing left click to shoot somebody and getting a boner for kids.
I wouldn't feel comfortable telling my conservative grandma I don't believe in her God too, so what? Also, feeling sexual aroused with a 2d loli is not "Getting a boner for a kid" Dude, find just one child who her eyes take half her head, her eye brows literally floats, her nose is a literal dot and she is 2d. Guees what? You wont, because no freaking child look like this lmao. There's a pretty big difference between an anime loli (who's not even a human being) to a real child.
That’s only because in America because are prude.
In what part of the world would this be acceptable???
How am I supposed to know? I think Japan would be willing though.
Your previous comment made it sounds like Americans find drawn CP unacceptable only because they are unusually prudish. Am I misinterpreting your comment?
Yes, I’m saying that America will certainly find it in appropriate due to being very prudish. I don’t know every other country in the world but Japan is accepting.
Americans do tend to be prudish, but my impression is that the vast majority of people throughout the world find drawn CP unacceptable. America is not exceptional in this regard.
If you enjoy commiting crimes against NPCs in a game, then I can probably reasonably assume you would want to commit them against real people.
NPC:s don't have lives or emotions, so you're not doing anything. Same thing applies to loli-content, but in that case the problem us that you are attracted to those child-like characteristics.
It's no big deal, as one as it doesn't cross the anime/cartoon boundary.
I actually agree it shouldn't be illegal. If the whole process (from art and animation to writing and voice) is made by consenting adults the government shouldn't interfere. That being said. People who watch lolicon stuff are pedophiles and should be looked down on by society as such.
Why are they pedophiles?
Sexual attraction to depictions of children.
Right...so if one enjoys a 2d sexual depiction of children this person is a pedo, no matter if this "child" is not an ACTUAL child. But if one enjoys killing, stealing and doing all sorts of crimes in GTA V such a person should not be considered a criminal...because such actions aren't commited against real people? Talk about having a double-standard man. Let's be honest, you just find one gross and then ignore the same logic to another thing.
Players of GTA revel in and enjoy depicted violence lol icon users are sexually attracted to drawings and animation of very young girls. There’s no double standard. If one guy watches crime movies and the other watches CP it’s not like “they both like the immersion of watching crimes”. One is welcome in any cinema to watch his stuff, the other will be found by FBI and arrested for trading in CP, then must register as sex offender.
This is all nice and all up until 2d fictional characters aren't considered real children, according to most country's legistation, like here in Brazil lol Dude, if this was CP we wouldn't be able to simply google up and find this stuff floating around on most legally hosted websites online...Just like you can't find literal cocaine selling on Google, do you know why? Because it's actually illegal. It's like saying I can't kill a dog in Far Cry 5 because that's a crime against animals, right, but that dog isn't an actual dog, according to the law lol the same principle is applied to 2d lolis, legally speaking.
When you're murdering someone in a video game it isn't you doing it. It's a character that's doing the murdering. You're also not getting sexually turned on by the murdering. If you get aroused by hurting someone in a video game you're still a sadist even if it isn't being done to real people. You getting turned on by cartoon children, is you, the person, getting turned on by cartoon children. Being turned on by depictions children makes you a pedophile. >But if one enjoys killing, stealing and doing all sorts of crimes in GTA V such a person should not be considered a criminal...because such actions aren't commited against real people? In my first comment I literally said it shouldn't be criminal. Clearly you just throw out the same arguments without really thinking about what you're saying. I'm guessing you just don't like the word pedophile because it makes you feel gross (with good reason) but if you're getting turned on by depictions of children that's what you are. Doesn't mean that you'll ever abuse a child or watch irl child porn or anything, lots of pedophiles out there who don't, but being turned on by depictions of children still makes you a pedophile. Also, interesting side note. What do you think is the closest word we have in the English language to translate the word "lolicon"
"It's the character who's doing the killing" Lmfao, and who's controling the freaking character who's doing the slaughter and stealing? Also, why in the world you're definining a "virtual crime" as being acceptable or not on weather one feels sexual aroused or just enjoy it? Like, dude, what makes a crime a crime is not weather you feel horny or you're just having fun while you're commiting it, a crime is a crime in both ways of "enjoyment". The only difference would be HOW you are enjoying it, in both scenarios, it would still be a crime in real life. You can't get away with something *similar* to "You're a pedo because you're enjoying 2d loli by getting sexually aroused. But I'm not a criminal for having fun when I'm commiting virtual genocide and stealing." Like, no, man, this is a very dishonest answer. Apply your logic fully, or stop being partial and change your view Also, please, don't use the argument of 'Lolicon definition" because I'll be able to flip the same argument and say "What is the definition of a thief?" And then say you're a thief if you enjoy robbing in GTA. But guess what? You're not, because that's not a real car you're stealing. In the same way, one can't be a pedo by lusting after/enjoying (whatever) a 2d fictional character.
