/loli/ - Lolis

>>30027

Except for the "fact", that the characters are not human and do not have parents, and thus, do not have an age. The Simpsons and Dora are not even human… No humans have heads that shape! Children are "humans", and everyone with a parent is a "child"… "Child" is not an age, except in slang, and that is not even "legal terminology". A child is "The offspring of two human parents"… Your mother is your grandmothers child, even at 40, 50, 60… Ask her how many children she has, and she will say, at-least "one"… not… "None, I have adults". Child is NOT the opposite of adult. Children have children, and adults can have adults that are children. Age… irrelevant. (That is why they say "minors". Of which, toons are not, as, again, they have no age. That should have been adult Dora and Lisa Simpson… you wouldn't be able to tell. Only the original artist could even claim what implied age they were representing. Not the one who made the Simpsons, the one who drew the actual image.)

That judge needs an education… "meet the definition … of child pornography"…

>>30028

There is NO "The definition"… There are many definitions, and NONE, except poorly worded slang, use the term "Child"… Which is not even legally representable as a statement in any court of law.

He will be out with a slap on the wrist, unless the lawyer is as dumb as the judge who should be declaring a mistrial.

>>30029

Maybe not.. It's Canada… Where kids usually go Hero before getting the chance to have sex… Those who are having sex, usually live. Last thing they want in Canada is people running around with dirty comics… It's enough that they are all high and drunk, pregnant and trying to survive the horrible frigid cold with unwarmed lube… A

>>30027

Why were they searching his laptop? That is a personal diary, and an extension of ones privacy rights. Unless they had a warrant and reason to believe there was some kind of "government secrets stolen"… They don't even have the right to enter your computer. He should have asked for a warrant.

>>30033

My heart goes out to you snowbro.

No man should be denied his lolis

>>30030

>go Hero

An hero?

>>30039

Yes… An Hero… xD

>>30033

Follow that link to "Child pornography"…

It says nothing about "non-humans"… and little about "age".

Proof requires the original artist or the defendant to declare the age of the "toon"… Toons have no age. They are not "children", ("Offspring of two human parents"), and they are not minors.

Fail/fail/fail…

Now… if it were a drawing of an actual minor/child as opposed to an adult/child… But who the hell would admit that?

She is 9 years old… on what toon planet, of what toon race, in which toon timeline?

The bible depicts sex of minors. Arrest everyone with a bible. Also incest, anal sex, and bestiality… and worse… gods who rape human children getting them pregnant with his magic sperm. (Mary was 12)

>>30041

Also note the top…

"The factual accuracy of parts of this article (those related to the table) may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (May 2013)"

It is all out of date, poorly written, and not even the slightest bit accurate to any legal terms, at all.

>>30033

"Courts in Canada can also issue orders for the deletion of material from the internet from any computer system within the court's jurisdiction"

Yup, serious charges… Delete this.. or else… we may take you to court!

2008… Enforced, two times… Held-up in court, zero times.

Being arrested and actually being found guilty of any real charges is not the same thing…

You can be arrested for j-walking, or not listening to a police officer, (which I am sure is what actually happened, then they found the art and used that in the list of charges.)

You can also be jailed for mass-murder of billions of people…

Useless information. But it makes for good gossip news. Thus, the replies.

All they need is proof of the toons ages… and I don't think the state issued them an ID or birth-certificate, which is legally required as "proof of age", in every country. So, they have to take his word as to the ages, or they are assuming, without president or fact, and he can't be tried on those pieces of evidence.

He must have had a crappy lawyer. Poorfag… I bet he defended himself…

>>30048

>Yet, slaughtering children is completely legal… or torturing them, or abusing them… In fiction or comics or in video portrayals.

In real life too. Bombing neutral, charity-run hospitals full of doctors and patients is just "collateral damage" (even when everything around the hospital is left untouched), but don't you dare draw any naughty pictures because those hurt children…

>>30027

>“There’s nothing funny about this,”

>McLaughlin

This is pretty funny.

Ah, Canada. That explains it. Can't have that shit over there.

>>30027

>>30052

>The reasoning behind all of these laws is to prevent child abuse.

No, it's not. It might be an excuse, but if you call that a reasoning, you might as well ban basements or vans because it prevents child abuse. The reason behind modern day anti loli legislation is to prevent what the public(and judge) sees as pedophiles from satiating their sexual urges in ways that could possibly make them more likely to go out and rape in the future. It always boils down to the dogmas of "all adult/child sex is rape, children cannot consent, sexual exploitation or trauma is worse than death". There's no pure and just cause for this witch hunt other than pedophilia being the almost globally promoted 21st witch hunt.

>>30058

Is that that controversial Syrian loli sketch some right wing japanese mangaka did? If so, where did you get this lewd edit?

>>30061

The only legitimate excuse, that I can think of, for such a law would be to protect under-aged individuals from being the target of pornographic representation. From the article in OP, what keeps such a ridiculous law around seems to obviously be that some judges and prosecutors find it 'icky.' Apparently the saying "you can't arrest someone just for being creepy" is a lie when the wrong people find you creepy.

The anti-paedophilia rage is way too extreme. Louis CK had a shitty joke that if we didn't hate pedos and child molesters so vehemently, fewer victims would come back dead, which is absolutely true, considering even looking at pictures of 16 year old consenting models (and cartoons in Canada or Australia is enough to justify ruining your life. The west just fiercely over-romanticizes childhood.

>>30061

Nah, it's just that they hate the fact that people exists with an attraction that they, nor can them choose or that they can't abolish.

>>30033

>Customs doesn't give a fuck about warrants.

Too add to this the supreme court has ruled that even if customs violates your rights, too bad for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Sisters_Book_and_Art_Emporium_v_Canada_%28Minister_of_Justice%29#Judgment_of_the_Supreme_Court

>>30052

>The reasoning behind all of these laws is to prevent child abuse…

That is not even factual, or proven. The fact is that this enforcement causes child abuse and death, where it would otherwise not. There is no proof of "this prevention", which is not "prevention", as it occurs "after the fact", and nothing concludes that there is any relation to "suppression leading to prevention of occurrences".

That is called prohibition. Prohibition is a poor, proven failure every time. Alcohol, drugs, sex, murder, rape, education, slavery…

The only proven prevention is education, which, ironically comes through "controlled and unbiased participation", which is not what anyone wants to hear. But it is fact. The follow-up, would be unbiased and factual publication (including art/media/video/news/medical-reports etc, to be taught, or at-least allowed access.)

You can't make educated decisions without education. You can't get education within prohibition. You can't get sufficient real education, if the only form of education is biased and without factual details.

That is how kids get hurt… That makes them grow-up wanting "to do what they couldn't do in the past", in the present… Makes them turn into nympho-sluts at 18, trying to make-up for lost time… Makes them have poor judgement against someone who is overly-aged in comparison, when interacted with. (Girls going after older men, or older men going after younger females of legal age.)

