Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 06:01 am
-
So in another thread people did not like my comment that CP possession is legal in half of the world and will be decriminalized in the other half within the next few hundred years. So I don't want to clutter a bunch of random threads up with these never ending debates, and have decided to make one thread to address the topic for the rest of eternity. In the future when threads go in this direction, I will point people to this one. I also am sick of making the same points every single time, and an authoritative thread on this is clearly needed since we have had about fifty in the past and many threads have derailed into people debating about this (mostly debating with me, though they usually start it!).
So here we go:
Child porn possession is legal in half of the world and probably will be legalized in the other half of the world within the next few hundred years.
You can't be serious! One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen posted. You can do what you do kmfkewn, that's your choice, but to suggest that child pornography possession will be legalized in the remaining 50% of countries where it's currently illegal, over a period of a few hundred years, is outrageous and unconscionable. A more realistic expectation would be to suggest that CP possession is deemed illegal in most, if not all of the countries where it's currently legal. Anyone who actually believes countries such as the US, UK, Australia, etc, would ever soften their stance on CP possession, needs to have their head examined.
I am serious there is no way CP viewing is going to remain illegal in those countries over the next few hundred years. First of all it is already legal to view child porn in New York state, it just isn't legal to save it. The court there has determined that having CP in RAM or a cache on your drive is not a crime, and it is only a crime to intentionally download CP from a website. They are confused on technical things, but essentially they have ruled that you can surf CP but not keep a long term collection of it on your hard drive unless it is from browser cache. Of course federal laws trumps state law, but technically it is already legal to surf CP sites in New York State.
Second of all, despite the cries and foaming at the mouth of the common people, the federal judges are not really fond of child pornography viewing laws in the first place. They continue to sentence people far below the suggested levels and to petition law makers for softer laws against CP viewing.
http://www.ahmedandsukaram.com/CM/Articles/Federal-Judges-Encourage-Reduced-Sentencing-for-Child-Pornography.asp
Third of all researchers keep finding that decriminalizing child pornography viewing causes a very substantial drop in child sex abuse, and that is certain to eventually become common knowledge. The war on CP viewers is counter productive to a strategy for reducing molestation rates, and all the science backs this up.
Fourth of all the internet is becoming more and more prominent and the reasonings behind CP viewing being made illegal in the first place are less and less relevant. The entire argument the supreme court gave for allowing CP to be illegal is outdated and irrelevant today, there is no commercial market for CP it is almost all traded for free on P2P networks, research has shown there is very very little overlap between child porn viewers and molesters, etc. Additionally CP offenses are going to continue to skyrocket as more and more people have access to the internet, the number of CP offenses has been exponentially growing and there are no signs of this ever letting up. Truth is many people who are told not to look at something will seek it out, and there are many different other reasons people look at CP as well and the internet is making many of them (such as general pornography addiction) more common.
There is also the issue of many minors themselves being turned into sex offenders for obtaining images of their naked peers, in many states they are already having discussions about legalizing the exchange and possession of images of naked teenagers between each other, and this will obviously be a stepping stone toward decriminalization of possession of naked underage teenagers for everybody (how can they say it is legal for a 17 year old to have a picture of a naked 14 year old, but not legal for him to when he turns 18? Does he need to burn the picture? delete it off his phone? what about when forensics recovers the deleted images that used to be legal for him to have??). Either they can lock up all of the teenagers who now have camera phones and very frequently produce child pornography of themselves and share with their boy/girl friends, or they can legalize the possession of jailbait pornography for teenagers which will certainly lead to the legalization of jailbait pornography possession for everybody.
As some states declare viewing CP to be legal (like New York already has), federal judges continue to rally for greatly reduced sentences, researchers continue to find that allowing people to view CP causes a sharp decline in molestation rates, as the arguments against child pornography become less and less relevant to modern times, as research continues to show that people who view CP are very rarely child molesters, as the truth about government propaganda leaks out, as the nations are faced with criminalizing their children or decriminalizing child porn possession, I am certain that it is going to be legal to view and possess CP within the next few hundred years, in the large majority of the world, no doubt about it.
shut the fuck up mate. history is moving in the opposite direction. thankfully. you sound like a filthy pedo.
lol. I love to argue with people about this they get so mad and have no arguments and I have such great arguments and citations. Give me some evidence that "history is moving in the opposite direction" , citations etc? You sound like a fucking retard.
-
Sick child rapist. You should be castrated.
-
I am a sick child rapist because I can identify trends and extrapolate them to the future?
-
No you are just a complete moron if you think that CP will be legal in 200 years. You are a sick child rapist because guys that talk about CP view it and most likely make every attempt they can to have sexual contact with children. You saying that viewing child porn makes a pedo less likely to rape children is about the same as saying people who view pictures of drugs don't actually buy drugs and use them. You aren't smart, and your argument is the most ignorant thing I have read in quite some time. That's all I have to say on this. Pedos belong in jail or 6 feet under.
-
No you are just a complete moron if you think that CP will be legal in 200 years. You are a sick child rapist because guys that talk about CP view it and most likely make every attempt they can to have sexual contact with children. You saying that viewing child porn makes a pedo less likely to rape children is about the same as saying people who view pictures of drugs don't actually buy drugs and use them. You aren't smart, and your argument is the most ignorant thing I have read in quite some time. That's all I have to say on this. Pedos belong in jail or 6 feet under.
I don't need to be smart other people already did the research for me:
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html
Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer's journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.
The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records – rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular – for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.
Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes – murder, assault, and robbery – rose significantly.
Dozens of studies, dozens of countries, always the same result: making it illegal to view CP leads to significantly more children being molested.
-
You are a sick child rapist because guys that talk about CP view it and most likely make every attempt they can to have sexual contact with children.
Also incorrect there is very little overlap between molesters and CP viewers as illustrated by the following PDF: www.fd.org/pdf_lib/FJC2012/Child_Porn_Dangerousness.pdf
No you are just a complete moron if you think that CP will be legal in 200 years.
You need to be more geographically precise than this. CP is already legal to view in about half of the world. Even in one state in USA it is already legal to view, just not federally (similar to how Weed is legal in some states but federally banned).
-
I like how you are framing your argument to suggest viewing CP reduces the amount of sexual abuse, while discounting the fact that the children in the CP are, in fact, being abused. You think lawmakers in the US are just going to write those kids off as acceptable losses because you read a research study that claims your ability to view the material makes you less likely to commit the offense yourself? That will NEVER happen in the US. Keep trying to justify yourself, and enjoy the prison rape when you get caught. I hear they give extra attention to the pedos.
Do you think rape porn makes you less likely to rape someone? Nope. You are watching it because it sexually excites you. Whether or not you act on that impulse isn't related to your ability to find the porn on the internet and beat off to it. Your logic is flawed. This is all nothing new. Child molesters will ALWAYS try to justify themselves to normal people and we will keep locking you up in prison. I am sure you feel justified talking about it on a site like this since drugs are illegal too, but there is a big difference in an adult making a choice to take a drug and an adult raping a defenseless child.
-
Man I've been here for quite some time and pretty much in my opinion this is just going to amount to you being called a weird child fucking anarchist vigilante who wants to mail bombs to senators and kill DEA agents for about three weeks until people lose interest in it. But hey, at least Silk Road Forums has a dedicated Child Porn Thread to have used as a talking point now.
-
Children don't have reason, they can't consent to their sexual imagery.
I'm sick of this retarded discussion. If I turn statist, I'll kill people for fucking discussing it.
CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE REASON.
-
I like how you are framing your argument to suggest viewing CP reduces the amount of sexual abuse
I don't need to suggest it studies prove it
while discounting the fact that the children in the CP are, in fact, being abused.
Cerainly many of the children depicted in CP are depicted being abused. However, unless you believe in photographs having magical properties, you must admit that the following logic holds:
A. Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict genocide
B. Viewing pictures of the holocaust is not the same as causing genocide to happen
We can reduce these sentences:
A. Pictures of bad thing happening depict bad things
B. Viewing pictures of bad things happening is not doing bad things
which in turn leads to:
A. Pictures of children being molested depict child abuse
B. Viewing pictures of children being molested is not the same as abusing children
I would love for you to give a reasonable and intelligent explanation of why this argument by analogy doesn't work, so far nobody has been able to. I am left to conclude that they think pictures of molestation are magic, whereas pictures of other crimes are not.
You think lawmakers in the US are just going to write those kids off as acceptable losses because you read a research study that claims your ability to view the material makes you less likely to commit the offense yourself? That will NEVER happen in the US. Keep trying to justify yourself, and enjoy the prison rape when you get caught. I hear they give extra attention to the pedos.
Well actually you are certainly wrong that this will never happen in the US considering it is already legal to view CP under New York State law:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/15/new-yorks-highest-court-rules-that-it-is-not-unlawful-to-view-online-child-pornography/
The New York Court of Appeals has released an important decision that viewing online child pornography is not illegal under New York law. The ruling has triggered an outcry and demands for legislative reforms. However, the opinion is worth reading and raises a broader issue on the required level of intent and knowledge for these crimes.
The decision will result in the reversal of two dozen cases involving online pornography. The case before the Court involved former Marist College professor of public administration James D. Kent, 65. Kent who was convicted on 136 counts of procuring and possessing child pornography in 2009. He was sentenced to one to three years.
The case raises an issue that we have discussed previously on how prosecutors pile on counts of child pornography based on each image. However, these cases often involve the download of hundreds or thousands of images in a single click. I have seen cases where a couple of downloads involved a few pictures found to be child pornography and led to charges. In Kent’s case, he was found to have downloaded and then deleted files containing images of children.
Appellate Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote a majority opinion for four of the six judges.
Advocates are calling the ruling an “outrage” and the “decriminalizing” of child pornography. However, Ciparick’s decision simply emphasized conventional notions of scienter: “Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law.”
The case did not involve just a couple of images, making the choice of this appeal more interesting. However, Kent insisted that he was “doing research” on child pornography:
The allocated space on defendant’s hard drive also contained a “My Documents” folder with subfolders labeled “cdocs” and another labeled “work,” and an additional folder labeled “JK.” The “cdocs” subfolder contained approximately 13,000 saved images of female children, whom Investigator Friedman estimated to be 8 or 9 years old, dressed in lingerie or bathing suits and many with their legs spread open. The “work” subfolder contained an additional 17,000 saved images of female children, some organized into further subfolders named for a particular child. The JK folder held a file labeled “porndef.pb,” which contained a document that included the text of four messages dated between June 1999 and July 2000 and directed to the unidentified recipient “P.B.”1 The messages apparently relate to a potential research project on the regulation of child pornography and include comments such as “sooner or later someone at this college is going to wonder why I keep looking at porno sites.” A final message dated July 11, 2001 states:
“Well, this last batch pretty much tears it. While, as somebody’s father, I’m pretty appalled by this stuff, I also don’t want to get arrested for having it. So let’s do this—if this is a legitimate research project, let’s write it up and tell the deans (and preferably also the cops) what we’re doing and why. Otherwise, let’s drop it in the most pronto possible fashion.
“I don’t even think I can mail the disk to you, or anyone else, without committing a separate crime. So I’ll probably just go ahead and wipe them. You have the URL’s if you want to pursue it.
“See you sooner or later, no doubt. Kent.”
The Court however was concerned (as are many civil libertarians) with how courts have been treating access and downloading of images as proof of intent. With surfing on the web, the concern is that images can be accessed without knowing before hand that they are child pornography. This may not be the strongest such case for the defense but the concern is a valid one:
Like the federal courts to address the issue, we agree that where no evidence shows defendant was aware of the presence of the cached files, such files cannot underlie a prosecution for promotion or possession. This is necessarily so because a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists (see United States v Kuchinski, 469 F3d 853, 863 [2006] [to prosecute a defendant who lacks knowledge about the cache for possession of files stored therein "turns abysmal ignorance into knowledge and a less than valetudinarian grasp into dominion and control"]).
However, cached images can serve as evidence of defendant’s prior viewing of images that were, at one time, resident on his computer screen. Such evidence, like a pattern of browsing for child pornography, is relevant to the mens rea of both crimes by showing that a defendant did not inadvertently access an illicit image or site or was not mistaken as to its content.
Nonetheless, that such images were simply viewed, and that defendant had the theoretical capacity to exercise control over them during the time they were resident on the screen, is not enough to constitute their procurement or possession. We do not agree that “purposefully making [child pornography] appear on the computer screen — for however long the defendant elects to view the image — itself constitutes knowing control” . . . Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that
The question comes down to whether there was proven intent and proven possession in the case. In the concurrence by Judge Smith, the dangers of a broad interpretation of the criminal law (as advocated by another judge) was discussed:
Judge Graffeo Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches argues, in substance, that we can best effectuate the Legislature’s intention by reading the statutes expansively, to include as many “consumers” as the statutory language can reasonably be interpreted to permit. I do not agree.
Under Judge Graffeo Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches’s reading, someone who does no more than click on a link for the purpose of looking at a pornographic picture for free — someone [*22] who has never interacted with a child victim, has never copied, downloaded or saved a pornographic picture of a child, and has never put a penny in the pocket of a child pornographer — is subject to up to seven years in prison for a first offense (see Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [d]). This is surely a stringent punishment for someone whom many would think more pathetic than evil. Nor can we safely assume that bringing as many consumers as possible within the reach of the law is the most effective way to lessen or eliminate the trade: A policy of draconian enforcement directed at the most minor and peripheral of users is perhaps no more likely to eliminate child pornography than a similar policy would be to eliminate illegal drugs.
One can certainly argue both sides of this question, but the vitriol and hatred directed at these judges is unwarranted and unfair. These judges are not pro-child pornography any more than the vast majority of citizens. They are attempting to maintain basic requirements of intent and proof in an area where politicians have been competing to show that they are the toughest on child porn. These are legitimate concerns raised by these judges, who voted to reverse despite the considerable public pressures and passions.
Do you think rape porn makes you less likely to rape someone? Nope.
Do you think that people who have rape fantasies are interested in actually raping others, or in being raped themselves? That seems unlikely considering rape is the third most popular female fantasy: http://www.care2.com/causes/rape-ranked-as-third-most-popular-sexual-fantasy-for-women.html
You are watching it because it sexually excites you. Whether or not you act on that impulse isn't related to your ability to find the porn on the internet and beat off to it. Your logic is flawed. This is all nothing new. Child molesters will ALWAYS try to justify themselves to normal people and we will keep locking you up in prison. I am sure you feel justified talking about it on a site like this since drugs are illegal too, but there is a big difference in an adult making a choice to take a drug and an adult raping a defenseless child.
Do you think 50% of the world is not normal? Because in 50% of the world PEOPLE DO NOT GET LOCKED UP for looking at CP or even downloading it. In 50% you can download it legally, in over 50% you can view it on the internet if you don't save a collection of it.
-
Children don't have reason, they can't consent to their sexual imagery.
I'm sick of this retarded discussion. If I turn statist, I'll kill people for fucking discussing it.
CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE REASON.
Did the millions of dead Jews consent to you viewing images of the holocaust? So should we try you for war crimes? The debate isn't that it should be legal to abuse children and photograph it, primarily it is that it is not bad to look at or possess images.
-
I am a sick child rapist because I can identify trends and extrapolate them to the future?
Trends? Freedom Hosting just got fuckin' took, son... Did you see that trend coming?
You're talking about the legal definition of ownership over digital media, not the legality of the digital media itself.
There are films of 5 year old's getting 50 year old cocks crammed up their tiny little holes, and you're trying to say the trend is going to steer towards global acceptance and legalization of such perversions? I think you're high, bra.
-
Children don't have reason, they can't consent to their sexual imagery.
I'm sick of this retarded discussion. If I turn statist, I'll kill people for fucking discussing it.
CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE REASON.
Did the millions of dead Jews consent to you viewing images of the holocaust? So should we try you for war crimes? The debate isn't that it should be legal to abuse children and photograph it, primarily it is that it is not bad to look at or possess images.
One day you will grasp integration for a fleeting moment, one day you will see things have similarities not to be pulled apart, isolated, compartmentalized. By then though, you'll be hysterical at the task ahead of integrating the knowledge you have gathered. I hope you kill yourself.
-
kmfkewm,
Why the fuck do you spend your time talking, debating, and defending CP? If your convictions are so deep, go debate it on non-anonymous forum, you assclown.
This is as much time I am willing to engage you with your self serving and deluded arguments.
And if I need your technical assistance, I'll just log back in with another account and write like a three year old girl/boy to get your attention, you fucktard.
Vinnie Jones
-
Children don't have reason, they can't consent to their sexual imagery.
I'm sick of this retarded discussion. If I turn statist, I'll kill people for fucking discussing it.
CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE REASON.
Did the millions of dead Jews consent to you viewing images of the holocaust? So should we try you for war crimes? The debate isn't that it should be legal to abuse children and photograph it, primarily it is that it is not bad to look at or possess images.
Most CP is snuff / rape footage. If you were ass-raped by your dad as a kid, would you think it was okay for all of us to watch that? Don't even answer, because there is only one answer.
I'm all for saying 'fuck sensitivity', but you're debating the morality of the existence of child rape as something that is "okay to watch", so long as you didn't commit it. But if you're watching it, aren't you fantasizing? Isn't that what we do when we watch adult porn?
Wherever your mind is, it's not a good place guy.
-
And the most epic flame war in Silk Road history has begun!
-
Children don't have reason, they can't consent to their sexual imagery.
I'm sick of this retarded discussion. If I turn statist, I'll kill people for fucking discussing it.
CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE REASON.
Did the millions of dead Jews consent to you viewing images of the holocaust? So should we try you for war crimes? The debate isn't that it should be legal to abuse children and photograph it, primarily it is that it is not bad to look at or possess images.
Most CP is snuff / rape footage.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH did you just pull that straight out of your ass or what? The vast majority of CP consists of nude or semi nude minors posing in costumes with props and fake scenery, taken at professional studios in Russia and the Ukraine, with consent of parents and all children depicted, for money, and most of that was created semi-legally in the countries it was produced in. A lot of the rest consists of pictures at nudist communities and nude beaches in Europe, where you can walk around and see tons of naked kids but not take pictures of any of it. A lot of the rest consists of teenagers looking at their mirrors with their camera phones, taking pictures of themselves.
Of course there is still I imagine a ton of pictures of rape and toddlers being abused etc, but I very much doubt it is the majority and it sure as hell is not most.
If you were ass-raped by your dad as a kid, would you think it was okay for all of us to watch that? Don't even answer, because there is only one answer.
If I was ass raped by my dad as a kid I would't want to put people in prison for viewing pictures of it, because they would have no effect on my life at all.
I'm all for saying 'fuck sensitivity', but you're debating the morality of the existence of child rape as something that is "okay to watch", so long as you didn't commit it. But if you're watching it, aren't you fantasizing? Isn't that what we do when we watch adult porn?
So you think a fantasy should be illegal? Doesn't that mean you think a thought should be illegal? So you are in favor of thought police?
Wherever your mind is, it's not a good place guy.
I would say the same thing to you since you seem to think we should have thought police.
-
Children don't have reason, they can't consent to their sexual imagery.
I'm sick of this retarded discussion. If I turn statist, I'll kill people for fucking discussing it.
CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE REASON.
Did the millions of dead Jews consent to you viewing images of the holocaust? So should we try you for war crimes? The debate isn't that it should be legal to abuse children and photograph it, primarily it is that it is not bad to look at or possess images.
Most CP is snuff / rape footage. If you were ass-raped by your dad as a kid, would you think it was okay for all of us to watch that? Don't even answer, because there is only one answer.
I'm all for saying 'fuck sensitivity', but you're debating the morality of the existence of child rape as something that is "okay to watch", so long as you didn't commit it. But if you're watching it, aren't you fantasizing? Isn't that what we do when we watch adult porn?
Wherever your mind is, it's not a good place guy.
As someone who has a great amount of CP for shock value in my early teens, I call bullshit on what you are saying. Most CP is by dickless freaks being weird cunts, and as someone molested I spent half my life just wishing someone fucked me properly. Most pedophiles love kids, and do weird shit instead of real sex, alienating children sexually. You could castrate them, but they don't even need an erection.
They say the death sentence is expensive, but I could whip up a portable gallows in a day and we could hang these freaks.
-
I am a sick child rapist because I can identify trends and extrapolate them to the future?
Trends? Freedom Hosting just got fuckin' took, son... Did you see that trend coming?
You're talking about the legal definition of ownership over digital media, not the legality of the digital media itself.
There are films of 5 year old's getting 50 year old cocks crammed up their tiny little holes, and you're trying to say the trend is going to steer towards global acceptance and legalization of such perversions? I think you're high, bra.
Well currently the globe is sharply divided, about 50-50, between thinking people should be free to watch whatever they want and thinking that there should be thought police. Oddly enough many of the countries that are most vocal about how much freedom they have are the same ones that have thought police. It is also strange to realize that many of the countries with legalized drug possession also have legalized CP possession, it is like they understand freedom on a deeper level than the other countries and it is generally reflected in their policies.
-
cp being legal, and cp being moral are completely diferent things. for example just because it's legal for the westboro baptist church to protest funerals, the're still horible monsters posing as humans. in the same vein, just cause it's technically legal to view cp, doesn't mean you're not a danger to society and need to be put down before you fuck up someones life.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAH did you just pull that straight out of your ass or what? The vast majority of CP consists of nude or semi nude minors posing in costumes with props and fake scenery, taken at professional studios in Russia and the Ukraine, with consent of parents and all children depicted, for money, and most of that was created semi-legally in the countries it was produced in. A lot of the rest consists of pictures at nudist communities and nude beaches in Europe, where you can walk around and see tons of naked kids but not take pictures of any of it. A lot of the rest consists of teenagers looking at their mirrors with their camera phones, taking pictures of themselves.
Oh, okay. I must have pulled that out of my ass, because clearly you're standing your ground here with facts.
Of course there is still I imagine a ton of pictures of rape and toddlers being abused etc, but I very much doubt it is the majority and it sure as hell is not most.
Oh, wait a minute, is that doubt I'm reading? For a second there, you seemed certain of yourself.
If I was ass raped by my dad as a kid I would't want to put people in prison for viewing pictures of it, because they would have no effect on my life at all.
If you were ass raped by your dad and your best friend circulated a picture of it on Facebook, you'd probably sue them over it. You'd at least get upset over it, having been traumatically raped and all... which is why I said, there's only one answer. Psychology.
So you think a fantasy should be illegal? Doesn't that mean you think a thought should be illegal? So you are in favor of thought police?
Are you in favor of destroying personal privacy? This is a double edged sword. You're defending the pedophiles right to whack off to a picture of a naked preteen, but you're disregarding that preteen's human right to not be taken advantage of, made a mockery or plaything of, and exposed to a twisted fucks of parents who were willing to sell their child, or market them off to the underground CP industry...
Anyway, if you continue to argue, you'll be doing it with yourself. You're really not worth the time spent already in this thread.
Children don't have reason, they can't consent to their sexual imagery.
I'm sick of this retarded discussion. If I turn statist, I'll kill people for fucking discussing it.
CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE REASON.
Did the millions of dead Jews consent to you viewing images of the holocaust? So should we try you for war crimes? The debate isn't that it should be legal to abuse children and photograph it, primarily it is that it is not bad to look at or possess images.
Most CP is snuff / rape footage. If you were ass-raped by your dad as a kid, would you think it was okay for all of us to watch that? Don't even answer, because there is only one answer.
I'm all for saying 'fuck sensitivity', but you're debating the morality of the existence of child rape as something that is "okay to watch", so long as you didn't commit it. But if you're watching it, aren't you fantasizing? Isn't that what we do when we watch adult porn?
Wherever your mind is, it's not a good place guy.
As someone who has a great amount of CP for shock value in my early teens, I call bullshit on what you are saying. Most CP is by dickless freaks being weird cunts, and as someone molested I spent half my life just wishing someone fucked me properly. Most pedophiles love kids, and do weird shit instead of real sex, alienating children sexually. You could castrate them, but they don't even need an erection.
They say the death sentence is expensive, but I could whip up a portable gallows in a day and we could hang these freaks.
Cool story bro. Didn't you just say vaginas were gross in another thread? And threaten to kill the OP of this one? Yeah, your info is credible. ::)
Out of this pedo troll thread.
-
cp being legal, and cp being moral are completely diferent things. for example just because it's legal for the westboro baptist church to protest funerals, the're still horible monsters posing as humans. in the same vein, just cause it's technically legal to view cp, doesn't mean you're not a danger to society and need to be put down before you fuck up someones life.
Studies show 16% of people who view CP are child molesters, although even this statistic is inflated. Other studies show 6% of men are rapists https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/. Where do you draw the line when it comes to precrime? Should all men be locked up to prevent the 6% who rape from doing so? If not then why should all people who view CP be locked up to prevent the "16%" who molest from doing so? At what % do you draw the line before you can justify precrime group punishments to yourself.
-
cp being legal, and cp being moral are completely diferent things. for example just because it's legal for the westboro baptist church to protest funerals, the're still horible monsters posing as humans. in the same vein, just cause it's technically legal to view cp, doesn't mean you're not a danger to society and need to be put down before you fuck up someones life.
Studies show 16% of people who view CP are child molesters, although even this statistic is inflated. Other studies show 6% of men are rapists https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/. Where do you draw the line when it comes to precrime? Should all men be locked up to prevent the 6% who rape from doing so? If not then why should all people who view CP be locked up to prevent the "16%" who molest from doing so? At what % do you draw the line before you can justify precrime group punishments to yourself.
Do tell how you know the percentage of CP views whom are, or are not Child Molesters? This just made me LOL.
-
Oh, wait a minute, is that doubt I'm reading? For a second there, you seemed certain of yourself.
Yes I had a moment of doubt. I honestly don't know how much CP there is that depicts rape, I know next to none depicts snuff though. See, in knowing that you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about and knowing that you fabricated something directly out of your ass, I over reacted with my certainty that the vast majority of CP is from the Eastern European studios, although I imagine I am correct. I know that single studios in Ukraine and Russia produced several millions of softcore CP pictures, and that jailbait is a substantial percentage of all underage pornography, and that nudist photographs are also a substantial percentage of child pornography.
I know that there are at least several instances where toddlers were raped and young kids were abused violently in CP, but I don't know exactly how much of it is like this. I don't think that there are several millions of pictures of child porn snuff, not even close to it, I really doubt any type of CP can compete in vastness with the professional studios that used to operate out of Eastern Europe, and when you pad that with jailbait and nudism it makes your claim that almost all CP is snuff and rape sound absurd. Too bad it is illegal for anybody to actually research this and know for sure huh? My impression is certainly that only a small minority of CP falls into the category that you claimed almost all of it falls into, and that the vast majority of it falls into the category that I said it falls into. Neither of us is likely able to show citations for this one.
-
cp being legal, and cp being moral are completely diferent things. for example just because it's legal for the westboro baptist church to protest funerals, the're still horible monsters posing as humans. in the same vein, just cause it's technically legal to view cp, doesn't mean you're not a danger to society and need to be put down before you fuck up someones life.
Studies show 16% of people who view CP are child molesters, although even this statistic is inflated. Other studies show 6% of men are rapists https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/. Where do you draw the line when it comes to precrime? Should all men be locked up to prevent the 6% who rape from doing so? If not then why should all people who view CP be locked up to prevent the "16%" who molest from doing so? At what % do you draw the line before you can justify precrime group punishments to yourself.
Do tell how you know the percentage of CP views whom are, or are not Child Molesters? This just made me LOL.
From this site (and other studies) that show how the government has systematically released baseless child pornography statistics and laundered them to make them appear to be legitimate despite the fact that they are based on nothing at all:
http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html
"40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children"
According to an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise (ECPAT in Australia), published in the The Australian on 8 January 2008: "In 2005 the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that 40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children."[77]
The 40% number was in a report distributed by the NCMEC in 2005 and the percentage concerned research findings in relation to a total of 429 cases during the 12 months beginning 1 July 2000. However, insofar as the phrasing of the assertion quoted above appears to imply that 40% of persons arrested for possession of child pornography were found to have sexually abused children, it does not accurately reflect the research findings.
The research found that "one out of six", i.e. 16% of "cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so".
Findings of the N-JOV Study
The source of the 40% figure is the second report on the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study ("N-JOV Study")[78] conducted by researchers (Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitchell) at the Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire (in north-western U.S.A.). The research report was "funded by the U.S. Congress Through a Grant to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children".
(Note: Although NCMEC's media release of 18 August 2005 cites the above research report as the source of numerous NCMEC claims about 'growing', 'increasing', etc, the research report did not find, or claim, that anything is increasing, growing, etc. The research concerned a one year period beginning 1 July 2000 and did not compare findings from that period with any other period.)
According to the research report:
The goals of the National Juvenile Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study were to survey law-enforcement agencies within the United States (U.S.) to count arrests for Internet-related sex crimes committed against minors and describe the characteristics of the offenders, the crimes they committed, and their victims.
The above report was the second report on the N-JOV Study and it was focussed on a 'representative national sample' of persons arrested for Internet-related sex crimes who possessed child pornography, i.e. a sub-set of the cases identified in the N-JOV survey.
The researchers found that "[U.S.] Law-enforcement agencies nationally made an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography during the 12 months beginning July 1, 2000". The estimate of 1,713 was projected from 429 actual cases identified.
The researchers also stated "[T]o give some perspective on this estimate of 1,713 arrests for Internet-related CP possession, we estimate there were approximately 65,000 arrests in 2000 for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors".
In the sub-set comprising persons who possessed child pornography (429 actual cases), 47% of the cases arose in the criminal-justice system as cases of child sexual victimization or attempted child sexual victimization (solicitations to undercover investigators) and 53% of the cases arose as cases involving child pornography possession.
The 40% number is a further sub-set which comprises cases/persons whom the researchers termed 'dual offenders' because "They sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the course of the same investigation":
We found 40% of the cases involving CP possession in the N-JOV Study involved dual offenses of CP possession and child sexual victimization detected in the course of the same investigation. All of these offenders had identified child victims. An additional 15% both possessed CP and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors. When these cases of attempted child sexual victimization are counted, 55% of the CP possessors were dual offenders (unweighted n = 241, weighted n = 936).
(Note that the actual number of dual offender cases identified was 241).
84% of the dual offenders were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child sexual victimization which subsequently turned up child pornography possession (55% child sexual victimization plus 29% solicitations to undercover investigators). 16% were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child pornography which subsequently detected a sexually victimized child or an attempt to do so (solicitation to an undercover investigator).
The researchers stated:
When we looked at all of the cases originating as allegations or investigations of CP possession and examined how many resulted in the arrests of dual offenders, we found
In 14% of cases investigators found dual offenders who both possessed child pornography and sexually victimized children
In 2% of cases investigators found offenders who possessed child pornography and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors
84% of cases involved CP possession but investigators did not detect concurrent child sexual victimization or attempts at child victimization
This means one out of six cases [i.e. 16%] originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.
The research report also states:
Limitations
The N-JOV Study is the first research gathering information about a national sample of arrested CP possessors. Data from a national sample is a strength of the N-JOV Study, but like every scientific survey, the study also has limitations. Readers should keep some of these important things in mind when considering the findings and conclusions of this study.
First, ...
Second, ...
Third, there is an additional caution to our findings about dual offenders. Knowing a considerable number of dual offenders were discovered during investigations of Internet-related, child-sexual-victimization and CP possession cases does not explain how possessing child pornography is related to child sexual victimization or whether it causes or encourages such victimization. We did not have the data to determine this. In particular we had no information about the sequencing of the crimes committed by dual offenders or about undetected crimes they may have committed and little information about their criminal histories and how they used the child pornography they possessed.
[emphasis added]
In summary, the U.S. case research from which the NCMEC's 40% figure originates, found in a one year period beginning 1 July 2000, an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography (of which 55% also involved sexual victimization of children, or attempts to do so), and an estimated 65,000 arrests in the U.S. for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors. Of the Internet-related cases, one out of six [i.e. 16% of] the cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.
I could also reference www.fd.org/pdf_lib/FJC2012/Child_Porn_Dangerousness.pdf which points out that the statistics include in many cases sexual contact with anyone under 18, and that in many of the cases the sexual contact was with people who are 16 years old, and that some studies have even counted prior sexual contact when the offender was under the age of 18 with people under the age of 18 in their statistics of percentages of child porn offenders who have had prior sexual contact with minors (which is why I say that even the 16% figure is inflated).
I could also give more weight to my previous statement of CP possession being legalized because of the internet causing more and more people to view it:
Most experts appear to agree ... The internet and technology continue to breed new species of child pornography offenders that do not represent the same risk as traditional offenders
-
This is like a drug legilization debate in real life. With all the towns people arguing why drugs should illegal stating people should be hung for using them against this one pro drug legilization arguer. (The towns people think drugs are wrong so people should not be able to use them and should be killed for it, Here people are saying CP is wrong so people should be hung for viewing it)
KMF has all the facts and people are just shouting stupid insults at him because CP is "wrong" (and they don't want to look like a molester who supports it)
Give me a fucking break and don't be such brainwashed cunts and listen to KMF please.
Do I morally think it is ok to view a young person getting raped? No I don't. Likewise some people don't believe it is morally ok to do drugs.
But if someone has the tendincies to want to view that it is much better they view that than actually doing the action because it is illegal to view the video of it.
Cheers to KMF for not being a brainwashed hypocritical idiot like the rest of you fuckheads, +1 to him. Only respect.
-
trying to compare cp to the war on drugs is like comparing prohabiton and the ban on murdering.
for me, it all boils down to the fact that CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT!
-
trying to compare cp to the war on drugs is like comparing prohabiton and the ban on murdering.
for me, it all boils down to the fact that CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT!
Banks don't consent to being robbed, and bank robberies are illegal, why don't you want to charge people who look at video footage of bank robberies? Your argument cannot possibly boil down to "children can not consent" because the principle behind that would be it should be illegal to look at images of crimes that involve a victim who did not consent, but you do not want to charge people for looking at bank robbery footage do you? So you are inconsistent and thus full of shit.
-
trying to compare cp to the war on drugs is like comparing prohabiton and the ban on murdering.
for me, it all boils down to the fact that CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT!
Banks don't consent to being robbed, and bank robberies are illegal, why don't you want to charge people who look at video footage of bank robberies? Your argument cannot possibly boil down to "children can not consent" because the principle behind that would be it should be illegal to look at images of crimes that involve a victim who did not consent, but you do not want to charge people for looking at bank robbery footage do you? So you are inconsistent and thus full of shit.
You're really stretching with your analogies. Just thought I'd point that out, again.
-
trying to compare cp to the war on drugs is like comparing prohabiton and the ban on murdering.
for me, it all boils down to the fact that CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT!
Banks don't consent to being robbed, and bank robberies are illegal, why don't you want to charge people who look at video footage of bank robberies? Your argument cannot possibly boil down to "children can not consent" because the principle behind that would be it should be illegal to look at images of crimes that involve a victim who did not consent, but you do not want to charge people for looking at bank robbery footage do you? So you are inconsistent and thus full of shit.
You're really stretching with your analogies. Just thought I'd point that out, again.
I don't understand how I am stretching at all. The argument "Pictures that depict the victimization of those who do not consent to the illegal actions taken against them in the photographs should be illegal because of the lack of consent" clearly means that both child pornography and video footage of bank robberies should be illegal. Where is the stretching? There is no stretching, the issue is that the people who argue this don't really believe it, they are just making up excuses as to why they want to lock people up. When they are pressed to explain how the analogy does not work they usually just get upset and end up saying something such as "whatever, you are obviously wrong, this isn't even worth my time you fucking pedophile!".
-
Your argument against CP is the same that people use against same sex mariage, etc. The only thing you are saying is "it is not moral"
Its the same shit the idiot republicans say against same sex marriage, you provide no evidence other than keep throwing in the point that it is not moral. I don't give a fuck if its not moral for you, it is not moral for me either. But for some people it is moral so they have all the right in the world to view it, cheers to them.
-
i can't fathom how twisted your logic is... it's painful. i've had more constructive discorse with siri. its like the turing test for trolls.
-
Your argument against CP is the same that people use against same sex mariage, etc. The only thing you are saying is "it is not moral"
Its the same shit the idiot republicans say against same sex marriage, you provide no evidence other than keep throwing in the point that it is not moral. I don't give a fuck if its not moral for you, it is not moral for me either. But for some people it is moral so they have all the right in the world to view it, cheers to them.
i'm talking about consent not morality, homosexuals can consent, fine good i coudn't care less what they do.
-
I don't understand how I am stretching at all. The argument "Pictures that depict the victimization of those who do not consent to the illegal actions taken against them in the photographs should be illegal because of the lack of consent" clearly means that both child pornography and video footage of bank robberies should be illegal.
And that's where your argument is fatally flawed...
I will play your game, and use your comparison against you. Video footage depicting the victimization of a bank would likely be legally protected by the bank as proprietary information. It would only legally have to be released by court-order; or willfully. Also, consent laws apply to all persons and proprietary information obtained or filmed within the confines of any private property. The bank would have to consent to those images being used in any public domain, so, by definition those images WOULD be illegal. Shall we continue?
Tell me something, do you often compare apples to oranges? I suppose in your world; fruit is fruit.
-
Your argument against CP is the same that people use against same sex mariage, etc. The only thing you are saying is "it is not moral"
Its the same shit the idiot republicans say against same sex marriage, you provide no evidence other than keep throwing in the point that it is not moral. I don't give a fuck if its not moral for you, it is not moral for me either. But for some people it is moral so they have all the right in the world to view it, cheers to them.
TMan, be careful which cup you drink from. All liquid is not life. All fluid is not water.
Morality is not Consent. Gay marriage is a far cry from Child Porn. What is it, hug a hero member day?
-
Posting in this thread earned me -2 Karma, anyone else? :)
-
O,P, it's a shame half of the people answering you can't look at this objectively, maybe then they could have a debate, an unimpartial debate with you. But most of them just are socially conditioned to automatically look on child porn as abhorrent. Maybe they will realize that their views are draconian, and when the new laws are passed, they will be happy there are less sex offenders. I mean do they actually realize, there are scale of offenses cat 1-5, 1 being, pictures fully clothed 5 pictures with child suffering torture/animal abuse and so on. How can we ever help people if we don't can't/won't understand, to cure these people, we first have to find out what makes them tick. How can we do that, with out empathizing or at least suspend out beliefs and hide our displeasure at their actions?
Now it takes all sorts in this world. I also think that we have a genetic blueprint already instilled in us, we know something is not right, but that's just makes us more determined to attain it. Now how can you knock out years of evolution from someone who 100 years ago, would have sex underage, and would look at a post pubescent child as a future mate/wife, but now a hundred years later we are told it's repugnant, OK morally repugnant, but already there in us, and always has been. And you will never solve this by punishment, and castration. I wouldn't mind, but most peadophile's are above average intelligence, I think there's a fine line between genius and madness, the normal man lets of steam by watching adults in a porno, does coke, whatever, but these clever people, let of steam by looking at something which is forbidden. At least that's my take on it, feel free to tell me to F off.
-
I don't understand how I am stretching at all. The argument "Pictures that depict the victimization of those who do not consent to the illegal actions taken against them in the photographs should be illegal because of the lack of consent" clearly means that both child pornography and video footage of bank robberies should be illegal.
And that's where your argument is fatally flawed...
I will play your game, and use your comparison against you. Video footage depicting the victimization of a bank would likely be legally protected by the bank as proprietary information. It would only legally have to be released by court-order; or willfully. Also, consent laws apply to all persons and proprietary information obtained or filmed within the confines of any private property. The bank would have to consent to those images being used in any public domain, so, by definition those images WOULD be illegal. Shall we continue?
Tell me something, do you often compare apples to oranges? I suppose in your world; fruit is fruit.
