Is this image illegal? Pizza or not? It doesn't actually show anything

Is this image illegal? Pizza or not? It doesn't actually show anything.

Other urls found in this thread:

7pinkman.tumblr.com/post/149786091686/seriously-disturbed-daddy-youre-just-asking#notes
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

tfw no replies

You're retarded. It's not illegal.

You're retarded. It's illegal.

I'm not retarded, user. gelbooru.com is blocked in Russia and Korea. Because of DRAWN lolis.


Lol

You are both retarded, now get off your tushies and make America great again.

doesn't need to show anything.
its all about perception, and to me, it looks like some slimy pedo pulled this innocent girls panties down to diddle this kiddie with his fat disgusting cock

I'm sure it's fine..

So basically you're saying that certain pictures are illegal because some freak out there could masturbate to them.
so if a picture of a child becomes pornography if someone masturbates to it, then I guess I can jack off to this and it magically becomes asparagus pornography.

forgot my pic

...

yup, you can fap to asparagus without government interference. you can fap to all sorts of fruits and vegetables, including your mom and her sister's plum tree, but not kids. You see, a plum tree won't grow up stunted and your mom is beyond salvation.

tai girls r so fuckin ugly

...

I was told once that the definition of pornography is any media used by someone to elicit a sexual response. If you have a foot fetish then a shoe catalog is pornography.

Wouldn't a more solid definition be the author has some intent (usually determined from context, which is not absolutely accurate) to elicit sexual responce?

Is a naked women, man, or child porn or is it the viewers perception? I'm not talking about hardcore so much as nudity. People that believe the Jewish conspiracy see it everywhere. I myself don't.

We are talking about humans here, maybe some tards get hard checking ps4 specs, but that shit isnt pornography, the problem is the tard.

If I'm understanding you correctly then I agree. Drugs, guns, and porn are just things. The problem lays in why people want to use them. Figure that out and you solve the problem.

Right, nudity is not inherently pornographic under that definition. A perfect example is medical documentation and diagram. A doctor, both in learning and in medical practice, will have nude pictures of the human body. These are traditionally interpreted as neither being produced or viewed with sexual arousal in mind.

What about nudist media? Is that sexual or no?

and to add to that, what the society considers 'intent' to arousal can vary wildly. To some a picture of your kids in the bathtub is A-ok, but to others it might be crossing the line. Lots of things are interpreted like this, even if its not concrete, like what constitutes self defense and reasonable threat.

Well, is more complex than that, i will try with a shitty analogy, abortion is murder, simple as that, the problem is that media changed meanings for propaganda, the right discussion is about killings, it is ok or not? in some cases yes? in others not? killing a robin rapping your wife in your home is legal, yet you are still killing a human life, with pornography s the same, the depiction of human sex is just pornography regardless of what people thinks, so we have some cases were pornography can be allowed and others not, but is still pornography.

Now for the case of nudity, when spaniards, then brits conquered natives some of them had sex freely without caring, thats still sex, even if culture allows it, the problem started puting "good" and "bad" names to things, "good" and "bad" exists in peoples minds, yet those definitions are still common for all humans and you cant change them, the point about "good or bad" its something separated.

Another case, blacks have a lower iq, thats a scientific fact, you cant say that they have the same iq because thats a lie, but you can still use the same rights and obligations on them, they are separated things.

Every action no matter how big or small starts with a thought, not a thing. You choose to kill and pick up the gun. You choose to get high and go get drugs. You choose to feel aroused to seek out pornography. You can tell yourself it’s the other way around but that’s bullshit.

If you’re sexually attracted to children then you’ll choose to seek out media that fulfills that attraction. Trying to eliminate that media is the same as trying to eliminate drugs, guns, hate speech, or any other thing from society.

Money and time would be better spent trying to build a society where these things are no longer desired by anyone. It’s hard for sure but in the end it’s the only solution that will work for the long haul.