In any event, 2D or 3D art has nothing to do with physical humanity. No matter how similar. Having something that is "already produced", is no more harmful than :no-one having something that has already been produced", mentally, it doesn't matter if it exists or not, once it has been made. The only damage is from the idiots pressing the laws, calling those girls sluts and making them feel bad, then walking away once they destroy the other persons life, who was also a participant. (That's hate-crime. That is obscene actions. That is legally, illegal, by their own wording. As is the undefendable "guilt", without accepting "facts and evidence". Like denying or tossing out "her consent" because she wasn't able to legally consent. The fact is, that she did, and it is still consent. The fact is that art can not give consent at all, and is subjective to the individual. If the "prosecution" sees it as sex, they are the one breaking the law, thinking about sex or portraying it as sexual. They don't even take the actual individuals plea into consideration, they judge him/her based off their own feelings and opinions and non-factual perceptions of how guilty THEY feel, when looking at it… To agree it is sexual is to agree that you are finding it sexual, and thus, are being tried by a pedo, unfailry. If they say it's only disgusting, then it isn't sexual, and disgusting is irrelevant to the accusation of sex. Murder is disgusting, asparagus is disgusting, sloppy-joes are disgusting… That doesn't make them illegal, or justifiably prosecutable. Just because it is a law, does not mean it is cut-and-dry or fair or even legal. That is what a judge is for, to "determine the legality and fairness and rights", as portrayed by the wording of the laws.

Bad judges and biased judges are all over. Then there are those who focus on thier own "public image" and go "vendetta" on the defendants. That should be a crime all its own. It is illegal, but rarely ever challanged. Like when a kid is unfairly treated by a parent… There is no-one to back you up… (Oh, but we need to preserve this… so we can keep controlling them… Why? When you ignore them 99% of the time before, and after… this 1% of the time, you just have to do what is right for you… pretending it is for them, to make yourself look good. Great thing to teach… That is the harm.

>>30061

>No, it's not

>The reason behind modern day anti loli legislation is to prevent what the public(and judge) sees as pedophiles from satiating their sexual urges in ways that could possibly make them more likely to go out and rape in the future

>possibly make them more likely to go out and rape in the future

You just repeated what i said. And yeah i do agree it's nonsense, just like i stated in my post.

>>30081

Yes it's not proven and can't be proven that lolicon causes child abuse, that's why lolicon exist in the first place, otherwise it would be banned everywhere. I'm just giving you the reasoning why they do it. I'm just tired when people who fap exclusively to 2D don't see that they're not the target for this attack, that no one thinks 2D drawings are real. The sole target of anti-loli legislation are pedophiles and their ugres.

>>30082

I was just commenting… in general… contributing to the sanity/insanity of the moment.

;P

>>30027

this is why you should use encryption

https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/

>>30091

I heard cases when you're forced to enter passwords or decrypt content or you can bedenied entrance.

>>30027

I hope that judge gets stabbed by niggers and left to bleed out in the streets while people walk by.

They aren't using the legal system to protect people, they are using power to punish people based on their twisted morality. This is no different from the Catholic Church punishing people when they had the power to do so.

Normies are cancer.

>>30103

This. Their "morals" are the living definition of hypocrisy. But the entire legal system only exists to perpetuate itself (I live in the U.S. but this applies to any English speaking country). I mean imagine if loli/hentai were legal in Canada or for that matter even dope or prostitution or any other non-violent crime, we would not have such a bloated police state and moralists would simply be ignored and the powers at be know this. As you said it is similar to the Catholic Church, they want to remain in power.

>>30061

>No, it's not.

It is, but that doesn't make it less debatable (or, false).

>The reason behind modern day anti loli legislation is to prevent what the public(and judge) sees as pedophiles from satiating their sexual urges in ways that could possibly make them more likely to go out and rape in the future.

The rationale for modern day anti-loli legislation is that people who are addicted to (or in any other manner dependent on) lolicon (or any other kind of sexualization of something related to children) are throughout pedo. We know that's not true, but you need a fucking damn deliberate consideration to find that out, a consideration most people would call autistic finickiness because, let's face it, most people on this planet are incredably stupid, as a log, and way too lazy to participate in intellectually significant deliberation. So given that anyone who actually needs loli is pedo, most people think, you'd be fuelling them if you allowed them their daily fix. It's like the illegality of drugs, except that drugs can have a physically desastrous impact on your body while art cannot.

>It always boils down to the dogmas of "all adult/child sex is rape, children cannot consent, sexual exploitation or trauma is worse than death".

No, usually people don't even think that far. Most of the time it just boils down to "Uh, it's about sex and uh, there are people in it who look like children / whom I see in TV cartoons regularly / who look too cute for porn and all and uh, therefore it's fucking disgusting, as if they were raping my 8-year-old daughter!!!" and they ban it. Really, most people don't think about whether children can legally consent or not when they fall into hate with drawings.

>There's no pure and just cause for this witch hunt

There's never any pure or just cause for any witch hunt. That's why it's called a witch hunt: in the style of the Spanish inquisition's witch hunting, people being put on fire or otherwisely murdered just because some religious fanatic didn't like their face, without any substantial reason. However, if I had to compare this "witch hunt" with a historical counterpart, I'd take Hitler's Jew genocide: Trying to extinct a group of people characterized by some irrelevant criterion that doesn't match with any properties imputed by the demagogy against them. You'll find more analogies the higher you go up in level of abstraction.

>>30103

>They aren't using the legal system to protect people

You are tackling a thorny issue. The legal system's one and only job is to protect people. If it doesn't, or isn't used to do so, it's utterly pointless. While I'm at it, I want to insistently call out to all lawyers maybe reading this (and to others as well): Never forget that! Always remember that the one and only reason why we have codified laws is the protection of people, of everyone and anyone! I enjoin you to keep that in mind every time you create or modify a law, or deal with it in any other manner, that laws are supposed to safeguard people against the salivatingly waiting Damocles sword of moralfags, different-mindeds, demagogues, and, as a matter of fact, child abusers.

>>30027

When it comes to 2d loli art by law in other countries here is what we need to remember:

Based tier: Spain, Netherlands, Japan

Neutral tier: U.S.A.

Kill yourself tier: Canada, Britbong, Aussie

>>30114

>Japan

Its amazing that the country that censors their porn is also one of the most based in that regard.

>>30114

>Netherlands

>don't allow realistic 3DCG porn

>Based

my sides

>>30119

Problem is, no politician is willing to damage his name by being known as the guy who wanted to see dicks in detail.

And no prosecutor wants to be known as the guy who doesn't enforce the law.

The law was imposed by the yanks, but the society of Japan makes them very hard to remove because "muh reputashun"

>>30041

You are a fucking retard

>>30114

What makes U.S. worse than the others? Also all EU countries criminalizes realistic 3DCG porn as >>30121 mentioned.

>>30134

I can see why he might put the US in neutral. While loli is federally legal you can be arrested if you buy physical loli merchandise and have it shipped into the country and customs happen to check the package. It happens every once in a while.

>>30134

I'm sure Holland and Spain allow loli. In the US it depends on where you live .

>>30139

It's legal everywhere. Federal law beats out state law. Though it's not impossible they could if they were so inclined to waste time to hassle you over it.

>>30136

You can get arrested for shipping any type of pornography into the U.S though, its not just loli specifically.

>>30052

The existence of wrongdoers cannot be used to justify using force against ordinary people. Period, shithead.

>>30141

Yeah, it's not specific to loli. Something that's part of the obscenity laws. Like how Max Hardcore was arrested for "smut" even though it was legitimate porn.

You can't get arrested for bringing (non-CP, the real kind) porn into the US. But customs can confiscate it.

