For and against the loli

With children pornography being illegal, it makes sense and is only consistent that animated child pornography is.

Under federal law I understand, any representations, depictions, images of child sexual matters are categorized as obscene. So my position is really why should this obscene matter remain illegal.

Now one question right out of the gate, do you , the opposing side, agree that real person child pornography remain illegal?

Human trafficking makes people happy. Sadistic acts make people happy. Depending on the extent of the damages affects the punishment for the acts.

The punishment doesn't cease because people receive happiness and take the freedom in their hands to do these things. Being that the punishment does not cease, it being illegal doesn't cease. That is why there's a penalty.

Increases freedom to do what?

What kind of urge that can't be fulfilled else where?

Being that according to these statements of "no harm", why is it illegal?

What type of urge that can't be cured or rectified?

With those five points listed in the conclusion, pretty straightforward and simple, would you think?

Then why do you think as simple as you laid it out, animated child pornography is illegal as child pornography? Surely the federal government can comprehend this simplistic outline.

So all child pornography should be legal whether depicted by actual persons or animated images.

So because this is the position you're assuming, not only will the authorities keep close watch on you, monitor your media, if you haven't realized by now, you're supporting child exploitation and grounds for abuse. It's on the same level as pedophilia interests. It also would mean supporting images whether they're animated or not, they're still images that feed into pedophile stimulation.

How do you know that animated images are impossible to be used as fuel for a abuser's hand to sexually manipulate a child?

I don't think you understand the visual promotion developing into criminal offense.

You say it makes people happy. I'm not happy with it. My next door neighbor isn't. I'm willing to argue there're many individuals on this site that aren't. I'd imagine there are those in government that aren't.

This point is unsubstantial. People that enjoy child pornography is not substantial to make it legal to possess. Enjoying heroin use does not make it legal to possess. You have to argue for more than the enjoyment of things. If things were simply legalized by nature of enjoyment, so many adverse things would be practiced on account of hedonistic agendas.

I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle. We don't live in a society where we encourage attraction to children in this manner. This type of urge has to be dismantled and hopefully cured. For the overall protection of children. Even with animated images, it is the gateway , the steam in a coal engine if you will that boils in the lust of hearts from those seeking satisfaction that can't be fulfilled by under developed beings.

Please answer the question. Being that according to these statements of "no harm", why is it illegal?

In support of protecting children by not feeding into the lustful, sexually twisted perhaps mentally ill, it's an ailment that would have to be cured. Seeking sexual gratification from an under developed person while being fully developed is a pure disorder.

This is the crux of you and or many others fighting for , championing for child pornography, child animated cartoon pornography. Whether you made it clear already or not, by having this type of material available, accessible, those that clearly have the interest can to some extent satisfy themselves in a transient fashion to prevent exacerbation with actual children. Being that this topic is not on child pornography, children don't actually have to be exploited as soon anyways. The process is slowed down because of animated images but it will not suffice permanently. It's only a matter of time.

The animated images serve like a serum that the marvel's fictional character Blade uses. Holds back the thirst, keeps it at bay, hampers or restrains the want for the real thing. But just as the saying goes with that character, "the thirst always wins".

The article is way too controversial to consider any legality. So because of it, we don't have people that would vote in the legality of such material to serve as outlets. Being that the role of government passes laws based on the society, the government should maintain what is illegal from whatever is driving it to continue to be which would be society, people, governing bodies, elected officials, congress, administrators, etc.

Far too many would vote for a cure, not an outlet. The government just reflects whatever the votes are. The effect should be from what the cause is. The law is the effect that mirrors the image of the people.

Happy 4th of July.

So what? It's got to be more to it than that. Things are not illegal from an appearance of children. So many things like pictures, commercials, ads with children exist. This is not very forthcoming of you.

You can have your "no contact offenses" . You can have your outlets. It still doesn't remove the risk of offense or harm unless the individual with these perverted attractions be not left alone with any child defenseless

They don't disappear. That's the issue. The problem you'll have is the risk of more incitement than a deterrent.

This is a non answer. I'll put it this way using me directly. How do I know without a doubt, no second thoughts, no pause, that I leave a child in the care of someone that views child animated pornography constantly, that someone will not sexually take advantage of the child?

