Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I was reading the comments to this video. I love how the guy who made this video referred to all who don't agree with him "stupid pedophiles". What a sound argument, consider me convinced.

Although stuff bothers me, I have no real reason to complain if no one is harmed in the making. And there's the "killing people in videogames make you a killer in real life" type thing that I hate hearing about and I just feel like I'm watching a rerun. It doesn't matter what they drew or made, it matters what they do to others.

any and all sound arguments he made were made in the video one of his other comments sums it up

"Think about what you're saying here.

I have 500+ negative opinions, most of which didn't even make it through the entire video where I likely cover their criticisms in stride. Why would I waste my time engaging these people who took 20 seconds to type an ignorant comment but couldn't take 7 minutes to watch a video I spent 8 hours editing?

You've got to put things into perspective, man. I know there are some valid arguments out there and maybe I'll get to them in the near future. But sorry to say that those with the argumentative skills of a fucking dish rag have all but drowned those individuals out."

"This is what I'm talking about. It's like you guys didn't even watch the video. I clearly say that we're not even worried about you becoming pedophiles. That it's hardly an issue. And yet here you are. Saying this. Wasting my time. And as soon as I clear this up, someone else will come and say the exact same thing.

Can you really blame me for shitposting in my own comment section?"

Sam wrote:

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.

I agree with that. His argument is no different than the ones used for ultra violence in media that everyone loves to mock, but all of a sudden its valid just in this context? Thats not a sound argument, thats bullshit.

Then he shitposts in his comment section when he could have chosen one or two good comments to respond to or just ignored everyone. Yes, I can blame him.

"The idea of it influencing people to do it for real is also flawed logic"
"His argument is no different than the ones used for ultra violence in media that everyone loves to mock,"

"It’s like you guys didn’t even watch the video. I clearly say that we’re not even worried about you becoming pedophiles."

5:30
"When no one is actually worried about that most of the time"

Okay then, what exactly does the guy argue in his video that's so brilliant? Shouldn't you have introduced that into this debate already?

Most of my arguments have already been stated. The video just so happens to be able to do it better than me. Maybe i'll get into more detail in the morning.

wut's wrong with ordering the kids meal? they got pony toys. and I still disagree with wut he says there in his self righteous rant. he is essentially saying that it boils down to morals and since I don't have any, fuck that shit.

I saw the video well before you posted it. I am well aware he is not stating that loli turns people into pedos, he is saying however that the idea is sickening and that saying that since they aren't real it is ok is numbing and twisting young peoples morals. He even gave a comment as an example of that.

Most of my arguments have already been stated. The video just so happens to be able to do it better than me. Maybe i’ll get into more detail in the morning.

His arguments suck though, so hopefully you can bring in a valid point.

"you believe in conversion therapy, you must be stupid", ah, yes, great way to "pick" my "filmsy arguments apart". yeah, i can't find specific studies on that topic, probably because it's seen as a rather small niche, or society is indifferent to what happens to sex offenders after their punishment. digging up names of publications is easy, obtaining them/ reading them, eh, this is just a thread on the internet, about a topic that isn't really important to me. but if the child-abusing pedophiles are the pedophile subset of sex-offenders, why shouldn't therapy help to rehabilitate them? in most first-world countries "normal" sex-offenders are threated by sexologists, a lot of money is spend to somehow re-integrate them into society, these aren't some religious charlatans. just assuming these efforts are futile would leave us with the same problem again: dispose of, lock away forever, or just punish and hope it doesn't happen again? if (even attempted) threatment doesn't take place, no evidence can be gathered, and there sure won't ever be a way to reintegrate them into society. if animated cp is part of one of those therapies, well, idc, but "self-prescribed" lolicon etc. won't stop someone with tendencies towards child abuse. just like access to it won't stop anyone from obtaining actual cp if they want to.
to use the favoured analogy in this thread: violent games and videos don't prevent outbursts of violence. neither are they constructive if the consumer already has violent tendencies.

as for the whole "i like 2d but not 3d"-thing: can't really relate to that. i haven't ranscended reality yet, so fiction always has a connection to reality for me. images come from somewhere and carry a message, i've read funny stuff about some japanese scientist who claims that loli/shotacon fans in japan can see those completely disconnected from reality, but other countries haven't "matured enough" to do so. how desirable this state is is a different story, i wouldn't be so sure that i wouldn't find monstergirls attractive if they were actually real, but i think i've expressed my opinion, you may discard it now.
on a final note: criticising opinions based on morals in a thread about moral acceptance of animated cp is rather funny. and criticising someone's language, grammar etc. is always a valid point. but yeah, i just looked up the translation of the german word for "mein gegenüber", probably shouldn't have just taken the funny-sounding french word, eh?

