I know it isn't breaking the rules if the minor drawn is fictional, but it's so wrong to draw them in a sexual sense and allow it. I don't care if the blacklist automatically has that blocked, it's just down right pedophilia being allowed on the site. It's even worse when a post that obviously has a minor being drawn sexually without the tags still gets approved, making it mostly visible to people who don't wanna see it. I'm just saying that the rules should be changed to where, even if the minor is fictional, should still have the post taken down for pornography of a child.

Move to the UK.

Didnt you make a post about this literally a week ago and get warned or banned for it.

Its pixels. Its not a real fucking child,

Every time you compare this content to real child abuse you belittle thr actual suffering and experiences of children who have gone through this.

Its not "literal pedophilia."

Also stop referring to it as CP or child pornography: that implies real children can consent to being in porn. Its called CSEM for a reason and ONLY ONLY refers to the harm of real. Irl minors,

demesejha said:
Didnt you make a post about this literally a week ago and get warned or banned for it.

Its pixels. Its not a real fucking child,

Every time you compare this content to real child abuse you belittle thr actual suffering and experiences of children who have gone through this.

Its not "literal pedophilia."

Also stop referring to it as CP or child pornography: that implies real children can consent to being in porn. Its called CSEM for a reason and ONLY ONLY refers to the harm of real. Irl minors,

https://e621.net/forum_topics/6966 I could recursively link to rehashed topics every time this comes up. :P

How does a lack of consent imply it's not (illegal) porn? My English must be broken.

I'm also going to say that cub looks very far removed from anything remotely resembling a real child.

(...well, usually. I was very greatly disturbed by one pic that did decide to take the photorealistic route...)

Anyone that is found to actually be a sexual predator is immediately considered a pariah by the furry community, banned if they're a member here, and usually have the authorities called on them if that hasn't already happened.

alphamule said:
How does a lack of consent imply it's not (illegal) porn? My English must be broken.

That's more a matter of connotation if you ask me.

demesejha said:
Every time you compare this content to real child abuse you belittle thr actual suffering and experiences of children who have gone through this.

Not to mention that actual predators will take the "boy who cried wolf" (or "Twitter SJW who cried pedo", as the case may be) defense. Every false accusation makes real ones less credible, and innocent artists that just draw in a cutesy style are used as a meat shield.

You know the answer, but I assume it isn't what you want to hear.

Anyhow, for the same reason the bestiality tag exist, it isn't real. It is as simple as that.

Also, by this logic, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet should be banned.

murder92192 said:
I know it isn't breaking the rules if the minor drawn is fictional, but it's so wrong to draw them in a sexual sense and allow it. I don't care if the blacklist automatically has that blocked, it's just down right pedophilia being allowed on the site. It's even worse when a post that obviously has a minor being drawn sexually without the tags still gets approved, making it mostly visible to people who don't wanna see it. I'm just saying that the rules should be changed to where, even if the minor is fictional, should still have the post taken down for pornography of a child.

Strong words from someone who literally named themselves "murder."

demesejha said:
Didnt you make a post about this literally a week ago and get warned or banned for it.

Its pixels. Its not a real fucking child,

Every time you compare this content to real child abuse you belittle thr actual suffering and experiences of children who have gone through this.

Its not "literal pedophilia."

Also stop referring to it as CP or child pornography: that implies real children can consent to being in porn. Its called CSEM for a reason and ONLY ONLY refers to the harm of real. Irl minors,

i haven't made a post once on here about it as far as I'm aware of. And everything you said is literal BS, I don't see how CP implies real children can consent. And it still is some way a form of pedophilia as that fictional creature is not the mature age of its species.
And I'm not "supporting" or "ignoring" the child abuse that happens with it. I don't care if it's just pixels on a screen, it was drawn to be a person that's not of mature age to be in a sexual situation.

lonelylupine said:
Strong words from someone who literally named themselves "murder."

It's literally the name my friends call me by, so I use it. If you don't like it then ignore it

murder92192 said:
i haven't made a post once on here about it as far as I'm aware of. And everything you said is literal BS, I don't see how CP implies real children can consent. And it still is some way a form of pedophilia as that fictional creature is not the mature age of its species.
And I'm not "supporting" or "ignoring" the child abuse that happens with it. I don't care if it's just pixels on a screen, it was drawn to be a person that's not of mature age to be in a sexual situation.