>>30142

i'm not the one making up laws nor do i agree with them.

>>30141

>>30153

Comstock laws.

>>30062

>not the anon you replied to

looks like it. I guess this is just internet magic.

>Hey, someone made a syrian loli

>lets draw porn of it!

>>30122

I think you'd have to go against all yank laws, the censor being in there but never directly mentioned.

Reinstate laws that actually make sense on your own terms directly afterwards, this time without the censor law

Italy allows loli of any kind, unless it's an edit of a pre-existing CP pic.

I'm pretty ok with it.

>>30175

Italy

>Best food (Japan and Mexico also debatable)

>City where the roads are literal rivers

>Lolis

Sounds based as fuck.

That prosecutor seems like a sanctimonious piece of shit. Here is his contact info. Do with it what you will.

Timothy A. McLaughlin

Counsel

Called to the bar: 1991 (NB); 2006 (NS)

Public Prosecution Service of Canada

Duke Tower

1400-5251 Duke St.

Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1P3

Phone: 902-426-8808

Fax: 902-426-7274

Email: timothy.mclaughlin@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca

http://www.canadianlawlist.com/listingdetail/contact/timothy-a-mclaughlin-587202/

https://ca.linkedin.com/pub/tim-mclaughlin/38/54b/7

>>30335

What if we all wrote an e-mail saying how we feel about jailing someone for artwork.

>>30340

Fuck it, I am.

>>30340

Its the law over there, it has nothing to do with that guy in particular.

Complaining about it to him isn't going to do any good, even if he saw the error in his ways he can't make a difference.

The best thing to do is just flood every inbox he has with lolicon.

>>30340

Why even bother trying to change his mind?

Its not like he could make a difference, even if he had a change of heart the law is the law.

The better thing to do would be flooding all his inboxes with lolicon.

>>30342

>>30343

Jesus christ what is up with 8chan today, that first post came up with an error and now it shows up 10 minutes later as soon as I try posting again god damn.

>>30343

>law is the law

Malum Prohibitum laws.

Ex injuria jus non oritur.

>>30343

And what would that accomplish? Except, you know, a possibility of international persecution of child porn uploaders? Protest and defiance is never the way to change laws.

>>30335

>>30342

Well, my thoughts were more along the lines of letting people in these sort of cases know that no everyone agrees with these idiot laws. That maybe, just maybe, we are just ordinary people not hurting anyone, we just have a non-conventional sexual outlet.

>>30373

>Protest and defiance is never the way to change laws.

Except the numerous times in which it was the way laws were changed.

Am I missing something or has someone already addressed this : WHY WAS HIS LAPTOP SEARCHED (searched as in, they actually powered it on and mulled through its contents)? Every airport I've gone through has put the laptop through the scanner (presumably to ensure that it's an actual laptop and not a destructive device) but I've never been asked to power it on. Something is missing from that article.

>>30334

I wrote him this, typos and all:

"I just read about the prosecution of a man for having cartoons on his computer. I understand Canadian law is different, but how can you sleep at night knowing you helped prosecut someone for a victimless crime? There is no slippery slope from consuming animated pornography, to actual molestation. (Not unless watching movies about cannibals is likely to turn people into serial killers.)

It's a terrible law that punishes thought crime and limits artistic freedom, and I hope the defense said something along those lines just for the sake of principle. It's also a relief valve for would be rapists, and there is evidence that when the real pornography was legal in places like Japan or Denmark, crimes against minors were lower."

>>30402

Nice m8.

>>30402

You should've left out the part about the "evidence that when the real pornography was legal in places like Japan or Denmark, crimes against minors were lower". Even if it's true, and even if the prosecutor doesn't think it's bullshit, it makes the letter look less respectable.

Also the phrase "victimless crime" is perceived as debatable by many people who are pro that Canadian type of law. Again, I don't know about the prosecutor's actual beliefs, it's his job to prosecute what the law requires to be prosecuted, but from >>30334.

>>30403

Honestly I think we need to educate the lawyers more than anyone else. Lawyers tend to become judges or politicians. They are the educated (but conservative) elite, and if you can change their thinking, change what they say to their lawyer friends, and eventually they will subtly adjust the laws or their enforcement, even if the public is against it.

>>30409

Well, if I'm lucky he'll find it amusing enough that his assistants will pass it on, and then he will actually respond or consider it. Someone has to play the devil's advocate, because it's not happening in the media or the court rooms. I don't want to water down the counter argument so much that I sound like I agree with him. But please write him yourself, it only takes 5 minutes.

>>30409

Yes because talking about lolicon is completely respectable otherwise.

Why not just face that in more and more first world countries lolicon is becoming synonymous with CP?

Its too late to try and distance yourselves from it because the ball is already rolling, now you're either going to have to point out the flaws in CP being illegal in the first place (for example the drop in sex crimes while its legal) or you end up with lolicon being as illegal as CP everywhere for the same illogical reasons.

If you don't want to be treated like a criminal for the type of drawings you like worldwide then you need to put aside your morals for a second and just rationally think about how all these things relate.

>>30415

Nigger, the conflation/synonymity is already a logistical fallacy on the grounds of appeals to emotion and morality. These things should be treated as thinly-veiled authoritarian/totalitarian moves to stifle individuals ability to freely consume, create, or think for themselves.

The basis for the law is essentially banning fiction in the name of reality , and the simple fact of the matter is that fiction cannot ever be reality (and as well depiction of a certain thing does not mean endorsement, and in addition to that people who would depict said thing in a good or bad light would both be considered doing something illegal)

At the end of the day these things are nothing more then lines on a piece of paper, words in a text, pixels on a screen, and those who implement or advocate for these forms of censorship suffer from the inability to distinguish fiction from reality (and wish to project their issues onto all others) And they set the dangerous precedent of allowing any depictions to be censored in the name of feeling, and granting rights to fictional creations.

>>30416

I never said it was just or logical that lolicon and CP are seen as synonymous, but you can't deny that IT IS being seen that way in increasingly more countries and that isn't about to just do a 180.

What I'm saying is its too late for you to separate lolicon from CP, so if you want this bullshit to stop you'll have to tackle not only the fallacies in the illegalization of lolicon, but also the fallacies in the illegalization of CP.

Because in the end they're both based entirely on the grounds of appeals to emotion and morality

>>30416

>those who implement or advocate for these forms of censorship suffer from the inability to distinguish fiction from reality

If someone molest a child after fapping to lolicon it's reality, not fiction at that point. Fuck i'm tired of this dumb fucking comment popping up everywhere. Also

>pixels on a screen

CP is also pixels on screen. And i'm not talking about child abuse evidence, but some leaked footage of a girl masturbating or two kids having sex and recording it. Yet it's still illegal because it makes people horny, same with lolicon.

>>30416

THIS

>>30421

>If someone molest a child after fapping to lolicon it's reality, not fiction at that point

False cause fallacy, m8, google it. They are not mutually exclusive in any shape or form.

>>30426

You know what i meant. We're talking about anti loli legislation, people molest children = all porn involving sexualization of children is getting banned. It's pretty simple, don't have to agree with it or think it's right to legislate like that, but that's just how it is. Pedos were hit by this too, lots of Junior Idol productions are closing\shifting their focus in Japan to abide to the new CP laws that came in effect recently.

>>30428

Let's say someone has photos and recorded footage of children being sexually abused.

