Funny that you mentioned a "suspention fo disbelief". But why would cross, or other Christian symbols will cause that "suspention of dispebief"? Don't you think there can be mental conditioning involved? You know, with people trained to cross themselves since childhood, sermons that invoke feel of awe and reverence, even fasting that breaks for exactly Chrisitan celebrations. So people would subcontiously associate all things Christian with positive emotions.

Again, you talking how I (or someone else) watch porn (or hentai) with petite/underage girls, but forget to answer a question, why would I watch it in the first place. Why would I watch something that I don't like? Why would I question if anything "is OK" if I don't have desire for that?

It's simple. We use general statistics and research for age when sexual activity and subsequent childbirth is generally healthy and doesn't have negative consequences. And treat deviations on cas-by-case basis. Of course there will be some very special cases, but such situations happen in all areas of society. After all, we don't change general school program simply because some kids (also more than 1 or 2 per generation) have higher learnign capacity and more developed brain in earlier childhood.

Except population DOES care about protecting children. In fact, you just in your previous comment said that they do. Yes, only a few care strongly enough to actually do something about possible danger for kids. But far more people care enough to support someone who will promise to actually do something. Which is exactly where populism comes into play.

Theres too much too quote and gog cant handle it so. Il answer here instead of quoting somone

Have you even read your own earlier comments? There are so many contradictions in your answers i dont really know where to begin. Also regarinng the recearchers i commented and also quoted. If one really cares about carefully reading the link that you provided the people in the link do not openly agree on one thing or another. Its just opinions and not facts at all.
There are several scientist that point out some faults with the recearch with both groups of scientist,s. They that say porn can have a negative impact and there scientist that claim otherwise about 50/50% wich drives my point home about there have been no serious study cases otherwise they woudnt have needed further research and anyone,s claim otherwise is rather driven by feelings than facts and science (See my earlier comment about blame of cartoons for crime again) This is why i said the link you povided leaves much to desire in answering questions, wich the link doesnt really give a definite answer on the issue were talking about.
Besides when you have youth that are telling their own experience this shoud count for something.
As one can read, the youth in the link did not have an issue with porn, in fact some of them saw it as denying potential real humans sex.
The logical thing then woud asume that some people that read loli woud think in the same vein.
They dont have a desire to abuse real children/molest real children.
In other words they dont see the drawings as real children at all.
There have even been cases where fans of loli have reported real child abusers (people sharing real photos)

This is a far cry from your statement that looking at porn will have the effect that these youngsters doing bad behavior against girls or boys especially if they have proper sex ed in school.

And no When talking about a child innoncence the link doesnt mean santa or beliving in good things, bad things or fairy tales and easter bunny
thats just a sidetracked argument and doesnt really have anything to do with innocence were really talking abot here.
The innocence were talking about here is something the society itself are casting nto the youngsters.
Society and parents see youngsters as innocent until one day they discover sex on their hardrive, the youngsters doing other form of bad bad behavoir, youngsters moving out of the nest etc.
The loss of innocence in this context is the child simply stop being a child and starts discovering the adult life.

As one younster put it : Quote : Alan said, ‘[p]orn was a good thing. It helped me feel less confused about myself. Quote end.
So if he didnrt have porn he woud have been more confused and maybe even raped or done a bad sexual behavior???
or maybe he woud have been confused in other ways, human psyche is complicated...

Yay, it's been about week of switching from Skype to IRC with my girlfriend. Almost done, so I have time to continue this mess. On the plus side, my youtube backlog is apparently addressing something being called "Pedogeddon" which sounds related, but I'm betting it is basically about youtube itself.

