Thread 937307787

Why is viewing loli and CP illegal, if viewing snuff films and Liveleak videos isn't? Both are essentially watching human harm postfactum. What is the use of forbidding people from watching it?

Cuz society tries to makes ya think that loli and CP is worse

burn in hell pedo freak

>>937307787 (OP)
>This
I don't understand the distinction either.

>>937307787 (OP)
i think because government sanctioned murder is a possibility. Your government could ask you to make such content.

It never made sense but it is defended from two angles.
One it is the monkey see monkey do justification. The same justification every nosy 30+ year old woman with too much time on her hands uses to deprive others of what they like. The idea is if you see it you might want to do it and among those that want to do it there will be those that do. Because of that everyone who would step on that potential path from the start is evil and must be treated as such. This thinking is always thick with contempt for others and the things they like. At its core it is nothing but thought policing tribalism from people that know they will never experience consequences for what they do.
The other is the eternal victim justification. By default and despite immense historical contradiction all sexual activity with those below the arbitrary age set by the government is treated as almost certainly traumatic. Instead of teaching people mental resilience they are taught to wear that trauma for life and to be pained for life regardless of how they felt at the time it happened. Add that to the social stigma against and shame of your own unconcealed body and sex. All reminders of the past is treated as opening a wound that must exist and must never stop hurting. Of course in the real world people rarely care about strangers be they a child or adult.

As for the real reason beyond conforming to the culture people are raised in I am guessing it is due to fertility rates and blackmail material.
Humans are most fertile in their young teens. By the time they reach legal age the fertility has dropped drastically and continues to do so.
Beyond that there is a very good chance of most if not nearly all major players in the world having blackmail on them.
CP has been turned into a weapon. A weapon that can't be allowed to lose its status as a threat.

You can re-victimize someone that was sexually assaulted. You can't re-kill someone that was murdered.

>>937307787 (OP)
cause raping children is bad you fucking idiot

>>937308898
If this was about feelings murder would still be included. Family, loved ones, and so on. No one likes seeing their son be chainsawed by the cartel. Well almost no one.

>>937309024
>mom, why is eating fruit jelly bad
>because it's just bad hon, my family has always considered it bad since forever

>>937309068
Family and loved ones are irrelevant. The child was the one who was victimized and remains alive to be revictimized.
>inb4 is it okay to watch if they're killed after they're raped
Still no. It's essentially sexual assault of a dead body. The murder is over but the crimes are continuing.

>>937309111
>comparing raping children and thousands of years of history to a stomach ache
kill yourself as soon as possible.

>>937309969
>kill yourself as soon as possible.
Have i already mentioned that whenever you insult somebody, you spill your own weaknesses and insecurities right in front of them?

>>937309849
Run that by me again but be sane and intelligent this time.
OP mentioned the dual standard. The dual standard was further emphasized. If this were about making people feel bad and remember horrible things then viewing murder would receive similar treatment since loved ones suffer.
You assumed the prior comment meant killing the person who was raped. (Even though OP made no mention of involuntary sex and no one mentioned the killing of rape victims.)
Then you imply that it is wrong to watch sex involving a now dead person even though the moral basis of all this is reliant upon not hurting the feelings of a living person. You can't say the reasoning for censorship is about not hurting family and friends either since you already dismissed their feelings as irrelevant.
Your justification for its criminal status appears to be because its a crime. That however would be calling it a crime because it is a crime. OP asked why it is a crime despite the dual standards with murder themed media. Circular logic does not explain that.

>>937309969
They were pointing out that when someone asks why things are as they are calling it bad without further detail is not an explanation.
They expected an intelligent response and were dumb enough to come to /b/ for it. Beyond that they did anything they shouldn't.

The demand for CSAM materials creates a market incentive which produces more abuse. In a real, measurable way, consuming CSAM harms real children. I don't believe there is the same market drive for snuff, there is probably some but it is not nearly as widespread. There is both more market demand for CSAM than snuff, as well as more people willing to abuse children for profit than murder for snuff video sales.

>>937312645

Yeah but what about the people who don't pay for it? If they didn't pay for it, and just got it for free somewhere online then they aren't creating a demand for it.

>>937312828
Yes and no. Getting it for free is harder to measure the direct harm, but it does popularize the consumption of CSAM, some people who consume it for free may go on to pay for it later or abuse children directly themselves. It's also to make for a more consistent application of the law. If it's legal as long as you didn't pay, it would be harder to prosecute actual criminals because they could claim they never paid for it, burden of proof would be on gov to prove they did pay for it. Easier to just make the possession itself a crime.
Also captcha telling me something.

>>937309969

U mad? Angry little goblin

>>937307787 (OP)
whats the relation between watching loli/cp and having some form of childhood trauma yourself?

is this the thread...?

