
| feather #410953 11 months ago |
Archived for Eco to see.
Feel free to comment on Ponibooru's ban on Pedofoalia / Fillyfilia / Ponicon / whatever you care to call it. Also: Don't repost banned images to comment on the banning of the image. This honestly should be common sense. |
| Edef #411010 11 months ago |
Tagged as explicit/porn in order to solicit opinions from the only people that would actually see the content, not non-porners. |
| your_waifu #411056 11 months ago |
as much as i hate this content, i don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. that is, if people use tags correctly. i have like, half a dozen cutesy nicknames for cartoon child porn in my filter list. |
| Aquaman52 #411086 11 months ago |
Someone else already said it up there somewhere: regardless of whether you agree with it or not, this is not your decision to make. It's Eco's and the other mods'.
Jesus Christ, it's like I'm back on Fanfiction.Net, where the reasoning behind violating the site guidelines is always some bullshit variant of "I think the rules are stupid, so I'm not going to follow them". Granted, here you're not forced to click a button that says you agree to follow those guidelines, but the basic counterlogic is the same: if you don't like how the place is run, go someplace else. Pornography depicting underage characters, regardless of species, is not allowed. If you post it, you're breaking that rule and that post therefore deserves to be deleted. It's the Internet, for Christ's sake. If you can't find whatever porn you're looking for, you're doing it wrong. |
| Edef #411107 11 months ago |
^
Feather is a mod, archiving the discussion for Eco, who has stated he is willing to take a democratic approach. |
| kassarc16 #411122 11 months ago |
So, explicit images of Spike in them are soon gone, right? He's underage, so it's only fair. |
| kassarc16 #411127 11 months ago |
Crap, that comment came out wrong... ignore the "in them". |
| Aquaman52 #411143 11 months ago |
If that's the case, then...
...fuck, you couldn't have told me that BEFORE I ranted? Now I feel like a jackass. >.< |
| Hex-Master #411255 11 months ago |
I'm really curious now, which Sweetie Belle image was uploaded that caused this debate? Was it one of Megasweet's drawings? |
| Jarntazecht #411303 11 months ago |
Heh, it's perfectly reasonable for the administrator of a site to create whatever rules he wants considering they made the damn thing. Not everybody's going to agree with them of course. (and hell I think that a pedofolia ban would be completely stupid, on the grounds that no actual children are harmed in the making of those images and they can be blocked just the same)
Images of naked young ANYTHING that do not harm children in any way (like drawings or 3D images) were ruled as free speech by the courts so long as it didn't involve the use of real kids. However, on a privately owned site an admin can create whatever rules they want for whatever reason. It is up to the posters to be responsible to adhering to those rules despite what they feel about it. Certainly nobody's gonna like every image on this site, and people tend not to block some things they don't like because it is part of the site and they embrace the totality of it all. Yes people are "free to make their own site" but for chrissake is anyone really going to? Even if they did would it have the same built-up community this one does? Nah. Considering a lot of the content on this site, especially what with it based on a family show, I'm surprised people haven't had a worse reaction to it. I'm glad it's been for the most part, civil. |
| Filiecs #411393 11 months ago |
Personally, I'd support a petition against the pedo pony rule. Although it's not my thing, I understand that there are many sane people who enjoy it and I do not see why it should be banned as they are fictional characters. Also, if I was in their shoes I would find it pretty annoying to have to go to paheal for my porn.
Ultimately, however, it is the owners decision I respect his decision as it is a private site. |
| DatBrony #411468 11 months ago |
IMO:
A. Underage ponies =/= Underage humans B. Legally, drawings don't count (in the US, at least). C. There's other stuff like it anyways, what's the problem? |
| Mike-RaWare #411494 11 months ago |
I think that if lolicon/shotacon is going to be allowed (which it should) that there needs to be a rule about how those images should be tagged. |
| feather #411500 11 months ago |
@DatBrony looking at it from the perspective of an authority figure though: is a pony drawn with human genitalia and as though it were human child REALLY disctinct from a drawing of a human child? I don't think a judge, jury or prosecutor would draw that distinction, any more than they'd consider "the character is a thousand years old, her race just ages slowly / got lolified / is a gynoid / etc" to be valid. Not that every viewer / artist is using an underage pony as a stand-in for an underage human, but I don't honestly think the distinction is anything more than semantic. |
| Doodofwar #412004 11 months ago |
Didn`t know Lolicon is illegal i dont know why the fuck everyone is so butthurt just check the gore shit and stuff but nah get rid of this instead |
| Dark_Horst #412314 11 months ago |
soo... what WAS the image in question? |
| FrankFronk #413500 11 months ago |
About time all this gets a good 'thorough' looking at. Glad to see the mods finally taking the initiative. |
| Doctor_Whooves #413541 11 months ago |
May not be illegal in most places, but it has a serious squick factor and so does anyone who enjoys it. I'm not inclined to cast judgments on people for pretty much anything else, be it more conventional porn of the older characters, gore, what have you. But the CMC and other child-aged characters on MLP:FiM have very genuine, childlike personalities. If someone can use them as a stand-in for something other than a human kid, then they're seriously disconnected from the show.
