DJIzzyIzzyHitler said: rederoin said: a show about a bunch of lesbians doing cute things, i find it hard to believe people havent jumped over the porn boat to that, at otakon this year me and the rest of my friends always split up in the dealers room and our meta up spot was the only store that stood out.....the hentai booth, and there was just a shit ton of madoka lesbo porn and yuru yuri lesbo porn right on the front , im pretty sure it gets alot thatt stuff.DJIzzyIzzyHitler said: rederoin said: i sometimes forget doujin means fan made interpretation of existing worlds and characters, thats mainly cause 90% of its pornDJIzzyIzzyHitler said: rederoin said: how many times do you need to fap to the same material? just saying.DJIzzyIzzyHitler said: what the fuck is the point in owning that shit anyway? just look it up online and get rid of so much of the risk The risk of it disappearing off the site you found it on. I only have like one of those kind of comics on my pc(secret flowers I, II and III), but thats because I prefer having access to them at all times, in case the sites it gets hosted on gets taken down. Its not fap material though, just my favourite doujins(that happens be porn, although thats not the reason). But that was a bad example, I do have an encrypted USB drive with a bunch of extremely hard to find doujins on them, some of which have nudity/erotica. And by hard to find, I mean that I couldn't find them outside of of 4chan, no matter how hard I looked. Its more of a collection than anything. So what it boils down too, some doujins can't be found anywhere, thus its better to just safe them to an encrypted USB. Some series actually have a ton of non-H doujins, Yuru yuri for example. It gets a lot of both, but the amount of H-doujins is far from being close to 90% |
| These are idiotic laws made by people who seem to have trouble telling reality and fantasies apart. Most loli fans have no interest in real children, and even supposing they did, to criminalize someone's thoughts when they have not acted on them and do not intend to do so is beyond absurd. If things could work that way, we'd probably all be criminals. |
 |
| Deviljho |
 |
Gorim said: Wow... good that dangerous people like him are out of the streets. People here defending this cunning felon are just idiots they don't think about 2D children who have to suffer daily from being victims of human trafficking and all that shit. I so hope your joking. Anyway I guess they should start throwing everyone who played COD in jail and charge them with murder for killing thousands of NPCs. |
| ❑ Single ❑ Taken ✔ Mentally dating a character that doesn't actually exist |
Gorim said: Wow... good that dangerous people like him are out of the streets. People here defending this cunning felon are just idiots they don't think about 2D children who have to suffer daily from being victims of human trafficking and all that shit. Not sure if serious... Deviljho said: Deviljho Yes, very brilliant. Rule 42. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| This is ridiculous. They're just drawings, and for 3 years in jail for possessing them in completely asinine. I'm ashamed to be living here right now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having loli doujins. |
| why did his wife resort to telling the cops the minute she found the comics |
| RRRRRRRRRR |
r1322 said: why did his wife resort to telling the cops the minute she found the comics Not that she was right, but he did fuck up by not letting her in on his fetish. Bet he's wishing he did now. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| "Cartoons"? "Comics"? What manner of American stupidity is this??? Oh yeah, the "American South" kind. LOLOLOLOL |
 |
| They should overwatch Fakku and scan all IPs if they have time for things like that shit |
| Shit, better wipe out my computer. |
 |
Amberleh said: Liking small children, whether depicted as cartoons or not, is by no means a 'harmless fetish'. Plenty of parents, teachers, daycare workers etc. like children. I don't see how that is a "fetish". And your avatar seems to be from Utawarerumono, which I heard contains drawn loli porn. |
mecharobot said: Amberleh said: Liking small children, whether depicted as cartoons or not, is by no means a 'harmless fetish'. Plenty of parents, teachers, daycare workers etc. like children. I don't see how that is a "fetish". You're being quite douchy. You know that's not what he means by "like." Post-Moe said: r1322 said: why did his wife resort to telling the cops the minute she found the comics Not that she was right, but he did fuck up by not letting her in on his fetish. Bet he's wishing he did now. Yeah, not exactly the best move by the wife but she probably didn't know what to think at the time. If he really did hide this as much as he could from her then she probably has no idea what doujins and such even are. So probably took it right away as "oh my god my husband has a fetish for kids!" Really sucks for the guy but he should have at least told her "Hey I read doujins, this is a loli." and so on. Then again I'm pretty sure most men would hope their wives would confront them about something first before calling the police. |
Touch me, you filthy casual~ |
| I can't even use words to describe how idiotic that is. |
 |
Joh-chi said: I can't even use words to describe how idiotic that is. If you can't use words, then what would you use to describe how idiotic this is? |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
| This is so dumb haha Obviously he shouldnt be put in jail for possessing comics like those because they are not of real people. So what if he has some weird fetish, i can't believe his wife would "tell" on him over something they should have privately discussed and figured out themselves. What a dumb bitch. |
Justice is served. |
 |
| So if I draw 13 year old stick figures having sex, will I go to jail too. |
| What the hell?! |
Goryo said: Joh-chi said: I can't even use words to describe how idiotic that is. If you can't use words, then what would you use to describe how idiotic this is? A big, good old face palm. |
|
| The fact that it was his own wife to turn him in blows my mind. I can understand why this might not be accepted, but 3 years in prison is way to much. |
 Site & Forum Guidelines | MAL Guidelines | Report Abuse The Chat Club [size=60] Join at your own risk |
| L JavierR said: Nazatin18 said: So if I draw 13 year old stick figures having sex, will I go to jail too. you should you dirty pedophile Lol |
| Age: - noun 1. the length of time in existence 2. period of human life 3. historical or geological period 4. the later part of life - verb (used with or without object) aged aging ageing 5. to grow or cause to grow old 6. to mature, as wine  First Appearance: December 3, 1984 Age = 27  First Appearance: April 1, 1997 Age = 15  First Appearance: August 2, 2006 Age = 6 |
| Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. By the way the Law is even stricter here in the UK, so if you're "in" (I think it is pretty fucking strange that anyone would be to be honest but that's just my opinion) to this type of stuff, I'd suggest you learn what the Law is. |
GrumpyGumpyOct 20, 2012 2:16 PM
 |
| Man. I really feel like deleting my collection now. :/ Though I would never download any loli or shota stuff. |
GrumpyGumpy said: ^Illegal IF it's found to be 'obscene'. Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. Once again, a person should be able to have whatever 'obscene' crap they want in their house if no ones rights are being violated by having it. This, and because the conditions for being 'obscene' are subjective, is why the 'obscenity' law is complete bullshit. |
GogettersOct 21, 2012 12:39 AM
  |
Gogetters said: GrumpyGumpy said: ^Illegal IF it's found to be 'obscene'. Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. Once again, a person should be able to have whatever 'obscene' crap they want in their house if no ones rights are being violated by having it. The 'obscenity' law is complete bullshit. Exactly. People also seem to forget why laws are being made. There is absolutely no logic in arresting someone for drawings no matter what they depict. The law that deems illegal real child pornographic material wasn't made because it's not something nice to be watching but it was made to protect children since for such a video to exist it means real children have been sexually abused. That is the reason those guys sat down and made that law. To protect the children from becoming victims of a child porn industry. Such things do not exist with drawings. Drawings don't have feelings nether to they get hurt. |
| Man, this guy plead guilty to obscenity for this? He must've really wanted to go to jail if he'd let the prosecution do that to him. Honestly, I look at this as an American taxpayer. This is just one more "innocent" guy my tax dollars are paying for because the "law" believes he's a criminal. Is he disgusting person? Probably. Is he a criminal? Absolutely not. Throw rapists, killers, and thieves in jail, not the nerds that watch animated porn. |
Monad said: Gogetters said: GrumpyGumpy said: ^Illegal IF it's found to be 'obscene'. Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. Once again, a person should be able to have whatever 'obscene' crap they want in their house if no ones rights are being violated by having it. The 'obscenity' law is complete bullshit. Exactly. People also seem to forget why laws are being made. There is absolutely no logic in arresting someone for drawings no matter what they depict. The law that deems illegal real child pornographic material wasn't made because it's not something nice to be watching but it was made to protect children since for such a video to exist it means real children have been sexually abused. That is the reason those guys sat down and made that law. To protect the children from becoming victims of a child porn industry. Such things do not exist with drawings. Drawings don't have feelings nether to they get hurt. Wrong, what people seem to forget is makes exactly no difference what they think about something. They are not going to be the ones judging whether or not it is obscene or not and it is fairly obvious that this sort of thing will be considered obscene by those in postitions to make these decisions. The Law is what it is so arguing about it after the fact is not a defense. If you're someone who is into this sort of stuff then the first thing you should do is be aware of what the exact lettering of the Law is. |
| |
| Wow really ? *shrugs* |
  |
GrumpyGumpy said: Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. By the way the Law is even stricter here in the UK, so if you're "in" (I think it is pretty fucking strange that anyone would be to be honest but that's just my opinion) to this type of stuff, I'd suggest you learn what the Law is. Yes, that makes it so much better. Just because the law exists, does not mean it should exist. |
rederoin said: GrumpyGumpy said: Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. By the way the Law is even stricter here in the UK, so if you're "in" (I think it is pretty fucking strange that anyone would be to be honest but that's just my opinion) to this type of stuff, I'd suggest you learn what the Law is. Yes, that makes it so much better. Just because the law exists, does not mean it should exist. Disagreeing with a law is not a defense, I don't agree that the dual carriageway I take to work should have a 40 mph speed limit. Does this mean I can drive at 60 mph on it and when I'm caught say"Oh I think it should be 60" ? No. Secondly in a democracy the majority decide what should or should not exist, do you really think the majority of the population in your country would be happy with sexual images of children regardless of the format? |
| |
GrumpyGumpy said: rederoin said: GrumpyGumpy said: Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. By the way the Law is even stricter here in the UK, so if you're "in" (I think it is pretty fucking strange that anyone would be to be honest but that's just my opinion) to this type of stuff, I'd suggest you learn what the Law is. Yes, that makes it so much better. Just because the law exists, does not mean it should exist. Disagreeing with a law is not a defense, I don't agree that the dual carriageway I take to work should have a 40 mph speed limit. Does this mean I can drive at 60 mph on it and when I'm caught say"Oh I think it should be 60" ? No. Secondly in a democracy the majority decide what should or should not exist, do you really think the majority of the population in your country would be happy with sexual images of children regardless of the format? I might be alone here or I might not be, but I think the bigger issue behind this isn't really so much the law, but the enforcement and punishment of it. I don't think the punishment justifies the crime. Let's take this case for example. Here's a married man that was viewing animated pornography depicting children committing sexual acts with older people. Obviously, this can be taken as a gateway leading up to the possibility of someone committing pedophilia or the viewing of child pornography. It could lead up to it, it could not. The bigger issue is the person did no such thing. In a case like this, I think a more appropriate measure would be for the court to order the defendant to receive medical attention. Therapy, more or less. Put that person in therapy and monitor that person's Internet activity. I can honestly say if I were in that man's shoes, I'd feel a lot better about that than spending 3 years in prison and in the long run, I think it'll be a much better option for all parties involved. |
Toucanbird said: GrumpyGumpy said: rederoin said: GrumpyGumpy said: Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. By the way the Law is even stricter here in the UK, so if you're "in" (I think it is pretty fucking strange that anyone would be to be honest but that's just my opinion) to this type of stuff, I'd suggest you learn what the Law is. Yes, that makes it so much better. Just because the law exists, does not mean it should exist. Disagreeing with a law is not a defense, I don't agree that the dual carriageway I take to work should have a 40 mph speed limit. Does this mean I can drive at 60 mph on it and when I'm caught say"Oh I think it should be 60" ? No. Secondly in a democracy the majority decide what should or should not exist, do you really think the majority of the population in your country would be happy with sexual images of children regardless of the format? I might be alone here or I might not be, but I think the bigger issue behind this isn't really so much the law, but the enforcement and punishment of it. I don't think the punishment justifies the crime. Let's take this case for example. Here's a married man that was viewing animated pornography depicting children committing sexual acts with older people. Obviously, this can be taken as a gateway leading up to the possibility of someone committing pedophilia or the viewing of child pornography. It could lead up to it, it could not. The bigger issue is the person did no such thing. In a case like this, I think a more appropriate measure would be for the court to order the defendant to receive medical attention. Therapy, more or less. Put that person in therapy and monitor that person's Internet activity. I can honestly say if I were in that man's shoes, I'd feel a lot better about that than spending 3 years in prison and in the long run, I think it'll be a much better option for all parties involved. Toucanbird said: GrumpyGumpy said: rederoin said: GrumpyGumpy said: Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. By the way the Law is even stricter here in the UK, so if you're "in" (I think it is pretty fucking strange that anyone would be to be honest but that's just my opinion) to this type of stuff, I'd suggest you learn what the Law is. Yes, that makes it so much better. Just because the law exists, does not mean it should exist. Disagreeing with a law is not a defense, I don't agree that the dual carriageway I take to work should have a 40 mph speed limit. Does this mean I can drive at 60 mph on it and when I'm caught say"Oh I think it should be 60" ? No. Secondly in a democracy the majority decide what should or should not exist, do you really think the majority of the population in your country would be happy with sexual images of children regardless of the format? I might be alone here or I might not be, but I think the bigger issue behind this isn't really so much the law, but the enforcement and punishment of it. I don't think the punishment justifies the crime. Let's take this case for example. Here's a married man that was viewing animated pornography depicting children committing sexual acts with older people. Obviously, this can be taken as a gateway leading up to the possibility of someone committing pedophilia or the viewing of child pornography. It could lead up to it, it could not. The bigger issue is the person did no such thing. In a case like this, I think a more appropriate measure would be for the court to order the defendant to receive medical attention. Therapy, more or less. Put that person in therapy and monitor that person's Internet activity. I can honestly say if I were in that man's shoes, I'd feel a lot better about that than spending 3 years in prison and in the long run, I think it'll be a much better option for all parties involved. Look, I do not agree with censorship nor do I believe in gateway arguments. I think censorship is a very slippery slope argued by those who happen to be in the moral majority on one day who forget that they may not be on the next day. A classic example of this is those who support Laïcité in France when it comes to the Hijab but then are outraged when the same applies to their crucifix. You can't have your cake and eat it too. However the point I am making is that one has to be aware of the law in your country and be prepared to accept the consequences if you end up on the wrong side of it. |
| |
| @GrumpyGumpy Oh, I don't disagree with you on that stance. I know if I possessed something like the man in this story did, one of the first things that would cross my mind would be, "is this legal?" One thing that's a little bit of a detriment in the United States is there are an insane amount of laws and laws vary from state-to-state. Some things are legal in some states where they are illegal in others. It's not possible to know EVERY law in the book. Hell, I know police officers that either don't know all the laws or how to enforce them properly. However, I do understand and agree that if there's a case where you're doing something that you're not sure is legal, make an effort to find out if it is or not. My biggest complaint about this story isn't so much the legality, I just don't think the punishment fits the crime. |
| He would need some help if its quite a vast collection not just a series or two she has watched that quite iffy but 3 years imprisonment is a bit extreme, Oh wells good luck to him. |
 |
