/jp/ - Otaku Culture

... It needed justification?

lol 5000.

Anyway it's more of an excuse to justify liking it than a "legitimate" justification for it.

>>1726387
Sexy doesnt need justification.

Isn't being loli or not based on the bodily appearance?

If only I could fuck a diaper-wearing Vita-chan~

>>1726405

Shit yourself in hell, diaperfag.

JAPAN

>>1726417
I not only like diapers, but furries too. I think you're just an intolerant idiot who needs a good lesson in love.

>>1726417
HOLY SHIT IT'S DEX-STAR RUN FOR YOUR LIVES

>>1726435
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Before answering that, he have to ask, what is wrong about loli in the first place? The only argument against loli is that girls of a young age have not yet reached mental sexual maturity, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the choices she makes when it comes to sex. Since lolis cannot legally consent to sex, all sex with lolis counts as non-consensual. However, when it's a 5000 year old in a loli body, she has reached mental sexual maturity, and is perfectly capable of choosing to consent to sex, making it possible for the sex to be consensual. When that part is okay, there are no moral issues with having sex with a 5000 year old with a loli body.

>>1726444

Except that there are no 5000 year old lolis, and it's just a plot loophole so you won't feel bad about fapping to underage girls.

Also, the slippery slope: "I swear, officer, she's nine, but she's very mature for her age."

Because this.

I hate these threads, but I'll contribute this:

The only reason child pornography laws have any standing in court (aside from MORAL OUTRAGE RAR) is that children cannot consent to anything. They don't have the moral or intellectual faculties, as judged by the court, to understand the consequences of their actions.

Therefore, they cannot be said to "consent" to sexual activity.

If you could somehow prove, in court, that the loli in question was possessed with 5000 years of life experience, then you could turn the reasoning for prosecuting you on its face, and nullify the charge.

Except we live in CHRISTIAN/DEMOCRAT AMERICA, where citizens don't get tried in court based on the law, but rather the MORAL or SOCIETAL consequences of their actions. Even if you proved she was a 5000 year old super intelligence, they'd probably railroad you anyway just because it's standard policy.

>>1726489

>>1726503
Yep, all sexual crimes are, in the end, reduced to the rape crime. All the legal problem lies in the consent issue.

>>1726472
If you're fapping to 5000 year-old lolis it won't be long before you're fapping to 100 year-old lolis, right?

>>1726472
>Except that there are no 5000 year old lolis, and it's just a plot loophole so you won't feel bad about fapping to underage girls.
Things that don't exist in reality in fiction? My word!

>Also, the slippery slope: "I swear, officer, she's nine, but she's very mature for her age."
Yeah, let's completely ignore the lack of evidence for the slippery slope applying in this situation, assume that it would eventually bypass all principles you might have, and while we're at it argue that playing video games will eventually make you violent in real life.

>>1726503
But 5000 year old lolis don't exist so yeah!

Also the law that would have made illustrated content illegal was overturned, so the system does work. It just takes a while for it to happen. Hooray for the First Amendment!

>>1726444
I know you were just trying to answer the OP, and I completely agree with your point, but what lolicons in general enjoy the most about their loli is that innocence and purity you alluded to.
Do you consider them morally wrong?

>>1726521
One of my principles is to never judge the morals of other people, we have enough people doing that already.

In Wisconsin it's possible to rape each other while having consent.
If you are a 17 year old fucking another 17 year old you can both charge the other party with rape.
You will both be registered as sex offenders and will have to live a shitty life because you are legally and morally on par with pedophiles, rapists, child molesters, and murderers.

>>1726520
Once in a while a guy with some reason left pops up and says "stop it guys i mean it geez". That doesn't mean the system works.

>>1726539
>it's possible to rape each other while having consent.

I don't get it.

>>1726539
but that's just angry sex

>>1726576
Oh yeah? Well, you'll be pretty angry too when I'm done with you!

>>1726539
>live a shitty life

I dunno, I think I would be turned on if I found out that my female neighbor was a sex offender.

>>1726597
she'd probably be some tough dyke though

>>1726539
>>1726561
I agree with you. What's consent?
Sorry, I was raised in Japan.

>>1726560
Except that it does, because if it didn't this shit would be illegal! That it is NOT illegal is proof in and of itself that something is working right.

I would challenge you to find a case in which a person in the United States was successfully prosecuted for possession of loli ALONE, without that case having been overturned later. Having loli material is sometimes used as evidence to back up a child pornography conviction, but to my knowledge there has never been such a case where real child porn wasn't also presented as proof against the accused, making illustrated content superfluous.

>>1726625
>something is working right
That's more accurate. But just one thing going right doesn't mean the system works. If a million monkeys on a million typewriters are able to write the works of Shakespeare, it doesn't mean all monkeys are comparable to Shakespeare, it means that if given enough time and resources, they can do it by random chance.

>>1726625
But I live in Canada... ;_;

>>1726659
I am not quite grasping your meaning here. Our legal system, with the Constitution as the highest law in the land, has successfully defended freedom of expression where other nations, such as Canada, has failed. It accomplished this through the system of higher courts by which all laws may be reviewed, if accepted. This isn't flailing in the dark, this is the system working exactly as it is planned to be.

What are you complaining about?

>>1726659
Your analogy is invalid.

If time is infinite, then all possibilities will happen at some point.

>>1726678
THAT, mon fruend, is a problem. Their law is more focused on punishing that which repulses them, rather than what makes logical sense.

Yes I know that Amerifag law is FAR from perfect, but at least we try to fix it.

>>1726684
I'm just saying that's only one case, which isn't enough to judge the whole system by.

>If a million monkeys on a million typewriters are able to write the works of Shakespeare
Incidentally...

http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/notes/publication/
http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/notes/publication/NOTES_EN.pdf

>In 2003, an experiment was performed with six Celebes Crested Macaques, but their literary contribution was five pages consisting largely of the letter 'S'.