So? What is the moral philosophy behind your objection? Why should we treat cub art differently than the literally thousands of other themes that would be immoral if they were real?

murder92192 said:
It's literally the name my friends call me by, so I use it. If you don't like it then ignore it

He says without the slightest hint of irony.

azero said:
You know the answer, but I assume it isn't what you want to hear.

Anyhow, for the same reason the bestiality tag exist, it isn't real. It is as simple as that.

Also, by this logic, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet should be banned.

I know it isn't real, but that doesn't matter. It's still a child(real or not) being drawn in a sexual scenario which is just, wrong.

lonelylupine said:
So? What is the moral philosophy behind your objection? Why should we treat cub art differently than the literally thousands of other themes that would be immoral if they were real?

I'm not saying we only treat cub art differently, a lot of other shit is still wrong. I'm just wanting to focus on this "art" because it's way more common then the other, shitty art.

murder92192 said:
I'm not saying we only treat cub art differently, a lot of other shit is still wrong. I'm just wanting to focus on this "art" because it's way more common then the other, shitty art.

So your goal is that you want to eliminate the other objectionable art too eventually.

Nice to see you saying the quiet part out loud.

murder92192 said:

I know it isn't real, but that doesn't matter.

In the eyes of the law, it does. The way the site works is that it is an archive for everything that is furry related, regardless of its theme, as long as it is legal, of course.
There have been some incidents of real life CP being uploaded, in those cases the material was quickly deleted (not just erased, but completely wiped off the hard drives as to leave no trace) and reported to the authorities accordingly.

murder92192 said:

It's still a child(real or not) being drawn in a sexual scenario which is just, wrong.

Perhaps, I admit it is a bit of a grey area in that sense, but as I mentioned, the bestiality tag falls under the same umbrella, I had hoped that you could've adressed that point as well.

murder92192 said:
It's still a child(real or not) being drawn in a sexual scenario which is just, wrong.

it literally isn't, though. it's pixels on a screen, ink on paper, it has no soul, it has no feelings. it's not a child, it cannot be violated, it does not need to protected.

murder92192 said:

I know it isn't real, but that doesn't matter. It's still a child(real or not) being drawn in a sexual scenario which is just, wrong.

"just, wrong" sounds like a fancy way to say "I don't like it". The fact that you specifically don't like it is not a reason for its removal. It's art. It's not hurting anyone.

murder92192 said:
I'm not saying we only treat cub art differently, a lot of other shit is still wrong. I'm just wanting to focus on this "art" because it's way more common then the other, shitty art.

The cub tag sits at around 111k posts while feral is at about 443k posts, even when taking into account the more ambiguous young tag, at 175k, it is still less than half than that of feral. However, it's worth mentioning that these numbers are not accurate since they do not take into account the rating, which can range from safe to explicit.

darryus said:
it literally isn't, though. it's pixels on a screen, ink on paper, it has no soul, it has no feelings. it's not a child, it cannot be violated, it does not need to protected.

It is a child if the author wanted it to be one?? And I saw the "pixels on a screen" excuse way too many times to be considered usable at this point.

I literally get a guy to admit that he want to eliminate all "bad" porn and you all are still squabbling about peripheral arguments.

Y'all get so focused on the talking points that you fail to notice when a guy skips to the end of the script.

murder92192 said:
It is a child if the author wanted it to be one?? And I saw the "pixels on a screen" excuse way too many times to be considered usable at this point.

I've seen "But it's an actual child!" way too many times to be considered usable at this point.

azero said:
The cub tag sits at around 111k posts while feral is at about 443k posts, even when taking into account the more ambiguous young tag, at 175k, it is still less than half than that of feral. However, it's worth mentioning that these numbers are not accurate since they do not take into account the rating, which can range from safe to explicit.

I decided to check the young tag with my blacklist on and there were only 3 sfw art and 83 explicit ones on the FIRST page.

Anyways I'm done talking about this since someone said that it isn't a child yet most of the artists for these posts meant for it to be a child

lonelylupine said:
I've seen "But it's an actual child!" way too many times to be considered usable at this point.

(my last reply since I saw this when I was typing another one)

I never used that excuse once though, I'm saying that it is a child, but not a real one(if that's what you meant by "actual child")

murder92192 said:
I decided to check the young tag with my blacklist on and there were only 3 sfw art and 83 explicit ones on the FIRST page.

