A Chalenger Appears...

Jiven · May 15, 2014

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!

gibbousmoons · May 15, 2014

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

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.

Vindictus · May 15, 2014

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

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

Okay.

EnderofWorlds · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
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.

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.

Master of Squirrel-fu · May 15, 2014

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.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

gibbousmoons said:
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.

Concession....accepted.

5330646328_2008_06_25_131330_puts_on_sunglasses_answer_4_xlarge.png

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

Okay.

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

And which company hosts QQ?

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.

It hurts kids

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

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

Okay.

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

Master of Squirrel-fu said:
16 years of age is the age of consent in many states and other countries.

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.

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

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

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

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!

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

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

From the article cited:

He said that the investigators were disturbed by what they found and added, "None of us would be here if we were talking about a couple of images."

Completely decent I'm sure.

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

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

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
Big difference is that BDSM's not illegal...

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

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

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.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

Malcolmo said:
From the article cited:Completely decent I'm sure.

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

Lrn2source.

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

I did no such thing.

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.

And CP harms children.

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.

Take that tinfoil hat off your head, mister.

Master of Squirrel-fu · May 15, 2014

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/

Master of Squirrel-fu · May 15, 2014

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

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

Master of Squirrel-fu said:
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.

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!'

Hence troll.

I highly doubt the accuracy of this statement.

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/

Trouble?

Hey is Wizone still a mod?

Master of Squirrel-fu said:
Everyone, please stop feeding the troll, if he continues to antagonize I will take action.

I refute this accusation.

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
It hurts kids

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

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

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.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

Malcolmo said:
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? :

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.

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.

Is that similar to accusations of me being a troll?

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

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

Lrn2source.

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

And CP harms children.

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

Take that tinfoil hat off your head, mister.

Tinfoil huh?

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
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.

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.

Is that similar to accusations of me being a troll?

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

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

Tinfoil huh?

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

Malcolmo said:
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.

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

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

How about you do it for me?

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

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

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

I'll take their word over yours.

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

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

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

Kindly show why they are incorrect please.

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

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.

How about you do it for me?

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

Master of Squirrel-fu · May 15, 2014

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.

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

Master of Squirrel-fu said:
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.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

Malcolmo said:
I'll take their word over yours.

Unfortunately that's not how criminal investigation works.

How sad.

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

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.

???Kindly show why they are incorrect please.

Because the articles are literally all baseless speculation?

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.

In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by then president George W. Bush.[52] The law 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..

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

Be a good dear and do it for me.

Master of Squirrel-fu said:
Trouble; as in continuing to post flame bait. Like you are currently doing.

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.

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.

Sorry, drawn CP is still CP and still illegal.

See:

In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by then president George W. Bush.[52] The law 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 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.

Concession...accepted.

megrisvernin · May 15, 2014

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

Some background on the Act

In 1996, Congress changed course in its efforts to combat child pornography
when it passed a law that targeted so-called virtual child pornography — or
computer-generated images of children engaging in explicit sexual conduct. In
the past, laws had focused on the use of actual children in making, producing
and distributing child pornography.
But Congress adopted the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 — CPPA — to
address concerns about advances in computer technology that make it more
difficult for prosecutors to determine whether certain images are of an actual
child or simply realistic images of fictional children. Congress heard testimony
regarding "morphing" — where pornographers would download photographs of
children from magazines and then transform them into sexual pictures.
CPPA defined child pornography as:
"Any visual depiction, including any photography, film, video,
picture or computer-generated image or picture … of sexually explicit conduct,
where —
(A) the production of such visual depiction is, or, appears to be, of a
minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is, or,
appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (C) such visual
depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable
minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (D) such visual depiction is
advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that
conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a
minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct." — 18 U.S.C. Section
2256(8)
The Free Speech Coalition and others challenged the law in federal court in
1997. They challenged only the two subsections containing the "appears to
be" and "conveys the impression" clauses. The plaintiffs questioned those
provisions because they allow people to be punished even if no actual children
were involved in the creation, production or distribution of the material.
For instance, the law would theoretically punish producers of a movie that
had a youthful-looking adult movie actor playing a child in a sex scene.
Furthermore, the law would impose penalties on material that simply "conveyed
the impression" through advertising that the material contained a minor engaged
in sexually explicit conduct.

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.

The CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The statute proscribes the visual depiction of an idea--that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity--that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages. Under the CPPA, images are prohibited so long as the persons appear to be under 18 years of age. 18 U. S. C. §2256(1). This is higher than the legal age for marriage in many States, as well as the age at which persons may consent to sexual relations. See §2243(a) (age of consent in the federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction is 16); U. S. National Survey of State Laws 384-388 (R. Leiter ed., 3d ed. 1999) (48 States permit 16-year-olds to marry with parental consent); W. Eskridge & N. Hunter, Sexuality, Gender, and the Law 1021-1022 (1997) (in 39 States and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16 or younger). It is, of course, undeniable that some youths engage in sexual activity before the legal age, either on their own inclination or because they are victims of sexual abuse.

Both themes--teenage sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children--have inspired countless literary works. William Shakespeare created the most famous pair of teenage lovers, one of whom is just 13 years of age. See Romeo and Juliet, act I, sc. 2, l. 9 ("She hath not seen the change of fourteen years"). In the drama, Shakespeare portrays the relationship as something splendid and innocent, but not juvenile. The work has inspired no less than 40 motion pictures, some of which suggest that the teenagers consummated their relationship. E.g., Romeo and Juliet (B. Luhrmann director, 1996). Shakespeare may not have written sexually explicit scenes for the Elizabethean audience, but were modern directors to adopt a less conventional approach, that fact alone would not compel the conclusion that the work was obscene.

Contemporary movies pursue similar themes. Last year's Academy Awards featured the movie, Traffic, which was nominated for Best Picture. See Predictable and Less So, the Academy Award Contenders, N. Y. Times, Feb. 14, 2001, p. E11. The film portrays a teenager, identified as a 16-year-old, who becomes addicted to drugs. The viewer sees the degradation of her addiction, which in the end leads her to a filthy room to trade sex for drugs. The year before, American Beauty won the Academy Award for Best Picture. See "American Beauty" Tops the Oscars, N. Y. Times, Mar. 27, 2000, p. E1. In the course of the movie, a teenage girl engages in sexual relations with her teenage boyfriend, and another yields herself to the gratification of a middle-aged man. The film also contains a scene where, although the movie audience understands the act is not taking place, one character believes he is watching a teenage boy performing a sexual act on an older man.

Our society, like other cultures, has empathy and enduring fascination with the lives and destinies of the young. Art and literature express the vital interest we all have in the formative years we ourselves once knew, when wounds can be so grievous, disappointment so profound, and mistaken choices so tragic, but when moral acts and self-fulfillment are still in reach. Whether or not the films we mention violate the CPPA, they explore themes within the wide sweep of the statute's prohibitions. If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the work's redeeming value. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. See Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U. S. 413, 419 (1966) (plurality opinion) ("[T]he social value of the book can neither be weighed against nor canceled by its prurient appeal or patent offensiveness"). Under Miller, the First Amendment requires that redeeming value be judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive. See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U. S. 229, 231 (1972) (per curiam). For this reason, and the others we have noted, the CPPA cannot be read to prohibit obscenity, because it lacks the required link between its prohibitions and the affront to community standards prohibited by the definition of obscenity

.

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

tehelgee · May 15, 2014

Seadart is banned yet again. Such a tragedy, it moves me to tears.

Master of Squirrel-fu · May 15, 2014

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.

megrisvernin · May 15, 2014

Discussion of Under 18 Depictions of Sex continues below.

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

tehelgee · May 15, 2014

Well, Seadart has decided to go full retard again, but the same methods as always apply to dealing with him. New registration is now on admin approval. I may lift this after a while, once our determined yet sad personal troll gets bored again.

gibbousmoons · May 15, 2014

teh elgee said:
Well, Seadart has decided to go full retard again, but the same methods as always apply to dealing with him. New registration is now on admin approval. I may lift this after a while, once our determined yet sad personal troll gets bored again.

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

Vanathor · May 15, 2014

gibbousmoons said:
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.

Dinya · May 15, 2014

Jemnite said:
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.

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.

Carrnage · May 16, 2014

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.

megrisvernin · May 16, 2014

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

Dinya said:
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.

g85406#msg85406

Carrnage said:
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.

Continue this here please.

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

A Chalenger Appears...

Most Excellent Lurker

Well worn.

Experienced.

Versed in the lewd.

The Original

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Insert custom title here

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

The Original

The Original

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Insert custom title here

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Insert custom title here

Insert custom title here

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Insert custom title here

The Original

Insert custom title here

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Connoisseur.

The stern gaze of justice.

The Original

Connoisseur.

The stern gaze of justice.

Well worn.

『Back In Black』

Know what you're doing yet?

Well worn.

Connoisseur.

Users who are viewing this thread