Anyway, it's eco's call in the end and if he wants to take a democratic approach and it passes, so be it. Those of us who take issue with those images can either filter them, or leave the site. |
| FrankFronk #414238 11 months ago |
Well, the server is based in California(?) and I know for a fact it has anti-child pornography laws.
See: 'Miller v. California' and the Miller Test. I don't think a democratic approach is really applicable. Especially in a situation like this. It needs to go, and it needs to stay gone. |
| FrankFronk #414245 11 months ago |
^I should have noted that the Miller V. California case wasn't involving Child Pornography, but the decision on the case and the 'Miller Test' apply to all forms of pornography, including things like this. |
| Edef #414674 11 months ago |
For the 15th time "cartoon porn" of non-human characters is legal. If you want to see why, read the image. |
| Doctor_Whooves #416052 11 months ago |
^ True, but personally I think Ponibooru would be better off without that content (just my opinion). Legal though it may be, it has disturbing implications; and I say that as someone who normally makes deliberate efforts to disregard nearly all stereotypes and preconceptions. It's really the only type of content I can imagine that could potentially lend credence to those people who write 18+ viewers of this show off as pedos.
Sure, it may not be true of every person who enjoys that content (although as I said, they'd need to be seriously disconnected from the show for that to be the case), but having that type of stuff here would take Ponibooru down to the lowest low in terms of the fandom. Wouldn't matter if it's able to be filtered; just having it here would be a black mark. And personally, I'd just leave at that point rather than bothering to filter. Not as any overdramatic internet drama whoring, and not even to make a point. That stuff just isn't to my taste, and I'd rather not be associated with a policy that willfully ignores the fact these characters are essentially humans in pony form for the sake of "ultimate freedom to upload whatever the hay we want, 'cuz this is the internet and we're entitled to do as we please". I've always believed in balancing freedom of the individual with the well-being of the group or society as a whole; but of course I hold nobody else to that and won't argue with whatever the final decision on this is. |
| Jarntazecht #416587 11 months ago |
It's pretty subjective as to determine what is the "lowest of the low" in terms of the fandom. Although when anything becomes huge like this, you will of course get "lowest of the low" people lookin at it.
Personally I think the Cupcakes thing got WAY out of hand a long time ago. Is merciless disturbing violence any worse than pedofoalia? (That being said I'm pretty sure people are talking about the morality of the human equivalent of pedofolia drawings) It seems to be typical family values that lead to such hasty persecution of people who like that kind of thing. Just like how the internet has pretty much destroyed any kind of dignity the furry fandom ever had. Everyone likes their own crazy thing. Everyone hates their own crazy thing too. Is it just the society's popular opinion that determines what level of "wrong" something is? Should it be? I'm all for whatever the admin decides to do in the end, as long as people don't ignore logic for the sake of the reputation underage drawings have already obtained. If it's like what Paheal did with its ban on toddlercon, which they did not because they themselves had things to say about it but because they wanted to protect the site's well-being, then I understand completely. Sometimes America just loses its head over certain shit. |
| Doctor_Whooves #416817 11 months ago |
Yes, it's subjective. What I stated above is my opinion, not society's nor my interpretation of it (though I admit there's probably a bit of overlap, my opinion is my own). Cupcakes is also very far down there in my ranking, and personally I find Cupcakes art tasteless, and a little sick. But I find it almost impossible to argue that case with the majority my fellow North Americans. Our society, and America in particular, has ingrained upon most an acceptance of great amounts of cruelty and violence and gore, almost to the point of exultation; while at the same time shunning and making sexuality in general a taboo subject. It's ridiculous, and personally I don't believe either should be censored in most circumstances (emphasis on "most") provided nobody is being harmed and it breaks no law.
