Comments by "EasyGameEh" (@EasyGameEh) on "Jack Dorsey Keynote Cancelled After Protest Threat by Child Porn Enthusiast, Extreme Leftist" video.

i believe the c in cp is the key letter. if it's a drawing or a animation and there's no (actual real life) c involved at any stage of production or consumption. then there's nothing wrong (as in harmful or malicious) about it. in fact if you think logically and pragmatically about it, if there's a certain semi permanent amount of people with these fringe preferences and they only indulge and satisfy them through work of fiction then it is the best case scenario for the society, no harm no foul, no victims of any sort and every one is happy.
4
@xgui4-studio not true on both cases. cp is a depiction of a minor and the minor is legally defined by age of the actual person. if there's nor real person then there's no c. just think about it - the sole reason to make anything illegal and prohibit is public danger, harm and a victim. criminal law protects something or someone by definition. the prohibited problem with cp is the harm, damage or abuse to the c. if there's no c there's no harm. as for the pdfs' preferences they are irrelevant if the pdf doesn't ever interact with minors directly or indirectly (through real cp)
1
@xgui4-studio what culture, lol? argumentunm ad hominem much? you brought up legality and morals. i simply pointed out the actual legal definition of cp and noted that an action that does no harm can't be neither immoral nor illegal (or shouldn't be by the spirit of the law).
1
@xgui4-studio ok, morality aside (if you are unwilling to defend it), can you name the country, define cp as by its/yours laws and if animated or drawn "c"p is indeed (what was it - 100000000%?) illegal can you in your own words tell me who or what does it protects and from what danger/damage/harm?
1
@ there's a huge gap between "that still cp which is 10000000% illegal in most sane country" and "i am not lawyer". so which one is it?
1
@xgui4-studio in fact if you'll just look at wiki page for cp in canada you'll find this passage: "Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings." so basically both the law itself and the supreme court clown acknowledge that the purpose of the law is to protect a person (a minor in this case) from harm, but then the guy says that he doesn't care and thinks that it should protect imaginary persons too. this is ridiculous.
1
@xgui4-studio the truth is it is not 100000% illegal, it is barely illegal by some twisting of the words (of both letter and the spirit of the law) and interpretations (and the guy only got 18 months of conditional sentence for cp manga). and also it's not illegal in any "sane country", it's only canada so far in my googling.
1
@ attract creep TO drawings FROM actual children. how is this bad?
1