Am I free to date any lolis I want & download as much cp as my computer can handle once anarchy arrives?

There still are many liberal spooks on Holla Forums but I'm completly okay with pedos.

What's wrong with having CP, anyway?

Yes, that is probably how it would look in a lot of different places. Freedom is ugly and although anarchism that promotes any kind of chauvenism can easily degenerate, they have their right to self-determination.

By having a lot more people with guns agree with me than agree with you.
This is usually how law-enforcement works; at least it should be, insofar as it is a democratic society.

In it's consumption you promote and industry based on child-rape.

Just like you promote murder when watching ISIS footage. Or promote school shootings by playing violent video games.

Also it's like supporting the movie industry by pirating films

If you can date lolis it will only be because the revolution made anime real.

Yeah. If you like those and encourage the production of such material either through social reinforcement or through paying for it, then indeed you'd be doing those things.

That is literally retarded.

So, since I was playing Medal of Honor in PS1 in highschool, how come I never shot anyone?

lol
where exactly do you think you are?

lmao just like the consumption of adult pornography promotes an industry based on adult-rape

Not applicable. I didn't say child porn will make you rape Children.

However since you bought Medal of Honour, more Medal of Honour games were made.

Nobody pays for pornography though. How would pirating a video game support more being made? Should cp be legal as long as it was obtained for free?

In some cases that's not to far from the truth. A lot of women don't like starving, so they're coerced into doing pornography.
That, in an abstract sense, can be considered rape.

Child-rape is free. In many paedophile circles you have to provide content of your own in order to join and production is encouraged socially.
So even though no money changes hands, child-rape is encouraged.

And indeed, piracy helps the promotion of a game too. Companies who strike down on piracy are huge idiots, as mouth-to-mouth advertisement is some of the most effective kind there is.

That's not true though, that only happens rarely, and solely because it is illegal. It happens for the same reasons you must commit a crime before joining a gang, it is to ensure the group that you're not a police officer. If it were legal, there would be no reason for such a concept to exist. Are there many pornography circles of which you must provide your own content before joining, or are most porn sites open to the public?

Why do you refer to this as rape? Were the girls in the OP raped? How is it rape for a 17 year old girl to get naked in front of a camera, while it is not rape when an 18 year old girl does the same? And lastly, when has rape ever been used as a reason as to why certain material being illegal? You can legally watch all the rape (real rape, not 'I'm 16 and I pulled down my pants.' 'rape') videos you want on the internet so long as both participants are 18+.

Go ahead and convince the MPAA how piracy supports them. Why would I pay to watch a movie I have already seen for free?

"age of content" is a spook in every way shape or form

Is the free Internet pornography phenomenon not the vehicle upon which an entire industry is haboured, one that produces material every day because it is legal and profitable?

Fucking someone who is not in a proper mental state to consent is rape. Fucking a 12 year old is rape. You can discuss thresholds all you want, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Btw I live in a civilized country where watching videos of sex-crimes is a crime.

You would know and talk about it. This is horizontal advertising and it's much more efficient than traditional vertical advertising.
As I said the MPAA are idiots and think that piracy means lost money, when it doesn't.

No, fuckin 10yo for you, mister!

And here is the problem.
The problem is not weather you whatch CP or not, the problem is it was made in the first place.

There is nothing inherently bad with shooters.
Neither with porn.

However, CP is inherently bad.

Now, should the person that has CP in his/hers hard drive be stigmatized as it is now? IMO no. IMO is like the drug adict being inprisoned instead of the dealer, producer and so on.

The problem is production of CP. Not consumption.

The idea that "consumption of CP creates the need for production" is capitalist BS.

Stop production of CP.
Give those with said disorder lolicons to fap to, or even loli VR and GET ON WITH THIS SPOOK!

That doesn't mean it should be illegal. You don't have to produce porn in order to watch it, so what you stated earlier only happens on rare occasions solely because it is illegal.

Since when is all pornography sex? Are you denying that naked people is pornographic? Can I post pictures of my dick on this board while abiding by it's SFW policy since it isn't pornography?

Does this civilized country make footage of all crimes illegal as well? How could you say murder is worse than rape?