My issue with the pedo pony art is that I, personally, view these characters as essentially human. They're fictional, sure... they're made up of vectors and pixels... and they appear as ponies... but in any meaningful emotional and mental sense, they'd be the equivalents of any human if you brought them into the real world. The personalities of the CMC and other filly characters are so genuine and true-to-life, based on my own experiences with children, I can't view them any other way. It's true that nobody is harmed in the creation of pedo MLP art, but for me the act of enjoying it would be equivalent to enjoying pornographic drawings of human children; and that I can't do, and don't condone. There are some who've been arrested for child pornography position who no doubt began viewing mere drawings, or even just using their imagination. Eventually, it's not enough for them. But in any case, that's my spiel on it. Eco can do what he likes, and as I said I won't argue with his decision. Like the free market, there are other options available when a particular entity is engaging in a practice you don't support. |
| Doctor_Whooves #416828 11 months ago |
^ possession* (3rd section), and I should also specify in that same section that I would find it to be the mental "equivalent to enjoying..." and so on. |
| Edef #416916 11 months ago |
Morality is a weakness. |
| Doctor_Whooves #416991 11 months ago |
^ If you're ever mugged, beaten, or otherwise victimized by thugs who feel the same way, tell yourself that and see how much faster it makes the injuries heal. 'cuz hey, if those guys who did it had been weakened by morality, they wouldn't be enjoying the benefit of your cash, would they? All's fair.
But lol, all the same. Such a silly, empty philosophy; if you can even call it one. That's the domain of the nihilistic, sullen, aimless and embittered people of today. Morality, ethics, and common decency are among the few things that actually hold human society together in the face of our instinctive compulsion towards pure self-interest. In a more primitive animal, those behaviours are beneficial. In an advanced animal that lives in a very large and complex society, like us, greed and self-interest are detrimental in the long-term (but long-term thinking isn't something humans excel at). But pedo pony art has nothing to do with any of that. It's a personal choice, since there's no legal precedent. People are free to enjoy it as they will; but you'll excuse me if I wouldn't want to introduce any of them to my younger cousins. |
| Edef #417132 11 months ago |
Lack of morality is not the presence of nihilism or criminal tendencies. In this case, It is the disregard for the standards society has placed on what should or shouldn't offend someone. Desensitization, in another sense. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417232 11 months ago |
heh; let me know how that works out for you. I've heard non-violent sociopaths can do well in certain career paths.
But I never said "a lack or morality is the presence of nihilism and criminal tendencies". But the opinion "morality is a weakness" will tend to be espoused by such individuals (among others). But I'm being unkind; it can also be a view held by over-indulged, arrogant youths who believe the world exists for their sole benefit. Fortunately the latter group tend to grow out of it. Then there's the people who like to pretend they're comic book villains, so they spout hyperbolic nonsense in an attempt to sound cool. Morality can be a weakness in some, but so can its absence. It can also be a strength. Just saying "it's a weakness" as if that's some absolute truth is arrogant tripe. There are few absolutes, and humanity has no power to define them. I'd say that complete desensitization tends to be a rather large weakness, though. There's no benefit at all to that. I disregard many of society's standards of what's "right" and "wrong", but many of them have value. I also tend to replace the ones I disregard. For me, one of the few things that offends me is the idea of people getting off to imagery of kids. If that doesn't offend you, Edef, more power to you. Maybe you enjoy it yourself; at this point I neither know nor care to know any more about you. |
| Edef #417331 11 months ago |
If you want to play ad hominem then lets.
Perhaps you are the arrogant youth with the belief that you're doing some good to the world, with your moral high ground, white-knighting for society. The only world an individual knows is one the one through their eyes. Greed is human nature, but society forces different beliefs onto them. Refusing those beliefs is not a weakness, it's seeing the reality of things. The benefit of desensitization is massive. Take a look on the news, you'll no doubt encounter a story that describes someone completely overreacting to a situation, be it a cop excessively beating someone, or a kid being sent to jail for a harmless prank. Those things happen because the cop/persecutors are too sensitive. There is very little that offends me - Mostly stupidity, and certainly no image can. I fight against this because I fight against censorship, because censorship leads to sensitivity and the situations I described earlier. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417434 11 months ago |
I'm not "white-knighting" for anyone. I'm stating what I believe, not because I think it'll do society any good but simply because I believe it to be true and it's how I live my own life (and it's proven fairly successful to date). Just as I imagine you're arguing what you believe, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
I'm not arguing extreme cases with you. Believe it or not, it's possible to not be desensitized without feeling it necessary to beat the shit out of someone, or overreacting to things. I've never felt so compelled, so I must be benefiting from desensitization somehow without actually being desensitized... or maybe I'm just not a animalistic madman? If you believe you are, and you need to completely dissociate yourself in order not to beat on people, so be it. There's a huge spectrum in between "oversensitive" and "desensitized", though. If you think people only operate in one extreme or the other, you're deluding yourself; or you know your argument doesn't hold up in any other situation but the most extreme of cases. The kind of extremist, absolute freedom you're advocating is just as harmful as the extreme oversensitivity you're "fighting against". Not surprising, since very little good ever comes from any extremist philosophies. You're no better, with your "benevolent sociopathy", than the cops, prosecutors, judges, or whoever else you want to bring up. Greed is human nature, and that's pretty much the only thing I'll agree with you on. But I've never known anyone who exercised it to great extent that ended up very happy. And greed isn't beneficial to a society. All the individual greed in the financial sector was a significant factor in the current economic situation; the greed of a few impacted the lives of millions. I'm left wondering why you even like this show, since you apparently care for nothing and nobody beyond yourself (or at least you believe this is a valid and massively beneficial lifestyle choice). But I don't really care. It's like gay people who vote Republican; who the hell knows? |
| Edef #417505 11 months ago |
Of course people don't operate only in the extremes, but there are those that do, and the ones that operate in the upper spectrum of oversensitivity are the ones that cause the problems.
