
| Anonymous #192251 1 year ago |
DEM HIPS |
| Anonymous #192259 1 year ago |
Caramelldansen |
| Erin #192282 1 year ago |
Anon1: She's like... 8. |
| kanashiikage #192286 1 year ago |
She's also a fictional pony.
Your argument is invalid. Not that I'd have such thoughts towards Applebloom. |
| Erin #192309 1 year ago |
A fictional representation of a child is still a representation of a ~child. |
| Anonymous #192321 1 year ago |
and still, before anything................
.........wait for it.................... a representation |
| Anonymous #192466 1 year ago |
Anon1 here. I meant "DEM HIPS" in the dancing way, not the sexually arousing "DEM HIPS" way. But I can see how being on Ponibooru and being exposed to DAT FLANK and DAT PLOT comments all day can make you think certain things.
I'll await my apology muffins. |
| Anonymous #192511 1 year ago |
a representation in the USA you don't beat the rap with "Ceci n'est pas une child porn." |
| JustTheBast #192523 1 year ago |
@Anonymous #192511: Don't be so down on the USA. Not everybody there is so mentally retarded that they'd seriously imagine that a cartoon drawing of a fictional character belonging to an imaginary species could in any way be considered "child pornography".
It's quite insulting for you to imply that Americans are such monumental, mouth-breathing, drooling morons that they would make such an obviously idiotic argument. You really should apologize. |
| Anonymous #192568 1 year ago |
^ no no, I'm saying the law says a depiction of a child in a compromising position is still considered child porn in the USA. |
| kuren18 #192820 1 year ago |
@Anonymous #192511 wow... just wow |
| Anonymous #192856 1 year ago |
^
I'm not seeing what you're going "wow" about here, given the clarifying post above yours. Is it still too confusing? Should I outline further that porn of a child is child porn? you know I'm not talking about the .gif at the top of the page, right? |
| Anonymous #193261 1 year ago |
This thread died at the first comment, just shut up and clop you fucking moral issue ponys. |
| Anonymous #193265 1 year ago |
^ how about no |
| Mask_de_pony #193285 1 year ago |
IT IS A FUCKING HORSE
THE GOVERNMENT COULD CARE LESS IF YOU DRAW IT IN A COMPROMISING POSITION END OF CONVERSATION |
| Anonymous #193303 1 year ago |
^ you know how I know you didn't read the thread? |
| Mask_de_pony #193333 1 year ago |
Nope!
I know JustTheBast already basically said the same thing is that the problem? |
| Anonymous #193369 1 year ago |
you should read the thread it's not very long |
| kuren18 #193590 1 year ago |
@Anonymous #192511. how about that you SHUT THE FUCK UP. I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR senile OF CHILD PORN IT'S A FUCKING HORSE 4 GOD sake MAN. |
| JustTheBast #194104 1 year ago |
Also, I'd like to know which jurisdictions exactly define a drawing that never ever involved a real child in any way shape or form as child pornography, and what their rationale for it is.
I'm not disputing that such retarded, resource-wasting laws exist, and that they really force law enforcement officers to divert time from catching actual pedophiles who harm real children - I just want to know which states have them, and what mindless propaganda bullshit they used to sell this as a "good thing" to their citizens. |
| Anonymous #194329 1 year ago |
@kuren18
you should read the thread. @JustTheBast I'd like to know which jurisdictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 all of them, it's a federal crime. >resource wasting, real, propaganda, etc it hasn't wasted any resources and hating on pedophiles is pretty easy, you don't really need 'propaganda' for that. |
| JustTheBast #194514 1 year ago |
I bet that just 10 minutes with Google will turn up more wasted time and resources under this law, due to hysterical overreactions, than you can shake a stick at.
You may want to take a look at the article you linked to. While the section about computer generated images smells of magical thinking ("If it looks real, then it must be real! We must protect the tiny children inside those newfangled computing machines!"), artistic depictions of fictional minors are not inherently illegal. Only if they violate regular obscenity laws. Hating pedophiles is easy, and getting people to sign off on anything if you just slap the anti- |
| Anonymous #194625 1 year ago |
>just 10 minutes with Google
it should be no problem for you to find some, then. >artistic depictions of fictional minors Read the thread. That's not what this is about. This is about pornographic depictions of children. >makes children less safe you should spend 10 minutes on Google. |
| JustTheBast #194646 1 year ago |
Given that you have already resorted to moving the goalposts in that last comment, I'm not going to waste even one more minute of my time on you. Anyone who can look at this and manage to see child pornography is a seriously fucked-up person, who cannot be swayed by reasoned argument.
Feel free to imagine that you have "won". |
| Anonymous #194658 1 year ago |
^ I haven't moved anything. Read the thread. I stated several posts beforehand that the image at the top of this page is not what I have been talking about.
So how about those 10 minutes on google, eh? |
| Anonymous #197066 1 year ago |
JustTheBast said: Anonymous said: JustTheBast said: Anonymous said: JustTheBast said: Anonymous said: Liar, liar, pants on fire. |
| DragonRage #197098 1 year ago |
Ladies up in here tonight, no fighting. |
| Anonymous #199510 1 year ago |
#197066
Anonymous: no no, I'm saying the law says a depiction of a child in a compromising position is still considered child porn in the USA. kuren18 @Anonymous #192511 wow... just wow Anonymous ^ I'm not seeing what you're going "wow" about here, given the clarifying post above yours. Is it still too confusing? Should I outline further that porn of a child is child porn? you know I'm not talking about the .gif at the top of the page, right? maybe you should actually read the thread. |
| Anonymous #352330 11 months ago |
TL:DR |