Absolutely. I think that's specifically how this all ties into loli. Kind of like how people who play with their cats or dogs using their hands end up having issues when friends come over, 'cause the animal applies the same rules to these different people, even if such a thing would not be natural to them. The show My Cat from Hell could pretty much be summarized as a case study of how this manifests specifically in cats. Conditioning seems to work the same way in humans, but we have ways of overriding that conditioning, but it's not always easy. Maybe i should be more blunt: presumably people who would become intersted because of it wouldn't start with it (at least not most). If you're watching pretty women, you would (presumably) be watching something of your age group. Then you see something nice, maybe, at the edge of your age group, but still totally legal, and not even really considered that weird, either, if you're old enough. Before you know it, you're looking much younger, which is largely because, especially when looking at women, we generally prefer those with more time to get pregnant and make babies, which means we'll progressively fight the edges of the uncanny valley, which changes to the overton window movement caused by the conditioning. Usually such people we end up putting in a special program, which is especially practical for things like school that are formalized. Sex, porn, etc, are all a bit less formal. Unless we start issuing "sex IDs" or "Porn IDs" or something like that, there's no way to verify the exceptions to the list. This obviously wouldn't really apply to cartoons, though. And then, instead of the loli debate, we'd be having the "early puberty" discussion instead. As for looking at this from a consent perspective, we actually already did that (minus the research), because legal age of consent is usually centered around laws regarding graduation from public school (where you get your sex-ed and such). This goes back to "Virtue Signalling" which we've discussed before in other topics. The action is the important bit.

There be ways. If i'm so contradictory, you should be able to blow apart my arguments quite easily simply by pointing to a few and solidifying how they are clearly in conflict. There really is no consensus on this topic, as far as i know, and like alot of things related to humanity, you find that research often conflicts with the consensus. Worse yet, since this is psychological phenomena, you're not going to get much of anything resembling empiricism without ethical violations (and this is without even delving into loli specifically). Otherwise, you could bet your bottom dollar that someone would've paid to have this research done already, from fundamentalist christians to the social justice movement. There's alot of incentive to be had, here, yet no magical smoking gun? Right: your average person objects to rape. However, I've also been places where people would openly talk about molesting children, and often times the average person (who wouldn't be into loli or the such) would actually defend the admitted pedophile's behavior. The important thing was, the average person considered it consensual, hence the opposition. For reference:

1. An IRC room where someone (19 i believe) was openly talking about either molesting or wanting to molest (i forget which, 'cause it was 5-10 years ago) an 11 year old friend of his younger sister 'cause "she was flirty."

2. A member of the Dead or Alive community, who was talking about his boyfriend being on their way to pick them up to keep him as a sex slave (I didn't take it seriously, but i made a report anyway, since the guy was 15, but I was shunned from that sub-group of the community for reporting it to a tip line).

3. A member of a Durarara fandom was trying to recruit voice actors and actresses from their community to do hentai (or so she said), she herself was underage and was trying to recruit people both of the age of consent and underage to "make sex noises," while telling them any number of stories ("it's for a friend who's been through rough times," "it's not really hentai," etc). I kept records (chat logs and maybe skype calls talking to the "recruits" as well as the woman herself) incase it ever went to court, as one of those potentially recruited was actually the son of a police officer (but nothing happened, aside from me successfully raising a huge stink, but as far as I know she continued the process).

And I say again, in these three cases, the communities as a whole supported what was going on. Third case, however, I did actually get support on, which is ironic, since the person was actually within the law for many cases (since she was underage, but she was in violation of some other laws for trying to set the project up that involved minors). That's a strawman, argument: I'm not making that statement. I'm stating that porn, in general, affects attractions. If attractions manifest as urges that cannot be sated ethically, there are going to be a subgroup of people who are going to abandon those ethics at opportunity.