I'm not arguing philosophies on a grand scale. If everyone shared my views then there would be no rich, as there would no one left to take advantage of. Your superior morally sensitive demographic is the lower and middle class. The ones left in the dirt, left to rely on morality and family values to justify their insignificance. Greed is beneficial to the individual, whom, with the right mindset, is not concerned about society. Many of these people are the rich, and they have the money to enjoy their life in whatever way they please. |
| FrankFronk #417520 11 months ago |
Not to quote deus ex on this one, but absolute freedom is chaos.
You have to find a balance in things, this is no exception. I've fought vehemently against the child porn on here, but have said nothing about other porn in general. I understand that there needs to be a balance in what is, and what is not allowed. Trust me, if (quasi-figurative)child porn is allowed on this site, not only would it serve to tarnish its reputation, but the rules on image posting would end up have such a huge grey line; simply because 'hey it can't be worse than child pornography'. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417536 11 months ago |
That's an unfortunate worldview. Your beliefs regarding the attitudes of both the wealthy and middle-class are grossly oversimplified. I know many people I'd call rich; very few are only out for themselves. I also find your description of the lower- and middle-classes laughable. Are you so insecure that you feel the need to belittle 80-something percent of society for no particular reason? "Left in the dirt", "justify their insignificance"... talk about hyperbole.
What a miserable person you must be to know. |
| Edef #417546 11 months ago |
ad hominem, ad hominem everywhere. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417557 11 months ago |
If you can't make your point without dehumanizing the vast majority of the population of Earth (to say nothing of those people outside the first world countries, to whom even our poorest citizens would seem wealthy), then you aren't worth speaking to in the first place.
If there's anyone lacking in humanity here, occupying the level of "dirt", to use your own words, it's you. Not the poor. And now I'm done with you. A shame this site doesn't have an ignore feature; I don't think I've encountered a bigger douche on the internet in some years. |
| FrankFronk #417575 11 months ago |
I think I'm going to side with DW on this one. I used to have a similar outlook on things, especially when it came to how snobby and selfish rich people are often made out to be.
@Edef: While it may be true that if everyone shared your views, there would be nobody to take advantage of. However, your grim implications on the nature of humans is 'downright despicable'. Was it not human nature that first drove us to band together to survive? Was it not human nature(Or rather, our intelligence) that enabled us to engineer or discover great things? I'm not talking about skyscrapers or airplanes here, I'm speaking more along the lines of irrigation and agriculture. These things enabled us to survive as a unit, and we did that, because a team is typically always more efficient than one. There was no such thing as 'desensitization' from other humans back then. Simply because there was no time to meditate such misanthropic thoughts. However, now-a-days we have the ability to slack of and step back to view things from a wider perspective. This perspective is where people end up drawing conclusions that aren't really there. Or theories about the 'nature of man' that directly conflicts with evidence from the past. Yes, there was a moment where man first thought about profit, and that man was the base for everything we have achieved now. Currency is a necessity, and unfortunately, harbors greed in its wake. It's a trade-off, but a good one. Without currency or laws and rules, modern society would crumble under the weight of anarchy. Once that bell tolls, who's to say your best friend or neighbor wont kill you to survive? This is way off topic, but hell. |
| Edef #417581 11 months ago |
I'm not dehumanizing the population, as their values are very "human". I'm dehumanizing myself, and as a result of that I'll continue enjoying my success in life. Feel free to keep on banking on your superior beliefs to get you through life, though.
@FrankFronk The images you speak of are only regarded as "child porn" to actual pedophiles and those oblivious. It's harmless content that a few manchildren find offensive because they're unaware of the real reasoning of it. |
| Edef #417595 11 months ago |
@FrankFronk2
What I'm talking about doesn't mean complete detachment from teamwork or others, it's simply a more self-centered view of things. Of course people have and will have to work together to accomplish things, but even then a team member could be in it for themselves - It's all strategic manipulation. I don't argue that everyone should share my views. As I said, that would be bad. Anarchy doesn't bode well with survival. Few individuals with similar views to my own do have the ability to be very successful in current society, however. |
| FrankFronk #417601 11 months ago |
I'll pretend that I didn't just see you say that there's a real reasoning behind child porn.