Anyways I'm done talking about this since someone said that it isn't a child yet most of the artists for these posts meant for it to be a child

It's meant to be fiction. It's not actually happening. You, of all people, would benefit greatly from people appreciating and maintaining that difference, Murder.

murder92192 said:
(my last reply since I saw this when I was typing another one)

I never used that excuse once though, I'm saying that it is a child, but not a real one(if that's what you meant by "actual child")

You have yet to justify your position beyond "It's just wrong."

Show your work. Explain your moral philosophy behind your conclusion that it is wrong. Actually attempt to convince us of your position rather than just repeating "It's just wrong" at us.

lonelylupine said:
It's meant to be fiction. It's not actually happening. You, of all people, would benefit greatly from people appreciating and maintaining that difference, Murder.

We should stop engaging as this thread is clearly just a power trip for some 15 year old twitter anti who cannot yet distinguish reality and fiction.

Making an account just to moan isnt rational.

murder92192 said:
It is a child if the author wanted it to be one??

I suppose, yes. But a fictional one at that, which doesn't and will never exist.

murder92192 said:
It is a child if the author wanted it to be one?? And I saw the "pixels on a screen" excuse way too many times to be considered usable at this point.

I agree that "pixels on a screen" isn't a very good argument, but it is because it shouldn't even be one, it's not the pixels themselves but the source of said pixels what actually matters.
If there was an actual child being depicted in these pixels, then that's a real problem. But if the source is just someone's imagination, I don't see how it is fair to equate the two as one and the same, as that would not be logical.

murder92192 said:
It is a child if the author wanted it to be one?? And I saw the "pixels on a screen" excuse way too many times to be considered usable at this point.

it's used so often because it's true, my dude.
your argument is the same shit that people try to use against video games; first-person shooters cause gun violence, GTA causes car jackings and vehicular manslaughter and whatnot, stuff that's patently ridiculous. if you feel that fictional characters need protection you need to get your priorities straight. look at yourself in the mirror.
there's actual injustice in the world -- this ain't it.

darryus said:
it's used so often because it's true, my dude.
your argument is the same shit that people try to use against video games; first-person shooters cause gun violence, GTA causes car jackings and vehicular manslaughter and whatnot, stuff that's patently ridiculous. if you feel that fictional characters need protection you need to get your priorities straight. look at yourself in the mirror.
there's actual injustice in the world -- this ain't it.

Well, it was discovered that Osama Bin Laden was a gamer, just saying...^{_{I pity the fools who can't tell this is sarcasm.}}

(Yes, he played Counter Strike, and no, I don't know what is his Steam profile, don't ask.)

Edit: Bonus fun fact: There is a possibility that Kim Jong Un is also a gamer, not saying he is, but that there is a good chance.

Considering this forum is the only visible actions you've ever even done on this site it makes one question if your only purpose with it is to strike up drama.

versperus said:
Considering this forum is the only visible actions you've ever even done on this site it makes one question if your only purpose with it is to strike up drama.

na I just don't favorite things or post things

darryus said:
your argument is the same shit that people try to use against video games; first-person shooters cause gun violence, GTA causes car jackings and vehicular manslaughter and whatnot, stuff that's patently ridiculous.

off-topic, but it sorta does. there's a whole different perspective of "having the experience to commit a crime" and actually committing the crime, which the former makes it more likely for any layman to do. same for piracy, even.

a bit of a necessary evil I suppose

aversioncapacitor' said:
off-topic, but it sorta does. there's a whole different perspective of "having the experience to commit a crime" and actually committing the crime, which the former makes it more likely for any layman to do. same for piracy, even.

a bit of a necessary evil I suppose

I was remember reading an interview of some soldiers talking about their combat experiences, and they touched on how FPSs have made people actually worse at combat, stuff like thinking a couch is acceptable cover, or being confused when a gun runs out of ammo, etc.

This argument holds no water.

aversioncapacitor' said:
off-topic, but it sorta does. there's a whole different perspective of "having the experience to commit a crime" and actually committing the crime, which the former makes it more likely for any layman to do. same for piracy, even.

do we have any actual data on that? because most of what I've read and/or heard about seemed to imply that it overall had the inverse effect.
I don't see how FPS games and GTA games could really train anyone for anything when they're often so far from how stuff functions in real-life.

azero said:
Well, it was discovered that Osama Bin Laden was a gamer, just saying...^{_{I pity the fools who can't tell this is sarcasm.}}

(Yes, he played Counter Strike, and no, I don't know what is his Steam profile, don't ask.)

