💰 Grifter "Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a My Psychotherapy Sessions

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

I agree with the first point, but only on the basis that there is no direct victim. However, it should still be illegal.

With regards to offending, this is not conclusive but it is worth noting that the people who often get caught To Catch a Predator Style after talking to children online tend to move from fantasy, to talking to underage people sexually, to meeting them. Much like with drugs, the initial hit is fine but eventually it just doesn't do it anymore so people want more or try to access drugs that would give them a bigger rush - and in this sense what these people are after is the chemical cocktail their brains release after they have engaged sexually with a child. Now maybe it doesn't work in all paedophiles in the same way, but I would bet that it does for a lot of them.

Additionally, recidivism for a lot of offenders can be massively reduced with the right treatment - that is to say, through a combination of therapy, punishment and supervision a lot of these people never re-offend once caught. This treatment never includes giving in to, or encouraging to these urges and instead involves ways of avoiding or suppressing them - Loli is doing the exact opposite of this, so I fail to see how it could actually help.

As for how you would make it illegal, I don't think this is too difficult. While it is easy to make it illegal to depict children doing explicitly sexual acts, acts that don't reach this explicit level can be harder to define. Where I am from the standard is whether or not the image is "sexually suggestive", how this works is based on two things, first the purpose of the image - so if you found an image of a young girl in a bikini on someones hard drive it would matter how they acquired it, their relation to the person and what else was on the hard drive as to what you would classify it as. It could be entirely innocent, or damning. The second point is the nature of the image, going back to the bikini example, there is a huge difference between just an innocent picture and one where they are in a suggestive pose. Of course these are somewhat subjective and could be argued, but that's why we have courts of law.

I agree with you, up to a point. My main issue is that you say it would be easy to determine what is and isn’t loli, but I can’t see how. You’d have to factor in art style, target audience, who the actual person caught with it is, and so many other things. We can barely figure it out for regular, adult pornography, much less something as specific as loli. Hell, just go on Reddit and you will see many things that toe the line.
I’m not nearly smart enough to give a good solution, though.

 

[Boulder Patrol]

Even if he wants to justify it legally, it doesn't explain

1. Why he would bring Digibro as a guest, let alone a repeat guest
2. Why he would bring Digibro into his own home
3. What Digibro has to offer in character that makes up for both previous points

I have genuinely only been repulsed by Digibro

 

[Ripple]

The part where he pleaded about digi bros pain bothered me.

I don’t even understand that argument.
What “pain” is a pedophile unable to touch kids in?
Is it like the “unending suffering” of a rape fetishist who can’t find a woman interested in being raped?

“I’m in so much pain that I can’t inflict life ruining trauma onto others so I can get a nut off. Please feel sympathy for me”
Push the button, Josh.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

I agree with you, up to a point. My main issue is that you say it would be easy to determine what is and isn’t loli, but I can’t see how. You’d have to factor in art style, target audience, who the actual person caught with it is, and so many other things. We can barely figure it out for regular, adult pornography, much less something as specific as loli. Hell, just go on Reddit and you will see many things that toe the line.
I’m not nearly smart enough to give a good solution, though.

It doesn't have to be Loli, just sexualised depictions of children in general.

Sure, some of it is borderline but that is what jury's are for.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

It doesn't have to be Loli, just sexualised depictions of children in general.

Sure, some of it is borderline but that is what jury's are for.

True. But then that raises the question of what the punishment should be. Because, let’s face it, prison isn’t free for taxpayers.
Drawings of real kids, obviously that should be illegal. But if it’s a kid that doesn’t exist, is it right to punish someone because they might do wrong in the future? Because I’d wager money that there is, unfortunately, a shitload more pedos and lolicon out there than we could even believe. But if they keep quite and don’t offend, we just don’t know.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

True. But then that raises the question of what the punishment should be. Because, let’s face it, prison isn’t free for taxpayers.
Drawings of real kids, obviously that should be illegal. But if it’s a kid that doesn’t exist, is it right to punish someone because they might do wrong in the future? Because I’d wager money that there is, unfortunately, a shitload more pedos and lolicon out there than we could even believe. But if they keep quite and don’t offend, we just don’t know.

