Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   "What are you in here for?" "Stabbed a dude. How about you?" "Pixie porn"   (opposingviews.com ) divider line
    More: Strange, Ronald Clark, New Zealand, sexual exploitation of children, Brownie, stuff  
•       •       •

22758 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2013 at 4:31 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-22 04:49:54 PM  

LordJiro: ECPAT Child Alert director Alan Bell believes that the suggestive images are illegal because they prompt people "to migrate from there to the real thing,"

That argument is bullshiat when it claims violent video games make people murder, it's bullshiat when it claims D&D leads to Satanism, and it's bullshiat here.


I don't know, man....

I played a video game porn with sexualized D&D characters while dressed as an underage pixie and now I love to comit satanically-enhanced homicides.
 
2013-04-22 04:51:14 PM  
When it comes to technology vs. magic, for some reason, the magic always has the hotter babes...

thereservoirblogs.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-22 04:51:16 PM  

Grables'Daughter: It does seem bizarre that animated porn would be illegal.


It should seem just as bizarre that it's illegal in the United States, as well. Back in '96, under attorney general Ashcroft, we got the Child Pornography Protection Act which made all virtual depictions of minors having sex automatically illegal. This provision was struck down in 2002 during a Supreme Court Ruling - Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition.

The prohibition came back in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act, which per Wikipedia "enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "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" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"."

Because there's a community standards test (for obscenity, and whether something lacks one of several hard-to-legally-define values) the law has been used to prosecute people successfully several times; thus, yes, loli porn is a completely prosecutable offense here in the land of the free, despite no children being harmed in the making thereof, etc., etc., much to the surprise and chagrin of our denizens of 4chan and its many bastard children.

As with movies, music, and microcode, traffic in loli porn remains brisk for those interested in such matters, and given the lax state of enforcement it will continue to do so up 'til the next major government crusader starts attacking sites and content hosts (possibly with the intent of invalidating "safe harbor" provisions that protect ISPs?). That's life. All that isn't prohibited is allowed, and all that's not enforced isn't actually prohibited.
 
2013-04-22 04:53:35 PM  

Wingchild: WippitGuud: Bondage Faeries?

(don't want to GIS for a pic at work)

[loteyrose.com image 500x500]

Yes, we can go there.


I have fapped MIGHTILY to Bondage Faeries in my time.  I like when the two chick faeries lez out, not so much when they have sex with insects, birds, and ground squirrels.
 
2013-04-22 04:54:04 PM  
True, technically it might be a bit of a jump if you equate animated pictures to real pictures.  But I'm pretty comfortable jumping to a conclusion that the defenders in here are into children.  Don't hurt real children.
 
2013-04-22 04:54:29 PM  
wtf is pixie pron?
 
2013-04-22 04:54:41 PM  

i.r.id10t: When it comes to technology vs. magic, for some reason, the magic always has the hotter babes...

[thereservoirblogs.files.wordpress.com image 600x325]


Poor Fritz.
 
2013-04-22 04:54:43 PM  
If pixies didn't want to get fapped to, they wouldn't be so damn hot.
 
2013-04-22 04:54:55 PM  
"Clark has said that he was not sexually aroused by the cartoons." Well, that's good enough for me. He seems like a straight shooter.
 
2013-04-22 04:55:13 PM  
i37.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-22 04:57:34 PM  

Wingchild: Grables'Daughter: It does seem bizarre that animated porn would be illegal.

It should seem just as bizarre that it's illegal in the United States, as well. Back in '96, under attorney general Ashcroft, we got the Child Pornography Protection Act which made all virtual depictions of minors having sex automatically illegal. This provision was struck down in 2002 during a Supreme Court Ruling - Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition.

The prohibition came back in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act, which per Wikipedia "enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "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" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"."

Because there's a community standards test (for obscenity, and whether something lacks one of several hard-to-legally-define values) the law has been used to prosecute people successfully several times; thus, yes, loli porn is a completely prosecutable offense here in the land of the free, despite no children being harmed in the making thereof, etc., etc., much to the surprise and chagrin of our denizens of 4chan and its many bastard children.

