Japan’s Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications, 鳩山 邦夫 / Kuni Hatoyama, has expressed his contempt for such inconsequential matters as freedom of expression if they get in the way of protecting the children.
Speaking in favour of even harsher laws against under-age porn, he had this to say:
“It must all be banned. Compared to the benefits of freedom of expression, preventing the human rights violations caused by under-age porn is far more important – who cares if freedom of expression is massively curtailed.”
His statements are consistent with his political record, where he has long pressed for a western style rorikon witch-hunt.
The statement was made personally in response to a question posed in the Diet, though this is hardly reassuring considering his post (he has also previously been Justice Minister).
For such a senior political figure to show such ignorance of the essential principle underlying all liberal societies seems to indicate the extreme lack of approval Rozen Aso and his cabinet enjoys may not be unwarranted…
Even more disturbingly, he has long been a strident voice for the revision of Japan’s Constitution, on the basis that it is an American “imposition”. Doubtless Japan would find itself with a very different constitution were he the writer.
He might also be recalled as the politician responsible for imposing fingerprinting on non-Japanese entering Japan, when he made a curious statement claiming “a friend of a friend” knew an Al-Qaida terrorist involved with the slaughter at Bali, and had been warned off going there.
Via Asahi.
Banitol 455mg.
When s♥♥t hits the fan, and you can’t just waive it all, BANITOL.
Recommended in the treatment of head-demanding angry pedophobic or feminist mobs, severe and prolonged exposure to foreign cultures.
Dosage:
1.83 mg/kg Child (1 – 14yrs)
5.90 mg/kg Adult
And remember kids, 15 will get you 20.
WINRARS DON’T DO DRUGS! (They usually become inFamous as an heroes, before having discovered drugs).
Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse. The police and children’s welfare groups report a growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
Police and children’s welfare groups are concerned that these images could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers’ inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in ‘grooming’ or preparing children for sexual abuse.
Just wait. We are heading into the Second Dark Age, with curtailment of rights and expression as the crux.
Wow,intriguing remarks!I only hope that this problem will be solve as soon as possible.Children has the right for human protection too.Not only in Japan.
You forget to mention the rights of imaginary children, their right for protection is much more valuable than that of children in 3rd world countries, you know.
So when people say lolicon keeps pederasts on a leash, they are saying they are pederasts that won’t doubt on raping a child if lolicon is banned?
Sick.
And then they dare say lolicon harms nobody. lol.
Distorting the statements of others won’t prove your point, but what you’re saying makes no sense anyway. If people who like lolicon are dangerous but don’t touch real children, and suddenly start doing it when lolicon is banned, then what harm has lolicon ever done?
a … people who like lolicon are dangerous
b … people who like lolicon r♥♥e a child
c … lolicon is available
d … lolicon is dangerous
Your axioms:
a ^ c -> !b
a ^ !c -> b
Your claim:
|= (a ^ c -> !b) ^ (a ^ !c -> b) => d
This can be proven wrong by simply providing an interpretation (assigning logical values to logical variables) that is not a model for this formula:
a=1, b=1, c=0, d=0
(1 ^ 0 -> !1) ^ (1 ^ !0 -> 1) => 0
(0 -> 0) ^ (1 ^ 1 -> 1) => 0
(0 -> 0) ^ (1 -> 1) => 0
1 ^ 1 => 0
1 => 0
0
As you can see, your claim cannot be derived from your axioms. In other words, you’re drawing false conclusions. Simple as that.
Oh wait, I forgot. Moralfags don’t care about science.
I was ASKING if that is what they mean BECAUSE I’ve read people saying that sort of things.
Don’t get all ad hominem against me.
I’m not a moralfag or whatever.
Thanks a lot for the mathematic bullshit, like real life worked that way.
I WAS ASKING, and judging from your personal defensiveness, I already got my answer. THNXBAI.
Look, you made it sound like people who say that lolicon prevents pedophiles from touching real children would not hesitate raping a child should lolicon ever be banned. You put this as a question, but it sounded to me like you were already convinced of this, and still does even after re-reading your post several times.
But oh well, to give you an answer: No, I don’t think anyone meant to imply that. I don’t know how you even got this idea. Neither here nor anywhere else have I ever read something that would suggest such an interpretation.
But even if there are people out there who think this way, my point still stands: In no way does this make lolicon dangerous. It’s the people who are dangerous, not lolicon.
On a purely scientific note: Of course real life doesn’t work that way. But that’s only because no one can provide a system of axioms that accurately models real life. If this was possible, all we’d have to do to find answers for, well, everything is to query a computer with logic software installed. I merely used logic because I was bored and to point out that your argumentation (or what I misunderstood to be an argumentation) is flawed, not to prove that lolicon is harmless.
/owned