Okay so you think child pornography possession should be a small copyright violation unless the depicted child agrees to put it into public domain or enough years pass that it automatically goes into the public domain? Because the only thing I can conclude from your new twist to this argument is that either people should have to go to prison for decades and register as sex offenders for downloading Spiderman movies, or people who download CP should be mostly left alone or maybe get sued by the children sometimes.
-
Also in at least some cases I am sure you are wrong. There was a famous bank robbery several years ago where the robbers were decked out with automatic weapons and full body armor, and they got in a huge gun fight with the police while trying to escape. That was covered by the media legally, and the video was broadcast all over the place. All kinds of people in that video were victimized by these guys, they were shooting bullets everywhere, had just robbed a bank, and did all kinds of illegal shit that victimized people and it was all caught on film and broadcast via the media. So you think I am a bank robber because I watched this right, and I should go to jail for robbing a bank and getting in a massive gun fight with the police.
What about the assault on Rodney King, should I be charged with police brutality? I saw a video on the news a few days ago where there was a speeding car, should I get a speeding ticket? I saw pictures of the holocaust am I a war criminal? You say no to all of these things, but then if somebody looks at a video of a child being molested you say that they are abusing children in doing so. It makes no sense really, and it is apples to apples, videos are videos, crimes are crimes, watching videos of crimes is watching videos of crimes. Your problem is that you take two apples and say one is an orange.
In reply to JohnTheBaptist the only thing I really disagree with what you said is pedophiles being above average intelligence, most studies I have read say that they are below average intelligence and there is a strong correlation between childhood head injury and pedophilia.
-
omg its fucking joepedo. we haven't missed you at &Z btw you fucking nonse cunt.
-
Posting in this thread earned me -2 Karma, anyone else? :)
Me too, to the person giving out neg karma, why don't you seek help, or better still tell us what happened when you were a child, you obviously disagree, but instead of voicing your opinion, you just give neg out. I feel for you.
-
omg its fucking joepedo. we haven't missed you at &Z btw you fucking nonse cunt.
Usually in life I find that the people who give arguments using various techniques (ie: analogy, reduction to absurdity, etc), and provide facts and citations for the facts, tend to be right, and the people who freak out and call people fucking nonse cunts and act like they are just inherently right without having to give any logical arguments or citations to research, are usually totally wrong and not using their logical abilities at all but rather are suffering from an acute manifestation of some hyper emotional disease.
-
O,P, it's a shame half of the people answering you can't look at this objectively, maybe then they could have a debate, an unimpartial debate with you. But most of them just are socially conditioned to automatically look on child porn as abhorrent. Maybe they will realize that their views are draconian, and when the new laws are passed, they will be happy there are less sex offenders. I mean do they actually realize, there are scale of offenses cat 1-5, 1 being, pictures fully clothed 5 pictures with child suffering torture/animal abuse and so on. How can we ever help people if we don't can't/won't understand, to cure these people, we first have to find out what makes them tick. How can we do that, with out empathizing or at least suspend out beliefs and hide our displeasure at their actions?
Now it takes all sorts in this world. I also think that we have a genetic blueprint already instilled in us, we know something is not right, but that's just makes us more determined to attain it. Now how can you knock out years of evolution from someone who 100 years ago, would have sex underage, and would look at a post pubescent child as a future mate/wife, but now a hundred years later we are told it's repugnant, OK morally repugnant, but already there in us, and always has been. And you will never solve this by punishment, and castration. I wouldn't mind, but most peadophile's are above average intelligence, I think there's a fine line between genius and madness, the normal man lets of steam by watching adults in a porno, does coke, whatever, but these clever people, let of steam by looking at something which is forbidden. At least that's my take on it, feel free to tell me to F off.
as a user of sr i understand the desire to circumvant draconian laws to avail yourself of services otherwise denied to you. But the driving point here is that it is a transaction between two adults ( hopefully ) willing to take the risk inherent to breaking the laws, adults that can mental comprehend the ramifactions of such an act. Child Pornography inherently includeds a minor that can not understand or comprehend the same. the laws and ethics difer between them. the other Logical fallacy here is an argument from antiquity, just because something used to be, deosn't mean its right. Societies evolve, morals and ethics change. you might as well say human sacrafices is good because aztecs. you're right in pointing out my error earlier about saying basical pedo's should die. that was wrong of me. it stems from my being a victim during childhood and dealing with the fallout. and i agree let you should do our best to rehab them. but we also owe are children protection from them. I shouldn't desire vengence, but i also don't want this to happen to others. i not trying to gather sympathy just explain my error, and why i feel so vehemently opposed to cp.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1]
-
Also in at least some cases I am sure you are wrong. There was a famous bank robbery several years ago where the robbers were decked out with automatic weapons and full body armor, and they got in a huge gun fight with the police while trying to escape. That was covered by the media legally, and the video was broadcast all over the place. All kinds of people in that video were victimized by these guys, they were shooting bullets everywhere, had just robbed a bank, and did all kinds of illegal shit that victimized people and it was all caught on film and broadcast via the media. So you think I am a bank robber because I watched this right, and I should go to jail for robbing a bank and getting in a massive gun fight with the police.
What about the assault on Rodney King, should I be charged with police brutality? I saw a video on the news a few days ago where there was a speeding car, should I get a speeding ticket? I saw pictures of the holocaust am I a war criminal? You say no to all of these things, but then if somebody looks at a video of a child being molested you say that they are abusing children in doing so. It makes no sense really, and it is apples to apples, videos are videos, crimes are crimes, watching videos of crimes is watching videos of crimes. Your problem is that you take two apples and say one is an orange.
In reply to JohnTheBaptist the only thing I really disagree with what you said is pedophiles being above average intelligence, most studies I have read say that they are below average intelligence and there is a strong correlation between childhood head injury and pedophilia.
there is no comparision between the above and cp, if i go into a bank, or any other public area i am aware that i will likely be caught on tape so to speak, i have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1] In medicine the term is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.[2][3]
A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.[4] Sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria.[5]
dafuq is this suposed to prove
-
Also in at least some cases I am sure you are wrong. There was a famous bank robbery several years ago where the robbers were decked out with automatic weapons and full body armor, and they got in a huge gun fight with the police while trying to escape. That was covered by the media legally, and the video was broadcast all over the place. All kinds of people in that video were victimized by these guys, they were shooting bullets everywhere, had just robbed a bank, and did all kinds of illegal shit that victimized people and it was all caught on film and broadcast via the media. So you think I am a bank robber because I watched this right, and I should go to jail for robbing a bank and getting in a massive gun fight with the police.
What about the assault on Rodney King, should I be charged with police brutality? I saw a video on the news a few days ago where there was a speeding car, should I get a speeding ticket? I saw pictures of the holocaust am I a war criminal? You say no to all of these things, but then if somebody looks at a video of a child being molested you say that they are abusing children in doing so. It makes no sense really, and it is apples to apples, videos are videos, crimes are crimes, watching videos of crimes is watching videos of crimes. Your problem is that you take two apples and say one is an orange.
In reply to JohnTheBaptist the only thing I really disagree with what you said is pedophiles being above average intelligence, most studies I have read say that they are below average intelligence and there is a strong correlation between childhood head injury and pedophilia.
there is no comparision between the above and cp, if i go into a bank, or any other public area i am aware that i will likely be caught on tape so to speak, i have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So if somebody takes a child to a public area and molests them you think the resulting CP should be legal? Your argument just sucks man, you are trying to save something that cannot be saved. If you think CP should be illegal to view because it depicts people who are victimized without consent, you either must think that all images that depict people who are victimized without consent should be illegal to view, or you are suffering from cognitive dissonance and clearly irrational.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1] In medicine the term is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.[2][3]
A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.[4] Sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria.[5]
dafuq is this suposed to prove
Nothing, I am just pointing out what the current situation in certain parts of the world is. There is a collective delusion that people viewing CP are a threat to society, and it has spread rapidly through rumors and fear. It is a perfect example of a contemporary case of mass hysteria.
-
This made me sick to my stomach just reading the first post
If you in anyway support or actually DO NOT DISAPPROVE of CP you should suffer the worst punishment on earth
if SR was in anyway ever associated with such things I would leave and never come back. CP is f*** up and I think anyone who does not disapprove of it likely is suffering from some form of mental deficiency.
Nuff said
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1] In medicine the term is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.[2][3]
A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.[4] Sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria.[5]
dafuq is this suposed to prove
Nothing, I am just pointing out what the current situation in certain parts of the world is. There is a collective delusion that people viewing CP are a threat to society, and it has spread rapidly through rumors and fear. It is a perfect example of a contemporary case of mass hysteria.
thats it, i am done, your incredable idiocy has won.
-
Why do you feel the need to get on the forum where I buy my weed and talk about killing and blowing up motherfuckers, gore porn, and all kinds of wackadoo fucking bug-nutty boyfucking deviant weirdness bro?
-
This made me sick to my stomach just reading the first post
If you in anyway support or actually DO NOT DISAPPROVE of CP you should suffer the worst punishment on earth
if SR was in anyway ever associated with such things I would leave and never come back. CP is f*** up and I think anyone who does not disapprove of it likely is suffering from some form of mental deficiency.
Nuff said
Wow that sounds like an extremely excessive reaction to reading the first post, I think perhaps you should go to the doctor correlation is not causation you know.
Why do you feel the need to get on the forum where I buy my weed and talk about killing and blowing up motherfuckers, gore porn, and all kinds of wackadoo fucking bug-nutty boyfucking deviant weirdness bro?
Well I keep seeing people calling for the death of people who view CP, and ironically for the pedos using the same security technology as they are using for drug transactions to have the feds overcome their security, and I just cannot help but point out that they are fucking idiots. I think a better question is why can't people seem to go more than ten minutes without expressing their disgust with, and desire to kill, anybody who has ever seen a naked picture of somebody under the age of 18?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1] In medicine the term is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.[2][3]
A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.[4] Sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria.[5]
dafuq is this suposed to prove
Nothing, I am just pointing out what the current situation in certain parts of the world is. There is a collective delusion that people viewing CP are a threat to society, and it has spread rapidly through rumors and fear. It is a perfect example of a contemporary case of mass hysteria.
thats it, i am done, your incredable idiocy has won.
Yeah I think I would stop trying to argue too if the only argument I had is that pictures of children are magical but other pictures are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.
Nice point, and although I think that they have many of the characteristics of confirmation bias (particularly: belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)), I think mass hysteria is a better diagnosis. None of them are actually even finding any research or other evidence that agrees with them at all, and rather are saying they are right because they are right or calling people names, so since they have not actually even shown that they have found any actual evidence at all that confirms their beliefs, I think they cannot possibly be suffering from confirmation bias.
Cognitive dissonance also seems to be a common trait though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.
This is demonstrated in the people who believe that it should be illegal to view CP because the children depicted are victimized and did not consent, but legal to view other images where the subjects depicted are victimized and did not consent. They clearly hold two opposing beliefs at the same time and therefor are obviously suffering from cognitive dissonance.
-
You can twist words and quote as many useless stats as you want but at the end of the day children are completely innocent and should be protected at all costs. There is no place in society for CP anyone that remotely finds this appealing is need of physiological help as its just not right.
-
I think a better question is why can't people seem to go more than ten minutes without expressing their disgust with, and desire to kill, anybody who has ever seen a naked picture of somebody under the age of 18?
we've all seen children naked, its a normal part of life. but normal people don't go getting fucking hard ons over it and drooling with thoughts of sexually molesting the kid.
Nice point, and although I think that they have many of the characteristics of confirmation bias (particularly: belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)), I think mass hysteria is a better diagnosis. None of them are actually even finding any research or other evidence that agrees with them at all, and rather are saying they are right because they are right or calling people names, so since they have not actually even shown that they have found any actual evidence at all that confirms their beliefs, I think they cannot possibly be suffering from confirmation bias.
Cognitive dissonance also seems to be a common trait though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.
This is demonstrated in the people who believe that it should be illegal to view CP because the children depicted are victimized and did not consent, but legal to view other images where the subjects depicted are victimized and did not consent. They clearly hold two opposing beliefs at the same time and therefor are obviously suffering from cognitive dissonance.
can you understand what a child would go through while being sexually abused? i can only imagine what it must be like having some old disgusting man doing such horrific acts to you must be like. the fact that you are being coerced and forced to undress, and perform what must seem like disgusting things, all the while feeling much smaller and younger to the extent that you have no control or are able to protest, and so have no choice but to go along with such vile acts, even to the extent where you feel you must act as though you might even enjoy them. i can only imagine the torment and embarrassment that child would then go through knowing that millions of sicko's all over the world were then drooling over the torture that was forced upon them.
and to do that to a child who barely understands what the fuck it was done for, like it must have been some form of punishment. only the sickest most disgusting people could even begin to advocate something like that. you are the one with confirmation bias, you're using all this bullshit to reinforce your sick fucking nonseness so you can somehow get other people to agree and so justify it to yourself. but you're just a sick nasty bastard and always will be.
in jail we found out a guy was a sick nonse like you. we went in his cell one day and beat his head in with lumps of wood we found. we busted his skull wide open. that wasn't enough for him tho, it wouldn't be enough for you either. and you'll get it one day an all.
CUNT!!
-
So looking at pictures of people being abused without consent means that you should in real life be abused without consent. Gah. People like you reinforce one thing in my mind, and that one thing is that democracy is evil and dangerous. Fucking emotionally unstable irrational people are ten times worse than people who look at CP. Yeah I can imagine all the shit you said about a child being raped etc, doesn't it bother you that all research done indicates that making CP illegal to view results in more of that happening? You say you are against child molestation but then you argue for a policy that has been demonstrated to sharply increase child abuse rates. Please, I know you are suffering from mass hysteria and have little control over yourself, but try to keep your shit together a little better.
-
change the fucking record will you. i honestly can't believe you're still bringing this shit up kmf after being shot down every other time it's been mentioned and you've jumped to their defence. for a clever bloke you ain't half fucking thick at times. haven't read any of your bullshit this time round because quite frankly you make me sick, but judging by the overwhelming majority of replies on this thread on the same side of the fence i'm guessing your still spouting the same bullshit arguments about why it's ok to look but not touch. am i right? get it through your nonce cunt head your clever wordplay is not going to convince any level headed person it's ok.
-
I am a sick child rapist because I can identify trends and extrapolate them to the future?
Trends? Freedom Hosting just got fuckin' took, son... Did you see that trend coming?
Yeah kind of. I have long argued that Tor does not protect its hidden services enough, always told people to turn off javascript and isolate their browser, etc. I am not really that surprised, and I am redundantly protected from the attack against people who went to FH in more than 5 different ways so I don't really care.
-
change the fucking record will you. i honestly can't believe you're still bringing this shit up kmf after being shot down every other time it's been mentioned and you've jumped to their defence. for a clever bloke you ain't half fucking thick at times. haven't read any of your bullshit this time round because quite frankly you make me sick, but judging by the overwhelming majority of replies on this thread on the same side of the fence i'm guessing your still spouting the same bullshit arguments about why it's ok to look but not touch. am i right? get it through your nonce cunt head your clever wordplay is not going to convince any level headed person it's ok.
I am starting to imagine gangs of rather low intelligence hooligans in the UK running around looking for "nonce cunts" to bash their heads in with blocks of wood, lol. Yeah I know that my "clever wordplay" (ps: it is called logic) is not going to convince many people, because they are just mind fucked beyond hope. I don't really care. 50% of the world agrees with me. I will just go live in Uruguay and fuck 15 year olds and look at CP all day (though truth be told I am not into CP so probably will not do this) and take drugs all day and not break any laws in the process. You think that your little culture is the world dominant one but look at some charts and maps of the world there are all kinds of countries where it is legal to "look but not touch". And I stick by my original argument, the number of such countries is just going to grow and grow. In a few hundred years you will be hard pressed to find such a primitive culture that they think people should be punished for looking at pictures, and in a thousand years they will look back to you today and consider that you are barbarians and live in the dark ages.
-
So looking at pictures of people being abused without consent means that you should in real life be abused without consent. Gah. People like you reinforce one thing in my mind, and that one thing is that democracy is evil and dangerous. Fucking emotionally unstable irrational people are ten times worse than people who look at CP. Yeah I can imagine all the shit you said about a child being raped etc, doesn't it bother you that all research done indicates that making CP illegal to view results in more of that happening? You say you are against child molestation but then you argue for a policy that has been demonstrated to sharply increase child abuse rates. Please, I know you are suffering from mass hysteria and have little control over yourself, but try to keep your shit together a little better.
fuck democracy, its bollocks. and fuck people who look at cp and those who commit those sick acts toward innocent kids. they both should be illegal, not just one to prevent the other. the fact is that i accept that we live in a world where both happen and there's little that will prevent people doing so. but when it does the law needs to crack down hard on those fuckers because that is just really nasty shit to do to a kid. its pretty clear to anyone with an oz of decency that people should be prosecuted for participating in both.
i'm not one to defend the law, trust me i hate pretty much all of it, but on these two things i am 100% behind them. the only problem i have with it really, is that i don't trust the people who administer justice it to use it properly. but i certainly wouldn't advocate the law to stop prosecuting you vile monsters.
and you keep questioning why people are against media of people being abused without their consent and not children. its because they are fucking children you fucking imbecile. you just don't fuck with kids man. kids are completely defenseless against this abuse. people not so much so. besides i think you'll fnd most people would frown on adults being pictured while being sexually abused if its against the persons will anyway. but then you'll probably find most rape porn is acted out and so the person is giving consent.
-
and you keep questioning why people are against media of people being abused without their consent and not children. its because they are fucking children you fucking imbecile.
They argued that looking at child porn should be illegal because it depicts people who are abused without consent. They don't think other depictions of people being abused without consent should be illegal to look at (ie: holocaust pictures). Now you say the reason child porn should be illegal to look at is because it depicts *children* being abused without their consent. Child porn is pictures of children being abused without their consent. So you have changed your argument to:
"Looking at child porn should be illegal because it's child porn."
That is a really skillful argument....
Are you going to quit drugs as soon as you hear:
"Illegal drugs should be illegal because they are illegal drugs" ? lol
-
oh. my. god. 50%? so by your argument every other person on the planet thinks it's ok to look at pictures of children being abused?. would it not be reasonable to assume that 50% of the population would also lead to 50% of the population of this forum? where are your 50% backers on here?
if you are not into CP why do you insist on pushing the arguments for it in everyones faces? do you just enjoy being labelled a nonce?
no, i meant clever wordplay. logic is a trail of thought, i meant the way you twist arguments for your own ends. there is nothing logical about that.
and yes - i do think they should all be put of out their misery. its a sexual preference, you can't rewire their heads into not being nonces any more than you can rewire a gay blokes head to start fancying women
-
but the vast majority of people who look at holocaust pictures aren't fapping over it.
-
oh. my. god. 50%? so by your argument every other person on the planet thinks it's ok to look at pictures of children being abused?. would it not be reasonable to assume that 50% of the population would also lead to 50% of the population of this forum? where are your 50% backers on here?
if you are not into CP why do you insist on pushing the arguments for it in everyones faces? do you just enjoy being labelled a nonce?
no, i meant clever wordplay. logic is a trail of thought, i meant the way you twist arguments for your own ends. there is nothing logical about that.
and yes - i do think they should all be put of out their misery. its a sexual preference, you can't rewire their heads into not being nonces any more than you can rewire a gay blokes head to start fancying women
i know rite? its like his argument assumes that everybody who lives in a country who hasn't made it illegal, probably because they have more important issues, do not have a huge cp problem or just haven't got around to it yet, thinks child porn is ok. that's a seriously big assumption.
-
and you keep questioning why people are against media of people being abused without their consent and not children. its because they are fucking children you fucking imbecile.
They argued that looking at child porn should be illegal because it depicts people who are abused without consent. They don't think other depictions of people being abused without consent should be illegal to look at (ie: holocaust pictures). Now you say the reason child porn should be illegal to look at is because it depicts *children* being abused without their consent. Child porn is pictures of children being abused without their consent. So you have changed your argument to:
"Looking at child porn should be illegal because it's child porn."
That is a really skillful argument....
Are you going to quit drugs as soon as you hear:
"Illegal drugs should be illegal because they are illegal drugs" ? lol
now i'm pretty much certain you're just a shock troll using the pedo angle to get his shock value excitement. i hate to break it to you but you're far from the first one i've encountered. and you're probably on the wrong forum if you're really wanting to shock. you should probably try mumsnet. you'll get your reaction there that you're after.
-
oh. my. god. 50%? so by your argument every other person on the planet thinks it's ok to look at pictures of children being abused?. would it not be reasonable to assume that 50% of the population would also lead to 50% of the population of this forum? where are your 50% backers on here?
if you are not into CP why do you insist on pushing the arguments for it in everyones faces? do you just enjoy being labelled a nonce?
no, i meant clever wordplay. logic is a trail of thought, i meant the way you twist arguments for your own ends. there is nothing logical about that.
and yes - i do think they should all be put of out their misery. its a sexual preference, you can't rewire their heads into not being nonces any more than you can rewire a gay blokes head to start fancying women
i know rite? its like his argument assumes that everybody who lives in a country who hasn't made it illegal, probably because they have more important issues, do not have a huge cp problem or just haven't got around to it yet, thinks child porn is ok. that's a seriously big assumption.
every few months he starts spouting this shit. it's like a 5 year old in a playgroup throwing a tantrum because no ones paying any him any attention
-
oh. my. god. 50%? so by your argument every other person on the planet thinks it's ok to look at pictures of children being abused?. would it not be reasonable to assume that 50% of the population would also lead to 50% of the population of this forum? where are your 50% backers on here?
Most of the countries where it is legal do not speak English this is mostly an English speaking forum with majority of members probably from English speaking countries. I don't know about 50% of population but yeah 50% of countries, look it up if you do not believe me lol.
if you are not into CP why do you insist on pushing the arguments for it in everyones faces? do you just enjoy being labelled a nonce?
Well first of all I have never actually gone out and started such a thread or made such posts without having somebody else say something first. I have been 100% reactionary, but yeah if I see people saying stupid shit I will call them out and tell them why they are wrong. Just because you are not a Jew doesn't mean you should let the Nazis kill them all. Just because you are not black doesn't mean you shouldn't tell people that they are idiots when they start saying racist lies.
no, i meant clever wordplay. logic is a trail of thought, i meant the way you twist arguments for your own ends. there is nothing logical about that.
Huh well at least you think I am clever several others in this thread said I am a moron.
and yes - i do think they should all be put of out their misery. its a sexual preference, you can't rewire their heads into not being nonces any more than you can rewire a gay blokes head to start fancying women
Sure I agree not much luck to rewire a pedophiles mind, but many pedophiles are not child molesters. Wanting to kill pedophiles because they might end up being child molesters makes about as much sense as wanting to kill all men because they might end up as rapists.
but the vast majority of people who look at holocaust pictures aren't fapping over it.
Oh, so you just don't want people to fap to child porn. But it is okay if they look at it? What about Neo Nazis, they probably get enjoyment out of seeing pictures of dead Jews, do you think we should arrest them if they look at holocaust pictures?
-
and you keep questioning why people are against media of people being abused without their consent and not children. its because they are fucking children you fucking imbecile.
They argued that looking at child porn should be illegal because it depicts people who are abused without consent. They don't think other depictions of people being abused without consent should be illegal to look at (ie: holocaust pictures). Now you say the reason child porn should be illegal to look at is because it depicts *children* being abused without their consent. Child porn is pictures of children being abused without their consent. So you have changed your argument to:
"Looking at child porn should be illegal because it's child porn."
That is a really skillful argument....
Are you going to quit drugs as soon as you hear:
"Illegal drugs should be illegal because they are illegal drugs" ? lol
now i'm pretty much certain you're just a shock troll using the pedo angle to get his shock value excitement. i hate to break it to you but you're far from the first one i've encountered. and you're probably on the wrong forum if you're really wanting to shock. you should probably try mumsnet. you'll get your reaction there that you're after.
Do you call everybody a troll when they reveal how superficial and stupid your argument is?
-
So looking at pictures of people being abused without consent means that you should in real life be abused without consent. Gah. People like you reinforce one thing in my mind, and that one thing is that democracy is evil and dangerous. Fucking emotionally unstable irrational people are ten times worse than people who look at CP. Yeah I can imagine all the shit you said about a child being raped etc, doesn't it bother you that all research done indicates that making CP illegal to view results in more of that happening? You say you are against child molestation but then you argue for a policy that has been demonstrated to sharply increase child abuse rates. Please, I know you are suffering from mass hysteria and have little control over yourself, but try to keep your shit together a little better.
The thing you need to realize (and you probably already do), is that this is such an extremely sensitive subject, which means that most people are not capable of debating it in a non-emotional way.
I agree that most of the research seems to support you, and I actually also saw a study which suggested that death penalty for child abuse, made children less likely to admit they had been abused (No child wants to be responsible for killing their uncle).
That being said, I think that this discussion is far more complex than most people seem to realize.
The reason that most of you are getting so pissed at kmfkewm, is that he is trying to discuss this subject in a purely pragmatic way, while everyone else is incapable of setting their own feelings, and judgements aside.
I am generally against criminalization and prohibition, so I do not consider this to be the right solution, but I am not in favor of just legalizing it either. I think that looking at images like this should probably be considered a medical issue, rather than a criminal issue (as should drug abuse).
I actually live in a country where bestiality is not outlawed, but people generally frown upon my arguments when i say that I think bestiality is okay, as long as you are not causing harm to the animal! I do not condone it, but I also don't really see the problem with it.
I think that this is somewhat the same discussion, just a lot more emotional.
Let me ask people this:
How do you feel about CP cartoons.?
Like Hardcore Manga, or drawings of 10 year olds, getting penetrated.?
I think that this is a similar interesting discussion, as people seem to be generally against this too, although these cartoons also seem to be beneficial to the actual child abuse statistics.
-
yeah i'm done arguing with an idiot for one day. you twist that into a victory or see it however you like you sick nonse. i couldn't really give a fuck.
-
oh. my. god. 50%? so by your argument every other person on the planet thinks it's ok to look at pictures of children being abused?. would it not be reasonable to assume that 50% of the population would also lead to 50% of the population of this forum? where are your 50% backers on here?
Most of the countries where it is legal do not speak English this is mostly an English speaking forum with majority of members probably from English speaking countries. I don't know about 50% of population but yeah 50% of countries, look it up if you do not believe me lol.
so 50% of the worlds population but none of the English speaking population on this forum? oh sorry, ONE on here, out of nearly 80000 people? not quite 50% i think you'll agree. or even half a % for that matter
if you are not into CP why do you insist on pushing the arguments for it in everyones faces? do you just enjoy being labelled a nonce?
Well first of all I have never actually gone out and started such a thread or made such posts without having somebody else say something first. I have been 100% reactionary
apart from this one that popped up entirely out of the blue
but yeah if I see people saying stupid shit I will call them out and tell them why they are wrong.
exactly how egotistical are you? so everybody replying in this thread is wrong because you say so?
Just because you are not a Jew doesn't mean you should let the Nazis kill them all. Just because you are not black doesn't mean you shouldn't tell people that they are idiots when they start saying racist lies.
what the fuck has this got to do with anything? it does not justify your reasoning at all.
Huh well at least you think I am clever several others in this thread said I am a moron.
i know from other threads you have some kind of intelligence behind you, i'm pretty blown away you can't admit to being wrong in this case
Sure I agree not much luck to rewire a pedophiles mind, but many pedophiles are not child molesters.
Wanting to kill pedophiles because they might end up being child molesters makes about as much sense as wanting to kill all men because they might end up as rapists.
this is kind of the only thing you've said that makes an argument to NOT kill every pedophile on earth, apart from the fact males can actually have sex with consenting parties. pedos will never get the satisfaction of a consenting party
-
oh. my. god. 50%? so by your argument every other person on the planet thinks it's ok to look at pictures of children being abused?. would it not be reasonable to assume that 50% of the population would also lead to 50% of the population of this forum? where are your 50% backers on here?
Most of the countries where it is legal do not speak English this is mostly an English speaking forum with majority of members probably from English speaking countries. I don't know about 50% of population but yeah 50% of countries, look it up if you do not believe me lol.
so 50% of the worlds population but none of the English speaking population on this forum? oh sorry, ONE on here, out of nearly 80000 people? not quite 50% i think you'll agree. or even half a % for that matter
sorry, i'll rephrase this one - so English speaking countries think it's wrong, but 50% of non-English speaking countries think it's ok?
can any non Brit (hate that term), yank, aussie or Canadian confirm this? please excuse me if i haven't included your country and you speak English natively, i'm pretty stoned and that's all i could think of
-
oh. my. god. 50%? so by your argument every other person on the planet thinks it's ok to look at pictures of children being abused?. would it not be reasonable to assume that 50% of the population would also lead to 50% of the population of this forum? where are your 50% backers on here?
Most of the countries where it is legal do not speak English this is mostly an English speaking forum with majority of members probably from English speaking countries. I don't know about 50% of population but yeah 50% of countries, look it up if you do not believe me lol.
so 50% of the worlds population but none of the English speaking population on this forum? oh sorry, ONE on here, out of nearly 80000 people? not quite 50% i think you'll agree. or even half a % for that matter
sorry, i'll rephrase this one - so English speaking countries think it's wrong, but 50% of non-English speaking countries think it's ok?
can any non Brit (hate that term), yank, aussie or Canadian confirm this? please excuse me if i haven't included your country and you speak English natively, i'm pretty stoned and that's all i could think of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornography
has a map as well
Laws regarding child pornography exist in 94 of 187 Interpol member states as of 2008.[1][2] Of those 94 countries, 58 criminalized possession of child pornography regardless of intent to distribute.
-
yeah, have a good look at that map - out of the 50% of that map thats green 50% of that green is either uninhabitable, has 1 inhabitant per hundred miles or is so third world they've never even seen a camera before, so they don't even know what photography is, let alone pornography of any kind. as soon as those countries start getting technologically able it will be most likely be outlawed.
may be 50% of the countries, but i'd guess that 50% of those countries that actually have things like electricity and cameras (basically those possible to access CP) only accounts for less than 10% of the worlds population.
whatever it is, it's still a vast minority. and i seriously doubt i have to tell you of all people this - just somethings legal it doesn't make it ok, just like when somethings illegal it doesn't make it bad.
-
Russia is pretty inhabitable in many parts and has a rather large population. Also in many countries with CP being illegal to view many people think it should be legal. You will never convince me that viewing pictures is bad, sorry.
-
likewise it's highly unlikely you'll convince anyone else to change their views on it.
bottom line is harm was caused, and will continue to be caused, in creating the images. i can't see how that can ever be justified.
yes harm is caused in the drug trade, but the government can do something about it by legalizing and regulating the supply. this can never be said of CP - it will always harm the innocent
-
O,P, it's a shame half of the people answering you can't look at this objectively, maybe then they could have a debate, an unimpartial debate with you. But most of them just are socially conditioned to automatically look on child porn as abhorrent. Maybe they will realize that their views are draconian, and when the new laws are passed, they will be happy there are less sex offenders. I mean do they actually realize, there are scale of offenses cat 1-5, 1 being, pictures fully clothed 5 pictures with child suffering torture/animal abuse and so on. How can we ever help people if we don't can't/won't understand, to cure these people, we first have to find out what makes them tick. How can we do that, with out empathizing or at least suspend out beliefs and hide our displeasure at their actions?
Now it takes all sorts in this world. I also think that we have a genetic blueprint already instilled in us, we know something is not right, but that's just makes us more determined to attain it. Now how can you knock out years of evolution from someone who 100 years ago, would have sex underage, and would look at a post pubescent child as a future mate/wife, but now a hundred years later we are told it's repugnant, OK morally repugnant, but already there in us, and always has been. And you will never solve this by punishment, and castration. I wouldn't mind, but most peadophile's are above average intelligence, I think there's a fine line between genius and madness, the normal man lets of steam by watching adults in a porno, does coke, whatever, but these clever people, let of steam by looking at something which is forbidden. At least that's my take on it, feel free to tell me to F off.
as a user of sr i understand the desire to circumvant draconian laws to avail yourself of services otherwise denied to you. But the driving point here is that it is a transaction between two adults ( hopefully ) willing to take the risk inherent to breaking the laws, adults that can mental comprehend the ramifactions of such an act. Child Pornography inherently includeds a minor that can not understand or comprehend the same. the laws and ethics difer between them. the other Logical fallacy here is an argument from antiquity, just because something used to be, deosn't mean its right. Societies evolve, morals and ethics change. you might as well say human sacrafices is good because aztecs. you're right in pointing out my error earlier about saying basical pedo's should die. that was wrong of me. it stems from my being a victim during childhood and dealing with the fallout. and i agree let you should do our best to rehab them. but we also owe are children protection from them. I shouldn't desire vengence, but i also don't want this to happen to others. i not trying to gather sympathy just explain my error, and why i feel so vehemently opposed to cp.
A more than valid, and fair point. I think you're very brave, and you have obviously put these tragic event's into some perspective, and learnt that it wasn't your fault. I totally understand your position.
-
likewise it's highly unlikely you'll convince anyone else to change their views on it.
bottom line is harm was caused, and will continue to be caused, in creating the images. i can't see how that can ever be justified.
yes harm is caused in the drug trade, but the government can do something about it by legalizing and regulating the supply. this can never be said of CP - it will always harm the innocent
Creating images should be illegal, telling people that they cannot go to a site on their browser and look at pictures on it is the most insane notion in the world.
-
So in another thread people did not like my comment that CP possession is legal in half of the world and will be decriminalized in the other half within the next few hundred years. So I don't want to clutter a bunch of random threads up with these never ending debates, and have decided to make one thread to address the topic for the rest of eternity. In the future when threads go in this direction, I will point people to this one. I also am sick of making the same points every single time, and an authoritative thread on this is clearly needed since we have had about fifty in the past and many threads have derailed into people debating about this (mostly debating with me, though they usually start it!).
So here we go:
Child porn possession is legal in half of the world and probably will be legalized in the other half of the world within the next few hundred years.
You can't be serious! One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen posted. You can do what you do kmfkewn, that's your choice, but to suggest that child pornography possession will be legalized in the remaining 50% of countries where it's currently illegal, over a period of a few hundred years, is outrageous and unconscionable. A more realistic expectation would be to suggest that CP possession is deemed illegal in most, if not all of the countries where it's currently legal. Anyone who actually believes countries such as the US, UK, Australia, etc, would ever soften their stance on CP possession, needs to have their head examined.
I am serious there is no way CP viewing is going to remain illegal in those countries over the next few hundred years. First of all it is already legal to view child porn in New York state, it just isn't legal to save it. The court there has determined that having CP in RAM or a cache on your drive is not a crime, and it is only a crime to intentionally download CP from a website. They are confused on technical things, but essentially they have ruled that you can surf CP but not keep a long term collection of it on your hard drive unless it is from browser cache. Of course federal laws trumps state law, but technically it is already legal to surf CP sites in New York State.
Second of all, despite the cries and foaming at the mouth of the common people, the federal judges are not really fond of child pornography viewing laws in the first place. They continue to sentence people far below the suggested levels and to petition law makers for softer laws against CP viewing.
http://www.ahmedandsukaram.com/CM/Articles/Federal-Judges-Encourage-Reduced-Sentencing-for-Child-Pornography.asp
Third of all researchers keep finding that decriminalizing child pornography viewing causes a very substantial drop in child sex abuse, and that is certain to eventually become common knowledge. The war on CP viewers is counter productive to a strategy for reducing molestation rates, and all the science backs this up.
Fourth of all the internet is becoming more and more prominent and the reasonings behind CP viewing being made illegal in the first place are less and less relevant. The entire argument the supreme court gave for allowing CP to be illegal is outdated and irrelevant today, there is no commercial market for CP it is almost all traded for free on P2P networks, research has shown there is very very little overlap between child porn viewers and molesters, etc. Additionally CP offenses are going to continue to skyrocket as more and more people have access to the internet, the number of CP offenses has been exponentially growing and there are no signs of this ever letting up. Truth is many people who are told not to look at something will seek it out, and there are many different other reasons people look at CP as well and the internet is making many of them (such as general pornography addiction) more common.
There is also the issue of many minors themselves being turned into sex offenders for obtaining images of their naked peers, in many states they are already having discussions about legalizing the exchange and possession of images of naked teenagers between each other, and this will obviously be a stepping stone toward decriminalization of possession of naked underage teenagers for everybody (how can they say it is legal for a 17 year old to have a picture of a naked 14 year old, but not legal for him to when he turns 18? Does he need to burn the picture? delete it off his phone? what about when forensics recovers the deleted images that used to be legal for him to have??). Either they can lock up all of the teenagers who now have camera phones and very frequently produce child pornography of themselves and share with their boy/girl friends, or they can legalize the possession of jailbait pornography for teenagers which will certainly lead to the legalization of jailbait pornography possession for everybody.
As some states declare viewing CP to be legal (like New York already has), federal judges continue to rally for greatly reduced sentences, researchers continue to find that allowing people to view CP causes a sharp decline in molestation rates, as the arguments against child pornography become less and less relevant to modern times, as research continues to show that people who view CP are very rarely child molesters, as the truth about government propaganda leaks out, as the nations are faced with criminalizing their children or decriminalizing child porn possession, I am certain that it is going to be legal to view and possess CP within the next few hundred years, in the large majority of the world, no doubt about it.
shut the fuck up mate. history is moving in the opposite direction. thankfully. you sound like a filthy pedo.
lol. I love to argue with people about this they get so mad and have no arguments and I have such great arguments and citations. Give me some evidence that "history is moving in the opposite direction" , citations etc? You sound like a fucking retard.
kmfkewm, you seriously have some issues with getting a grasp on reality! I'm willing to bet you're a regular user of drugs such as LSD, Mushies or alike. That would have to be a contributing factor to your deluded, immoral posts on CP, which you seem to have an answer for everything. ::) ::)
Drawing a comparison between viewing pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust and these sick bastards who find looking at children being sexually abused is sheer lunacy! Since you're a stats man, what percentage of the worldwide population do you think view pictures of the holocaust regularly? The holocaust was a terrible event perpetrated by Hitler during WWII which ended a long time ago. CP is a current, ongoing issue which needs to be nipped in the bud now and those associated with such material in any capacity, put behind bars. The children, the actual victims, are the ones who will require all the help they can gather when coming to terms with being sexually abused.
Cerainly many of the children depicted in CP are depicted being abused. However, unless you believe in photographs having magical properties, you must admit that the following logic holds:
A. Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict genocide
B. Viewing pictures of the holocaust is not the same as causing genocide to happen
We can reduce these sentences:
A. Pictures of bad thing happening depict bad things
B. Viewing pictures of bad things happening is not doing bad things
which in turn leads to:
A. Pictures of children being molested depict child abuse
B. Viewing pictures of children being molested is not the same as abusing children
I would love for you to give a reasonable and intelligent explanation of why this argument by analogy doesn't work, so far nobody has been able to. I am left to conclude that they think pictures of molestation are magic, whereas pictures of other crimes are not.
It seems that you just gloss over the most important point here without so much as a whimper -
Cerainly many of the children depicted in CP are depicted being abused
Regardless of your posted links to various studies, percentages , theories, assumptions, speculations, etc, CHILDREN are being sexually abused and molested by sick, twisted, immoral dickheads like yourself daily, having convinced themselves that a child engaging in sexual activities or posing for nude photos is an acceptable behaviour. ??? ??? You can articulate your arguments towards CP anyway you like but the fact remains of potential further abuse and molestation which can't be tolerated IMO. To take away a child's innocence and both physically and psychologically inflict permanent damage to their victim/s , all for their own personal gratification, would be unconscionable and unjustifiable for any reason FULL STOP! Your comparing apples with oranges in an attempt to justify your thoughts /actions on the matter.
Almost every other member to comment on this thread, and the other related threads you have made mention of, have disagreed with your convoluted, pathetic point of view. You are constantly trying to justify your actions but to no avail. ??? ??? The numbers are clearly suggesting, and you seem to be one for using numbers here, there and everywhere, that your feelings on the matter are FUCKED UP.