The reasoning behind child pornography is the exact same reason behind adult pornography. Lust. Another primal human instinct. Difference being is that children under a certain age haven't reached the level of maturity required to have a child. Therefore, it is not only pointless, but fetishistic. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417602 11 months ago |
Of course, because Edef's opinion is the absolute "real reasoning". Classic.
As for your "success", I'm sorry but claims like that fly back and forth on the internet and amount to nothing. I could toot my own horn, too; but unlike you, I'm not an insecure person and nobody on here has any reason to take me at my word. My guess would be your among the middle-class, maybe veering towards upper, with delusions of grandeur. |
| FrankFronk #417613 11 months ago |
@Edef2
Teams are made to accomplish goals. So of course each team member has ulterior motives, but they can all come to the consensus that the goal they banded together to accomplish aids all of them in some way. No human is like minded, however, it is a fact that we are social creatures. And in that regard, will continue to work together to accomplish goals larger than what one man can do on his own. Humans don't work for free, which ties back into my statement about currency. There is always some type of reward for work. Even if the team leader has an entirely ulterior motive, the workers wont work without a form of compensation. Strategic Manupulation or not. |
| Edef #417625 11 months ago |
By "real reasoning" I mean it's simply seen as porn. Not some pedophilic obsession.
@Whooves The only evident insecurity is your own. Most of your argument has been spewing about how horrible a person I am, because surely your views are infallible and the "correct" way to exist. You're white knighting for society on your moral high ground. Standing atop a hill in shining armour, trying to feel better about yourself by demeaning others with differing views. |
| FrankFronk #417634 11 months ago |
In his defense, you're doing the same thing. Just on the other extreme. |
| Edef #417637 11 months ago |
^ Only as a rebuttal to his own insults. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417642 11 months ago |
I'm not the one who described people as scrounging in the dirt. I'm tolerant of almost all differing views, but sociopaths rub me the wrong way. There are no views there to tolerate; just pure greed and self-interest.
But with that, I really am done with you. Enjoy your success your way; and I'll enjoy mine my way. There really is no use arguing with someone who values only the self. |
| FrankFronk #417650 11 months ago |
In all honesty though. I believe this crap should stay off of Ponibooru. Leave it to be stockpiled onto rule 34, or some other place that doesn't catre specificly to the fandom.
I don't want to walk in front of my friends (Who aren't bronies, but know I am) everyday with them knowing I'm part of a fandom that embraces pedophilia with open arms. It's just not right. Yeah, that's my main motive. However, I'm sure many others share it. |
| Edef #417659 11 months ago |
Ponibooru isn't the center nor the voice of the fandom. Were you more open minded you would look past "pedophilia" and understand what most people see it as. |
| FrankFronk #417666 11 months ago |
No, it isn't. However, you can't say it isn't strong.
Porn is bad enough. However I'm willing to compromise just to get rid of the child porn. There is no point behind it other than lust for an object one can't have. Such is all form of pornography, or fiction in general. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417683 11 months ago |
@Frank: You're wasting your time; he doesn't view it as child porn at all; in any conceivable way. |
| Edef #417686 11 months ago |
If you are against porn, "child porn", or whatever else, filter it out. There is a system in place so that everyone is satisfied, thus there is no reason everyone shouldn't be happy bar some petty moral issues. |
| FrankFronk #417700 11 months ago |
I wouldn't bother if it weren't 2AM in the morning for me, I suppose I should get some sleep though.
Final Statement to Edef: It doesn't really matter how open minded you or I are. What matters is how open minded the people are that we interact with every day. Most people aren't open minded to things like this, and arguing won't change that. To any other outsider, we may as well be those sexual offenders who live together in tribes. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417712 11 months ago |
I'm sure Edef would say you shouldnt' concern yourself with the opinions of others. On that, I actually agree.