I guess prior to them offending in a way that would directly harm someone - like contacting a child, or in the case of Shadman drawing a depiction of a real child - you could eschew an immediate prison sentence for a suspended one with a short stint as an RSO combined with mandatory counselling. If they fail to attend or fail to actually engage with the counselling that is when prison/ a longer period on RSO could be considered.

Obviously this is just broad strokes, but I agree the punishment should be lower - however the punishment that does exist should be designed to prevent them progressing to becoming offenders who harm actual children.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

I guess prior to them offending in a way that would directly harm someone - like contacting a child, or in the case of Shadman drawing a depiction of a real child - you could eschew an immediate prison sentence for a suspended one with a short stint as an RSO combined with mandatory counselling. If they fail to attend or fail to actually engage with the counselling that is when prison/ a longer period on RSO could be considered.

Obviously this is just broad strokes, but I agree the punishment should be lower - however the punishment that does exist should be designed to prevent them progressing to becoming offenders who harm actual children.

Simple solution, we send the real dangerous ones to various tropical islands to farm sugar.

 

[Agent of Z.O.G.]

I guess prior to them offending in a way that would directly harm someone - like contacting a child, or in the case of Shadman drawing a depiction of a real child - you could eschew an immediate prison sentence for a suspended one with a short stint as an RSO combined with mandatory counselling. If they fail to attend or fail to actually engage with the counselling that is when prison/ a longer period on RSO could be considered.

Obviously this is just broad strokes, but I agree the punishment should be lower - however the punishment that does exist should be designed to prevent them progressing to becoming offenders who harm actual children.

"Please think of the children"-man advocating red flag laws for drawings
"Thinking of children huh? Think you need check up, creep"-Precrime Street Judge

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

"Please think of the children"-man advocating red flag laws for drawings
"Thinking of children huh? Think you need check up, creep"-Precrime Street Judge

Okay, nonce.

 

[Dreamer]

Being a pedophile apologist is a logical dead end, o will explain the basic thought process behind it and why that thought process is so prevalent.

Pedophile apologists like to see pedophiles as victims of their own urges, this excuses their actions because they are "forced to" commit them much like a heroin addict is forced to search for more heroin.
With dick its particularly strange since he seems to not believe in addictions, as represented by his alcoholism and enabling ralph.
Apologists base their reasoning on their assumption that sexual attraction is inherited on birth and not established through life, and because of that they also believe this attraction will never disappear or change, its a constant.
So then, if this affliction cannot be fixed then it has to be somehow contained. How? With child porn and loli.
And so, if a pedophile does not act, only uses CP and loli they consider the whole problem to be solved and of no concern.

Now, here is why that belief is false and their method of dealing with pedophiles actively harmful.
Our personality is not established at birth, it is not inherited. Instead it is entirely created by our environment and chance, there is cause and effect behind every facet of our personality even if we are not smart or technologically developed enough to see it yet.
In that way pedophiles can be still victims of circumstance but the fundamental belief that they cant be relieved from their attraction to children is fundamentally flawed.
People who refuse to believe this end up just enabling pedophiles to fall further and further into their degeneracy by exposing themselves to even more CP and normalizing it in their heads with the excuse that they cant change for the better.
Normalizing and adjusting to degenerate material is what causes you to become a degenerate, there is quite a steady progression that can be observed as people fall into their fetishes, the prime example would be trannies.

Bonus round.
Why do people refuse to believe that you are a product of your environment?
Because that undermines the biggest pro-LGBT argument that gay people can't change and have to be accepted as they are. Their preference has to be inherited because otherwise its a choice, and that's harder to defend.

 

[ddlloo]

I don’t even understand that argument.
What “pain” is a pedophile unable to touch kids in?

Sexuality and sex are massive parts of the human experience. Pedos are rightfully hated, and without breaking laws, ruining lives, and turning themselves into a monster they are arguably denied of the ability to satisfy sexual urges they have, urges that are largely uncontrollable by them. I fucking loathe the attempted reputational makeover of pedos via terms such as NOMAPs and 'virtuous pedophiles', as I think pedophilia and pedophiles should be as taboo and private as possible (because NOTHING good will come of society at large trying to rethink this shit), but at the same time I recognize that for a lot of them (and I'm NOT including digi in this) it's a pretty fucking raw deal to know you're perceived as a monster, to know that some part of you is broken, and on top of that not be able to properly satisfy the sexual urges that come naturally for you.