In the interim, don’t feed the thoughts. If you want drugs, find something else to change that thought. If you’re a pedophile, don’t look at pictures of kids. Change the thought, change the world.

Arent we talking about definitions? thats a nice classic projection, but i really doubt is related to this thread, but as an example.

I dont want to sound like a platoonistic commie, but we have sex:

Primary sex characteristics.

Secondary sex characteristics.

Depicting the first one is pornography always, it doesnt matter if it is an old drawing from a cave or some post weimar tards living in a police state controlled by Usa, maybe the first one is "excusable" if they didnt develop a term for pornography, but the second no, and the name is the same because its a definition, you can improve definitions, but never change it.

BTW, maybe that ancient drawing showing a man and a woman having sex has more value for that culture that a book with the last year of medicine for us and is still pornography. Feelings dont change meanings.

Notice I said nothing about a moral value to any of it. The best definition, that I go by, is that if it is intended to arouse, it is pornography. If that's good or bad is entirely separate, and in practice determining intent can be inaccurate/difficult.

Thats why i talked about "examples" this is why i asked something before using gratuitous ad hominems.

Again, some guys get hard with not sexual things, yet some guys use it for sex like you said, those things dont count as pornography. We cant know what the author exactly was showing never, the definition of pornography comes from the viewer:

movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement

Yet is a modern definition and you have the "evolution" of that, aka, changing meanings, so they cant be used for scientific purposes, see this "evolution":

: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

Thats the one according to you? then i can show hardcore sex and it isnt pornography if i didnt intend to cause sexual exitement.

Thats a lie, pornography is pornography regardless of viewers reaction, technically the victorian is the correct one, like virus are the limit in life not a fetus.

So it brings me back to the OP’s original question. Are her pantyhose half on or half off? Is she getting dressed or undressed? Is she even a minor? I see a woman sitting on a bed preparing to pull her pantyhose up. What was the artists intention in taking the picture?

...

Dolo is one thing, aka malice, thats the intention, another is the thing, Analogies are bad and retarded for "penal law" but i will try:

You have a goy that sold you a bad pc (bad as non-functioning) then you go to the local guy that put people in jail, the "thing" is that he sold you a bad pc, but did he know that it was a paperweight? thats "dolo/dolus" aka "malice", they are both separated points, the author of that pic knowed that the pic will "trigger" discussions about it (from my perspective), so he knows, the "intention" is real, there is malice (again, from my point of view, maybe is a retarded that never develop sexual instincts in his life) but thats still a "intention" not "the thing". A guy posting "non sexual" ponies drawings maybe wants to trigger sexual responses in people but those dont counts, yet he has the "malice/dolo".

From my point of view i will just ban the fucker posting that because they are obviously trying with malice at the "border of the law", fun fact, i already talked with the fbi.

If It's on tumblr I think It's fine

7pinkman.tumblr.com/post/149786091686/seriously-disturbed-daddy-youre-just-asking#notes

...

Say what you will about the pedophiles but at least they bring a little life to /b. It’s dull as fuck here most of the time. At least when they’re posting you get some good arguments going. The rest of you anti faggots just lurk waiting to attack any new thread that pops up.

stop being a faggot, dummy.

is this image illegal?(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

I was fapping to that

In short, Holla Forums considers all nude images of children to be child pornography and they will be deleted and the posting address will be banned, if viable.

mods are fags

MODS = GODS

I refuse to participate in this thread in any way.

is THIS image illegal?

while not illegal it still deserves to be banned

...

People who eat pizza with just cheese as the toppings have shit taste, at least put some fire roasted veggies on it

IMO it depends on the cheese.

Fucking lardmerican. Always ruining food

I'm from EU and I always eat TWO whole pizzas with toppings. Opera Special is the best.

Agreed. I would never touch a pizza with nothing but fucking cheese on it. It makes me want to hurl just thinking about it.

then according to the transitive property
GODS=FAGS

I refuse to participate in this thread in any way.