>>1726692
I do admire how you stick to freedom of expression to the end, even for something like lolicon, which I'm sure the people who refused the law against it thought of it as sick pedo shit.

>>1726678

Yeah. Terrible shame, that. I'm always worried the ERT will kick my door down. NOT THAT I HAVE ANYTHING ILLEGAL. Ho ho, encryption.

>>1726692
This is what I have been asserting, yes. If there is a problem with the U.S. legal system, it is that prosecuting criminals is more DIFFICULT than that of other nations. When it comes to protecting privacy or rights to free speech, the courts do a good job of shielding us.

Compare with, say, Europe.

>>1726697
In the United States, single cases set precedents by which all other cases are decided. Going against that precedent typically results in a trip to the Supreme Court for reevaluation. Why do you think individual cases (Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, Miranda v Arizona, etc) are referenced so frequently when discussing law?

>>1726725
>Compare with, say, Europe.
You mean England. The rest of Europe is mostly better off than America. Expect, perhaps, Germany.

>>1726739
Was thinking primarily of England and Germany, yeah. Not too familiar with the legal systems of other European nations. Apologies.

Oh fuck I lol'd.

>>1726678

I know what case you're talking about, but the only reason why that idiot got prosecuted is because he plead guilty and didn't decide the fight the law which has a clause that specifically states that:

(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence

(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

So yea, now we have a precedent which will make it harder for others who enjoy lolicon art. Technically, lolicon is NOT illegal in Canada.

>>1726754
>(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

I believe their reasoning was that it incited people to rape children by depicting such actions, thereby violating a certain law on public morals and things that corrupt them.

>>1726754

Didn't he get put on the sex offender's list? Shit, might as well have just went out and gotten the real thing then.

>>1726782
But should not any legals system that isn't completely retarded demand that it's proven first that it really does incite people to rape children? I refuse to accept that the legal system of a 1st world country have no problem with basing laws on assumptions.

>>1726782

Studies have shown there is inconclusive evidence to suggest a link between lolicon and raping little children. He still could have fought it.

>>1726791

If I remember right, the list in Canada isn't public, only the RCMP has access.

>>1726796
If you fight for first amendment rights and against the ridiculousness of prosecuting non-crimes, you're labeled a supporter of pedophiles.

I'm just saying.

It's the same reason you don't see people campaigning for the end of drug laws unless they're, well, drug users. They have no social stigma to avoid, since they're already targets.

>>1726817

You are still socially labeled as a pedophile regardless if you fight it or not.

>>1726817
I would then argue that I am a supporter of justice, and would suggest that anyone who dislikes it to move to Australia.

>>1726817
If you can't make them agree, make them fear expressing their disagreement. It's sad to see how weak reason is in these days.

>>1726794
>>1726796
Yeah, I think he could have gotten out of it had he taken a different approach.
Instead, he argued that through lolicon he could relieve himself of the urge and prevent himself from committing the actual crime. So I guess he did in a way admit that he could turn to rape with time.

>>1726387
If I'm fantasizing about an adult mind in some body, then it's not really pedophilia because it's not the loli-ness that makes it hot.

>>1726827
What?

Some non-pedophile isn't going to come out to fight for the free speech rights of a pedophile, though. Or to fight to overturn crazy illegal laws that violate the basis of our legal system, which is the prosecution of offenses which have victims, and not non-crimes.

Why? Because all the government, congressman, or legislator has to do is say "ONLY A PEDOPHILE WOULD TRY TO STOP OUR EFFORTS TO FIGHT PEDOPHILIA." and they can completely destroy his life, even if it's horse shit.

Why? Because citizens have been trained to bark in agreement when the right flags are raised.

>>1726794
>>1726796
Yeah, I think he could have gotten out of it had he taken a different approach.
Instead, he argued that through lolicon he could relieve himself of the urge and prevent himself from committing the actual crime. So I guess he did in a way admit that he could potentially turn to rape with time.

>>1726840
The entire human race should be forced to take a college level critical thinking class.

>>1726833
You could, but that would take guts that people don't have. I have the guts, but not the commitment. I could challenge the system on what are obvious faults, drugs laws and such, but it wouldn't do any good. Nobody even respects the criminal law system anymore: not the lawyers, not the politicians, not the citizens, and certainly not the criminals.

I'd waste years of my life for what would amount to an acknowledgment of "Yeah, it's bullshit and probably worthless on face, but it's our law and we're gonna keep making more like em faggort, lol"

Because we passed the point of no return on the abuse of governmental power a long, long time ago.

>>1726840
Blame the fall of Western civilization. The moment we stopped thinking we were right and started navel gazing was the moment we decided nothing was right and decided to let the mongrels rule everything.

>>1726857

And then religion would be abolished, and nothing of value would be lost.

>>1726843
You know that many countries denied anti-loli laws right?
So obviously some people are willing to defend it openly, using freedom of expression as their reason to do so, not pedophilia.

>>1726869
Which countries? Point them out and you can probably see whether or not they have a history of valuing civil liberty or not.

>>1726876
Well, the only influential countries who have criminalized lolicon, according to Wikipedia, are Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden.

Still pending for some countries, but denied in most.

>>1726891
Couple more belong to that list, but not many.

>>1726876
Take the US and Japan for instance.

>>1726909
There's always constant pushes to ban anything like that in America. It just depends on how many congressmen they can get to sign on.

As for Japan, weren't they doing that huge BAN LOLI push with Aso being for it?

>>1726919
I doubt it'll pass anytime soon in America.

I did not realize Aso was for it though, we'll have to see I guess.
It would cause an uproar in Japan, with many people getting arrested.