The last thing someone who watched cp would do would be talking to all his friends and family about it.

This would never work with pornography, nobody would ever want to pay for it, which is why the most successful sites are always free (and the same reason the most successful mobile apps are free). They all make their money through advertisements like television shows do since they know they would never get as much money by selling copies on DVD.

supply and demand is a bourgeois lie?

And loli is not CP. Loli is Loli.
I have nothing against paedophiles, but raping children is not okay.

Nobody ever brought up rape other than you. We might as well make all pornography illegal because raping women is not okay.

Holy shit I'm actually cringing at OPs responses… To OP; Youve been REALLLY misguided. I reccomend you ready the 50 pg pamphlet "Anarchy" by Errico Malatesta so you can argue with your opponents better.

What the fuck are you talking about dude, quit doing mental gymnastics…

No, it's not a "lie". It's the wagon capitalism rides on. "As long as someone will pay for it, someone will sell it. No matter the ethics".

Remove capitalism, and people cannot buy or sell CP. You just destroyed CP industry.

And I know loli =/= CP. This is why it will be give to pedos as a substitute for their disorder.

lol eurocuck

Mental gymnastics? How am I the one doing mental gymnastics when you're referring to pornography as rape?

I found that video extremely disgusting, but by the logic of some in this thread, it will encourage me to create more of that content of which I find abhorrent.

So you're saying that people won't produce material in order to profit from satisfying a need in the market? Modern porn sites indicate the opposite.

Nakedness is not inherently sexual. Either way, you're sidestepping the issue by pretending that there's not a lot of CP that features sexual intercourse.

Insofar as murderporn is a thing.
I see no reason to create a market for people getting murdered for other people's sick pleasure.

Indeed, modern pornography has many issues as many people are coerced into it. It is therefore not fully consensual in many cases.
However, adult women have the mental capacities to give consent and understand the consequences of giving consent.
Children cannot. Therefore any and all sexual intercourse with children is rape.

look the moment pedo marriage becomes ethical is when the loli is understand the consciousnesses duties pleasures of marriage

Buddy, you can buy and sell without capitalism. Capitalism is not the same as markets.

That wasn't me, the one talking about porn. But the point is younare arguing about consensual child sex which is a COMPLETELY different arguement

Yes. The lack of ethics and the "freedom" of markets, is Capitalism.

Producers are an extreme minority, what you implied earlier is that every consumer must produce their own content in order to receive any, which is not true. There is a big difference between .00000001% of a population producing pornography, and all consumers of pornography producing it.

There actually isn't since it would be painful. Women have this thing called a "hymen" which would prevent sexual intercourse to take place without pain. I would wager that 99% of all cp are just nude poses, of which 99% of it was produced by the subject itself (selfie from one person to another). So no, it is not sidestepping any issue, cp is not Brazzer's or Bangbros with 12 year old girls.

Well the point I tried to bring up is that sexual acts of any kind could not possibly be worse than outright murder, of whose videos are completely legal. It is backwards to send people to jail for looking at a topless 15 year old through the reason of "harm was done" while allowing anyone to watch someone be beheaded without punishment.

What does consent have anything to do with legality? Do the people in ISIS videos give ISIS their consent to kill them? Should my dad go to prison for videotaping my 10th birthday, something I could not have possibly consented for?

cp and sexual intercourse is not synonymous. Would you say that cp in which someone only poses naked should be legal?

I'm confused, I haven't said anything about having sex. What I replied to was your last line in which you said raping children is not okay, to which I replied by stating that pornography is not automatically rape, or else we ought to ban all pornography.

So, what if I download such a vid by mistake? Or someone posts it on Holla Forums or fb and I watch it? Intent has nothing to do? Same with CP.
The whole "punishment because viewing" is BS.

In other news, is my pics, when I was 3, being naked and bathing, CP?

Also, please start using >>

Are you expecting childrapers to have any kind of empathy now?
Sure it hurts! They don't give a rats ass. There's even buggery in a lot of the material, and I bet that hurts even worse.