I want to say that this is small, but my experience when dealing with people tells me that this isn't as small as we'd like. But that's just a whole other can of worms that I don't think we need to get into. Oh, it's very related. Parents are projecting their ideals onto their child, even if it's not particularly ethical. In my opinion, thus must be stopped: you're lying to children to make yourself feel good, and very rarely, if ever, actually about the welfare of the child. We like to tell ourselves that it is, but i've seldom heard any strong arguments why santa must be alive and magical flying deer instead of just saying he was a man who lived long ago who did all these things when he was alive. We specifically expect innocence of a child because we "make them innocent." A child who has lived through a warzone is going to react as such. A child who is unaware of the consequences of stripping for the camera will likely do so in exchange for in game points if the game is important enough, which is another reason why this innocence thing isn't good for children. What benefit do the children get from having no understanding of how the world really is? We assume innocence because we hide the world from them, or attempt to, anyway. But, that's another topic for another day. Exposing children to porn is a separate topic from exposing them to sex or making porn out of figurative children. Right now, we generally try to restrict that until "age of consent," which means they're not kept from it until a later date, not kept from it for the entirety of their lives. Whether or not that's OK, that's a different topic. That seems to be a right reserved for parents and teachers, at the moment, which is probably where it's going to stay for a while. While a parent may not sexually molest a child, a parent can give their children playboys and expose them to pornography in most places, and sex-ed in schools pretty much mandates exposing children to porn. I think, but i'm not sure, the reason for this is because it's not only easy for adults to undermine a parent's wishes otherwise, but exposing people to material is often a method of solicitation.

Actually i have done so several times already.
one exeample is you ciaiming that porn was wery diffrent from other crimes. Several times i refuted the claims by quoting reacerch you yourself linked to. The rest is just claims, anyone with a degree or document of education can claim something it doest necerecrly mean its facts, once again im reffering to the claim that cortoons leads to more violence. As long as the clim doesnt have at leat 90 % support amomg most scientist the result doesnt conclude anything. And anoyone claming otherwise is driven by feelings or other agendas rather than facts and sience

And no again. the context of loss of innocence is not placebo. it is simply a bit the parents expext the children to hold the inocence longer than the actaual cut off

What have you done? You quoted the entirety of the wall of text that i posted. Oh? How? Porn isn't a crime, for starters. You're right, and the opposite is appeal to authority fallacy. A fact is a statement which can be proven or disproven. As of right now, there are scarce any facts on the topic. We quit making decisions based on facts a long, long time ago. We prefer facts, but we make policies based on "educated guesses," in the land of "we have enough clues to say that this is a safer bet." In reality, not even 100% truly concludes anything, and society has learned this the hard way many times with things such as flat earth. In fact, the whole point of science is to approach conclusion, even if it's untenable. The good news is, if our best guess was wrong, we use new research (because it's not concluded) to change policies, otherwise the earth would still be the center of the universe, black people would still be aligning their humors, Anu worship would still be commonplace, etc. Sometimes you don't have time to wait until support is 90% one way or the other to make a policy, and even then you need to leave room incase it turns out the other way. The universe is absolute, but society, even today, is actually quite ignorant of it all, but we have to make due with what we have. Because you say so? Then when is it? What even is innocence as you define it, then? I've met plenty of 2 year olds without innocence as i define it. I've seen them clearly without faculties to understand things, but surely "everything that exists is mine" is not innocent. I became aware of human exploitation long before i even started school, thanks to being molested. And it's certainly not hard to find a pre-pubescent child who is able to talk about sex (although not with any level of genuine understanding) long before puberty. People have actually made TV shows, books, etc all making fun of the lack of understanding children have, which is hardly innocence, and in other contexts, often quite the opposite.

I newer claimed porn WAS A CRIME, take time to read the previous text you yourself have commented with and the responses i have given.
Im starting to wonder if i need to spoon feed you alll text withouth exluding anything because it seams you forget the things you have spoken about moments ago.

In reality, not even 100% truly concludes anything???
So this is not a coclusion thats 100*% correct?
Einstein used E = mc^2 to prove that mass and energy are relative to each other. This lesson describes how energy can be converted into mass and mass into energy. Experimental results from particle accelerators are used to demonstrate the relative nature of mass and energy.

No its not because i say so, but anoyone that have a claim that cant be supported by facts and science
they do so because they have an opinion and that opinion is based on the two things i mentioned.
The psygoligist that claimed cartoons leaded to more violence is a perfect example of this.
That claim was not supported by facts and science but his personal opinion based on his personal fellings on the matter.
I cant really be bothered to quote the other contradictions you mentioned , i already gave you one example.

you need to have loss of innocence defined?
...... How to explain this further than i already did???

What you were talking about : Exploring and explaining the "Santa Claus effect": cross-sectional study of jollity in 21 European countries.

