20 year imprisonment for owning manga?

[DrCongressmanPHD]

Elrin_02

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

drawing stick figures and sexual fantasies of children are not the same.

Yeah, but sexual fantasies of children aren't even the subject of the thread.

Drawings of naked children are.

Stick figures of naked children are fairly close to the subject, then.

It would be in the weakest sense.

Why would you draw children in sexual manner, or look at pictures of that if you didn't enjoy seeing children in a sexual manner?

[Aplos]

TheSilverNoble

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

DrCongressmanPHD

Gorey movies are the same as someone making young girls sexual and enjoying it. There should not be enjoyment happening, do you see what I am saying. I am not saying we can arrest someone for their thought, but we should pay attention to someone's warning signs.

How exactly do you plan on monitoring everyone who enjoys slasher flicks or gave a positive review to Saw?

(Saw was a pile of s**t, mind you.)

Who said I was going to do that? I didn't,

You suggested paying attention to warning signs, in the context of gorey movies.

So what exactly did you mean? Putting them on a list if they rent it on netflix?

Didn't they do that in 7even?

[SilverMan995]

DrCongressmanPHD

TheSilverNoble

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

That's what I've been wondering.

Apparently he can't imagine the fact that I would defend something I have no interest in participating in, and indeed look down on.

And does anyone else find it really creepy that he posted my picture? I would kindly ask everyone to edit their posts and remove it.

Holy crap was that really you? I just found it under google man. Under- I don't know what playing devil's advocate means, but I think it is a good idea to do it anyway.

Playing devil's advocate would be arguing a position I don't really believe in, right?

This is the position I believe in, that it is not harmful and should be legal.

Now quit being a creepy stalker jackass.

[SilverMan995]

DrCongressmanPHD

Elrin_02

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

drawing stick figures and sexual fantasies of children are not the same.

Yeah, but sexual fantasies of children aren't even the subject of the thread.

Drawings of naked children are.

Stick figures of naked children are fairly close to the subject, then.

It would be in the weakest sense.

Why would you draw children in sexual manner, or look at pictures of that if you didn't enjoy seeing children in a sexual manner?

Why does that matter?

[DrCongressmanPHD]

TheSilverNoble

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

DrCongressmanPHD

Gorey movies are the same as someone making young girls sexual and enjoying it. There should not be enjoyment happening, do you see what I am saying. I am not saying we can arrest someone for their thought, but we should pay attention to someone's warning signs.

How exactly do you plan on monitoring everyone who enjoys slasher flicks or gave a positive review to Saw?

(Saw was a pile of s**t, mind you.)

Who said I was going to do that? I didn't,

You suggested paying attention to warning signs, in the context of gorey movies.

So what exactly did you mean? Putting them on a list if they rent it on netflix?

I never used the context of gorey movies, that was one was used in an argument against me.

[SilverMan995]

DrCongressmanPHD

TheSilverNoble

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

DrCongressmanPHD

Gorey movies are the same as someone making young girls sexual and enjoying it. There should not be enjoyment happening, do you see what I am saying. I am not saying we can arrest someone for their thought, but we should pay attention to someone's warning signs.

How exactly do you plan on monitoring everyone who enjoys slasher flicks or gave a positive review to Saw?

(Saw was a pile of s**t, mind you.)

Who said I was going to do that? I didn't,

You suggested paying attention to warning signs, in the context of gorey movies.

So what exactly did you mean? Putting them on a list if they rent it on netflix?

I never used the context of gorey movies, that was one was used in an argument against me.

Ok, my mistake.

But still, what did you mean?

[GunsmithKitten]

Truly sad day when our law is in the business of punishing crimes against fictional characters.

By this logic, true crime novels should be contraband because they portray MURDER, which is even worse than molestation.

[DrCongressmanPHD]

TheSilverNoble

DrCongressmanPHD

Elrin_02

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

drawing stick figures and sexual fantasies of children are not the same.

Yeah, but sexual fantasies of children aren't even the subject of the thread.

Drawings of naked children are.

Stick figures of naked children are fairly close to the subject, then.

It would be in the weakest sense.

Why would you draw children in sexual manner, or look at pictures of that if you didn't enjoy seeing children in a sexual manner?

Why does that matter?

Why does that matter? Why would someone want to make children sexual?

[Elrin_02]

DrCongressmanPHD

Elrin_02

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

drawing stick figures and sexual fantasies of children are not the same.

Yeah, but sexual fantasies of children aren't even the subject of the thread.

Drawings of naked children are.

Stick figures of naked children are fairly close to the subject, then.

It would be in the weakest sense.

Why would you draw children in sexual manner, or look at pictures of that if you didn't enjoy seeing children in a sexual manner?

Fantasies of any sort are not illegal, and you cannot be put in jail for them.

This man was put in prison for (presumably) buying drawings of naked children. Thus the question of the thread is whether or not someone ought to be imprisoned for possessing drawings of naked children.