But if the site moves in a direction you don't feel comfortable with, there's always the option of leaving for a different one. There are more "family friendly" communities, especially if you don't even care for the more conventional porn content. |
| Edef #417722 11 months ago |
There are no "outsiders" that would see it. Explicit images are filtered by default, non-porners wouldn't see it, and porners could filter it out. Besides, a fair number of people in this thread have stated that while they don't enjoy the content for themselves, they do not believe it should be restricted. That's open mindedness. |
| Edef #417732 11 months ago |
I find it appalling that you're even here, Whooves. You don't have porn filtered, so surely you're on level not so far from my own, in terms of content tolerance at least. |
| NonAnon #417769 11 months ago |
@Doctor_Whooves + Edef
ANGRY SEX! Seriously, lighten up. A debate is one thing, but you're not trying to (nor will you) change each other's way of thinking. The point is to convince Eco why or why not Loliponicon should be allowed. I'm okay with them. I can make the differentiation from harmless cartoon pictures and abusive real molestation. But Eco's concerns should be: 1) Himself. Does hosting these put him in any danger? 2) The Site. Is the site support harmed by them. Only he can really decide on those risks. Our enjoyment is meaningless to the situation. By taking the time to consider our opinions, he is being very Celesti-ish. And like others have pointed out, no pr0n here is no big loss. R34 and e621. There, those sites have so much, they won't stop complaining about it. ~Love & Tolerance |
| Doctor_Whooves #417781 11 months ago |
Appalled? YOU? SURELY NOT! I thought you were immune to such weaknesses as emotion!?? :P
Anyway, yeah, I do tolerate most content. As I said, I'm not an intolerant person of differing tastes to my own. There've been some examples of the conventional porn I've liked. Most is "meh" but it doesn't bother me. The Cupcakes/gore/etc. isn't to my taste at all, but I'm not offended by it and wouldn't argue for it to be banned. The pedofoal, or whatever name you want to use for it, is the one thing I'm against. I think it would be a detriment to the site, even taking into account that "outsiders" couldn't see it without changing the settings. There has already been a criticle article or two about the Brony community (one was linked to in the comments of an image a while back; but I can't remember which) relating to the "adult themed" art being produced, and I believe it even referred to Ponibooru. That one didn't bring up the type of content being discussed here, though. But if Ponibooru started making this stuff even more accessible (right now, finding a lot of it requires rooting around in "chan" style message boards, or other less user-friendly places), then articles like that might pop up more frequently. And then, even if outsiders aren't generally able to view the images, there'd be more ways for them to get information about them that would tarnish the fandom further. For people like Frank, I suppose that's a concern since his friends know he's a fan. I'm not saying the fan community should take those kinds of judgments seriously (I don't think the majority of FiM fans look at pedofoal content), but whether we do or not they still do the community harm. Right now, Ponibooru is one of the largest image boards (at least that I'm aware of) for FiM; so if all that stuff started showing up here like wild fires, I can only imagine how quickly it'd spread elsewhere. |
| Jarntazecht #417803 11 months ago |
Wow, there's been a lot on this thread since yesterday!
I enjoy reading your responses Doc, because they're good opinions, and that's why I continue to respond. I do agree that the existence of pornographic drawings of the fillies in MLP can be likened to the same level of questionable nature as pornographic drawings of human beings. What I mean to say in this regard is that, human or no, the drawings of naked young anybody differs from drawings of adults in context as such that while logically it is lines on paper and should be no more questionable than drawings of adults, society in all its "Stranger Danger" today tends to react with such haste to the existence of its content that it fails to give it a chance as to whether or not it should be censored. There are big differences between lolicon and child pornography. And for that matter there are big differences between "pornography" and "pictures of naked people". Lolicon is not necessarily a "gateway" to child pornography any more than tofu-meat is a gateway to meat. Concerning levels of morality people draw a very detailed line. And while personally my morals of what should exist deviate from traditional family values, I respect that the society as a whole has various reasons for wanting something to be censored. And this applies to all levels; public broadcasting, internet, the private home, etc. (I tend to have very strong opinions on this stuff because, first off I'm an artist and therefore don't believe in censoring art of any kind even the crap; and second I have some good friends who are actual loliphiles and have gotten to hear their experiences; they're upstanding human beings who have never even broken child porn laws or hurt any kid or adult. Society would disagree though the moment they heard the word "pedophile" because they equate the word with "child molester".) At the end of the day it's really just another fetish. Yes it's an awful one, but the fact remains that it exists and it's an issue people have to think about. Some people like it, some don't. Just because it's a more sensitive one doesn't mean that people can't be thoughtful about the decisions they make. |
| Edef #417812 11 months ago |
@ NonAnon
1) It's completely legal 2) The only other thing is the same that happened with porn. A few people will cry about it, filter it out, and forget about it. @Whooves Ponibooru isn't here to uphold a good image of the community. If that was the case porn would never have been allowed in the first place. You say you don't care about other's opinions. Naturally this would extend to opinions of the fandom as well. You're not responsible for the moral well being of the fandom, nor should you try to be. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417834 11 months ago |
I'm not responsible for it, no; and personally I don't have much to lose if the public opinion of the fandom goes south. I'm not that open about my interest in FiM in real life; the couple friends I have who know are also fans, and I'm not in a position to socialize with most people at work, and wouldn't mention FiM even if I were. It's just not the right environment.