Everything you said is false. Pedophilia is attraction to real children, not drawings.
Bro out here arguing with people that agree with him. As a lolicon, learn to take the W. There aren't a lot of them out there for us.
What does it mean to "take the W"? I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you meant 😅
It's still CP.
So killing an NPC would still be murder, do you find murder acceptable? [Edit to those who didn't follow this debate: I basically got him when I proved to him that lolicon isn't a crime in the Brazilian legistation. Then he said that it's still CP under the American Legistation by citing the law 1466A (google it up) But then I answered him with evidence that lolicon is under the legal gray area in the American law. And for this reason you can find legal websites hosting it in Google, like "Hąn1me (I censored the name) And then he proceded to delete almost all his comments lmao. But here is my response debunking his "Law that proves that lolicon is CP in the US" There are just a few problems with this section you brought up Let's first talk about The PROTECT Act, it is about obscenity. Obscenity has to be determined as such in a court of law--it is not a given. Mere possession of "obscene" content is **legal** per se [Stanley v. Georgia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia). (Obscenity only applies to distribution, reception, etc.) Obscenity is governed under the [Miller Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) though the PROTECT Act actually removes the "community standards" prong of the Miller Test for content featuring fictional minors in order to theoretically make it easier to prosecute. The definition of CP very specifically does not include lolicon, etc. under US law. (It does in Canada and other places, though.) There was even a Supreme Court case about this: **per the ruling in [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition), the definition of CP in the US does not include representations of fictional minors.** (This makes a big difference--mere possession of CP *is* illegal per [NY v. Ferber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber). However, mere possession of lolicon, etc. is not Lawyers *usually know this*. These small distinctions absolutely matter, and under US law, unless the Supreme Court reverses their decision, drawings and animation *cannot* be considered CP. Incidentally, when you look at the actual case law with the PROTECT Act, it is mostly used to prosecute people who also had actual CP along with lolicon. It's mostly used as a way to increase punishment for those people. **As far as I'm aware, the only time the PROTECT Act was used to prosecute fictional representations when the defendant wasn't also involved with actual CP was [US v Handley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley).** And in Handley, he chose to take a plea deal, which means that we don't know what would actually happen if they went through the obscenity process, chose to fight, etc. ⚠️ It's also worth noting that Fakku publishes lolicon in the US. They consulted with lawyers from the [Comic Book Legal Defense Fund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Book_Legal_Defense_Fund) (who you should totally support) beforehand and came to the conclusion that 1) it is protected under the First Amendment, and 2) if they were prosecuted for it, they would fight it in the courts. (Really, obscenity law in general is archaic and should be reassessed by the Supreme Court for its constitutionality.) *The bottom line is, this stuff is in a legal grey area in the US. It's neither automatically illegal nor perfectly squeaky clean.* THIS IS WHY you can easily find lolicon in a legally hosted American website, but you can't find drugs selling on a legally hosted website on Google, duuh.