BACKGROUND:
Christmas "is the season to be jolly" but, despite many recent studies of happiness and wellbeing, the population distribution of jollity is unknown.

AIMS:
To assess levels of jollity across Europe, hypothesising the existence of a "Santa Claus effect" whereby Mr. Claus, a long-established resident of Scandinavia, increases jollity through his social network.

METHODS:
Cross-sectional analysis of data from 37 966 participants in the European Society Survey (Round 7, 2014/2015) across 21 European countries.

RESULTS:
Jollity has independent associations with satisfaction with health and income, male gender, younger age, and country of residence. Each one-point increase in satisfaction with health (on a 5-point scale) corresponds to a 0.79-point increase in jollity (23-point scale); each one-point increase in satisfaction with income (4-point scale) corresponds to a 0.76-point increase in jollity. Switzerland is the jolliest country in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS:
The jolliest European is likely to be a young Swiss male who is satisfied with his income and health. If there is a Santa Claus effect acting to increase jollity, it probably acts not just in Scandinavia but across Mr. Claus's broad network of contacts and admirers in many countries.

The loss of innocence im talking about
Kids breaking the expectains parents and society have placed on them

Innocence by Pierre Paul Prud'hon, circa 1810
Innocence is a lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, or wrongdoing. In a legal context, innocence is to the lack of legal guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime. In other contexts, it is a lack of experience.
Innocence can imply lesser experience in either a relative view to social peers, or by an absolute comparison to a more common normative scale. In contrast to ignorance, it is generally viewed as a positive term, connoting an optimistic view of the world, in particular one where the lack of knowledge stems from a lack of wrongdoing, whereas greater knowledge comes from doing wrong. This connotation may be connected with a popular false etymology explaining "innocent" as meaning "not knowing" (Latin noscere (To know, learn)). The actual etymology is from general negation prefix in- and the Latin nocere, "to harm".

People who lack the mental capacity to understand the nature of their acts may be regarded as innocent regardless of their behavior. From this meaning comes the usage of innocent as a noun to refer to a child under the age of reason, or a person, of any age, who is severely mentally disabled. “Nonetheless, the word, innocence, is used to describe childhood innocence as a notion created and controlled by adults.

First, now you talking about porn. Live action porn. And the thing is that difference between, say, 17 year old girl and 15 year old girl is far less than between "loli" and real 15 year old girl. I specifically talked about conditioning earlier, because as the term "conditioning" implies it happens when you have real conditions during your specific mental state and thus you associate real conditions with that mental state.

It is far more likely that a person who, shal we say, is predesposed to be attracted to children would become attracted to loli while watching sexual scenes with loli. Rather than such person would become attracted to children, exactly because this person watches videos with loli instead of children. Heck, I remember some research that stated that people who watch porn would be aroused only by watching porn, instead of interacting with real people. That's how conditioning works, not the other way. You attracted to what you watch, not what you imagine you watch or what other people imagine you imagining you watch.

In fact, it is far more likely for potential pedophille to become attracted to children while watching children without sexual context. Because unlike loli who don't look much like children, children look exactly like children. That's btw, exactly the reason of current "pedogeddon" on youtube, since there are lots of kids non sexual videos that are now (supposedly) watched by pedophiles because they are aroused simply by children. And that's exactly why we have 2-3 years between puberty and "coming of age" time, when sexual urges of young people make all sorts of trouble, simply because those urges are against society norms. Perverted activities, sex coercion/seduction, lechery as a form of teenage rebelion.

And of course after spending several of most vivid and active years of their lives in such frustrating condition (in sexual area), no wonder people have quite peculiar perception of it. Where do you think all those "schoool uniform" fetishes come from? No matter how you call it. It's play on people's emotions, having little to do with actual knowledge about problems and their solutions.

