How much do you think fiction actually influences reality?

[Boxerdog]

however with the fictional context of the loli character actually being 1000 years old both problems cease to exist as a 1000 year old person will obviously be mature enough to handle a relationship and if their natural physiology merely is just loli then it should be able to handle the physical aspects of the relationship as well.

No because midget porn is 100% legal and most midgets are single.

The base reasons things are considered moral or immoral in real life are irrelevant in the creation of fiction and the justification or lack thereof in fiction does not alter the reasoning behind morals in real life

Yes and no.

People will run over people on gta to let off some steam instead of doing actual violence.
When a person beats to lolicon he is letting off the steam instead of making cheese pizza.

Whether that is better or not matters not if he still feel the urge, Many people will easily and casually tell you That they are about to go postal after a 6day 14hr shift week, not many people will tell you that they're gonna pull a edp.

Violent feelings are acceptable to most humans, you just let off in the gym, in a videogame, at the range etc. Most humans will feel the urge to punch someones head off at least once in their life and more likely the will feel it multiple times during their life span.

Lust feelings for pre teens aren't acceptable for most humans. Therefore ways to let them off are also not accepted because of the small space of possible actions that can exacerbate lust.

If you met someone really enjoys the Torture game for 3 hours everyday without missing a day and makes it a core part of their identity their profile picture and talk about it all the time. Would that raise red flags? Its not about what is fictional and what's real its about the mindset rationalizing the action behind it.

Of course you don't wanna have thought crimes but as you said

fictional context that alters the base moral argument from a child to a person who just looks like a child.

Implicitly means that a person is attracted to child looks, which in the real world only children look like it, and that comes with all the prejudices and caveats that comes with.

Its not about what is philosophically moral or not its about protecting real life children.

Even if you have a logical gotcha or find a loophole people would simply rather be unfair to those who feel those feelings, its just human nature and its hardcoded in.

or that whole suppressing the gay thing from 70 years back would have worked out better.

The worst thing that can happen to you from being gay its to have a blow out asshole, If you are 2 adults its whatever, gay porn does not simulate queers taking advantage of pre teens(or at least i hope not), Lolicon does.
The acceptance of letting people fudgepack its pretty much irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, A couple of homos aren't worth the trouble for a capitalist society to suppress because some people think its gross, as long as both have the possibility of working 40hrs a week the economic world couldn't care less.

To continue your own analogy, I would consider non-pedo's to be people that don't drink at all, a pedo that keeps himself to fictional things as someone who only takes a drink or two without going overboard, and fully engaged pedo's as the alcoholics. While it's not an ideal situation to have to take one or two drinks to function it's far better than falling into alcoholism because you tried and failed to completely abstain.

If you take a drink or two(depending on the jurisdiction) you are not allowed to drive, fly or sail, operate machinery, technically have consensual sex, contribute to the delinquency of a minor or even BE IN A PUBLIC PLACE while under the influence.

I don't think anybody would oppose those restrictions to lolicons tbh.

 

[Sketch Relics]

Dang it, I knew I should have added a last clarification paragraph.

I'm not advocating for social acceptance of loli content, just poking at the logic used to hate it. I actually think it's right where it needs to be more or less, socially reviled but not lawfully punishable. Keep to fiction and keep it to themselves.

No because midget porn is 100% legal and most midgets are single.

This is actually worse for the rare IRL "legal loli's" as well, either due to rare genetic factors or medical accidents, there are some people whom are stuck as permanent childeren physically who more or less can't have a love life in any aspect.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUQX4qknJho


Though now that I think about it, your point doesn't have anything to do with what I said there. I'm guessing it's meant to be a poke at loli's not wanting midgets, but it's a very different body type in terms of physical appearance, but you would have to elaborate more.

Yes and no.

People will run over people on gta to let off some steam instead of doing actual violence.
When a person beats to lolicon he is letting off the steam instead of making cheese pizza.

Whether that is better or not matters not if he still feel the urge, Many people will easily and casually tell you That they are about to go postal after a 6day 14hr shift week, not many people will tell you that they're gonna pull a edp.

Violent feelings are acceptable to most humans, you just let off in the gym, in a videogame, at the range etc. Most humans will feel the urge to punch someones head off at least once in their life and more likely the will feel it multiple times during their life span.

Lust feelings for pre teens aren't acceptable for most humans. Therefore ways to let them off are also not accepted because of the small space of possible actions that can exacerbate lust.

This statement appears self contradictory, or double standard latent, I'm not sure which applies better.


Sorry, this is the last part of this response that I'm writing (did things a bit out of order) so the response to the above quote is incomplete I'm too tired to finish it, I'll edit in the rest of the thought later when I'm having less trouble remembering what words I want to use.

Implicitly means that a person is attracted to child looks, which in the real world only children look like it, and that comes with all the prejudices and caveats that comes with.

