Can you share that evidence?

So is this report any good or not?
http://cphpost.dk/news/national/report-cartoon-paedophilia-harmless.html

I'm going to file it in my records under "NO SHIT".

It'll be right next to the report which failed to prove heavy metal music causes satanism and suicide.

I actually read something a few months ago which said that if people can release urges in a game on game characters, then data shows that they are far less likely to do it in real life. (And i'm talking about in general things, not just specific to the above.)

Well, if i disagree with that which you type or post, i'm going to make counter-points. If you want to make another argument, make that argument, don't defend pedophilia, because you're having a hard time making another point. Reminds me of the time i dealt with an open communist who said he didn't believe in global warming, 'cause CO2 has a lower greenhouse gas rating than water vapor, however he continued to say things he didn't believe because he felt it was easier to defend that than his actual position, which was that he felt that CO2 density explains why crime is higher in cities (he claims he felt better when he was out in nature and away from people). And for reference, the guy was not exactly a nobody in his country. I eventually blocked the guy when he started complaining that it wasn't right to put dogs on leashes, and i don't know what his real goal was, but in the context the leash protected another dog from significant bodily harm (frankly, becaues the other dog was little and attempting to pick a fight with the much, much larger dog that was leashed). The guy is a furry, so i couldn't begin to explain the rationale. However, point being, if you can't defend your actual position and resort to defending something that you disagree with, you're being terribly dishonsest.

Or are you one of those people who says simulated child porn (loli) is not a form of pedophilia? By definition, it is. It can be argued that it's not "child porn," however it's undeniably pedophilic in nature. Right, and you have a point, which i've stated. Society, sadly, is avoiding this issue. Honestly, i think it's one of the most fundemental issues of our time, and is the driving force behind most of our political discussions, including my little blurb above. Oddly enough, you're presenting the same mentality as those you oppose, if i'm interpreting what you're saying correctly. If it's not ok to suppress freedom of thought, one should defend what they honestly believe. Myself? I'm not entirely sure where i stand on the issue, either. The data seems to be there that loli can encourage that which we find immoral, so the question is whether or not it's immoral to ban loli for that reason. Honestly, the loli supporter would be smartest to argue this case, since the data is inconclusive, but, frankly, it doesn't look good for loli. Worse yet, you'll never get the data, anyway, because the data cannot be ethically retrieved when the ethics are questioned to begin with. By comparison, it's like asking whether or not having a single day every year for a purge would make people better throughout the rest of the year: you'd have to have people commit purges to be scientific about it (and, even then, it wouldn't be that scientific given the variables and would have to be done many, many times to help mitigate those variables). Right, absolutely. By that same token, homophobia existed before Islam, but can we say that Islam is not a contributing driving force behind homophobia? I remember reading somewhere (and i really wish i could find it again) that there's a biological component to homophobia, however i think demographics show us that it's a bit worse in islamic areas (not as bad as some people like to make, but there's still clearly a huge difference). Well, as i stated above, this cannot be scientific without widespread support of porn to begin with. And it's not so much porn, but child porn and/or loli.

A quick primer on play

Dr. Jordan Peterson (clinical psychologist, who is now largely involved in politics) on his lectures of the bible had a very, very good explanation, which is what introduced me to the idea. He stated that children (especially young women) play house and they then adopt later in life what comes out of that play. So if your parents are abusive, when the children play house the person of the abusive role will be abusive in play, this then manifests itself later in life and the children usually end up abusive or abused in their adult relationships, even though it's not likely those whom they played with as children. At the time, i was actually searching for an explanation for the bisexuality rate in females, so given how men and women tend to be segregated as children, well, i'm sure you know what conclusion i came to there as well (the data agrees with this conclusion, but it doesn't prove [nor does it disprove] a causal relationship, however). Unfortunately, while i know this was from his Bible lecture series, there's about 15 videos, and each video is about 2 and a half hours long, so trying to find the exact 2 minute clip is a bit cumbersome, especially since even if i showed you you probably would disagree anyway.

Trying to google the topic seems difficutl as well, because it seems to more or less be taken as a given. Well, largely because it is, at this point. "Adult play" of the same nature is largely called "practice." Want to become a better martial artist? Gotta practice (play), so that movements come natural (normal) to you. Same thing with sports. Video games? Absolutely: you start to do things automaticallly when dealing with the same genres, 'cause it's "normal" for you.