Projection much? You used the word crime... "different from other crimes" is a juxtaposition which would come with the implication that it was crime. I don't really believe you're so uninformed to actually think it's a crime, however. Instead, i really do wonder at this point if you're just trolling me. The conflation seems strong with you. Great example, i've read before it changed, and sure enough, now with quantum mechanics it's actually E^2=((MC)^2)^2+(pc)^2, now, to make up for momentum. Kind of like how Ohm's law has become a "general rule" when we start talking about superconductors (divide by 0!?). There are no facts in psychology, which is an inherent issue with psychology, but there was a request for the information from psychologists... So the lack of facts comes with the territory. Until neuroscientists can emulate a human brain to the degree of predictive value, don't expect psychology to ever become a "hard science" as it's called. Well, if I use a dictionary definition, your statement makes little sense: Clearly unrelated to the context, i assume. Children have intelligence and corruption. Just ask any psychologist the significance of ACE scores. Porn on one's computer does not mean the loss of virginity.

So... If you're serious, mull it over. The underlined text comes with the implication that I'm inventing my own term in this context, which i'm about to name, which i partially defined in the previous clause, but elaborate upon in the rest of the paragraph. So, no, i obviously was not referencing that study, but instead referencing the common phenomena that parents lie to their kids about an old, fat man in a red suit going around and giving them gifts and other things. A much clearer definition. Thank you. A lack of experience is not a common definition for the word, from my experience. You could say i'm innocent of that definition, then. In which case, of course, your statement was indeed true that parents try to hold onto this much longer than it really lasts. And, when reality hits, it hurts, but that's their own fault for not preparing their child for the real world. Their obligation as parents is to expect that very thing, and be ready for it, or even cause it (which is why we have a problem with parents who don't monitor their children around "strangers").

In reality, conditioning requires a certain degree of reality, but not as much. This is most likely why some people end up stuck on their waifus and "become unable" to be attracted to real women. The climax is real enough of a positive response. Now if you see loli and you're not whackin' that's a bit different, but if it's good enough to climax, then it becomes all that more real with a very real climax. Right, which would account for even more of why the molesters are such a small part (and we're assuming, but, as far as I can tell, it is a reasonable assumption) of the loli watching community. The process would most likely first have to involve "graduating" to actual child porn, although there doesn't seem to be any reason why this should be assumed to be actually necessary. This is just a land of darkness, 'cause you're not going to get the data reliably without conducting the study whre child molestation is legal and acceptable to society, beucase otherwise most likely you won't have a large percentage of people who actually have sex with children be like "yeah, i totally banged a child," 'cause then they'd be in trouble.

But, let's be honest, if you find actual child porn, you already know they're high risk of actually abusing the child, because they already committed an action (grabbing real child porn) on opportunity and presumption of getting away with it. I hate to say it, but if it's not porn it's not porn. If i see a video where a child walks down the street, presumably with clothing on, but simply walking, that's not child porn, even if people end up aroused by it. As for whether or not they can be attracted to children outside of sexual context, I can't really comment, because I'm not attracted to children. I will say I, myself, can find myself attracted to adults outside of a sexual context, so it is only logical to assume that the same would apply to a pedophile. If it doesn't work that way, then perhaps it isn't necessarily children they're attracted to, but the context (one where maturity, sexual naivete, etc, were all still major factors, but not necessarily children themselves). But, i don't believe we can say that any of this is fact, by definition of the word fact, and our current lack of ability to accurately measure human thought. Absolutely. Although it'd make sense for Japan, and places where there are school uniforms, that seems to be a thing in areas that don't as well. I imagine in the latter it's a matter of voyeurism and "tease." Yet, it's still a thing in europe as far as I know, and i've been told by europeans that it's far more relaxed, there. I don't know about your neck of the woods, though, so i can't really comment. By that, i meant the people with emotions are the ones virtue signalling. If you can only respond to a facebook post about a missing pet with a comment saying "prayers," you're not really doing anything. Odds are, you're not even really praying, either. Instead of posting "prayers," even praying would be more enthusiasm, but going out and looking for the pet, calling people to get the word around, etc, would be far more preferrable. I don't believe anyone cares if the only action to follow is something that talks about support, rather than actually doing anything to contribute, especially if what you do do accomplishes nothing more than showing others how you feel about yourself.