What proof is there that this will cause them to go off and molest children?

>>30428

Nope, doesn't change what you or I said. One does not effect the other in any way. A molester/rapist will do so regardless of loli's legality.

>>30442

Not the person you responded to but I'd say its a little intellectually dishonest to say that NO ONE will go out and commit a sex crime because they can no longer get a sexual release from lolicon because its not legal anymore.

If you make every alternative for a sexual release just as illegal as going out and raping someone it seems obvious that sexually repressed people may go out and rape someone when they otherwise wouldn't.

>>30446

Didn't say that. Simply they are not mutually exclusive and exceptions are not the rule. The same applies if a person watches a horror movie than deiced to go murder someone, a psycho will hurt people regardless of seeing the movie. Also I was more arguing the opposite. It being legal could lower the chances but a person looking at loli would not change if they wanted to molest of rape someone.

>>30442

>>30451

Well i know that and i agree with you, obviously. Just playing devil's advocate to point out how similar certain (not all) anti-cp legislation to anti-loli laws. They all just want to get rid of pedophilia as threat to children, even though it doesn't work and will never work with this approach.

>>30093 That's why you do a double layered encryption so that you different passwords, one that leads a dummy folder full of something that would be understandable to hide but otherwise legal. Hopefully it satisfies them and they'll be on there way.

>>30531

two passwords

>>30531

I like VeraCrypt since it has an option for a PIM (# of Iterations) that must be entered correctly in order to mount.

And always use Keyfiles.

3FA is better than 1FA for plausible deniability volumes.

>Lolicon artists are innocent

>Yet I see in other threads some might be using CP for their drawings anyways.

>>30558

SJW, please go kill yourself.

>>30421

So people who watch action movies and them murder people? The movies become factual?

>>30652

Don't argue with moralfaggots, shit in their mouth.

This is plain hypocrisy; "vile image"? We have no idea what those cunt do behind closed doors.

A draw is a draw, nothing else get fucked.

>>30558

Americans are innocent.

Yet I see in history books some might have killed children in Vietnam.

Exceptions prove the rule.

>>30415

>Yes because talking about lolicon is completely respectable otherwise.

The letter doesn't mention lolicon, it actually just talks about "cartoons". And if you had read OP (you obviously haven't), you'd have learned that this whole issue didn't evolve around lolicon in the first place but

>nudes of Dora the Explorer, Bart Simpson, etc

I understand that Dora is supposed to be underage, but Bart Simpson isn't, right? If it's true that Bart was one of the pretenses for arresting him, that's certainly not lolicon (but r34).

>>30726

Lolicon or not, it doesn't change the fact he was jailed for drawn artwork and the fact that the prosecutor didn't like how he thought.

>>30726

Bart Simpson is 12. He never ages.

>>30735

Legally, there is no "Proof of age", which requires a birth-certificate and an ID…

>does not age

is 0 (zero)

>25th year anniversary

= 12 + 25 = 37 years old, if he was 12 on the first show.

dora and her mom look exactly the same… dora has no age

>>30735

never looks older… not the same… no toons age. only living things age… unless you count page yellowing as age.

I have an assignment for you, guys.

Of course the people backing that Canadian law favor it because they think it prevents some kind of crime, or protects some other legal objective, strongly enough to weigh out liberty.

And of course we all know that this notion would be completely correct if people who consume sexualized cartoons containing "underage" characters did actually commit significantly more crimes than people who don't.

We all know, independently, that this notion would also be completely correct if lolicon – its production, its consumption, its trade – did actually hurt any children (in the usual case). Which it doesn't, again, in the usual case, most presumably.

So, this whole discussion evolves around our opinion that these premises aren't given true. I think, however, there should be more than these two.

Find premises (other than the two mentioned) to be fulfilled in order for said law to be justified. They don't need to be true in reality or according to what we know about reality. They do have to be sufficient for the Canada-type law advocates' notion to be true. That is, given that the premises you (hopefully) find are true, it would make perfect sense to have a law like the one that got OP's security guard jailed.

>>30761

Hypothetically, some lolicon art is drawn from cp, and we are trying to destroy cp, because cp hurts children. Therefore if we allow lolicon, artists will seek out cp, causing it to be preserved, and incenticizing more people to create dangerous pictures (of innocent girls posing erotically.)

Hypothetically, CP makes people sexualize children, and corrupts society's values until we are 1) destroying their innocence 2) willing to rape kids. (Just as watching Hannibal would make you commit violent crimes.)

…Of course I don't believe either of these are sound, but they're what prosecutors and police departments believe.

>>30774

There are plenty of legal art books with naked children they can use as reference material.

>>30788

Great post except for one little point:

>when someone buys playboy or hustler. It's not cheating […] if you think about doing it to the image

I would say that this is not really backed up.

Assuming using the Christian premises for marriage, I could cite the Bible (Matthew 5:28):

>But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

BUT, even if you don't believe in the Bible, I'd say that a good 90% of wives would consider viewing pornography of other women ;} to be tantamount to cheating. And I can't say I could blame them.

>>30788

>The number one producers of CP is now children themselves. They aren't going to go to prison for making it.

True, instead we investigate their parents, put the child into the foster system, and destroy the life of anybody the photo was sent to.

And the only messages the child gets out of it is that her sexuality is an extremely powerful tool, and that she can use it with full impunity.

>>30800

Religion <> Law

Adultery is not illegal. Nor is looking at adult pornography counted EVER as "harmful to the person in the photo, or other adults not in the photo", which is the "claim" of child porn, that viewing it hurts others/them and promotes more to be made.

Look at porn all day, and it will not "cause" you to rape, cheat or harm others… What causes you to rape, cheat or harm others, is your desire to rape, cheat or harm others, which would be done with or without porn. Proof is in every case ever tried and convicted. Porn is never part of the cases, because it is irrelevant.

We already have laws to protect "people" from these things. Minors and adults. To belittle an 18-yr old by saying the rape was only worth 2-years of prison for the guy but if you were 17 then it would be life… is actually insulting and discrimination.

>>30801

And then we ublicise it, and make them out to be sluts… or set-up society to harass them, calling them sluts… (Great protection…)

Again, another example of how it is not actually "for the kids", and "offers no protection", while it does, "place them in danger", as now every pervert will be harassing them for pics, and the actual intention was "to make me look good, like I care" ("I" being the judge/prosecutor/parent/idiot-friend-"helping"/religious-nut-fanatic.)

The bible says you are an adult at 13, so fail for CP. Though, sex-slavery was legal at 9… in the bible, you sold your ugly children, and that was "gods way".

Seriously, don't reference reality to fictitious shit like bibles. They don't even believe in planets and think the "sun" is not a "star in the heavens", and think "hell is an inferno", but lead you "into the light of the sun" which is hotter than hell… which, apparently, light does not emanate from. That is the core foundation of most bibles. If the first paragraph is 100% bullshit, so is all the rest. Bad science, created horrible stories as excuses for what "others wanted you to do"… not gods.

Waiting for someone to defend gods… "Gates of heaven"… god invented gates, or sheep-herders who invented gods, made-up shit about "gates"… Gates to what… keep everyone in.. because no one goes there unannounced.

Eternal servitude = slavery

None of the commandments were about slavery. Slavers were property and Moses stole another persons property. Before and after the commandments. (Where did slaves get gold to make golden calves?)

