[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   

File: 1.10 MB, 1770x1500, Lolicon_Sample.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9622943 No.9622943[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]


So this is a real thing in Japan, right?

How is this even legal?

>> No.9622947

It's just a drawing.

>> No.9622948
File: 315 KB, 697x768, 1202891746668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>How is this even legal?
it's not, the party van is coming to get you

>> No.9622951 [DELETED] 

You could apply that to anything. "It's just pixels" or "It's just text."

>> No.9622952

But the people depicted are not real persons you idiot.

>> No.9622953

Explain your problem with it.

>> No.9622955

So? Move to china if you want pixels and texts to be restricted

>> No.9622973

I don't get it. What's wrong with a drawing of three girls hanging out?

>> No.9622974
File: 26 KB, 299x295, 1224603738341.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.9622976

You are violating the rights of those imaginary children.

>> No.9622977
File: 37 KB, 251x239, tumblr_m8k1v8nw7D1qcerl3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>board a train to Vienna
>sit next to a cute girl
>we both start reading
>ask her what she's reading
>"fifty shades of grey. it's about a student who has hardcore sex with a businessman, and there are a lot of explicit, erotic bits about BDSM. what about you?"
"oh, i'm reading a japanese comic about a guy who violently rapes elementary school students. it's pretty good."
>she freaks out
>calls train security
>they make me move to another carriage

>> No.9622979

/jp/ legality of loli debate thread

guaranteed 100+ replies

>> No.9622987

lel e/b/in post dude thx but who were u quoting

>> No.9622985

it's obviously sexual in nature and you are raping real children with your mind

>> No.9622986

To the people saying it's just pixels and it shouldn't matter because you're not actually doing anything to a child, do you feel the same way about photographic child pornography?

>> No.9622990

I was quoting me that's why it's in quotes (except for my bit but that's on purpose ssshhh lol)

>> No.9622991

Nobody is saying that. Stop "purposely" misinterpreting things.

>> No.9622993

Child pornography =/= Drawn child pornography.

>> No.9622998

No kids were harmed in the making of my lolicon doujinshi.

>> No.9622999

Epic read bro.

>> No.9623002
File: 35 KB, 393x430, lel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

That's what you think.

>> No.9623001

I think you misunderstand me. I actually do feel the same way about any child pornography. Producing it is it wrong as far as I know (save perhaps some nude photoshoots), but making downloading/possessing pixels illegal is dumb. You aren't doing anything to that child any more than you are with lolicon.

>> No.9623004

You're supporting it by downloading it. If there was no demand (you), people wouldn't produce it.

>> No.9623005

Yea, pretty much.

That's why in Japan simple possession is not illegal, unless you're living in Kanto.

>> No.9623009

the pedos are such nice people, always thinking of others
they dont want to make those videos, but they do it for you

>> No.9623006

In Japan, people are still punished for harming children (actions), rather than for mere thoughtcrimes. The situation's changing, though, so don't worry, soon they'll purge everyone who doesn't agree with society.

>> No.9623008

If no money is exchanged you aren't supporting anything

>> No.9623010

That's bullshit.

It's not like they know who and how many times downloaded it and even if they knew no one does they'd still be making it even if for themselves.

>> No.9623012

Put the production aside for a bit. We're talking about the actual materials that exist. Or rather, would you be fine with existing 3D CP being illegal, but producing it being strictly illegal?

It just seems hypocritical to read things like >>9622998 and >>9622993. People seem just as guilty of dumb generalisations as much as the morons who think tablet + Paint Tool Sai = child abuse.

>> No.9623016


I'm starting to think the people who make these threads are journalists collecting data or something.

>> No.9623018

Or an ebin troll xD

>> No.9623021
File: 174 KB, 1255x719, qwe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

asians ara sick fucks

<--- beijing opening cerimony

>> No.9623022


>> No.9623024

That's the dumbest thing I've read in months. How do you think companies like Google make their absurd amounts of money?

>It's not like they know who and how many times downloaded it
They know exactly who and how many times their main clientele downloads that stuff.

>and even if they knew no one does they'd still be making it even if for themselves.
That's absolutely nonsense and you know it. The amount of people that would make it for themselves is miniscule to negligible. CP is a huge business.

I don't get what you're saying, sorry.

>> No.9623028

ads give them money

>> No.9623038

>I don't get what you're saying, sorry.