Where do I even begin with this?
1. I never said you believed in conversion therapy- in fact, I assumed you didn't. That's why I brought it up in the first place, because I hoped that would clarify my views on the psychological "treatment" of pedophiles, which is of course that no one's proven it even comes close to working. Trust me when I say that I'd never make such a flimsy strawman argument.
2. "Society" doesn't control science, the people in the field do, and in that field I see no reason why potential therapy of pedophiles wouldn't be considered a big deal. It might even be considered one of the greatest achievements they could possibly make as psychologists. You just need to find the right places to search, like here. Of course, having the burden of proof means that just citing one random study isn't enough, as the results could be compromised in any number of ways, most of all by those very people who wish to make their own efforts not look futile. (The reality is that the credibility of the field itself is very much questionable, but that's neither here nor there.)
3. I understand that you have a life, but you willingly entered into this debate, so the whole "eh, I don't really care, don't have the time, blah blah blah" thing is a pretty lazy cop-out. Then again, I suppose if the shift key isn't important enough then you must be pretty busy. (Couldn't resist that one.)
4. "violent games and videos don’t prevent outbursts of violence. neither are they constructive if the consumer already has violent tendencies"
Have you not read the rest of this thread? That's literally the exact point of many other people's posts- it would be constructive, because it takes those urges out in an environment where no one's hurt, both for the violent people in video games and pedophiles with animated porn. You haven't even bothered to rebut that yet.
5. It's called the moralistic fallacy, dude- your personally defined oughts can't be equivocated to is.

@Ivan

Yes Ivan, images do come from somewhere, I can't remember ever saying they didn't, but thanks for pointing that out.
Part of the attraction of Miia as well as the other characters in monster musune is that they have sexy female figures. But the other animalistic parts of them are something that just wouldn't be attractive in real life, at least not to me. That's what I mean when I say that what you find attractive in hentai doesn't always match real life.

In my opinion I don't like that controversial topics like this are often judged as a isolated thing, rather than looking just a just as a part of something bigger, therefore is easy to say "lolicon = cp" to begin this is fictional work so there are no children harmed by this.

Others will say "its not that, its that lolicon make you a pedo" well if you look at japan the biggest consumer of lolicon, and practically the only producer of this content its quite the opposite as it has one of the lowest rates of sex offenders in the world.

its a harmless activity then? it hard to say, because lolicon its just a end product and the society reacts to it, people often fear this end products like they were evil things that have the power to twist the mind, when actually the evilness resides in the individual which only needed a little push to commit the crime.

Lastly criminals reflect how a society is, criminal acts arise when a society lacks morals values, and moral values are affected by the real problems like poverty, corruption, education, inequality, etc.

tl dr: A mature society should not have problem with this.

2. no it doesn't, but pedophilia statistics are mostly crime statistics, the "dark figure" of pedophiles, who are never revealed as such, because they aren't criminal, or they don't entrust anyone with it, is rather high (understandably). but do representative research on pedophiles, you'd need pedophiles who don't belong in the child molester category.

3./4. yeah, i entered because i still don't believe katharsis-theory is the nonplus-ultra approach at this topic. just like with the analogy to violent media, katharsis theory is just an intellectual approach, it's far from being proven to be the correct theory. habitualization-theory or stimulation-theory are also intellectual-approaches and none of them has been proved to be 100% correct yet, because human psyche is much more complex to be described perfectly by those theories. they all have their pros and cons, different studies point to different directions (which might have to do with who's the sponsor/client of this study) so just assuming one is right doesn't work.

@dac: i dunno, they don't have a real life counterpart, so fantasy's all people are left with.

yeah, i find lolicon etc. to be pretty fucked up (personally), i've obviously let that shine through, and i don't have a problem with admitting that, no matter how hard i'd try, i couldn't look at this kind of stuff without all my alarm bells going off. but i'd be the last person to restrict someone's freedom of speech, or expression, or whatever right drawing that kind of stuff falls under, if it was totally safe to assume katharsis-theory (keep that stuff away from me tho), but it'd be a bit too perfect if murderers, rapists etc. would just take their urges to a fictional environment and leave them there.

Except that by definition the "murderers and rapists" you're referring to actively seek to cause harm to other people, so a simulation would never work with them (short of a Matrix-type thing). That's entirely different from people with violent urges, and true pedophiles fall into the same category as them.
But you also have to remember that the people who are attracted to this type of pornographic art aren't all true pedophiles- not even close. There are specific aspects of the art itself and the figures depicted within in that they enjoy, and these are often things that typically cannot exist in reality- for example, a unique shape of the body based in the style of the drawings, or the idea a young minor who would be entirely knowledgeable, willing and able to engage in sexual acts without emotional or physical harm. These folks would not enjoy actual CP for the absence of these things, plus they also are perfectly aware of where that nasty shit comes from and are rightfully disgusted.

@ivan

Monster girls don't exist, but snakes, spiders, horses, fish, birds, slime, etc. do exist. I can say that I have no attraction to them, and adding human aspects would make them unpleasant at best, repulsive at worst. I hate spiders, but I do like rachnee and find her attractive, spider body and all.

"to use the favoured analogy in this thread: violent games and videos don’t prevent outbursts of violence. neither are they constructive if the consumer already has violent tendencies."
-Ivan Tabtov

So, since you think loli is fucked up, are violent video games fucked up?
Because this is the exact same thing but with molesting childs replaced by shooting/killing people.
In fact, violent media should be worse by that logic, since killing people is about the worst thing you can do to them.

How is it any different?