You're belittleling the issue. So should it be legal to download and watch murder-porn with someone explicitly being beaten to death with hammers for the entertainment of the audience? Absolutely not!
Should downloading and watching the anal sodomization of an eight-year-old likewise be illegal? Absolutely.

Both create a market for an absolutely unspeakably cruel act.

That's a backwards point you've made there. Of course they haven't consented. Niether have the little children being raped. That's the bloody point.

I would say that kind of soft-core stuff would be in a grey area. I might allow that.

Intent shouldn't matter at all. I can download pictures of floor tiles to masturbate to, but possession of floor tile pictures should not be illegal.

To a lot of people, it would be.

What for?

Absolutely intent should matter.
Is the video of someone getting killed for the pleasure of the audience or is it a clip of someone who just happens so to be murdered and caught on film at the same time.
These are some fairly important distinctions.

Intent matters, cause if you fap to the destruction of artworks and then pay to have artworks be destroyed, yes this should be illegal. If you have a video of ISIS destroying art, it's not.

And this is why A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS!
Should I have my parents sent to jail now, or after PC idiocy has spread to europa?

You have completely changed the subject from cp possession to the legalization of rape.

Everything you just said can be applied to any pornography of any age. What I said was to disprove the notion that cp is just like regular pornography with younger actors instead of it being softcore photoshoots & videos.

Yes it should, but the act itself should be illegal. Things are not legal/illegal based on the intent of the viewer, or else all pornography would be illegal since it is being made for the purpose of someone to masturbate to.

The act itself should remain illegal, but viewing and downloading it should be legal. The same way watching a video of an 8 year old getting killed in a car crash is legal, even though running over an 8 year old is not.

The same way ISIS has created a cruel "market" for their videos which are spread around for free. In fact, there are many websites that make money off of showcasing abhorrent content such as some of whose names I can hardly remember: bestgore? theync? These websites specifically showcase murders, rapes, gore, and the likes while generating profit through subscriptions or ad revenue, yet they are completely legal, and do not encourage more of that material to be made.

Both of these have a similarity, but one of them is completely legal to watch, which is a point that I am trying to make. You cannot say that something is illegal because of a specific reason, when that specific reason is not taken into consideration at all for any other type of material. The only time consent takes place anywhere at all is when someone is being wiretapped within a state that does not allow it, as seen with Hulk Hogan suing Gawker for publishing that rightfully illegal footage.

I would agree that it should be allowed.

Daily reminder about the disavowed authoritarianism in anarchism.

But that has never determined the legality of any footage whatsoever. Or else sites such as liveleak would have been shut down for hosting such videos of say, cartel members beheading someone. Those cameras weren't propped up in front of the victims by mere chance or accident.

It would only be illegal because you are funding the crime, which applies to all laws, not just media, which renders your point moot. You're not allowed to pay someone to commit any crime whatsoever in the first place. You can't pay for footage of ISIS destroying art to be made for the same reason you aren't allowed to pay a hitman to murder someone.

No, I am still talking about depictions of childrape and possession hereof.

There are a lot of virgin and tiny people in regular porn who may suffer physical pain during sexual intercourse?

I know. It should be illegal on the intent of the producer.

Is it a video killing a 8 year old with a car in order to entertain the audience, or is it a video of a 8 year old that happens to be killed in a car crash. Depending on this, the content should be illegal or not.

Yes they are and they shouldn't be, and yes they absolutely do. Many of those videos are litterally ISIS propaganda made to make more join the cause and create more such content.

Are you arguing that the reason the video was made should have relevance to whether or not someone unrelated should be allowed to possess said video?

Yes. Absolutely.
Intention matters, especially in creating a market.

That's fucking retarded and spooked to shit especially when you take this out of a profit generating market.

Are we out of a profit-generating market?

Will we be anytime soon?
How long will it be after the global revolution untill the need for markets have been abolished?

How does it make sense that such a video be illegal, when watching a video of the same person being murdered is fine?

Yes there can be, but that it is not an excuse for pornography to be illegal. Nobody is campaigning for porn to be illegal because a porn star got hurt while making the porn.

This is never the case though. Case in point, ISIS/cartel videos.