Go ahead and post some new numbers/percentages for a new study about some bullshit which you believe may help your case. As far as I'm concerned, you need to spend less time in Fairy Land and seek help from a professional to get some reasons as to why an adult females body isn't enough to engage your attention. ??? The numbers don't lie champ. Your sick and twisted thoughts and opinions of innocent children needs to be addressed immediately before the unquestionable occurs. I couldn't care less whether you're partaking in the acts themselves with these poor children or viewing CP for your own sexual gratification. Regardless of what you actually believe, it's FUCKED UP and MORALLY WRONG!! >:(
-
I couldn't care less whether you're partaking in the acts themselves with these poor children or viewing CP for your own sexual gratification
I think you need some professional help to figure out why you think it is just as bad to look at pictures of child abuse as it is to abuse children. That is really scary. The laws reflect this attitude in some areas, and it probably leads to child abuse. Why would a pedophile bother just looking at pictures, if they get the same sentence they would get if they raped a kid in the first place?
But seriously man save me your moral outrage, I don't give a fuck about it. You are mentally defective and think looking at pictures of child abuse is the same thing as abusing children.
Regardless of your posted links to various studies, percentages , theories, assumptions, speculations, etc, CHILDREN are being sexually abused and molested by sick, twisted, immoral dickheads like yourself daily, having convinced themselves that a child engaging in sexual activities or posing for nude photos is an acceptable behaviour.
Yes I know all research and facts aside is a common starting position for emotional dumb fucks, believe me I already assumed this is where you were coming from as soon as I saw the thread had a new post in it.
Yeah I know CHILDREN OMG CHILDREN CHILDREN AHHHHHHHHH are being abused by sick fucks, it should be illegal no doubt about it. I don't abuse children, never have in my life and don't have any plans to in the future, so really it isn't fair to say 'sick fucks like me' are doing it. I never said that a CHILD OMFG CHILD AHHHHHHHHHHH engaging in sexual activities or posing for nude photographs is an acceptable behavior, I only said looking at pictures of anything should not be a crime. I know that fascist totalitarian brainwashed emotional dumbfucks want to censor the world, but I think all information should be available and that nobody should ever go to jail for going to a website. I know that you prefer to be more like China and the USSR, but I personally am in favor of freedom rather than censorship.
Nice strawman arguments though!
Since you're a stats man, what percentage of the worldwide population do you think view pictures of the holocaust regularly?
So viewing CP a few times is okay, just not making a habit out of it?
The holocaust was a terrible event perpetrated by Hitler during WWII which ended a long time ago.
So we can look at old CP just nothing new?
-
I think you need some professional help to figure out why you think it is just as bad to look at pictures of child abuse as it is to abuse children. That is really scary. The laws reflect this attitude in some areas, and it probably leads to child abuse. Why would a pedophile bother just looking at pictures, if they get the same sentence they would get if they raped a kid in the first place?
This is a total strawman, no-one is suggesting that pedophiles who abuse kids should get the same punishments as pedophiles who view child abuse material, they should both get punished but the pedophiles who abuse kids should get worse punishments because they perpetrate the abuse instead of just participating in the market for it. You are supporting rape for profit.
We might never win a war on pedophilia and child abuse but it is like the war on murder, just because it can't be won doesn't mean that murdering people or raping kids should ever be OK.
Your 50% statistics are bullshit. You are telling me that if you randomly pick 2 people from anywhere on this planet at least one of them would support your right to view child-abuse material? Bullshit, it wouldn't even be 1% and if anything the number of people who are OK with child abuse is decreasing with the increase around the world in women's education and children's rights in developing countries. Just because certain third-world and developing nations haven't specifically criminalized child porn yet doesn't mean they are OK with it. I guarantee in 99% of these places no law has ever been created, it is not a case of it becoming legalized and legislated.
This isn't like taking drugs where the harm comes almost entirely from it's criminalization, you are talking about a market that revolves around non-consensual abuse of minors. You can tell yourself in your head as much as you like that you aren't the one harming children so you aren't doing the wrong thing if that makes you feel better, but you are viewing material in which children are systematically abused for your benefit, it is because of people like you that this filth is being created. I don't necessarily think you should be locked up for the rest of your life, but you definitely need some psychological treatment.
Your argument is just like saying that if I find an unconscious girl and rape her with a condom and don't leave any marks and she doesn't find out then I haven't done anything wrong because she hasn't been harmed. Actions in themselves can be the wrong thing to do even if the action itself hasn't caused another person harm on that specific occasion, it's the same reason we ban speeding on roads even though most occasions of speeding don't result in accidents.
You might think that as time goes on humans will become more accepting of your twisted views but you are wrong. Protecting and caring for our young is biologically programmed into us and it is natural for ordinary people to find your perversion disgusting. As history has progressed children have been afforded more rights and protections in almost every country on this planet and this trend will continue.
You obviously need some psychological treatment, I think you are right that most pedophiles are less than average intelligence because you are missing the essential point of the argument: JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T RAPE THE CHILD YOURSELF DOESN'T MEAN YOU AREN'T DOING THE WRONG THING BY PARTICIPATING IN A MARKET IN WHICH CHILDREN ARE SYSTEMATICALLY RAPED FOR PROFIT.
-
This has just popped up on the guardian website and I thought I'd just leave it here. It's too long to copy so you'll have to go read it I'm afraid. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jul/13/sex-abuse-schools-call-change-law?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
My view is that society says that it's wrong to abuse kids and the argument that sacrificing a few to the abusers may stop more being abused doesn't wash. As for viewing it, if there wasn't a market for this it wouldn't be so readily available and therefore a lot of the for profit vids would never be made. I'm not in the hang-em-high camp and am pretty cool with most consensual perversions with consenting adults but the key here is consent. Just because a child has been groomed to think abuse is natural and welcome is not consent and the damage done, and the damage those children go on to do (apparently there's a large proportion of abusers who were abused as a child), is unacceptable in any civillised country.
-
Also in at least some cases I am sure you are wrong. There was a famous bank robbery several years ago where the robbers were decked out with automatic weapons and full body armor, and they got in a huge gun fight with the police while trying to escape. That was covered by the media legally, and the video was broadcast all over the place. All kinds of people in that video were victimized by these guys, they were shooting bullets everywhere, had just robbed a bank, and did all kinds of illegal shit that victimized people and it was all caught on film and broadcast via the media. So you think I am a bank robber because I watched this right, and I should go to jail for robbing a bank and getting in a massive gun fight with the police.
What about the assault on Rodney King, should I be charged with police brutality? I saw a video on the news a few days ago where there was a speeding car, should I get a speeding ticket? I saw pictures of the holocaust am I a war criminal? You say no to all of these things, but then if somebody looks at a video of a child being molested you say that they are abusing children in doing so. It makes no sense really, and it is apples to apples, videos are videos, crimes are crimes, watching videos of crimes is watching videos of crimes. Your problem is that you take two apples and say one is an orange.
In reply to JohnTheBaptist the only thing I really disagree with what you said is pedophiles being above average intelligence, most studies I have read say that they are below average intelligence and there is a strong correlation between childhood head injury and pedophilia.
there is no comparision between the above and cp, if i go into a bank, or any other public area i am aware that i will likely be caught on tape so to speak, i have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So if somebody takes a child to a public area and molests them you think the resulting CP should be legal? Your argument just sucks man, you are trying to save something that cannot be saved. If you think CP should be illegal to view because it depicts people who are victimized without consent, you either must think that all images that depict people who are victimized without consent should be illegal to view, or you are suffering from cognitive dissonance and clearly irrational.
Wrong. Your argument is full of holes. You're the only one who is taking 'consent' out of context. You're talking about consent to film, we're talking about Sexual Consent.
Can you take your head out of your ass? It's not a hat.
-
Look, KMF... we get your point. Nothing is over anyone's head here. You believe that viewing CP should be legal, because you're hell-bent on anti-censorship. That's great. Most of us are for that very same thing. But you're talking about legalizing the view of such material, without providing any concern for a resolve of the actual issue of violating children who cannot, and would not consent to sexual actions with an adult. We can all put up google and find some quick stats on anything we want. That does not mean we have a valid argument for everything; but you don't seem to be able to grasp that.
You have an answer or rebuttal for every position that is not your own; legalizing the 'viewing' of CP. But then you contradict your own argument by saying "I'm not saying CREATING should be legal, just VIEWING" ... Again, we get it... Censorship violates our right to 'Freedom' ...
The unforunate truth here is that we, Humans, are a cancer to this planet. Without rules, without death, without censorship, we would metastasize out of control. I'm very liberal in my views on censorship, but when it comes to Child Pornography, again, it's a double-edged sword.
Legalizing the view of CP would be only be funding the people CREATING IT. Stop being so narrow-minded.
-
It was YOU who compared Apples to Oranges.
It was YOU who compared the Legalization of Drugs to Legalization of CP. But when they 'legalize' drugs, they also 'regulate' them. I have not seen one argument or position stating the plan, or effectiveness of any 'regulation' of CHILD porn. Because why? BECAUSE YOU CANNOT REGULATE CHILD MOLESTATION AND RAPE.
This thread is a good one though. It shows the fatal flaw in the logic of unfair comparisons.
Great example, KMF. Great example...
-
You are supporting rape for profit.
How is it supporting rape for profit to look at a picture for free without paying for it? Where is the profit?
We might never win a war on pedophilia and child abuse but it is like the war on murder, just because it can't be won doesn't mean that murdering people or raping kids should ever be OK.
Nice strawman, I never said that raping kids should be okay. I don't know why everybody always tries to change the subject to raping kids, who is even talking about raping kids? I am talking about looking at pictures.
Your 50% statistics are bullshit. You are telling me that if you randomly pick 2 people from anywhere on this planet at least one of them would support your right to view child-abuse material?
My 50% statistics have had two citations given for them already, and I was talking about number of countries in the world where it is legal to view CP try to work on your reading comprehension a little.
Bullshit, it wouldn't even be 1% and if anything the number of people who are OK with child abuse is decreasing with the increase around the world in women's education and children's rights in developing countries. Just because certain third-world and developing nations haven't specifically criminalized child porn yet doesn't mean they are OK with it. I guarantee in 99% of these places no law has ever been created, it is not a case of it becoming legalized and legislated.
I never claimed to be okay with child abuse, I understand that you have a mental disorder that makes you incapable of telling different things apart, but let me try to explain this very clearly. Child abuse is bad, looking at pictures of abused children is not child abuse. Holocaust is bad, looking at pictures of the holocaust is not genocide. Almost all of south America has little to no laws regarding child porn possession, it is nice to know you think that they are all third world. Same with Russia, same with Japan. Japan is one of the most developed countries in the world dumbass, and they have specifically rejected proposals to make child porn illegal to possess even after being under international pressure to do so.
This isn't like taking drugs where the harm comes almost entirely from it's criminalization, you are talking about a market that revolves around non-consensual abuse of minors. You can tell yourself in your head as much as you like that you aren't the one harming children so you aren't doing the wrong thing if that makes you feel better, but you are viewing material in which children are systematically abused for your benefit, it is because of people like you that this filth is being created. I don't necessarily think you should be locked up for the rest of your life, but you definitely need some psychological treatment.
There is no harm created by viewing child porn. The harm was already created to produce the child porn. If I look at a picture it has no effect on anybody other than me. Nobody other than me even has to know that I looked at a picture. You think that there is some magical process involved, something that nobody can identify but just is. You are no different from a religious person, you have faith that viewing child porn causes children to be abused but you cannot give any evidence for this, you cannot explain a mechanism of action that I cannot immediately shoot down. You believe in child pornography viewing causing damage to children much how Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. No amount of research and science is going to convince you otherwise, just as no Christian is likely to be convinced against their faith.
Your argument is just like saying that if I find an unconscious girl and rape her with a condom and don't leave any marks and she doesn't find out then I haven't done anything wrong because she hasn't been harmed.
That argument is essentially saying that when a photograph of a person is taken they exist in the photograph. Dude, Harry Potter is fiction, I hope you know that. If you find an unconscious girl and take her pants off and take pictures of her, then yeah you did something bad and should be punished. If I look at the pictures you took, I don't think I did anything bad. I had no effect on that girl, you caused something to happen to her.
You obviously need some psychological treatment, I think you are right that most pedophiles are less than average intelligence because you are missing the essential point of the argument: JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T RAPE THE CHILD YOURSELF DOESN'T MEAN YOU AREN'T DOING THE WRONG THING BY PARTICIPATING IN A MARKET IN WHICH CHILDREN ARE SYSTEMATICALLY RAPED FOR PROFIT.
Well first off I am not a pedophile I am more like a non-exclusive ephebephile I would say. Second off, I never said it should be legal to buy child pornography. You are delusional if you think there is a big child porn market, all of those got shut down years ago. Almost all child porn is freely traded on P2P networks and in various forum communities. Nobody pays for shit, nobody profits off of shit. Sure there are some small non-organized cases where individuals may make some profit, but to think of child porn as primarily a for profit market phenomenon is just deluding yourself. When people download music and videos off of P2P networks are they supporting the for profit market for music and videos? Pretty sure they are certainly not supporting it at best, and hurting it at worst.
My view is that society says that it's wrong to abuse kids and the argument that sacrificing a few to the abusers may stop more being abused doesn't wash. As for viewing it, if there wasn't a market for this it wouldn't be so readily available and therefore a lot of the for profit vids would never be made. I'm not in the hang-em-high camp and am pretty cool with most consensual perversions with consenting adults but the key here is consent. Just because a child has been groomed to think abuse is natural and welcome is not consent and the damage done, and the damage those children go on to do (apparently there's a large proportion of abusers who were abused as a child), is unacceptable in any civillised country.
There isn't much of a market for it. Do you think there is a "market" for freely downloaded videos and music from P2P networks? Anyway I never said it should be legal to pay for CP, only to view it and possess it. Also you seem to , like most others here, incorrectly think that I am saying it should be legal to abuse kids. No, I didn't say that, I said it should be legal to look at and possess any information.
But then you contradict your own argument by saying "I'm not saying CREATING should be legal, just VIEWING" ... Again, we get it... Censorship violates our right to 'Freedom' ...
How does that contradict my own argument?
Legalizing the view of CP would be only be funding the people CREATING IT. Stop being so narrow-minded.
Legalizing the purchase of CP would fund the people creating it for profit (all 15 of them), but in reality 99.999% of people busted with CP have never paid for it. This is another reason why in more modern times the laws against CP make less and less sense. When CP was first made illegal, 99.999% of people who had it paid for it from studios that existed for the entire purpose of creating CP. People were like WTF we must make this illegal, the Supreme Court agreed blah blah blah. Fast forward about 50 years and the situation is almost exactly the opposite. The last big production studios doing the for profit model got shut down in the early 2000's, the last known large scale commercial CP distributor got busted several years ago. Today 99.9999% of CP offenders do not pay for CP, they download it mostly from P2P programs, they don't communicate with other offenders or network. All they do is go to a P2P network , download some pictures and view them in the privacy of their home. Nobody knows they downloaded these pictures, the child doesn't know they downloaded these pictures, the person who molested the child doesn't know they downloaded these pictures, they did not support any market for CP and they did not create a demand that is even identified by anybody in most cases. They are very close to looking at a picture in a vacuum, and yet you want still to say that this should be illegal.
It was YOU who compared the Legalization of Drugs to Legalization of CP. But when they 'legalize' drugs, they also 'regulate' them. I have not seen one argument or position stating the plan, or effectiveness of any 'regulation' of CHILD porn. Because why? BECAUSE YOU CANNOT REGULATE CHILD MOLESTATION AND RAPE.
For the I don't know how many-th time , I do not support or think child molestation or rape should be legal. I think it should be legal to look at pictures. I don't think it needs to be regulated. I don't think drugs need to be regulated. I don't feel the need to have a bunch of government thugs tell me what I can do.
-
A couple of thoughts:
Hypothetically, If CP did become legal, would that truely encourage people to want to view/create it?
The illegality of things doesn't prevent/encourage people to desire them more.
EX) drugs. Drugs are illegal but the desire is still there.
CP is illegal, but it seems as if the desire wouldn't increase that dramatically if it were to become legal. I just don't see it gaining widespread acceptance even in 200+ years with legality.
OP, as disgusting and wrong i personally believe CP is, i applaud your research and devil's-advocate stance in some arguments on this thread.
+1 kmfkewm.
My final thought for this post is; How the hell has this thread not been removed?! I thought SR had explicit rules about CP and this thread will draw a ton of attention and be an open door for LE to give SR even worse press.
Especially after the FH and TOR mail stuff, CP will just draw more attention to SR, that isnt what we're about.
We should all think more carefully before posting stuff that will anger LE too much, they still got a playbook and we must tread carefully.
CP clearly adds to negative attention.
The less negative attention SR/SRF receive the better IMO.
-
I don't think having a thread debating CP is going to be the straw that broke the camels back, I would be more concerned about the large scale international drug trafficking personally. SR has rules against CP, I don't think this thread broke any of them, no CP was made available or linked to. We have had too many threads like this in the past, and these debates continue to pollute other threads, I made this thread so people can be pointed here instead of polluting the security threads talking about the FH bust that keep getting derailed into people calling for the death of all pedophiles.
-
Legalizing the purchase of CP would fund the people creating it for profit (all 15 of them), but in reality 99.999% of people busted with CP have never paid for it.
15 people? 99.999%?
For someone whose very first rebuttal in this thread was that people were pulling information out of their ass, you sure do come up with some arbitrary and unlikely numbers in your "stastics".
If 99.9999 % of CP viewers don't purchase the CP? So those CP servers are run by wealthy people who don't need profits to cover hosting fees? Another argument of yours that looks more like Swiss cheese than concrete.
-
A. Sure, look at freedom hosting, they provided hosting for free to hundreds of CP sites.
B. Look at Freenet, it is a network full of CP and it works because everybody volunteers some of their HD space
C. The vast majority of it is on P2P and Torrent networks, do you know how those work?
D. Even the private forums hosted independently are not for profit. They are similar to private drug forums. Look at the private drug forums you never had to pay to be a member on any of them, and they were all run and paid for by a single admin for the good of the community.
Sure, I need to stop using figure of speech numbers even when this is obviously what is being done, because people will attack me for it and say I am full of shit. But I can give you some concrete citations still!
web.cs.umass.edu/publication/docs/2013/UM-CS-2013-007.pdf
Peer-to-peer networks are the most popular mechanism for the criminal aquisition and distribution of child pornogra-phy (CP).
The last big CP for profit distribution group was busted in 2010. Since then commercial CP selling is almost extinct. It is literally almost 100% freely downloaded with no financial market at all.
https://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/international-authorities-bust-a-huge-commercial-child-porn-ring/
Since the websites — with names like “Excited Angels” and “Boys Say Go” — went offline in January, the number of active commercial child porn sites has nosedived from perhaps 300 to the single digits, said Matt Dunn, of the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (ICE), which was the lead law enforcement agency.
You’ve taken an organization that was distributing large scale child porn and removed them,” said Dunn, of the Child Exploitation Section of ICE’s Cyber Crimes Center. FBI special agent Michael Dzielak investigated the ring with Dunn and other international partners. Like Dunn, he believes the bust has dealt a fatal blow to the child-porn-for-money market — at least for now. “It is a game changer,” Dzielak said.
Eleven members of the child porn ring were located in Belarus and arrested in 2008. In January of this year, Ukrainian authorities arrested five more. The ring used a variety of online and traditional payment methods, elaborate defense measures and a franchise business model one Interpol agent compared to a fast food chain to make millions of dollars providing 10,000 Americans and 20,000 others across the globe access to images and videos of sexually exploited boys and girls, some reportedly as young as 3 years old.
Wow 30,000 customers at the last remaining significant CP distribution site in the world! There are 30,000 people detected downloading CP from P2P networks for free in single fucking cities. Also I note that they think commercial CP distribution sites have fallen to single digits, so I probably over estimated when I said there are still 15.
http://www.vt-icac.org/outreach/read-more-outreach/
Additionally, offenders continue to utilize various venues to exchange, collect and distribute images of child sexual exploitation. One venue to receive recent attention by offenders and law enforcement alike are the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing networks. In the two law enforcement programs created to identify those who share images via these networks (Operation RoundUp and Operation Fairplay), over 20 million different IP addresses were identified as offering files containing child pornography. The programs have also created specific lists of images investigators have identified as some of the “worst” images available totaling over 290,000 child pornography files that have been made actively available via these file sharing networks by offenders.24
Two single law enforcement operations against P2P networks identified 20 MILLION IP addresses making it available for free, and that is not counting the numbers of people who actually downloaded it but didn't share it from those IP addresses. And that is not taking the free forums into account, not taking the free clearnet sites into account, not taking the Darknet like Tor and Freenet into account. There are probably 100 million people in the world who have downloaded CP for free, in 2010 there were 30,000 people buying it from what was essentially the last commercial distributor in the world.
Let's see then, it looks like I just gave citations that there were in 2010 LESS THAN 15 commercial CP distribution sites left, and that about .01 percent of people who downloaded CP paid for it. So does my argument still seem swiss cheese to you? Because to me it looks like the numbers I gave as estimated figures of speech actually lined up pretty close to reality.
-
You can obviously make the same comparison to legally purchased film, and pirated film.
I still don't see a valid argument for the legalization of Child Porn, simply because you think it should be legal to view it. In your own quote, of the 290,000 some of the children were reportedly as young as THREE years old. It should be legal to view a 3 year old getting molested or raped? Just because you're anti-censorship does not mean this a worth-while discussion.
When you legalize and regulate drugs, you take the criminal element out of it by providing legitimate legal sources for obtaining a cleaner product. When you legalize child pornography, there is no regulation or legitimate production of it, and therefor you do the opposite. You promote the production of it, one way or another, by legalizing the viewing of it.
And the production of it will always be illegal, and even you admitted it should remain that way. So what's the point of continue to float this thread above water?
Going back to ignoring this thread. It's tiresome. You're running in circles. Logical or not, running in circles gets you nowhere.
-
I don't know if you get a boner watching kids get diddled or get a boner off freedom and internet security at this point, but 95% of people here probably don't give a fuck about this thread or your opinion on the matter. Myself included. I personally don't see why this is so damn important to you. Not only do I want this thread to die already, I dislike being labeled as a potential child pornographer for logging into Tor. If you're so damn enthusiastic about child pron then make your own fucking peer to peer network and have at it. Nobody here wants to mail bombs to people or go on a shooting spree or see kids taking shits or being diddled. If that's how they get down in Russia, then let them beat off to it, shoot up their krokodil and go about their lives. If that's how you get down then go snipe hunting and blow some shit up Tyler Durden. Train an army of diddlers to assassinate the government in some run down house somewhere. Just fuck off.
I advise other forum members to discontinue posting in this thread, because clearly this has no place here and this is some attention seeking behavior of some sort. kmfkewm by all means continue to stick around and contribute to our community in other ways, but I really don't give a fuck about your statistics, personal morality, or opinions on this subject. Considering you probably feel the same way about the rest of us, which is obvious by your need to type out what has essentially become the Diddler's Manifesto at this point let's agree to disagree and maybe move on to something less vitriolic and disgusting?
Have you ever heard of Godwin's Law? I've been throwing that term out recently. Essentially, every argument will steer toward Nazis at some point, and at that point the argument has been lost.
I consider this argument lost.
Thanks.
-
When you legalize and regulate drugs, you take the criminal element out of it by providing legitimate legal sources for obtaining a cleaner product. When you legalize child pornography, there is no regulation or legitimate production of it, and therefor you do the opposite. You promote the production of it, one way or another, by legalizing the viewing of it.
When you legalize drugs the production of them remains illegal but tolerated. When you legalize child pornography the production of it remains illegal but tolerated.
-
When you legalize and regulate drugs, you take the criminal element out of it by providing legitimate legal sources for obtaining a cleaner product. When you legalize child pornography, there is no regulation or legitimate production of it, and therefor you do the opposite. You promote the production of it, one way or another, by legalizing the viewing of it.
When you legalize drugs the production of them remains illegal but tolerated. When you legalize child pornography the production of it remains illegal but tolerated.
Wrong. When you legalize Cannabis, for instance, in Colorado, you regulate and legalize the production of it. In fact, all drugs with the except OF cannabis were brought to fruition by Pharmaceutical companies who would likely pick those synths right back up -- if it were legal. The demand is there, and that has always compelled Big Pharma in the past, hence the first synths of Cocaine, MDMA, and Heroin.
When we made the production of them illegal, we handed off the majority of the supply to cartels.
-
When we made the production of them illegal, we handed off the majority of the supply to cartels.
When you made the viewing of CP illegal, you sharply increased the rate of actual child sex abuse.
-
They should legalize and tax it. I would pay a high tax for legal CP of high quality.
-
When we made the production of them illegal, we handed off the majority of the supply to cartels.
When you made the viewing of CP illegal, you sharply increased the rate of actual child sex abuse.
Cite proof.
-
I still don't see a valid argument for the legalization of Child Porn, simply because you think it should be legal to view it. In your own quote, of the 290,000 some of the children were reportedly as young as THREE years old. It should be legal to view a 3 year old getting molested or raped? Just because you're anti-censorship does not mean this a worth-while discussion.
It is legal to view images of the holocaust, why not a three year old being molested or raped? Does anybody actually get hurt by the viewing of an image? No of course not. Pictures are not magical items. Looking at a picture does not cause anyone any damage. You just find the idea so repulsive that you want to fuck over anybody who does it. There is no legitimate reason to want to fuck somebody over just because they look at something that you find disgusting. The only reason anybody should ever be imprisoned is if they initiate real direct harm against others. Looking at a picture just simply does not cause harm to anyone.
When you legalize and regulate drugs, you take the criminal element out of it by providing legitimate legal sources for obtaining a cleaner product. When you legalize child pornography, there is no regulation or legitimate production of it, and therefor you do the opposite. You promote the production of it, one way or another, by legalizing the viewing of it.
How does it promote the production of it? Nobody has ever been able to really show that. I can give you quotes from Ph.D researchers saying that there is no evidence that the viewing of CP without paying for it causes child molestation, I can give you quotes from Ph.D researchers saying that legalizing the viewing of CP leads to a substantial drop in child molestation rates. You can't show me shit, the best you could hope to show me is the meaningless words of government agencies tasked with arresting people for CP, I can discredit all of them and half of their studies have been debunked, but you don't even bother to dig up some propaganda and show it to me because you just *know* that you are right and you just *know* that I am wrong, because you are a god damn member of the Church Of the Anti Pedo and your faith is strong but baseless.
-
I still don't see a valid argument for the legalization of Child Porn, simply because you think it should be legal to view it. In your own quote, of the 290,000 some of the children were reportedly as young as THREE years old. It should be legal to view a 3 year old getting molested or raped? Just because you're anti-censorship does not mean this a worth-while discussion.
It is legal to view images of the holocaust, why not a three year old being molested or raped? Does anybody actually get hurt by the viewing of an image? No of course not. Pictures are not magical items. Looking at a picture does not cause anyone any damage. You just find the idea so repulsive that you want to fuck over anybody who does it. There is no legitimate reason to want to fuck somebody over just because they look at something that you find disgusting. The only reason anybody should ever be imprisoned is if they initiate real direct harm against others. Looking at a picture just simply does not cause harm to anyone.
When you legalize and regulate drugs, you take the criminal element out of it by providing legitimate legal sources for obtaining a cleaner product. When you legalize child pornography, there is no regulation or legitimate production of it, and therefor you do the opposite. You promote the production of it, one way or another, by legalizing the viewing of it.
How does it promote the production of it? Nobody has ever been able to really show that. I can give you quotes from Ph.D researchers saying that there is no evidence that the viewing of CP without paying for it causes child molestation, I can give you quotes from Ph.D researchers saying that legalizing the viewing of CP leads to a substantial drop in child molestation rates. You can't show me shit, the best you could hope to show me is the meaningless words of government agencies tasked with arresting people for CP, I can discredit all of them and half of their studies have been debunked, but you don't even bother to dig up some propaganda and show it to me because you just *know* that you are right and you just *know* that I am wrong, because you are a god damn member of the Church Of the Anti Pedo and your faith is strong but baseless.
Cite proof.
-
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child.pornography.linked.lower.rates.child.sex.abuse
Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues. Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer's journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.
The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records – rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular – for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.
Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes – murder, assault, and robbery – rose significantly.
-
From every conceivable and applicable form of logic in discourse when you need to compare the fucking holocaust to child pron you have lost the argument. Period.
-
From every conceivable and applicable form of logic in discourse when you need to compare the fucking holocaust to child pron you have lost the argument. Period.
Pictures of anything bad can be replaced with pictures of the holocaust everywhere I said holocaust. There, now your thought terminating cliche is irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9
A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to propagate cognitive dissonance (discomfort experienced when one simultaneously holds two or more conflicting cognitions, e.g. ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions). Though the phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.
-
I still don't see a valid argument for the legalization of Child Porn, simply because you think it should be legal to view it. In your own quote, of the 290,000 some of the children were reportedly as young as THREE years old. It should be legal to view a 3 year old getting molested or raped? Just because you're anti-censorship does not mean this a worth-while discussion.
It is legal to view images of the holocaust, why not a three year old being molested or raped? Does anybody actually get hurt by the viewing of an image? No of course not. Pictures are not magical items. Looking at a picture does not cause anyone any damage. You just find the idea so repulsive that you want to fuck over anybody who does it. There is no legitimate reason to want to fuck somebody over just because they look at something that you find disgusting. The only reason anybody should ever be imprisoned is if they initiate real direct harm against others. Looking at a picture just simply does not cause harm to anyone.
When you legalize and regulate drugs, you take the criminal element out of it by providing legitimate legal sources for obtaining a cleaner product. When you legalize child pornography, there is no regulation or legitimate production of it, and therefor you do the opposite. You promote the production of it, one way or another, by legalizing the viewing of it.
How does it promote the production of it? Nobody has ever been able to really show that. I can give you quotes from Ph.D researchers saying that there is no evidence that the viewing of CP without paying for it causes child molestation, I can give you quotes from Ph.D researchers saying that legalizing the viewing of CP leads to a substantial drop in child molestation rates. You can't show me shit, the best you could hope to show me is the meaningless words of government agencies tasked with arresting people for CP, I can discredit all of them and half of their studies have been debunked, but you don't even bother to dig up some propaganda and show it to me because you just *know* that you are right and you just *know* that I am wrong, because you are a god damn member of the Church Of the Anti Pedo and your faith is strong but baseless.
Cite proof.
www.fd.org/pdf_lib/FJC2012/Child_Porn_Dangerousness.pdf
The market thesis has no empirical support
-
You're dysphoric if you want my honest opinion. Your rants are full of more fallacies and delusions than something that crawled out of the asshole of Charles Manson. I'd go see a psychiatrist. Here's some citations for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphoria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_%28psychiatry%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder
-
The explosion of Internet pornography, coupled with a rise in dysfunctional families, has made things dangerous for children today, according to a former FBI operative.
Kevin R. Brock talked of these dangerous elements at St. Anne Catholic Church Friday as part of its “Date Night” series for couples.
"It (pornography) is getting harder and harder to avoid," he said. "It is very hard to control. It's piped into our homes now.
It represents a continuous slide toward the objectification and victimization of women and the polarization of the male. Women are no longer viewed as human beings, but as objects to be used selfishly.
“It bleeds into our society. There is a whole generation of young men being desensitized to it and being robbed of having a (normal) relationship with a woman."
Brock worked 24 years for the FBI, rising to the level of assistant director for intelligence.
Tacoma case
In the 1980s, he was working in Tacoma, Wash., when a 9-year-old girl was kidnapped outside an Air Force base in Seattle.
"We would draw a circle around a map for 11 blocks and around the apartment (where the girl was found), and pulled out our records on sexual offenders," he said. There were 39 registered sex offenders in that 11-block radius. Worse, the girl was tortured and killed by a sex offender, "who'd never bothered to register."
The numbers have exploded, he said.
“Then there were 200,000 registered, and now it's over a million. I saw it get worse and worse during my 24 years in the FBI, and as a dad, I took particular interest in this."
Internet porn
One of the biggest changes he saw was the influence of the Internet, which not only provided more and easier access to pornography, but fueled the growth in child pornography.
"In the early ’90s, we'd just about eradicated child pornography, with most emanating from Europe," he said. "Now it is a wildfire. ... Not much else is still illegal. It almost swamped the FBI."
He said crime is nothing like what is portrayed on TV.
"There are two constants," he said. "One is filth. Everywhere we did a search, it was just filthy. The criminal mind is a disorganized mind. Most criminals are pretty sad. The other constant was pornography."
With such easy access to adult pornography, he advises parents to be pro-active, use filters on the TV, tablets and computers, and especially talk to their children about values such as respect and responsibility.
Fathers important
He also advises fathers to be active in their children's lives.
"Over 40 percent of families have single parents, and it's 70 percent in African American communities. Men are the No. 1 problem in this country.
“I saw this consistently in that almost every young man (arrested) had one thing in common, no father or a highly dysfunctional relationship with their father. That wreaks havoc like you wouldn't believe."
Be pro-active
He said the main thing is for parents to be pro-active — don't expect others, or the government, to do their job.
"There is a strong effort in our culture to go after our children," he said. "There are almost 2 million sexual assaults on women in this country. Don't look to the government to save us. There's no way the FBI can keep up with the amount of crime on the Internet. It's up to us."
-
The explosion of Internet pornography, coupled with a rise in dysfunctional families, has made things dangerous for children today, according to a former FBI operative.
Kevin R. Brock talked of these dangerous elements at St. Anne Catholic Church Friday as part of its “Date Night” series for couples.
"It (pornography) is getting harder and harder to avoid," he said. "It is very hard to control. It's piped into our homes now.
It represents a continuous slide toward the objectification and victimization of women and the polarization of the male. Women are no longer viewed as human beings, but as objects to be used selfishly.
“It bleeds into our society. There is a whole generation of young men being desensitized to it and being robbed of having a (normal) relationship with a woman."
Brock worked 24 years for the FBI, rising to the level of assistant director for intelligence.
Tacoma case
In the 1980s, he was working in Tacoma, Wash., when a 9-year-old girl was kidnapped outside an Air Force base in Seattle.
"We would draw a circle around a map for 11 blocks and around the apartment (where the girl was found), and pulled out our records on sexual offenders," he said. There were 39 registered sex offenders in that 11-block radius. Worse, the girl was tortured and killed by a sex offender, "who'd never bothered to register."
The numbers have exploded, he said.
“Then there were 200,000 registered, and now it's over a million. I saw it get worse and worse during my 24 years in the FBI, and as a dad, I took particular interest in this."
Internet porn
One of the biggest changes he saw was the influence of the Internet, which not only provided more and easier access to pornography, but fueled the growth in child pornography.
"In the early ’90s, we'd just about eradicated child pornography, with most emanating from Europe," he said. "Now it is a wildfire. ... Not much else is still illegal. It almost swamped the FBI."
He said crime is nothing like what is portrayed on TV.
"There are two constants," he said. "One is filth. Everywhere we did a search, it was just filthy. The criminal mind is a disorganized mind. Most criminals are pretty sad. The other constant was pornography."
With such easy access to adult pornography, he advises parents to be pro-active, use filters on the TV, tablets and computers, and especially talk to their children about values such as respect and responsibility.
Fathers important
He also advises fathers to be active in their children's lives.
"Over 40 percent of families have single parents, and it's 70 percent in African American communities. Men are the No. 1 problem in this country.
“I saw this consistently in that almost every young man (arrested) had one thing in common, no father or a highly dysfunctional relationship with their father. That wreaks havoc like you wouldn't believe."
Be pro-active
He said the main thing is for parents to be pro-active — don't expect others, or the government, to do their job.
"There is a strong effort in our culture to go after our children," he said. "There are almost 2 million sexual assaults on women in this country. Don't look to the government to save us. There's no way the FBI can keep up with the amount of crime on the Internet. It's up to us."
This is relevant in what way?
-
You're dysphoric if you want my honest opinion. Your rants are full of more fallacies and delusions than something that crawled out of the asshole of Charles Manson. I'd go see a psychiatrist. Here's some citations for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphoria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_%28psychiatry%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder
Please show me my fallacies and delusions instead of just claiming I have them. I already pointed out that Godwins Law is a thought terminating cliche, that you used to deal with your cognitive dissonance between thinking looking at pictures of the holocaust should be legal but looking at pictures of child molestation should not be. So since I give specific examples of your fallacies and delusions I would love for some specific examples of mine!
-
The explosion of Internet pornography, coupled with a rise in dysfunctional families, has made things dangerous for children today, according to a former FBI operative.
Kevin R. Brock talked of these dangerous elements at St. Anne Catholic Church Friday as part of its “Date Night” series for couples.
"It (pornography) is getting harder and harder to avoid," he said. "It is very hard to control. It's piped into our homes now.
It represents a continuous slide toward the objectification and victimization of women and the polarization of the male. Women are no longer viewed as human beings, but as objects to be used selfishly.
“It bleeds into our society. There is a whole generation of young men being desensitized to it and being robbed of having a (normal) relationship with a woman."
Brock worked 24 years for the FBI, rising to the level of assistant director for intelligence.
Tacoma case
In the 1980s, he was working in Tacoma, Wash., when a 9-year-old girl was kidnapped outside an Air Force base in Seattle.
"We would draw a circle around a map for 11 blocks and around the apartment (where the girl was found), and pulled out our records on sexual offenders," he said. There were 39 registered sex offenders in that 11-block radius. Worse, the girl was tortured and killed by a sex offender, "who'd never bothered to register."
The numbers have exploded, he said.
“Then there were 200,000 registered, and now it's over a million. I saw it get worse and worse during my 24 years in the FBI, and as a dad, I took particular interest in this."
Internet porn
One of the biggest changes he saw was the influence of the Internet, which not only provided more and easier access to pornography, but fueled the growth in child pornography.
"In the early ’90s, we'd just about eradicated child pornography, with most emanating from Europe," he said. "Now it is a wildfire. ... Not much else is still illegal. It almost swamped the FBI."
He said crime is nothing like what is portrayed on TV.
"There are two constants," he said. "One is filth. Everywhere we did a search, it was just filthy. The criminal mind is a disorganized mind. Most criminals are pretty sad. The other constant was pornography."
With such easy access to adult pornography, he advises parents to be pro-active, use filters on the TV, tablets and computers, and especially talk to their children about values such as respect and responsibility.
Fathers important
He also advises fathers to be active in their children's lives.
"Over 40 percent of families have single parents, and it's 70 percent in African American communities. Men are the No. 1 problem in this country.
“I saw this consistently in that almost every young man (arrested) had one thing in common, no father or a highly dysfunctional relationship with their father. That wreaks havoc like you wouldn't believe."
Be pro-active
He said the main thing is for parents to be pro-active — don't expect others, or the government, to do their job.
"There is a strong effort in our culture to go after our children," he said. "There are almost 2 million sexual assaults on women in this country. Don't look to the government to save us. There's no way the FBI can keep up with the amount of crime on the Internet. It's up to us."
This is relevant in what way?
If you don't know, you should not have posted this thread. Why don't you try reading it?
-
If you don't know, you should not have posted this thread. Why don't you try reading it?
No I read it, I just don't see what it has to do with viewing child pornography. It starts out saying all pornography is bad because it objectifies females. Uhm, yeah... okay. Then it talks about some poor girl who was abducted and murdered by a sex offender, which has about nothing to do with child pornography being legal or illegal to view. Then it said the internet has made all porn, including child porn, much more common, which I already knew and is obvious and is actually one of my original arguments for why CP will be legal to view within a few hundred years and why the original reasoning for making it illegal (it funds child molestation) is now pretty irrelevant. Then it talks about how legal adult pornography is really bad some more, makes the sexist claim that Men are the No. 1 problem in this country.
, and suggests that parents filter the internet so their kids don't look at legal porn.
I really am just not seeing the relevance of this at all please explain it to me.
-
Sorry bro I kind of already spent entirely too much time on this topic for Friday than I had originally intended. You however can continue to spend your Friday evening going on tirades and preaching the merits of molestation. I honestly have better shit to do.
-
You're dysphoric if you want my honest opinion. Your rants are full of more fallacies and delusions than something that crawled out of the asshole of Charles Manson. I'd go see a psychiatrist. Here's some citations for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphoria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_%28psychiatry%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder
Please show me my fallacies and delusions instead of just claiming I have them. I already pointed out that Godwins Law is a thought terminating cliche, that you used to deal with your cognitive dissonance between thinking looking at pictures of the holocaust should be legal but looking at pictures of child molestation should not be. So since I give specific examples of your fallacies and delusions I would love for some specific examples of mine!
You're suggesting that keeping CP illegal is going to continue the rise of child sexual abuse in the US, right?
It's not. I'd say that's a pretty big delusion.
-
Sorry bro I kind of already spent entirely too much time on this topic for Friday than I had originally intended. You however can continue to spend your Friday evening going on tirades and preaching the merits of molestation. I honestly have better shit to do.
See, for example, this is a strawman fallacy.
-
You're dysphoric if you want my honest opinion. Your rants are full of more fallacies and delusions than something that crawled out of the asshole of Charles Manson. I'd go see a psychiatrist. Here's some citations for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphoria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_%28psychiatry%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder
Please show me my fallacies and delusions instead of just claiming I have them. I already pointed out that Godwins Law is a thought terminating cliche, that you used to deal with your cognitive dissonance between thinking looking at pictures of the holocaust should be legal but looking at pictures of child molestation should not be. So since I give specific examples of your fallacies and delusions I would love for some specific examples of mine!
You're suggesting that keeping CP illegal is going to continue the rise of child sexual abuse in the US, right?
It's not. I'd say that's a pretty big delusion.
Then why has child sexual abuse fallen in every single country that legalized viewing CP?
-
It's very illegal in the United States, and actually as of July 11th of this year, loopholes which actually made view of CP legal in NY state were corrected, and it is now illegal. That's a pretty recent step in the opposite direction of what you're implying will happen.
Then why has child sexual abuse fallen in every single country that legalized viewing CP?
Because it's decreasing everywhere... Canada, the UK, the United States... all places its very much illegal.
According to the nation's top experts, children are actually safer from physical and sexual abuse than they have been for decades. A National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect issued by the Department of Health and Human Services found that both physical and sexual abuse of children have dropped significantly over the past 20 years: From 2005 to 2006, an estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993. And between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent.
Cited: Popular Science.
-
Didn't mean to pop a hole in the validity of your entire perspective argument. But there it was, waiting to burst the whole time.
-
Sorry bro I kind of already spent entirely too much time on this topic for Friday than I had originally intended. You however can continue to spend your Friday evening going on tirades and preaching the merits of molestation. I honestly have better shit to do.
See, for example, this is a strawman fallacy.
I would have chosen ad hominemn or holier than though, but whatever. :p
-
It's very illegal in the United States, and actually as of July 11th of this year, loopholes which actually made view of CP legal in NY state were corrected, and it is now illegal. That's a pretty recent step in the opposite direction of what you're implying will happen.
First of all hundreds of years is a long time. Second of all I would like a citation for that, I believe you but I would like to read about. Last I checked the highest court in New York already ruled that it is legal to view child pornography.
Then why has child sexual abuse fallen in every single country that legalized viewing CP?
Because it's decreasing everywhere... Canada, the UK, the United States... all places its very much illegal.
According to the nation's top experts, children are actually safer from physical and sexual abuse than they have been for decades. A National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect issued by the Department of Health and Human Services found that both physical and sexual abuse of children have dropped significantly over the past 20 years: From 2005 to 2006, an estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993. And between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent.
Cited: Popular Science.
Wow child sex abuse is decreasing everywhere and the number of people viewing child pornography has been growing exponentially, I guess this implies that either viewing child pornography causes child sex abuse rates to drop, or at least that viewing child pornography doesn't lead to an increase in child sexual abuse. Seems like one of these things is likely to be true, I know the research done so far shows that the fall of child sex abuse correlates with the legalization of viewing child pornography, so I guess my money is on that one.
-
Let's start from your initial point:
A new study from the Czech Republic claims that the availability of child pornography has led to lower rates of child abuse. This result allegedly is consistent with similar observations in Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden and the USA. Here’s the research’s crux:
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
The inference to be drawn from this research is that legalizing and further increasing child pornography’s availability would decrease the incidence of child abuse. The problem with these studies, and from which this one does not seem to be immune, is that there is no control for alternate or outside variables. This research shows a correlation between availability of child porn – despite its illegality in most nations – and the decrease in child abuse, but ignores other explanations and ultimately cannot establish a causal relationship.
This leads the critical reader to a disturbing place: What content competes with child pornography? For one, there’s the entire genre of “barely legal” porn – just do a search for “teen” and the market’s representation is readily apparent. We don’t care or pass judgment on any kind of porn, so long as its made by consenting adults, but it seems far-fetched to think that its producers aren’t at least cognizant of the child porn market when they specialize in cheerleader themes, models in braces, and pigtails. To their credit, they are providing a legal alternative and monetizing a market segment that can otherwise ruin lives if handled irresponsibly.
There is also the existence of virtual child pornography. In 2002, the Free Speech Coalition won a decisive victory for expression over the DOJ in Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). In that case, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 2256(8)(B) and (D) were unconstitutionally overbroad, as their prohibitions on virtual child pornography and production or distribution of material pandered as child pornography – even if it is not – captured speech that was not unprotected within the scope of its earlier decisions in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (defining the test for obscenity) or New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (allowing states to ban child pornography sales, as it was not protected speech). While undoubtedly a small market – and one I have no interest in personally investigating – this allowance for computer-generated images and other “virtual” child pornography displaces the demand for actual child pornography, yet may contribute to the overall decline in child abuse crimes.
Other possible reasons for the decreased incidence of child abuse despite increased child pornography availability may be more related to features of criminal law rather than the adult marketplace or First Amendment doctrines. First, state and federal laws may have become stricter against child offenses, inhibiting child abuse despite the availability of child pornography. 20 years ago, implementing a ubiquitous data repository for every sex offender to be mapped out like many states have done under their respective Megan’s Law provisions, as the internet was not available. But today, those databases are active and seemingly everywhere, ruining lives while providing dubious benefits to public safety. Depending on the relevant state’s laws, viewing child pornography may carry a lesser prison sentence than actually touching a child, and be the economically efficient choice on that basis. Because fulfilling one’s desire is going to result in penalties and sex offender registration either way, a rational pedophile is going to choose the path that costs him the least amount of his life behind bars. Furthermore, downloading child porn is more likely to put him into a federal prison upon conviction or reaching a plea deal – a depressing place, but far preferable to many state prisons. Another reason for this perceived decline in child abuse is simply that reporting it has gone down. With families more broken than ever in recent history, do parents care, and do their children even tell them if they were molested?
Ignoring these covariants and assuming the relationship between child porn availability and child abuse is causative, everyone from social scientists and policy-makers to parents is left with significant moral questions: Is it preferable to end child pornography so that the actors are not abused if it comes at the expense of the broader child population? Or is it preferable that the actors suffer so fewer random children are victimized? Ultimately this is a moral and ethical question that could be resolved with further research, but cannot be conclusively “answered” with any empirical truth. Ultimately, society does not tolerate child abuse. While the age of consent is an arbitrary line, the asymmetries of power and knowledge between adults and minors, wherever the line is drawn, makes preying on the young, the weak, the naive and inexperienced, so abhorrent. Even if a 16-year-old is capable of forming subjective consent, the line is drawn at 18 (for production purposes) because, well, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Should a causative or at least highly correlative relationship between child pornography and child abuse in fact exist, it would not be the first time such a finding was made. In a study tracking rape data from 1980 to 2000, there was a .95 r^2 correlation between internet access and per capita incidence of rape; in the four states where internet access was highest, rapes per capita fell 27%; the four states with the least internet availability saw the per capita incidence of rape increase 53%. Granted, this study as well was subject to the covariants I mentioned above, as the states with highest internet access (New York and California, among others) tend to be the most liberal and presumably disinclined to rape, but a .95 r^2 is damn high. If not causative, it at least suggests that pornography was a meaningful substitute for sex among potential rapists. Where pornography was not available, the incidence of rape increased, and porn’s inaccessibility very likely was a factor. At the very least, it controverts the feminist claptrap that sex is about power — wrong, sugar: It’s about sex. This consideration is orthogonal to the Czech Republic study, though, as it does not address child pornography and the important social, legal and political issues it entails. Virtually nobody objects to consenting adults filming their sex acts; nobody can ignore the problems presented when children are involved with sexual content.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-child-pornography-laws.html - This wasn't the article I saw earlier, but this clearly defines the current illegality of possessing and view Child Porn. --
"New York also prohibits the promotion and possession of an obscene sexual performance by a child. Section 235 of the Penal Code defines material or performance meeting the following three requirements as "obscene": (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that its "predominant appeal is to the prurient interest in sex"; (2) it depicts actual or simulated sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct in a "patently offensive manner"; and (3) considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. Penalties for promotion and possession offenses do not vary depending on the obscene or non-obscene nature of the material in question. - See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-child-pornography-laws.html#sthash.35P3i2ko.dpuf"
And...
A longitudinal study of 341 convicted child molesters in America found that pornography's use correlated significantly with their rate of sexually re-offending. Frequency of pornography use was primarily a further risk factor for higher-risk offenders, when compared with lower-risk offenders, and use of highly deviant pornography correlated with increased recidivism risk for all groups.[5] The majority of men who have been charged with or convicted of child pornography offenses show pedophilic profiles on phallometric testing.[6] A study with a sample of 201 adult male child pornography offenders using police databases examined charges or convictions after the index child pornography offense(s). 56% of the sample had a prior criminal record, 24% had prior contact sexual offenses, and 15% had prior child pornography offenses. One-third were concurrently charged with other crimes at the time they were charged for child pornography offenses. 17% of the sample offended again in some way during this time, and 4% committed a new contact sexual offense. Child pornography offenders with prior criminal records were significantly more likely to offend again in any way during the follow-up period. Child pornography offenders who had committed a prior or concurrent contact sexual offense were the most likely to offend again, either generally or sexually.
And this...
The treatment of children as sexual objects has existed through the ages, and so too has the production of erotic literature and drawings involving children. However, pornography in the modern sense began with the invention of the camera in the early nineteenth century. Almost immediately, sexualized images involving children were produced, traded, and collected. Even so, child pornography remained a restricted activity through most of the twentieth century. Images were usually locally produced, of poor quality, expensive, and difficult to obtain. The relaxation of censorship standards in the 1960s led to an increase in the availability of child pornography, and, by 1977, some 250 child pornography magazines were circulating in the United States, many imported from Europe. Despite concern about the extent of child pornography, law enforcement agencies had considerable success in stemming the trafficking of these traditional hard-copy forms. However, the advent of the Internet in the 1980s dramatically changed the scale and nature of the child pornography problem, and has required new approaches to investigation and control.
And this...
According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved.
*Mayo Clinic is a not-for-profit medical practice and medical research group based in Rochester, Minnesota. It is the first and largest integrated not-for-profit medical group practice in the world, employing more than 3,800 physicians and scientists and 50,900 allied health staff.[1][2] The practice specializes in treating difficult cases through tertiary care. It spends over $500 million a year on research.
Mayo Clinic has been near the top of the U.S. News & World Report List of "Best Hospitals for more than 20 years".[3] The practice is distinguished by integrated care. It has been on the list of America's "100 Best Companies to Work For" published by Fortune magazine for eight years in a row.[4][5]
And this...
You're just wrong.
-
Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.
Quote a legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.
-
Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.
Quote a legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.
Whoa we have a badass over here. Don't worry I have no plans to go to the UK why would I want to go to a surveillance state that has CCTV cameras and microphones covering it entirely?
Go find some sex offenders and kill them then brah, there are public registries man. Go hunt some down you fucking pussy I thought you want to go kill some people? Ah all talk and no action, big surprise, a real internet badass.
-
Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.
Quote a legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.
Whoa we have a badass over here. Don't worry I have no plans to go to the UK why would I want to go to a surveillance state that has CCTV cameras and microphones covering it entirely?
Go find some sex offenders and kill them then brah, there are public registries man. Go hunt some down you fucking pussy I thought you want to go kill some people? Ah all talk and no action, big surprise, a real internet badass.
Usually when you say something like, "I thought you want to go kill some people? ... you wait for a response before you act like they went silent. You're manic as fuck.
-
It will never be legal in the US because if it is there will become a market for it, which would mean people would be actively seeking kids out to abuse for it.
Either way, you're a sick fuck, and I await the day LE catches you and you get what pedos deserve in jail.
-
It will never be legal in the US because if it is there will become a market for it, which would mean people would be actively seeking kids out to abuse for it.
www.fd.org/pdf_lib/FJC2012/Child_Porn_Dangerousness.pdf
The market thesis has no empirical support
-
It will never be legal in the US because if it is there will become a market for it, which would mean people would be actively seeking kids out to abuse for it.
Either way, you're a sick fuck, and I await the day LE catches you and you get what pedos deserve in jail.
I can't wait until the police catch you and you get ass raped in jail either.
-
Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.
Quote a legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.
Whoa we have a badass over here. Don't worry I have no plans to go to the UK why would I want to go to a surveillance state that has CCTV cameras and microphones covering it entirely?
Go find some sex offenders and kill them then brah, there are public registries man. Go hunt some down you fucking pussy I thought you want to go kill some people? Ah all talk and no action, big surprise, a real internet badass.
Fuck yeah!! straight to the back of the prison bus, seat reserved. high fives all round for the rock spider KILLER. Treated like royalty for the short 22 month stint. Something to do with being abused as a child and losing it and blacking out while smashing a rock spiders hard drive full of kiddy porn into his skull.\\
-
This isn't even about morality; it's about idiocy. OP makes valid points about 'potential' cultural shock mechanisms which may or may not effect child abuse based on increased availability of Child Porn to satiate the predators. Beyond that, OP just digs himself a hole by mixing valid points with sheer stupidity.
No wonder no one is responding to you civilly when you act like your concept is fail-proof and at best are 'guessing' the fate of Child Porn within an unpredictable time frame.
I'm reading a lot of obvious search-engine use here, and a LOT self-righteousness in this thread on all sides. I'd like to know what any of this has to do with Silk Road. Albeit the 'Off Topic' board, this is more than off topic. This topic has no place here, and if it did, the points would have been made by someone with less manic behavioral dysfunctions, and someone a bit more credible than the OP.
-
It will never be legal in the US because if it is there will become a market for it, which would mean people would be actively seeking kids out to abuse for it.
Either way, you're a sick fuck, and I await the day LE catches you and you get what pedos deserve in jail.
I can't wait until the police catch you and you get ass raped in jail either.
Oh so you also have a fetish for man on man ass rape... coulda seen that one comin'
-
This isn't even about morality; it's about idiocy. OP makes valid points about 'potential' cultural shock mechanisms which may or may not effect child abuse based on increased availability of Child Porn to satiate the predators. Beyond that, OP just digs himself a hole by mixing valid points with sheer stupidity.
No wonder no one is responding to you civilly when you act like your concept is fail-proof and at best are 'guessing' the fate of Child Porn within an unpredictable time frame.
I'm reading a lot of obvious search-engine use here, and a LOT self-righteousness in this thread on all sides. I'd like to know what any of this has to do with Silk Road. Albeit the 'Off Topic' board, this is more than off topic. This topic has no place here, and if it did, the points would have been made by someone with less manic behavioral dysfunctions, and someone a bit more credible than the OP.
What makes me lack credibility ? And please explain how I am behaving manically, but the people ranting about hunting down and castrating and murdering people for looking at pictures are not? lol.
-
It will never be legal in the US because if it is there will become a market for it, which would mean people would be actively seeking kids out to abuse for it.
Either way, you're a sick fuck, and I await the day LE catches you and you get what pedos deserve in jail.
I can't wait until the police catch you and you get ass raped in jail either.
Oh so you also have a fetish for man on man ass rape... coulda seen that one comin'
Actually I don't want him to go to jail or get ass raped, I am just pointing out to him that he is very likely a criminal and at risk of going to jail himself lol.
-
Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.
Quote a legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.
Whoa we have a badass over here. Don't worry I have no plans to go to the UK why would I want to go to a surveillance state that has CCTV cameras and microphones covering it entirely?
Go find some sex offenders and kill them then brah, there are public registries man. Go hunt some down you fucking pussy I thought you want to go kill some people? Ah all talk and no action, big surprise, a real internet badass.
Fuck yeah!! straight to the back of the prison bus, seat reserved. high fives all round for the rock spider KILLER. Treated like royalty for the short 22 month stint. Something to do with being abused as a child and losing it and blacking out while smashing a rock spiders hard drive full of kiddy porn into his skull.\\
do it faggot
-
This isn't even about morality; it's about idiocy. OP makes valid points about 'potential' cultural shock mechanisms which may or may not effect child abuse based on increased availability of Child Porn to satiate the predators. Beyond that, OP just digs himself a hole by mixing valid points with sheer stupidity.
No wonder no one is responding to you civilly when you act like your concept is fail-proof and at best are 'guessing' the fate of Child Porn within an unpredictable time frame.
I'm reading a lot of obvious search-engine use here, and a LOT self-righteousness in this thread on all sides. I'd like to know what any of this has to do with Silk Road. Albeit the 'Off Topic' board, this is more than off topic. This topic has no place here, and if it did, the points would have been made by someone with less manic behavioral dysfunctions, and someone a bit more credible than the OP.
What makes me lack credibility ? And please explain how I am behaving manically, but the people ranting about hunting down and castrating and murdering people for looking at pictures are not? lol.
Because reading through your posts it is clear that you have a problem focusing on your main point which is trying to bring validity to a few things you read on the net. I literally just read through this thread in one shot, and upon doing so, I've come to the conclusion that you're just straight up trolling your own thread super-hard. Anyone on here can Google, copy, and paste the 'findings' you've posted to justify your argument, just like anyone can Google, copy, and paste the media that is in stark contrast to everything you chose to.
It boils down to this being an acute matter of opinion, and you're trying to make out to be an obtuse matter of fact; it isn't.
-
This thread is like the resurrection of the "addicted to sniffing panties" thread, where the OP tried to tell everyone they were denying their manhood if they were denying they sniff random girls dirty underwear.
-
Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.
Quote a legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.
Whoa we have a badass over here. Don't worry I have no plans to go to the UK why would I want to go to a surveillance state that has CCTV cameras and microphones covering it entirely?
Go find some sex offenders and kill them then brah, there are public registries man. Go hunt some down you fucking pussy I thought you want to go kill some people? Ah all talk and no action, big surprise, a real internet badass.
Usually when you say something like, "I thought you want to go kill some people? ... you wait for a response before you act like they went silent. You're manic as fuck.
lmao, Fest, he must not have seen my post above where I called him out on exactly that. Being a manic fuckwad.
-
Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.
Quote a legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.
Whoa we have a badass over here. Don't worry I have no plans to go to the UK why would I want to go to a surveillance state that has CCTV cameras and microphones covering it entirely?
Go find some sex offenders and kill them then brah, there are public registries man. Go hunt some down you fucking pussy I thought you want to go kill some people? Ah all talk and no action, big surprise, a real internet badass.
Usually when you say something like, "I thought you want to go kill some people? ... you wait for a response before you act like they went silent. You're manic as fuck.
lmao, Fest, he must not have seen my post above where I called him out on exactly that. Being a manic fuckwad.
Quoted for Truth. You should just stop feeding him though; we all should. Bruce had the right idea.
-
This isn't even about morality; it's about idiocy. OP makes valid points about 'potential' cultural shock mechanisms which may or may not effect child abuse based on increased availability of Child Porn to satiate the predators. Beyond that, OP just digs himself a hole by mixing valid points with sheer stupidity.
No wonder no one is responding to you civilly when you act like your concept is fail-proof and at best are 'guessing' the fate of Child Porn within an unpredictable time frame.
I'm reading a lot of obvious search-engine use here, and a LOT self-righteousness in this thread on all sides. I'd like to know what any of this has to do with Silk Road. Albeit the 'Off Topic' board, this is more than off topic. This topic has no place here, and if it did, the points would have been made by someone with less manic behavioral dysfunctions, and someone a bit more credible than the OP.
What makes me lack credibility ? And please explain how I am behaving manically, but the people ranting about hunting down and castrating and murdering people for looking at pictures are not? lol.
Because reading through your posts it is clear that you have a problem focusing on your main point which is trying to bring validity to a few things you read on the net. I literally just read through this thread in one shot, and upon doing so, I've come to the conclusion that you're just straight up trolling your own thread super-hard. Anyone on here can Google, copy, and paste the 'findings' you've posted to justify your argument, just like anyone can Google, copy, and paste the media that is in stark contrast to everything you chose to.
It boils down to this being an acute matter of opinion, and you're trying to make out to be an obtuse matter of fact; it isn't.
But I can also quote media that debunks the media that is in stark contrast to everything I chose to post.....
If we get away from the facts and research, which everybody arguing against me understandably seems to want to do, it becomes a matter of philosophy. I suppose then that my philosophy is that information should be free and we should respect the right to freedom of speech and nobody should be punished unless they hurt another person, and the people arguing against me have the philosophy that the governmnet should censor information and send people to prison for looking at pictures they find distasteful, freedom of speech doesn't apply to things they don't want people to say and if you don't agree with them you are a dirty pedophile child rapist who deserves to be hunted down and violently tortured, castrated and murdered.
-
So, abusing children is wrong, but looking at pictures of people abusing children isn't? But how can you have one without the other? How can you engage in your harmless picture viewing without a child being abused?
This personal freedom you are trying to defend only makes sense if you refuse to think about the whole chain of events. Yes, by viewing the picture you are not directly causing abuse, but its iimpossible for you to view the picture without that abuse taking place. (leaving aside drawings or convincing child robots)
You keep gloating about the logical fallacies others are committing in this thread, in the grip of the strong emotions child abuse engenders. But you are flinging them out left right and centre. In particular, the argument you keep falling back on seems very much a false analogy:
Child abuse is wrong >>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong
Robbing banks is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of robbery is wrong
The Holocaust is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong.
(Reducing to absurdity, showing the premise of an argument leads to absurd conclusions)
The key difference here is that people aren't robbing banks with the aim of making videos to share with fellow bank robbers, and egging each other on. The Holocaust wasn't committed with the aim of sharing the footage with other totalitarian states "hey Stalin check this out LOL"
You are also muddying the water somewhat with talk of 14 year old ages of consent, and sexually mature teenagers. This is a completely seperate issue from paedophilia. Throughout most of history a girl was considered a woman when she reached sexual maturity (ie began menstruating). However for legal purposes we find it necessary to draw a line, in most states either 14 or 16. In most cases courts will deal much more leniently with a 17 year old who has had sex with a 14 year old, than a 30 year old who did the same. This seems fair enough to me.
I agree that there is a huge amount of media and societal hysteria about paedophilia, (watch Chris Morris's Brasseye episode about "paedogeddon" for a funny take on this). I get that not all people that view CP are child murderering monsters, or even child molesters.
The study you cite ("dozens" showing no correlation between legalising porn and increased sex crime, ONE showing the same for CP, the Czech one) seems kind of weak. Statistics from 1945-1989, then after 1989? Did any other major changes take place in Czech society between these two periods, that might affect a) the data and b) how the data was collected? On the internet, its fairly easy to find research that backs any position you care to take. I don't think its clear whether the availability of CP effects the incidence of child abuse either way. I really don't think you can claim the evidence on your side, as you have done, several times in this thread, saying things along the lines of 'if you support restriction of CP you are actually increasing child abuse'.
That's a logical fallacy right there, just a basic non sequitur.
You keep hitting the same argument, looking at a picture of as crime is not the same as committing it. Sure, but when producing the pictures of the crime is a major motivation for the crime, the viewer is complicit.
I have never seen any CP, but I imagine that a lot of it is produced intentionally. Its not like two people are raping a child and one of them says. "Hey, do you reckon we should film this?" "Fuck it why not, although I don't know who would want to watch a thing like this....honey, stop crying. Daddys friend will be angry...."
If you watch it, you are complicit in its production.
Yes, yes I know "huh? So if I watch a film of a bank robbery I'm complicit in that too am I?". No. These are two different situations as outlined above. The demand for the CP encourages the supply. This demand need not be monetary.
So, non exclusive ephebephile? You like dem young girls? But you'll take a grown up lady if that's all that's going? Well I guess we can all understand that. But, where do we draw the line? In our society we regard girls under 16, although their bodies (their nubile soft young bodies.....) might be physically mature, as too young to give meaningful consent, and so they fall under the protection of the law, against exploitation.
Obviously, on her 16 th birthday, a girl doesn't suddenly change from a child into a woman, but we need these legal fictions for practical reasons.
Ah fuck it....I'm just going to call you a nonce like everyone else. NONCE!
-
Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.
Quote a legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.
Whoa we have a badass over here. Don't worry I have no plans to go to the UK why would I want to go to a surveillance state that has CCTV cameras and microphones covering it entirely?
Go find some sex offenders and kill them then brah, there are public registries man. Go hunt some down you fucking pussy I thought you want to go kill some people? Ah all talk and no action, big surprise, a real internet badass.
Usually when you say something like, "I thought you want to go kill some people? ... you wait for a response before you act like they went silent. You're manic as fuck.
lmao, Fest, he must not have seen my post above where I called him out on exactly that. Being a manic fuckwad.
Quoted for Truth. You should just stop feeding him though; we all should. Bruce had the right idea.
Lol in this thread I have been called both Manic and Dysphoric, that is so funny since they are pretty much the exact opposite. Let's see (sorry I am about to post some technical information and facts, please don't be offended):
Mania:
Abnormally elevated or expansive mood (this sounds like you guys)
Extreme and abnormal irritability (this sounds like you guys)
Easily excited to enthusiasm, anger, agitation or another emotion (this sounds like you guys)
Unusual hostility (this sounds like you guys)
Decreased need for sleep with little fatigue
An increase in goal-directed activities
Restlessness
Rapid, pressured speech
Incoherent speech (this sounds like you guys)
Clang associations
Inappropriate humor and behaviors
Unusual impulsiveness
Lack of insight (this sounds like you guys)
Financial extravagance and/or recklessness
Hypersexuality
Unusual distractibility
Enhanced creative thinking and/or behaviors
Flight of ideas
Disorientation
Disjointed thinking (this sounds like you guys)
Racing thoughts
Increased focus on religion or religious activities
Dysphoria:
feeling unwell or unhappy
emotional and mental discomfort
discontentment,
restlessness,
dissatisfaction,
malaise,
depression,
anxiety
indifference.
So which is it guys am I manic or depressed? Or am I manic depressive and rapidly cycling from post to post?! The only conclusion I can come to is that perhaps you guys are manic rather than suffering from mass hysteria, but I still think mass hysteria is a better diagnosis.
I have also been said to be schizoaffective in this thread, as well as a pedophile (which I am not). God damn I have a lot fucking wrong with me!
-
Mania and schizoid features. Ad hominem or not it seems logical. It's hard to psychoanalyze a pseudonym over Tor, but I'm going to go ahead and say that when I call you crazy, you're probably fucking crazy. I told you in page one this isn't going to be an exercise in rational discourse. People are just going to call you a weird boy fucking terrorist for about three weeks or until a mod shuts down this thread due to a flame war.
Here's a fallacy for you:
"Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.
A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough."
The common consensus is from the community is you like to masturbate to child pornography or rape children. This is certainly not an implausible assumption given the intensity and frequency of your talking points. You seem to have an entire database of diddle statistics at your disposal.
-
I'd say your both. Lol. Dysphoric mania.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_%28psychiatry%29
Yes, you can be both.
Hahahaha.
-
But I can also quote media that debunks the media that is in stark contrast t
If we get away from the facts and research, which everybody arguing against me understandably seems to want to do, it becomes a matter of philosophy. I suppose then that my philosophy is that information should be free and we should respect the right to freedom of speech and nobody should be punished unless they hurt another person, and the people arguing against me have the philosophy that the governmnet should censor information and send people to prison for looking at pictures they find distasteful, freedom of speech doesn't apply to things they don't want people to say and if you don't agree with them you are a dirty pedophile child rapist who deserves to be hunted down and violently tortured, castrated and murdered.
So, what you are saying is that you believe in freedom, but anyone who disagrees with your point (that looking at CP doesn't hurt anyone even indirectly) is against freedom?
Welllllll..........I do like freedom....hmmmmmmmmm.........so.........hmmm, I guess you must be right.
That is a gigantic wicker man with Nicholas cage burning inside screaming "the original with Edward woodward in was betterrrrrrrrrrrrr!"
-
So, abusing children is wrong, but looking at pictures of people abusing children isn't? But how can you have one without the other?
How can you have banks without bank robbery? How can you have humans without murder? Should we ban banks to get rid of bank robbery? Should we ban humans to get rid of murder? Saying we must ban looking at child pornography to get rid of producing child pornography is as absurd as saying these other things.
How can you engage in your harmless picture viewing without a child being abused?
You cannot engage in harmless picture viewing without a child being abused (ignoring jailbait and nudist stuff). But there is something called an arrow of time. It moves forward. Children have already been abused in the past. Not looking at the pictures of the abuse makes them no less abused. The thing to look at here is cause and effect. You can engage in picture viewing without causing a child to be abused.
This personal freedom you are trying to defend only makes sense if you refuse to think about the whole chain of events. Yes, by viewing the picture you are not directly causing abuse, but its iimpossible for you to view the picture without that abuse taking place. (leaving aside drawings or convincing child robots)
So what it is impossible for somebody to look at a picture without the abuse depicted in the picture having taken place? The abuse already took place! Not looking at the picture doesn't make it go away. I am thinking about the whole chain of events, I think you might not be thinking about the order of events.
You keep gloating about the logical fallacies others are committing in this thread, in the grip of the strong emotions child abuse engenders. But you are flinging them out left right and centre. In particular, the argument you keep falling back on seems very much a false analogy:
Child abuse is wrong >>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong
Robbing banks is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of robbery is wrong
The Holocaust is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong.
(Reducing to absurdity, showing the premise of an argument leads to absurd conclusions)
The key difference here is that people aren't robbing banks with the aim of making videos to share with fellow bank robbers, and egging each other on. The Holocaust wasn't committed with the aim of sharing the footage with other totalitarian states "hey Stalin check this out LOL"
It is an irrelevant difference. All are victim creating crimes and all are pictures of crimes with victims depicted. The analogy is solid.
You are also muddying the water somewhat with talk of 14 year old ages of consent, and sexually mature teenagers. This is a completely seperate issue from paedophilia. Throughout most of history a girl was considered a woman when she reached sexual maturity (ie began menstruating). However for legal purposes we find it necessary to draw a line, in most states either 14 or 16. In most cases courts will deal much more leniently with a 17 year old who has had sex with a 14 year old, than a 30 year old who did the same. This seems fair enough to me.
Seems more fair to me to lower the age of consent to something more reasonable. Some countries already have! A lot of them are even first world and highly populated :D.
I agree that there is a huge amount of media and societal hysteria about paedophilia, (watch Chris Morris's Brasseye episode about "paedogeddon" for a funny take on this). I get that not all people that view CP are child murderering monsters, or even child molesters.
Hell, even most of the inflated bullshit statistics from the crusaders agree that the majority of people viewing child porn are not child molesters and are not risks to children.
The study you cite ("dozens" showing no correlation between legalising porn and increased sex crime, ONE showing the same for CP, the Czech one) seems kind of weak. Statistics from 1945-1989, then after 1989? Did any other major changes take place in Czech society between these two periods, that might affect a) the data and b) how the data was collected? On the internet, its fairly easy to find research that backs any position you care to take. I don't think its clear whether the availability of CP effects the incidence of child abuse either way. I really don't think you can claim the evidence on your side, as you have done, several times in this thread, saying things along the lines of 'if you support restriction of CP you are actually increasing child abuse'.
It is not a single one showing the link with CP and reduced sex abuse of minors, also Japan and many other countries as well. Sure can find citations for either argument, I can also find instances where the people arguing the other way have fabricated data and published fraudulent documents so I know who to trust.
You keep hitting the same argument, looking at a picture of as crime is not the same as committing it. Sure, but when producing the pictures of the crime is a major motivation for the crime, the viewer is complicit.
Although in a significant number of cases I imagine that producing pictures of the crime is a major motiviation (for example all of the commercial CP), I think that in a significant number of the cases producing a picture of the crime is a secondary motivation. Most people do not molest children just so they can take pictures of it, they molest children because they want to molest children and they take pictures of it because they can. And in any case, it is irrelevant.
If you watch it, you are complicit in its production.
that makes as much sense as saying if I look at pictures of the holocaust I am complicit in genocide. If somebody looks at a picture of a child being abused so fucking what they had nothing to do with it, probably didn't pay for it, probably nobody even knows they did it. how the fuck is that complicit in the production of it?
Complicit: Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime
So if it is the watching of the crime that makes someone complicit, then my argument about the holocaust stands. If you say that somebody participates in the crime by looking at pictures of it, then you are probably insane.
Yes, yes I know "huh? So if I watch a film of a bank robbery I'm complicit in that too am I?". No. These are two different situations as outlined above. The demand for the CP encourages the supply. This demand need not be monetary.
I already have given citations that there is no evidence for this, but I know you think citations to things on the internet are useless. Okay I have a proposal then. There is a technology called private information retrieval. It lets somebody get an item from a set of databases without the set of databases being able to tell the item they got out of it. If we have a bunch of databases containing CP and various other items, and people use PIR to get items out of the database, then nobody can determine the demand for any of the individual items in the database. This effectively completely hides the demand for any of the individual items in the database. Do you think that if CP is only legal to view if it is obtained from a PIR system that it is okay? Because that handles the demand problem perfectly, nobody will know the demand for child pornography and you cannot use it as your reason to argue against it if it is only distributed via PIR.
So, non exclusive ephebephile? You like dem young girls? But you'll take a grown up lady if that's all that's going? Well I guess we can all understand that. But, where do we draw the line? In our society we regard girls under 16, although their bodies (their nubile soft young bodies.....) might be physically mature, as too young to give meaningful consent, and so they fall under the protection of the law, against exploitation.
Obviously, on her 16 th birthday, a girl doesn't suddenly change from a child into a woman, but we need these legal fictions for practical reasons.
Well I am pretty clearly attracted to girls at age 14, really I could probably even go somewhat lower than that on a case by case basis. I have no interest at all in anybody who is not at all sexually developed, so I do not qualify as being a pedophile. I am interested in females between tanner stage 4 and 5 I would say, which can range from 13 to indefinite age (some females never even get to stage 5). I don't feel such strong compulsion to have sex with any particular age group that I would bother trying to do anything illegal like sleeping with underage teenagers (not going to find me on to catch a predator, lol), and I still wonder at what age it is okay to have sex with somebody without causing them harm. I really doubt that age is 16 or 18 personally.
Ah fuck it....I'm just going to call you a nonce like everyone else. NONCE!
Damn you did such a good job being pretty rational and not foaming at the mouth and having decent arguments and not sounding like a fucking retard, don't throw it away now ;) !
-
Notice I didn't get a reply from my dysphoric mania diagnosis and appeal to motive. I guess kmf-whatever never heard of a mixed state then? Considering he's cherry-picking I'm assuming the schizoid thesis will be ignored as well.
Trolololololololo.
-
Notice I didn't get a reply from my dysphoric mania diagnosis and appeal to motive. I guess kmf-whatever never heard of a mixed state then? Considering he's cherry-picking I'm assuming the schizoid thesis will be ignored as well.
Trolololololololo.
I actually have heard of mixed state before, that guy who shot up the theater during batman movie had it. I don't think I qualify.
I gotta say though, The Dysphoric Manic Schizoid Pedophiles sounds like a good name for a band.
-
Mania:
Abnormally elevated or expansive mood - your first response to me started off with "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH", I'd call that indicative of elevated excitement, and an expansive mood.
Easily excited to enthusiasm, anger, agitation or another emotion - See above.
Unusual hostility - This does sound like most people on SR.
An increase in goal-directed activities - See your OP.
Rapid, pressured speech - You've been arguing with like 12 different people, keeping up post for post, even though your posts are a bunch of jumble facts and opinions.
Incoherent speech - You've made more grammatical and spelling errors than anyone else in this thread.
Inappropriate humor and behaviors - I'd say this is pretty inappropriate.
Unusual impulsiveness - Your responses seem unusually impulsive. Can you make it through a thread without responding to a post within it? Every other post is you. Again, there are a few of us, one of you.
Keep hitting that "New replies to previous posts" button, impulsively.
Lack of insight: See the other thread, where your entire argument continues to get flushed down the toilet.
Hypersexuality - I wouldn't doubt that you've been beating off frequently during all this talk of children, and porn.
-
This was from the other thread --no need to have this same one-sided argument where I stomp all of your opinion-based-facts and hear-say into the dirt.
I said that full sexual maturity, a developmental stage in biological development, is reached on average, at age 14.5 in females. I also said that peak fertility is reached at about the same age, and then starts to decline sometime in the 20s.
Wrong again. http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/fertility-101
"Most women hit their fertile peak between the ages of 23 and 31, though the rate at which women conceive begins to dip slightly in their late 20s. Around age 31, fertility starts to drop more quickly — by about 3 percent per year — until you hit 35 or so."
Okay, so you were wrong about fertility. No biggie. Your argument was about SEXUALITY and sexual prime; so I'm glad we're finally back on your chosen topic. We're going to start with those hormones you say are the biological root of sexuality:
"In men, testosterone levels reach their apex around age 18, while women’s estrogen (and fertility) hits a high-water mark during the mid- to late-20s. This hot-and-heavy stage of sexual maturity is known as the genital prime, because it’s when the body responds most quickly to arousal."
But Actually ...
According to Dr. Marc Goldstein of Cornell University, hormones don't decide when you hit your sexual apex. People aren't soda bottles that just reach a point of maximum pressure and then pop. Your "sexual peak" has more to do with your attitude toward sex and level of experience, which is one reason millions of awkward young men spend their entire sexual prime on a computer(this means you KMF).
Oh, and it has nothing to do with psychology? That's profoundly stupid and narrow thinking on your part.
"With pharmaceutical companies in hot pursuit of a pill that could do for women's sexual fulfillment what Viagra has done for men's, experts are busy investigating what's responsible for female passion.
Researchers are finding that the sex experts Masters and Johnson were wrong when they claimed that female and male desire were alike. New studies suggest that women need to be aroused physically or psychologically to get in the mood for sex. Unlike men, who can get aroused by the sight of a buxom babe in a beer commercial, women rely on different--and subtler--cues."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/real-healing/201208/overexposed-and-under-prepared-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content
Early Sex. Research has long established that teens who watch movies or listen to music that glamorizes drinking, drug use or violence tend to engage in those behaviors themselves. A 2012 study shows that movies influence teens’ sexual attitudes and behaviors as well. The study, published in Psychological Science, found that the more teens were exposed to sexual content in movies, the earlier they started having sex and the likelier they were to have casual, unprotected sex.
In another study, boys who were exposed to sexually explicit media were three times more likely to engage in oral sex and intercourse two years after exposure than non-exposed boys. Young girls exposed to sexual content in the media were twice as likely to engage in oral sex and one and a half times more likely to have intercourse. Research also shows that teens who listened to music with degrading sexual references were more likely to have sex than those who had less exposure.
Why are teens more likely to have sex after being exposed to sexual content in the media? Just as we read specific books and show educational movies to our children in hopes that they learn lessons from the characters, the media provides a type of sex education to young people. Media messages normalize early sexual experimentation and portray sex as casual, unprotected and consequence-free, encouraging sexual activity long before children are emotionally, socially or intellectually ready.
High-Risk Sex. The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse, have unprotected sex and use drugs or alcohol before sex. In a study by researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant, more than 66 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviors they saw in the media (and by high school, many had done so), which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
Sex, Love and Relationship Addictions. Not every child who is exposed to sexual content will struggle with a mental health disorder, but research shows that early exposure to pornography is a risk factor for sex addictions and other intimacy disorders. In one study of 932 sex addicts, 90 percent of men and 77 percent of women reported that pornography was a factor in their addiction. With the widespread availability of explicit material on the Internet, these problems are becoming more prevalent and are surfacing at younger ages.
Sexual Violence. According to some studies, early exposure (by age 14) to pornography and other explicit material may increase the risk of a child becoming a victim of sexual violence or acting out sexually against another child. For some people, habitual use of pornography may prompt a desire for more violent or deviant material, including depictions of rape, torture or humiliation. If people seek to act out what they see, they may be more likely to commit sexual assault, rape or child molestation.
Have you not had an epic enough fail on your topic? This will be my last post on the matter.
Good luck explaining away the experts with your vast knowledge of the sexuality of a 14 year old girl. I'm sorry, a 14.5 year old girl. Or boy.
Still waiting on a rebuttal here.
-
Abnormally elevated or expansive mood - your first response to me started off with "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH", I'd call that indicative of elevated excitement, and an expansive mood.
That was indicative of the fact that I found it hilarious that you think the majority of CP is snuff. A lot of it is probably rape though, but I think the majority is probably softcore actually.
An increase in goal-directed activities - See your OP.
lol
Rapid, pressured speech - You've been arguing with like 12 different people, keeping up post for post, even though your posts are a bunch of jumble facts and opinions.
What else could my posts contain other than facts and opinions?
Incoherent speech - You've made more grammatical and spelling errors than anyone else in this thread.
Have I made many spelling errors? I don't know, I have not got spell check right now. I certainly don't feel as if I have made many spelling or grammatical mistakes.
Hypersexuality - I wouldn't doubt that you've been beating off frequently during all this talk of children, and porn.
Well I have not but that is pretty funny.
Damn I guess I am manic after all.
-
It would appear so. ^
-
Every child in any picture on a CP site is a victim of abuse, people who look at these are continuing the abuse of these kids and encouraging abusers to take more pictures/videos by watching.
Fucking vile, if someone thinks because they didn,t take the picture/video then their not abusing that kid too, don,t fuckin kid yourself, your scum like the people who produce this vile filth!
-
That was indicative of the fact that I found it hilarious that you think the majority of CP is snuff. A lot of it is probably rape though, but I think the majority is probably softcore actually.
My post from earlier actually is currently unedited, and says "Most CP is Snuff / Rape" ...
meaning one or the other.
You - "A lot of it is probably rape though" "but soft-core actually." "i think"
You "thinking" and you "knowing" are two different things. Just because you 'think' something is one way, doesn't mean it 'probably is' ... This is like the theme of kmfkewm's logic. Thinking too much; knowing very little. You've heavily researched? But you think. You don't know...
Thanks for contradicting your initial reply to that message tho:
"
HAHAHAHAHAHAH did you just pull that straight out of your ass or what? The vast majority of CP consists of nude or semi nude minors posing in costumes with props and fake scenery, taken at professional studios in Russia and the Ukraine, with consent of parents and all children depicted, for money, and most of that was created semi-legally in the countries it was produced in. "
Now we KNOW(not think) you have Zero credibility on this subject.
-
Every child in any picture on a CP site is a victim of abuse, people who look at these are continuing the abuse of these kids and encouraging abusers to take more pictures/videos by watching.
Quoted for simplicity, and Truth.
-
Thanks Praetorian ;) I don,t think people watching CP can sit there guilt free by watching they are abusers. It makes me sick to my stomach, and for all the pedo,s that can,t stop, well there,s one way to stop, kill yourself and save some kids from abuse ;)
-
I must say... I respect KMF's attempt to bring rationality to the argument; that we should have the freedom to view whatever we want. This topic, however, was simply not the catalyst in which to embrace to make your point. All morality issues aside, I was really searching for validity in what he's saying; but it's not there. Especially when the information known by the guy seems to change, or contradict itself from page to page.
Shit, even within the same sentence...
I have seen many valid posts from kmfkwem; this was not one of them. Especially when you're making up facts about the sexual 'peak' of women being 14, or 14.5 years old 'on average' in sheer conflict with medical science.
-
Stage 5 (final stage) sexual traits are obtained on average at age 14.6
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Puberty-Normal-and-Abnormal.htm
Adult breast contour with projection of papilla only (mean age 14.5 years). Adult with spread to medial thigh but not up linea alba (mean age 14.6 years).
as for the fertility claim, I am having trouble to find *any* studies that show fertility information for those below the age of 20. In the studies done, fertility is at its peak in the 20's , but none of the studies I can find even observe teenage years. I believe in the past I have read that peak fertility is from the start of reaching full sexual maturity (14.5 about) to sometime in the 20's. I will continue looking for a citation, but please find me a citation that people in their 20's are actually more fertile than teenagers, rather than a citation that people are at peak fertility in their 20's (because I can find that citation all over the place as well, but the studies don't have information for people below their 20's so it doesn't disprove what I said).
-
My post from earlier actually is currently unedited, and says "Most CP is Snuff / Rape" ...
meaning one or the other.
You - "A lot of it is probably rape though" "but soft-core actually." "i think"
You "thinking" and you "knowing" are two different things. Just because you 'think' something is one way, doesn't mean it 'probably is' ... This is like the theme of kmfkewm's logic. Thinking too much; knowing very little. You've heavily researched? But you think. You don't know...
You are the one who made the original claim that almost all CP is fucking snuff and rape, so where is your citation? Or is it just what you think? I can give citations that studios in Ukraine produced millions of images of softcore CP, can you find a citation that there are millions of images of snuff (lol) and rape (less lol, probably way more rape than snuff) CP? Because I am still convinced that I am right, and I think it is absurd that you get to pull shit out of your ass and make outlandish claims but I don't get to say my opinion on the matter based off of the things I have read (which largely indicate that the Ukrainian studios produced the bulk of available CP).
This is like the theme of your logic, pulling shit out of your ass. Where is a single citation that the majority of CP is rape or snuff? Can you show me any links to stories about large scale amounts of rape or snuff CP? Because I can show you links to articles about softcore CP images being produced by the millions of images in Ukraine. And then we can pad that with all the self produced jailbait pornography. And then we can add all of the nudist shit. And then we can add all of the people who took naked pictures of their kids or random kids but didn't have sex with them. By the time all of the CP that is not rape or snuff is added up, I think we will see that rape and especially snuff consists of a tiny bit of CP. I can find statistic that 1 out of 5 people busted with CP have hardcore CP depicting rape or sadistic behavior, but that is not accurate enough as they could have 5,000 softcore images and 10 hardcore images. I don't think any information is available on the amount of CP images and videos that fall into one category or another.
Now we KNOW(not think) you have Zero credibility on this subject.
Where is your statistic that the majority of CP consists of rape/snuff from? How do you know that? Please show me the research I am really curious , since you have so much credibility on the matter. If you want I can give you citations that only 1:5 people busted with CP have sadistic images. I can give you citations that studios in Ukraine and Russia produced millions of softcore CP images. I can give you citations for the estimated numbers of teenagers taking naked photographs of themselves (it is a LARGE percentage). I can account for several million child pornography images that are not rape or snuff, how many images of rape or snuff can you account for?
Thanks Praetorian ;) I don,t think people watching CP can sit there guilt free by watching they are abusers. It makes me sick to my stomach, and for all the pedo,s that can,t stop, well there,s one way to stop, kill yourself and save some kids from abuse ;)
Anybody who kills themselves to stop looking at pictures must be fucking mentally ill lol. I can't believe you think that people should die rather than look at pictures, to me that opinion seems so barbaric and backwards and fucking insane that I think you must have come out of the past, people in this day and age are supposed to be much more rational than you. Also I think you must be British also, since they seem to call CP Vile Filth the most. I really get the impression that I am arguing with a bunch of people from the UK for some reason, lol.
Especially when the information known by the guy seems to change, or contradict itself from page to page.
You are the one who said that the majority of CP is rape or snuff, I find this to be extraordinarily unlikely, and like I said before, I can show you various figures for the number of softcore images made by big production studios, how about show me some figures for the number of hardcore sadistic images.
Shit, even within the same sentence...
Example please?
I have seen many valid posts from kmfkwem; this was not one of them. Especially when you're making up facts about the sexual 'peak' of women being 14, or 14.5 years old 'on average' in sheer conflict with medical science.
None of the fertility studies I can find even consider the fertility of teenagers. They show sexual peak in the early 20's, and then it starts falling, but none of them have enough resolution to see before the 20's. It is still entirely possible, and I find it likely to be true, that peak fertility is reached in the early teenage years, probably around 14.5 when peak sexual development is reached, and continues to the late 20's at which point it falls. I will keep looking for a citation for this, but I would love to see a citation from you showing that 20 year olds are actually MORE fertile than 14.5 year olds, because I cannot find anything claiming this, all I can find is that in studies involving those ages 20 plus, fertility starts to decline in the late 20's. That does not mean that peak fertility starts in the early 20's, it just means that peak fertility starts to go down after the early 20's.
-
I don't know if this nigga is on bath salts or something but I think 6-10 hours of pounding on a computer ranting about child porn is some manic and deviant behavior.
-
I've stopped reading kmfkewm's posts because there's nothing more to say for him, all you need to know is how he won this argument:
Incorrect information given by kmfkewm: I said that full sexual maturity, a developmental stage in biological development, is reached on average, at age 14.5 in females. I also said that peak fertility is reached at about the same age, and then starts to decline sometime in the 20s.
Rebuttal 1 - fertility; quote direct from a WebMD article aptly entitled Fertility-101:
"Most women hit their fertile peak between the ages of 23 and 31, though the rate at which women conceive begins to dip slightly in their late 20s. Around age 31, fertility starts to drop more quickly — by about 3 percent per year — until you hit 35 or so."
Rebuttal 2 - sexuality; quoted from a Cornell University(more accredited than the U of Hawaii) Study:
"In men, testosterone levels reach their apex around age 18, while women’s estrogen (and fertility) hits a high-water mark during the mid- to late-20s. This hot-and-heavy stage of sexual maturity is known as the genital prime, because it’s when the body responds most quickly to arousal."
But Actually ...
"According to Dr. Marc Goldstein of Cornell University, hormones don't decide when you hit your sexual apex. People aren't soda bottles that just reach a point of maximum pressure and then pop. Your "sexual peak" has more to do with your attitude toward sex and level of experience, which is one reason millions of awkward young men spend their entire sexual prime on a computer(this means you KMF)."
Correct information given by kfmkewm:A new study from the Czech Republic claims that the availability of child pornography has led to lower rates of child abuse. This result allegedly is consistent with similar observations in Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden and the USA. The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
Rebuttal 1 - Explaining the lack of a casual link as suggested by the above study:
"The inference to be drawn from this research is that legalizing and further increasing child pornography’s availability would decrease the incidence of child abuse. The problem with these studies, and from which this one does not seem to be immune, is that there is no control for alternate or outside variables. This research shows a correlation between availability of child porn – despite its illegality in most nations – and the decrease in child abuse, but ignores other explanations and ultimately cannot establish a causal relationship.
This leads the critical reader to a disturbing place: What content competes with child pornography? For one, there’s the entire genre of “barely legal” porn – just do a search for “teen” and the market’s representation is readily apparent. We don’t care or pass judgment on any kind of porn, so long as its made by consenting adults, but it seems far-fetched to think that its producers aren’t at least cognizant of the child porn market when they specialize in cheerleader themes, models in braces, and pigtails. To their credit, they are providing a legal alternative and monetizing a market segment that can otherwise ruin lives if handled irresponsibly.
There is also the existence of virtual child pornography. In 2002, the Free Speech Coalition won a decisive victory for expression over the DOJ in Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). In that case, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 2256(8)(B) and (D) were unconstitutionally overbroad, as their prohibitions on virtual child pornography and production or distribution of material pandered as child pornography – even if it is not – captured speech that was not unprotected within the scope of its earlier decisions in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (defining the test for obscenity) or New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (allowing states to ban child pornography sales, as it was not protected speech). While undoubtedly a small market – and one I have no interest in personally investigating – this allowance for computer-generated images and other “virtual” child pornography displaces the demand for actual child pornography, yet may contribute to the overall decline in child abuse crimes.
Other possible reasons for the decreased incidence of child abuse despite increased child pornography availability may be more related to features of criminal law rather than the adult marketplace or First Amendment doctrines. First, state and federal laws may have become stricter against child offenses, inhibiting child abuse despite the availability of child pornography. 20 years ago, implementing a ubiquitous data repository for every sex offender to be mapped out like many states have done under their respective Megan’s Law provisions, as the internet was not available. But today, those databases are active and seemingly everywhere, ruining lives while providing dubious benefits to public safety. Depending on the relevant state’s laws, viewing child pornography may carry a lesser prison sentence than actually touching a child, and be the economically efficient choice on that basis. Because fulfilling one’s desire is going to result in penalties and sex offender registration either way, a rational pedophile is going to choose the path that costs him the least amount of his life behind bars. Furthermore, downloading child porn is more likely to put him into a federal prison upon conviction or reaching a plea deal – a depressing place, but far preferable to many state prisons. Another reason for this perceived decline in child abuse is simply that reporting it has gone down. With families more broken than ever in recent history, do parents care, and do their children even tell them if they were molested?
Ignoring these covariants and assuming the relationship between child porn availability and child abuse is causative, everyone from social scientists and policy-makers to parents is left with significant moral questions: Is it preferable to end child pornography so that the actors are not abused if it comes at the expense of the broader child population? Or is it preferable that the actors suffer so fewer random children are victimized? Ultimately this is a moral and ethical question that could be resolved with further research, but cannot be conclusively “answered” with any empirical truth. Ultimately, society does not tolerate child abuse. While the age of consent is an arbitrary line, the asymmetries of power and knowledge between adults and minors, wherever the line is drawn, makes preying on the young, the weak, the naive and inexperienced, so abhorrent."
More fud from kmfkewm:When you made the viewing of CP illegal, you sharply increased the rate of actual child sex abuse.
Rebuttal - A study that contradicts the Czech study, and the above quote:
"A longitudinal study of 341 convicted child molesters in America found that pornography's use correlated significantly with their rate of sexually re-offending. Frequency of pornography use was primarily a further risk factor for higher-risk offenders, when compared with lower-risk offenders, and use of highly deviant pornography correlated with increased recidivism risk for all groups. The majority of men who have been charged with or convicted of child pornography offenses show pedophilic profiles on phallometric testing. A study with a sample of 201 adult male child pornography offenders using police databases examined charges or convictions after the index child pornography offense(s). 56% of the sample had a prior criminal record, 24% had prior contact sexual offenses, and 15% had prior child pornography offenses. One-third were concurrently charged with other crimes at the time they were charged for child pornography offenses. 17% of the sample offended again in some way during this time, and 4% committed a new contact sexual offense. Child pornography offenders with prior criminal records were significantly more likely to offend again in any way during the follow-up period. Child pornography offenders who had committed a prior or concurrent contact sexual offense were the most likely to offend again, either generally or sexually."
Really absent-minded FUD by kwmkewm:Go read the fucking tanner scale you retard. It has nothing to do with psychology, sexual maturity is a biological state of being. Sexual development stops, on average, when a female is 14.5 years old. God I have researched everything I talk about you are not going to find something that I am wrong on, you on the other hand are just talking out of your ass and acting superior when in reality you are just saying a bunch of bullshit you know nothing about.
Rebuttal - Quote from Psychology today:
"With pharmaceutical companies in hot pursuit of a pill that could do for women's sexual fulfillment what Viagra has done for men's, experts are busy investigating what's responsible for female passion.
Researchers are finding that the sex experts Masters and Johnson were wrong when they claimed that female and male desire were alike. New studies suggest that women need to be aroused physically or psychologically to get in the mood for sex. Unlike men, who can get aroused by the sight of a buxom babe in a beer commercial, women rely on different--and subtler--cues."
Rebuttal 2 - Child Psychology and Sex:
Early Sex.
Research has long established that teens who watch movies or listen to music that glamorizes drinking, drug use or violence tend to engage in those behaviors themselves. A 2012 study shows that movies influence teens’ sexual attitudes and behaviors as well. The study, published in Psychological Science, found that the more teens were exposed to sexual content in movies, the earlier they started having sex and the likelier they were to have casual, unprotected sex.
In another study, boys who were exposed to sexually explicit media were three times more likely to engage in oral sex and intercourse two years after exposure than non-exposed boys. Young girls exposed to sexual content in the media were twice as likely to engage in oral sex and one and a half times more likely to have intercourse. Research also shows that teens who listened to music with degrading sexual references were more likely to have sex than those who had less exposure.
Why are teens more likely to have sex after being exposed to sexual content in the media? Just as we read specific books and show educational movies to our children in hopes that they learn lessons from the characters, the media provides a type of sex education to young people. Media messages normalize early sexual experimentation and portray sex as casual, unprotected and consequence-free, encouraging sexual activity long before children are emotionally, socially or intellectually ready.
High-Risk Sex.
The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse, have unprotected sex and use drugs or alcohol before sex. In a study by researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant, more than 66 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviors they saw in the media (and by high school, many had done so), which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
Sex, Love and Relationship Addictions.
Not every child who is exposed to sexual content will struggle with a mental health disorder, but research shows that early exposure to pornography is a risk factor for sex addictions and other intimacy disorders. In one study of 932 sex addicts, 90 percent of men and 77 percent of women reported that pornography was a factor in their addiction. With the widespread availability of explicit material on the Internet, these problems are becoming more prevalent and are surfacing at younger ages.
Sexual Violence.
According to some studies, early exposure (by age 14) to pornography and other explicit material may increase the risk of a child becoming a victim of sexual violence or acting out sexually against another child. For some people, habitual use of pornography may prompt a desire for more violent or deviant material, including depictions of rape, torture or humiliation. If people seek to act out what they see, they may be more likely to commit sexual assault, rape or child molestation.
Incorrect information given by kmfkewm:Then why has child sexual abuse fallen in every single country that legalized viewing CP?
Rebuttal - quoted from Popular Science, proving child-related sexual offenses are on the decline in the United States, where creating, owning, or viewing CP is currently illegal:
"According to the nation's top experts, children are actually safer from physical and sexual abuse than they have been for decades. A National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect issued by the Department of Health and Human Services found that both physical and sexual abuse of children have dropped significantly over the past 20 years: From 2005 to 2006, an estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993. And between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent."
And then my moment of Zen:
Just posted by kwmkewm:as for the fertility claim, I am having trouble to find *any* studies that show fertility information for those below the age of 20.
Rebuttal - The second part of the above quote from kmfkewm himself:
I believe in the past I have read that peak fertility is from the start of reaching full sexual maturity (14.5 about) to sometime in the 20's.
*yawn* I've ended you.
-
I'm locking this whist I await instruction from DPR.
As you know Child Porn related posts are banned from SR, I am unsure where this thread falls within that policy at this time however I think it is fair to say that this could potentially bring unwanted attention to SR and the forums, it is for that reason and that reason alone I am locking it until I get some direction on the matter.
kmfkewm, I have to say your arguments are not going to win anyone over based upon the 11 pages I have just read through. Censorship is one thing, the right to view images is another thing, however this it too an emotive subject to get rational debate and you know it, IMHO no good is going to come of this.
-
a moderator locked this topic to err on the side of caution because of the recent heat coming down on freedom host for hosting CP. we will never host CP of any kind, but we will also not censor discussion about it. feel free to continue talking about CP if you wish.
-
a moderator locked this topic to err on the side of caution because of the recent heat coming down on freedom host for hosting CP. we will never host CP of any kind, but we will also not censor discussion about it. feel free to continue talking about CP if you wish.
Withdrawing from the conversation due to it being a repulsive and emotional subject. I'm sorry I called you a schizoid kmfkewm. I respect your opinions on many subjects and have solicited your expertise several times in regard to security, but I disagree with both the premise and motive behind this conversation and it has spiraled into personal attacks and this is not a constructive or rational conversation.
-BC
-
a moderator locked this topic to err on the side of caution because of the recent heat coming down on freedom host for hosting CP. we will never host CP of any kind, but we will also not censor discussion about it. feel free to continue talking about CP if you wish.
Thank you for bringing back all of my valid points for everyone to once again see. ;D
-
So, abusing children is wrong, but looking at pictures of people abusing children isn't? But how can you have one without the other?
How can you have banks without bank robbery? How can you have humans without murder? Should we ban banks to get rid of bank robbery? Should we ban humans to get rid of murder? Saying we must ban looking at child pornography to get rid of producing child pornography is as absurd as saying these other things.
How can you engage in your harmless picture viewing without a child being abused?
You cannot engage in harmless picture viewing without a child being abused (ignoring jailbait and nudist stuff). But there is something called an arrow of time. It moves forward. Children have already been abused in the past. Not looking at the pictures of the abuse makes them no less abused. The thing to look at here is cause and effect. You can engage in picture viewing without causing a child to be abused.
This personal freedom you are trying to defend only makes sense if you refuse to think about the whole chain of events. Yes, by viewing the picture you are not directly causing abuse, but its iimpossible for you to view the picture without that abuse taking place. (leaving aside drawings or convincing child robots)
So what it is impossible for somebody to look at a picture without the abuse depicted in the picture having taken place? The abuse already took place! Not looking at the picture doesn't make it go away. I am thinking about the whole chain of events, I think you might not be thinking about the order of events.
You keep gloating about the logical fallacies others are committing in this thread, in the grip of the strong emotions child abuse engenders. But you are flinging them out left right and centre. In particular, the argument you keep falling back on seems very much a false analogy:
Child abuse is wrong >>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong
Robbing banks is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of robbery is wrong
The Holocaust is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong.
(Reducing to absurdity, showing the premise of an argument leads to absurd conclusions)
The key difference here is that people aren't robbing banks with the aim of making videos to share with fellow bank robbers, and egging each other on. The Holocaust wasn't committed with the aim of sharing the footage with other totalitarian states "hey Stalin check this out LOL"
It is an irrelevant difference. All are victim creating crimes and all are pictures of crimes with victims depicted. The analogy is solid.
You are also muddying the water somewhat with talk of 14 year old ages of consent, and sexually mature teenagers. This is a completely seperate issue from paedophilia. Throughout most of history a girl was considered a woman when she reached sexual maturity (ie began menstruating). However for legal purposes we find it necessary to draw a line, in most states either 14 or 16. In most cases courts will deal much more leniently with a 17 year old who has had sex with a 14 year old, than a 30 year old who did the same. This seems fair enough to me.
Seems more fair to me to lower the age of consent to something more reasonable. Some countries already have! A lot of them are even first world and highly populated :D.
I agree that there is a huge amount of media and societal hysteria about paedophilia, (watch Chris Morris's Brasseye episode about "paedogeddon" for a funny take on this). I get that not all people that view CP are child murderering monsters, or even child molesters.
Hell, even most of the inflated bullshit statistics from the crusaders agree that the majority of people viewing child porn are not child molesters and are not risks to children.
The study you cite ("dozens" showing no correlation between legalising porn and increased sex crime, ONE showing the same for CP, the Czech one) seems kind of weak. Statistics from 1945-1989, then after 1989? Did any other major changes take place in Czech society between these two periods, that might affect a) the data and b) how the data was collected? On the internet, its fairly easy to find research that backs any position you care to take. I don't think its clear whether the availability of CP effects the incidence of child abuse either way. I really don't think you can claim the evidence on your side, as you have done, several times in this thread, saying things along the lines of 'if you support restriction of CP you are actually increasing child abuse'.
It is not a single one showing the link with CP and reduced sex abuse of minors, also Japan and many other countries as well. Sure can find citations for either argument, I can also find instances where the people arguing the other way have fabricated data and published fraudulent documents so I know who to trust.
You keep hitting the same argument, looking at a picture of as crime is not the same as committing it. Sure, but when producing the pictures of the crime is a major motivation for the crime, the viewer is complicit.
Although in a significant number of cases I imagine that producing pictures of the crime is a major motiviation (for example all of the commercial CP), I think that in a significant number of the cases producing a picture of the crime is a secondary motivation. Most people do not molest children just so they can take pictures of it, they molest children because they want to molest children and they take pictures of it because they can. And in any case, it is irrelevant.
If you watch it, you are complicit in its production.
that makes as much sense as saying if I look at pictures of the holocaust I am complicit in genocide. If somebody looks at a picture of a child being abused so fucking what they had nothing to do with it, probably didn't pay for it, probably nobody even knows they did it. how the fuck is that complicit in the production of it?
Complicit: Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime
So if it is the watching of the crime that makes someone complicit, then my argument about the holocaust stands. If you say that somebody participates in the crime by looking at pictures of it, then you are probably insane.
Yes, yes I know "huh? So if I watch a film of a bank robbery I'm complicit in that too am I?". No. These are two different situations as outlined above. The demand for the CP encourages the supply. This demand need not be monetary.
I already have given citations that there is no evidence for this, but I know you think citations to things on the internet are useless. Okay I have a proposal then. There is a technology called private information retrieval. It lets somebody get an item from a set of databases without the set of databases being able to tell the item they got out of it. If we have a bunch of databases containing CP and various other items, and people use PIR to get items out of the database, then nobody can determine the demand for any of the individual items in the database. This effectively completely hides the demand for any of the individual items in the database. Do you think that if CP is only legal to view if it is obtained from a PIR system that it is okay? Because that handles the demand problem perfectly, nobody will know the demand for child pornography and you cannot use it as your reason to argue against it if it is only distributed via PIR.
So, non exclusive ephebephile? You like dem young girls? But you'll take a grown up lady if that's all that's going? Well I guess we can all understand that. But, where do we draw the line? In our society we regard girls under 16, although their bodies (their nubile soft young bodies.....) might be physically mature, as too young to give meaningful consent, and so they fall under the protection of the law, against exploitation.
Obviously, on her 16 th birthday, a girl doesn't suddenly change from a child into a woman, but we need these legal fictions for practical reasons.
Well I am pretty clearly attracted to girls at age 14, really I could probably even go somewhat lower than that on a case by case basis. I have no interest at all in anybody who is not at all sexually developed, so I do not qualify as being a pedophile. I am interested in females between tanner stage 4 and 5 I would say, which can range from 13 to indefinite age (some females never even get to stage 5). I don't feel such strong compulsion to have sex with any particular age group that I would bother trying to do anything illegal like sleeping with underage teenagers (not going to find me on to catch a predator, lol), and I still wonder at what age it is okay to have sex with somebody without causing them harm. I really doubt that age is 16 or 18 personally.
Ah fuck it....I'm just going to call you a nonce like everyone else. NONCE!
Damn you did such a good job being pretty rational and not foaming at the mouth and having decent arguments and not sounding like a fucking retard, don't throw it away now ;) !
Hmmm....the whole 'but the abuse has already taken place, my viewing the pictures has no influence on it' is true, but very disingenuous. Its analogous to a vegatarian who believes that meat is murder but still eats meat because 'after all the animal is already dead, me eating the meat isn't killing any animals'
The PIR thought experiment is rather odd. So, people upload CP to the server but have no way of knowing how many people are watching it? (If any)Therefore the people watching it are freed of any guilt because their views are anonymised from the providers?
But people are still uploading CP for people to watch, and people are still watching it. The demand is still there, and the child abusers are still filling it.
I'm just not buying the idea that most CP is produced by people who were abusing children anyhow, and just decided to film it because they could, and therefore your viewing it is a harmless act. Its like saying most adult porn is just people who were having sex, and decided to film it because they could.
I like taking certain drugs. Now, when I'm smoking weed or heroin, I did not literally cause the weed or heroin to be grown or imported ; that happened in the past and so my current behaviour cannot be said to cause it. Times arrow, as you say. But I have to take a pretty narrow and blinkered view of the chain of cause and effect to deny that my current drug use has no effect on the production of these drugs. Western demand (of which I form a tiny part) drives the production of these drugs.
People viewing child porn drives production of child porn. Bizarre thought experiments notwithstanding.
"Should we ban banks to stop bank robbery? Should we ban humans to stop murder?"
You are getting confused with your rhetoric here. The correct analogies would be : if a major motivation for bank robbers was to make bank robbing porn, then banning bank robbing porn would be a good idea.
If a major motivation for murder was the production of murder porn, then banning murder porn would be a good idea too.
And the people who tried to claim "but the bank robbery/murder has already happened, in the past, what harm am I doing by watching it" would be being as disingenuous as you are.
As it happens, very few murders and bank robberies are committed for this purpose and so we can watch video of them with relatively little guilt.
-
So, abusing children is wrong, but looking at pictures of people abusing children isn't? But how can you have one without the other?
How can you have banks without bank robbery? How can you have humans without murder? Should we ban banks to get rid of bank robbery? Should we ban humans to get rid of murder? Saying we must ban looking at child pornography to get rid of producing child pornography is as absurd as saying these other things.
How can you engage in your harmless picture viewing without a child being abused?
You cannot engage in harmless picture viewing without a child being abused (ignoring jailbait and nudist stuff). But there is something called an arrow of time. It moves forward. Children have already been abused in the past. Not looking at the pictures of the abuse makes them no less abused. The thing to look at here is cause and effect. You can engage in picture viewing without causing a child to be abused.
This personal freedom you are trying to defend only makes sense if you refuse to think about the whole chain of events. Yes, by viewing the picture you are not directly causing abuse, but its iimpossible for you to view the picture without that abuse taking place. (leaving aside drawings or convincing child robots)
So what it is impossible for somebody to look at a picture without the abuse depicted in the picture having taken place? The abuse already took place! Not looking at the picture doesn't make it go away. I am thinking about the whole chain of events, I think you might not be thinking about the order of events.
You keep gloating about the logical fallacies others are committing in this thread, in the grip of the strong emotions child abuse engenders. But you are flinging them out left right and centre. In particular, the argument you keep falling back on seems very much a false analogy:
Child abuse is wrong >>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong
Robbing banks is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of robbery is wrong
The Holocaust is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong.
(Reducing to absurdity, showing the premise of an argument leads to absurd conclusions)
The key difference here is that people aren't robbing banks with the aim of making videos to share with fellow bank robbers, and egging each other on. The Holocaust wasn't committed with the aim of sharing the footage with other totalitarian states "hey Stalin check this out LOL"
It is an irrelevant difference. All are victim creating crimes and all are pictures of crimes with victims depicted. The analogy is solid.
You are also muddying the water somewhat with talk of 14 year old ages of consent, and sexually mature teenagers. This is a completely seperate issue from paedophilia. Throughout most of history a girl was considered a woman when she reached sexual maturity (ie began menstruating). However for legal purposes we find it necessary to draw a line, in most states either 14 or 16. In most cases courts will deal much more leniently with a 17 year old who has had sex with a 14 year old, than a 30 year old who did the same. This seems fair enough to me.
Seems more fair to me to lower the age of consent to something more reasonable. Some countries already have! A lot of them are even first world and highly populated :D.
I agree that there is a huge amount of media and societal hysteria about paedophilia, (watch Chris Morris's Brasseye episode about "paedogeddon" for a funny take on this). I get that not all people that view CP are child murderering monsters, or even child molesters.
Hell, even most of the inflated bullshit statistics from the crusaders agree that the majority of people viewing child porn are not child molesters and are not risks to children.
The study you cite ("dozens" showing no correlation between legalising porn and increased sex crime, ONE showing the same for CP, the Czech one) seems kind of weak. Statistics from 1945-1989, then after 1989? Did any other major changes take place in Czech society between these two periods, that might affect a) the data and b) how the data was collected? On the internet, its fairly easy to find research that backs any position you care to take. I don't think its clear whether the availability of CP effects the incidence of child abuse either way. I really don't think you can claim the evidence on your side, as you have done, several times in this thread, saying things along the lines of 'if you support restriction of CP you are actually increasing child abuse'.
It is not a single one showing the link with CP and reduced sex abuse of minors, also Japan and many other countries as well. Sure can find citations for either argument, I can also find instances where the people arguing the other way have fabricated data and published fraudulent documents so I know who to trust.
You keep hitting the same argument, looking at a picture of as crime is not the same as committing it. Sure, but when producing the pictures of the crime is a major motivation for the crime, the viewer is complicit.
Although in a significant number of cases I imagine that producing pictures of the crime is a major motiviation (for example all of the commercial CP), I think that in a significant number of the cases producing a picture of the crime is a secondary motivation. Most people do not molest children just so they can take pictures of it, they molest children because they want to molest children and they take pictures of it because they can. And in any case, it is irrelevant.
If you watch it, you are complicit in its production.
that makes as much sense as saying if I look at pictures of the holocaust I am complicit in genocide. If somebody looks at a picture of a child being abused so fucking what they had nothing to do with it, probably didn't pay for it, probably nobody even knows they did it. how the fuck is that complicit in the production of it?
Complicit: Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime
So if it is the watching of the crime that makes someone complicit, then my argument about the holocaust stands. If you say that somebody participates in the crime by looking at pictures of it, then you are probably insane.
Yes, yes I know "huh? So if I watch a film of a bank robbery I'm complicit in that too am I?". No. These are two different situations as outlined above. The demand for the CP encourages the supply. This demand need not be monetary.
I already have given citations that there is no evidence for this, but I know you think citations to things on the internet are useless. Okay I have a proposal then. There is a technology called private information retrieval. It lets somebody get an item from a set of databases without the set of databases being able to tell the item they got out of it. If we have a bunch of databases containing CP and various other items, and people use PIR to get items out of the database, then nobody can determine the demand for any of the individual items in the database. This effectively completely hides the demand for any of the individual items in the database. Do you think that if CP is only legal to view if it is obtained from a PIR system that it is okay? Because that handles the demand problem perfectly, nobody will know the demand for child pornography and you cannot use it as your reason to argue against it if it is only distributed via PIR.
So, non exclusive ephebephile? You like dem young girls? But you'll take a grown up lady if that's all that's going? Well I guess we can all understand that. But, where do we draw the line? In our society we regard girls under 16, although their bodies (their nubile soft young bodies.....) might be physically mature, as too young to give meaningful consent, and so they fall under the protection of the law, against exploitation.
Obviously, on her 16 th birthday, a girl doesn't suddenly change from a child into a woman, but we need these legal fictions for practical reasons.
Well I am pretty clearly attracted to girls at age 14, really I could probably even go somewhat lower than that on a case by case basis. I have no interest at all in anybody who is not at all sexually developed, so I do not qualify as being a pedophile. I am interested in females between tanner stage 4 and 5 I would say, which can range from 13 to indefinite age (some females never even get to stage 5). I don't feel such strong compulsion to have sex with any particular age group that I would bother trying to do anything illegal like sleeping with underage teenagers (not going to find me on to catch a predator, lol), and I still wonder at what age it is okay to have sex with somebody without causing them harm. I really doubt that age is 16 or 18 personally.
Ah fuck it....I'm just going to call you a nonce like everyone else. NONCE!
Damn you did such a good job being pretty rational and not foaming at the mouth and having decent arguments and not sounding like a fucking retard, don't throw it away now ;) !
Hmmm....the whole 'but the abuse has already taken place, my viewing the pictures has no influence on it' is true, but very disingenuous. Its analogous to a vegatarian who believes that meat is murder but still eats meat because 'after all the animal is already dead, me eating the meat isn't killing any animals'
The PIR thought experiment is rather odd. So, people upload CP to the server but have no way of knowing how many people are watching it? (If any)Therefore the people watching it are freed of any guilt because their views are anonymised from the providers?
But people are still uploading CP for people to watch, and people are still watching it. The demand is still there, and the child abusers are still filling it.
I'm just not buying the idea that most CP is produced by people who were abusing children anyhow, and just decided to film it because they could, and therefore your viewing it is a harmless act. Its like saying most adult porn is just people who were having sex, and decided to film it because they could.
I like taking certain drugs. Now, when I'm smoking weed or heroin, I did not literally cause the weed or heroin to be grown or imported ; that happened in the past and so my current behaviour cannot be said to cause it. Times arrow, as you say. But I have to take a pretty narrow and blinkered view of the chain of cause and effect to deny that my current drug use has no effect on the production of these drugs. Western demand (of which I form a tiny part) drives the production of these drugs.
People viewing child porn drives production of child porn. Bizarre thought experiments notwithstanding.
"Should we ban banks to stop bank robbery? Should we ban humans to stop murder?"
You are getting confused with your rhetoric here. The correct analogies would be : if a major motivation for bank robbers was to make bank robbing porn, then banning bank robbing porn would be a good idea.
If a major motivation for murder was the production of murder porn, then banning murder porn would be a good idea too.
And the people who tried to claim "but the bank robbery/murder has already happened, in the past, what harm am I doing by watching it" would be being as disingenuous as you are.
As it happens, very few murders and bank robberies are committed for this purpose and so we can watch video of them with relatively little guilt.
I do believe you're talking out of your bottom.
-
a moderator locked this topic to err on the side of caution because of the recent heat coming down on freedom host for hosting CP. we will never host CP of any kind, but we will also not censor discussion about it. feel free to continue talking about CP if you wish.
Thank you for bringing back all of my valid points for everyone to once again see. ;D
It's not worth debating with someone who is certain of the answers before ever hearing the questions. Praetorian, your posts did stretch a little from time to time, but your logic was not hard to follow. But I suppose that some people have a hard time accepting that while they may feel that they are the cutting edge, they're really the chopping block. I don't see how anyone could have expected positive results from starting a topic such as this one:
So in another thread people did not like my comment that CP possession is legal in half of the world and will be decriminalized in the other half within the next few hundred years. So I don't want to clutter a bunch of random threads up with these never ending debates, and have decided to make one thread to address the topic for the rest of eternity. In the future when threads go in this direction, I will point people to this one. I also am sick of making the same points every single time, and an authoritative thread on this is clearly needed since we have had about fifty in the past and many threads have derailed into people debating about this (mostly debating with me, though they usually start it!).
Well, by posting here it's actually you that has started this debate(and plan for it to go on forever), but let's not get off on another point...
There is a strong presence of the word "will" where you should have used the word, "could".
I believe this to be one of the defining characteristics of certainty. In any form of debate, depending on exactly how self-assured you are, taking a stance of certainty that something 'will' happen leaves no room for you to learn what 'could' happen. After-all is the very point of debating...
If you said, Child Porn 'could' be legal in the next few years; this would certainly make you sound more like you're open for an actual debate. Not, well, whatever it is you're doing here.
However, you also left your intentions open for interpretation in your OP -stating no actual 'stance' on what YOU particulary believe in; other than the generalization that I mentioned above. This screams 'troll' as it unfairly baits people into an argument on the notion that you're some pedophile who is excited that Child Porn 'may' become legal to view in your country. Regardless of when you hope it will happen by applying an arbitrary number of "a few hundred" years to further attempt to validating yourself with no apparent point in your initial post. In reality, this figure of 'a few hundred years' means absolutely nothing to any immediate generation of people and would literally have zero effect on the lives of anyone alive and breathing today, yourself included.
So why start there?
You make a valid point about censorship, but this was not the way to indulge the community. This makes you look like the Troll who ripped off the Leprechaun's niche -putting a pot of gold on the other side of the bridge to ensure people will cross it; just to tell them they can't.
There are definitely studies that show the correlation between the accessibility(not legality) of CP, and a decline in sex-related offenses against children. However, this does not explain why *reported* child abuse rates have been on the decline on a global level, certainly not in area where Kiddy pr0n is still very much illegal. The main reason the viewing of child pornography is not legal is that to view something for pleasure is to condone the activities within in the imagery. Meaning, you're condoning children being molested -willfully or not.
But please, do not make an ass out of yourself by starting this topic with an entirely objective viewpoint to widely-known child psychology... I believe that is the most under-considered point of everything I saw you trying to argue here. If you're honestly going to try to debunk modern psychology as 'pseudoscience', I think everyone here's going to start calling you Tom Cruise(as in bat shit crazy scientologist Tom Cruise).
Here's some stuff you should read, regarding the sexuality of children and how it directly effect their psychology:
http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/1/47.short
Abstract
The existing literature on the long-term sequelae of child sexual abuse is reviewed. The evidence suggests that sexual abuse is an important problem with serious long-term sequelae; but the specific effects of sexual abuse, independent of force, threat of force, or such family variables as parental psychopathology, are still to be clarified. Adult women with a history of childhood sexual abuse show greater evidence of sexual disturbance or dysfunction, homosexual experiences in adolescence or adulthood, depression, and are more likely than nonabused women to be revictimized. Anxiety, fear, and suicidal ideas and behavior have also been associated with a history of childhood sexual abuse but force and threat of force may be a necessary concomitant. As yet, there is insufficient evidence to confirm a relation between a history of childhood sexual abuse and a postsexual abuse syndrome and multiple or borderline personality disorder. Male victims of child sexual abuse show disturbed adult sexual functioning. The relation between age of onset of abuse and outcome is still equivocal. Greater long-term harm is associated with abuse involving a father or stepfather and abuse involving penetration. Longer duration is associated with greater impact, and the use of force or threat of force is associated with greater harm.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0272735896000190
Abstract
Revictimization is defined as the experience of both childhood sexual abuse and later sexual or physical abuse as an adult. Although clinically it is generally well accepted that women with a history of childhood sexual abuse are more likely than women without such a history to experience adult assault, little systematic investigation of this question has been conducted and no review of the literature on this topic is available. Several theoretical models have been suggested to account for the revictimization phenomena. This review outlines the theoretical positions that have been formulated to account for revictimization in women, examines the literature available concerning revictimization both in the form of adult sexual and physical assault, and considers impact of revictimization on women's later adjustment. Research in the area reveals that women who were sexually abused as children are significantly more likely to experience abuse as adults as compared to women who have not had such an experience in childhood. Conclusions about the state of the literature are discussed, and clinical and research implications are examined.
--I could go on and on; but I honestly don't have the time.
Personally, I believe if you had gone about this thread in a mature manner, more valid points would have been connected for both sides of what appears to be more of an argument than any rational, civil debate I've ever seen.
As they've said since the beginning... Arguing over the Internet(especially the Dark Web) is like competing in the Special Olympics. Whether you win or lose; you're still retarded.
-
I do believe you're talking out of your bottom.
No I'm not.
(Now you say "yes you are")
-
Every child in any picture on a CP site is a victim of abuse, people who look at these are continuing the abuse of these kids and encouraging abusers to take more pictures/videos by watching.
Fucking vile, if someone thinks because they didn,t take the picture/video then their not abusing that kid too, don,t fuckin kid yourself, your scum like the people who produce this vile filth!
A perfectly articulated post mary666 which is 100% correct. +1. kmfkewm is the one who started this thread and quite frankly, it just makes my blood boil. Regardless of what anyone says, looking at, watching and distributing CP is fostering it's ongoing production and distribution. Only a cold, hollow bastard, devoid of any morality, could watch a child being sexually abused and derive pleasure from that. Scum of the earth!
-
Every child in any picture on a CP site is a victim of abuse, people who look at these are continuing the abuse of these kids and encouraging abusers to take more pictures/videos by watching.
Fucking vile, if someone thinks because they didn,t take the picture/video then their not abusing that kid too, don,t fuckin kid yourself, your scum like the people who produce this vile filth!
Listen you can't say nothing, and I understand your disgust, after all you're a victim aren't you?
30% of people on this forum have been abused, and that's a conservative estimate. Drugs and sexual abuse are inextricably linked, the louder the denigrator, the more abuse they have suffered, and inarticulate people like you, are top of the list. Instead of being objective, you come out with a mouth full of expletives. Thank god the law makers judges and politicians are capable of cool reflection, instead of vitriolic rants at sex offenders, or where would we be? You keep your unconstructive vile comments to your self, and seek help for your demons. Then you can start contributing to society instead of abusing Heroin and therefore being parasite. I'll ask again, why are you using comma's instead of apostrophe's ?? Dumb cunt.
-
Well damn I typed out a long response to this but then I lost it. First of all I want to say that after this thread was locked I deleted it because I figured that there is no point to debate with people who think emotionally rather than logically. I knew that DPR didn't care about this thread, due to the fact that he commented in previous CP debate threads in the past. However, now that the thread is back, I think I will leave it anyway, simply because people keep going off topic in other threads and derailing them, and I don't want to see Astor's head explode :). I would also like to apologize for calling names a bit in this thread, usually I keep a much cooler head when debating this issue, but in this particular instance I got quite pissed off trying to argue with someone who in my perception was kind of just trolling me.
Hmmm....the whole 'but the abuse has already taken place, my viewing the pictures has no influence on it' is true, but very disingenuous. Its analogous to a vegatarian who believes that meat is murder but still eats meat because 'after all the animal is already dead, me eating the meat isn't killing any animals'
When a person pays for meat and then consumes it, they are supporting the meat industry. If nobody paid for meat and nobody ate it, then nobody would kill animals. There is a causative relationship here, people pay for and eat meat and this causes people to kill animals. This is why the vegetarian is using flawed logic, if their goal is to stop the killing of animals. The more meat that is paid for and consumed, the more animals will be killed to meet demand. On the other hand, viewing child porn, isolated from all other variables, does not have a clear causative relationship with the production of child porn, and for this reason the analogy does not hold.
The PIR thought experiment is rather odd. So, people upload CP to the server but have no way of knowing how many people are watching it? (If any)Therefore the people watching it are freed of any guilt because their views are anonymised from the providers? But people are still uploading CP for people to watch, and people are still watching it. The demand is still there, and the child abusers are still filling it.
If your argument is that viewing child porn creates demand and then this demand is filled by children being molested, the PIR argument makes perfect sense. Although I disagree with the demand/supply argument when it comes to child porn viewing / production, if I did believe it was real I would focus on ways to make it impossible for the demand to be known. Even if child porn consumption is illegal people are going to download and view it anyway, so if the danger of people downloading and viewing child porn is that it creates demand, I would think that a solution that hides the demand is better than a solution that criminalizes the people who create the demand.
There are several technical solutions that can perfectly mask the demand for child pornography, while still allowing people to view it. One of the solutions would be Encrypted Keyword Search / Private Stream Searching. In these sorts of systems, a server exists that holds various items and associated keywords. If a child molester creates child pornography and uploads it to such a server, it would first be encrypted and tagged with various keywords that describe it. At this point it would be uploaded to the server, which would be oblivious to its content. Somebody who is interested in viewing child pornography would be able to query the server with a list of keywords of interest, the server would then be able to search for items that match those keywords and return them to the searcher, without being aware of any of the keywords searched for or any of the documents returned. Many people would use the same Encrypted Keyword Search server for various other activities, similar to how Tor is used for various activities with child pornography being only one of them. If the child pornography viewer keeps their CP related activities confined to the Encrypted Keyword Search system, nobody will be able to determine there demand for child pornography. The server will know they searched for something, but it wont know what they searched for and it will not know what they obtained. Likewise, the person who produced and uploaded the pornography (illegally, I am not saying this person is not a vile criminal by any means), will be totally incapable of determining that somebody downloaded the item that they uploaded. Therefor, the demand is perfectly hidden from anybody, and it seems that therefor if demand for child pornography is the reason for its production, that such a system would allow people to view child pornography without creating identifiable demand and therefor without contributing to the supply of child molestation.
It is not the same thing as anonymity, it goes a step beyond it. Anonymity would mean that the server knows it hosts child pornography, and it knows somebody has downloaded child pornography, but it does not know who downloaded child pornography. This would mean that the demand for child pornography could still be identified, just not where the demand came from. With a private information retrieval based solution, the server would not know that *anybody* searched for or obtained child pornography. This means that not only is the user who downloaded the child pornography anonymous in doing so, but they create no trace of what they searched for or obtained in the first place. Clearly solutions similar to this can make the demand for child pornography unknown to anybody, while still allowing people to download and view child pornography. If the reason that downloading and viewing child pornography is bad is because it creates a demand for child pornography that is filled via the molestation of children, then it seems like this a great solution to that problem.
When you say demand I take it to mean "an identifiable request for child pornography". When somebody downloads child pornography from a P2P network, there is an identifiable request for child pornography in that the peer they download it from can tell that somebody downloaded child pornography from them. The same is true in the case of child pornography hosted on a server and accessed through the clearnet, and in the case of child pornography hosted on a server and accessed via Tor or I2P, and indeed even in the case of child pornography hosted distributed throughout Freenet. None of these solutions mask the demand for child pornography, they only mask who is demanding it. On the other hand, Encrypted Keyword Search solutions can mask the demand for child pornography and therefor also mask who is demanding it. If by demand you simply mean "A desire for child pornography", then I have to assume that you wish for the death of most pedophiles, as most pedophiles have a desire for child pornography even if they do not act on that desire. Do you really wish to kill even the pedophiles who do not act on their desire to look at child pornography, simply so you can reduce the amount of desire for child pornography in the world? That seems incredibly cruel and unfair to me, pedophiles do not get to decide if they are pedophiles or not any more than homosexuals get to decide if they are homosexuals or not. A great many pedophiles would do anything possible to stop having sexual desires for children and therefor child pornography, and several of them do not even act on their desire for child pornography (although I have to imagine that looking at child pornography is prevalent in the pedophile community, as I imagine most straight men attracted to legal age people would continue looking at pornography even if it was outlawed to do so, and I think we see proof of this in the countries that have outlawed all forms of pornography).
That said, I still find the idea that somebody will see a few hits on a servers log files and run out and molest some children because of it. To me that idea seems preposterous indeed, but to many people it seems obvious so whatever.
I'm just not buying the idea that most CP is produced by people who were abusing children anyhow, and just decided to film it because they could, and therefore your viewing it is a harmless act. Its like saying most adult porn is just people who were having sex, and decided to film it because they could.
Certainly in the past there have been instances of children who had naked photographs taken of them simply so somebody could sell the photographs and make a profit. There have been three big Eastern European studios, one of them paid about 1,500 girls ages about 8-17 to allow them to photograph them nude or semi-nude, for the production of softcore pornography. This studio took hundreds of photographs of each of the girls (all of which agreed to the shoots and had consent from parents as well, not that this justifies anything, I am just pointing out that they were not violently raped and then killed, as the person I was arguing with seems to think that nearly all CP involves brutal rape and snuff). The studio then sold them on the internet to make money. So indeed, if it was not for people buying child pornography on the internet, this studio would never have taken so many photographs of so many underage girls. In fact, earlier in this thread I said that these studios were responsible for the majority of child pornography, now I need to back track a little bit from that statement because I don't actually have statistics on the matter, but I still am sure that at least a large percentage of child pornography on the internet, by number of photographs, originated at these studios. So yes, in these cases, thousands of children were photographed naked who would not have been photographed naked had it not been for the financial demand for child pornography on the internet.
However, these studios operated with the intention of making a profit. People who paid for the photographs often put them on Usenet and similar, where they were then downloaded by people who did not pay for them. If it had not been for the people paying for the pornography, the production studios would not have continued to produce it. They did not give a flying fuck if people downloading it for free liked it or not, and in fact they were upset that there content was being pirated as it lost them sales. So in these cases we can see that the people paying for the child pornography were indeed fueling the demand that led to a supply of sexualized photographs of naked minors. We can therefor say that it should be illegal to pay for child pornography, and it goes without saying that it should be illegal to produce child pornography. On the other hand, the people who were downloading the child pornography for free to view it, had no effect at all on the production of the child pornography, and therefor it makes no sense to say that their demand for these images fueled the supply of them. There is simply no link between them viewing the child porn and the producers producing it, the only link in these cases was between the people paying for the child pornography and the people producing it.
There are other cases where children are molested because of child pornography as well, and I would actually argue that many of these children would not be molested if it were legal to view AND distribute child pornography. These cases arise from the private underground trading communities. To gain membership to some of these groups you are required to submit original content, this is because they use it as a security mechanism to prevent the police from joining the group. They know that no police are going to abuse children on camera in order to infiltrate them, so they make new recruits abuse children on camera in order to gain membership. The other sort of group that leads to child molestation, and indeed the most worrying groups in modern times, are the forums like Dreamboard. These groups require members to upload new content every period of time in order to maintain there membership. The content that they upload cannot be content that is already part of the group collection. This puts pressure on pedophiles to molest children to produce original content, after the group invariably gets to the point that their collection is so large that individual members no longer have any new child pornography that the group does not have. When this time arises, the member is forced to either molest a child to maintain membership in the group, or to lose their group membership. This puts pressure on pedophiles who want to continue having access to child pornography but may not really want to actually molest a child. The reason many of these groups do this is because they want to keep law enforcement out as well. If the viewing AND distributing of child pornography was not illegal, these groups would have no reason to require members to continuously upload child pornography as a security mechanism, as they would not be breaking the law in the first place, and therefor would not need to keep the police out of their groups. Additionally, by making it so they can relax their security, the police would have an easier time gaining membership in their groups and identifying newly produced child pornography from an earlier point in time.
These are the cases where I think children are molested because of child pornography. In almost all of the other cases, I think it is indeed essentially people who molest kids already and who decide to take pictures of it because they can. I would compare the studios in Eastern Europe to the adult commercial studios, the people in the private groups requiring uploads for membership I cannot think of what they are analogous to, and the other people are analogous to the people creating amateur homemade pornography and uploading it to the internet. Indeed, a huge amount of pornography on the internet consists of people who were having sex and filmed it because they could.
I like taking certain drugs. Now, when I'm smoking weed or heroin, I did not literally cause the weed or heroin to be grown or imported ; that happened in the past and so my current behaviour cannot be said to cause it. Times arrow, as you say. But I have to take a pretty narrow and blinkered view of the chain of cause and effect to deny that my current drug use has no effect on the production of these drugs. Western demand (of which I form a tiny part) drives the production of these drugs.
Certainly your drug use leads to the cultivation and production of these drugs. Beyond any doubt. Just as a person who eats meat leads to the slaughter of animals. People grow marijuana or poppies because they know they can turn them into financial reward for themselves, because they know you will pay money for the end product. There is an easy to determine causative relationship between you eating meat and animals being slaughtered, there is an easy to determine causative relationship between you smoking weed and marijuana being grown. There is no such easy to determine causative relationship between a person viewing child pornography, isolated from finances and group membership requirements, and a person molesting a child. The reason why a causative relationship is easy to establish in the cases of meat and marijuana is because something of value goes from you to the producer, and that something of value is the end goal of the producer. This is why it should obviously be illegal to pay for child pornography, and indeed there is a causative relationship between people paying for child pornography and the production of child pornography in the Eastern European studios. However, again, there is not a causative relationship between the people downloading the child pornography made is Eastern European studios off of P2P networks, and the production of child pornography by the Eastern European studios. Indeed, if nobody paid for the child pornography created by the Eastern European studios, and everybody downloaded it off of peer to peer networks, they wouldn't continue to make it. The causative link between people viewing those images, isolated from finances, and the production of those images, simply does not exist.
You are getting confused with your rhetoric here. The correct analogies would be : if a major motivation for bank robbers was to make bank robbing porn, then banning bank robbing porn would be a good idea.
If a major motivation for murder was the production of murder porn, then banning murder porn would be a good idea too.
And the people who tried to claim "but the bank robbery/murder has already happened, in the past, what harm am I doing by watching it" would be being as disingenuous as you are.
As it happens, very few murders and bank robberies are committed for this purpose and so we can watch video of them with relatively little guilt.
You say demand for child porn leads to child molestation, I am just pointing out that demand for banks leads to bank robberies.
-
It's not worth debating with someone who is certain of the answers before ever hearing the questions. Praetorian, your posts did stretch a little from time to time, but your logic was not hard to follow. But I suppose that some people have a hard time accepting that while they may feel that they are the cutting edge, they're really the chopping block. I don't see how anyone could have expected positive results from starting a topic such as this one:
His posts did not stretch a little at times, at times he posted quotes of things that were all but completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and then he acted as if they proved that he is right and I am wrong. The positive result I expected from starting this topic was to stop people from taking all the damn security threads off topic ranting about CP in them.
Well, by posting here it's actually you that has started this debate(and plan for it to go on forever), but let's not get off on another point...
I posted this here because people in the security and silk road discussion forums were going off about how horrible CP viewers are, and when I politely disagreed with them they lost their cools and started ranting excessively and bringing many threads off topic trying to argue with me.
However, you also left your intentions open for interpretation in your OP -stating no actual 'stance' on what YOU particulary believe in; other than the generalization that I mentioned above. This screams 'troll' as it unfairly baits people into an argument on the notion that you're some pedophile who is excited that Child Porn 'may' become legal to view in your country. Regardless of when you hope it will happen by applying an arbitrary number of "a few hundred" years to further attempt to validating yourself with no apparent point in your initial post. In reality, this figure of 'a few hundred years' means absolutely nothing to any immediate generation of people and would literally have zero effect on the lives of anyone alive and breathing today, yourself included.
So, I cannot make predictions about the future because I will be dead by then, but my predictions about what will happen in hundreds of years when I am dead means that I am a pedophile who is excited about what will happen when I am dead, in a few hundred years, an era in time that I cannot make predictions about?
You make a valid point about censorship, but this was not the way to indulge the community. This makes you look like the Troll who ripped off the Leprechaun's niche -putting a pot of gold on the other side of the bridge to ensure people will cross it; just to tell them they can't.
Censorship of any information is wrong, and child pornography is information. People who are for criminalization of child porn viewing are indeed in favor of information censorship.
There are definitely studies that show the correlation between the accessibility(not legality) of CP, and a decline in sex-related offenses against children. However, this does not explain why *reported* child abuse rates have been on the decline on a global level, certainly not in area where Kiddy pr0n is still very much illegal. The main reason the viewing of child pornography is not legal is that to view something for pleasure is to condone the activities within in the imagery. Meaning, you're condoning children being molested -willfully or not.
Yes I know there are such studies I linked to references to several. I agree that it does not explain why reported child abuse rates have been on a decline on a global level , I was merely destroying the argument of the person I was arguing with. His claim was that viewing child pornography leads to child molestation, I claimed that studies show that in all countries where child porn viewing was legalized there was a sharp drop in the cases of child molestation, his response was that this is because the number of child molestation cases has been falling globally, to which I pointed out that the cases of child porn viewing have been increasing exponentially on a global scale (regardless of the legality).
Condoning illegal activity is not a crime anyway, there are plenty of neo-nazis who condone the holocaust and that is their fucking freedom of speech right to do, or do you want to censor them as well? Exactly how many people do you guys want to censor, anybody who thinks anything that you disagree with?
condone:
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.
But please, do not make an ass out of yourself by starting this topic with an entirely objective viewpoint to widely-known child psychology... I believe that is the most under-considered point of everything I saw you trying to argue here. If you're honestly going to try to debunk modern psychology as 'pseudoscience', I think everyone here's going to start calling you Tom Cruise(as in bat shit crazy scientologist Tom Cruise).
I have no idea what you are talking about. I gave citations already that sexual development in females is reached at about age 14.5
http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/test-catalog/Clinical+and+Interpretive/91198
shows physical complete sexual development takes place between ages 11.8-18.6 in females and 12.8-17.3 in males.
www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Puberty-Normal-and-Abnormal.htm
shows average age in females is 14.6
as for peak fertility, I stopped looking for a study on that after the thread got locked, but when I did search for it I found ONLY studies that examined the fertility of females ages 22+ , so no shit when your set of samples starts at the age 22 that the peak fertility of the people in that study will be at age 22. I cannot currently find a study that compares the fertility of teenagers with the fertility of people in their twenties, but I do recall reading in the past that peak fertility is reached a few years after the onset of puberty, I believe around 14.5 years in females (the same time they reach peak sexual maturity), and it levels off until it starts to decline in the twenties. Indeed I already can find a study showing that fertility is the same at age 22 and 23, and starts to decline after 23 years old, but I cannot currently find a study with a high enough resolution that I can show the fertility of those who are 14 years old. This entire part of the debate was in response to my claim that peak sexual development and peak fertility is reached at about 14 years old in females, which was called bullshit, but I just gave two citations for peak sexual maturity and I showed the flaw with his study about peak fertility proving me wrong (since it only included people 22 or older and did not include teenagers). I can find a dozen studies saying that peak fertility is in the early twenties, but none of these damn studies even observe people below the age of twenty so they really mean "in our subset of studied patients, all over the age of twenty, the youngest twenty year olds are the most fertile". My interpretation of citations to quotes such as
Most women hit their fertile peak between the ages of 23 and 31
is not that 23-31 year olds are the most fertile, but rather that after age 23-31 females become LESS fertile. I think that we will find a 14 year old is infinitely more fertile than a 5 year old, just as fertile as a 20 or 21 year old, and MORE fertile than a 23-31 year old.
here is a graph starting at 22:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blog/inpractice/age.jpeg
notice that 22 and 23 are the same, and then a sharp decline in fertility starts taking place up to about age 48 where it is almost not existent. The 23+ year olds are not more fertile, after the age of 23 they continue to become less fertile, so the peak quote means that females start becoming LESS fertile between the ages of 24 and 31, not that they are MOST fertile at those ages, and as you see between 22 and up to the end of 23 they are just as fertile. My argument is that they reach the same level of fertility at the age of about 14.5 as they are at 22, but none of the studies I can find show such high resolution.
As per your quotes, yes obviously sexually abused children suffer I don't think that was ever a matter of debate was it?
Personally, I believe if you had gone about this thread in a mature manner, more valid points would have been connected for both sides of what appears to be more of an argument than any rational, civil debate I've ever seen.
Oh please explain to me how I have been immature? Was it when I called the people I was debating with bipolar mixed state schizoids? Was it when I called them filthy pedophiles who deserve to be castrated and murdered? I would love to know where exactly I was immature!
-
Incorrect information given by kmfkewm: I said that full sexual maturity, a developmental stage in biological development, is reached on average, at age 14.5 in females. I also said that peak fertility is reached at about the same age, and then starts to decline sometime in the 20s.
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Puberty-Normal-and-Abnormal.htm
females: adult pubic hair average age 14.6, adult breasts average age 14.5, so my bad it is 14.6 when they reach full adult sexual maturity. As for peak fertility, I cannot easily find studies that start below the age of 22, however the claim that females reach their peak fertility between the ages of 23 and 31 is clearly false re: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blog/inpractice/age.jpeg which shows a sharp decline starting at age 24. What the study you quoted meant by "females reach their peak fertility between 23 and 31" is that females fertility rapidly declines starting at age 23 to 31, which is made clear by the graphs. I cannot find a citation for when females *begin* their peak fertility, but it is clearly not after the age of 22, and none of the studies I can find show information on teenagers right now. In the past I read that teenagers reach their highest degree of fertility a few years after the onset of puberty, I believe at about age 14.5, which is also when they on average reach their adult sexual level of physical development. So no, I am not wrong, you are wrong.
Rebuttal 1 - fertility; quote direct from a WebMD article aptly entitled Fertility-101:
"Most women hit their fertile peak between the ages of 23 and 31, though the rate at which women conceive begins to dip slightly in their late 20s. Around age 31, fertility starts to drop more quickly — by about 3 percent per year — until you hit 35 or so."
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blog/inpractice/2011/11/pregnancy_now_or_later_1.html
see the problem is that all of these studies start at around age 22, but regardless you are clearly misinterpreting their strange use of the word "hit their peak", which actually means that they begin their decline. You can clearly see this on the graphs that I linked to, where after age 23 a sharp decline in fertility takes place, with fertility between age 22 through the end of 23 being stable. The resolution of these studies is not high enough to compare the fertility of a 14.5 year old to a 22 year old, although I am pretty certain they will be the same (and less prior to 14.5, which is why I would say a female hits her peak fertility at the age of 14.5, not hits her peak at the age 23, when it is obvious from looking at the graphs that the decline in fertility actually starts toward the end of 23 start of 24).
Rebuttal 2 - sexuality; quoted from a Cornell University(more accredited than the U of Hawaii) Study:
"In men, testosterone levels reach their apex around age 18, while women’s estrogen (and fertility) hits a high-water mark during the mid- to late-20s. This hot-and-heavy stage of sexual maturity is known as the genital prime, because it’s when the body responds most quickly to arousal."
This is in contrast to the chart I linked to (and I can find many other charts that look the same), where is shows a 22 year old is significantly more fertile than a female in her mid to late 20s. Here are more charts showing the same thing:
http://assets.babycenter.com/i/infertilitygraph.gif
http://qfg.com.au/about-fertility/female-reproductive-system/effect-of-age-womens-fertility
Another point that has become apparent to me is that fertility unfortunately means two things, it means the probability of a female becoming pregnant and also the rate at which females become pregnant. A 30 year old is much less likely to become pregnant than a 22 year old, but when the term fertility is used in analysis of pregnancy rates, it is apparent that far more 30 year olds become pregnant than 22 year olds:
http://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/graph_month/age_fecondity/
This introduces ambiguity to the term of fertility, as I am trying to find the age when a female is most likely to be most capable of becoming pregnant regardless of her desire to attempt to do so, not when a female is most likely to try to become pregnant regardless of her ability to do so. It is possible that the studies you have quoted with particularly outlandish numbers (late twenties to early thirties) for the first definition of fertility are actually discussing the second definition of fertility, and that would make sense as well.
"According to Dr. Marc Goldstein of Cornell University, hormones don't decide when you hit your sexual apex. People aren't soda bottles that just reach a point of maximum pressure and then pop. Your "sexual peak" has more to do with your attitude toward sex and level of experience, which is one reason millions of awkward young men spend their entire sexual prime on a computer(this means you KMF)."
That is not a technical definition of sexual peak and is thus irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
Rebuttal 1 - Explaining the lack of a casual link as suggested by the above study:
"The inference to be drawn from this research is that legalizing and further increasing child pornography’s availability would decrease the incidence of child abuse. The problem with these studies, and from which this one does not seem to be immune, is that there is no control for alternate or outside variables. This research shows a correlation between availability of child porn – despite its illegality in most nations – and the decrease in child abuse, but ignores other explanations and ultimately cannot establish a causal relationship.
But the studies linking child porn to 1000% of child sex abuse on the other hand have controlled for all variables? The studies showing a fall in child abuse when child pornography viewing is legalized have taken place in several different countries in several different time frames, that will help control for many variables.
There is also the existence of virtual child pornography. In 2002, the Free Speech Coalition won a decisive victory for expression over the DOJ in Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). In that case, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 2256(8)(B) and (D) were unconstitutionally overbroad, as their prohibitions on virtual child pornography and production or distribution of material pandered as child pornography – even if it is not – captured speech that was not unprotected within the scope of its earlier decisions in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (defining the test for obscenity) or New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (allowing states to ban child pornography sales, as it was not protected speech). While undoubtedly a small market – and one I have no interest in personally investigating – this allowance for computer-generated images and other “virtual” child pornography displaces the demand for actual child pornography, yet may contribute to the overall decline in child abuse crimes.
There was essentially no virtual child porn when the Czech study in particular was carried out.
Other possible reasons for the decreased incidence of child abuse despite increased child pornography availability may be more related to features of criminal law rather than the adult marketplace or First Amendment doctrines. First, state and federal laws may have become stricter against child offenses, inhibiting child abuse despite the availability of child pornography.
The US was not one of the countries studied as child porn is not legal to view there. I guess a good study in the US would be to look at child sex abuse rates before CP was made illegal, compare the child sex abuse rates after CP was made illegal and then compare that to child sex abuse rates when internet child pornography became extremely popular despite its illegality. My guess is we will find a spike in child abuse cases after child pornography was made illegal to view and a drop in child abuse cases correlating with the rise of the internets popularity and the amount of child pornography made available through the internet.
20 years ago, implementing a ubiquitous data repository for every sex offender to be mapped out like many states have done under their respective Megan’s Law provisions, as the internet was not available. But today, those databases are active and seemingly everywhere, ruining lives while providing dubious benefits to public safety. Depending on the relevant state’s laws, viewing child pornography may carry a lesser prison sentence than actually touching a child, and be the economically efficient choice on that basis. Because fulfilling one’s desire is going to result in penalties and sex offender registration either way, a rational pedophile is going to choose the path that costs him the least amount of his life behind bars. Furthermore, downloading child porn is more likely to put him into a federal prison upon conviction or reaching a plea deal – a depressing place, but far preferable to many state prisons.
This seems like an argument for me to post so I have no comment.
Ignoring these covariants and assuming the relationship between child porn availability and child abuse is causative, everyone from social scientists and policy-makers to parents is left with significant moral questions: Is it preferable to end child pornography so that the actors are not abused if it comes at the expense of the broader child population? Or is it preferable that the actors suffer so fewer random children are victimized? Ultimately this is a moral and ethical question that could be resolved with further research, but cannot be conclusively “answered” with any empirical truth. Ultimately, society does not tolerate child abuse. While the age of consent is an arbitrary line, the asymmetries of power and knowledge between adults and minors, wherever the line is drawn, makes preying on the young, the weak, the naive and inexperienced, so abhorrent."
"Is it better that we cause more children to become molested, or better if we prevent more children from becoming molested while allowing pedophiles to look at images of children who were already molested in the past, and are never going to get less molested in the future".
-
More fud from kmfkewm:When you made the viewing of CP illegal, you sharply increased the rate of actual child sex abuse.
Not FUD the study I linked to showed this in several countries.
Rebuttal - A study that contradicts the Czech study, and the above quote:
I can find government studies that smoking weed makes your dick fall off. We pretty much need to read anything from groups that exist to attack pedophiles and bust people for looking at CP with a grain of salt, it is like asking the DEA for the facts about drugs. But anyway I don't know if this is a government study or not.
Frequency of pornography use was primarily a further risk factor for higher-risk offenders, when compared with lower-risk offenders, and use of highly deviant pornography correlated with increased recidivism risk for all groups. The majority of men who have been charged with or convicted of child pornography offenses show pedophilic profiles on phallometric testing. A study with a sample of 201 adult male child pornography offenders using police databases examined charges or convictions after the index child pornography offense(s). 56% of the sample had a prior criminal record, 24% had prior contact sexual offenses, and 15% had prior child pornography offenses.
24% is a high number and probably bullshit, but at least their inflated numbers have come down from 80%. I think the most objective study done so far shows 16%, and there is even evidence that this number is inflated. You need to keep in mind that these are tricky fucks and they do tricky shit to come to their numbers. For example, do we know if child pornography was the initial reason for arrest for these men? In one study men were arrested soliciting an underage prostitute, and the ones who had child pornography as well were analyzed, and the result was that 40% of people arrested with child pornography have had prior sexual contact with minors, completely failing to control for the fact that this group of people was arrested originally for attempting to solicit an underage prostitute.
One-third were concurrently charged with other crimes at the time they were charged for child pornography offenses. 17% of the sample offended again in some way during this time, and 4% committed a new contact sexual offense. Child pornography offenders with prior criminal records were significantly more likely to offend again in any way during the follow-up period. Child pornography offenders who had committed a prior or concurrent contact sexual offense were the most likely to offend again, either generally or sexually."
I wonder if the original reason the one third were arrested was because of child pornography or for the other offense. I cannot at face value of this study rip a hole in it, but I know similar studies have been done in the past and they fail to hold up to scrutiny.
Really absent-minded FUD by kwmkewm:Go read the fucking tanner scale you retard. It has nothing to do with psychology, sexual maturity is a biological state of being. Sexual development stops, on average, when a female is 14.5 years old. God I have researched everything I talk about you are not going to find something that I am wrong on, you on the other hand are just talking out of your ass and acting superior when in reality you are just saying a bunch of bullshit you know nothing about.
Already went over this.
Rebuttal - Quote from Psychology today:
"With pharmaceutical companies in hot pursuit of a pill that could do for women's sexual fulfillment what Viagra has done for men's, experts are busy investigating what's responsible for female passion.
Researchers are finding that the sex experts Masters and Johnson were wrong when they claimed that female and male desire were alike. New studies suggest that women need to be aroused physically or psychologically to get in the mood for sex. Unlike men, who can get aroused by the sight of a buxom babe in a beer commercial, women rely on different--and subtler--cues."
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Seriously dude you have the most horrible habit of posting random as fuck shit that has next to nothing to do with anything, and then claiming that you have somehow proven that I am wrong. It makes it super frustrating trying to debate with you, because it is like you post some random ass shit and then act like I am such an idiot because of it.
Rebuttal 2 - Child Psychology and Sex:
Early Sex.
Research has long established that teens who watch movies or listen to music that glamorizes drinking, drug use or violence tend to engage in those behaviors themselves. A 2012 study shows that movies influence teens’ sexual attitudes and behaviors as well. The study, published in Psychological Science, found that the more teens were exposed to sexual content in movies, the earlier they started having sex and the likelier they were to have casual, unprotected sex.
In another study, boys who were exposed to sexually explicit media were three times more likely to engage in oral sex and intercourse two years after exposure than non-exposed boys. Young girls exposed to sexual content in the media were twice as likely to engage in oral sex and one and a half times more likely to have intercourse. Research also shows that teens who listened to music with degrading sexual references were more likely to have sex than those who had less exposure.
Why are teens more likely to have sex after being exposed to sexual content in the media? Just as we read specific books and show educational movies to our children in hopes that they learn lessons from the characters, the media provides a type of sex education to young people. Media messages normalize early sexual experimentation and portray sex as casual, unprotected and consequence-free, encouraging sexual activity long before children are emotionally, socially or intellectually ready.
High-Risk Sex.
The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse, have unprotected sex and use drugs or alcohol before sex. In a study by researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant, more than 66 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviors they saw in the media (and by high school, many had done so), which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
Sex, Love and Relationship Addictions.
Not every child who is exposed to sexual content will struggle with a mental health disorder, but research shows that early exposure to pornography is a risk factor for sex addictions and other intimacy disorders. In one study of 932 sex addicts, 90 percent of men and 77 percent of women reported that pornography was a factor in their addiction. With the widespread availability of explicit material on the Internet, these problems are becoming more prevalent and are surfacing at younger ages.
Sexual Violence.
According to some studies, early exposure (by age 14) to pornography and other explicit material may increase the risk of a child becoming a victim of sexual violence or acting out sexually against another child. For some people, habitual use of pornography may prompt a desire for more violent or deviant material, including depictions of rape, torture or humiliation. If people seek to act out what they see, they may be more likely to commit sexual assault, rape or child molestation.
And something else that I have no fucking clue why you posted. Did you think people just are not going to read the text you quote, so if you quote text that has keywords related to the discussion and say they prove me wrong, that people will just automatically agree with you because they already are set in their barbaric backwards bigoted thinking?
Incorrect information given by kmfkewm:Then why has child sexual abuse fallen in every single country that legalized viewing CP?
Rebuttal - quoted from Popular Science, proving child-related sexual offenses are on the decline in the United States, where creating, owning, or viewing CP is currently illegal:
"According to the nation's top experts, children are actually safer from physical and sexual abuse than they have been for decades. A National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect issued by the Department of Health and Human Services found that both physical and sexual abuse of children have dropped significantly over the past 20 years: From 2005 to 2006, an estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993. And between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent."
Huh child abuse rates keep falling , and it correlates with cases of child pornography viewing rising exponentially, I wonder if it could be related?
And then my moment of Zen:
Just posted by kwmkewm:as for the fertility claim, I am having trouble to find *any* studies that show fertility information for those below the age of 20.
Rebuttal - The second part of the above quote from kmfkewm himself:
I believe in the past I have read that peak fertility is from the start of reaching full sexual maturity (14.5 about) to sometime in the 20's.
*yawn* I've ended you.
If that is your moment of zen it really isn't that impressive. In the past I believe I have read that peak fertility starts a few years after puberty in females and then begins to decline in their mid twenties, however currently all of the studies I can find do not go further back than 22 years old.
Not sure how you ended me.
-
I do believe you're talking out of your bottom.
No I'm not.
(Now you say "yes you are")
*Best panto voice* Ohhhh yes you are!! ^^^^ put that in pipe and smoke it pretorian. And no dead heads bother to even reply, if you haven't bothered to read this excellent piece by kmfkwm.
-
I fully understand the logic kmf uses but it is rationalizing on top level.
I say top level because you spend as much time as politicians and scientists instructed to promote the war on drugs with you little cp-data:).
- I view this as fundamentalist thoughts and this is also what seperates me from those "so-called" liberatarians who abuse the fight for freedom and try to push them to nonsense extremes on certain topics that opens the gates to situation where alot of us actually have LESS freedom then we had before.
Your freedom ends where the one of others begins.
-Kmf,you are not the very first to rationalize your views and thoughts on this.
Many caught pedo's,those that accually commit atrocities,go into the same direction.
When you compare cp to bankrobbery pics bull or the war on drugs you compare apples and oranges.
You going it is a "tomato,tomato"-thing accually made me laugh out loud.
When you try to abuse arguments like holocaust pictures,it once again boils down to ..INTENT.Pathetic variation on usual Goodwin in my book.
Saying vegetarian Modus operandi is flawed is so short-sided since there is accually real improvement when it comes to that eventhough it's a combined effort of their own action,society evolution and climate change etc etc.
Plus it is also an individual decision so trying to bring in that logic in your CP propaganda is neither here nore there.
So please refrain from stretching your examples when it has little to do with it.
-Bottom-line,intent DOES matter when it comes to these things.
I don't care if CP isn't 100% the act of rape or accual sexual depiction.
It is the intent that matters.
You are full on defending the intent to sexualize children for the benefit of those that don't dare (..yet) to accually do this themselves or your other examples etc etc.
Thus you are trying to normalize the traffic and business of abusing children.
With your reasoning there is accually no limits.
The war on drugs kills the right an individual has to make an INFORMED decision to consume a substance at their own risk.
The war on cp fights against those that kill the right a child has to make an INFORMED decision to engage in activity with pornographic intent at his own risk.
Now here's the catch,a child can not give consent the way those of age can give.
Especially not to an elder that has the upperhand of knowledge,full understanding of the situation and experience.
It does not fully grasp the sexual concept,it's implications and consequences.It will when he/she grows up.
-You say YOU would not care if you were molested and pictures of it would surface and be passed around in the pedo-"community".You have no idea or clue this statement is true.
Even In science fiction scenario's your arguments have no meaning.
Were you or another adult live in times where time travel is a reality and decides: "Hey,i'm going to let pedo's or those in the pedo business let the younger version of myself partake in their photoshoot!"
You or that other adult would not give consent as the younger version of themselves.
You/they would only speak for the version of themselves that is of age and possibly make yourself/that person as it exists then dissapear cause the younger version of yourself/themselves would be more then likely altered by the experience and/or the consequences of that experience.
In fact,all you do is prove why you advocating for this business is only catered to pedo's and pedo-adjecent ;D people and has anything to do with logic and reason when you express your own sentiment of you as an individual if you were to be victim of cp and far worse. ::)
For fantasy purposes ,use your brain only.
It is said that most of the time reality never is as good as fantasy right:).
Stick to your brain,you can't be incarcerated for that and no child suffers from it.
- Now do i feel ALL pedo's should be put to death??
I have always said no but the older i get ,i sometimes catch myself thinking it.But that is probably an emotional reaction you get when you see all the evil and bad things in life. I sometimes think the same about those that do things less serious things like just being utterly stupid or with shameless flawed logic :D. It is just a thought.
I however do believe those not willing to contain those urges to be put away and have no place in a society where children are a daily reality.
Those not able need medical attention that once again ensures safety of children.
So no, not simply put away,i believe incarceration as we know it has no point if there is no scientific studying involved with the intention of one day being able to handle individuals like yourself in a way that children are no longer endangered.
Also emphasive should be on case by case studies.
But i would like to point out incarceration and other ways the legal system uses to put an end to crime as we know it must be improved on all domains.
-Now you go ahead with your rationalizing.
You guys are well known for putting yourselves in victim position 24/7 no matter what awfull deeds have been done or to what extremes.
I feel only sorry for the pedo's that live with these urges against their will (they DO exist folks) and that aren't helped by society or science.
And also feel sorry for those with other sexual orientations that fall victim of guys like kmf rationilizing their bull and have the agenda to equate their urges to all other sexual orientations.
It's not the same for the reasons mentioned above.
BTW You accuse other of going full emotional on this topic,i'm glad that with your apoligies you expressed you did/do the same and hopefully you won't act as if you are superior to others when it comes to logic and reason ever again.
-
- I view this as fundamentalist thoughts and this is also what seperates me from those "so-called" liberatarians who abuse the fight for freedom and try to push them to nonsense extremes on certain topics that opens the gates to situation where alot of us actually have LESS freedom then we had before.
Your freedom ends where the one of others begins.
Pure libertarians are for the decriminalization of CP possession. Maybe you hold libertarian beliefs on some things, but you are not a pure libertarian if you want to censor peoples access to information, plain and simple. The official position of the libertarian party is for legalizing CP viewing, even the ACLU wants to decriminalize CP viewing AND distribution.
-Kmf,you are not the very first to rationalize your views and thoughts on this.
Many caught pedo's,those that accually commit atrocities,go into the same direction.
It is completely incorrect to characterize my arguments as those typically attributed to pedophiles. Notice the difference:
"I didn't really hurt that child, because children actually really like to suck cock, and it is only because of the religious people that I am in trouble"
vs
"Look at all of this abundance of information showing that people who view CP are not child molesters, and all of these studies showing that legalizing CP possession results in less child molestation, and listen to all of these perfect arguments by analogy as to why it is immoral to send people to prison for possessing information"
Did you ever stop to think that maybe you and the people arguing against me are the ones rationalizing why you want to send people to prison for looking at pictures? Because the facts are not on your side. There is no evidence that every time somebody looks at a picture of molestation the molestation happens all over again, and any sane person would realize that this is bullshit of the highest degree. There is no evidence that people looking at child porn without paying for it causes more children to be molested, and there are studies showing that every country that allows people to do this has lower child abuse rates as a result. You are the people rationalizing your barbaric behavior, I am not the one making baseless claims or putting out laundered statistics or claiming that I am right because of magical processes that can not be measured or observed but must be believed in with faith, contrary to all evidence.
When you compare cp to bankrobbery pics bull or the war on drugs you compare apples and oranges.
You going it is a "tomato,tomato"-thing accually made me laugh out loud.
When you try to abuse arguments like holocaust pictures,it once again boils down to ..INTENT.Pathetic variation on usual Goodwin in my book.
Godwin is a thought terminating cliche that was invented to stop people from comparing the atrocities of their own societies to the atrocities committed by the Nazi's , if every time an analogy to fascism and totalitarianism is made you invoke Godwin's law, you are merely trying to deal with your own cognitive dissonance. I don't need to use thought terminating cliches because I don't simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs ("It is bad to look at images of child abuse!", "It is not bad to look at images of children running naked with their skin burning off from US bombs dropped on their villages!"). The fact that you need to use thought terminating cliches is just an artifact of your own cognitive dissonance and is strongly indicative of YOU as being the person who needs to rationalize your thoughts.
Saying vegetarian Modus operandi is flawed is so short-sided since there is accually real improvement when it comes to that eventhough it's a combined effort of their own action,society evolution and climate change etc etc.
Plus it is also an individual decision so trying to bring in that logic in your CP propaganda is neither here nore there.
So please refrain from stretching your examples when it has little to do with it.
What? LOL my CP propaganda. Did you not read the statistics launder report on CP? Look who is making the propaganda, is it me or is it the media and the government with their hundreds of papers and numbers that have been debunked? Am I the one making propaganda or is it the media by saying all people busted with CP are child pornographers (oh are you a pornographer for looking at adult porn?) and the media for saying that all child porn viewers are child molesters. I am fucking insulted that you claim I am the one making propaganda about CP when there is propaganda about CP everywhere you fucking look other than from me. Is it not propaganda to claim that every time an image of CP is viewed the child in it is molested all over again? Or are you really so fucking retarded that you believe in magic?
-Bottom-line,intent DOES matter when it comes to these things.
I don't care if CP isn't 100% the act of rape or accual sexual depiction.
It is the intent that matters.
You are full on defending the intent to sexualize children for the benefit of those that don't dare (..yet) to accually do this themselves or your other examples etc etc.
Thus you are trying to normalize the traffic and business of abusing children.
With your reasoning there is accually no limits.
I am defending the right of people to look at whatever pictures they want without worrying about being ruined for life for an act that caused absolutely no harm to a single fucking person.
The war on drugs kills the right an individual has to make an INFORMED decision to consume a substance at their own risk.
The war on cp fights against those that kill the right a child has to make an INFORMED decision to engage in activity with pornographic intent at his own risk.
Sorry dude but when you buy some drugs you are almost certainly funding cartels that kill innocent people who have no say in the matter. People using drugs funds the cartels and the cartels kill innocent people. People viewing CP doesn't even fund child pornographers unless they pay for it. You can say that it is not your fault that the people who you ultimately buy your drugs from are killing innocents, and I agree entirely. But you are a hypocrite to hold yourself to a different standard than somebody who is looking at images produced by people who rape children. It is not the fault of somebody who views an image what the person who created the image did, any more than it is your fault what the people who you pay for drugs do with the money from the drugs.
Now here's the catch,a child can not give consent the way those of age can give.
Especially not to an elder that has the upperhand of knowledge,full understanding of the situation and experience.
It does not fully grasp the sexual concept,it's implications and consequences.It will when he/she grows up.
Yes a great reason why the age of consent should not be 8 years old and also a great argument against production of CP. What does this have to do with people who view CP? I understand nobody has a real argument against them other than that they make them feel sick or emotionally disturbed, but please enough with the strawman arguments already.
-You say YOU would not care if you were molested and pictures of it would surface and be passed around in the pedo-"community".You have no idea or clue this statement is true.
Even if I did care it makes no difference. My caring about pictures of myself has nothing to do with another persons right to view any image without being sent to prison. You do not have a right to control who views every picture of you on the internet, people have a right to view any image on the internet that they want to. Anyway how the hell do I even know that anonymous people are looking at my picture? At best you have an argument against distribution here, nobody can know if somebody anonymously downloads and views a file. Oh I know how about to save all these children we stop having the police hunt down child porn viewers, then the children depicted can be kept in the dark and never know that people were viewing their images.
For fantasy purposes ,use your brain only.
It is said that most of the time reality never is as good as fantasy right:).
Stick to your brain,you can't be incarcerated for that and no child suffers from it.
No child suffers from some anonymous fucking person looking at already created and available pictures.
- Now do i feel ALL pedo's should be put to death??
I have always said no but the older i get ,i sometimes catch myself thinking it.But that is probably an emotional reaction you get when you see all the evil and bad things in life. I sometimes think the same about those that do things less serious things like just being utterly stupid or with shameless flawed logic :D. It is just a thought.
Big surprise that you want to put all pedophiles to death you fucking Nazi.
So no, not simply put away,i believe incarceration as we know it has no point if there is no scientific studying involved with the intention of one day being able to handle individuals like yourself in a way that children are no longer endangered.
Also emphasive should be on case by case studies.
People like myself? In many first world countries I am not even attracted to anyone who would be illegal for me to have sex with, and in many of those countries it is not even illegal for me to look at CP if I wanted to. Sorry to break it to you but your little cultural sense of morality that you have been indoctrinated into is not universal and in fact is pretty specific to a few countries in particular.
-Now you go ahead with your rationalizing.
You guys are well known for putting yourselves in victim position 24/7 no matter what awfull deeds have been done or to what extremes.
Yes the awful extremely horrible deed of looking at pictures must never go unpunished 0_0.
I feel only sorry for the pedo's that live with these urges against their will (they DO exist folks) and that aren't helped by society or science.
And also feel sorry for those with other sexual orientations that fall victim of guys like kmf rationilizing their bull and have the agenda to equate their urges to all other sexual orientations.
It's not the same for the reasons mentioned above.
Every study done on penile response shows that average males have the same sexual reaction to those 12-16 as they do to those 17+ buddy.
BTW You accuse other of going full emotional on this topic,i'm glad that with your apoligies you expressed you did/do the same and hopefully you won't act as if you are superior to others when it comes to logic and reason ever again.
They got emotional for a different reason than I did, I got emotional because it was frustrating trying to talk logic to people who think they can make shit up and then use it as a basis for attacking me from.
Them: Random Unrelated Bullshit
Them: LOL YOU LOSE
Me: On Topic Related Facts
Them: Random Unrelated Bullshit
Them: YOU WERE WRONG SEE
is an incredibly frustrating experience.
-
I wouldn't mind if viewing computerized/3D/animated CP was decriminalized. But for the real stuff, the stuff where someone's actually sexually assaulting a child? Nah.
Not sure how much OP knows about the culture of pedophiles online, I'll assume a fair amount because OP's on deepweb. But a good amount of pedophiles make CP as a way to be involved in the bl/gl culture. They don't charge for it, they make it and then upload it and all the other upstanding 'minor-attracted adults' sit around and get off to it. The result is something we call 'the neutralization effect.' It's a sort of intellectual circle jerk where people validate their fucked up belief systems by surrounding themselves (virtually or otherwise) with people who think similarly. Actually contributing CP is a big part of this, but if others weren't watching, commenting on and sharing it, it would have a lot less value.
I've seen all of the studies about how letting fucked up people watch their fucked up movies results in less real life victims of their fucked up behavior. But I've also seen plenty to indicate that immersion in bl/gl culture emboldens sexual predators and makes them more likely to act on their urges.
So for me, the ideal solution would be to allow individuals to possesses depictions where no real children are involved, but to continue to go after social hubs like message boards and image uploading sites, and to definitely continue going after people who download or view the photos. Of course by 'go after' I don't mean jail time (it is a non-violent offense) but I would see them in a program and I would definitely want their computers looked through because if they participate in these communities, they're likely to be speaking to others who do and that kind of things leads to information about where the kids are. You know, the kids getting raped in the videos.
I also think there should be a close-in-age statute for an law involving the sexuality of minors (which lots of states already do). That would take care of instances where a teenage boy gets registered as a sex offender for receiving his girlfriend's nudes.
I doubt it'll ever be legal in the US to look at kids getting raped, but I do think the best way to approach prosecuting it and determining 'guilt' will be very different.
-
The culture of pedophiles online, lol. The people you are talking about make up maybe 1% of CP traders on the internet and probably 1% of that 1% ever actually produce anything. The overwhelming majority of people getting CP online do so on P2P networks with absolutely no social involvement with each other. Also many of the pedophile forums are totally legal because they don't allow uploading of images or videos, but they still network with each other and convince each other that pedophilia is normal. So you are doing nothing you claim to be doing by making it illegal to view CP, and all you are doing is pissing on peoples freedom to information and pretending that there is a real reason for this oppressive behavior.
Yeah a large amount of CP comes from the bl/gl people (shockingly it is not almost all snuff and torture!). They make it for free. That is pretty much what I have said all along. If you split up the groups CP comes from it would look something like: Studios in Eastern Europe, BL/GL Pedophiles, Teenagers with camera phones, sadistic incestuous fathers.
Actually contributing CP is a big part of this, but if others weren't watching, commenting on and sharing it, it would have a lot less value.
Some serial killers kill people just to follow the stories on the killing in the news paper. They get off on being the center of attention and keeping the entire city in fear. Should we therefore ban newspapers from publishing stories related to serial killers, in an attempt to take away such serial killers motivation? Or would doing that be a violation of freedom of speech? Is it really the newspapers fault that the serial killer kills people, can we really hold them responsible?
I've seen all of the studies about how letting fucked up people watch their fucked up movies results in less real life victims of their fucked up behavior. But I've also seen plenty to indicate that immersion in bl/gl culture emboldens sexual predators and makes them more likely to act on their urges.
you can be immersed in bl/gl culture without ever sharing or viewing CP there are pedophile forums that don't allow the sharing of illegal material. Also only a tiny tiny fraction of CP offenders have jack shit at all to do with bl/gl culture.
I don't mean jail time (it is a non-violent offense) but I would see them in a program and I would definitely want their computers looked through because if they participate in these communities, they're likely to be speaking to others who do and that kind of things leads to information about where the kids are. You know, the kids getting raped in the videos.
Ah the same logic used against drug users. Bust the small time users because they are likely speaking to bigger dealers who are likely speaking to bigger dealers who are likely speaking to cartel members who kill innocent people. You know, the innocent people who get beheaded by the drug cartels? Put responsibility where it belongs and stop sacrificing human lives to meet your objectives, regardless of the fact that your objective of protecting kids is good it becomes bad as soon as you are willing to sacrifice harmless peoples lives to accomplish it.
I also think there should be a close-in-age statute for an law involving the sexuality of minors (which lots of states already do). That would take care of instances where a teenage boy gets registered as a sex offender for receiving his girlfriend's nudes.
I doubt it'll ever be legal in the US to look at kids getting raped, but I do think the best way to approach prosecuting it and determining 'guilt' will be very different.
Or we could just lower the age of consent to an age where people start being sexually active, and only ban having sex with kids. Close in age laws are kind of fucking stupid. If a 15 year old can consent to have sex with a 17 year old there is absolutely no reason why they cannot consent to have sex with an 18 year old or a 80 year old. Once you are capable of giving consent to somebody you are capable of giving consent to anybody, if you are incapable of giving consent to somebody you are incapable of giving consent to anybody. Consent rests on the person giving it there is no dynamic change involved based upon who they are giving it to.
-
more good arguments for legalizing CP possession and relaxing CP laws: http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2012/09/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse-2449840.html
They take a different approach than I do to arguing this but their reasons are just as valid as mine. From the leader of the Swedish Pirate party and some comments from Jacob Appelbaum one of the Tor developers and member of Wikileaks.
here is the original argument from the pirate party guy but I like the first link best:
http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/
Personally I am not sold entirely on all of his original arguments (specifically the first one, the second and third I agree on fully but the first is contrived) but they are good enough and when I add my list of arguments to his I am no less convinced than before....POSSESSION OF ANY INFORMATION MUST BE LEGAL
-
It seems like you agree that the production of CP, where it involves the actual abuse of children, is wrong. But viewing CP, where the abuse has already taken place, is not, since your viewing of these images cannot be said to have any causal relationship to the abuse.
So while you are against the production of any NEW child porn, once it is made you will have no problem viewing it.
Will this be a situation like elephant ivory? 'Modern' elephant ivory is banned to prevent the hunting of elephants, but antique ivory goods are exempt as clearly trading them can cause no further harm to elephants. (Leaving aside whether we care about elephants or not for now).
So legacy child porn is OK; but by this logical slight of hand you are permitted to continue to view new child porn, since after its creation it immediately becomes legacy child porn.
So children continue to be abused, new child porn is produced, but morally you can continue to view child porn with a clear conscience, as the abuse you are witnessing is in the past. It has happened whether you look at the pictures or not.
-
Also, after rereading some of this thread, I feel your argument relays heavily on the assumption that there is nothing that could be described as 'demand' for CP, and that therefore viewing child porn is not creating this demand; that there is no element of a 'market'. Are you seriously suggesting that in the real world the consumers of CP are completely divorced from the producers, that the producers are making it purely for the satisfaction of a job well done, with no knowledge or care as to whether it will even be viewed.?
Surely by this logic it would be moral to VIEW child porn, but not to attempt to obtain it, since in a broad sense any such attempt is creating demand.
I guess that my message to the paedophiles of the world is: any CP you have in your possession you may continue to enjoy with my blessing. But if you should attempt to acquire any new CP, thus creating demand and ,however indirectly , causing fresh child abuse, then I must withdraw my support.
-
Some serial killers kill people just to follow the stories on the killing in the news paper. They get off on being the center of attention and keeping the entire city in fear. Should we therefore ban newspapers from publishing stories related to serial killers, in an attempt to take away such serial killers motivation? Or would doing that be a violation of freedom of speech? Is it really the newspapers fault that the serial killer kills people, can we really hold them responsible?
I can't hear you over all the crows you've attracted with your gigantic strawman.
Ah the same logic used against drug users. Bust the small time users because they are likely speaking to bigger dealers who are likely speaking to bigger dealers who are likely speaking to cartel members who kill innocent people. You know, the innocent people who get beheaded by the drug cartels? Put responsibility where it belongs and stop sacrificing human lives to meet your objectives, regardless of the fact that your objective of protecting kids is good it becomes bad as soon as you are willing to sacrifice harmless peoples lives to accomplish it.
It's hard to take you seriously with all of this hyperbole. Pedophilia is an illness (and yes, I'm aware that not everyone who watches is a pedophile). I don't think providing treatment and then going through their computers is 'ruining lives.'
Consent rests on the person giving it there is no dynamic change involved based upon who they are giving it to.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think power dynamic plays a big part and age often determines power dynamic. I also think sexual exploration between young children and among adolescents is normal and healthy, whereas the same sexual activity with adults would often be exploitative. I work with toddlers and pre-school aged kids and many of them masturbate more than teenagers. When they're siblings or spend a lot of time together, it's almost inevitable that they end up touching each other or at least showing the other this really great thing they just found.
I do wonder, since you seem to have an issue with age cut-offs you find arbitrary, why puberty matters when we're talking about something like mutual masturbation or fondling. Puberty isn't required to enjoy this kind of stimulation and yet I'm assuming you wouldn't be okay with an adult man jacking off a six year old. Why is that?
And if you are okay with it, well then at least you're consistent.
-
Some serial killers kill people just to follow the stories on the killing in the news paper. They get off on being the center of attention and keeping the entire city in fear. Should we therefore ban newspapers from publishing stories related to serial killers, in an attempt to take away such serial killers motivation? Or would doing that be a violation of freedom of speech? Is it really the newspapers fault that the serial killer kills people, can we really hold them responsible?
I can't hear you over all the crows you've attracted with your gigantic strawman.
Not a strawman it is an argument by analogy. You think it should be illegal to look at CP because you think when people look at CP it encourages child rapists to rape children. It is well known that many serial killers kill to hear about themselves in the media, and therefor it makes sense that you should think we should ban reporting on serial killers.
It's hard to take you seriously with all of this hyperbole. Pedophilia is an illness (and yes, I'm aware that not everyone who watches is a pedophile). I don't think providing treatment and then going through their computers is 'ruining lives.'
Sure pedophilia is an illness (unlike primary attraction to those 13+ which is consistently rejected as a mental illness by the majority of mental health professionals) and pedophiles are probably pretty well off getting treated. Should they be forced into treatment? I think probably not. I think a lot of them want treatment and they will be more likely to obtain it when the current Salem Witch Trials are done with. That said yeah not everyone who watches CP is a pedophile or even suffering from a mental illness, and I don't think they should open themselves up to being forced into treatment and having their computers searched through. But really before you tell me I am being hyperbolic how about you wait until people who view CP get some treatment and a basic search of their computer instead of labeled as sex offenders for life and thrown in prison for decades where they are often raped and beaten. Because right now I am not being hyperbolic.
I do wonder, since you seem to have an issue with age cut-offs you find arbitrary, why puberty matters when we're talking about something like mutual masturbation or fondling. Puberty isn't required to enjoy this kind of stimulation and yet I'm assuming you wouldn't be okay with an adult man jacking off a six year old. Why is that?
And if you are okay with it, well then at least you're consistent.
When a six year old consents for another six year old to touch his privates, he is not really consenting to sexual activity in a conscious capacity. He does not have the understanding to do so, but he does have the understanding to say look at this. If he does the same to an adult and the adult goes along with him, the adult is then exploiting his lack of true awareness and the consent is thus only superficial. On the other hand, when a 14 year old consents for his privates to be touched, unless he is mentally retarded he understands the significance of the event and is indeed consenting to sexual activity in a conscious capacity. Also I think puberty plays a crucial if not absolutely required role in ability to enjoy sexual stimulation, and I don't think that those who have not reached puberty ever really seek out sexual interaction in a conscious sexually oriented capacity. When they appear to be doing this they are rather acting as innocent children. On the other hand you need to be naive as hell to think that a 14 year old is so naive as to not understand the significance of engaging in sexual interaction with others, and to not have an active desire to do so and ability to consent to do so with others.
-
It seems like you agree that the production of CP, where it involves the actual abuse of children, is wrong. But viewing CP, where the abuse has already taken place, is not, since your viewing of these images cannot be said to have any causal relationship to the abuse.
So while you are against the production of any NEW child porn, once it is made you will have no problem viewing it.
Will this be a situation like elephant ivory? 'Modern' elephant ivory is banned to prevent the hunting of elephants, but antique ivory goods are exempt as clearly trading them can cause no further harm to elephants. (Leaving aside whether we care about elephants or not for now).
So legacy child porn is OK; but by this logical slight of hand you are permitted to continue to view new child porn, since after its creation it immediately becomes legacy child porn.
So children continue to be abused, new child porn is produced, but morally you can continue to view child porn with a clear conscience, as the abuse you are witnessing is in the past. It has happened whether you look at the pictures or not.
Yeah of course the production of CP is wrong in the majority of cases (ignoring teenage self production blah blah blah). I even argue that paying for CP is wrong, because it funds child abuse, just like paying for a hitman is wrong because it funds a murder. Yes I separate people making CP from people viewing it. I think people should not make CP, and I don't care if people view CP. I look at the trees in the forest, you look at the entire forest as a whole, and this results in you burning the damn forest down when 51% of the trees are bad, but I just cut down the bad ones and let the good ones live. Nobody killed elephants just to give the ivory away so at best it is a weak analogy, it holds up best as an argument against the sale of CP for profit which I already said I am against. You see, the studios in Eastern Europe indeed produced CP because people paid them, but people also pirated the content. If nobody paid them and everybody pirated the content, only an idiot would think that they would continue to produce for the pirates. It was the payment for CP that motivated them not the people viewing the CP. And if it was the people viewing the CP that motivated them, so what anyway? If a serial killer kills because he likes to read about himself in the newspaper, does that mean we must ban newspapers from reporting on serial killers? By your logic it would mean that, you take the responsibility for the actions of people and you bounce it around as much as possible until everybody that has any connection at all to the person is called responsible for the actions of the person. But you do not do this consistently only in cases of CP, because you blame the people viewing CP for the children being raped, but you do not blame the people paying for drugs for the innocents being killed by the cartels nor do you blame the newspapers for the people being killed by the serial killers. And yeah, inherently the abuse in CP has happened in the past, or else pictures of it could not have been taken.
Also, after rereading some of this thread, I feel your argument relays heavily on the assumption that there is nothing that could be described as 'demand' for CP, and that therefore viewing child porn is not creating this demand; that there is no element of a 'market'. Are you seriously suggesting that in the real world the consumers of CP are completely divorced from the producers, that the producers are making it purely for the satisfaction of a job well done, with no knowledge or care as to whether it will even be viewed.?
I already said two ways in which there is a market for CP. The first is the Eastern European studios, and again they would not produce unless people paid them and I already said I am again people paying for child porn because it is similar to people paying for a hitman. The second case consists of people in the private membership groups where images are traded like baseball cards and other similar private trading group models. Yes I seriously suggest that the overwhelming majority of CP consumers in the real world are completely 100% divorced from the producers, 22 million people on public P2P networks seeding identified in two single operations, probably more like 100 million people trading CP on P2P networks including those not identified and those not seeding. That number greatly shadows the number of people on private forums, which generally top out at thousands of members max, and also greatly shadows the number of people on darknet imageboards which is limited to less than a million. People who trade on public P2P networks almost never are involved in social networking with other people involved with CP, so I think it is obvious that the vast majority of people involved with viewing CP are not networked socially with others who are. Do you really think there are these people out there, who are upstanding citizens who will never molest children, but then those damn bastards on P2P download CP, and this demand triggers some latent issue in the upstanding citizens mind, and he decides that to fill the demand for this CP he must go out and film himself fucking a bunch of kids? Does that really seem like a likely scenario to you, because to me it seems totally absurd.
Surely by this logic it would be moral to VIEW child porn, but not to attempt to obtain it, since in a broad sense any such attempt is creating demand.
Sure totally moral to view CP. Totally moral to obtain CP too, nobody runs out and fucks kids because some anonymous dude loaded an imageboard or downloaded some shit on P2P. If you think such strange people really do exist then I guess we must make a PIR type system for CP downloaders so it is impossible for anybody to know that they looked for and obtained CP, as this will totally protect from anyone being able to tell they had demand for it. But yeah is bad for them to pay for CP for sure.
I guess that my message to the paedophiles of the world is: any CP you have in your possession you may continue to enjoy with my blessing. But if you should attempt to acquire any new CP, thus creating demand and ,however indirectly , causing fresh child abuse, then I must withdraw my support.
So you are okay with everybody who has CP as of when you posted this, but they just cannot get more in the future? That seems kind of strange, what happened at the point in time you posted this that made it immoral to get CP after that date but not prior to it.
-
^no, I am rephrasing your argument to you in different terms, you are right it does sound ridiculous doesn't it? That's my point. You can't say its OK to view child pornography that already exists, while claiming to believe its immoral to produce new child pornography. CP DOESN'T suddenly become OK once it passes into the past.
As for the serial killer analogy, once again you are exaggerating in your analogy. We are not saying ban all newspapers. If a serial killer was mailing pictures or lurid descriptions of his crimes to the newspapers, for the thrill of seeing them published, if we suspected his crimes were at least partially motivated by the desire to see them in print, then yes I would suggest we ban the newspaper from printing them. Only in this specific case, not banning newspapers altogether.
The PIR idea just seems bizarre to me, the product of a very literal mind. Imagine we use it to distribute poetry. The poets labour and produce their verses, which they upload to the server. The poetry lovers download from the server. The poets have no idea whether their work is being read or not. But no one could deny that the poets are uploading their poetry out of a desire to be read, and that in downloading it the poetry lovers are creating demand for the stuff.
I think some of your arguments can only be understood from an extreme libertarian position. The libertarian asks "what will be the direct consequences of my actions?" He never asks "and what will be the consequences for my society if thousands of people commit these actions?". To a libertarian that is not part of his responsibility.
An individual downloading child porn can say to himself "I am not responsible for the abuse in these pictures, it has already happened"
But the thousands of individuals in a society who download CP ARE responsible for the abuse; if there were no one in the world who wished to view it, no more CP would be made.
-
Jesus Christ, 13 pages of arguing with this child molester. He isn't giving up his argument. Hopefully he ends up in jail or someone does us all a service and kills him.
-
I don't think there's any suggestion he actively molests children...we are arguing about how far freedom extends. We all agree that we are free to do what we want as long as it harms no one. Kmfkewn believes that merely viewing CP harms no one and defends the position annoyingly well. I strongly disagree but am having difficulty proving it.
I have been assuming that this is basically an intellectual excersise?
Obviously child molesters should be castrated and crucified upside down etc etc. but that isn't what's up for debate here.
-
Are we really arguing about CP... How about OP goes and visits all of the CP sites on Tor and then makes a statement that CP isn't harmful. Yes, I understand that he is arguing about having images/videos. The fact is that CP will never be legal and will be criminalized in even more parts of the world because of the innocence of children. Even if you are just looking at "mild" photos, that isn't what constitutes as all of CP. over 70% of CP is a child being raped, held against their will (or better knowing), being manipulated into doing something, or having a photo taken of them without knowing what it actually is. Children don't have better judgement from experience in life, CP exploits that by telling children that "everything is fine" or that"everyone does this and it is okay/normal" because they don't know any better. Any adult today that is of a sane mind, has just morales, and isn't a pedo would completely disagree with taking advantage of what we are supposed to be protecting and teaching.
CP really fucks with childrens minds... Give me a case of CP where the child has grown up to be normal and to not disagree with what was done to them? Take this thread for example: This actually projects the general opinion of most of the world on CP. Everyone who puts any thought into it knows that it is wrong.
When you say that CP will be illegal, there is a drop in the ocean chance that "soft" porn will even be considered in legalization. Maybe 1 pedo official that is just jumping for juvies over the matter. As for the other 70% that a pedo rarely doesn't partake in, there is no chance whatsoever.
-
Not a strawman it is an argument by analogy. You think it should be illegal to look at CP because you think when people look at CP it encourages child rapists to rape children. It is well known that many serial killers kill to hear about themselves in the media, and therefor it makes sense that you should think we should ban reporting on serial killers.
Another fundamental disagreement here, I think: pornography is not information (imo)
Sure pedophilia is an illness (unlike primary attraction to those 13+ which is consistently rejected as a mental illness by the majority of mental health professionals) and pedophiles are probably pretty well off getting treated. Should they be forced into treatment? I think probably not. I think a lot of them want treatment and they will be more likely to obtain it when the current Salem Witch Trials are done with. That said yeah not everyone who watches CP is a pedophile or even suffering from a mental illness, and I don't think they should open themselves up to being forced into treatment and having their computers searched through. But really before you tell me I am being hyperbolic how about you wait until people who view CP get some treatment and a basic search of their computer instead of labeled as sex offenders for life and thrown in prison for decades where they are often raped and beaten. Because right now I am not being hyperbolic.
Well that's what I was suggesting. Although I think if the CP is very violent in nature and a psychological evaluation shows the person is a sexual predator in addition to a pedophile, I would have them labeled a sex offender. But it was hypoble because I wasn't suggesting jail time and registration on SO list right off the bat. I'm always for more nuances sentencing and I think sentencing should focus largely on helping offenders.
When a six year old consents for another six year old to touch his privates, he is not really consenting to sexual activity in a conscious capacity. He does not have the understanding to do so, but he does have the understanding to say look at this.
Now you're rationalizing. A six year old masturbates for the same reason everyone else masturbates: it feels good. They ask other kids to join for the same reason the rest of us do: it feels even better when someone else does. It's a very base instinct and it's no more complex in adults than it is in children. What's there to 'understand'? The exploitation is in the power dynamic due to experience and age, not 'consciousness.' And it doesn't only happen between children and adults, it happens between adolescents and adults as well.
If he does the same to an adult and the adult goes along with him, the adult is then exploiting his lack of true awareness and the consent is thus only superficial. On the other hand, when a 14 year old consents for his privates to be touched, unless he is mentally retarded he understands the significance of the event and is indeed consenting to sexual activity in a conscious capacity. Also I think puberty plays a crucial if not absolutely required role in ability to enjoy sexual stimulation, and I don't think that those who have not reached puberty ever really seek out sexual interaction in a conscious sexually oriented capacity. When they appear to be doing this they are rather acting as innocent children. On the other hand you need to be naive as hell to think that a 14 year old is so naive as to not understand the significance of engaging in sexual interaction with others, and to not have an active desire to do so and ability to consent to do so with others.
This is all your opinion, obviously, and your cutoff of puberty because of 'awareness' is as arbitrary as the state's cut off 'because parents said so.' It's a fact that puberty isn't require to enjoy sexual stimulation and 'conscious sexually-oriented capacity' is something you've made up to explain why your wiring, like the rest of us who aren't faulty, makes the idea of an adult and child having sex repulsive.
-
Are we really arguing about CP... How about OP goes and visits all of the CP sites on Tor and then makes a statement that CP isn't harmful. Yes, I understand that he is arguing about having images/videos. The fact is that CP will never be legal and will be criminalized in even more parts of the world because of the innocence of children. Even if you are just looking at "mild" photos, that isn't what constitutes as all of CP. over 70% of CP is a child being raped, held against their will (or better knowing), being manipulated into doing something, or having a photo taken of them without knowing what it actually is. Children don't have better judgement from experience in life, CP exploits that by telling children that "everything is fine" or that"everyone does this and it is okay/normal" because they don't know any better. Any adult today that is of a sane mind, has just morales, and isn't a pedo would completely disagree with taking advantage of what we are supposed to be protecting and teaching.
CP really fucks with childrens minds... Give me a case of CP where the child has grown up to be normal and to not disagree with what was done to them? Take this thread for example: This actually projects the general opinion of most of the world on CP. Everyone who puts any thought into it knows that it is wrong.
When you say that CP will be illegal, there is a drop in the ocean chance that "soft" porn will even be considered in legalization. Maybe 1 pedo official that is just jumping for juvies over the matter. As for the other 70% that a pedo rarely doesn't partake in, there is no chance whatsoever.
OP is going to tell you that your 70% statistic is made up and act as if he knows everything there is to know about CP. But then he will retract halfway stating that he does not support CP; just 'happens' to know everything about it. He'll probably also tell you something about how he studies young teens and their sexuality and how it applies to his own views on sexuality, stating that 'of course' when you're 14 years old you 'just know' the absolute consequences to your actions. By example, OP believes that if a 14 year old wants to fuck random filthy, semi-retarded middle-aged men who can't even get laid within their own age bracket; they should be allowed to, because the ultimately 'know' what they are doing. I don't know that the middle aged men who are fond of 14 year-olds' are 'all' mentally retarded... I'm just going by something the OP stated as fact earlier in this thread!
Pretty sure anyone who is a mature adult with an education knows the quality of a 14 year old's 'decision making' skills, and their level of knowledge of the 'real world' ...
-
I think this thread is disrespectful.
Regardless of whether or not CP may or may not be okay so many young lives have been scared by it. Not to mention the exploitation of children we don't see. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong that is our own personal opinion which doesn't need to be brought out into the open out of respect for the many who have hurt by this.
-
I think this thread is disrespectful.
Regardless of whether or not CP may or may not be okay so many young lives have been scared by it. Not to mention the exploitation of children we don't see. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong that is our own personal opinion which doesn't need to be brought out into the open out of respect for the many who have hurt by this.
Exactly. +1 for yourself and Praetorian. This argument that looking at CP is harmless is completely nonsensical. Children are irreparably scarred for life, having to suffer the torturous indignation of being forced by adults to participate in the sick fantasies of these bastards for the sexual gratification of low life pedo's. Whether it was made yesterday or 50 years ago is irrelevant. It should be permanently destroyed and anyone caught with it, put in prison.
I'm so sick of these convoluted justifications being posted here about "I only read CP, not participate in it." What ever the case may be, children are hurt and abused to make CP and will never get over it. Viewing it is just WRONG, plain and simple!
-
It's not plain and simple, that's the whole point. Do you know people in the eastern block countries, depend on this to keep food on the table. Yep, there are whole communities that rely on the revenue this brings, it's a multi- million dollar industry, and we have you Wadozo, looking in from your privileged lifestyle, By that I mean you have food and hot water, and a roof over your head, and these people have nothing, have you ever heard the saying" morals don't pay bills" So get down of your high horse, or kangaroo in your case, and look at this objectively for a millisecond, how about you live with fuck all for a fucking day? and we will soon see your tune change, and why are you chiming in after all the points raised by the O,P, you are not able to debate anyway, because you can't judge things dispassionately can you?
-
It's not plain and simple, that's the whole point. Do you know people in the eastern block countries, depend on this to keep food on the table. Yep, there are whole communities that rely on the revenue this brings, it's a multi- million dollar industry, and we have you Wadozo, looking in from your privileged lifestyle, By that I mean you have food and hot water, and a roof over your head, and these people have nothing, have you ever heard the saying" morals don't pay bills" So get down of your high horse, or kangaroo in your case, and look at this objectively for a millisecond, how about you live with fuck all for a fucking day? and we will soon see your tune change, and why are you chiming in after all the points raised by the O,P, you are not able to debate anyway, because you can't judge things dispassionately can you?
People like you JohnTheBaptist, who justify the rape and abuse of children because some people in an Eastern Block country have no money and can't pay a bill, have clearly been affected by long term drug abuse or perhaps were born retarded! >:( To suggest I'm not looking at things objectively when you have put forward this farcical claim that people won't have any money if CP is shut down in their country, is beyond comprehension. >:( You would have to be a pedo yourself or completely insane to allow children to suffer such horrific abuse. >:( You wouldn't have a clue about anything I have so shove your assumptions up your ass champ. >:( Your reasoning is absurd and completely irrational to anybody with a shred of intelligence. >:( Only a twisted, idiotic, vile fool like yourself could put forward the preposterous notion that people can't eat or pay bills without their children being raped and abused during CP scenes, which are taped or photographed so sick bastards like you JohnTheBaptist, can get off! You, like your best mate, will hopefully one day end up in prison, where you'll get what you deserve once the general population gets wind of why your there. >:( They love people like you in there. :P You can tell them your justifications for looking at such sick, vile acts on poor, innocent children and I'm sure they'll lend you a shoulder to cry on. Next you'll probably claim that you don't even look at CP?? Go to hell!! >:(
-
^no, I am rephrasing your argument to you in different terms, you are right it does sound ridiculous doesn't it? That's my point. You can't say its OK to view child pornography that already exists, while claiming to believe its immoral to produce new child pornography. CP DOESN'T suddenly become OK once it passes into the past.
I don't see why I cannot say it is okay to view CP that already exists but immoral to produce new child pornography. Viewing CP inherently means that the act viewed took place in the past, producing CP inherently means that the act takes place in the present. There is no such thing as CP passing into the past, for CP to exist the act depicted inherently must have taken place in the past, for CP to be produced the act inherently must take place in the present.
As for the serial killer analogy, once again you are exaggerating in your analogy. We are not saying ban all newspapers. If a serial killer was mailing pictures or lurid descriptions of his crimes to the newspapers, for the thrill of seeing them published, if we suspected his crimes were at least partially motivated by the desire to see them in print, then yes I would suggest we ban the newspaper from printing them. Only in this specific case, not banning newspapers altogether.
Lots of serial killers kill at least in part for the thrill of seeing the details of their killings published in news papers. Usually the police encourage them to keep communication with news papers etc so that they can get caught. The same way that police secretly hope child molesters will take pictures so that they can track them down, but of course they will never come out and say this. The same way the police hope that pedophiles will look at child porn so that they can track them down, although of course they will not say this their actions speak louder than their words, the FBI recently ran a compromised CP hidden service forum for several weeks in an attempt to track down its members. If they really thought every time CP is viewed the child is molested again or other nonsense, they would have taken the site down immediately. But LE distribute CP in order to infiltrate pedophile groups and to catch people looking at CP, do you think the police are going to molest children in order to do the same? Even they can see that there is a massive moral difference, and even if they say differently their actions speak much louder than their words. Let me know when you hear a story about LE molesting kids to catch pedophiles, I can link to all kinds of examples of LE distributing CP to catch pedophiles.
The PIR idea just seems bizarre to me, the product of a very literal mind. Imagine we use it to distribute poetry. The poets labour and produce their verses, which they upload to the server. The poetry lovers download from the server. The poets have no idea whether their work is being read or not. But no one could deny that the poets are uploading their poetry out of a desire to be read, and that in downloading it the poetry lovers are creating demand for the stuff.
How does the demand of readers have any effect on the producers? The PIR scheme completely hides the demand. After the poems are uploaded nobody can tell if they are downloaded or not. If you think the PIR idea does not work for you, then it is clear that you don't mean actual demand but rather demand in a conceptual way. You don't mean that somebody taking an identifiable action in an attempt to get CP, you mean the desire of people to take such action. This makes you a total thought police advocate, because you don't so much have a problem with people downloading CP creating real demand but rather have a problem that people desire to see CP at all, which means you want to police the desires of others which is just absolutely sickening to me.
