A Chalenger Appears...

This discussion is tiring to read and really not interesting. Going to sleep, hope everyone would have moved to something else when I wake up. Good night!

 

Nah. You're in the Rants section and not trying to fuck with people's content so I don't really give a rat's ass, and while I may not agree with what you're saying I'm not going to disagree with you saying it. That's what the Rants section is for, after all.

 

So you're saying that beating and abusing people IRL is perfectly okay, but hurting those poor word-babies is a criminal offense.

Okay.

 

Age of Majority is relative from country to country and IIRC the folks who made QQ are Brits, meaning that age is 16.

Lolicon debate is silly and stupid; then again I think any creeper argument and debate shit is stupid cause people gonna fap to what they gonna fap and so long as it's not actually hurting anyone in real life I ain't judging.

 

16 years of age is the age of consent in many states and other countries.

Parking on the yellow line is a crime because it can cause traffic accidents, and jay walking can as well.

This is a poor attempt at trolling and if this continues too far I will step in and end this.

 

Concession....accepted.

And which company hosts QQ?

It hurts kids

http://www.northjersey.com/news/wayne-man-pleaded-guilty-to-sharing-images-of-child-sexual-abuse-1.1017051

Where does it says sexual acts between consenting adults are illegal?

But not most states and most countries, no?

For your own protection you might want to make that 18. Saves you a lot of hassle.

And Child Pornography harms children. Hence, it's a crime.

Hold your horses. Do you tar everyone who disagrees with you as a troll? As someone worthy of infraction?

My, that sounds mightily like the kind of behavior that led to the formation of this splinter board!

 

From the article cited:

Completely decent I'm sure.

Ah good, so you've recanted your previous statement.

In which case, none of the issues you've been trying to make are relevant.

Parking on double yellow lines blocks roads and increases chances of traffic accidents.
Insurance fraud involves stealing money from someone which hardly counts as no harm.
Jaywalking laws are the result of American car companies starting a counter campaign to keep people of the roads after a petition was started to mechanically limit vehicle speed and have the added benefits of being ineffective at actually decreasing harm. Coupled with it being legal in other countries and not strictly enforced even in america you've picked a very bad example to use.

 

That's just a subjective quote. You cannot derive any sort of empirical meaning from it.

Lrn2source.

I did no such thing.

And CP harms children.

Take that tinfoil hat off your head, mister.

 

Sir, you are repeatedly renewing this argument, bringing up very easily rebuffed argument that miss the point entirely, and are using textbook cases of troll-logic. I also see you've invaded another thread to jab at absent members for old words.

Hence troll.

I am giving fair warning that if you continue to cause trouble you will be banned, this is not even counting the instigations of sockpuppeting/

 

Everyone, please stop feeding the troll, if he continues to antagonize I will take action.

 

I don't like being called an asshole for no reason at all.

Besides, no one on this thread has come close to rebuffing my argument that 'Hey, CP is a crime, yo!'

I highly doubt the accuracy of this statement.

Trouble?

Hey is Wizone still a mod?

I refute this accusation.

 

You know, you'd have a better argument if you could manage to make statements and provide evidence that have anything to do with what the other guy says. You've gone from written pornography to drawn pornography to actual child porn. What other excellent attempts at shifting goalposts can we expect from you oh wise debater? :

I'd accuse you of sophistry but that would require you to be debating as opposed to be making inane statements with little to do with the subject being discussed.

 

Written pornography isn't banned. There's no censorship of books in America.

Drawn and actual CP, however, is illegal, as i've clearly shown.

Is that similar to accusations of me being a troll?

 

Yes, the investigators statements have absolutely no value what so ever. :

That's nice dear. Now actually show how written pornography and drawn pornography do that.

Tinfoil huh?

 

Your argument for drawn is weak and no one here argued in favor of Child porn. Ignoring that you've said nothing that shows how what Vindictus has been referring to is illegal.

Why don't you look up what that means and find out?

 

Yes, since it wasn't part of an official investigation report.

You know, an offhand comment, like me calling you literally Hitler.

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/child_pornography/print/

Yeah, tinfoil. That's up there with contrails or rainbows in my sprinklers.

Man, there are people in this very thread lawyering about where the line is. If that's not creeper then what is?

How about you do it for me?

 

I'll take their word over yours.

And not one part of that mention drawn or written pornography. Fancy that. ???

Kindly show why they are incorrect please.

You will of course both show where this is as well as detail exactly how that constitutes child pornography. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you have enough time to write replies and find useless sources you can look up a single word.

 

Trouble; as in continuing to post flame bait. Like you are currently doing.

And you are the one that started this argument and are the one who is trying to change the definition. Ignoring that, arguing where the line is is not a bad thing is, it's necessary to rule out what truly is reprehensible, such as actual real CP to what is seen as less so such as animated characters who's age is determined by who is looking.

And here is where I'm going to step out of this argument, and Malcolmo, I suggest you do too, this is just encouraging him and prolonging this.

 

I'll stop.

 

Unfortunately that's not how criminal investigation works.

How sad.

If you'd read it you'd know how CP acts as a gateway to much more heinous and inhuman crimes. At this point the only people who actually argue against it are the criminals themselves.

Because the articles are literally all baseless speculation?

Be a good dear and do it for me.

I'm not flaming. This is a reasoned, polite debate. I've not personally insulted anyone in this thread.

Please, hold your horses until I actually do something not Kosher.

Sorry, drawn CP is still CP and still illegal.

See:

Concession...accepted.

 

This reminds me a lot of an older Court Case, the Supreme Court ruling on 2002 of Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996.

The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional 6 to 3.

The Majority Opinion is here.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795

The relevant comments they make are.

.

I support their ruling & I thought they worded it better than I've ever been able to.

 

Look if you're planning to continue this than at least do the courtesy of moving it to a new thread?

Oh Teh Elgee stepped in!
Yay!
I always am reluctant to ban without 100% being sure of law breaking...

Anyway if anyone wishs to continue on this thead of arguement than make a new thread for it please.

 

Discussion of Under 18 Depictions of Sex continues below.

http://questionablequesting.com/index.php?topic=580.msg85406#msg85406

 

Are you planning on contacting the mods from SV and SB regarding his continuing the board invasion?

 

It's not a board invasion. It's a single troll.

 

1. That's a perfect solution fallacy. Allowing porn was nowhere near my agenda.
The point was to push the boundaries in favor of more freedom of expression, even if just a little, for the sake of the fringe cases. This turned out to be actually important:

The Alchemical Quest case is a good example of content that should have been allowed, but thanks to the Council, wasn't.
I think 'fanatical puritanism' fits.


2. Voting is absurdly low-cost for anyone already registered on SV. (Which is a majority here, I suspect.)
It consisted merely of following my link and liking anywhere between 1 and 23 one-name posts. That's like half a minute, tops.

That I think, justifies the mere marginality of the decreased necessary self-censorship for a year, if you are going to be spending time on SV.

 

Eh honestly The underageness of the characters (in stories on this site that have underagecharacters) tends to be an informed trait, the characters themselves are usually physically and emotionally mature enough to not actually be harmed by sex.

 

http://questionablequesting.com/index.php?topic=580.ms

g85406#msg85406

Continue this here please.

http://questionablequesting.com/index.php?topic=580.msg85406#msg85406