Bible = 100% fiction and flaws… bad science used to promote fear. Bibles are instruction manuals for "How to treat your slaves, so they don't kill you." Nothing more, nothing less. Oh, and a bunch of shit about jealousy and "don't touch my wife"… (Never says anything about kids.)

We are all gods children (That is the oldest definition of "child", which is still accurate. Everyone is a child, at every age. Child = offspring of two human parents. All porn is child porn.)

>>30761

A far larger group of people simply think no one should ever draw, talk or think about sexualized children and only when pressured for an answer other than "It's gross" do they fall back to the notion that glorifying child abuse, which all of lolicon could be easily interpreted as, increases one's likelihood of going out to brutally rape babies.

What lolicon, if legal, does is allow for people to keep the dialogue about pedophilia, the AoC and similar topics alive, something society has been conditioned to fear and suppress instinctively over the last 5 or 6 decades.

Lolicon is basically seen as hate speech against children by the public. People know their opinion is 100% morally motivated, and they they'd never stick their heads out to defend lolicon unless some other notion allows them to shed their beliefs, which is why anytime the discussion about the legality comes up people in favor of virtual child porn repeatedly mention how this content can act as an outlet for pedophiles on the verge of rape.

They don't realize what they're saying and suggesting, tho. Basing the legality of anything on its merits is not how the law works. Violent media isn't legal because it helps people cope, it's legal because its harmless. Popularizing the notion that loli is "good for pedos" is akin to saying that "FPS are good for sociopaths", implying that many or only mentally damaged individuals can enjoy it. That's why I hate normies talk in favor of loli, because all they do is reinforce the already prevalent stereotype that only pedos would want anything to do with lolicon.

>>30803

Adults are allowed to harm themselves to an extent. Children, on the other hand, aren't allowed to make decisions like that, which is why they are barred from things like smoking, drinking, and appearing in pornography.

>>30027

WTH why do normies think drawings should always be for little kids?!

An artist can make an image of ANY fucking character he wants stupid normal people!

This can't be real! Omfg, the Canadian legal system is retarded AF! This post crushed ALL my dreams of living in Canada. I mean, it is just artwork! It isn't real and doesn't depict real children in inappropriate situations! Why is it so hard for people to realize this?! Fuck!

But I laughed so hard at the Dora the Explorer and Bart part. And when the dude said "This is no laughing matter", I lost it. Because it is a laughing matter. I mean if I saw someone with Dora fanfics, I'd laugh my ass off! And then go like, " Nothing wrong here, see ya".

But I honestly thought this was a big joke, 'til I clicked the article link. Poor guy, did nothing wrong, but is serving a 52-90 day sentence. *smh*

And yeah that pic is just so vile! lol…

He said "There's nothing funny about this", not what I said he said.

>>30992

Hey man they need to get wife's for their African pets in jail, this is an eugenicist country we are talking about after all!

>>31049

Any thing in your luggage or possession at an air port is subject to search at the discretion of air port security. It;s not uncommon for security to power on or off electronics either to make sure it is not a dummy with something hidden in side. Saying he was looking at in in public is 100% unfounded speculation.

>>31054

> It;s not uncommon for security to power on or off electronics either to make sure it is not a dummy with something hidden in side. Saying he was looking at in in public is 100% unfounded speculation.

I'm aware of the fact that they power laptops on during inspections. The only thing about that is they typically do it in order to open the disk drive to ensure nothing's hidden in there. They typically don't act unless something questionable pops up on the screen.

If they powered it on during a securtity check and they were to instantly encounter loli porn on the laptop screen, the guy was either stupid enough to look at it in public and not close the material, or stupid enough to not close the material after viewing it in private. Either way, it's probably something that the guy being convicted could've easily avoided had he been a little more aware and taken more precautions with regards to going to Canada.

Not that I think Canada's decision was just, mind you, but from a politically unbiased perspective, it's difficult to believe that the security guards were putting that much effort into finding the material if they're just inspecting the laptop to make sure nothing is physically hidden inside.

But there was that case where some nigger tried to enter Canada and was denied access because he had furry porn on his laptop too

Maybe posted already but thread is tl, dr

>>31110

They will arrest me for being 5'4" anyway, remember this laws exist to maintain a genetically fit population.

>>31121

5'10" is average, that's only slightly shorter. It's not like you are 4'10"

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/10/15/ex-soldier-jailed-for-anime-child-porn

Saw this posted elsewhere on the Internet…

>“People like the accused in this case who are actively seeking out child pornography, whether it is a photograph, drawn or animated, they are part of that marketplace that causes children to be abused and exploited,” he said. “This is why collectors need to be deterred just as much as the creators.”

I'm sorry, but what?

Seeking out loli causes whom to be exploited, exactly?

Canadiafag here.

>>30027

90 days sentence is nice, Canadian citizens get fucked for this. Minimum one year for possession, max ten. 1-14 for distribution or production.

>>30028

>>30046

>>30738

The Canadian Criminal Code defines child pornography very broadly and explicitly including a few notable things:

* Drawings, computer graphics

* Audio

* Text. Nabokov's Lolita could well be banned if someone took it to court and readers jailed

* "Children" who are provably over 18 but are depicted otherwise. Open to insane interpretation obviously

>>30031

Canadians don't really have fundamental freedoms like freedom from unreasonable search. The first and thirty-third sections of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms say "lol feel free to disregard this whole document if you want". Look it up. A sane person wouldn't consider half the shit that violates the Charter (most Canadian laws) justified. The recent bill C-51 (Canada's Patriot Act) says anyone can be searched without a warrant if they might be a terrorist. We hate Americans with a passion (because we're a bunch of cucks that enjoy totalitarianism and hate the idea of a whole country founded on freedom) so just the fact that the guy came here from the US was probably reasonable suspicion of terrorism, what with guns available at convenience stores :^). You can search anyone without a warrant if you think evidence will be destroyed if you delay and go through due process. Even obtaining a warrant for this might have been possible – Googling my name comes up with lolis and that's probably enough "probable" cause. Canada cares a lot more about its pedo witch hunt than essential freedoms or logic.

>>30037

Even Canadians who seek lolis through VPNs are doomed to slow net. On top of our overpriced datacapped handicapped slow ISP oligopoly, VPNs hosted in Canada are required to keep logs and share them with the government (who shares them liberally among government sectors now under bill C-51 and of course with other 5+ Eye governments). Canada is real fucking big if you haven't noticed so for the dozen people up in Nunavut slow foreign VPNs through a slow connection is a big deal.

>>30041

This is Canada, ruled by hypocrisy. The bible isn't a fan of gay marriage or murder but those are ok in Canada. Polygamy? Off with your head!

>>30042

Read the law directly: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html section 163.1.

>>30051

heh

>>30058

teeth master race

>>30091

This, and tor for initial downloading and sharing. Do not use Windows. Do your research. It's possible to avoid being caught. When law is retarded, break it and protest it.

>>30121

For mere possession, realistic 3DCG is effectively 3D child porn. I don't think 3D child porn ought to be banned but it is almost everywhere.

>>30142

This. This is the retard totalitarian logic Canada is based on.

>>30402

Thank you.

>>30742

Your heinous image just landed me in jail.

