www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:I think that Narada outfit would make a great Halloween costume for a certain friend of mine...

Who..........me?

I was thinking the same thing when I saw it. It reminded me of my princess orgazma outfit.

Got pics????

It is indeed the "official" contest winning version.

What a beautiful ship.

The USS Reliant NCC-1864

How many of those starship girls are there?

JudgeKing wrote:The USS Reliant NCC-1864

I'm torn between interest and disturbance...

Why do these chicks always look like their fragging 12?

Cpl Kendall wrote:Why do these chicks always look like their fragging 12?

It's a disturbingly common theme in Japanese manga.

Lazar wrote:How many of those starship girls are there?

Way too many, apparently.

Mikey wrote:
It's a disturbingly common theme in Japanese manga.

Aye they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with prepubescent girls.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Mikey wrote:
It's a disturbingly common theme in Japanese manga.

Aye they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with prepubescent girls.

It's because while displaying under aged girls in a sexual fashion is illegal, the fact that these girls aren't real lets the pedos skirt said laws.

Now why there seems to be so many of said pedos in the country, who can say.

IIRC in the US they've actually started cracking down on that. I seem to recall a story about a guy that was arrested and convicted for possessing child pornography because he had stuff like Bert off the Simpsons, and other stuff like that

Lt. Staplic wrote:IIRC in the US they've actually started cracking down on that. I seem to recall a story about a guy that was arrested and convicted for possessing child pornography because he had stuff like Bert off the Simpsons, and other stuff like that

Really? On what grounds can they make that illegal? I'm not trying to defend sicko ideas, but who exactly is the victim if the kids are all just cartoons? I hardly see the harm.

And it's Bart.

It's not the fact that a kid is getting hurt, it's that it can elevate beyond that where kids are getting hurt, and traumatized. It may be that they are just cartoons, but it reinforces in the pedophile that what he is doing is "normal" and "ok", neither of which are true, but the more accessible it is the more likely it's going to be seen by a lot of people, and if no one says anything, the pedophile thinks that no one has an issue with it, regardless of actual laws...

At least that's how I always saw it...

Nickswitz wrote:It's not the fact that a kid is getting hurt, it's that it can elevate beyond that where kids are getting hurt, and traumatized. It may be that they are just cartoons, but it reinforces in the pedophile that what he is doing is "normal" and "ok", neither of which are true, but the more accessible it is the more likely it's going to be seen by a lot of people, and if no one says anything, the pedophile thinks that no one has an issue with it, regardless of actual laws...

At least that's how I always saw it...

That's pretty shaky grounds. I won't argue with pedos being normal, but whether or not it's ok, well that's something that one could debate.

Beyond that though, letting laws like that get put into action is a bad step, because that's a law based not on whether or not a given thing is harmful, but that it might lead to something harmful in the future.

It's the same kind of thing as saying people who play violent video games might come to see hurting people as "ok", and thus go out and commite assualt or murder, so it'd be best to make such game illegal.

I can't agree with such things. If no one is getting hurt, and unless you can prove that real harm is a VERY likely future result of allowing such things to continue now, then there should be no reason not to allow it, if that is what some people want.

Lighthawk wrote:That's pretty shaky grounds. I won't argue with pedos being normal, but whether or not it's ok, well that's something that one could debate.

Beyond that though, letting laws like that get put into action is a bad step, because that's a law based not on whether or not a given thing is harmful, but that it might lead to something harmful in the future.

It's the same kind of thing as saying people who play violent video games might come to see hurting people as "ok", and thus go out and commite assualt or murder, so it'd be best to make such game illegal.

I can't agree with such things. If no one is getting hurt, and unless you can prove that real harm is a VERY likely future result of allowing such things to continue now, then there should be no reason not to allow it, if that is what some people want.

It's not the same actually. The difference is that when someone plays a videogame they are very often not psychopathic, or insane, pedophiles, almost always are mentally damaged, and thus cannot fully understand societial norms... Because of that, they don't see their want for children as wrong. A normal kid playing GTA doesn't usually have to think twice to realize that there will be consequences if they went out in real life. A pedophile sees a kid in skimpy clothes in a magazine and thinks that because it's advertised it should be alright to do what he wants to do with kids. He doesn't realize that it is wrong in the eyes of society.

And most of the people who are pedophiles have a damaged brain, the center that tells them what's right or wrong, it's like giving a ex-drinker a bottle of alchohol and expecting him to be able to stop after the first drink... some can, most can't...