Woops, sowwy. :3Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
Printable View
Woops, sowwy. :3Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
Since this thread got splitted...
What's the topic now?
Can we has explicit loli drawings now? :V
The difference is that the offending material presented children (actual or idealized) for sexual appraisal. Period. There is no comparison with expressing an affinity for adults of any age or gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lëzen
were the pictures really that bad?
I didn't see them.
A serious thread, on dreamviews????Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
*searches thoroughly*
Can't find a single one, sorry.
Innocent pics really, but apparently combining a pic of a child and the word "pedo" on the same post constitutes an evil and sinful apology to child rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fableflame
For the heck of it: "pedo" is the radical for "child" in greek.
Yes, but the problem is, people use "pedo" as an abbreviation of "pedophile."Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
While I didn't see the pics in question, any image of a child submitted for sexual appraisal (and we all know that "pedo views" was not intended as a label in Greek) is an inducement to sexual assault insofar as there is no other possible expression of lust for a child. Even if 9 out of 10 pedos resist the inducement, it remains. Moreover, the appraisal itself stands to harm any child who comes in contact with it, either on the receiving end or by witnessing it (say, over the internet), as it can distort their understanding of relationships and social behavior regardless of any physical contact. Such appraisal is also corrosive to communities in that it violates a key element of the social contract: the protected status of children. Without maintaining and enforcing that status, human families cannot live in close proximity with any degree of security or personal liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
fix'd:
Honestly though, that quote...Quote:
While I didn't see the pics in question, any image of a woman submitted for sexual appraisal is an inducement to sexual assault insofar as there is no other possible expression of lust for a woman if you are some basement dwelling virgin. Even if 9 out of 10 basement dwelling virgins resist the inducement, it remains. Moreover, the appraisal itself stands to harm any woman who comes in contact with it, either on the receiving end or by witnessing it (say, over the internet), as it can distort their understanding of relationships and social behavior regardless of any physical contact. Such appraisal is also corrosive to communities in that it violates a key element of the social contract: the protected status of women. Without maintaining and enforcing that status, human families cannot live in close proximity with any degree of security or personal liberty.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9...getitatall.jpg
Basically, what you're saying is;
Making and showing a Pedo Views banner promotes the rape of children.
I realize what you mean with the "insofar as there is no other possible expression of lust for a child"*-part, but you can really apply it to the others aswell.
Making and showing a Heterosexual Views banner promotes the rape of women.
No it doesn't.
*Ah, but there's a solution! HALLUCINATION.
Or Lolicon. Which happens to be illegal in Denmark.
Just shoot me, a'right?
Whats been said here is that showing a child in a sexual manner pretty much objectifies them. This is evidently wrong and more so with children because it is not only socially unacceptable, its wrong to take advantage of a child. Though it may be indirect, such pictures like loli's almost make children appear as sex objects and to some people this can distort their way of thinking and in many cases make it seem right to objectify and take advantage of children when in reality it is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
In a way the promoting of naked women as sex objects can indirectly sway peoples thinking and make them objectify women and view them as a piece of meat. Of course, its no more right than promoting a child as a sex object, but the key difference here is that a child is more vulnerable than a full grown adult and it can be more damaging to a child to be sexually abused simply because they may not understand what is happening and its bound to be a scary experience which could be mentally damaging to them later on in life. Children tend to have less control of what happens around them and taking advantage of that vulnerability is wrong and disgusting in my opinion.
So no, your taking it to the extreme in saying the picture promotes rape, but indirectly it does send out a negative message almost saying that children can be viewed as sex objects and thus could lead to acts such as rape. Fictional or non-fictional, its still sending out a negative message.
So no, your taking it to the extreme in saying the picture promotes rape, but associating a picture of an innocent child to the word sends out the wrong message as if almost to promote pedophilia, i know it wasn't the intention, but even so, people interpret it in different ways. But whether the child is fictional or non-fictional and is associated to the word or act of sexual objectification, it can send out a negative message.