>>30438

None. There is limited proof that there is no causation whatsoever, but we need more studies. This is blocked by "societal norms" silencing and shunning researchers.

>>30559

I am almost certain we are not personally competent enough here in Canada, but it wouldn't be hard to automate this with computer vision and scan a whole drive quickly with good enough accuracy.

>>30572

>>30653

Moralfaggotry is good and we should encourage morals and critical thinking if we want to create change. I advocate for legalization of loli and lowered age of consent, but I think I have moral high ground. Don't dismiss arguments because they sound morally just as if that's a poor argument in and of itself, try and prove them otherwise. If we all think critically it's clear that morally loli ought to be legal – its ban is the real moral injustice.

>>31049

Your image triggered me. My kindhearted Bart-loving friend lost his passion to the Canadian legal system.

>>31202

>Seeking out loli causes whom to be exploited, exactly?

Feelings.

>>31212

>I am almost certain we are not personally competent enough here in Canada, but it wouldn't be hard to automate this with computer vision and scan a whole drive quickly with good enough accuracy.

It is. There are programs wich are good at finding out if a picture is porn or not.

Throw an algorism for animie and one for children into the mix…

>>31202

> but it wouldn't be hard to automate this with computer vision

Windows 10 searches your computer for child pornography by downloading hashes and comparing them to what you have. If there's a match you'll get reported. All this system needs is to be expanded to loli and apply it to computers residing in countries where loli is illegal. Done!

>>31226

Pretty sure that can be beaten simply by converting the image. For example opening it in MS paint and exporting it as a separate file

>>31226

More of this tinfoil hat bullshit huh? All false.

>>31230

Doesn't work like that. Google PhotoDNA.

>>31230

For simple hash checking, yes. There's not much reason to assume Windows is this inept. And assuming you edit the picture on Windows, it will likely be too late.

>>31236

This cannot be proven false. It's best to assume the worst with proprietary software. Windows could very well do this and it's best that you use a free OS like GNU/Linux or OpenBSD that can be proven to not do this.

>>31269

Except it is. It is not in the EULA and that would make the entire OS illegal spyware, this is all BS spun from two features that can be turned off at any time and windows even tells so. Saying they "could" is moot, any OS "could" do it, they couldn't legally do it with out legally notifying users. It wold also be borderline pointless to do so since two of the biggest sources of users for windows, US and Japan, loli is legal.

>>31272

Legal or not you can't prove it. It's too easy to get away with to mention it in the license. Windows sends encrypted packets to many places, period. Some of that could be what we're talking about. We can't know for sure. Other operating systems do not send out such suspicious packets. Yes, Windows has semi-legit reasons to send encrypted packets out at random. You can at least argue that forced updates and data mining through the universal backdoor are reasonable, but they have the side effect of potentially hiding other, downright malicious, encrypted packets. Most other operating systems (maybe not Mac OS, Ubuntu) don't pull *any* of this shit – malicious or not – so they're safer.

Borderline pointless? Sure. But using Windows isn't worth the risk in Canada.

>>31236

Tinfoil? One google search(or whatever you use) for 'windows 10' and 'child porn search' proves this to be a very real possibility. Yes, windows 10 searches your pc for cp(or whatever microsoft/governments around the world deem cp), and you're still saying governments that have shown to prosecute people for lolicon wouldn't use that tech to find those people? Why? Because they make difference between cp and loli? Because it's too much effort? Both of those reasons are invalid with windows 10(and to a degree with earlier versions of windows), and will only become more trivial the further we move into the future. It'll become easier to detect people with loli, and if the trend of the last decade continues, more and more countries will be considering loli as harmful/worthy of persecution as cp.

>"hurr durr tinfoil everywhere"

Hey, it's your gamble. Do with it as you please.

>>31279

So sticking to generic conspiracy theory level reasoning? I also love the hypocrisy of claiming it is unprobable no matter what then turn around and defend other OS' where the same is true. It has been picked apart by almost every software expert around and there are no such programs or features in windows that do this. It is pure paranoia or just retards trying any thing to bash windows.

>>31299

See above. Also, no one here was speaking of CP. windows doesn't need o do this either since the government does them themselves when tracking possible suspects regardless of any OS you use. So don't try to twist it at the last second to look half right. So tinfoil it up, m8.

south carolina is in the united states, not canada.

>>31300

>So sticking to generic conspiracy theory level reasoning? I also love the hypocrisy of claiming it is unprobable no matter what then turn around and defend other OS' where the same is true. It has been picked apart by almost every software expert around and there are no such programs or features in windows that do this. It is pure paranoia or just retards trying any thing to bash windows.

This is just wrong, holy shit. Educate yourself or shut the fuck up.

>defend other OS' where the same is true.

It's not. If I analyze the packets that a fully free GNU/Linux or OpenBSD system send out, there will be two types:

1. unencrypted packets: I can see exactly what these are, they're in relatively human-readable plain text

2. encrypted packets: I can trace these back to the program that sent them, audit its source code, and see what they are

The latter isn't trivial but it's completely feasible. For a developer to try and hide spyware in common free/open source software would be totally insane.

>It has been picked apart by almost every software expert around and there are no such programs or features in windows that do this.

NO. Stop spreading misinformation, this is the most retarded thing I've ever read.

To start, what the fuck is a software expert (the answer is anyone from a pro MS Word user to a kernel hacker to a security researcher) and why should the majority of them (MS Word users) be qualified to reverse engineer every program in the biggest operating system ever?

Microsoft Windows is proprietary software. This means that the human-readable source code is not available. Therefore, the only ways to tell how it spies on you are:

1. analyze its outbound packets: this is only possible for unencrypted packets. Windows sends out many encrypted packets for which the second method must be employed

2. reverse-engineer its source code. This is arguably the most difficult and skilled job in computer science. Reverse-engineering a single large Windows program alone would be a huge task that no one is willing to do or pay to do. Anyone that cares just admits it's completely infeasible and switches to a free OS or deals with the very real possibility that their OS spies on them

The only way a competent "software expert" could determine whether this feature exists in Windows would be to reverse-engineer a massive amount of complex code. No one has done that and certainly not "almost every software expert around".

Stop talking shit and read a book.

>>31365

All of this applies to windows. You are using the worst one sided fallacies possible while restoring to putting words in my mouth and using ad absurdum. This leaves to possibilities, either you are a moron spouting conspiracy theories or you are a retarded anti windows shill making up any excuses to bash and slander it. The only one spreading misinformation is you, the irony is you need to educate yourself and read a book. I'd tell you to stop taking shit but if you closed your mouth you'd suffocate, mouth breather. Just another wannabe pseudo-intellectual hipster trying to bash any thing mainstream while being afraid the whole world is conspiring against him. You're gonna need more tinfoil there, m80.

>>31382

>All of this applies to windows.

Be more specific. Are you saying you can go and read the Windows source code to see what its encrypted packets mean?

Nice fallacy fallacy. :^)

To be 100% clear, I'm saying that it is technically trivial for Windows to hide this spyware, it is technically impossible for a free OS to do it, it is technically infeasible to prove that Windows does or does not do it, and it is technically feasible to prove that a free OS does or does not do it. I am NOT saying that Windows certainly or even likely does it. I'm not >>31299.