Edit: Bonus fun fact: There is a possibility that Kim Jong Un is also a gamer, not saying he is, but that there is a good chance.

He also played Yoshi's Island DS.

Therefore, we should ban the Yoshi tag. It promotes terrorism. /j

darryus said:
do we have any actual data on that? because most of what I've read and/or heard about seemed to imply that it overall had the inverse effect.
I don't see how FPS games and GTA games could really train anyone for anything when they're often so far from how stuff functions in real-life.

What, you mean the cops won't just give up and ignore me if I run really fast from them?

lonelylupine said:
I was remember reading an interview of some soldiers talking about their combat experiences, and they touched on how FPSs have made people actually worse at combat, stuff like thinking a couch is acceptable cover, or being confused when a gun runs out of ammo, etc.

were these people trained?
edit: to be fair the couch thing is a perfectly valid point, otherwise I wouldn't know what else would they have considered cover. can you even attribute that to fps gaming?

darryus said:
do we have any actual data on that? because most of what I've read and/or heard about seemed to imply that it overall had the inverse effect.
I don't see how FPS games and GTA games could really train anyone for anything when they're often so far from how stuff functions in real-life.

eh, too lazy to source. here's a video of someone landing a plane with an unconcious pilot, though.

aversioncapacitor' said:
were these people trained?

If training is required, wouldn't that invalidate the point that FPSs are sufficient to make people better killers?

lonelylupine said:
If training is required, wouldn't that invalidate the point that FPSs are sufficient to make people better killers?

exposure allows someone to be desensitized in the action of doing something. which again, you brought up as a valid point, couches providing poor cover.

going from zero experience at something to bare minimum experience is still "better"

lonelylupine said:
What, you mean the cops won't just give up and ignore me if I run really fast from them?

it happens. they're called refugees, escapees, etc. though you can't really attribute that to gaming, there's no correlation to someone's ability to evade police and videogames. still. there may be some more wary of specific tactics used by police with the help of mass media.

At any rate, even if fiction can convince people of untrue facts, that's usually things people don't otherwise know about, and doesn't include things that go against things already known, like "doing unspeakable acts to people is generally frowned upon".

So are we locking this or not?

To answer the original question, e621 operates in the United States, and in US law, fictional imagery that cannot be mistaken for the real thing is not considered legally equivalent. Court cases exist that have set this precedent (though admittedly which ones escape me at the moment), so someone here cannot be prosecuted for it, unless they were doing things otherwise illegal like showing it to minors.
Other countries (like Canada and I think Australia) have made different judgements, but e6 is not under their jurisdiction.

(Though I do have to wonder how the site is handled in those countries. I know we aren't geolocked there, so what do we do there?)

aversioncapacitor' said:
that's not my point at all, chief. exposure allows someone to be desensitized in the action of doing something. which again, you brought up as a valid point, couches providing poor cover.

You should read this, specifically the fourth paragraph.

There was a funny moment I had some time ago. Back when I was playing Saint's Row 2 a lot, when I was doing things in meatspace I happened across a car which I thought was really nice. An impulse from the reptilian part of my brain said "You should steal it," but I didn't even make a move towards the car. Why? Because I wasn't "desensitized" at all; I still thought stealing a real car was wrong, even though I was doing it for shits and giggles in a video game at the time. "Desensitization" because of exposure isn't a thing.

Frankly, that so many people don't seem to understand that restraining your own impulses is a natural part of the human experience is just a little bit terrifying to me, that the only reason why you haven't on killing sprees is because you simply haven't gotten the idea to yet.

aversioncapacitor' said:
it happens. they're called refugees, escapees, etc. though you can't really attribute that to gaming, there's no correlation to someone's ability to evade police and videogames. still. there may be some more wary of specific tactics used by police with the help of the internet.

...That's not how that works.

lendrimujina said:
To answer the original question, e621 operates in the United States

Specifically Arizona.

lonelylupine said:
Frankly, that so many people don't seem to understand that restraining your own impulses is a natural part of the human experience is just a little bit terrifying to me, that the only reason why you haven't on killing sprees is because you simply haven't gotten the idea to yet.

This is the core of the issue.

