EPTMan Fined for having Simpsons Pornography - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ChaoSbringer
Australia1382 Posts
| ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote: Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. edit: sorry i snapped | ||
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote: HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT I still don't fully know if you're trolling or not... Maybe if you mixed in some italics and a bit of bold then I'd get the inflections you're putting on the words. | ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:10 Kwark wrote: But if a guy wants to enjoy cartoons of pedophilia or read stories about it or whatever then that's fair enough. He's not harming anyone by doing it. the argument against this is that indulging in deviant behaviour encourages deviant behaviour | ||
|
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:32 suidfhiufh wrote: the argument against this is that indulging in deviant behaviour encourages deviant behaviour And the argument against this is that what a consenting adult does (in this case with his right hand) in the privacy of his own home is no business of the state. | ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:31 Kwark wrote: I still don't fully know if you're trolling or not... Maybe if you mixed in some italics and a bit of bold then I'd get the inflections you're putting on the words. the judge just said a drawing of a person counts as a person therefore the guy can be prosecuted i clarified to charliemurphy how the logic works then this retard above me says im trolling and making things up when im literally and SO SO FUCKING SIMPLY re-iterating what is in the OP so i shout at him | ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:33 Kwark wrote: And the argument against this is that what a consenting adult does (in this case with his right hand) in the privacy of his own home is no business of the state. if it "encourages" deviant (illegal) behaviour then it is seen as a public risk we cant own machine guns because it is deemed as a public risk, nomatter how responsible an individual may claim to be, or how he only keeps that gun within his own home. the potential risk is still there and unmoderated. if everyone "indulged" in guns then gun crimes would rise. fact. there has to be a blanket and inflexible law simply for the sake of practicality (which is made up of several arguements) | ||
|
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
| ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:35 suidfhiufh wrote: the judge just said a drawing of a person counts as a person therefore the guy can be prosecuted i clarified to charliemurphy how the logic works then this retard above me says im trolling and making things up when im literally and SO SO FUCKING SIMPLY re-iterating what is in the OP so i shout at him Just a friendly suggestion, you shouldn't call veteran members of the forum you joined less than 3 days ago retards, and you should not make posts in all caps. | ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:45 Lemonwalrus wrote: Just a friendly suggestion, you shouldn't call veteran members of the forum you joined less than 3 days ago retards, and you should not make posts in all caps. ok sorry , i got ticked off when someone suddenly called me a troll for apparently no reason when i thought i was being crystal clear and helpful to someone | ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
| ||
|
Leath
Canada1724 Posts
Let the guy have his fantasies. As weird as it may seem to fancy cartoon characters, I dont see any harm in that. To consider that as child pornography is so absurd. | ||
SilverskY
Korea (South)3086 Posts
Further advice suidfhiufh, I would recommend you editing previous posts instead of meaninglessly double posting. | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote: HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT Oh I see. So judges are now infallible? No judge, in the history of life on earth, has ever been incorrect on any decision? That's interesting. Also, you may want to log off and calm down. It's the internet. + Show Spoiler +  | ||
|
Conquest101
United States1395 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:35 suidfhiufh wrote: the judge just said a drawing of a person counts as a person therefore the guy can be prosecuted i clarified to charliemurphy how the logic works then this retard above me says im trolling and making things up when im literally and SO SO FUCKING SIMPLY re-iterating what is in the OP so i shout at him I feel that the judge is retarded and is making a huge mistake. Just my opinion. I look at it like this: Real child porn is bad because a child or multiple children are being exploited or hurt by it's production. On the other hand, things like these cartoons or more notably hentai and lolicon, aren't hurting anyone. You can argue that getting off on that kind of art encourages sexually deviant behavior as well. That basically, some percentage of those people who indulge in such a thing will go on to actually molest or rape a child. This is quite probable, I won't argue that. However, it's a really slippery slope if you go down the path of banning such art. For example, animals are frequently depicted in movies and cartoons being killed or mutilated or maimed in some way. Now, in movies and cartoons both, no animals are actually being harmed, however, what if some impressionable kid sees some joke gag where a dog is blown up with firecrackers or some such and decides to try it out himself? Well, now we have a depiction of an illegal/immoral act in a cartoon "encouraging" illegal deviant behavior (animal cruelty). So what now? Ban any depictions of animals being harmed in art or movies or cartoons? I know, I know, it's a bit of a stretch, but it's only one example. Rape, gun violence, murder, drug use, spousal abuse, child abuse, and god knows what else is frequently depicted in art, songs, movies and basically all facets of the media. We all know its a bad influence on people to some extent. So where's the line? | ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
| ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
On December 11 2008 18:05 LonelyMargarita wrote: Oh I see. So judges are now infallible? No judge, in the history of life on earth, has ever been incorrect on any decision? That's interesting. Also, you may want to log off and calm down. It's the internet. + Show Spoiler + i wasnt saying he was "right" i was just putting it in clearer terms since charliemurphy didnt appear to me to understand the judges logic if u see my other post i say i think this particular case at least is rediculous | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On December 11 2008 18:07 suidfhiufh wrote: im not going to edit them all but im sorry i snapped like that, ive had a very very bad last few hours IRL. sorry =/ When you're brand new to a forum, are the only person arguing on one side of a thread against people who have been here for years many of whom are in law school or already graduated, insist on calling veterans retarded multiple times, type in all caps, and won't edit it out of your posts, I would seriously recommend logging off. | ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
On December 11 2008 18:11 LonelyMargarita wrote: When you're brand new to a forum, are the only person arguing on one side of a thread against people who have been here for years many of whom are in law school or already graduated, insist on calling veterans retarded multiple times, type in all caps, and won't edit it out of your posts, I would seriously recommend logging off. just reread our posts and see that you completely misunderstood my intentions in my first post and responded by calling me a troll, to which i violently overreacted | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
imo let the paedophiles look at cartoon child porn... it's not hurting any children and it lets them relieve their pent up horniness towards kids. win/win no? I thought the reason against child porn was that those kids aren't at the age of consent and can't be making that kind of decision themselves... whereas a cartoon doesn't have that problem. | ||
| ||