Its not about what is philosophically moral or not its about protecting real life children.

I don't think you're going to protect many real children by removing a fictional representation of a child. The armchair activist who take up the position could do more by helping track down and expose actual pedo rings.
I wasn't being philosophical either, I listed the actual, hard reasons irl pedophilia is not accepted and noted that you can't actually extend the reasons for that standard to fiction.

The worst thing that can happen to you from being gay its to have a blow out asshole, If you are 2 adults its whatever, gay porn does not simulate queers taking advantage of pre teens(or at least i hope not), Lolicon does.
The acceptance of letting people fudgepack its pretty much irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, A couple of homos aren't worth the trouble for a capitalist society to suppress because some people think its gross, as long as both have the possibility of working 40hrs a week the economic world couldn't care less.


If you take a drink or two(depending on the jurisdiction) you are not allowed to drive, fly or sail, operate machinery, technically have consensual sex, contribute to the delinquency of a minor or even BE IN A PUBLIC PLACE while under the influence.

I don't think anybody would oppose those restrictions to lolicons tbh.

Your actually operating a bit outside of the context of both of these quotes, the first is a note that attempted suppression of a similar aspect in the gay did, in fact, not make it go away and isn't being used to justify nor accept irl pedophilia. This is meant to act as a prep for the follow up point that loli can allow people to vent their lust without harming anyone and was specifically used because in spite of the suppression of gay, it continued to happen in secret anyway. I should have been more specific, it's easy to create context for yourself to argue against on hot button topics like this and I can see why you wrote the response, even if it's not actually relevant to what I said

Your further extension to the analogy is fine, it really is something these people should largely keep to themselves. Though again it's beyond the context of the original quote since the stated purpose even in the original paragraph was to get across the point that venting through limited consumption of a fictional counterpart can stop people from engaging in far worse behavior.

 

[Mamisu]

How many lolis could you take in a fight? I'm thinking a couple hundred

 

[Boxerdog]

Lolicons will say that the yare just attracted to small women, thats why i mentioned the dwarfs, they are not they are attracted to child bodies.

or double standard latent

It is a double standard is just that nobody cares when its against chomos lol

I don't think you're going to protect many real children by removing a fictional representation of a child.

You're not gonna end cheese pizza but people that don't do it do not want to give them the satisfaction
Like how you're not gonna end gun crime but people that don't have guns want gun control
How you're not gonna end global warming but people that don't have cars want car control
The why people do it, its to limit, harass, humiliate, "cuck" their opposition, it just so happens that in this case the opposition are the single most reviled group within the planet earth by everybody across all spectrums, from the most virtuous saint in heaven to the lowest mass murderer in death row.

follow up point that loli can allow people to vent their lust without harming anyone

Yea and my point was that it harms everybody elses mental state when they think about giving those people pleasure no matter how minimal.

Spoiler: Theory Crafting(Disclaimer: Might get too real)

Suburban Nowhere USA.

Imagine your daughter got got a preschool and now she is broken, can't talk, has random moments where she just yells and cries, can't make eye contact.
Now your neighbor who is not the same guy that did it, really likes to jack off to lolicon, and everybody knows it that he uses as relief so that he doesn't do what he really wants to do.

Would you;

A)Be happy that at least he is controlled as long as he is in front of the pc

B)Seethe every time you see him and just ruin the rest of your day and of your family, but ultimately do nothing and hope that he is controlled as long as he is in front of the pc

C) FEDPOST

Do you see why people want to deny these people everything? Even if the release would make the neighbor vent, providing the release will severely harm the father mental state(im picking just the father but everybody on the neighborhood as well), while the chomo gets to coom scot free and its this town boogieman, that gets to feast everynight with the lotion and tissue.

Places like miracle village exist because people will plug these people on sight if they are around.

argue against on hot button

I just wanted to use funny words like fudgepacker lol, being gay or cheese pizza will always happen. Can't get rid of murder, but you can crack down hard on it. Just that desiring to be rammed in the buthole its harmless between 2 consenting adults, lolicon its inherently harmful since the desire its to have child bodies.

across the point that venting through limited consumption of a fictional counterpart can stop people from engaging in far worse behavior.

And my point is that it doesn't matter for this issue compared to the violence issue. Humans are ok to put potentially violent humans in a boxing ring so they can release themselves.
They are not ok in letting chomos release themselves, not because it wouldn't be effective release but because of what they are, which is hated, and a primal instinctual cavemen hate at that.

 

[Outer Heaven]

Anything that influences people by definition influences reality because human beings have the ability to shape reality in some capacity. If fiction inspires someone to do something or changes their outlook on the world and by extension how they interact with it then it influenced reality. It sounds reductive but this is why its important to be aware of what you watch or read or listen to, whether you like it or not, what youre exposed to affects you in some way. If the fiction youre exposed to is degenerate, you will become desensitized to it at the very least if not have your views alter to align with its message. Basically nobody is immune to fiction in the same way nobody is immune to propaganda.