Just be honest, concede, you don't know. You can't read the mind or know futuristic decisions.

Yes you can . All you have to do is put the handcuffs on, lock them up in prison .

I'll just continue this opposition trail along with you. It prevents my happiness and law enforcer's happiness when we think of children abused via child pornography whether animated or actual persons and pedophilia.

Until you prove that no incitement can incur from it, you're position is invalid. It will indeed reflect why this is classified as obscene and remains illegal. The public hasn't been proven to of this so the votes reflect that which reflects the kind of government we have.

Prove it.

Prove the satisfaction is sufficient.

This is why this is a problem. Being that you can't prove the other assertions true, the risk is still there outside of suggestive material. The law is not going to permit adding fuel to the fire in the risk of it spiraling out of control .

The law trust me, trust me, will authorize a CURE , not an outlet.

Why? Let's not beat around the bush. It seems when I get this down to the nitty gritty, you're not forthcoming in getting to the point.

Everything has a reason and point. You just peal back the outer layers not getting to the core.

It's managed through law and government classified under criminality and the managed thereby are sentenced to federal restriction. Now it doesn't appear that you disagree with a cure. Which is a cue that child animated pornography doesn't suffice and you'd be correct

Depends on what is meant by "better". When I use the term, it would be some type of improvement over something else. For example, delaying my death by dying slowly from something instead of instantly is not an improvement. I'm still headed for my last breath before the day is out.

Also there's a catch 22 you're missing when I said "The process is slowed down because of animated images but it will not suffice permanently. It's only a matter of time."

Overall it will not suffice meaning children will still fall victims. The whole layout is that there are several, perhaps hundreds, thousands of predators that can or will use this sexual material of images until the predators have to go physical to meet their physical urges as nothing compares or suffices that. They don't all go at once or transition from animated images to physical contact at one time.

So you can say the abuse of children is slowed down for SOME predators because the pacing of events is different for each individual. So while one is just viewing animated images for the first time ever in one area or place of the world or location, another that has already viewed these images, has set out to prey on the children and has . This is not or there is not just one that sets out and has done so but multiple individuals all over the world.

We have both of these events going on so it's a delay and not a delay going on. That's the catch 22 so therefore the law has wind of it and nipped it in the bud.

The problem is we don't know. We not knowing is the danger.

You say it doesn't but then say it reduces harm. If it can't fully eliminate it, it's still part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The problem is the harm. The problem is the opening up of incitement and having some persons possibly not affected, not satiated by the images . These images aren't sufficient for some and certainly not an acceptable situation for the law to allow in what's supposed to be a thriving society. The law allows no collateral damage at all in the youth communities.

The problem is again for how long? Second, it's not just one predator. There are multiple predators that will have different reactionary times of attack. Remember the catch 22. Stop imagining a whole group is held up at once. While some are stalled, others are running full force with victimization. With some individuals, these animated child sexual images don't serve any satisfaction and physical contact is imperative.

From your position, it just reads as a sacrifice expendable collateral damage for the sake of so called freedom and enjoyment of predators. That's all society, the ones in their right mind and the government sees . 

The hell with the enjoyment, happiness and freewill of rapists, drug pushers, criminal drivers and thugs.

It's legal in one place but not everywhere. HUGE RED FLAGS. Right it doesn't hurt anyone. It just fuels the fire that does hurt somebody.

Then it would simply be legal. Oh and that's everywhere sorry, no exceptions.

Grown women are a false equivalent to children. Reducing risk as you claim is insufficient. That's why the votes aren't there for it that would reflect in the government and the government should reflect what's in its mirror which is the image of "we the people ".

I'll give you this, you are honest that the issue of risk and the risk of the issue exists. Downplaying it is not the goal evidently for a society that criminalizes child pornography and animated child pornography. We want absolutely no risk that we can control and will thwart . We're not comprising, settling for a lesser risk as claimed, not proven but as claimed for the sake of satisfying individuals that the government will just have locked up anyways. Sending them in getting beat up while locked up .

Unless you have any new points, we're just riding on a ferris wheel of arguments