As with movies, music, and microcode, traffic in loli porn remains brisk for those interested in such matters, and given the lax state of enforcement it will continue to do so up 'til the next major government crusader starts attacking sites and content hosts (possibly with the intent of invalidating "safe harbor" provisions that protect ISPs?). That's life. All that isn't prohibited is allowed, and all that's not enforced isn't actually prohibited.



advice:

never exchange money for anything pr0n related on the net.  exchanging money raises the bar and they seek people out for that regardless of any disclaimers on websites, etc...  And treat all those age, consent, and legality disclaimers as being analogous to an underage person's ID.  Just because it looks legit, doesn't save you.

/or so I've heard
 
2013-04-22 04:57:47 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: True, technically it might be a bit of a jump if you equate animated pictures to real pictures.  But I'm pretty comfortable jumping to a conclusion that the defenders in here are into children.  Don't hurt real children.


Yes, let's nip this reasonable (for once) conversation in the bud by poisoning the well. You must be so proud of yourself.
 
2013-04-22 05:00:45 PM  

i.r.id10t: When it comes to technology vs. magic, for some reason, the magic always has the hotter babes...

[thereservoirblogs.files.wordpress.com image 600x325]


great movie, would love to see a remake LotR style :D
 
2013-04-22 05:01:11 PM  
Tijuana Bible(s)


/That is all
 
2013-04-22 05:01:57 PM  

Ed Grubermann: staplermofo: It was a guy who already had sex with minors, and the treatment for pedophiles usually includes not indulging any thoughts close to sexualizing a minor.  So it's not as bad as it looks from the headline.  I am an idiot.

And just how the hell do they think they can enforce a ban on how he feels?


Just you wait.
 
2013-04-22 05:02:10 PM  
Never really gave tinkerbell much thought before this thread and the tinkerbell cosplay pics...

s2.postimg.org
 
2013-04-22 05:03:32 PM  
images.wikia.com

\do not want
 
2013-04-22 05:05:21 PM  
Frankly anyone here defending this deviant porn is as guilty as those who watch it.  You are all sick and should be on some kind of watchlists at the very least, "normal" heterosexual pornography is harmful enough as it is without proliferating the really disturbed stuff.
 
2013-04-22 05:05:34 PM  
cdn.buzznet.com
 
2013-04-22 05:06:00 PM  

syzygy whizz: Nabb1: "Fap if you love Tinkerbell!"

Glimmer porn!

/ obscure?


Are you thinking of this one? Cause her name was "Glitter"

fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-04-22 05:06:02 PM  

Yuri Futanari: Frankly anyone here defending this deviant porn is as guilty as those who watch it.  You are all sick and should be on some kind of watchlists at the very least, "normal" heterosexual pornography is harmful enough as it is without proliferating the really disturbed stuff.


The username makes the troll too obvious.
 
2013-04-22 05:07:06 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Never really gave tinkerbell much thought before this thread and the tinkerbell cosplay pics...

[s2.postimg.org image 253x750]


You've clearly been doing it wrong.

/maybe I should consider renaming that folder...
 
2013-04-22 05:07:23 PM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-04-22 05:07:43 PM  

Lumpmoose: I don't get the bans on virtual child porn.  The whole theory of illegal possession is that it creates an industry that exploits children.  But if you ban virtual porn as well, you're only encouraging the pedophile to target real children.  They already can't go to a psychiatrist because of mandatory reporting laws.  So we're basically relying on the good will of underground pedophiles to get their rocks off in ways that don't exploit children.

Pedophiles don't choose to be pedophiles and being one doesn't mean you actually abuse children--only that there's a sexual attraction.  Stupid quotes like this:

"The ways a person entertains themself is not morally negligible. This is probably an additional factor in the current case because as well as worrying about the effects these activities might have on children, we also naturally make moral judgments about the character of the person in question."

proves some people want to use the law to target people merely because of who they are and not for their activities, which isn't justice.


It's because people lose their minds when you mention sex and children. And, really, that's the ONLY reason. You have the same reaction, to a lesser extent, with adult porn--that even virtual rape is rape per se--but add a kid in there and you get "Well, they're imagining raping a child, which means they COULD be raping a child which means they WOULD rape a child if they had the chance which means they ARE CHILD RAPERS OMF!!!!11!!!"

