Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Nutter

 

The actors and actresses in Twilight are over 18 aren't they? So it isn't really comparable. Although i admit my knowledge of Twilight is limited, i refuse to watch it.

But, the whole point of the books and movie is that an 80 year old gets to have an affair with a teenager. But, it's A-OK because:

1. It's fiction.

So, what is the difference with Anime?

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Nutter

 

The actors and actresses in Twilight are over 18 aren't they? So it isn't really comparable. Although i admit my knowledge of Twilight is limited, i refuse to watch it.

It does not matter if the actors and actresses are over 18 in the movie. There is a book. A written word that depicts an 80 year old man having an affair with a teenager.

If we are going to be "thought" police, then that's child porn according to some here.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Nutter

 

The actors and actresses in Twilight are over 18 aren't they? So it isn't really comparable. Although i admit my knowledge of Twilight is limited, i refuse to watch it.

Your right...it isn't comparable...the actors/actresses are of age....whereas the cartoon actors and actresses have *no* age...just a percieved age.

wait...if the issue is the percieved age...then yes, the twilight movie also is demonstrating a percieved age of the characters (not the reality)...therefore, fair game...time for a clampdown of our perceptions..ban all movies, burn all books, any perception of wrongdoing...victimless or not...should be shut down.

then we can finally go after other crimes of perception...such as this whole percieved violence, percieved government dissidents, etc. nothing like a slippery slope to the center of hell...but hey, its "for the children"

Originally posted by Nutter
Should we jail everyone who has watched "Twilight" too?

Think about it. An 80 year-old man (the vampire) having a sexual affair with a teenager.

How much more pedophilia is that? I say lock them all up. /sarcasm.

funny isnt it? ATS has been fighting for our freedom against NWO which wants to ban all forms of art and self expressionism i thought ATS members support sex arts? whats the fuss about? i believe i seen this once

theres no nothing wrong about those cartoons there funny in a way


also this newstory is old i seen one last two years ago i think.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

Originally posted by Nutter

But, the whole point of the books and movie is that an 80 year old gets to have an affair with a teenager. But, it's A-OK because:

1. It's fiction.

So, what is the difference with Anime?

The difference is that an 80 year old can have sex with an 18 year old in real life and he/she will not be arrested. So it cannot be compared to the anime which depicts sex between children. The manga harms no one and so is protected under free speech, but comparing it to Twilight is wrong.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Lol your post almost sounded like you think i want these depictins of children banned, please check my opening post i am supporting the right for this man to own the images because they should be protected under free speech. They're disgusting, i think the guy is disgusting but no one is harmed.

Originally posted by Nutter

It does not matter if the actors and actresses are over 18 in the movie. There is a book.

its rather stupidly transparent, isn't it. I am actually shocked that anyone would be defending thought police under any circumstances..its easy to be outraged at peoples thoughts, but government trying to stop thoughts...even those you find distasteful, should trumph your own moral indignation.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Lol your post almost sounded like you think i want these depictins of children banned, please check my opening post i am supporting the right for this man to own the images because they should be protected under free speech. They're disgusting, i think the guy is disgusting but no one is harmed.

no, my bad...sometimes I use a post to further a point when it fits...made no assumptions either way of anyones opinion, but the twilight thing would actually be applied should thought police win...and a whole host of other things. actually, if such an action did go through and percieved age became illegal, then I would find it pleasently ironic to have a mass movement of tons of pop movies and books removed (and of course all the other stuff now that this nasty toe is in the door).

of course, I would be watching in a amused fashion overseas as America became some socal communist hellhole..perhaps move to Holland

Actually, on the topic of Twilight, it is a form of Bestiality (inter-species love making). But the last time I started a thread on that can of worms it got a bit heated and wound up being deleted because ATS didn't want to see a topic about 'bestiality' on their front page, lol. Free speech indeed.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
The difference is that an 80 year old can have sex with an 18 year old in real life and he/she will not be arrested.

But, in the movie and in the books, the teenager IS NOT supposed to be 18 yet. That is the point. Thoughts....remember?

BTW, if you haven't realized yet, I'm being sarcastic as I have been agreeing with you.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by SaturnFX


Ahh fair enough I still think comparing it to twilight is wrong because i thought the book talks about a teenager that is over 18 or am i wrong? If i am wrong then yes absolutely a case could be made to ban it as well.

I must plead ignorance on all things Twilight related

EDIT

Originally posted by Nutter
But, in the movie and in the books, the teenager IS NOT supposed to be 18 yet. That is the point. Thoughts....remember?

BTW, if you haven't realized yet, I'm being sarcastic as I have been agreeing with you.

I posted my reply before seeing this. Then yes, in many of the US states this would be a book describing the actions of a paedophile. The odd thing is that many of those against these images would say it's completely different becasue there are no pictures. It seems to be not so much the thought but the actual images they are against.