Then I guess let's boil it down to the obvious question: why should child porn photographs be illegal? A lot of officials say stupid things like you're abusing a child by looking at it, but that's obviously not true any more than looking at war photos means you're committing mass murder. The other main reason is that, as you've said, it fuels production. But what reason is that to make the images themselves illegal? There are similar cases like drugs, but drugs are also harmful to the user and the people around him, and I'm sure there are sillier reasons that do matter, such as drug dealers not filing taxes for their sales.

What is it that makes photographs of kids naked illegal, but not drawings of kids naked?

>> No.9623041

Have you ever been to a legitimate child pornography site?

>> No.9623042

Comparing CP producers to google is the dumbest thing I've read in months, actually.

I guess we have a common ground there at least

>> No.9623045


>> No.9623047



>> No.9623049

>What is it that makes photographs of kids naked illegal, but not drawings of kids naked?
Because with photographs children were "hurt" in the process? And drawn kids obviously not because they never even existed.

>> No.9623054

I wasn't comparing Google to CP "producers". I was telling him that there doesn't need to be a money flow for people to make money.

>> No.9623055

They're full of ads. Maybe it's not the banner ads you're used to, but those shady Russian spammers who the administrators pretend are a nuisance? Notice how *some* of their posts are always allowed? Yeah.

>> No.9623059

taking a picture of a dead man and spread it is not legal

drawing a dead man is

>> No.9623071

Child pornography is theft. The fruits of the child's labor (i.e. the pornography) is taken from the child, and distributed before they're considered old enough to make a rational decision as to how they want to distribute it.

Compare that to lolicon, where the creator wholly owns his drawings.

>> No.9623086
File: 199 KB, 378x581, hiro4.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

But I don't get why that makes the pictures themselves illegal.

Here's the sort of picture trolls usually post. It's a girl who died horribly in the Hiroshima bombing. It took some pretty twisted (and perhaps illegal) actions to make this photo a reality, and I'm sure she suffered greatly. Does this mean that I'm responsible somehow, or that by having this image I ought to be arrested? I would say this is worse than most child pornography. Should I be locked up for saving or even looking at this image?

>> No.9623100
File: 63 KB, 608x464, the_front.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Aren't parents/guardians responsible for their child's creations? e,g, if I had a six-year-old son and he drew a picture, can I license, distribute and sell it however I please, even without his permission?

If anyone here knows about copyright, I'd seriously like to know this.

>> No.9623116

You're comparing apples and oranges.

>> No.9623126

just fly low and nothing will happen to you

>> No.9623125


You ran out of things to say, Echelon scum?

>> No.9623131

Basically this, the FBI isn't going to give two shits about some virgin 24 year old who downloads some CP of Tor and never distributes it.

>> No.9623164


I don't think he is. While it's not exactly the same thing as a good chunk of it is produced with the intent of distributing it among paedophiles (and I'd like to say 'majority' but I have never seen any data that would specify just how much of it is produced for that purpose and I don't feel like pulling numbers out of my ass) some of it isn't.

>Does this mean that I'm responsible somehow, or that by having this image I ought to be arrested?

That's a good question, really. 99% of people on /jp/ (and probably 4chan in general) would fo full 'B-BUT MAH FREEDOMS' the second some politician would seriously bring it up but I can't say I'm against it. Of course you're not exactly responsible (not in this case) but there are lots of sick people out there who are willing to go that far to get some attention. I blame the media, really. I mean really, the #1 sure-fire method of reaching as many people as usual is go out there, aim for the high schore and then explain how you shot all those people because you had something you wanted to say and nobody wanted to listen to it. I think it'll only become more widespread in the future if anything.

>> No.9623171

I'm sticking apples up your mums arse.

>> No.9623174

Nice try Mr. Agent but I ain't falling for that one.

>> No.9623177

They sure cared about Thad.

>> No.9623178

Except there are plenty of cases of individuals getting caught. The "They only care about distributors!" argument is dumb. As with any crime, they're going to actively seek you out if they suspect you, or arrest you if you fall into one of their traps. And while honeypots are the most obvious traps, there are also things like ECHELON and data mining and IP address harvesting. They're not going to overlook it because it's "just one guy". Not only do they have they resources, but it's also their job.

>> No.9623182

Thad also paraded his habits on facebook and taught others how to download it.

>> No.9623183

thad didn't fly low

>> No.9623191

thank god I'm not american