That jacking off to a picture of an imaginary child (i.e. a virtual representation of a nonexistant child) would be preferable to jacking off to a picture of a real child, and much much better than jacking off with an actual child seems not to have any distinction in the minds of 99% of people. And those of us who make this distinction are instantly called either apologists for child-rapers or "moral relativists" or some nonsense.
 
2013-04-22 05:08:28 PM  
i4.ytimg.com

Not amused
 
2013-04-22 05:09:18 PM  

JesusJuice: I have fapped MIGHTILY to Bondage Faeries in my time


I can't tell if you're joking or not. But for safety's sake "What the hell is wrong with you!?"
 
2013-04-22 05:09:48 PM  
"The worry is that viewing or distributing such images could support the abuse of power even if the production of the images did not actually involve the abuse of power."

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-22 05:11:53 PM  
photos.costume-works.com
 
2013-04-22 05:12:48 PM  

Wingchild: Grables'Daughter: It does seem bizarre that animated porn would be illegal.

It should seem just as bizarre that it's illegal in the United States, as well. Back in '96, under attorney general Ashcroft RENO, we got the Child Pornography Protection Act which made all virtual depictions of minors having sex automatically illegal. This provision was struck down in 2002 during a Supreme Court Ruling - Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition.

The prohibition came back in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act, which per Wikipedia "enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "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" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"."

Because there's a community standards test (for obscenity, and whether something lacks one of several hard-to-legally-define values) the law has been used to prosecute people successfully several times; thus, yes, loli porn is a completely prosecutable offense here in the land of the free, despite no children being harmed in the making thereof, etc., etc., much to the surprise and chagrin of our denizens of 4chan and its many bastard children.

As with movies, music, and microcode, traffic in loli porn remains brisk for those interested in such matters, and given the lax state of enforcement it will continue to do so up 'til the next major government crusader starts attacking sites and content hosts (possibly with the intent of invalidating "safe harbor" provisions that protect ISPs?). That's life. All that isn't prohibited is allowed, and all that's not enforced isn't actually prohibited.


FTFY
 
2013-04-22 05:13:15 PM  
This is farked up. Seriously farked up.
 
2013-04-22 05:14:43 PM  
I am so sorry I'm late...

img14.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-22 05:14:50 PM  

i.r.id10t: When it comes to technology vs. magic, for some reason, the magic always has the hotter babes...

[thereservoirblogs.files.wordpress.com image 600x325]


I don't know.  I've heard that there are a lot of risqué images floating around the internet of attractive people wearing "slavegirl Leia outfits" or cosplaying Twi'leks.  And that's just Star Wars.  Though whether Stars should count as magic or technology is another question.
 
2013-04-22 05:15:31 PM  
Louis CK did a pretty good bit about Child Farkers...he said that because society sees Child Farking as so very evil, it actually causes more children to be murdered (in order to hide the identity of the child farker) than if society held this crime at the same level as regular murder...something along the lines of society will try to find out "why" a murder happened, and even make excuses for a murderer "He was driven to it..."

He's not wrong though. We so demonize the child diddlers that they feel forced to have to murder their victims rather than just diddle them and let them go home. And as Louis CK says... I'm not sure what to do with that information, no idea how to use it.
 
2013-04-22 05:15:33 PM  
img849.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-22 05:16:19 PM  
img706.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-22 05:16:22 PM  

Lumpmoose: I don't get the bans on virtual child porn.  The whole theory of illegal possession is that it creates an industry that exploits children.  But if you ban virtual porn as well, you're only encouraging the pedophile to target real children.  They already can't go to a psychiatrist because of mandatory reporting laws.  So we're basically relying on the good will of underground pedophiles to get their rocks off in ways that don't exploit children.


The argument - not that I agree, mind you - is twofold:
(i) virtual child porn creates a market for child porn. If it existed legally, someone might check it out, enjoy it, and then go seek real child porn;
(ii) virtual child porn may, as technology improves, become indistinguishable from real child porn. You could create a situation where one picture was legal while an identical picture was illegal, making it difficult for prosecutors to go after the real pornographers. In particular, their defense could be "nope, that one's fake, and unless you can find the child, you can't prove it's not".
 
