According to an Australian Judge, cartoons are people too!

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:02 pm

jpj wrote:that isn't what i said.

by talking about resources, you're missing the woods for the trees. this is scapegoating.

in the UK we have a sex offender's register. i would put someone like that onto the register for 1-2 years. what that entails is monitoring from the authorities, and blocked from working in any capacity with children. hope that makes sense now

Yeah that's resources. It needlessly expands the sex offender's register for again looking at cartoon porn. Plus requires monitoring from authorities that have better things to do. Then the person is blocked from working in any capacity with children for...looking at cartoon porn. Seems the only victim here is the taxpayer....

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:04 pm

Uncle Bob fingering his nephew is fine because it's his uncle and we should not interfere in family matters.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:21 pm

i think you're just on some anti-government rant (nice sig).

tax payer is not the victim. scapegoating people like this guy is a good long-term strategy from their point of view. but that's not even the issue.

someone who possesses and finds images or depictions of children sexually exciting poses a certain risk to society. it's for the authorities to determine how much a risk, and how much monitoring is needed. for serious crimes, people can be put on the sex offender's list for life. common sense is the key.

it would be exactly the same if i had been arrested for having downloaded manuals on making bombs out of home materials.

Jockel · Post by **Jockel** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:40 pm

jpj wrote:
Jockel wrote:If kids are his fetish it's his thing, imo - no harm done.

i give in...

Why? As long as he is just fantasizing about it and not doing anything at all, it's not exactly a problem. Immoral? Yes. Wrong? You bet. But illegal? No.
I can just repeat myself: as long as he is not doing any harm to any other individual, it's perfectly fine with me.
Don't get me wrong, i don't sympathize with those people.
In fact, i work with children who were sometimes abused and raped by their parents. THOSE are the people who need to be in jail.
Not those who don't actually do anything.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:43 pm

jpj wrote:i think you're just on some anti-government rant (nice sig).

tax payer is not the victim. scapegoating people like this guy is a good long-term strategy from their point of view. but that's not even the issue.

someone who possesses and finds images or depictions of children sexually exciting poses a certain risk to society. it's for the authorities to determine how much a risk, and how much monitoring is needed. for serious crimes, people can be put on the sex offender's list for life. common sense is the key.

it would be exactly the same if i had been arrested for having downloaded manuals on making bombs out of home materials.

I'd like to see your nice fantasy world where stigma doesn't exist and if it does it never sticks

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:52 pm

jpj wrote:i think you're just on some anti-government rant (nice sig).

tax payer is not the victim. scapegoating people like this guy is a good long-term strategy from their point of view. but that's not even the issue.

someone who possesses and finds images or depictions of children sexually exciting poses a certain risk to society. it's for the authorities to determine how much a risk, and how much monitoring is needed. for serious crimes, people can be put on the sex offender's list for life. common sense is the key.

it would be exactly the same if i had been arrested for having downloaded manuals on making bombs out of home materials.

And I think you might be on a slight fascist oriented anti-citizen power trip. Downloading bomb manuals is an arrestable offense? Are these manuals copy righted?

Hell, anyone can learn how to make a home made bomb just by visiting their local library. My local library even has books on waging and countering guerilla warfare. Now that shit sounds dangerous, we should totally lock those rabble-rousing librarians up, eh?

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:08 pm

i am like a moth to a flame. and a moth who should've known better

Jockel wrote:as long as he is not doing any harm to any other individual, it's perfectly fine with me.

i'll say it again: it's about gauging what risk people pose to society. as opposed to waiting for a crime to happen. what that risk is, and how it's weighed, yes that is all debatable.

and again, i can only speak for UK law here, but such images are actually graded as well. things like age, brutality, etc.

it's not about putting people in jail. i'm not sure if i'm not saying this well, or people aren't listening. it's about identifying what people pose a risk, then monitoring and intervening before anything more serious happens.

newer british mobile phones have security software in them that picks up on certain words like "bomb" in voice or text messaging. that's how MI5 can anticipate and foil so many attacks here in the last couple of years. asians need more slang, innit.