Someone who's willing to harbor lust towards a real child deserves whatever they have coming to them. I hear even prisoners are quite happy to make sexual predators thrown in with them their first shanking targets.
I get that some people have the desire. But most people don't act on their wicked desires. Saying it's a mental illness like some people that I do not associate with do isn't an excuse; it tells me that person knows they can get therapy, but don't want to. Like Hannibal Lecter bragging about eating liver, fava beans, and chianti to tip off that he's knowingly not taking the medication that he knows can help him.

lendrimujina said:
Someone who's willing to harbor lust towards a real child deserves whatever they have coming to them. I hear even prisoners are quite happy to make sexual predators thrown in with them their first shanking targets.

Do I...really need to explain why prisoners are not good examples of moral behavior? Also, you know, we throw people in prison for raping children, not just thinking dirty thoughts about them.

lendrimujina said:
I get that some people have the desire. But most people don't act on their wicked desires. Saying it's a mental illness like some people that I do not associate with

You don't associate with the American Psychiatric Association or World Health Organization?

lendrimujina said: Saying it's a mental illness like some people that I do not associate with do isn't an excuse; it tells me that person knows they can get therapy, but don't want to.

You seem to be under some illusions about how therapy works and what it is supposed to accomplish.

lendrimujina said:
Like Hannibal Lecter bragging about eating liver, fava beans, and chianti to tip off that he's knowingly not taking the medication that he knows can help him.

Again, confusing fiction with non-fiction. (Hannibal Lector is not a representative example of how a really mentally-ill person operates. Also, there is no pill that makes you not eat people; that's an ethical problem, not a mental one.)

lonelylupine said:
Do I...really need to explain why prisoners are not good examples of moral behavior? Also, you know, we throw people in prison for raping children, not just thinking dirty thoughts about them.

You don't associate with the American Psychiatric Association or World Health Organization?

You seem to be under some illusions about how therapy works and what it is supposed to accomplish.

Again, confusing fiction with non-fiction. (Hannibal Lector is not a representative example of how a really mentally-ill person operates. Also, there is no pill that makes you not eat people; that's an ethical problem, not a mental one.)

I'm AGREEING with you, though, and am trying to make a point about how someone who browses the cub tag is not comparable to an actual pedophile.

I'm talking about people who use "but it's a mental illness!" to justify being proudly "MAPs"; in other words, thinking it gives them carte blanche to foster their impulses instead of resisting them, not merely stating facts.

I'm speaking as someone who is mentally ill (though not in that way, I'm still pretty bad off) and have been going to therapy for years.

lendrimujina said:
I'm talking about people who use "but it's a mental illness!" to justify being proudly "MAPs"; in other words, thinking it gives them carte blanche to foster their impulses instead of resisting them, not merely stating facts.

There is considerable evidence that they are not fostering their impulses at all, just giving them a healthy, harmless outlet. Impulses don't just go away just by resisting them; it can make them worse.

That said, "MAPs" are a bad-faith effort to discredit the LGBTQ+ movement by tying an albatross around their neck, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Pedophilia is not recognized as a legitimate orientation.

lonelylupine said:
There is considerable evidence that they are not fostering their impulses at all, just giving them a healthy, harmless outlet. Impulses don't just go away just by resisting them; it can make them worse.

That said, "MAPs" are a bad-faith effort to discredit the LGBTQ+ movement by tying an albatross around their next, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Pedophilia is not recognized as a legitimate orientation.

I feel like we're both getting a bit confused here (or at least I am). The so-called MAPs are the ones I'm saying are actively fostering their evil impulses and should be judged for it, not the cub artists that the OP is judging.

Sorry if I'm scrambling my wording a bit, I'm tired.

lendrimujina said:
I feel like we're both getting a bit confused here (or at least I am). The so-called MAPs are the ones I'm saying are actively fostering their evil impulses and should be judged for it, not the cub artists that the OP is judging.

Sorry if I'm scrambling my wording a bit, I'm tired.

Ah, okay.

Jesus Christ what a trainwreck.

lonelylupine said:
That said, "MAPs" are a bad-faith effort to discredit the LGBTQ+ movement by tying an albatross around their neck, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Pedophilia is not recognized as a legitimate orientation.

b, not everything is some ultimate conspiracy. and neither was homosexuality a recognized orientation 70 years ago. you can't think of this in the present term, you have to look at history and predict what may come of it.

the interconnectivity of everyone in the world, with new social rules and new exposure to things we've never seen before, at this rapid pace, is unironically going to cause the movement to spill over in the next few decades. just as LGBT has in the last few.

I did not read all of this, but enough is enough.
We are not going down this road again.

Use your blacklist and move on.