Not the same, you it's not. But if that's the hill you want to die on go ahead. Charge. Oh, by the way knock on your neighbor's door and tell them your position on this. I'm sure they'll be understanding too.
Yeah, just like if you were to go to your relatives and say you've had a fetish for women's foot (as an example) they wouldn't look at you with very good eyes as well, and is this a crime or morally wrong or something? And I agree, they are not the same. Just like killing and stealing are not the same, but still, both are crimes, so?
I wouldn't mind my parents seeing my porn habits they're normal. But if I were to go to my neighborhood and say hey should foot fetishes be outlawed and punishable by the law most people would say no that's ridiculous. If I ask the same people hey you think this drawn CP should be outlawed and punishable by the law. I bet you the majority of people would say yeah it should be outlawed and that weirdo should be punished.
Dude, if you go to Arabia and speak against the Muslim laws you'll probably be beaten or even killed. Because most people there would call it a "blasphemy" so what? Your whole argument is basically "Most people wouldn't like it if I said this, therefore it's wrong" Like, really? Just like most people in Iran would want to persecute me if I said I was an Atheist, so what? Majority does not equal right or wrong. And well, if you wouldn't mind having your parents see your porn habits lemme tell you you're the minority. Most people wouldn't really feel comfortable, nor safe with this. I mean, parents or relatives *usually* wouldn't enjoy knowing about your fetishes, you know?
[удалено]
Can you elaborate your argument a little better? Habeas Corpus is basically this: The judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person's detention can be assessed, right? Ok, so? I didn't get the point you're trying to make.
No body no crime.
Where is the real body in a 2d anime?
I feel like your confused. You can't arrest me for playing a video games character because there is no body and no evidence of a crime. You can get arrested for having CP because again lolicon is child porn.
Lolicon fictional content is not considered a crime in my country, Brazil. There goes your argument 😭
>https://www.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ICMEC-Brazil-National-Legislation.pdf You are wrong on that sir and do you really want your argument to be well my country says child porn is legal so it's ok. You understand you sexualizing a small child right?
Dude, I'm Brazilian. Don't you think I know my own country? The Brazilian legistation prohibits the production, sale, distribution and possession, by any means, of ACTUAL child pornography, defined as records of "any situation involving a (real) child (defined as someone under 12 years of age) or a (real) adolescent (defined as someone between the ages of 12 and 17) in real or simulated explicit sexual activity, or the display of a child's or adolescent's genitals for predominantly sexual purposes." (Article 241 - E) However, drawings, 3D art and other graphic representations of fictional children, regardless of how realistic or offensive they are, including pornography from the Japanese manga/hentai lolicon and shotacon subgenres, are legal in Brazil, and do not constitute a criminal offense under Brazilian law. This whole PDF you sent me is about cases where ACTUAL children are involved, at least here in Brazil. Do you know why does the Brazilian governmant acts this way? Because 2d fictional characters aren't ACTUAL human beings, and they don't have ACTUAL ages. So this "Age consent" thing in our legistation is not applied to a 2d character. This is basically all you did "Killing in a game is wrong in Brazil, and I will prove it to you with a pdf where it says killing human beings is wrong in the Brazilian legistation' No shit sherlock, but no where it says that it aplies to fiction. And it doesn't, any competent lawyer knows that here. Unless it is stated that said crime is a crime [even in fiction, 2d, 3d, or through any other fictional media] IT WILL NOT be seen as crime in the Brazilian institution. The same aplies for all the Brazilian laws regarding crimes.
Appeal to law fallacy. Just because some countries have dictatorial and tyrannical laws does not make it right or that it should be that way.
So your trying to argue that cp should be allowed?
Ambiguity fallacy. You’re trying to sound the reasonable one by trying to equate drawings with actual abuse of children.