>>31385

It's trivial for any OS or software to do so, is what I'm saying. Any one like the other guy saying it is in there and it is unprovable to say and is impossible for free OS to do it id just wrong. I see now you are trying to pretending you are just a troll and not just stupid and are backpedaling.

>>31386

Not him but

>It's trivial for any OS or software to do so

is trivially wrong if you mean hide anything. If the OS's source code is free to be read by anyone, hiding something in it is just as impossible as hiding something in a public park. Not that anyone would actually bother reading though thousands of lines of Linux source code (or search the park), though.

>>31392

And the same goes for Windows. People break and read the code all the time to make pirated copies and make modification to the OS, even though against the EULA.

i have a ton of lisa and bart porn, top kek.

CUCKnada does it again.

Anyone have a list of countries where loli is allowed ?

(Or: Is it allowed in germany?)

>>31397

If you want countries where it's definitely allowed(i.e. not included in any child porn or similar laws): Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Japan, US. People say Norway, but I haven't seen any translated legislature to convince me listing it, and Sweden… the last thing I heard is that it's illegal but somehow the last offender wasn't convicted. No idea.

>>31398

Addendum: All that goes for 2d and "cartoonish" 3d loli. Photorealistic stuff like pregposer is almost illegal everywhere.

>>31386

I'm not trolling, I'm trying to protect people from retards encouraging blind trust in something that could well land them in jail for fourteen years.

>>31392

If Linux went from proprietary to free overnight, auditing it would be hard. But every commit is read by many people. Even Linux has standards. If low-quality PRs don't make it, hiding an intentional security bug or something as obvious as a networked CP spy is fucking impossible.

There are less eyes on the source code for other parts of most GNU/Linux systems of course. Remember though that you only need to check the code responsible for the processes that send packets out to the net.

OpenBSD is a better example. I wouldn't trust loli to Ubuntu. I am 100% certain that the OpenBSD base system has zero intentionally malicious code whatsoever. Ongoing auditing is much more effective and rigorous with their high standards and simplicity. Ports are another issue, but again you only need to audit the ones that you use and that send out encrypted packets. For most people this is a small handful of well-audited programs.

>>31393

EULAs don't mean shit for reverse-engineering, stop making up terrible arguments for my side.

Back here in reality it is trivial to crack a license check without reading a line of code. You're comparing apples and maximum security prisons.

>People break Windows code all the time

This doesn't mean anything.

>People read Windows code all the time

And this is wrong. Reverse engineering is hard. Reverse engineering Windows is a hell of a lot harder than reading Linux.

The Windows keylogger and universal backdoors were found by analyzing packets and Microsoft fuckups (ie. making its use of the backdoor obvious), not reverse engineering. These were flukes, there is likely more malicious software still hidden than discovered.

>>31404

So again you say a lot of nothing. You even mis-comprehended what I said. Not surprising coming from a conspiracy idiot. There is nothing there and you are just a moron who knows nothing of software and will keep spouting hypocritical conspiracy theories.

>>31405

>You even mis-comprehended what I said.

Not surprising when you either don't know English or don't know what you're talking about. Substantiate your points or fuck off mate.

>conspiracy theories

I don't know if your ability to read English is impaired as well as your writing, but I want to reiterate that I don't think Windows has this spyware. It's unlikely but it is plausible. It's not plausible that OpenBSD or even GNU/Linux has this spyware. Yes, you're probably safe with Windows. But it's far riskier than a free OS and if you're in Canada you should consider whether that's a risk you're willing to take.

>you are just a moron who knows nothing of software

I'd love to masturbate over qualifications with you but I'd rather not help anyone identify me here. Maybe you think this is tinfoil too and I ought to mail my hard drive to CSEC for safekeeping. Programming with a focus on network security has been my near-sole hobby and profession since I was in elementary school though.

Let's look at real indicators of relevant knowledge:

>It has been picked apart by almost every software expert around and there are no such programs or features in windows that do this.

>People break and read the code all the time to make pirated copies and make modification to the OS, even though against the EULA.

This is ignorant. Cracking software is absolutely trivial compared to finding hidden Windows spyware.

>modification to the OS

Once again this doesn't mean anything. Be more specific.

Windows has not been comprehensively audited for spyware, period. Retarded claims of "people" and "software experts" reverse-engineering relevant Windows code are meaningless, *show us their audits*. For example, here is an overview of OpenBSD's audit process: <http://www.openbsd.org/security.html>.

>>31397

>>31398

>Is it allowed in germany?

If you interpret the law literally, you might come to the conclusion it isn't. However, even the Federal Court of Justice says prosecuting drawn images isn't the intention of the law, so it's practically legal. Cf. https://archive.is/nzd7m

>>31404

I didn't say there is no quality control. What I meant was that if you actually wanted to satisfy yourself that nothing you fear has been hidden in there, it would be pretty hard work.

>>31405

>you are just a moron who knows nothing of software

I haven't read the whole thread but judging from the last few posts he's posted, he knows a fucking hell of a lot about software, while you have actually failed in your posts to imply any qualification. You even stick to obviously contradictory claims. Besides, why do you keep defending Windows? Don't say you're employed at Microsoft…

>>31412

>Cracking software is absolutely trivial compared to finding hidden Windows spyware

I wouldn't say cracking software is trivial but finding hidden Windows spyware wouldn't be either, if there was any. I'm not sure though how many people have actually reverse-engineered Windows (or tried to), thinking of the Wine project and so on.

>>31412

You must have massive stock piles of tinfoil. you keep saying nothing and spouting conspiracy theories about how windows is in leagues with every individual government in the world to spy and report to them any thing that is illegal in each country. You keep living in that lead lined bunker hiding from the gov'ment.

>>31421

He doesn't., he's talking out of his ass using half truths and applying them only to specific software he supports and not to those he hates. He's the typical pseudo-intellectual internet idiot. I am not defending windows, only using facts and not falling for anti-windows conspiracy theories. Why is he and you attacking windows? Don't tel me you work at apple/linux, to use your sad logic.

>>31421

>I wouldn't say cracking software is trivial but finding hidden Windows spyware wouldn't be either, if there was any. I'm not sure though how many people have actually reverse-engineered Windows (or tried to), thinking of the Wine project and so on.

Maybe cracking Windows is less trivial than most software, but you'd be surprised. Any retard can read a WikiHow-tier guide and pull it off for some software: http://null-byte.wonderhowto.com/how-to/hacks-behind-cracking-part-1-bypass-software-registration-0132568/

There's a big difference between reimplementing (what the Wine project does for Windows libraries) and reverse-engineering. The Windows libraries Wine reimplements are documented (that's how the programs you run via Wine use them). Wine's job rewriting libraries is even easier than Microsoft's job writing the original code. Wine doesn't reimplement the secret malware Microsoft intentionally hides without documentation. Going from binaries to source code is a lot harder than going from specifications to source code.

>>31427

>you keep saying nothing and spouting conspiracy theories about how windows is in leagues with every individual government in the world to spy and report to them any thing that is illegal in each country.

…No? I'm only talking about the technical feasibility of *hiding* spyware in proprietary software vs free software. Others can draw conspiratard conclusions and you can call them out on their bullshit, but don't talk out your ass about the technical feasibility.

>Don't tel me you work at apple/linux, to use your sad logic.

lol'd

>>31438

>but don't talk out your ass about the technical feasibility.