Funnily, it's kind of similar to people that self identify as incels, they have essentially become bitter and twisted due to the 'pain' of not being able to fulfill their sexual urges. Although in this case it's more because they have underlying issues (getting beat with the ugly stick and/or having massively maladaptive personalities), and not because their sexual urges involve railing toddlers. As much as I laugh at incels, at the same time I can understand that their is a very real part of the human experience that they have been excluded from for varying reason. So in the same way I can acknowledge that there's an analagous lack of that fulfillment in pedos as well.

Don't get me wrong, most pedos are scum and most incels are angry freaks, but I think I understand the argument you're referring to. Flawed (a potentially very weak word given the circumstances) though they are, they are still people and would still acutely feel the lack of satisfying their urges, as repulsive and/or unobtainable as they must be.

 

[WeedMeister]

What makes this topic even worse is that one word is used to define way too many things.
There's "pedophilia" as in "sexual attraction to children regardless of context (drawn, legal adults pretending to be ones etc)".
"Pedohilia" as in "a paraphilic mental disorder that makes children an exclusive source of arousal for the mentally ill".
And "pedophilia" as in actual criminal acts of child molestation or CP etc.

A person falling under the first definition may be neither paraphilic nor ever commit any crimes.
Not all parahilic people commit crime and some genuinely seek out help.
Those who commit crimes are not necessarily paraphilic either and can be just degenerate pieces of shit looking for an easy target and then abusing any compassion you may try and provide the mentally ill ones.

So someone saying "person A is pedophile because he jerks off to loli" leaves way too much space for misinterpretation.

Also I personally think that putting people in prison for drawings is even dumber than putting them in prison for something like weed. We all understand that the world would be a better place if everyone just forgot how to do drugs or how to sexualise children, but this will never happen. A law like this would destroy the lives of those who literally did not hurt anyone and were just minding their own business and it might not even decrease the number of overall offenders since the topic is already taboo as fuck as is. Something like a fine (just to remind everyone that it is in fact degenerate) would be much more reasonable. Though I personally believe that it's not up to the government to decide what art people can create.

 

[JewBacca]

What makes this topic even worse is that one word is used to define way too many things.
There's "pedophilia" as in "sexual attraction to children regardless of context (drawn, legal adults pretending to be ones etc)".
"Pedohilia" as in "a paraphilic mental disorder that makes children an exclusive source of arousal for the mentally ill".
And "pedophilia" as in actual criminal acts of child molestation or CP etc.

A person falling under the first definition may be neither paraphilic nor ever commit any crimes.
Not all parahilic people commit crime and some genuinely seek out help.
Those who commit crimes are not necessarily paraphilic either and can be just degenerate pieces of shit looking for an easy target and then abusing any compassion you may try and provide the mentally ill ones.

So someone saying "person A is pedophile because he jerks off to loli" leaves way too much space for misinterpretation.

Also I personally think that putting people in prison for drawings is even dumber than putting them in prison for something like weed. We all understand that the world would be a better place if everyone just forgot how to do drugs or how to sexualise children, but this will never happen. A law like this would destroy the lives of those who literally did not hurt anyone and were just minding their own business and it might not even decrease the number of overall offenders since the topic is already taboo as fuck as is. Something like a fine (just to remind everyone that it is in fact degenerate) would be much more reasonable. Though I personally believe that it's not up to the government to decide what art people can create.

I dont know where you are getting your definition, maybe some medical text. I like most people use common dictionaries, like Oxford or Merriam Websters which defines Pedophilia as; a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child.

Just curious, where are you getting your definition?

 

[WeedMeister]

@JewBacca For example, when people talk about "compassion" and "medical help" for pedophiles, like they do in this thread, they very clearly mean the ones with very intense paraphilic tendencies which are extremely hard to avoid and not sociopathic degenerates who would just stick their dick into anything including children.
So does the Merriam Websters definition cover both of those or not? The former one is clearly a psychiatric disorder but what about the latter one? If it does, then there is a need for another definition to distinguish between those two types. If it doesn't then we get into a situation where someone can fuck a child and not be a pedo as long as he/she has no psychological disorder, which is obviously retarded and dangerous and nobody would agree with that regardless of what a dictionary says.

You have to refer to reality and its nuances when discussing this kind of shit. Technical definition from a dictionary is not a substitution for that because people who write those are fallible.

