Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
He wasn't prosecuted for child abuse and received no prison term. So you can rest easy over your rather bizarre position.
Ah, okay, so what law was used here? Obscenity? I can sort of agree with that.
He wasn't prosecuted for child abuse and received no prison term. So you can rest easy over your rather bizarre position.
Ah, okay, so what law was used here? Obscenity? I can sort of agree with that.
I pretty much agree with what you're saying but the harm that is done to kids in the third world demonstrates that making it unacceptable hasn't worked because people understand, it's not ok to do this in my own country and they start taking holidays in Thailand or whatever. Pure condemnation doesn't work, I think you have to work with people prone to offending. It's like the war on terror or the war on drugs, you have to be really smart about it.No, we don't live in a perfect world. But the rates of recidivism among prosecuted child abusers is scarily high, even after 'treatment'. I think the only way to deal with it is to make it completely socially unacceptable not least because it cuts down the trade of 3rd world kids being pimped for 1st world pleasures. No, it's not a 100% solution but it seems to me to be the least bad.
There are charities who support people with paedophile tendencies to help them address and deal with their proclivities but I suspect that a predator needs to really feel that they need help with their issues before they will seek it. This all feels a bit like 'can't get a real live kid? This is the next best thing!'.
As a society, we cannot ever condone sex with a child because a child can never consent. Any images are always abuse.
I don't think a serbian film was intended for fapping
Possibly.... I've taken a bit of a verbal battering over misrepresentations of what I've said.
not to mentioned abusive accusations.
I really don't think a serbian film is wank material.
The point is they both depict the same thing, everyones unified that child abuse should not be tolerated in any kind of depiction, yet people will defend this particular film....
I really don't think a serbian film is wank material.
The point is they both depict the same thing, everyones unified that child abuse should not be tolerated in any kind of depiction, yet people will defend this particular film....
the article says prosecuted for pseudo images of children, apparently made illegal in 2010?
I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on it but I think you're missing the point completely. The film wasn't made to be shared and wanked over by a pedo ring. The child-rape manga images were.I really don't think a serbian film is wank material.
The point is they both depict the same thing, everyones unified that child abuse should not be tolerated in any kind of depiction, yet people will defend this particular film....
Ah, okay, so what law was used here? Obscenity? I can sort of agree with that.
What was the intent of the maker's of the serbian film compared to manga guy?
How would anyone know? Some people consider ASF pure exploitative trash - others think it much better than that and at least an attempt at a serious film.
Both of their intentions are to depict child rape.
Yet one attempts to do it using realism and one attempts to do it with an interpretation of.
You really can't tell the difference between artistic intent (however controversial or misguided) and pornographic intent?
What sort of thread would be enhanced by this clown posting on it after 20 pages?
sim667 .seriously to defend this is to say that any of us can draw a picture of a child being abused or sexualised and we shouldn't be called on it...
But would we be called on it (legally)? Why would this be so much worse than a drawing (yes, a drawing) of someone being stabbed or beheaded, for example? Would prosecution also depend on the artistic ability of the artist?
I'd even like that.A thread entitled 'This Will Be The Last Thread On Which I Ever Post'.
I think, as someone mentioned earlier, 'intent' would be the key factor.But would we be called on it (legally)? Why would this be so much worse than a drawing (yes, a drawing) of someone being stabbed or beheaded, for example? Would prosecution also depend on the artistic ability of the artist?
That's the name of the person i was grasping for - she did say that she would think about it and had missed lots of stuff in her original position. There's an honesty there.Itziko ran away from the boards when she was making similar arguments. I guess she never came back.
iirc her first involvement with the boards was on such a thread, and she stayed for several years after?Itziko ran away from the boards when she was making similar arguments. I guess she never came back.
sim667 I am a bit confused about the stance you are taking in this tbh.
Manga has long walked the line and is overly sexualised in it's depiction of women etc many of whom look bearly legal...
Manga images that involve the sexualisation of children are just that..regardless of whether they are cartoons...seriously to defend this is to say that any of us can draw a picture of a child being abused or sexualised and we shouldn't be called on it...
Child abuse has moved with the times and technology, as such depictions of it have moved on...creating or getting off on CGI of children in sexualised/abusive situations is the same thing.
Is there a condition where someone can be born without the cones in their eyes, and can only see black and white as a result?