A Chalenger Appears...

Now, I kinda wish I didn't use different names for each of the forums.

Meh. Any way to change a name on SB?

 

Get in touch with the admins about it.

 

out of all three i find this forum to have some of my favorite quests XD both hora and non hora variety.

 

SeaDart helpfully points out the names of the new oppression in SV's current elections:

I suggest you vote for everybody else in the SV Community Councillor Elections, if you are interested in less fanatical puritanism on SV!

 

Dude, no matter who you vote for, they're not going to allow porn on the board. Just don't post anything explicit or of sexual nature involving a person under 18, and you should be fine.

Frankly, I would hardly call it fanatical puritanism, given that there's supposedly even a kink thread.

 

There is.

Apparently like half of the 'Shadow Cabal' is into BDSM.

It's actually kind of funny. "So now we know what you all get up to at those secret meetings of yours..."

 

Meh.

 

Does this mean I'm the odd man out, as I'm not actually on SB?

Shadow Cabal... how sinister. I guess we should totally have a party when they have another meeting then.

 

Big difference is that BDSM's not illegal...

 

Oh, I forgot to put mah Creeper title on the SV profile.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_%28BDSM%29#Legal_aspects

Beep boop. What's the difference between an imaginary person and a real one?

 

For the latter you need consent?

 

Doesn't that screw over doctors considering that surgeries normally count as injuring someone with consent unless I am wrong?

 

It's not illegal to kill someone who doesn't exist.

Doctors are in a totally different boat, as medical treatment is specifically and outright aimed at treating some underlying issue- Not getting off.

 

I don't see where it say's that's illegal.

On the other hand:

 

While I'm well aware of what exactly you're trying to imply, you haven't found anything that actually helps your case. Your case here being that fictional children are treated the same as real ones:

A case for pedophilia and child porn you are failing miserably to make. Now if you were actually competent you might have instead looked at obscenity laws and tried to come up with something from there.
But, that would actually have required actual forethought which doesn't appear to be very high in your list of qualities.

 

Internet. So, are you going to argue about where the line stands and just how much one can get away with re:CP?

 

Lolicon isn't my thing, but I think I see where you're making your misunderstanding Seadart.


You see, the law specifies "a minor", and as fictional characters are not alive they cannot be minors under the law, as they are not people.

 

Shaky argument at best, here.

 

That is the official stance of the United States government regarding drawn depictions of fictional characters, Seadart. You can dislike said judgement all you like, but it is what it is. That's why photoshopping an underage actress' head onto an adult model's nude body is illegal, but graphic depictions of female characters are not. One's a person, one's a representation of a fictional character.

 

Ah good, you've actually moved on to something that's close to relevancy.
Now if only you managed to refer to written content you'd actually be close to making a point as opposed to not doing so.

Still if you want to talk about lolicon there's this:

 

The law is very clear in this regard, i'm afraid.

But we gotta find where exactly that line lies, amirite?

 

The big deal with the whole CP thing is that it's harming children. Remove the actual children than it's just them being assholes. It's like getting pissed at people who chew those fake candy cigarettes because they just need something in their mouth. It's mostly imposing one's morals on someone else because you find their tastes objectionable.

 

Children are people too:

http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20140514/NEWS/140518042

 

Indeed it is. I'm glad that you're actually taking this seriously and are willing to accept when your allegations are directly contradicted by the laws. Otherwise this might even be called a board invasion, what with all the trolling and flame-baiting that would be going on, and that would be terrible.

 

That line is as vague as the second amendment. It could be referring to illustrations of real children rather than of fictional characters. And illustrations can be taken as anything from a stick figure to a detailed sketch, plus there's no way to prove their age other than looks, which vary on the style, like say lucky star which all the loli characters are actually about 16-18.

 

Again, charges were dropped.

Not exactly all that strong a case for your law now is it?

Of course, I'll note you've successfully driven the argument off of written text onto visual media. Well played though hardly very good at proving your previous point.

 

This seems to be implying that this one says that it's okay with children, that is putting words in her mouth. This one is saying that loli art is different than the real thing and does not harm anyone since the only one's involved are the illustrator and the consumer.

 

Board invasion? Man, are you going to debate the point?

We don't know just how pornographic the material was.

The USGOV doesn't make it a habit to ban books, Malcolmo.

Anyway, I have something else i'm concerned with. When I signed up here it asked me if 'I wished to view NSFW materials and am above the age of 16'

16 year olds are minors.

Parking on a double yellow line doesn't harm anyone but it's still illegal. Just like insurance fraud, jaywalking, etc etc