twiddle: it's not a public list. i think the way you do it in america is different

power UP · Post by **power UP** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:47 pm

I'm with Jockel on this one.
If people are pedophiles I rather have them jack off to cartoons than to the real stuff, or in the worst case, abusing a child. So I have to say that lolicon is actually a good thing, as it helps these people to relief themselves without doing any harm to anybody, maybe even preventing them from doing harm.
It's the same with porn: Rape rates have been down, because of porn.
http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco ... ue-to-porn

UnscathedFlyingObject · Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:55 pm

power UP wrote:It's the same with porn: Rape rates have been down, because of porn.
http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco ... ue-to-porn

My old logic prof. would have screamed "FALLACY!" at you. Crime rates have gone done in the past 25 years at the same time that porn has become more available too. Porn reduces crime too?

Edit: if anything has reduced rape, I'd say it's tougher penalties, more openness for women to denounce the crime, more informed women, etc.

power UP · Post by **power UP** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:09 pm

I can't find the source right now, but there have been studies made. Rapists usually don't watch a lot of porn, if any.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:10 pm

but you just said... aw, forget it

FIL · Post by **FIL** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:29 pm

I blame sexy children.

MX7 · Post by **MX7** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:43 pm

FIL wrote:I blame sexy children.

Thread.

SockPuppetHyren · Post by **SockPuppetHyren** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:44 pm

FIL wrote:I blame sexy children.

I laughed.

power UP · Post by **power UP** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:39 pm

jpj wrote:but you just said... aw, forget it

Yes. People who watch porn are much less likely to become rapists.

Taylor · Post by **Taylor** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:59 pm

jpj wrote:sex offender's register.

They shouldn't even be in school.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:46 am

power UP wrote:I can't find the source right now, but there have been studies made. Rapists usually don't watch a lot of porn, if any.

most of them come from troubled or sheltered backgrounds

UnscathedFlyingObject wrote:Edit: if anything has reduced rape, I'd say it's tougher penalties, more openness for women to denounce the crime, more informed women, etc.

and basically this is pretty much the truth right here, hence why rape is at an all time high in societies where women are little more than property (and are even victims of state-sanctioned murder)

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:46 am

jpj wrote:
i'll say it again: it's about gauging what risk people pose to society. as opposed to waiting for a crime to happen. what that risk is, and how it's weighed, yes that is all debatable.

and again, i can only speak for UK law here, but such images are actually graded as well. things like age, brutality, etc.

it's not about putting people in jail. i'm not sure if i'm not saying this well, or people aren't listening. it's about identifying what people pose a risk, then monitoring and intervening before anything more serious happens.

Where do you draw the line though? If you can justify monitoring someone's behavior based solely on their thoughts, you open a floodgate to all kinds of behavior being monitored by the state simply to prevent some nebulous, theoretical risk. It's a recipe for oppression.

newer british mobile phones have security software in them that picks up on certain words like "bomb" in voice or text messaging. that's how MI5 can anticipate and foil so many attacks here in the last couple of years. asians need more slang, innit.

That is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. What happens when they say pie instead of bomb?

CIT · Post by **CIT** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:55 am

jpj wrote:i'll say it again: it's about gauging what risk people pose to society. as opposed to waiting for a crime to happen. what that risk is, and how it's weighed, yes that is all debatable.

and again, i can only speak for UK law here, but such images are actually graded as well. things like age, brutality, etc.

it's not about putting people in jail. i'm not sure if i'm not saying this well, or people aren't listening. it's about identifying what people pose a risk, then monitoring and intervening before anything more serious happens.