 

[Gravityqueen4life]

hey null, saw that you rated my comment. wishing death on people who may or may not commit a crime is the future is a dangerous route to take. loilcon is still legal and it sucks but it is what it is.

 

[JewBacca]

@JewBacca For example, when people talk about "compassion" and "medical help" for pedophiles, like they do in this thread, they very clearly mean the ones with very intense paraphilic tendencies which are extremely hard to avoid and not sociopathic degenerates who would just stick their dick into anything including children.
So does the Merriam Websters definition cover both of those or not? The former one is clearly a psychiatric disorder but what about the latter one? If it does, then there is a need for another definition to distinguish between those two types. If it doesn't then we get into a situation where someone can fuck a child and not be a pedo as long as he/she has no psychological disorder, which is obviously retarded and dangerous and nobody would agree with that regardless of what a dictionary says.

You have to refer to reality and its nuances when discussing this kind of shit. Technical definition from a dictionary is not a substitution for that because people who write those are fallible.

I would say yes the same definition would apply, in both cases there is a psychiatric disorder, whether diagnosed or not. The only use I found of the word of Pedohilia is from people trying to push pedophilia as a legit sexual orientation. So again I ask where are you deriving your definition?

 

[WeedMeister]

I would say yes the same definition would apply, in both cases there is a psychiatric disorder, whether diagnosed or not.

What about a person who jerks off to lolicon without experiencing any sort attraction to real children, distress or disability, is not impaired by that in any other aspects of their life and is not breaking any laws doing so? If you are going to use Merriam Websters definition for pedophilia then you would also have to use its definition of psychiatric disorder (or mental illness in this case) and this example is clearly not one. Which is also dumb as fuck because we, again, are left in a situation where a person sexualizing children (albeit drawn ones) on a regular basis is somehow not being a pedophile. This seems to be a common argument on imageboards and whatnot but it goes against both what Null was trying to say and, frankly, reality.

The only use I found of the word of Pedohilia is from people trying to push pedophilia as a legit sexual orientation.

It was a typo. I have never heard of this term (with just "H") before.

 

[Least Concern]

I really don't think relitigating this argument is going to change anybody's mind at this point. But I will say this. I like to play violent video games. Throughout my lifetime I have probably killed a hundred thousand people in virtual spaces. But I don't like to watch actual videos of people getting murdered, and I certainly don't fantasize about killing anyone in real life. I find the idea absolutely repulsive. I would imagine that most of the types of people who read this board would find this to be a perfectly normal perspective for a person to have. If you would agree with this, but would also say there is necessarily a lolicon-to-child-rape pipeline, please square that circle for me.

 

[ddlloo]

What about a person who jerks off to lolicon without experiencing any sort attraction to real children, distress or disability, is not impaired by that in any other aspects of their life and is not breaking any laws doing so? If you are going to use Merriam Websters definition for pedophilia then you would also have to use its definition of psychiatric disorder (or mental illness in this case) and this example is clearly not one. Which is also dumb as fuck because we, again, are left in a situation where a person sexualizing children (albeit drawn ones) on a regular basis is somehow not being a pedophile. This seems to be a common argument on imageboards and whatnot but it goes against both what Null was trying to say and, frankly, reality.

I think I get where you're going, but I have no idea why.

A pedo that jerks it to lolicon because he wants to fuck kids is a sick fuck/
Someone with some other brand of brain bad who jerks off to lolicon for ??? reasons (taboo, power dynamics, boredom) is also, I think most of us would agree, a sick fuck.

At the end of the day they might not be your classically/medically defined pedo, but they're still a sick fuck with what must surely amount to pedophilic tendancies if not being an outright pedophile.

And at that stage what's really the point of splitting hairs in most cases? And specifically in this case I suspect we can be ever so slightly certain that Digi is an actual and literal pedophile that wants to fuck kids, which makes this a bizarre tangent to go off on in the MATI thread and even more offtopic than it probably already is.

 

[Spergetti]

I think Null did the right thing, and most of the awkwardness or confusion in the call came from Dick trying to dive into pedantic lolbertarian arguments. Like an old testament prophet, he delivered his dire warning. Now it is up to Dax to either heed it or find out that Null was right the hard way.

Josh "I would even push the button twice just to make sure" Moon.

Best part of the whole thing.