Log in

No account? Create an account
Don't forget David... - Watch Out! He's Gotta FURSUIT!! [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Pedos & Furries & Incest, Oh My!

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| Kick_the_Freak-- --Maureen-- --Mattybear-- --Tyciol ]

Don't forget David... [Jun. 30th, 2006|02:59 pm]
Pedos & Furries & Incest, Oh My!
[mood |disappointeddisappointed]
[music |marilyn manson- angel with the scabbed wings]

straight out of a honest pedophile's journal...

go read it, theres more cartoon child porn inside...

[User Picture]From: dookiedragon
2006-07-06 05:15 am (UTC)
Kiddie porn, as in the images with REAL people and children is FUCKED. Free or not, a child WAS harmed, maybe not by you, but still.

Cartoon/manga/anime kiddie porn...Whatever. That's fine. Because it didn't hurt anybody. It's a CARTOON. That's fine.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
From: non_con_love
2006-07-07 02:31 am (UTC)
Mosty people who join stuff like this are into age play
or chan. Kiddie porn is wrong but how you arrest age play
and chan writers. Trust me i've seen some truly sick things.
But just cause I don't like them Dosen't I can do any thing
about it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyciol
2006-07-07 12:29 pm (UTC)
Age play and chan writing doesn't harm anyone, it's just a form of erotic art.

Porn for the most part would probably damage the kids who aren't prepare for it, and most wouldn't be. Of course, to me, this is just more about the media exposure, I feel the same way about child stars.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dookiedragon
2006-07-09 06:17 am (UTC)
In some cases they'd be harmed,

Are you kidding me? Think about it! If a pedo didn't want to harm their child lover, then why would they post the photo online, where anyone can get ahold of it? A child can't consent to putting pornographic photos of themselves online! And even if they did, do you really think they'd feel the same about it one they hit their teens? Their twentys?

There would exist a minority that wouldn't harm the child

That's right! And should we risk making child porn legal just for those slim few who wouldn't be harmed? Of course not!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dookiedragon
2006-07-09 06:18 am (UTC)
Child porn is wrong, and if you download it, even for free, you should be shot. End of discussion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyciol
2006-07-14 05:04 pm (UTC)
Murder's wrong, assault's wrong, people don't get in crap for watching those videos.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: gutterstar0x0
2006-07-09 04:32 pm (UTC)
Shot through the heart, and slice is to blame. :)
here here!!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyciol
2010-04-10 09:50 pm (UTC)
Can reptile fursonas operate firearms? Or some kind of crossbow?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyciol
2006-07-14 05:08 pm (UTC)
The whole 'a child can't consent to putting their photos online' is under the same route as them not consenting to sex, which I also argue anyway.

Anyway, there exist laws for putting videos of people in sexual positions out against their will, voyeurism laws I believe, so I think those are enough for kids, I don't really see why there need to be special laws. Point being, it's the one who takes the vids, not the one who views them, that does the damage.

No, just make it illegal to put it up without the child and their guardian's consent. Obviously it's quite moot, I fully agree that making child porn should be illegal as long as child sex is, so until that's resolved, there's no much point discussing it. I'm just concerned with why there are laws against viewing it. There shouldn't be any laws against viewing anything, just producing things.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)