https://discuss.eroscripts.com/t/loli-shota-mega-archive/175884
https://discuss.eroscripts.com/t/alternative-sharing-sites-for-loli-shota-content/173208/57
not in fiction
not in fiction
not in fiction
not in fiction
Shall I go on?
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
6 Likes
I responded to your question. You completely sidetracked it into whether it was fiction or not.
I don’t agree that there are no ill effects. Research is not nearly as one-sided as you make it out to be.
Free-speech absolutionists tend to make unserious and histrionic claims, as evidenced in this thread.
The decision has already been made. What is even the point of this discussion anymore, except to whine and complain?
I mean, you’re still here too buddy, nobody is forcing you to respond
4 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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.
3 Likes
finally something we can all agree on
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.
Would be more honest for mods to come out to say there is no real logical argument, nor even application of said flimsy reasoning to other equivalent categories.
1 Like
To be clear: your argument is that under the current wording of the law, there is absolutely zero legal risk eroscripts hosting loli content?
I find that hard to believe.
1 Like
Find me one US site that has had legal trouble from hosting loli content and were forced to remove it
2 Likes
That would be correct, there is absolutely zero precedent that hosting loli content is against the law in the US. I can buy loli content on Amazon, Ebay, and any website from Japan. It then easily goes through American customs. You think they’d be allowing illegal material constantly through the US mail system? Do you think people have to get thing sent through private jets in order to get them into the US? There’s also not a single study that would support any of your claims relating loli to any form of CSEM.
3 Likes
The criteria for a logically valid argument isn’t that there’s precedent. The criteria is that a reasonable person can read the law and come to the conclusion that the dealings of eroscripts could be illegal.
If that’s the case, it is logically valid to remove loli content if the site owners have low risk tolerance. It is also logically valid to keep the content if you have higher risk tolerance.
Not sure which claims you are referring to, must be mistaking me with someone else.
Anyway, this is an argument to change the law, not an argument against the logical validity of eroscripts decision under the current wording of the law.
2 Likes
There is no risk if we are going by US law, sorry for getting you mixed up on that last part.
a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene.
Please explain to me how, reading this, no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that the dealings of eroscripts could be illegal.
That is the bar you need to reach before you can claim there is “no risk”.
1 Like