This is irrelevant. There is no such thing, even if it does send a negative message, or objectify children, as you say, none of this happens from a picture. Much like a person doesn't go out and shoot people just because he's played Grand Theft Auto. It may send out "negative messages" and make it seem like killing people is fine - But when people actually do that, you really can't blame the game. Same thing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrenaline Junkie
You even said it yourself;
Herb derb. Arguing for the sake of nothing at all.Quote:
your taking it to the extreme in saying the picture promotes rape
You are comparing an adult woman with a child. An adult is a sexually mature individual. Children are physically and mentally undeveloped human beings. And then the bold part of the quote.. You think the only form of lust for another adult is through rape? Honestly? You understand that intercourse with a child causes psychological damage, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
That kind of thinking justifies racist propaganda, too.Quote:
It may send out "negative messages" and make it seem like killing people is fine - But when people actually do that, you really can't blame the game. Same thing here.
Your missing the point completely...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
Okay, lets put my example in a different context. Obviously, at the end of the day people make up their own minds about different choices they may have in life. But a HUGE contributing factor to the choices we make are external influences, for example, i'm more likely to buy new product if its had a large number of positive reviews than none at all. Though we make up our own minds at the end of the day, a lot of our choices are heavily influenced by external factors.
Does it not seem like a logical precaution to try and get rid of such influences and try to prevent it affecting peoples judgment, opinions and decision-making on say topics such as pedophilia? Such influences may be as simple as a picture with a reference to pedophilia, it may not be as extreme as say child pornography but its better to be safe than sorry.
Yes, you took it to the extreme by saying that the picture promotes the rape of children because you say it as though its a direct cause of rape when really it could be more of an indirect cause as it has the potential to influence people in a negative way and send the wrong messages.
And just for the record, I never stated that these pictures were a direct cause of pedophilia or rape and your grand theft auto example was like putting words in my mouth. Such influences are indirect on the most part and can influence the way people think or view the world around them. But killing is a completely extreme example because at the end of the day it is a far worse crime that is not socially acceptable and if committed will bring far worse consequences also. People being aware of this fact is likely to influence them positively into preventing them from committing such a crime. Killing is not the same as pedophilia or the rape of a child, they are completely different and i think you know that...
There's a reason I added the part after the part you bolded :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
To above post, I disagree.
I've already stated my reasons, so I retreat.
*runs to nearest dark corner while hissing and covering his face with his wing*
Do straight guys become gay because of watching other naked guys? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrenaline Junkie
Do gay guys become straight because of watching naked women? No.
Do people become pedophiles because of watching clothed children? No.
You do understand that straight/gay guys don't rape children just because of seeing pictures of them clothed, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrenaline Junkie
You do understand that pedophiles don't rape children just because of seeing a few pictures of them clothed, right? If they do rape children, it's because they're too horny, they don't have self control, or they have too many pictures and videos of naked children on their PCs and now they want the real thing.
If someone wants to rape a child and is stupid enough to do it, then it will happen.
If someone doesn't want to rape a child, then a few pictures of children won't change that.
I have countless of pictures of naked boys on my PC. Did I ever think of raping a child while looking at those pictures? No.
Oh. Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowlight
First, while I don't know what country you live in, you might as well precede that statement with, "Dear FBI."Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowlight
It's interesting that you respond to a post that was saying exactly these things as if you were arguing. The point is that none of this excuses the use of the images to sexualize children, which does great harm in and of itself, both to individuals viewing the images and to the community into which they're introduced, regardless of whether anyone viewing them opts to commit the most heinous act of which human beings have so far proven themselves capable. If you can't understand why these images are, in and of themselves, a serious transgression against your fellow man, against society, and certainly against children and all who have children under their protection to any degree and in any way, then simply understand that in most nations, the consequences for owning and displaying these images are severe, and in most communities, including internet communities, including DV, they will not be tolerated.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowlight
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed
No frontal nudity... 12chan...Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Sexualize children? Have you even seen the pictures? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur