The Eastern Edge

This is in response to the hail of bullets fired at me via my comments section after I wrote "I draw the line at kids".
Despite the fact that everyone who commented was against me, it made me glad I use a comment section.
I appreciate the people who take the time to add their two cents to
mine. Getting bombarded with hits is worth the odd hit and run comment
because it means people are reading. It means that I gain the benefit
of getting a taste of what others think. Sometimes it's a bitter
taste, but too many sweet nothings just gives you cavities and an ego.

I think that the tone of the responses, though, proves my point about balance, and that the slippery slope goes both ways. I think the slippery slope is more of a seesaw. If it tips too far one way or the other it's a problem and we all slide off the end.
The people who made wild accusations, or told me to leave my copy of 1984 at the door, just prove that point.

Follow up:

If anyone has not read Neil Gaiman's blog on the subject, I would like to suggest they do so because his arguments, and the way he tones them in particular, have come the closest to making me soften my stance. I still have trouble not wholeheartedly agreeing with him, but I still can't bring myself to. That is partly because I disagree with his statement about absolute freedom of speech. You can't lose something that no one has. I would also question at what point freedom falls victim to the law of diminishing returns - i.e. when do we all slide off the seesaw.

But I'm not here to respond to Neil Gaiman, only to point out that he has put up the most compelling the argument for what he believes in that I’ve seen so far – and without insulting anyone either. We could all learn from that (including myself).

While I wasn't expecting much in the way of support, I was hoping for a little more diversity in responses. Luckily a recent comment (thank you!) pointed me in the direction of a some more diverse discussion at The Beat. (although that appears to be one person getting gang-raped by everyone else too. Lol ) That, in turn, let me to other places, and so on.

Even though the response I've received is nowhere near what many other blogs get, I started to find it difficult to respond to everyone by myself, especially since not everyone reads the comments before they comment, so I'm writing this to try and give a broad address to some of the commonalities.

I'd like to start off my pointing out where I think I was wrong.

I was guilty of throwing some wild pitches in some of my responses to comments, and I got jumped on for it. All that ends up costing my original argument, which I think has some valid points I was trying to get across. Honestly, I felt backed into a corner by a mob of angry comic book fans, some of whom were making wild accusations, and I treated it like being alone and cornered in a game of counter-strike. So I did what many last-man-standing players do when cornered by a team who's about to frag you; I tossed out a flash-bang and ran out firing. I shouldn't have.
Here’s an abridged version of how I responded to commenter John Thomas, who pointed this out to me;

Yeah, you're right I'm starting to get into a lot of what ifs and I shouldn't.
I'm also side stepping saying certain things directly and that leads to misunderstanding.

Allow me to backtrack and clarify.

I don't mean "sexual situations", I mean actual "sex" and I mean depictions of graphic sex acts involving children, not implied sex. Let me make it clear that, while I don't like it I don't think the subject matter itself or even implied should be.

When I say children, I mean preteen. I don't want to get into what age is appropriate etc., because I don't know. But I think preteen, which I guess if you get down to it means 12 and under if I had to choose a number. Not an adult or teenager pretending to be a twelve year old, but an actual person or character that is twelve years old or younger.

What I am against is very specific.
In that sense you're right, I should not get into what ifs because it does hurt my argument.

Hit and run comments mean little to me, but the thoughtful responses, such as those from John Thomas and Ed Sizemore to name two, I appreciate and they made me think.

I'm not out to change anyone's mind or win any arguments. I am expressing my opinion and hoping to spur debate. What I stirred up was a storm of protest, but that can be a good thing too. It’s fine with me. In fact I like it when people present thoughtful argument that disagree with me because often it shows me holes in my arguments and blind spots I may have. That is a good thing.
For example, I was wrong to begin making wild comparisons to school shootings, and suggesting that even virtual child porn likely has real victims, because then I am opening up Pandora's Box instead of sticking to my point.

I was also accused - and in retrospect was true, but it was unintentional - of using the classic emotional pull when I asked if anyone would want someone who collected loli comics working with kids. Well, I actually meant the question sincerely, not as some tactic to corner someone into saying something that I could then attack. However, I can see how someone could take it that way and why it's a difficult question to ask given that I was discussing situation in which no child was victimized.
That was unintentional.

So, for those things, serve up the alphabet soup because I’ll eat some of my words. I’m not afraid to admit when I’ve gone too far.

However, now that I’m done eating a few words, I’m ready to throw the still mostly full bowl of soup back in everyone's faces. The fact that no one conceded a single point of mine, particularly where I discussed democracy and balance, is okay with me. However, I resented comments that went so far as to accuse me of saying things I didn't and even linking my stance to homophobia.
I’m not going to move another inch until I’ve addressed the cheap, underhanded and hypocritical tactic of linking my stance with reprehensible ones.

I’ll have a conversation with anyone and I’ll listen to any point of view, but I won’t sit here and be attacked by extremists masquerading as freedom advocates. Far left, far right, it's all the same.
I may not be 100% right, but neither are you and you can’t bully me or shame me into feeling otherwise.

Can no one see that linking my argument against virtual child porn to an anti-homosexual argument is just as wrong as if I implied that someone was a child molester because they own a comic book that portrays child molestation?
I'll admit I was wrong if I seemed to imply that Handley was a child molestor. Anyone want to reciprocate and admit they were wrong for twisting my argument? (fat chance there!)

Of course I don’t think that someone is a child molester because they own a comic book. I wrote that right from the beginning. Just because I wouldn’t have Lost Girls on my bookshelf - now that, thanks to Ed Sizemore, I know more of what it's about and what it depicts - doesn’t mean that I think someone who does is a bad person. But I also would suggest that if they knew the material was illegal, they might want to be ready for the possible consequences of owning it. Same goes for comics ordered from Japan.
Just in case the subject matter didn't tip you off, the fact that Japanese loli comics are not for sale at your local comic shop and you have to order from Japan might be a hint that there may be a problem, don't ya think?

As for the anti-gay argument; some people wrote that I was "using the same logic against pedos, as homophobics use against gays". Stop right there for a second! That could only possibly be true if you think that they are both sexual orientations and anywhere near the same thing, or if you are speaking on the grounds of specific religious doctrine.
First of all, I do NOT think pedophilia is a sexual orientation that can be compared in any way to homosexuality. Second, I think a lot of people who do compare pedophilia and homosexuality as being deviant are speaking on religious or personal moral grounds, and I am NOT.

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality is for two fundamental reasons: age and consent.
Adults should be free to engage in any type of sexual activity they wish, provided it is between consenting adults, and involving only those consenting parties. Let me say those two key words again; “Consent” and “Adult”! Pedo lacks both those criteria. That is what makes it wrong.

If you can’t see the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, and can’t see that being against pedophilia has nothing to do with anything else, then stop reading right now and go take a survey of the pro same-sex marriage movement and see if they are also pro child porn, virtual or otherwise. I’m willing to bet that many of them would be offended at the suggestion that those two things should even be talked about in the same context.

Still not seeing my point? Not ready to admit that you are being just as extreme and sliding down the other side of the slippery slope by linking pedo with homosexuality?
Let me point out a few things that may just help prove my point.

This past April, the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa legalized same-sex marriage.

The strongly worded decision by all seven justices of Iowa's Supreme Court moves the issue away from more liberal coastal states, where most of the legal and legislative action aimed at overturning bans on same-sex marriage has taken place. While Iowa is home to many conservative Christians and evangelicals, the decision adds to a strong liberal streak that has spawned politically progressive movements.

"Iowa really does have a very impressive visionary history when it comes to civil rights, from desegregation to public accommodation to the rights of women," said Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

The Iowa Supreme Court decision upholds a lower court's ruling that a 1998 state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

This happened before Handley pleaded guilty thinking he couldn’t possibly win.
Well, holy contradictions, Batman, how the fuck did that happen? If people who wish to see restrictions on child porn, even virtual child porn, are on the same level as bigots, racists and homophobes, how in ten varieties of freeze dried bullshit could they legalize same-sex marriage?!?!
If it's the same argument against, then how could they do this?

Smell the sarcasm? I hope it smells about as good to you as the bullshit linking the argument against child porn and homosexuality did to me. Go slide the slippery slope to Iowa as ask them yourselves what's up with that. That’s not an anomaly either.

Where I’m from in Canada, we legalized same-sex marriage nation wide in 2005, following provincial movements beginning years prior. Despite that, the Canadian Criminal code still defines child porn as "a visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means", that "shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity", or "the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years."

That’s a pretty harsh law, isn't it? But yet, Canada has very progressive attitudes to go with extremely strict laws protecting the rights of same-sex couples, religions, ethnicities, gender equality, and so on. How could this be, eh? Too cold for us to think straight up there? Too much hockey-related head trauma, maybe? If we're against even virtual child porn, how could we possibly be so open to same-sex marriage if the arguments against are essentially the same?
It's easy, because they are NOT the same.

Still can’t see the difference? Well guess what? It doesn’t matter because both Canada and The United States of America are democracies.

The people are speaking loudly about allowing same-sex marriage, but not in favour of lolicon Japanese smut rags. In Canada the same-sex marriage movement it went from province to province until 8 of 10 legalized it and the federal government made it legal nationwide. Despite that, in October 2005, the same year same-sex marriage was made legal, police arrested a 26 year old Alberta man named Gordon Tshun Chin for importing Japanese magazines (manga) depicting explicit child sexuality. Chin's attorney claimed Chin did not know it was illegal, that he was naive. Despite this, Chin was sentenced to an eighteen-month conditional sentence and was required to perform 100 hours of community service and receive counseling. Note again, he pleaded ignorance! Not freedom. Not art. Ignorance! That was his defense, folks. But ignorance is no defense and he was convicted.

In Handley’s case, he not only did not pleaded ignorance, he pleaded guilty to possession of obscene material, which unfortunately for him is subject to penalties that are far more sever where he lives. Blame Iowa for the harsh penalty, not me for not feeling sorry for him. I don't think he should go to jail, but I do not represent the people of Iowa and neither do any of Hanley's supporters, or clearly he would not be facing jail time.

If any of you still think that virtual child porn restrictions are akin to oppression of rights, then go take it to the Supreme Court yourselves and ask them if they see child porn, virtual or not, and homosexuality as the same thing. Organize a “Heroes for Hanley” movement and take Iowa to task. Good luck.

But I never said that Handley is a pedophile, a potential child molester, or that he should be locked up so quit accusing me of that. I said exactly NONE of those things. I did say I don’t think he should work kids and I stand by that. I also said he broke the law, which is a fact. He’s paying the price and it's his own fault. No one gave him those comics. He ordered them and he chose to keep similar things in his collection. He isn’t some tragic figure being crucified on the cross of freedom, he is someone who collected comic books. Maybe that makes him harmless, but it doesn’t make him special.

In response to a snarky, sarcastic comment I got about Handley probably not having read the obscenity laws in his state before he bought the comics, that’s irrelevant because ignorance is not a defense. Furthermore, unless some condition exists that would impair his judgment; he should have at least suspected that some of his collection just might pose a legal problem. The ignorance argument is moot.

Let me boil it down once again, Ladies and Gentleman of the jury who would label me a paranoid homophobic, right-wing asshole for being against all forms of child porn, you are showing the same type of extremism and intolerance toward me that you claim to be fighting against. Are you ready to say that Canada and the state of Iowa, and probably a number of other states, are hypocritical because they allowed same-sex marriage but not child porn comics?
Are they on the slippery slope to some Orwellian society run by people who would made Stalin look like Ghandi because they drew the line at virtual child porn?
People fight for same-sex rights everyday, but who is ready to picket in front of their local government offices to legalize virtual child porn for the sake of comic books, or "art"?

Do none of you see my point?
Do none of you agree with me on how a democracy is supposed to work?
If I am way off on democracy, then will someone enlighten me please?
I'm not being sarcastic, I'd like to know what people think!

In the meantime, it's not you guys against me, it’s you guys versus the tens of millions who saw fit to exercise their rights and freedom to have same-sex marriage restrictions removed, but won’t show the same leniency toward child porn.
Explain that!

You live in a democracy, folks. If you want freedom to read any and every comic book you could possibly imagine, then you gotta fight and get a majority on your side to have the law changed. Or, you can just move to Japan. It's your choice.

But be warned, society here in Japan is having it's problems on the other end of the see-saw and is beginning to push back and roll back some of those freedoms, albeit slowly.

I advocate balance. Am I wrong? Am I leaning to far to one side of the see-saw's balance point? Where is that point? My middle may not be the same as yours.
I'll listen to you, and unlike many I will respond even when you blast what I'm saying.

But please stick to what I actually wrote. I promise to do my best not to go off the rails and make unfair comparisons or ask catch-22 questions if you'll be fair to me.

Fair enough?