2013-04-22 05:16:59 PM  
img843.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-22 05:17:40 PM  
img824.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-22 05:18:25 PM  

blatz514: [photos.costume-works.com image 428x428]


Looks like Bristol Palin and Christina Model's horrible love child.
 
2013-04-22 05:18:44 PM  
WELCOME BACK GD! We have all missed you!

On a thread related note, when I saw the headline I first thought of goldshire inn or the stormwind tram rp incident...
 
2013-04-22 05:18:57 PM  

Wolf892: Louis CK did a pretty good bit about Child Farkers...he said that because society sees Child Farking as so very evil, it actually causes more children to be murdered (in order to hide the identity of the child farker) than if society held this crime at the same level as regular murder...something along the lines of society will try to find out "why" a murder happened, and even make excuses for a murderer "He was driven to it..."

He's not wrong though. We so demonize the child diddlers that they feel forced to have to murder their victims rather than just diddle them and let them go home. And as Louis CK says... I'm not sure what to do with that information, no idea how to use it.


Well that and we can treat pedophilia as a medical disorder instead of "the most horrible, monstrous moral failure a human being can be, who should be called a monster and shunned from the world." Nobody's going to come forward for help if we're going to demonize them outright for what they possibly might do.
 
2013-04-22 05:19:18 PM  
fc00.deviantart.net
 
2013-04-22 05:20:42 PM  
At least it wasn't Pictsy Porn

sophyanempire.files.wordpress.com

I don't think they want that in jail.
 
2013-04-22 05:21:09 PM  

Nabb1: "Fap if you love Tinkerbell!"


I get to molest Tink every night.

/true story
 
2013-04-22 05:22:24 PM  
Smeggy Smurf: Nabb1: "Fap if you love Tinkerbell!"

I get to molest Tink every night.

/true story


Pics or it didn't happen.
 
2013-04-22 05:22:33 PM  
It's still okay to find the haircut attractive though, right?

lucason.com

hairstylesweekly.com

www.hairstyleagain.com

rollingout.com
 
2013-04-22 05:24:30 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: True, technically it might be a bit of a jump if you equate animated pictures to real pictures.  But I'm pretty comfortable jumping to a conclusion that the defenders in here are into children.  Don't hurt real children.


Given what we know about the frequency of pedophilia and the size of Fark, yeah there's a high probability that at least one of the,"defenders" ITT is "into children". So what? Can you actually undercut their argument with something other than ZOMG gateway drug?

Criminalizing effective self treatment of a dangerous disorder is stupid.
 
2013-04-22 05:25:42 PM  

megarian: LordJiro: ECPAT Child Alert director Alan Bell believes that the suggestive images are illegal because they prompt people "to migrate from there to the real thing,"

That argument is bullshiat when it claims violent video games make people murder, it's bullshiat when it claims D&D leads to Satanism, and it's bullshiat here.

I don't know, man....

I played a video game porn with sexualized D&D characters while dressed as an underage pixie and now I love to comit satanically-enhanced homicides.


Can I have your phone number?
 
2013-04-22 05:26:44 PM  

I Browse: It's still okay to find the haircut attractive though, right?

[lucason.com image 462x571]

[hairstylesweekly.com image 488x711]

[www.hairstyleagain.com image 270x410]

[rollingout.com image 460x383]


Nope. You're still a pervert.
 
2013-04-22 05:27:43 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Nana's Vibrator: True, technically it might be a bit of a jump if you equate animated pictures to real pictures.  But I'm pretty comfortable jumping to a conclusion that the defenders in here are into children.  Don't hurt real children.

Yes, let's nip this reasonable (for once) conversation in the bud by poisoning the well. You must be so proud of yourself.


Thank you for taking exception to my comment in a thread about pixie porn.  Perhaps we all need better things to do with our time.  In the meantime, stop encouraging the molestation of children.  Your agreement with the conversation doesn't make abuse reasonable nor does it make it right.
 
Displayed 50 of 298 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report