And yes i noticed the sarcasm

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by Liberal1984


I agree people like him should be banned from any job where children are involved.

To say the only reason for those pictures to be illegal is not you brightest moment.
As they are probably illegal because a child is on it.

For saying pedophilia is learned. BS.
Wikipedia is known for it non neutral attitude on favor of what people want or don't want you to know.
I'm not saying it can't be learned. However to own or watch these pictures it's save to say it ain't going to make a difference to remove them. As there is no way back to sanity

Or maybe Satan himself introduced the first man to these thougts.

Now i'll try to find my source for ya.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
It seems to be not so much the thought but the actual images they are against.

Yes. I can agree with this. But, then we get into other movies that depict rape, murder, and even pedophilia ("Priscilla (sp?) Queen of the Desert" comes to mind......which ironically is academy aclaimed and has one a lot of awards).

Where does it end?

Well u can all thank GW Bush for this type of law which was against us Constitutional Rights.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
I agree people like him should be banned from any job where children are involved.

Now here is where it gets really difficult. YOu see i agree that he shouldn't work with children, however how would this be enforced? If the images are not illegal and he cannot be jailed for them (as you suggested) then how would the law to ban him working with children be shaped without infringing on his civil liberties and right to privacy?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
For saying pedophilia is learned. BS.

I have read a great deal about this and it appears that paedophilia is not a learned thing. The best theories suggest it is a form of sexual retardation. Something happens when they are a child that halts their sexual development and they are forever attracted to children. Some of them also like adult women/men as well but the attraction to children is always there.

For many years they have been trying to treat paedophiles and no one has come up with a working solution. That is why if a paedophile ever actually hurts a child they need to be locked away, in prison or an institution for the rest of their life. That's my view anyway.

Originally posted by Nutter
Yes. I can agree with this. But, then we get into other movies that depict rape, murder, and even pedophilia ("Priscilla (sp?) Queen of the Desert" comes to mind......which ironically is academy aclaimed and has one a lot of awards).

Where does it end?

I am fully with yo uon this one and have made the comparison already. The people against the existence of these images however will simply say that it is different because it involves children. Although i have seen many fictional works that involve the murder of children, i wonder if they want those banned?

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I am fully with yo uon this one and have made the comparison already. The people against the existence of these images however will simply say that it is different because it involves children. Although i have seen many fictional works that involve the murder of children, i wonder if they want those banned?

It's not even that they want those banned. It's that they want people who own them put in jail.



[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nutter]

As i mentioned earlier, for me it is simply a matter of free speech. As long as no one is hurt then it should be acceptable. No child is hurt in the manufacture, distribution or viewing of these images and therefore they are protected (or should be) under the guise of freedom of expression. Anyone who does not agree with that because this involves depictions of children should take a long hard look at what they really think free speech is. It is not something to be supported only when you agree with what it is protectiong.

This post is in no way trying to offend DeltaBoy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But, even look at this post. In the video, we are watching a real person get shot and killed.

Are we now all guilty of murder? Or just those who record the video? Or just those who show the video? Or just those who keep the video?

Where does this isanity of thought policing end?

Hello everyone,

I think people are mixing artistic display and sadistic display. If a depiction of sex between children serves the story, it needs to be done, I have no problem with that. What bugs me is that now, an "artist" has to show you everything in its gruesome details... It's the easiest artistic form of display.
I remember an old issue of Captain America, penciled by John Byrne. In that issue, Cap had to decapitate an old foe who was a vampire. Byrne was uneasy portraying Cap as a killer. So instead of showing us the decapitation per se, he ARTISTICALLY rendered it via the shadows of the characters, projected on the wall beside them. It was dramatic, intense and shocking at best. We suffered with Cap having to go to that length. It would have been banal otherwise. And the danger lies here, in the apparent banality of the action being displayed. In anyway, when kids are depicted as having sex, it should not be about the act, but for the implications for the characters, so the story can advance... Otherwise, porn flicks are chef d'oeuvre because we can see people do it! Who really thinks that Basic Instinct is a great movie? Change all the explicit sex scenes to suggestive ones and no one would have noticed it.

If it is shown, it NEEDS to serve the story, otherwise it is nothing more than vulgar exposure.

That is why a nudist in a nudist zone is left at peace by the authorities and that a flasher gets arrested...

Or better yet, it's like comparing Playboy with Hustler, both are about naked women, but one is artistic in its presentation where the other is simply explicit... Anyway, isn't a covered boob more exciting than a naked one? I think so...

Have a nice day all,

Aresh

reply to post by Nutter


Again, when it comes to children people are very sensitive, of course they have every right to be but gut reaction should not trump freedoms that have been painstakingly thought out.