But clearly, since Frank has posted in here, there are people who may stand to lose in that kind of situation. Eco may stand to lose, as well, even though the content is technically legal. The laws as they're written on the books aren't always the first things in the minds of people who enforce them. But even beyond Eco's legal situation, he should consider his personal life. I don't know anything about Eco, or what he does outside of managing Ponibooru, but if he could stand to lose from it being discovered that a site he runs hosts content with such a stigma applied to it, that's something for him to consider as well. |
| NonAnon #417840 11 months ago |
1) It's not indisputably legal. Cases still go back and forth with it.
And danger refers to more than jail. I recall a court case hit the news about a year ago where the guy's porn got revealed, and although it was 'legal' and unrelated to the case, his reputation was destroyed and he was forced to relocate. 2) I have personally seen several good sites crash and burn because of the lolicon issue. Some people end up not liking something and work to destroy it, not because of morality (which their methods prove they have none) but simply because they don't like it. |
| NonAnon #417842 11 months ago |
Looks like DW can type way faster than me. |
| Edef #417847 11 months ago |
It's only a "stigma" to those so deluded by their beliefs that they only see child porn. Idiots of that level are not worth considering. It's clear by the posts in this thread that most people are reasonable and open minded towards this content. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417858 11 months ago |
And even if it is indisputably illegal (I'm not overly familiar with California's laws, so I'm not sure), that doesn't always stop an ambitious district attorney from trying to make a name for himself and rewrite the books. |
| Doctor_Whooves #417862 11 months ago |
^ indisputably legal*
And that's not a case I'd want to be involved in, whichever way it went. |
| Edef #417863 11 months ago |
@NonAnon
Cartoon porn of underage ponies is hardly noticed in the grand scheme of things. It is not lolicon. Besides, Eco's been running FiMChan as long as he has Ponibooru, and FiMchan allows this content, and it is often posted. He has suffered no ill effects. |
| Anonymous #417871 11 months ago |
stop trying to scare eco into submission, it make you no better than what youre fighting against |
| NonAnon #417906 11 months ago |
Grand scheme of things?
I wish that were the case. Again, I'm not saying no to the porn or loli. I'm just doing a little Devil's Advocate here. BUt it is important to note that things that don't matter "in the grand scheme of things" are what gets all the publicity these days. Economic collapse, broken political/legal/miltary/social/interational systems. And what's important? Gay marriage, cross-bars in the 9/11 ruins, and he said/she dais bullshit. _WE_ can tell ponicon is not lolicon. But the kind of people who make a stink about things, they can't. Again, I'm not voting against it. I'm just pointing out it's not true to say there isn't _any_ risk. |
| Edef #417927 11 months ago |
Ponibooru isn't that big that anyone's gonna start a shitstorm about what most people won't even see (by that I mean filters). |
| FrankFronk #425005 10 months ago |
@Edef #417863
Once again, it doesn't matter what 'I' am deluded by. It matters what other people are. Public image matters, I don't care what anybody says in that regard, it does. If you do have friend, which I HOPE you do, then you should be able to agree with that statement. Things like this only serve to tarnish that standing. All somebody has to do to see any form of content on this site is sign up. That takes 2 minutes to do. A little hyprocritcal about the whole ad hominem phrase you were preaching earlier yes? Calling us idiots and what not. I only see child porn because thats what it is. It's child pornography. There's no other definition. It's porn, with proverbial children in it. Child + Porn = Child Porn. Heck, I'm a reasonable guy, but when it comes to some things I just have to draw a line. I don't think 5-6 people (I didn't bother to count) represents the majority. @417863 I'd say it's the definition of lolicon, not that it matters. FiMChan isn't exactly huge, by any definition. Ponychan has that sector covered fairly well, not to offend Eco. Still, it's a Chan. It's harder than hell to single our certain images on something like that. Here on an imageboard however, it's much more noticable and manageable. @417871 (Anon) If I wanted to scare Eco, I'd say I'm going to call the feds or DDoS the board. I won't however, because I do believe in a democratic process. However, if this stuff is allowed free range, I guess I just won't come back is all. All I've really done is pointed out the implications and possible ramifications of the material. Nothing more. @NonAnon 417906 I remember that stupid ass story about atheists being mad because two iron bars were shaped like a cross. That was the dumbest thing I have ever heard; not to mention the biggest case of jackasses trying to be just that. |
| Eco #432841 10 months ago |
Hi.