GrumpyGumpy said: rederoin said: GrumpyGumpy said: Interesting to see so many people trying to defend this by saying that it's only Lolicon doujins etc. It's been illegal for close to a decade to hold material such as this in the States which can be considered to be "obscene or lacking in serious value" and remember it's never going to be you who makes those decisions. By the way the Law is even stricter here in the UK, so if you're "in" (I think it is pretty fucking strange that anyone would be to be honest but that's just my opinion) to this type of stuff, I'd suggest you learn what the Law is. Yes, that makes it so much better. Just because the law exists, does not mean it should exist. Disagreeing with a law is not a defense, I don't agree that the dual carriageway I take to work should have a 40 mph speed limit. Does this mean I can drive at 60 mph on it and when I'm caught say"Oh I think it should be 60" ? No. Secondly in a democracy the majority decide what should or should not exist, do you really think the majority of the population in your country would be happy with sexual images of children regardless of the format? I'm not saying its a defence, how do you even get that idea? I'm saying its a idiotic law, laws should exist to protect. Would racism be okay if the majority was okay with it? Would it be okay to kill those with serious mental disorders if the majority was okay with it? Democracy is, and always will be, in-perfect(not any other form of governments are better). |
Meri said: Even if you dont know the laws, you must feel that what you are doing is wrong. How else to explain the fact that he hid it from his wife. I don't think anyone is questioning the morality of this man. He's obviously not a very moral person if he's watching animation depicting child porn and hiding it from his wife. I think the bigger issue is the legality of it. There are a lot of things you can do that aren't moral but are legal. Questions need to be asked. Is this illegal? Why is it illegal? What's the just punishment for the criminal? Is the creator of said pieces of work suspect to legal action? The basic principle behind law is to protect society. I have to ask, is this a case where society needs to be protected? What harm is this person committing to said society? The "that's gross" excuse isn't a very legitimate excuse to arrest someone unless they did this sort of thing out in public where someone could see it and get offended by it. Considering this happened in the confines of his own home makes this a different matter. The biggest issue behind the content that this man possessed is that these incestuous comics are a gateway to real child pornography or pedophilia. Much like how marijuana might be a gateway drug for crack. Doesn't mean pot smokers will move on to crack, it's just a possibility. I do think court-ordered help is the appropriate action but certainly not 3 years in prison. |
rederoin said: I'm not saying its a defence, how do you even get that idea? I'm saying its a idiotic law, laws should exist to protect. Would racism be okay if the majority was okay with it? Would it be okay to kill those with serious mental disorders if the majority was okay with it? Democracy is, and always will be, in-perfect(not any other form of governments are better). I think you can look at history yourself and see examples of times when both of the two examples you try and use were seen as acceptable by the majority. If you stop and actually think about what terms such as acceptable or respectable mean then you can quite easily work out for yourself the answer to your questions. I'm not going to follow your red herring. As I have said above I am no fan of censorship. If anyone want to get themselves off to whatever they want to then providing it does not break the harm principle then I have no issue it. The point is pretty simple, all those defending this and saying the law is stupid better make sure they know what the law is in their country. |
| |
GrumpyGumpy said: The point is pretty simple, all those defending this and saying the law is stupid better make sure they know what the law is in their country. Well you still can call a law stupid even if you have to live under it. But you see in this case isn't the law that convicted him but the interpretation by the judge and other interests(filing private jails and making their stockholders happy, getting a big conviction record so you can seem like you are fierce defender of justice, making yourself seem like he supposedly stopped a pedophile from raping children). Even the constitution actually protects him but is being ignored and bypassed. It's more like his being convicted because his strange to others. Meri said: Even if you dont know the laws, you must feel that what you are doing is wrong. How else to explain the fact that he hid it from his wife. People also hid the fact they are watching anime. Is watching anime wrong? People don't hid stuff because they are wrong. They hid them because they will be misunderstand or not understood. |
MonadOct 21, 2012 8:31 AM
| Actually disagreeing with the law is a defense. If you can prove that the law is unfair and unjustified. It is possible to change the law. Of course this isn't easy. But disagreeing with the law can be a defense to your crime. |
 "I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika |
| http://myanimelist.net/profile/madthad0890 This dude also was jailed for loli doujins ;_; i |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |