/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>regardless of morality
What's an example of immoral art?

>>6591176
people use loli doujins to groom real lolis so it doesn't matter what your intent with drawing it is just that there's a real guy out there showing it to a real little girl and trying to get her to do very real sexual acts with him

>>6591208
This.
Every single one of those creepy fucks eventually gets outed with massive amounts of actual stuff they thought they could hide
Execute pedos on the spot. Kill them immediately. Shot on sight.

>>6591208
Yes, but what if that guy isn't the artist. The legality of that doesn't lie with the artist.

>>6591208
People use online games, fandoms and even fucking candy to groom kids. You can't just ban anything they use to groom kids. The responsibility is 100% on the adult who is breaking the law and illegally showing porn to a child not the person creating the porn for adults.

Also though I agree fuck any adults using anything to prey on kids. If you prey on/abuse kids like this I don't think there is a place in society for you.

>>6591216
so after they catch the pedo you're the next in line for the lynch mob

>>6591196
It could be many, from a school shooting, gore porn and even turning people into furniture.

>>6591216
It's like trying to blame the gun manufacturers when people use the gun to murder someone. Take some responsibility for your own fucking actions.

>>6591219
In that scenario, the mob is the one that is making the law-breaking move.

>>6591220
why, specifically, would those be immoral? Be specific.

>>6591224
For example, for the latter one, I've heard the news of an artist being frowned upon in china for their fetish of turning humans into furniture.

>>6591226
they were frowned upon, but why is it "immoral"? Is it the effect it has on the audience? Is it the intentions of the artist? Or is there something else more metaphysical?

>>6591227
Isn't it frowned upon because people consider it immoral? I just took the meaning of immorality as something the general audience frowns upon.

>>6591224
NTA You can't really specify morality. It's cultural and personal. Of course it is interesting to examine commonly held opinions about morality between and within cultures.
OP specified his specific morality in the OP as well so I think that should be sufficient for discussion.

>>6591231
In that case, anything can be immoral or moral, as long as the crowd votes on it?

>>6591220
When you say "turning people into furniture" do you mean weird TF fetish drawings, or do you mean some Ed Gein shit where you murder people and make art projects out of their corpses?
Because, honestly, I kind of agree that the latter shouldn't be allowed.

>>6591176
I think your second point could really use some work. I think the wording is way too vague. The first is pretty solid and I think generally agreeable however this could also be argued that it shouldn't be "harm was produced during the creation" as that would mean journalism and similar would be unethical. I think that it would be more that "harm was not conducted on purpose to aid in the creation this work"
I might be nitpicky on this but I feel like this is an important distinction which I feel like more gets at what you are trying to say.

>>6591233
I wanted to say that each person has their own morality but I assume the definition of moral itself has been determined due to the distinction between what is right and wrong between a lot of people.

Would it be wrong if I said yes? Maybe anons could correct me here.

>>6591235
Just fetish drawings.

>>6591236
As for the second point, I was thinking of really specific cases. For example, an art that was made targetting a very specific individual's feelings rather than for entertainment.

>>6591176
>no harm was produced during its creation
>there are no intentions to harm others with the art.
Nigger just say you're talking about Loli/Shotacon, we all know you """""ironic""""" pedophiles don't give a fuck about anything else.

>>6591208
>it's the bullet and gun that kills, not the shooter

>>6591221
Why not blame both? Obviously the perpetrator is the one to blame the most but you're all crazy if you deny the responsibility of the gun market or the loli/shota market. Many murders and many offending pedos would be stopped if there wasn't such a fostering culture with people denying the problem at large.

Freedom isn't freedom if we don't guarantee the freedom of the weakest members.

>>6591275
I blame your mom for giving birth to you.

>>6591176
All art should be allowed. Censorship destroys creativity.

>>6591275
>if you deny the responsibility of the gun market or the loli/shota market
You only took into account the negative impact but you fail to realize the positivity, guns did not only kill people, but they also protected a lot of people. Loli/shota market helps to pander to the audience as an outlet for their desires. Lastly, the people who obtained the mentioned items are adults, they have the responsibility to understand what is right and wrong. Get out of your rock.

>>6591284
Can moms look into the future? No. The responsibility of the social environment is a little obscured, but the responsibility of markets distributing weapons for murder or sexualized drawings of child-like characters is pretty obvious.
>>6591293
Yes...guns are positive because people can protect themselves from other people with guns. This argument falls apart when you realize that the other people wouldn't have any guns if there wasn't a culture fostering it.
Same with loli/shota. Is it an outlet or does it implant and deepen desires which weren't there to begin with?

>>6591196
intentionally bringing harm or otherwise decreasing the quality of life of another entity

>>6591302
How can you bring harm with a picture?

>>6591308
It can endorse the harming of others. A picture 'says' something.

>>6591299
I know you don't live in the UK, or you wouldn't have this simplistic view on guns.

Also I find systems that call themselves democracies, yet don't have gun rights laughable.

>>6591176
ITT

>>6591299
>This argument falls apart when you realize that the other people wouldn't have any guns if there wasn't a culture fostering it.
I half agree however, guns at some point in our lives have become a necessity for maintaining law and order. Rather than calling it a fostered culture, I believe it's more of an eventuality.

> Is it an outlet or does it implant and deepen desires which weren't there to begin with?
Both are a possibility but I won't blame the market for it. Loli/shota are only distributed to those who are legally allowed to view them. People who can access it are those who are curious or already have a desire for it in the first place. However, from what I see, the people bringing attention to this content are those that spread it around to anyone, those that falsify their identity online or those that are being loud about it while "protecting loli/shota art"

>>6591308
NTA but I would generally consider it harm drawing real people doing fucked up or embarrassing things.

>>6591302
You know my intentions well, nice english anon.

>>6591176
I do not believe that someone should be prosecuted for making a drawing. It would take resources and manpower away from fighting online child exploitation of IRL kids.
If someone is found to be tracing or referencing IRL CSAM, they should be v&
If someone knowingly collects or distributes traced CSAM, they should be v&
Simple as.

>>6591322
based

>>6591299
>Is it an outlet or does it implant and deepen desires which weren't there to begin with?
If we don't know, we should err on the side of caution and allow these things, since you'd be causing immediate harm by banning them, otherwise (depriving pedophiles of their freedom to sexually express themselves safely).

>>6591176
I find porn and loli revolting but I dont care if some faggot jack off to it, its none of my business. It was never proved that it encouraged actual pedos to get out there and diddle kids afaik so why even bother with it. Art likely isnt even the best place to look if you wanna hunt down pedophiles, look at politicians, trannies and discord groomers first.

>>6591176
I believe pedos should voluntarily undergo chemical castration, and that websites should ban pedo drawings/paintings. However, I don’t believe any drawings/paintings that are purely products of imagination should be illegal to create or possess. I don’t think anyone should have the power to decide where that line is drawn. Much as “muh disinformation” is used as an excuse for censorship, the argument that some drawings cause social harm cannot logically be constrained to any one class of drawings and would doubtless result in a very restrictive artistic climate under the right circumstances. Violence, suggestive art, political satire, social criticism, “cultural appropriation,” etc. could all fall under the axe. Agatha Christie’s novels are presently being censored (passages alluding to race or other snowflake-triggering topics removed or altered) by the company that holds the publishing rights, so this is not hyperbole.

>>6591275
>Why not blame both?
I hate arguing with you low IQ artist retards, here are the problems with banning lolicon to curb "manipulating children into engaging in sexual acts":

1) We don't know about the extend of which pedophiles are using fictional child pornography to lure children. If this is an uncommon occurence, the ban would virtually save 0 children.

2) Lolicon is almost everywhere. If you are willing to use fictional child pornography to manipulate children, you are probably far gone enough to already have tons of it child pornography, probably of the real kind, too, on your hard drive.
And if you don't, you'll most likely find no issue in finding it on a sketchy website, due to how complicated a law regarding totally fictional art can become and that every single first world nation on Earth has to be in agreement, the same way every single first world nation on Earth has taken extremely heavy steps to ban actual child pornography.

3) The analogy to gun markets doesn't even make sense. Pandora's Box has already been opened. The amount of loli porn out there can't be suppressed.
Even for gun markets: I live in a nation with extremely strict gun control laws, yet my father, my grandpa and his father all owned handguns. How? Because the black market for guns is fucking thriving.

4) Related to '3)', if you equate lolicon with actual child pornography by law, pedophiles will be less incentivized to "just stay in the realm of fiction" and will either start consuming real child pornography or consume more real child pornography than they used to, since their moral qualms would be wildly different.

>Many murders and many offending pedos would be stopped if there wasn't such a fostering culture with people denying the problem at large.
JfC, there is no fucking "festering culture" with pedophilia. It's a sexuality. A sexuality that may be expressed very immorally, but a sexuality nonetheless.

>>6591208
>people use loli doujins to groom real lolis
give ONE, just ONE instance of this happening
prove that it is something that happens and not a sick situation that happened in your head

>>6592908
>I believe pedos should voluntarily undergo chemical castration
This, but replace [pedos] with [anyone under the IQ of 100].

>>6591176
some people define art as anything what produces emotion in the viewer. and as such if your pics arent bland, they will always end up producing fans and haters. artistic freedom is theoretical concept which doesnt exist in reality.

if you will post pony on 4chab outside mlp you will get banned. if you post cunny raped by dog outside trash or d you will get banned. if you post modern art (bannana glued to wall) outside modern museums people will mock you and then ban you as well.

So always identify the culture / audience of certain place and then simply post there stuff which is tolerated. Furries on furry websites, lolis on uooooh japanese websites, shitposts for twitter and bland shit on DA. Some artists dont even have a spine and make complete new alias for each topic so their lolis on pixiv are signed with different name than their furries on fa and their human pinups on facebook.

Yeah I think furros should be banned