Again this has no relevance. Adult pornography is made to entertain an audience, so how could that possibly be legal by your reasoning? What you say makes no sense.

You seem to be extremely misguided. You claim that a law is set up the way it is because of a specific reason (intent by producers) when in reality, that is never taken into account for anything else that is legal. This is like me saying that you can eat hot dogs, pork sandwiches, and chicken, but are not allowed to eat a hamburger because it contains meat. Your reasoning as to why you think it is illegal, is never applied to anything else.

No, liveleak, and the likes are NOT illegal. And no, they do NOT encourage more crime. If what you say is true, then there are many illegal television stations since they showcase crime to an audience for the purpose of entertainment.

Does not matter, those videos are NOT illegal. ISIS would have killed those people anyway, they are not picking up random bystanders from the streets for some views on liveleak.

Then you have a lot of television studios to go after, and arrest those producers involved for creating TV shows where people are harmed for the purpose of entertainment.

Meant to reply to

Except that it's very possible for such things to exist without creating profit even in the current system. It's still stupid in the first place because you're still putting some nonexistent property to a physical thing that transcends the object itself.

If the community doesn't approve of pedos, pedos will be dealt with however deemed necessary, otherwise nothing happens. When shit is settled democratically and locally like that, it's pretty damn simple.

You're shifting a discussion on ethos into a discussion on what the status quo is.
Of course something as sick as snuff-porn should be illegal too and people who are found with it in their possession ought be punished harshly.

There can be, but that isn't normal, and these people are adult human beings who are capable of giving their consent and fully know the consequences of their actions. They have voluntarily sought out a porn studio to record a video.
The same is never the truth for childrape porn.

Adult pornography doesn't feature rape, and if it does, it ought be illegal.

Rape and sex are to very different things, much like assualt and a boxing-match.

I didn't realize any such show existed.

That is literally retarded.

because muh morality

Not because "muh morality" - because it is in my nature to find the acts they depict horrendous and so therefore, they must be restricted as they will encourage behavior that displeases me.

This has nothing to do with "good or evil" but about my ethics.

consider suicide

Yes, I have used the status quo as a precedence since I assumed you agreed with the status quo since you insisted on parroting it's erroneous claims, such as, "all sex with anyone underneath the age of 18 is rape with no exceptions." You even take it a step further by insisting that all pornography of it could only be rape, even when it is softcore pornography.

>There can be, but that isn't normal
Yes it is normal, anal sex is painful for many women.

Again, consent has nothing to do with anything, as I previously proved. I don't consent to surveillance cameras filming me whenever I walk inside a store, but that does not make the footage of it automatically illegal to posses.

The same way a 16 year old girl can voluntarily walk in a photoshoot set.

And the same is never the truth for adult rape videos either, moron.

How can you justify criminalizing people for storing data on their hard drive? Was your history professor arrested for showing you footage of the Holocaust?

I wasn't even talking about those thing when I said that. I was talking about how you said it ought to be illegal because of intent, while completely ignoring the fact that intent is never applied to anything else. You are creating a rule, and enforcing it on just one very specific scenario, rather than enforcing it everywhere as it should be.

Then you most likely do not own a television. For example, you can watch a TV show of which the main character commits a crime such as running away from the police. Such act is a crime in real life, and was recreated in the show for the purpose of entertainment, but the footage isn't illegal to watch. Intention by the producer has nothing to do with anything.

This is most likely his reasoning, but just doesn't want to admit it.

This sounds like something a soccer mom would say about violent video games.

No I never said that, different guy. I'm confused now too because I agree with what you just said. Sorry totally ignore me its late and I'm being a nigger.

Okay, we are not putting the blackflaggots in charge of security.

I'm glad someone understands this.
In fact, even the word "consumption" is wrong because it implies that the thing being consumed is depleted in some way.

If viewing content was enough to support the creation of more content, we wouldn't see an overwhelming abundance of advertising on the internet. We've got online publishers claiming that anyone using ad-block is stealing from them and costing them money by using bandwidth, and then those same people will assuredly claim that downloading CP somehow helps CP producers. The only people who encourage the creation of more CP are the people who pay for it.