The irony is this is all you have done. Take your own advice, m8. It's not there, it's idiots spinning two optional features into "the government has windows spying on us" conspiracy BS, that is all.

>>31427

>he's talking out of his ass using half truths and applying them only to specific software he supports and not to those he hates

And this analysis of yours is based on…?

>Why is he and you attacking windows?

I'm not attacking Windows, I even use it myself. Which once again illustrates your keenness at fallaciously infering things about your conversational partners that aren't true. There is a difference between attacking something and admitting there are situations or aspects which are suboptimal. There is also a difference between defending something against unsubstantiated or probably unsubstantiated claims/criticism (e.g. defending Windows against people who say there's spyware in it) and defending something against claims which are obviously true (e.g. defending Windows against people who say its source code isn't public) or defending something against criticism that doesn't meet your taste but isn't slander either and moreover substantiated (e.g. defending Windows against people who say it's technically possible that there is spyware in it).

There is in the world probably no single piece of significantly extensive software which doesn't contain errors. That's one of the basic facts people learn who study computer science. Another, related, one is that there's no system that cannot be hacked. So Linux/Apple/FreeBSD isn't 100% safe either. All he was and is saying is that anyone is technically able to check for themselves whether some piece of open-source software contains errors/bugs/spyware etc., while technically not anyone is able to so the same with Windows. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a logical consequence of the way these operating systems are managed by their producers. I don't get at all what you're actually trying to accuse us of.

>>31438

>There's a big difference between reimplementing (what the Wine project does for Windows libraries) and reverse-engineering.

While that's true, what I wanted to get at is that Wine had to do significant reverse-engineering work in order to find out what exactly the thousands of features do which are present in the Windows API and nevertheless used by several programs. At least that's what I've heard.

>>31454

>It's not there

Prove it.

As long as this hasn't been proved,the opposite is possible. Thus, as long as it hasn't been proved, saying that the opposite could be the case isn't conspiracy. Of course, as long as the opposite hasn't been proved either, that opposite also doesn't have to be true.

And yes, he has written a great deal about technical feasibility and you've stubbornly kept refusing it. You must have good arguments that beat his, but we've heard none from you – while he has delivered many. You are probably right that there is no hidden spyware in Windows, but you use that claim to convince us that it isn't even technically feasible. But, as he has pointed out, it is technically feasible. Just that it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't technically feasible. So will you please either deliver convincing arguments why it shouldn't be technically feasible or admit that it is technically feasible? Dude, if people said it's a conspiracy every time someone makes some logical analysis, the world would be entirely hamstrung. You're fighting windmills suspecting a conspiracy theory where there isn't any.

>>31458

>the thousands of features

undocumented features, I forgot that important word.

>>31458

Based on his own words, you can read them yourself.

It'd not there, your sad conspiracy of windows in league with every government out to get you is just sad. Now tinfoil harder, paranoid conspiracy bro

>>31461

>>31476

Monitor your IP peers. If you installed any of the windows 7/8 telemetry updates (or windows 10) you'll see a direct connection to nsa.gov

You seem like you were stupid enough to install them. Why not download something to check your peers constantly and see for yourself.

>>31466

We do have proof of some universal backdoors in Windows.

http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html#back-doors

>>31482

run this if you're so trusting

it makes your computer fast

developed by your good friends at microsoft(tm)

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=ixVNibAr

>>31466

don´t forget this bullshit

https://youtu.be/N4hFcjnOHnk?t=3m2s

A while ago there was a Canadian in an onahole thread here. He had ordered an onahole, which apparently wasn't illegal in Canada. However, the package came with a DVD that contained, in Canadian law, illegal material and almost got that anon in trouble.

See, I'm willing to bet that that DVD was inserted in the package to stage that anon. Someone had to keep up with their criminal quota.

Similarly to how some cops keep small amounts of drugs on them so they can arrest people for drug possession whenever they need to.

Be careful, if someone is paid to get you behind bars, he'll do it for the money, not for the justice.

>>31486

What hole and store? I haven't had any trouble with NLS. I tell them to remove the packaging, even it is questionable.

>>31492

I don't understand. Maybe if you tried using your head and writing something coherent you could get your argument across.

Are you saying that not trusting that random script from an anonymous lolicon is tinfoil? If so, you're retarded and you've proved my point. It uploads all the files in your home directory to nsa.gov with sketchy filenames associated with your network.

If you're on my side pretending to be retarded, fuck off.

>>31521

Isn't the nsa American only?

If so I'm fine

>>31461

>Based on his own words, you can read them yourself.

Take your own advice, mate. Read his fucking words, and understand them. You'll see (at least with a decent grasp of English and logic) that there was no single "half-truth" in any of his words. He has substantiated all of his claims with evidence, something you have entirely failed to do so far. Everything he's written seems entirely logical to me, while you fail to even address his points flawlessly.

>It'd not there

YES, FUCKING YES, but he never said it were there, is that so hard to get inside your pighead?

All he said was it's feasible it could be there.

Saying extraterrestrial life could exist isn't a conspiracy theory. Saying it has undercut the government, is.

Saying that if there were hostile extraterrestrial life it would probably try to undercut the government isn't a conspiracy theory. Saying it's done it, is.

Saying that the Florida election could have been manipulated because of reasons A, B, C and so on isn't a conspiracy theory. Saying that it has been manipulated, is.

Saying that it's entirely possible to replace Barack Obama by a muslim sand-nigger from IS isn't a conspiracy theory. Saying it's been done, is.

And just likewise:

Saying that it's technically feasible to hide spyware in Windows without the public knowing isn't a conspiracy theory. Saying that there is spyware in Windows without any proof, is.

Go learn what a conspiracy theory is, I don't think you've got an idea what it means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

>>31466

>It's not a conspiracy if it's true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

>the term "conspiracy theory" […] has also continued to be used to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.

>>31476

?

>>31521

>If so, you're retarded and you've proved my point.

That's probably the case.

Besides, a question to all the anti-conspirants here: While conspiracy theories are entirely useless, what's wrong with a sound share of paranoia? After all, you wouldn't blindly trust anyone, either, would you?

>>31566

>Isn't the nsa American only?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/world/europe/file-is-said-to-confirm-nsa-spied-on-merkel.html

>The files seem to contain little new information, but if authentic, they would appear to be the first solid evidence that the N.S.A. eavesdropped on Ms. Merkel

>Last month, Germany’s federal prosecutor dropped a formal inquiry into allegations of eavesdropping on one of the chancellor’s cellphones, citing a lack of proof that the document on which it was listed was authentic.

>Although the document, marked “Top Secret,” was apparently produced by the N.S.A., it indicates that the information was gathered by British intelligence.

The NSA is interconnected with everywhere and eavesdrops on everywhere.

Of course they would be insane if they actually gave any information they gathered to another country's public prosecution or police. After all, that would show again they spied on them.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that there is any spyware in Windows. I just agree we shouldn't blue-eyedly assume there isn't any.

>>31454

>The irony is this is all you have done.

The irony is you're fucking right, contradicting yourself. He's done nothing more than talking out his ass about technical feasibility. He's not tried to spread any conspiracy theory.

Just go fuck off. Fight your windmills elsewhere.

>>31582

The truth is faar too biig to fit into a single pamphlet. Why do you keep disseminating stupidness? Can't you make any thought on your own? Or are you just too lazy to read?