But, hey, have some more specific research (well, an article, which is obviously biased, but the level of truth of an argument is independent of the bias of the speaker, but at least their sources are cited) on the topic. And now we see the dangers of loli, especially if it becomes the exclusive porn medium.

AFAIK, there's no direct connection to loli itself, but you can conclude that from logical deduction from existing research, which i did point to above in my reply to someone else. Feel free to follow the dots.

As the bottom comment says "sauce, plz." Interstingly enough, it's gotten a bit twisted. There's a difference between "we haven't found evidence" and "there's no reason to believe that." If i find research that cats like to play with strings, would we argue then that because there's no research specifically for a preference for blue strings that they would prefer red balls instead? It's kinda the same thing with loli: we have research to suggest that porn affects sexual preferences and normalization, but we don't have any specialized research into loli, which is largely because there's no need when you can simply logically deduce the connection from the research that was done. The article merely has someone disagreeing, not doing a specialized study and coming to a different conclusion, but simply just automatically jumping to the conclusion that the logical deduction is wrong without any research. Imagine the responses if I would say that about, say, carbon emissions from cars: "Yeah, there's no research suggesting that the carbon emissions from cars contribute cause smog." I wouldn't be lying, but i'd certainly be wrong. I'd be telling the truth, because, presumably, no one did any research specifically on cars, but i'd be wrong, because smog is made of CO2 (and other chemicals) and presence most certainly correlates with a high population.

Which is one of the reasons i'm on the fence about loli. I'm, really, arguing for both sides of the loli debate, but one side is more dominant in me since person i'm disagreeing with has already made up their mind. Part of me wants to say that we should ban it because it increases the number of people who would be into pedophilia, due to conditioning. The other part of me says that it's not really our job to try to manipulate morality via laws and regulations, but instead by logical argumentation, and also the loli would mitigate the amount of molestation that occurs by existing pedophiles.

Really, the whole thing comes down to 2 questions that we're avoiding:

Firstly, if it were to turn out that loli does indeed automatically lead to more children being molested, is it still ethical to ban loli to make people less likely to do unethical behavior? Or in other words, is it ethical to make people follow a religion simply because it is more likely to make people ethical (if we assume the statement is true, of course, for the sake of asking the question)?

Secondly, if such mind control and social planning is ethical (this must be decided before the second question), is it better to have fewer pedophiles that are more likely to abuse children, or is it better to have more pedophiles that are less likely to abuse children? Is there a tipping point where the answer changes if the number of pedophiles increases or decreases to certain threshholds?

These are the two fundemental questions we need to ask, but are avoiding. It's quite reasonable, and clear, that the odds are very high that loli porn consumption (independent of legal status) has an effect on pedophile population size. Unless there's some kind of research or logical reasoning that says why loli is a special exception, or that the generalized porn research is flawed, it seems unreasonable, really, to continue trying to pretend that loli doesn't affect this. We really should be at the level that we're discussing those two fundemental questions, if we want to be absolutely honest about all this.

Am I the only one who sees contradiction in here? Because if loli is not child porn, than it's not pedophilic.

The difference between reality and interpretation are great. If i play a cat game, and take a screenshot, one does not say that it's a picture of a kitty, but a picture of a cartoon kitty. However, for all intents and purposes, when me or anyone else plays the kitty game, we are petting a kitty. The same separation can be said about porn in general: i'm not looking at a woman, but i still have the same brain chemical response as if i was indeed looking at a woman. The porn acts as an abstraction of a woman, while the loli acts as an abstraction of child porn, in the same way the virtual pet acts as an abstraction of a real pet. They invoke the same mentality, even though they are not necessarily that which they represent (which is why you give a gigapet to an irresponsible child who wants a pet: no real cat or dog is being neglected and the child will be happy with their pet until they get tired of being restricted to a facsimile).

So playing gigapet makes child irresponsible and cruel to animals? Because that's what "porn/loli leads to rape/child abuse" logic dictates.

Again, I agree that loli hentai (let's at least be clear that loli is a term for underage girls in anime in general) resembles child porn, and thus can invoke the same reactions. But jumping from "my favourite character from Higurashi is Hanyu and I look at nude pictures of her on the net" to "Nothing to do tonight. Let's rape some children." is a bit far, don't you think?