UK = Soviet Union 2.0

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:12 am

Acid King wrote:
jpj wrote:
i'll say it again: it's about gauging what risk people pose to society. as opposed to waiting for a crime to happen. what that risk is, and how it's weighed, yes that is all debatable.

and again, i can only speak for UK law here, but such images are actually graded as well. things like age, brutality, etc.

it's not about putting people in jail. i'm not sure if i'm not saying this well, or people aren't listening. it's about identifying what people pose a risk, then monitoring and intervening before anything more serious happens.
Where do you draw the line though? If you can justify monitoring someone's behavior based solely on their thoughts, you open a floodgate to all kinds of behavior being monitored by the state simply to prevent some nebulous, theoretical risk. It's a recipe for oppression.

newer british mobile phones have security software in them that picks up on certain words like "bomb" in voice or text messaging. that's how MI5 can anticipate and foil so many attacks here in the last couple of years. asians need more slang, innit.
That is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. What happens when they say pie instead of bomb?

don't quote me on this, but i think you need to have a certain number of images. but again, severity plays a big part here. and again, it is still actions we are talking about, they aren't doing it by telepathy.

and the surveilance only kicks in after 5 uses of the word bomb. or so i am told

you can call it stupid, but it is and has saved dozens if not hundreds of lives. on the flip-side, look at your country's national security...

oddly enough, i live 5 miles away from a place called GCHQ. nobody who works at GCHQ is allowed to reveal what it is they actually do. it's spying on people basically. i think i should apply

CIT · Post by **CIT** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:30 am

jpj wrote:and the surveilance only kicks in after 5 uses of the word bomb. or so i am told

Well, I can only hope for you that GCHG doesn't monitor shmups forum then.

Or maybe we should start using codes as well. "Pie the second pattern on Mushi's stage 4 boss."

mufunyo · Post by **mufunyo** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:40 am

get out bart i'm piss

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:40 am

get yourself a nokia 3210, and we'll talk more about the "package"

Sly Cherry Chunks · Post by **Sly Cherry Chunks** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:57 am

jpj wrote:in the UK we have a sex offender's register. i would put someone like that onto the register for 1-2 years. what that entails is monitoring from the authorities, and blocked from working in any capacity with children. hope that makes sense now

I'd vote for you.

RackGaki · Post by **RackGaki** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:55 am

In America, we Ukrainians speak of premium content as "the Bomb." Would for James Bond arrest me if I speak over phone?

LtC · Post by **LtC** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:01 am

Since cartoons count as people in Australia I wonder if one can marry one there too. Endless possibilities, might as well have the Simpsons handle the australian government.

On the serious note I remember similiar incident in Canada where a man got charged for importing cartoons with similiar content from Japan.

Gozer · Post by **Gozer** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:12 am

JUSTICE!

sven666 · Post by **sven666** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:41 am

LtC wrote:Since cartoons count as people in Australia I wonder if one can marry one there too. Endless possibilities, might as well have the Simpsons handle the australian government.

shit, i wonder if i marry Lisa Simpson and we divorce (hey i can always claim shes had an affair with milhouse right?), will i get half of what the show has made?

shows on at 8 tonight, i think ill propose then

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:52 pm

Holy crap.

People need to decide if having thoughts (amoral by your standards) is a crime? Do you really support this 1984 bullshit?

Downloading an image of anything...I don't get how it is a crime, no matter how much it offends you. (What does someone believe seeing loliporn makes people rape little girls??? Like video games make children kill people, right?)

As far as sick or insane however, I'd like to point out the huge percentage of Americans who think that the earth is only 6000 years old and that they'll see the rapture in their lifetime. These are the same people who believe that homosexuality and abortion are the two GREATEST worldwide problems. There is honestly a very deep list of sick/mentally-ill behavior that we swallow like a great lump of cow shit every day, but go all crazy over some dudes who are a bit perverted in their sexual fantasies.

Like man, what the fuck?

Lordstar · Post by **Lordstar** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:55 pm

sven666 wrote:
LtC wrote:Since cartoons count as people in Australia I wonder if one can marry one there too. Endless possibilities, might as well have the Simpsons handle the australian government.
shit, i wonder if i marry Lisa Simpson and we divorce (hey i can always claim shes had an affair with milhouse right?), will i get half of what the show has made?

shows on at 8 tonight, i think ill propose then

you would be better of marrying marge she makes more. Lisa is the worst paid character on the simpsons due to her only being able to do one (very anoying) voice