Hi! Let’s look at the actual number of reported cases in 2022!
The number of reported cases of child sexual abuse in Japan in 2022 is 2,197.
Calculating this number against Japan’s population (approximately 125.7 million people), the number is approximately 1.75 cases per 100,000 people.
In the United States, there were approximately 380,494 cases of child sexual abuse reported in 2022.
Calculating this figure for the U.S. population (about 332 million people), we arrive at about 114.5 cases per 100,000 people.
You get the idea.
It may be true that Japan is under-reporting, but the argument of under-reporting is not convincing because there is too much difference in the number of reports.
Pornhub took the shitty easy way out and just wiped everything that wasn’t verified, probably 99% of which wasn’t illegal at all. They just couldn’t be fucked combing through and finding the offending videos
Any site that big can just go “we make too much money to care”.
I’m glad that HMV Mania, iwara, and PMVHaven are at least three main alternatives for people who don’t want to risk their privacy just to post HMVs. rule34video and some others are more stringent on what’s allowed.
Roads have speed limits and traffic enforcement because some people can’t drive responsibly without them. Drugs are not illegal because some people would abuse them. Guns are tightly regulated (at least in some countries) because some people might kill many others with them. You’ll have to step through a metal detector and submit your luggage to search because some people might blow up airplanes if you dont.
Hey if you’re making an argument about child porn, I agree, it is illegal for a very good reason, there is a clear victim in the production of cp, and the consumption of cp promotes its production.
But tell me, who is the victim in a drawing or animation?
Loli hentai is made by adults, for adults. There is simply no evidence to suggest that it promotes or encourages real child porn.
I agree with putting restrictions on certain actions/activities/products if the abuse of those freedoms means putting other people at risk.
But putting restrictions on fictional media does not protect anyone
I think you misunderstood the argument. Although there are many examples where ‘evil’ is banned, there are many examples where it isn’t. For example, driving a car causes actual harm (climate change, traffic accidents) but is not banned. Alcohol causes actual harm, but is not banned. The manufacture of steel causes actual harm, but is not banned. Some children grow up to become mass-murderers, but making children isn’t banned. Some of these activities are regulated, sure, but that’s not what the discussion was about.
The fact that some activities have parts which are ‘evil’ is, in isolation, never a sufficient condition for a ban. You must always perform a cost-benefits analysis.
I don’t see any free speech absolutists here. What I see is people that are concerned that their freedoms are being taken away on the basis of hatred and extremely weak arguments. I’m pretty sure almost everyone here agrees that loli content should be banned if there was strong evidence this would result in a large reduction in child harm. The evidence provided so far is so weak one could easily argue an increase in child harm following a ban is more likely.
Go complain about free speech absolutists on topics that actually have overwhelming evidence of harm attached to them, such as screaming “fire” in a crowded theater.
Not even that reason is needed for almost everyone to agree for it to be banned from this site as shown by the poll, they would rather have loli banned than this site get taken down.
They just want to have their chance at trying to find out if there’s another way first before doing the ban by them suggesting this and that with the kitchen sink. Meanwhile they are also looking at alternative places to head off to if the ban is definitive in the end.
Only one person since the ban has been announced brought politics into this and while there’s been mentions of 1948 it was only at the start and could be thought of as just joke posts. Things have gotten heated at multiple points since there’s people on both sides that are extremely passionate/sensitive about this all. But that just again shows how there is more than just black and white for anything, not just this specific topic. Even the polls have been said to be too long ago, not properly done or even too recent despite them all having a lot of votes which can all still be changed or swapped around if views change.
One of the most contentious subjects in RL of if something should be banned or not is smoking/vaping because it has been shown to have major health risks…yet it hasn’t been banned because it’s been accepted that it’s an useful way for people to chill out and have an outlet instead of holding in pent up stress until something horrible occurs. (Also money gained from taxing it) So yes there’s evils that are banned, but there’s evils that are allowed for the better good. (like RL loli is banned no matter what)
I was speaking about the ban in the law. Agreeing that loli content should be banned by law, and agreeing with the moderators decision under the current state of the US law, are two very different things.
Smoking is a pretty bad comparison because smokers don’t cause net harm to others if sufficiently high tariffs are applied. I’ve read some literature on the topic and as far as I’m concerned the only valid reason to ban smoking is to protect smokers against themselves, under the premise that citizens are incapable of making informed decisions on addictive goods. This argument simply isn’t applicable to loli content.
I think I haven’t put over what I was attempting to say correctly there from your response which I apologize for then if so. :S
I was only meaning to add on to what I had quoted from yourself in in the context of only the this site since that’s what I had thought we were meant to be talking about here.
Meanwhile with the myself mentioning smoking I was intending to use it as an comparison of how contentious it’s been in relation to it’s ban discussions along with it’s similarity of how people’s porn preferences can be a way for people to chill out or have an outlet.
All of matters of smoking stuff like the reasons for and against it’s ban specifically I was not meaning to draw people into talking about, I only broadly mentioned it via “major health risks” to attempt to do so and purposefully be non-specific about whom the health risks apply to.
Again I apologize for not putting this over as I intended from how I worded my post.
I don’t quite understand the bit about smokers not causing a net harm to others. Like, are you saying the effects of second hand smoke to adults and children (I’ve seen people smoke in children’s playplaces next to “No smoking” signs) are sufficiently compensated for by taxation of tobacco?
I think that in our daily lives we don’t tend to weigh physical harm done by individuals against their economic befenitting to the community.
Like, there’s a clear and studied line of causation from smoking being legal to harm done to children. You can criminalize the act of smoking near children (and other people in general), but smoking being legal will still cause an increase in the illegal act of smoking near children.
The same can’t be said for fictional depiction of minors, but if it could I would definitely support the criminalization of any act that is shown to have a statistically significant impact on the harm done to children.
I for sure wouldn’t personally accept those acts if tarrifs are made to balance the net harm.
Second-hand smoking causes harm to others in the form of reduced health, this results in reduced individual welfare. As you say this has been studied extensively.
But welfare has many facets. Smokers die earlier and therefore the overall healthcare costs are lower (indeed – smoking reduces total healthcare and social insurance expenditures). Smokers pay more taxes (tariffs on tobacco). The additional tax income means that income taxes can be lower, or that healthcare expenditure can be increased, which improves the welfare of non-smokers.
If the tariffs are chosen correctly, the positive and negative effects balance out and my individual decision to smoke no longer has any impact on your expected welfare. Or on the welfare of children. In that case the argument that smoking should be banned because of health impacts to non-smokers becomes invalid. After reviewing the data, tariffs on cigarettes in the US are about a factor 5-10 too low to balance the positive and negative effects of smoking. In most EU countries the tariffs are quite close to what they should be.
This argument only works because external damage from cigarettes is very well-correlated with the number of cigarettes you consume. There are other acts such as alcoholism or speeding for which the argument is not so convincing.
Yeah, I understand it on a functional and legal level. It’s just not emotionally satisfying to allow harm as long as people pay money into the public sector to make up for it.