Mind you, saying prayers and actually praying is a different story, but why say it instead of doing it and not announcing it to the world?

EDIT: To clarify that point, i think the average person doesn't care, but rather tries to show they do out of some perceived expectation to pretend that they do.

I think that is very flawed logic. People follow their own moral compass, and few people have one that perfectly aligns with the laws. And that is why people "commit actions" they believe to be harmless (e.g. speeding when there's no traffic around and the driving conditions are good; or walking thru red lights because there is no other traffic about to cross; downloading movies & music & games because it doesn't actually remove pennies from the makers' bank accounts... cracking games because fuck having to play with discs.. telling little lies when it's convenient and the truth hurts more than it helps. All with the presumption of getting away with it).

Making the assumption that people who commit infractions/crimes/"actions" are at a high risk to carry out serious offenses such as rape, murder, or child abuse just does not follow, because people do have their own moral compass that draws a line between what's acceptable and what's not.

Yeah, but actual child porn also actually requires some degree of abuse. You know you're at least, passively, supporting the actual actions. True, but it does mean that the law is not respected. To be fair, in some of your cases, the law really shouldn't be. The question is, where do people draw the line? My experience tells me "drastic movements" is more of a line than actually picking a spot and drawing the line. Where does the white lie end and protecting your own ass from consequences begin? A white lie is still a lie, so how can you be trusted to tell the truth in other scenarios if you're OK with lying to begin with? If it's for the benefit of the person lied to? If it's convenient for the liar? Where's the line drawn?

I disagree both in that downloading / viewing certain types of material does not mean you support its creation, and even if you did support it "passively", that kind of support is really meaningless. Even more so than than the kind of "active support" you could do for example by running Tor & Freenet nodes (which would aid people in sharing and accessing their CP). Yes, it's a fuzzy line (and laws are fuzzy too). My point stands: doing one thing X doesn't mean you're highly likely to do another vastly different thing Y.

And if that site that you distribute it to contains ads, your passive support is actually financial support. And this is discounting how passive support acts as an encouragement for those who seek something other than money as a currency (like a "share with you, so you can share with me" or "this is what i do, and this is what gives me identity and purpose in life"). This is not meaningless, by any stretch of imagination. No, but if X and Y aren't vastly different, then it is highly likely, is it not?

Let's not disregard my opinion about passive support by finding ways one could turn into active support. There are countless ways to share files that do not involve money ending up the originator's pocket. Also it's likely impossible to get an ad network on your darknet child porn site.. and it's technically impossible in hash based storage systems like ipfs (and, to a degree, freenet). Unless you literally embed ads in the content. Unlikely, and then you can't track impressions. (Nevermind that adblockers are a thing) Sorry, I was talking about passive downloading & viewing, so let's not change the scenario by introducing some form of active currency and calling it passive support. Maybe, but why even bring that up? Watching porn and raping people are vastly different, just as smoking weed and mugging randos for drug money are vastly different.

If your friend shares some with you that he downloaded, you could say that you're not contributing, except you just then incentivized him or her to go download more. As for getting ads in, it's quite possible, especially for things not on the "darknet." You have the usual viruses that end up making money that way by stealing information or setting up botnets, as well. Even adult videos that are legal often contain an advert. I don't look at child porn, so I wouldn't know, but, once again, no reason to see this as any different. And adblockers? Even news sites are now like "disable or no lookey." Even something as simple as a +1 to a download counter would be support, and people realistically do get that information, even if it's not reliable. I see people going nuts about views on youtube, even if they're a demonitized channel talking about politics. And if they find that their content became popular after someone stole it for their own gain, that's still support. Realistically, there is no 100% passive way that can't end up acting as a motivator. Just being a problem can motivate those who aren't already and see a lucrative business opportunity. This is why everyone and their brother makes a pixel roguelite, has their own cryptocurrency, etc. Watching adult porn vs raping is different on many levels (unless rape genre is your thing, but even then there's still more steps). Downloading child porn and fapping isn't drastically different from setting up a real life scenario where similar things happen, even if you don't directly touch the child, and from there it's not drastically different to go ahead and touch the child.