>>937307787 (OP)
to protect children

>>937313738
this is a question that a number of people, myself included, have been trying to answer for a while

>>937312645
If it was about money they would just criminalize the monetary aspect. That is not what happened though. In short its transparently flimsy bullshit fit only for deceiving the easily fooled.

>>937313843
From drawings and the thing everyone wants to the point that people kill themself over not getting it? Nope. I am not buying the claim of altruism. Especially not when coming from a government that bombs children.

>>937307787 (OP)
CP being shared online hurts the victims further in life.
Snuff films do not since the victim is dead.

Fictional material should be legal in appropriate areas. (Like /b/).
Distribution outside of these areas should not be the artist's responsibility if the artist is not the one distributing it or ordering its distribution.
This includes illustrations, 3D Rendering, videogames, animations, novels.
Likeness to a real person modifies the legality, in this case the author (the initiator of the work) should be investigated as well as the artist.
Any argument?

>>937307787 (OP)
If large amounts of people made snuff content purely for human entertainment, they might try to make snuff illegal. As it happens, most snuff that makes its way onto the internet is stuff taking places in war zones or involving organized crime that just happens to get used for humans' entertainment. It's oftentimes a matter of public interest, unlike videos of fucking kids.
That said, nothing wrong with loli since it doesn't involve a real human in its production. Same goes for guro.

>>937316161
To ban likeness is to ban anything that looks human. It will resemble or at the very least risk resembling someone somewhere at some point in their life. This includes realism and other art styles. It also makes any live action characters untouchable. This will lead to mass censorship and mass self censorship of literally all human content or more likely be sporadically enforced to placate those who whine the most or have the most power and fame. It is an all or nothing kind of thing.
In addition to reject the likeness of a person perpetuates bodily shame which is not something humanity should cling to. Being emotional over it is responsible for the vast majority of trouble surrounding the topic. Stop caring and the emotional problem of such depictions vanishes. It only has the weight people give it.
The policy while having good intentions is madness and perpetuates more of the same. On an additional note it infringes upon personal liberty in ones home and promotes the existence of unwelcome monitoring.
If the government is arresting you for things you do in your bed while alone its probably time to bust out the nooses.

>>937317130
Not "or more likely" I meant "and likely".

>>937312645
>The demand for CSAM materials creates a market incentive which produces more abuse
you cant prove this

>>937307787 (OP)
1.because its useful blackmail material, also it employs feds most cp is probably distributed by feds anyways
2.children and sexuality involved makes it more taboo

>>937318013
Can confirm, but it's not the feds. It's local PD; detectives sharing content online. What's crazy is, they buy CSAM material from producers overseas, download it online by the TB (paid for by your tax dollars), distribute it to image boards, torrents, etc. and then go after the individuals. Very rarely do they use "evidence" collected from individuals.

I had one detective tell me that he has over 4TB of material that he uses for baiting people; he said over 500k images and tons of movies.

I've done various "ride alongs" in my life just to see how the system works in various cities and states.

This has been the case most of the time. Most cyber crime goes uninvestigated, but this material is like gold for these guys, b/c it's easy convictions w/o much work.

Super fucked up imo, and how is that exactly legal if they are distributing it, paying for it, and in some cases requesting it... crazy world

>>937307787 (OP)
Because sex is bad. Pleasure is bad. Suffering is the natural state of humanity. human society is built around pain. we glorify suffering. you'll never see a religion that glorifies pleasure. it's always suffering. So you have two choices: live with it or kill yourself.

>>937307787 (OP)
Pedophobia. Simple as. Doesn't matter if you're pro or against. Because as a society pedophilia is the one subject matter that is still taboo. You can always find someone who justifies a murderer, but never someone who justifies a pedophile.

>>937309969
It's not a comparison. It's an analogy. Learn the difference.

>>937318739
What is the process of luring people in? Do they post in places like this, and try to get people to go to fishy links? I'd love to hear more. I always thought that it was a fucked up practice, and been curious about it

>>937307899
>>937307787 (OP)
it must be hard to be this retarded
i'll pray for you

>>937322760
There have been many explanations here that have been refuted. I'm sure you can come up with one that can't be refuted

>>937325834
its an attack on the dignity of the child

>>937312979
>may
"may" is doing a fuck-ton of carrying, ay?

>>937326152
We generally don't protect people's dignity in America. In Germany, where dignity is protected, the AOC is 14. So that's gonna need some more explanation.

>>937307787 (OP)
>Why is viewing loli illegal
It isn't
>if viewing snuff films and Liveleak videos isn't?
they are, excessive gore is obscene.
Thank you for playing, please try again with better bait.

>>937317130
>a real person
>real people
Significant difference.
And the rest of your argument is based on this as well. You then get side tracked by personal responsibility of the viewer which is extremely general and a double standard to what you said before in your post about self censorship.
People can be emotional, not eveyone but enough to matter. Obviously an exception to this sort of law would be if permission is granted and if the granter is legally capable of granting said permission.