The sauce plz is rather impossible since i believe the same thing was written there and also it was deleted don't know if website or just the article was deleted, so only by memory i found this again since i knew the title words.
Also not sure anymore if there was a true document in pdf file or something anymore.

Nice strawman. The objective of the gigapet is to take care of it, not to let it die, contrarily to loli. Porn is a separate issue, because you actually can get moral consent to act out your desires derived from porn. Of course that's far, which is why no one is making that argument.

The argument is that people gain certain preferences due to a normalization process, and they'll want to act out these preferences. Most seem to be able to avoid this temptation (as far as we know), because they prefer to be free more than they prefer to get their rocks off (we assume). However, "tension builds" and the opportunity to act upon your desires will inevitably present itself (you may be left alone with a child to babysit, or something like that) and some people prefer getting their rocks off than reducing the risk of loosing their freedom and/or maintaining their moral standing. The argument against loli is that it potentially increases the number of people who end up in the situation of having to make the decision, whereas someone who hasn't normalized the sexualization of children won't view it as an opportunity and presents no risk (at least in that way, as other forms of abuse can come from other sources).

Speaks volumes, really. I really hate argument from authority, especially in this day and age when it's so hard to get the actual academic material. Still, that just means we have to be all the more vigilant with what we do get. Philosophically speaking, the article makes a huge logical mistake, which i outlined above. It seems to be largely about making room for cognitive dissonance.

I would argue that porn doesn't inevitably devolve into more degenerate porn, however that doesn't change the fact that it does on occasion. We just need more data in this regard.

It might be an abstraction at some level.. just like playing virtual paintball is an abstraction of killing people?

But I think you may be likening things a little too much. Really, I would've never likened a tamagotchi to a real pet at any meaningful level. It's an abstraction of a real pet, but that's where it ends.

As a matter of fact, I'm rather more concerned that these creations are something reality can't emulate even with a superb cosplay kit. See, the phenomenom I'm overwhelmingly familiar with is that people get obsessed with their perfect and beautiful 2d waifus (whether lolis or not) and don't want to have anything to do with real 3d people whom they find bland or even disgusting by comparison. And I've witnessed it multiple times on 4chan (or similar) boards where people post their loli and then someone drops a (safe) photo of a supposedly attractive real kid. The response tends to be one of repulsion.

Incidentally, there are many image boards where loli pics are common (or even the main focus of the board), but ones where you find 3d renders with similar content are niche of niche. There just doesn't seem to be much interest for that, and I get the impression that the set of people who are into loli, and the set of people who are into 3d kids, barely intersect.

You could say it's a bit orthogonal, and to a degree I would agree. I can't entirely reject the theory that stylized, illustrated "child porn" would normalize sex with children in a small subset of the population. But I have more evidence that lolis normalize appetite for loli (potentially at the expense of reducing appetite for real people), just as playing paintball normalizes the act of shooting fun play guns at people for sport. Nothing more. Since I don't want to make too many claims without evidence, I'll just say that I would like to argue that the people who are into paintball and also into pointing a gun or their genitalia at real people, it's likely that the tendancy wasn't primarily derived from the sport as a result of normalization.. It might be the case that people who are into 3d kids would use 2d illustrations as a substitute because it's widely available and either legal or at least less likely to land you in jail, depending on where you live?

Whatever effect it may have, I'm not too concerned about it in the end, if only because it's obvious that child abuse and commercially produced child porn were a thing long before the internet made its breakthrough and easy access to animated loli stuff got in hands of anyone who wanted it. It's not like we've seen a remarkable spike in child abuse that could be correlated with the spread of internet either. And, well, the majority of the cases of child abuse I see reported are of older perps, who are most likely oblivious to the existence of this type of "art." In short, I don't see enough evidence to feel that we should even be alarmed about the potential of lolicon. Whatever effect it has is a drop in the ocean at this point.

Harmless for what? It certainly isn't harmless for the quality of the store curation because each release is making it worst overall.

That crap is still fucking disgusting and it diminishes the value of everything else.

It still feel like a slap in the face for anyone who browse GOG for actual games and isn't able to filter out that trash. It's disrespectful of anyone who has standards.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CarelessYawningArgentinehornedfrog-max-1mb.gif

*shrug*

Edit: (talking to TinyE, not about TinyE)

The guy in that GIF would probably agree with me since you know, he looks normal and stuff.