This is why to go back to the OP, lolicon is degenerate. You can disguise the characters as 8000 year old dragons but the form is still that of a child being sexualized. All this leads to is normalization and people wanting to have sex with kids.

 

[№56]

I'm moving the "agora road gets destroyed by a heated argument over the age of consent" doomsday clock ten minutes closer to midnight.

 

[Kyou]

 

[Mеченый Яков]

View attachment 75607

I'm gonna kill anti with my own bare hands, i'll eat his throat, heart and brain and gut him and crucify him out facing west so everyone will always remember not to mess with pro, your legacy tarnished by the blood of the forsaken ones.

 

[Sidewinder91]

What do you think about all this? How much do you think fiction affects reality and people's perceptions?

Eh... I don't think there's any real definitive answer here. The cultural impact of fiction isn't really consistent.

On one end of the spectrum, you've got that cult of otherkin who believed that they were reincarnations of Final Fantasy VII characters, but then you have things like the Anti-Drug PSAs from the 80's and 90's. I don't actually know how many people decided not to do drugs because Alvin and the Chipmunks told them marijuana was bad, but I don't think it's a very high number.

 

[Sketch Relics]

I'm moving the "agora road gets destroyed by a heated argument over the age of consent" doomsday clock ten minutes closer to midnight.

Don't you think it's a little early for that? This thread hasn't even devolved into 20+ pages of 2 people calling each other names yet.

 

[stonehead]

I am curious though, why would lusting after a fictional race not be ok? or is this tying back specifically to the Lalafell and not just other fictional races in general?

It's not that being attracted to a fictional species is wrong, it's that the species being fictional doesn't excuse any of the other reasons that being attracted to something isn't ok.

This doesn't seem to actually work all that well in regards to sexual attraction, or that whole suppressing the gay thing from 70 years back would have worked out better.
To continue your own analogy, I would consider non-pedo's to be people that don't drink at all, a pedo that keeps himself to fictional things as someone who only takes a drink or two without going overboard, and fully engaged pedo's as the alcoholics. While it's not an ideal situation to have to take one or two drinks to function it's far better than falling into alcoholism because you tried and failed to completely abstain.

I think this analogy is flawed, because I'm not trying to modify anyone's brain, but their behavior. A lot of the atrocities of the 70's came from trying to transform a homosexual brain into a heterosexual one, using baseless, untested techniques. I've said before that I'm against the idea of thought crimes. If someone has a broken brain that is attracted to children, I think they deserve psychiatric help, not an automatic criminal sentence for some future crime they may or may not commit. (although I understand that admitting to having such a brain would be social suicide, and actual help would be incredibly unlikely)

I think a better analogy would be a homosexual person who has an STD. Such a person can control their sex drive, even though they're still attracted to men. The question would be whether going to a strip club makes controlling it easier or harder.

I still think it would make it harder, although I admit I don't have any legitimate data to back up this opinion. Only reasoning and anecdotal evidence. When it comes to controlling behavior, not apetite, there just isn't a craving where "getting it out of your system" seems to work. If I eat a ton of cookies one night, then I'm probably not going to eat any cake that night. I'll be too full. But if I make a habit of gorging myself on cookies every day, and I watch cooking videos about cookies, and spend my free time discussing cookies and cookie recipes online, I think it's only a matter of time until that cake in the pantry gets eaten.

If there was conclusive proof that playing games with a bunch of young-looking characters actually did reduce child-abuse cases, then I would have to tolerate it. It would still gross me out, and I would probably still avoid games with them, but it wouldn't be an ethical stance any more. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I would hope if there was incontrovertible proof that these characters increased child abuse cases, you would also switch sides. Ultimately, we're all just speculating though.

So the only thing left to disagree about is which speculative fact is a true one, (and maybe also the degree to which it's just icky and gross), which I guess was the topic of the original thread.

Eh... I don't think there's any real definitive answer here. The cultural impact of fiction isn't really consistent.

On one end of the spectrum, you've got that cult of otherkin who believed that they were reincarnations of Final Fantasy VII characters, but then you have things like the Anti-Drug PSAs from the 80's and 90's. I don't actually know how many people decided not to do drugs because Alvin and the Chipmunks told them marijuana was bad, but I don't think it's a very high number.

This is very interesting, and I think it raises a slightly different question: "If fiction affects reality, is it possibly to intentionally control it?" I know that tons of people named their children after Game of Thrones characters, but George R.R. Martin wasn't trying to control baby names. If someone rich and powerful felt so inclined, could they intentionally influence baby names? The Anti-Drug PSA example shows that if it is possible, it would at least be an uphill battle.