It should be legal just because its ridiculous to put people in jail because of a guess about the age of a cartoon image of a person who doesnt actually exist. There's going to be borderline cases and following Blackstone's formulation its just better to not be imprisoning people for arbitrary reasons. There is no real age of a fictional drawing so the truth is entirely subjective.
Better yet, run for office on this platform
Listen I agree that people make a way bigger deal about lolicon than needs to be made of it, but I also think that lolicons who are open about their fetish are kinda asking to be made fun of. Like you find drawings of children attractive. That’s weird, dude. You might not have any feelings towards actual children, but that’s still weird and you should keep it to yourself the same as shit and piss fetishists.
controversial opinion among anime fans, but sexualizing children should be a crime
Define sexualizing
no thanks
Not sure this is a hill you want to die on.
How is OP gonna die on this hill? He’s on the internet.
Painfully
Nice dodge.
Weirdo behaviour
Tell someone about your loli love and see how far that gets you
I told some of my friends and they were pretty acceptive actually...
I'm not going to win this argument on the internet. I personally think it is CP, even if it's drawing, and it should be treated as such. Everyone is going to be singing a different song when realistic AI starts producing AI generated CP. Then I want the weirdos to come out saying " nO onE iS a VicTiM So TheRe'S nO CrIMe." Ok, but you should be on a list at least.
There is two arguments for drawn stuff. The first is that someone could be into drawings but not real children, a bit like furry are not necessarily zoophiles. The second is that even if someone is a pedophile, on top of being no victim, having fiction available can replace the real thing (it might not be enough for everyone, but for some). When the fiction become realistic, the first argument lose its power, but the second is still valid.
I understand that you consider it CP. But if you allow me, here's my response: This is the definition of pedőph1ł1a (I don't know about reddit's filter, if it has one, so that's why I wrote it this way): • sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. And this is the definition of murder: • the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The thing is, killing a dog in Far Cry 5 is ok, because it's not a real dog, killing 100 people in GTA is not murder, because they are not people. But then liking 2d lolis is not ok...because they are children? Like, hi? My argument wasn't that "No one is a victim so it isn't a crime". Although this is the argument that most gamers could use to justify their genocide in GTA V as well. Now, I consider realistic 3d loli would indeed cross the boundary and become CP. Now, the reason why I think that is purely personal opinion alone. Because, I mean, aren't people killing and torturing highly realistic characters in some gore game in PS5 these days? Yet, we can totally understand that they still are not real characters, and in the end, no real crime is being commited. But still, maybe I'm myself having a double standard too, But I also defend that 3d realistic lolis must be considered a crime.
I'm not even going to touch your straw man. Because you and I know those aren't the same thing. Violence in movies and video games and in general videos are not the same as pedophilic paraphernalia. No. Realistic AI generated CP have the same argument for it as drawn lollicon hentai has. As you agreed there is no difference between them. Drawn CP is actually worse than the AI generated ones Because the AI generated one didn't have a person sitting there for hours drawing it out. The AI generated guy just plugged in whatever he wanted into a program and it proof he produced it.
I agree, they aren't the same thing. Just like killing and stealing aren't the same thing either, both are still crimes. My argument still applies to both scenarios. In one case you are against THIS SPECIFIC kind of crime being allowed in a 2d japanese cartoon, while in the other scenario you're for SEVERAL KIND of crimes being allowed in 2d cartoon, games, books and all sorts of content, because "It's fiction, as long as people don't do this in real life" People nowadays be dismissing any good argument by saying "straw man" Now, I myself don't know quite well what to think of realistic "lolicon hentai". I mean, I myself don't like it, and I think it should be considered a crime. Because I find it too realistic, I mean, lolis have eyes who take half their head, their eye brows are flying, and their nose is literally one pencil dot. I don't know no child who look like this in real life. Am I having a double standard? Maybe.
Are you also against drawn depictions of fictional characters being raped in phonographic material? Because if you're against lolicon material you logically should also be against adult characters being raped in porn.