In other words, how far does the 1st amendment go? What is 'obscene'? Does the community have an interest in banning certain kinds of material? What kind of 'harm' can be imputed from the possession of drawings of naked children?

[Ihavenoarmz]

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

drawing stick figures and sexual fantasies of children are not the same.

Well, they can be underage stick figures if you want. And they can be doing really gross s**t.

Where do you draw the line, in fact? Where do you start taking that kind of art seriously?
Because I've seen some really disgusting s**t floating around the internet, even though stick figures would have been a real improvement to the art, while there are many artistic "yaoi" (actually shota, due to so many anime characters being quite young) pictures drawn that are quite lighthearted and not creepy (while still being pornographic or even hardcore).

So which category is objectionable? The former one that is essentially the spunk-covered scribbles of a raving lunatic, or the later one that is often highly realistic (even photo-realistic, in the case of Harry Potter fandoms and so on) but generally wholesome erotic pornography if you ignore the age (or physical appearance) of the fictional characters?
Or both?

Hell, maybe you could even wake up and realize that none of them are responsible for turning anyone into lecherous beasts.

[DrCongressmanPHD]

You people are all very annoying and need to stop shoving words in my mouth because all you can do is rehash questions in a way that you think is deep and meaningful but only strays away from the real argument at hand. I have never not once said we should punish people for thoughts or intents. I said that if someone has the intents they are just as bad as a person who does it. You can't punish someone who doesn't do something but you can still look down on them for being immoral sacks of s**t.

[Elrin_02]

GunsmithKitten

Truly sad day when our law is in the business of punishing crimes against fictional characters.

By this logic, true crime novels should be contraband because they portray MURDER, which is even worse than molestation.

An Australian court apparently ruled that the Simpsons are people and therefore put someone in jail for Simpsons child porn.

If that's so, then they really should put Bart in foster care, because his dad is constantly physically abusing him. And Homer should go to jail.

[SilverMan995]

DrCongressmanPHD

TheSilverNoble

DrCongressmanPHD

Elrin_02

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

drawing stick figures and sexual fantasies of children are not the same.

Yeah, but sexual fantasies of children aren't even the subject of the thread.

Drawings of naked children are.

Stick figures of naked children are fairly close to the subject, then.

It would be in the weakest sense.

Why would you draw children in sexual manner, or look at pictures of that if you didn't enjoy seeing children in a sexual manner?

Why does that matter?

Why does that matter? Why would someone want to make children sexual?

Probably because they're a *****.

And as long as they don't actually harm (directly or indirectly) any children, I really don't care.

[SilverMan995]

MyxineDamion

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

drawing stick figures and sexual fantasies of children are not the same.

Well, they can be underage stick figures if you want. And they can be doing really gross s**t.

Where do you draw the line, in fact? Where do you start taking that kind of art seriously?
Because I've seen some really disgusting s**t floating around the internet, even though stick figures would have been a real improvement to the art, while there are many artistic "yaoi" (actually shota, due to so many anime characters being quite young) pictures drawn that are quite lighthearted and not creepy (while still being pornographic or even hardcore).

So which category is objectionable? The former one that is essentially the spunk-covered scribbles of a raving lunatic, or the later one that is often highly realistic (even photo-realistic, in the case of Harry Potter fandoms and so on) but generally wholesome erotic pornography if you ignore the age (or physical appearance) of the fictional characters?
Or both?

Hell, maybe you could even wake up and realize that none of them are responsible for turning anyone into lecherous beasts.

Now here's where it really gets tricky. The Harry Potter characters are minors, but I think all the actors are over 18 now.
So how does that work?

[DrCongressmanPHD]

Elrin_02

DrCongressmanPHD

Elrin_02

DrCongressmanPHD

MyxineDamion

Wait, when did people start considering that arguing for people's right to draw stick figures bumping uglies in the privacy of their own home is "playing Devil's advocate" and "trolling"?

drawing stick figures and sexual fantasies of children are not the same.

Yeah, but sexual fantasies of children aren't even the subject of the thread.

Drawings of naked children are.

Stick figures of naked children are fairly close to the subject, then.

It would be in the weakest sense.

Why would you draw children in sexual manner, or look at pictures of that if you didn't enjoy seeing children in a sexual manner?

Fantasies of any sort are not illegal, and you cannot be put in jail for them.

This man was put in prison for (presumably) buying drawings of naked children. Thus the question of the thread is whether or not someone ought to be imprisoned for possessing drawings of naked children.

In other words, how far does the 1st amendment go? What is 'obscene'? Does the community have an interest in banning certain kinds of material? What kind of 'harm' can be imputed from the possession of drawings of naked children?

Yes there has to be a line drawn somewhere. There is a reason real child porn is illegal. Having it in cartoon form isn't any better because of the intent.

Again I haven't said anything about throwing anyone in jail. I said the guy should have been punished but not so harshly already.