I'll be frank here: most of my conversations on this topic have been with Edef in PMs. The reason is that he's generally the only one who cares about "everything should be allowed" enough to actually talk to me about it. If this stuff is to be allowed, there are two things that need to be addressed: 1) I need to be convinced that I won't go to jail for it. I'm not as sure of this as I might have been in prior PM conversations. 2) The community needs to want it. I'm going to read through the replies here to find out about that. The difference between FiMChan and Ponibooru policy is something I'm aware of. I know what "community standards" are over there, so things will only change there if I become unconvinced of #1 enough that I think it's a legal risk, even on a site with little traffic and few users (as compared to this site, which has about 120k ad hits daily). Okay, time to read the comments I guess. Back soon. |
| Eco #432883 10 months ago |
It seems people in the comments understand exactly the issue that's been plaguing me on (1) at least - laws that use real-world assumptions which restrict fiction are completely unworkable to adjudicate, because they create a million undefined corner cases. I suspect the truth is that nobody - not even the agents of the law - knows how the chips will fall on such questions; the only way to know for sure is to go to court and find out what gets decided.
Are you convinced that a jury of twelve normal human beings will look at this stuff and decide that it's not child porn? As of today, that's the standard. kassarc16@411122: Well, yeah. If Spike isn't all grown up or whatever, they're probably already against the rules. If they haven't been deleted it's probably because they haven't been reported. Doodofwar@412004: Yup. Lolicon at least is considered child pornography in the US. The question is whether ponies/dragons/mythical animals count. Continuing this later. |
| Eco #433025 10 months ago |
Edef what the fuck |
| Edef #433522 10 months ago |
Yeah you can ignore that whole "conversation" with me and Whooves.
As for legality, for the 16th time, non-human underage characters are legal for reason already stated a whole bunch of times. As for lolicon and all that, yes it's illegal, but it's completely unrelated. |
| FrankFronk #433803 10 months ago |
That line is pretty grey. |
| FrankFronk #433805 10 months ago |
That line is pretty grey and blurry |
| Eco #434249 10 months ago |
Are you a lawyer, Edef? Is that legal advice?
To you or me, there may be an obvious "out". Let's assume that the law works the way you describe it. Will twelve randomly selected citizens see it that way? The actual cases that have occurred surrounding this law are fraught with such stuff - where people think the axiomatic law is on their side, but still enter into plea bargains because the jury are "normals" who will see the material as reprehensible and react accordingly. And if they do, then even if a judge sets things right later, I've pissed away my money on a huge legal battle, and my time in a state prison. I realize I've been waffling on this, going back and forth between "probably legal" and "probably illegal". I realize I sound a lot less sure than I sounded in our earlier PMs. But I've never been good at making decisions or facing conflicts, especially big ones. And, well, here we are. |
| Edef #434269 10 months ago |
I explained it quite clearly in the PM. Softpaw in itself is a excellent example and the only one you should need. Not to mention the dozens of other sites. No one out there is hunting for people hosting underage cartoon porn because it's not illegal. I don't care to read this thread again but from what I remember everyone else here agrees with that as well - that it's legal. Their argument stands on moral grounds and trying to scare you with some white-knight DDOSing Ponibooru. |
| FrankFronk #434731 10 months ago |
^I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't going to do that. I have no intentions to do it either. Not that I have that power to begin with.
If 'White-Knighting' is trying to protect the image of the fandom/site/fans or what-have-you. Then I don't want to take off that armor. I'd take a little less offense to that statement if you weren't screaming ad hominem at DH earlier. Softpaw makes me laugh, it really does. I do believe they have even said before that the characters are ''Over Eighteen.'' and that ''They are only young if you imagine them that way.'' Not only that, but the material was a MAGAZINE, not a readily accessible internet website. (At least at the time of publication it was not.) The magazine/comic was never officially published either, it was predominantly sold at cons and other gatherings. Outside of the legal system for the most part. Still, it's an entirely different scenario than what we are facing here, while Softpaw was an under the radar magazine, Ponibooru is a readily accessible imageboard where one can take a minute to sign up and immediately have access to this material. The CMC's, among others, are /obviously/ under the age of what would be described as 'normal' porn. I see it that way, and a jury of our peers would likely see it that way. Unless we have 12 like-minded Edef's up there, it probably won't end in our favor. I'm not trying to scare you here, but I am telling you what I believe will most likely happen in a worst case scenario. |
| Edef #434777 10 months ago |
Have you seen screenshots of Softpaw? Some of that shit involves toddlers in diapers. The over 18 thing was just a precaution, and could easily be applied here. |
| Edef #434836 10 months ago |
As for it's obscurity: Physically distributed magazines carry a lot more impact and permanence than a website. |
| FrankFronk #437049 10 months ago |
Magazines are still less noticable than a website on a larger scale. |