I'm reading that he had images of real children, but I can't find any source for the information. If that's the case, he's going to get what he deserves. In the case of people going to jail over fictional people, I don't agree with that, but there's some things people will never agree on.
WTF did I just watch.
a guy fuck his pillow
pretty romantically
lol southfield is like flint and detroit-lite. fuckin blackies from there be crazy
What a retard. Who posts shit like that to facebook?
The sad part is in countries like Australia and I'm sure soon in yours too the images don't have to be of real children or of under 18s, if they look under 18 you can still be charged with possession of child porn. If they are clearly cartoon images (as was the case with someone arrested for possession of simpsons porn) that's still going to get you convicted and listed forever as a sex offender. http://www.theherald.com.au/news/loc...n/1458973.aspx
I know different countries blah blah but don't take anything for granted. Someone will be a test case to change the current law make sure it's not you.
It is, and it's been held up in court several times.
The problem isn't the law, but the enforcement. Cops will arrest you on child pornography charges for lolicon, and judges WILL convict you. It doesn't matter that it isn't a crime, no lower circuit judge wants to rule against this kind of shit because of they don't want to be labeled as pro-child porn.
It's all politics, technically though it's entirely legal.
And that said, it's retarded to outlaw it regardless, all evidence points to the fact that pedos given access to appropriate porn commit less real acts against real children...if you take away that outlet from them...yeah.
And that said, it's retarded to outlaw it regardless, all evidence points to the fact that pedos given access to appropriate porn commit less real acts against real children...if you take away that outlet from them...yeah.
Source? I worked on this issue for a year or so and there was no evidence of this in the slightest.
1) it's very difficult to control for
2) it's very difficult to recruit volunteers
And those are just the beginning of the issues surrounding the "evidence" of anything to do with paedophiles.
NB I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just want to know where you got your info from.
At first I thought that video was of Cream but then I saw the guy had working electricity.
Holy fuck I'm dying on that. Tears in eyes.At first I thought that video was of Cream but then I saw the guy had working electricity.
The argument I've seen is rape rates in Japan vs the US where you can easily say the type of pornography is related to the incidence of sexual crimes.
Why you would even think it would be a volunteer study where lolicons offer themselves up and say 'I will try my best not to rape someone!'? These sorts of things will never be truly tested without some form of mind reading.
fat black people w/ flabby undefined arms are the absolute worst
and he is a pedo
Oops, forgot to address this. What's the alternative? If you only talk to those who get caught, you have a biased sample already. There was one study done on child porn offenders which showed that 80something% of them had committed prior contact abuse as well. That sounds pretty terrible but the details of the study were that it was part of a rehabilitation program in which convicted offenders could get psychological treatment etc. without being further prosecuted for any other crimes that might have come up. But the psychology of offenders is really tricky. Which offenders would agree to go into psychological treatment? Probably the ones who felt guilty about other crimes they might have committed. So you already get a smaller pool of offenders who volunteer. Some might have other mental issues or admit to things they didn't do because it sounds better or might feel as though they need to admit to other things. Who knows? But it's a highly biased, self-selecting sample, so the 80% statistic is seriously flawed IF used incorrectly, which is what most of the media hype picked up on. But if you read the actual paper, the authors express the limitations of the study etc. and actually released a separate statement reiterating these limitations.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46829505/B...Hernandez-2009 is the paper, if you're interested, by the way.
http://www.iprc.unc.edu/G8/Hernandez..._Symposium.pdf is the followup position paper.
My point is that it's really difficult to carry out studies like this, which is why I'm questioning the "evidence".
By the way, I'm not making any judgements either way. It sounds like a plausible argument, but I'm interested in how you find out whether it's right or wrong.
This isn't spam, you can edit your posts. You seemed to be unable to figure out what Darus Grey was implying, I gave you a push in the right direction. I'm not going to turn this into a quote battle because I think arguing about human sexuality is pretty fruitless.
Ooh, nice one. The "sexuality" thing. You have proof of that too? Or just a bunch of "I read it on the internet so it must be true"?
Each of my posts had a different point or was responding to a different point. Don't get your knickers in a knot.