Here, let me say it another way. All digital CP consists of 1's and 0's. If you run a random number generator infinitely long, there is a high probability that it will produce a given CP image (including CP images that could never be produced, due to the fact that the people depicted never existed, and including CP images that are equal to what would exist if an actual child was molested on camera, but which will never exist because said child was never molested). It seems to me that you have a problem with pedophiles running random number generators until they output CP of an actual child. Let's say there is a real CP image out there, and Joe CP Viewer runs an RNG and just by chance it happens to produce the series of 1's and 0's that the actual CP image consists of. There is no way to construe this as demand for CP which can lead to production due to the fact that Joe CP Viewer does not even request the CP from anywhere, he derives it from pure random chance. But your issue is not really with his demand in an economic context (which is strange because that is what people who argue your position always seem to imply) but rather with demand in the sense that someone desires something you do not want them to desire. PIR is hardly different from this example, when the CP is uploaded to the system nobody can then tell when it is downloaded so there is no way to say that by downloading CP from this system an economic demand effect leading to supply comes into play, but you have issue with this not because you are worried about supply and demand but rather because you are concerned with the desire of others regardless of if their actions lead to the harm of others or not, and that makes you the fucking thought police.
I think some of your arguments can only be understood from an extreme libertarian position. The libertarian asks "what will be the direct consequences of my actions?" He never asks "and what will be the consequences for my society if thousands of people commit these actions?". To a libertarian that is not part of his responsibility.
The consequence to society is over all positive, already linked to studies showing that legal access to CP reduces child molestation in every country studied. Increasing freedom rarely leads to a negative effect on society. Also many countries where CP is legal to view, like Russia, are hardly libertarian, they are just not so infected with puritans as countries like USA.
An individual downloading child porn can say to himself "I am not responsible for the abuse in these pictures, it has already happened"
But the thousands of individuals in a society who download CP ARE responsible for the abuse; if there were no one in the world who wished to view it, no more CP would be made.
But children would still be molested, and now the police have no easy way to track down the people molesting children. So you have swept the problem under the rug but in reality you have made it so people are more likely to molest children and you have made it harder for the people molesting children to be caught. But hey, at least you cannot so easily tell that people have desires that you find offensive right?
-
Are we really arguing about CP... How about OP goes and visits all of the CP sites on Tor and then makes a statement that CP isn't harmful.
Well, legally I am forbidden from going to CP sites on Tor to come to any conclusion about CP. I suppose I could trust the same people who have lied to me about drugs, but I give them no credit. It is illegal to have an opinion on CP based on the evidence, that is part of the issue. And to the best of my understanding, there are many "CP" sites that only have self taken photographs of teenagers doing such disgusting vile things as flashing their mirrors. Of course I understand when it is discussed in the media all CP consists of the violent rape and torture of innocent prepuberty children, but from what I can legally determine that is a minor part of CP, and the spectrum pretty much ranges from the incredibly popular underage teenager sites through to prepuberty children posing partially nude or at nudist beaches, all the way to young children being molested and at the most extreme and rarest end young children being raped and tortured. And my opinion is that viewing any picture is no worse than viewing any other picture, so I do not hold those viewing rape to any different standard than I hold those viewing naked teenagers. Certainly I think the pedophiles are actually mentally ill, and the sadists of course are mentally ill as well, but I do not judge people based on their mental illnesses I judge them based on their actions. Viewing images is not an action that leads to harm upon others.
Yes, I understand that he is arguing about having images/videos. The fact is that CP will never be legal and will be criminalized in even more parts of the world because of the innocence of children.
In the past people said black people will never be free because of the superiority of white people. You cannot see into the future, but I see the trend is that over time people come to understand things they used to fear and freedom tends to increase rather than decrease. Viewing CP is very likely to be legalized in the majority of the world eventually, too many things are in favor of this happening and only irrationality is against it. CP is already legal to view in half of the world, the main pressure against this is the USA but the power of the USA to influence other countries will continue to fall.
Even if you are just looking at "mild" photos, that isn't what constitutes as all of CP. over 70% of CP is a child being raped, held against their will (or better knowing), being manipulated into doing something, or having a photo taken of them without knowing what it actually is.
Citation needed
Children don't have better judgement from experience in life, CP exploits that by telling children that "everything is fine" or that"everyone does this and it is okay/normal" because they don't know any better. Any adult today that is of a sane mind, has just morales, and isn't a pedo would completely disagree with taking advantage of what we are supposed to be protecting and teaching.
People keep trying to change the subject to production for some reason, I don't know why since I already said production is bad and of course must remain illegal, as it is in essentially the entire world (versus possession which is illegal only in half of the world, with many places where it is illegal only having small penalties associated with it. The USA is bar none the most rabid country when it comes to CP, with people facing regularly multi decade sentences and life time registration as sex offenders, where as in the majority of the world where CP is illegal to view people face only fines or warnings or a few years in jail).
CP really fucks with childrens minds... Give me a case of CP where the child has grown up to be normal and to not disagree with what was done to them? Take this thread for example: This actually projects the general opinion of most of the world on CP. Everyone who puts any thought into it knows that it is wrong.
And you continue to argue against production although that has never been what I have said should be legal. However, much CP is actually self produced by teenagers.
When you say that CP will be illegal, there is a drop in the ocean chance that "soft" porn will even be considered in legalization. Maybe 1 pedo official that is just jumping for juvies over the matter. As for the other 70% that a pedo rarely doesn't partake in, there is no chance whatsoever.
In the future all information will be free, people will not continue to support censorship.
-
Another fundamental disagreement here, I think: pornography is not information (imo)
Your opinion is a stupid one then, digital pornography consists of the same 1's and 0's as a political manifesto.
Well that's what I was suggesting. Although I think if the CP is very violent in nature and a psychological evaluation shows the person is a sexual predator in addition to a pedophile, I would have them labeled a sex offender. But it was hypoble because I wasn't suggesting jail time and registration on SO list right off the bat. I'm always for more nuances sentencing and I think sentencing should focus largely on helping offenders.
A sexual predator is someone who preys on others in a sexual way. I think it is insane to think you should label a person who looks at violent CP the same way you label a person who violently rapes children. People who view violent CP are most likely sadistic pedophiles, they are sick in the head for sure, but why do you want to condemn them just because there is a *chance* they will hurt a child? There is a chance that anybody will do a bad thing should we all go to prison to protect us from each other?
Now you're rationalizing. A six year old masturbates for the same reason everyone else masturbates: it feels good. They ask other kids to join for the same reason the rest of us do: it feels even better when someone else does. It's a very base instinct and it's no more complex in adults than it is in children. What's there to 'understand'? The exploitation is in the power dynamic due to experience and age, not 'consciousness.' And it doesn't only happen between children and adults, it happens between adolescents and adults as well.
First of all I do not think that a six year old derives the same pleasure from masturbation as an adult does. Also, a six year old simply doesn't understand the sexual nature of masturbation, a fourteen year old certainly does. There is no rationalization here, it is obvious fact. A fourteen year old should know all about sex and sexual behavior and the social implications of it and everything else, at least to a significant degree. A six year old simply does not. By comparing sex with 14 year olds to sex with 6 year olds, you are essentially saying that many developed nations have age of consent laws that may as well be lowered to the age of 6, since there is no difference. Obviously there is a difference and you know it, and the difference is the level of awareness is greatly different between a 6 year old and a 14 year old, the level of awareness between a 14 year old and an 18 year old is minor when it comes to what sex is.
This is all your opinion, obviously, and your cutoff of puberty because of 'awareness' is as arbitrary as the state's cut off 'because parents said so.' It's a fact that puberty isn't require to enjoy sexual stimulation and 'conscious sexually-oriented capacity' is something you've made up to explain why your wiring, like the rest of us who aren't faulty, makes the idea of an adult and child having sex repulsive.
Sure puberty is not required to enjoy it on some level, but it is required for ejaculation and it is required for strong orgasms. Puberty also correlates with when humans *naturally* seek out sexual ineractions for the sake and goal of sexual interaction. There is a massive difference between a 6 year old innocently playing with himself and a 14 year old seeking out sexual interactions with others. You really make it sound like you are wired in a faulty way if you think there is not a difference between the "sexuality" of a 6 year old and the sexuality of a 14 year old. Additionally, as I already pointed out, average males have sexual response to 12-16 the same as they do to 17+, so what about my wiring is faulty? The only difference I see between myself and many others is that they lie to themselves and they lie to others, I do not lie to myself and I do not lie to others, I have science and testing backing up my own normality they have only a group lie pretending that they are a normal that is not normal and never has been normal.
-
OP is going to tell you that your 70% statistic is made up and act as if he knows everything there is to know about CP.
I see a lot of people claiming that "most CP is rape or snuff" and "70% of CP is violent rape", but I see no citations for these figures. When I counter this with my own extreme doubt in regard to these figures, while pointing out that I am not certain, I am called out for talking out of my ass. Well, where are your citations for these statistics? I can give citations that only 1:5 people arrested with CP have violent CP in their collections, and that only means a single image out of possibly thousands. I can give citations for studios that produced millions of softcore images with consent of parents. I can give citations for how something like 25% of all teenagers in the USA have produced CP of themselves, that is a pretty big number right? So where are you citations for 70% of CP being violent or for almost all CP being rape or snuff? I am really interested to read these studies because so far I have not found anything on it. Of course, it doesn't make any difference is 100% of CP is rape or snuff, but I just wonder if you guys are just emotionally fear mongering people or if you actually have any evidence for your claims.
But then he will retract halfway stating that he does not support CP; just 'happens' to know everything about it.
I don't support people causing the abuse of children. Nothing I have done in my life has ever led to a single child being abused in any way, and this will remain true for my entire life. I have never told someone to molest children, or paid for anyone to molest children, or in general done anything that can be seen as having caused harm to come upon a child. I have never defended the people who molest children and I have never suggested that it is okay for people to molest children. So I don't see how I would be seen as someone who supports child porn, I merely support the right of people to view child porn. I support the right of people to view images of the holocaust as well, does that mean I am a Nazi supporter?
He'll probably also tell you something about how he studies young teens and their sexuality and how it applies to his own views on sexuality, stating that 'of course' when you're 14 years old you 'just know' the absolute consequences to your actions.
You think at age 18 people have the knowledge of sexuality come down from the heavens and enlighten them? That is a strange idea to hold.
By example, OP believes that if a 14 year old wants to fuck random filthy, semi-retarded middle-aged men who can't even get laid within their own age bracket; they should be allowed to, because the ultimately 'know' what they are doing.
Sure thing! And it is legal in many parts of the world at that. Who am I to tell a 14 year old who they can fuck or to tell a semi-retarded middle-aged man who they can fuck? As long as they are not fucking children without awareness and free agency I do not care. A 14 year old should have developed free agency by that point in their life. If a man tells a 6 year old to touch him in a sexual way, the 6 year old probably will as they do not understand the implications and they are likely to trust an adult. If a man tells a 14 year old the same and the 14 year old does it I can only imagine that the 14 year old had an active personal desire to do so, as 14 year olds are much more cognitively developed than 6 year olds.
I don't know that the middle aged men who are fond of 14 year-olds' are 'all' mentally retarded... I'm just going by something the OP stated as fact earlier in this thread!
I said that pedophiles typically have low intelligence. Men fond of 14 year olds are not pedophiles, are not considered to have any mental illness at all, and indeed studies show that they are quite normal in that they are average men.
Pretty sure anyone who is a mature adult with an education knows the quality of a 14 year old's 'decision making' skills, and their level of knowledge of the 'real world' ...
A 14 year old who kills a person will be charged as if they are an adult, an 18 year old who has sex with a 14 year old will be charged as if the 14 year old is a child. A 6 year old who kills a person will not be charged, an 18 year old who has sex with a 6 year old will be charged for having sex with a child. I think we all can see that society is hypocritical on certain issues. A 14 year old is an adult when they want them to be, and capable of making the adult choice to illegally take the life of another, but they are not capable of touching another in a sexual way without being manipulated? It is no different than the sick and twisted society of the USA saying that a 20 year old is old enough to be forced into war to die fighting and killing but not old enough to drink alcohol.
-
I think this thread is disrespectful.
Regardless of whether or not CP may or may not be okay so many young lives have been scared by it. Not to mention the exploitation of children we don't see. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong that is our own personal opinion which doesn't need to be brought out into the open out of respect for the many who have hurt by this.
Yes we should censor ourselves even in our discussions. CP should remain illegal and in addition to that we should not even talk about it! You sound like such a totalitarian. Censorship and censorship of those who oppose the censorship. It does matter who is right and who is wrong. Millions of people are being sent to prison and labeled as sex offenders for life for no fucking reason at all. It is disrespectful to them that we should ignore the unjust way they are treated.
Exactly. +1 for yourself and Praetorian. This argument that looking at CP is harmless is completely nonsensical. Children are irreparably scarred for life, having to suffer the torturous indignation of being forced by adults to participate in the sick fantasies of these bastards for the sexual gratification of low life pedo's.
I fail to see the mechanism of action through which looking at configurations of pixels leads to children being irreparably scarred for life. That sounds a bit absurd doesn't it? I mean , can you really say that with a straight face? "Looking at the pixel configurations that this series of 1's and 0's has caused that monitor to display irreparably scars children for life, forcing them to suffer torturous indignation of being forced to participate in sick fantasies", I mean I cannot say that with a straight face. To think that when a person looks at a picture it causes some magical thing to happen to the person depicted in the picture, sounds so absurd to me, it is like you think Harry Potter is real. Like you think there is a child living in the picture begging to not be molested by the evil person looking at it and touching them through the picture. It makes me think that you must have a mental illness honestly, people without mental illness do not become so disconnected from reality.
50 years ago is irrelevant. It should be permanently destroyed and anyone caught with it, put in prison.
I'm so sick of these convoluted justifications being posted here about "I only read CP, not participate in it." What ever the case may be, children are hurt and abused to make CP and will never get over it. Viewing it is just WRONG, plain and simple!
And Jews were executed to make the pictures of the holocaust possible, is looking at such pictures then equal to genocide?
-
People like you JohnTheBaptist, who justify the rape and abuse of children because some people in an Eastern Block country have no money and can't pay a bill, have clearly been affected by long term drug abuse or perhaps were born retarded!
Well, all the Eastern European studios are long since gone. He is wrong to say that CP production is a multi million dollar industry, in the past it was worth a small number of millions, but today there is essentially no financial component involved. People vastly over estimate the financial aspect of CP even in the past when it played an infinitely more significant role than it does today. That said, the children pictured in the softcore porn from Eastern Europe did all "consent" to be pictured and had the consent of their parents and largely of the community it was based out of. They apparently figured having food for the family was a higher priority than their daughters not posing semi nude for a production studio. That said I don't even try to justify the production of CP, it is another can of worms and not something I am interested in fighting for. I will say there are shades of gray with even that though, from the teenagers self producing to the softcore studios to the actual rape and abuse filmed by molesters.
I will say that I find it completely arbitrary that the US has ruled the following image of Brooke Shields as art and not child porn: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/6248757/Brooke-Shields-photographer-disappointed-by-police-pornography-claim.html (cropped photo, full thing is legal in US but possibly considered CP in UK and probably CP in other countries so not gonna post link to full picture but you can find it on google really easily if you look)
http://www.artlyst.com/articles/police-censor-richard-prince-photograph-at-tate-modern
The work in the Pop Life exhibition,also titled Spiritual America was due to go on public show at Tate Modern today. It has now been voluntarily withdrawn after a warning from Scotland Yard that the nude image of heavily made up actor Brooke Shields, aged 10 could break obscenity laws. The pop artist Richard Prince reuses the image taken,by Gary Gross when Brooke was 10. Shields's mother authorised the shoot, and the photographs appeared in a Playboy Press book entitled "Sugar and Spice" (wow,where were they at in the 1970's???) In 1981 Shields launched legal action aimed at preventing further use of the pictures. It was unsuccessful.
but the softcore images from Eastern Europe of course are all child porn, when many of them are to the best of my knowledge essentially identical. In both cases the parents consent, the child consented at the time (although as we can see in the case of Brooke Shields, she later wished she had not, which makes sense since she was 10 at the time and a 10 year old pressured by her mother can not be seen as consenting in my eyes), and in both cases the family was paid. So it is essentially identical to much of the softcore Eastern European CP, so why is it the courts say people go to prison for that but in the case of Brooke Shields they say she cannot have it classified as CP or restrict people from looking at it? It is arbitrary bullshit and people are going to prison over shit like this in some cases and in other cases they get the blessing of the US government.
>:( To suggest I'm not looking at things objectively when you have put forward this farcical claim that people won't have any money if CP is shut down in their country, is beyond comprehension.
Well, I am sure people still have money in Ukraine now that all of the production studios have been shut down. The production studios generally claimed to be making art, much like the Brooke Shields photograph was claimed to be art and ruled as such by the US courts, and not to be making child porn, but later on in their careers I think they started taking even more suggestive photographs. In any case they were not taking photographs of rape and torture and snuff, and they do account for a huge percentage of CP produced so I really want to see the citations for these "almost all" and 70% statistics.
>:( You would have to be a pedo yourself or completely insane to allow children to suffer such horrific abuse. >:( You wouldn't have a clue about anything I have so shove your assumptions up your ass champ. >:( Your reasoning is absurd and completely irrational to anybody with a shred of intelligence. >:( Only a twisted, idiotic, vile fool like yourself could put forward the preposterous notion that people can't eat or pay bills without their children being raped and abused during CP scenes, which are taped or photographed so sick bastards like you JohnTheBaptist, can get off!
I don't think any of the Eastern European CP from the two major studios even had penetration. It was mostly semi nude and nude posing as far as I can tell, not going to actually go looking through it as that would be illegal and would result in me getting ass raped in prison for some reason. I think most of it wasn't much different from that infamous Brooke Shields photograph series. It probably also really did help with the bills for the poor people in the areas it was made in, but hey I agree that child abuse to pay the bills is no justification for child abuse. That is an even more libertarian argument that what I am putting forth (many libertarians are in favor of legalized child prostitution in cirumstances where the child can pick between starving to death and prostitution, I am not going to get into that can of worms right now).
You, like your best mate, will hopefully one day end up in prison, where you'll get what you deserve once the general population gets wind of why your there. >:( They love people like you in there. :P You can tell them your justifications for looking at such sick, vile acts on poor, innocent children and I'm sure they'll lend you a shoulder to cry on. Next you'll probably claim that you don't even look at CP?? Go to hell!! >:(
Certainly I do not try to look at anything I would consider to depict children in pornographic situations, largely due to the fact that I don't find myself as being sexually attracted to children.
-
Now convinced this thread was created for you to meet a Godwin quota.
-
Now convinced this thread was created for you to meet a Godwin quota.
Didn't you hear? Godwin is a thought terminating cliche, and I am not suffering from cognitive dissonance.
You: Say that you are against people viewing images of child abuse because it revictimizes the child, or whatever
I: Point out that pictures of the holocaust depict many victimized children, but that you are not against people viewing these pictures
You: Hold two contadictory beliefs at the same time
1. People should not be free to look at images of child abuse (CP)
2. People should be free to look at images of child abuse (Holocaust Pictures)
this induces cognitive dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.
to deal with your cognitive dissonance, you invoke "Godwins law" which is a thought terminating cliche: http://philosophy.thecastsite.com/readings/anonymous2.html
A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.
-
Bro bro. You're so defensive you don't even remember who you're arguing with. I didn't say any of those things, I just made a Godwin joke. I've mostly lost interest in the topic, as you've laid out all of your cards.
I'm an ENTP myself, and do enjoy debating for the sake of the debate, but I prefer dynamic, evolving arguments where both sides learn and maybe even shift on ideas to your standard message board back and forth. I'm surprised you're not bored yet. But I may just have a shorter attention span.
Anyway. Carry on.
-
Bro bro. You're so defensive you don't even remember who you're arguing with. I didn't say any of those things, I just made a Godwin joke. I've mostly lost interest in the topic, as you've laid out all of your cards.
I'm an ENTP myself, and do enjoy debating for the sake of the debate, but I prefer dynamic, evolving arguments where both sides learn and maybe even shift on ideas to your standard message board back and forth. I'm surprised you're not bored yet. But I may just have a shorter attention span.
Anyway. Carry on.
OP likes to debate for the sake of exercising his fingers. I think everyone in this thread lost interest in what kmf had to say by about page 2. But it's fun to continue to quote random shit off google and watch this guy attack it as if it were 14 year old snatch.
-
Bro bro. You're so defensive you don't even remember who you're arguing with. I didn't say any of those things, I just made a Godwin joke. I've mostly lost interest in the topic, as you've laid out all of your cards.
I'm an ENTP myself, and do enjoy debating for the sake of the debate, but I prefer dynamic, evolving arguments where both sides learn and maybe even shift on ideas to your standard message board back and forth. I'm surprised you're not bored yet. But I may just have a shorter attention span.
Anyway. Carry on.
OP likes to debate for the sake of exercising his fingers. I think everyone in this thread lost interest in what kmf had to say by about page 2. But it's fun to continue to quote random shit off google and watch this guy attack it as if it were 14 year old snatch.
Debating with you have never been a debate, because all you do is quote random shit off Google. Nice to know you are just a troll though, for a while I thought you might really be a bit retarded.
-
Debating with you have never been a debate
Yup. Nailed it.
-
Debating with you have never been a debate
Yup. Nailed it.
I'm with you Praetorian. What kmfkewm doesn't understand is that there is nothing to debate about the issue of Child Pornography FULL STOP!! Any person who gets enjoyment or sexual pleasure from looking at CP is FUCKED IN THE HEAD.
-
Debating with you have never been a debate
Yup. Nailed it.
I'm with you Praetorian. What kmfkewm doesn't understand is that there is nothing to debate about the issue of Child Pornography FULL STOP!! Any person who gets enjoyment or sexual pleasure from looking at CP is FUCKED IN THE HEAD.
Get your cock out pretorian, wadozo want's to swallow it, and rim your bottom., " I'm with you pretorain, you should be because " Fucked in the head" is hardly an argument is it? now come back when you have a valid point, and you can articulate it. Lets rewrite history, if you watch CP you're "fucked in the head"
-
Looks like Jekkyl and Hyde, has struck. Now how long did it take to sign into your alter ego accounts and neg 9 times. Very sad and disturbed individual, is all I want to say. Seek help.
-
Debating with you have never been a debate
Yup. Nailed it.
I'm with you Praetorian. What kmfkewm doesn't understand is that there is nothing to debate about the issue of Child Pornography FULL STOP!! Any person who gets enjoyment or sexual pleasure from looking at CP is FUCKED IN THE HEAD.
Get your cock out pretorian, wadozo want's to swallow it, and rim your bottom., " I'm with you pretorain, you should be because " Fucked in the head" is hardly an argument is it? now come back when you have a valid point, and you can articulate it. Lets rewrite history, if you watch CP you're "fucked in the head"
" Fucked in the head" is hardly an argument is it?
It's not an argument JohnTheDickhead, it's a FACT. Pin dick wankers like you, who look at CP for their own sexual gratification, are exactly that, FUCKED IN THE HEAD.
My point is that you and all your pin dick pedophile friends are vile, sick creatures who deserve to rot in jail! >:(
Lets rewrite history, if you watch CP you're "fucked in the head"
No one's rewriting history you uneducated dope. ??? It's always been the case that pedophiles are hated by society and are equivocally fucked in the head. ::) To suggest otherwise would only confirm what I've already said. I only hope you come to the attention of LE and are caught with CP. Then you can tell all your mates in jail what you're in for. I would love to see that. >:( >:(
PS - I don't have any other accounts but my own. ??? You've been negged 9 times because the decent people on this forum hate pedophiles and what they do to poor, innocent children. >:( You're the sick bastard who needs help. >:( Calling me sad and disturbed is irony at it's best. ??? ??? ???
-
Damn wazado you are one emotional motherfucker. Could you possibly make more emoticons in your post?
No one's rewriting history you uneducated dope. ??? It's always been the case that pedophiles are hated by society and are equivocally fucked in the head. ::) To suggest otherwise would only confirm what I've already said. I only hope you come to the attention of LE and are caught with CP. Then you can tell all your mates in jail what you're in for. I would love to see that. >:( >:(
Well, technically speaking that isn't exactly true. In the Greek and Roman empires hebephilia and some pedophilia was largely accepted and quite common especially in homosexual relationships. A quick search shows other ancient cultures involved in such activities include Phoenicians, Persians and Galatians. Hm looks like China, Korea and Japan used to commonly have adult child male relationships as well. So actually historically hebephilia and upper age pedophilia were pretty much part of the culture of large parts of the world. In Afganistan the practice of Bacheh-baazi is common and tolerated to this day, and it entails the sexual use of some times even enslaved boys.
Additionally, for the majority of human history (up to about 1900) females were married at about age 12 or 13, both of which are technically in the pedophilic age range by the current definition of it under the DSM. So actually there is a good argument that for the majority of human history, what is now called pedophilia was typical, often the norm. Of course Hebephilia is likely more appropriate terminology for this, but people have been engaging in pedophile age range creep and it now goes up to 13 instead of 'the onset of puberty', which has the hilarious effect of making it so that pedophilia was dominant for almost all of human history lol.
You've been negged 9 times
I have been negged 42 times since I started this thread :D
-
Damn wazado you are one emotional motherfucker. Could you possibly make more emoticons in your post?
No one's rewriting history you uneducated dope. ??? It's always been the case that pedophiles are hated by society and are equivocally fucked in the head. ::) To suggest otherwise would only confirm what I've already said. I only hope you come to the attention of LE and are caught with CP. Then you can tell all your mates in jail what you're in for. I would love to see that. >:( >:(
Well, technically speaking that isn't exactly true. In the Greece and Roman empires hebephilia and some pedophilia was largely accepted and quite common especially in homosexual relationships. A quick search shows other ancient cultures involved in such activities include Phoenicians, Persians and Galatians. Hm looks like China, Korea and Japan used to commonly have adult child male relationships as well. So actually historically hebephilia and upper age pedophilia were pretty much part of the culture of large parts of the world. In Afganistan the practice of Bacheh-baazi is common and tolerated to this day, and it entails the sexual use of some times even enslaved boys.
Additionally, for the majority of human history (up to about 1900) females were married at about age 12 or 13, both of which are technically in the pedophilic age range by the current definition of it under the DSM. So actually there is a good argument that for the majority of human history, what is now called pedophilia was typical, often the norm. Of course Hebephilia is likely more appropriate terminology for this, but people have been engaging in pedophile age range creep and it now goes up to 13 instead of 'the onset of puberty', which has the hilarious effect of making it so that pedophilia was dominant for almost all of human history lol.
kmfkewm, firstly it's Wadozo, not wazado. The emoticons are portraying my feeling of anger towards this bullshit. I could have put more in and should have! >:( >:(
Secondly, it's more than just an issue of emotion. I don't personally know these children who have been subjected to such brutality but that doesn't stop me from feeling emotional about what they've had to endure. It's horrific!! This is about human decency, morality and protecting those kids who are young and vulnerable so their innocence isn't taken away by a sick, twisted, vile pedophile. Only a cold, heartless individual would be able to not show any emotion regarding the abuse of children.
Finally, stop living in the past mate! You relate things that happened many (50 - 1000+) years ago to modern day life. Things have changed a lot since the ancient cultures you refer to. I'd like to think that we as humans, have learned from our past and have a complete understanding of what's right or wrong. This is 2013 kmfkewm. The Roman empire is no more. Get with the times and stop comparing apples with oranges. ???
-
Hey I am not saying we should run out and be allowed to fuck 12 year olds and have society celebrate the wonders of man boy sex again, I am just saying that your quote
It's always been the case that pedophiles are hated by society and are equivocally fucked in the head.
is actually completely wrong, in that for all of human history save the past 150 or so years, what is today considered pedophilia was considered to be normal as shit.
-
Cerainly many of the children depicted in CP are depicted being abused. However, unless you believe in photographs having magical properties, you must admit that the following logic holds:
A. Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict genocide
B. Viewing pictures of the holocaust is not the same as causing genocide to happen
What you are saying here is definitely true, but it is not really applicable to the child pornography argument. You are attempting to equate fundamentally different things.
Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict a historical event. They are propagated and shoved into the collective human consciousness as a reminder and warning about the nature of our more evil impulses when left unchecked. Perhaps most importantly, there will never again be new pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust. This is where your argument unravels.
There's no point playing the reduction game that followed this, because these are not comparable concepts. The problem with CP in this context is that children continue to be harmed in the making of it. Perhaps if you had a proposal to effectively halt to all new CP production, you would see less vitriolic reactions to your position. Until then, it is difficult for people to understand you speaking this way in any other context than the reality we all live in, where innocent children are having their lives ripped from them by those who clearly do/should know better. People who must be sought out, caught, and removed from society. It is *especially* difficult for people to think in this context (no more new CP) because you yourself have failed to propose/clarify it, and are apparently perfectly happy to be misunderstood as long as it gets you lulz.
-
Cerainly many of the children depicted in CP are depicted being abused. However, unless you believe in photographs having magical properties, you must admit that the following logic holds:
A. Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict genocide
B. Viewing pictures of the holocaust is not the same as causing genocide to happen
What you are saying here is definitely true, but it is not really applicable to the child pornography argument. You are attempting to equate fundamentally different things.
Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict a historical event. They are propagated and shoved into the collective human consciousness as a reminder and warning about the nature of our more evil impulses when left unchecked. Perhaps most importantly, there will never again be new pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust. This is where your argument unravels.
There's no point playing the reduction game that followed this, because these are not comparable concepts. The problem with CP in this context is that children continue to be harmed in the making of it. Perhaps if you had a proposal to effectively halt to all new CP production, you would see less vitriolic reactions to your position. Until then, it is difficult for people to understand you speaking this way in any other context than the reality we all live in, where innocent children are having their lives ripped from them by those who clearly do/should know better. People who must be sought out, caught, and removed from society. It is *especially* difficult for people to think in this context (no more new CP) because you yourself have failed to propose/clarify it, and are apparently perfectly happy to be misunderstood as long as it gets you lulz.
A beautifully articulated post abitpeckish and I whole heartedly agree with everything you've written. +1 to you. :)
in that for all of human history save the past 150 or so years, what is today considered pedophilia was considered to be normal as shit.
What a load of bullshit kmfkewm! ::) If you believe that, then you must believe in fairies! :o :o So for example, in the US or Australia back in the 1850's, your suggesting a person storing and looking at photographs of children being brutally raped and abused against their will by adult pedophiles was considered "normal as shit"?? That's incomprehensible and a completely fictitious statement. ???
-
What a load of bullshit kmfkewm! ::) If you believe that, then you must believe in fairies! :o :o So for example, in the US or Australia back in the 1850's, your suggesting a person storing and looking at photographs of children being brutally raped and abused against their will by adult pedophiles was considered "normal as shit"?? That's incomprehensible and a completely fictitious statement. ???
I mean, you can verify this shit if you want to. Pedophilia is considered a proper diagnosis in any case where a person over 16 has sex with a minor 13 or under and I believe 4 years younger than the subject. In the 1850's the age of consent in Australia was 10.
1882 The age of consent for girls is raised from 10 to 14 years of age.
and didn't get raised to the reasonable age of 14 until 1882. I have no idea the average age of wives in 1850's Australia , but I imagine 12 and 13 year old wives were not rare by any means. Here is a citation for 13 and 14 year old wives being common in 18th century America
http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/html/colonialwoman.htm
Both men and women had great social pressure on them to marry. Young girls were often married by the age of 13 or 14.
I can actually find many citations in any direction in regard to historic marriage of those 12-13, ranging from "it happened rather uncommonly" all the way to "it happened all the damn time".
prior to the 16th century:
Marriages were often arranged when the girls were only three of four years old. The law stated at the time that a girl as young as seven was capable of consenting to marriage. However, the marriage could not be consummated until the girl was 12 years old. In the 14th century courts were unwilling to convict rapists when the victim was pregnant. It was generally believed that her pregnancy signalled God's approval of the marriage.
Before modern history (16th century), child marriage was a common practice found everywhere in the world. With the advent of 20th century, the practice began to be questioned, discouraged by a majority but not all governments, and child marriage practice has been declining across the world.
that is the best I am going to do for right now, it shows citation for marriage to 13 year olds (pedophilia today) being common in 18th century America, and child brides 12 and 13 as being a common practice found everywhere in the world prior to the 16th century. The age of consent laws didn't make what today can be diagonsed as pedophilia illegal in Australia until the very end of the 19th century, but I don't know how widespread it was practiced at that point in time. I can find several citations for relatively high average ages of marriage in the 19th and 18th century European countries, but with legal marriage to those 12 and older practiced uncommonly. I can also find some citations that go against this and claim that child brides were more common during these periods.
So yeah the more modern you get the less widespread pedophilic practices were, with a sharp drop off in the 16th century but not totally extinguished and made illegal until the mid to late 19th century, with possible normality/popularity maintained into at least the mid 18th century according to some sources.
-
Of course I have to admit this is somewhat of a technicality, most people would think of pedophiles as attracted to those who have not reached puberty with hebephiles attracted to those who have reached the early stages of puberty. However, by the clinical definition of pedophilia today attraction up to age 13 counts, and some people are pushing (so far failing) to get it raised to 14. I call it pedophile age range creep. Their ultimate goal is probably to get it raised to 16 and merge pedophilia hebephilia and ephebephilia, but so far hebephilia is hanging on to its uniqueness by a thread (the age 14 is the only thing that distinguished it from pedophilia at this time, although technically hebephilia isn't considered a mental illness and includes attraction to those 11 to 14, pedophilia includes attraction to those 2-13).
So although it is fair to say pedophilia was indeed more accepted in the past, it was still generally shunned for most of human history, with hebephilia having been far more accepted in the recent past to the start of history. But since the rabid crusaders have merged pedophilia into hebephilia they have made it so that pedophilia was historically quite common and socially acceptable, which I find to be hilarious.
-
In fact I think Spain is one of the most recent countries to completely outlaw pedophilic relationships, in 2013 they raised (or are in the process of raising, I am not sure) the age of consent above 13 years old. Today pedophilic relationships are only allowed in a few countries (Japan for example has age of consent at 13, also they have legalized possession of child pornography and about 90% of their citizens are against censoring access to CP, and they only made hardcore CP illegal to distribute in 2003 after heavy international pressure to do so, while keeping softcore CP legal to distribute), many countries have never made hebephilia completely illegal (attraction to 11-14, 14 is age of consent in several developed countries today, including Germany), and the majority of countries still have ephebophilia partially or completely legal, with a few exceptions, primarily the USA has completely outlawed ephebophilia in many of its states, and Australia and the UK have partial bans on it as well.
The US is the primary force leading to the global criminalization of CP viewers and ephebephiles, with the UK and Australia being almost but not quite as bad. If not for US influence the global age of consent average would likely be a good bit lower, for example they pressured Canada into raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. They also pressured Japan into making the distribution of hardcore CP illegal.
-
In fact I think Spain is one of the most recent countries to completely outlaw pedophilic relationships, in 2013 they raised (or are in the process of raising, I am not sure) the age of consent above 13 years old. Today pedophilic relationships are only allowed in a few countries (Japan for example has age of consent at 13, also they have legalized possession of child pornography and about 90% of their citizens are against censoring access to CP, and they only made hardcore CP illegal to distribute in 2003 after heavy international pressure to do so, while keeping softcore CP legal to distribute), many countries have never made hebephilia completely illegal (attraction to 11-14, 14 is age of consent in several developed countries today, including Germany), and the majority of countries still have ephebophilia partially or completely legal, with a few exceptions, primarily the USA has completely outlawed ephebophilia in many of its states, and Australia and the UK have partial bans on it as well.
The US is the primary force leading to the global criminalization of CP viewers and ephebephiles, with the UK and Australia being almost but not quite as bad. If not for US influence the global age of consent average would likely be a good bit lower, for example they pressured Canada into raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. They also pressured Japan into making the distribution of hardcore CP illegal.
In Australia, the legal age of consent is 16. However, it is illegal to view any form of pornography where any of the participants are under 18 years of age. Australia is very strict on the policing of CP, and rightly so. It's not tolerated in any part of the community. Good on the US for putting pressure on countries with lax CP laws. Keeping sustained pressure on these countries will eventually force them to reconsider their positions and clean up their acts.
-
Wadozo you fucking bozo, look at your fucking avatar you fucking queer.Who the fuck are you calling a dickhead? piece of shit. Don't fucking insult my intelligence, you have got other accounts you little Rat. Stop brown nosing Kwfk, you have been out witted and out smarted, so after copying of pretorian with the apples and oranges shit, you're now sucking back up the O,P s arse aren't you.
You think people who are against flogging and castration are peadophiles? what a prick, because \I can judge things dispassionately and look objectively, I'm a peado. Listen you Australian grass, I know all about you, When DPR posts and your sucking his balls, did you ever think about the massive contradiction you are making? You're meant to be a Libertarian, then the next minute you're saying all people who look at it should be hanged, do you see the insurmountable contradiction? you fucking homosexual. And by the way it's unequivocally, dickhead. You haven't the brain power to debate when your stupid comments are hang em high orientated. you were telling somebody all about how good the O,P is a this and that an generally sucking dick ( that's always been you grass) then you're over here 2 mins later acting like a fucking jerk aren't you? By the way your theory that all people who look at CP are as you so eloquently put it " Fucked in the head" well that will go down with Einsteins theory of relativity, and Darwins theory of evolution won't it. Come on dickhead, enthrall me with your acumen, with out copying of other people put across a valid point, grass.....I'm fucking waiting you piece of Australian shit.
You are one dumb ass illiterate prick, that's for sure. >:( It's impossible for me or anyone to insult your intelligence John! You don't have any to insult! What has my avatar got to do with anything? ??? You're drawing a long bow there, a low bow about something completely irrelevant. ???
Your post is a load of meaningless, incoherent dribble about things that have nothing to do with me whatsoever. Judging by your punctuation skills, you're either currently in grade 5 or left high school at a young age. Either way, the literacy skills of a child. ::)
I don't have any other account you fuck wit, not one single forum account other than this one. What's the name of my other accounts?
I'm brown nosing kmfkewm??? This comment alone shows how fucking stupid you actually are. You're off your nut John. ??? ??? ???
Copying Pretorian with the apples and oranges comparison analogy?? I've used this phrase on numerous occasions dickhead. Check my posts if you want. Another ridiculous observation by dopey John, not to mention a pointless one! ???
You know all about me do you John?? Please, do tell? I'd love to hear what you have to say!
What are you talking about when you say "when DPR posts, I'm sucking his balls?" ??? First of all, show me a thread that I've even posted in where DPR either started it or was actively posting in? Come on John, show us what you've got? I've never even asked DPR a question or commented on a thread he started. Another untruth by you John. >:( More bullshit fro a dope clutching at straws!! ???
I'm not a Libertarian and have never claimed to be? Again, show me a thread where I have posted otherwise. More bullshit from this wanker. >:(
John the pedo, stick your convoluted, incoherent ideas, theories and thoughts up your ass and fuck off to where ever you came from. You're obviously grammatically challenged and could do with a stint in primary school. Jump on a Qantas (there's no U in Qantas dopey) flight and come to Oz. I'm sure you'll know where to find me. >:(
-
A beautifully articulated post abitpeckish and I whole heartedly agree with everything you've written. +1 to you. :)
If you agree, then stop letting kmfkewm direct the discussion. He has failed to justify the context in which he stands, and yet you're validating a discussion he wishes to have *within* that context. Refuse to engage until he justifies his starting position.
We can know that CP is wrong because it willfully imposes great suffering upon those who are not yet capable of understanding what is happening to them. CP is still being made, which means that people are still inflicting terrible suffering upon the innocent.
Pedo/hebe/ephebo-philia in *thought* is clearly a manifestation of the human brain, and as such is difficult to quantify as categorically bad. However: excessive attachment to those thoughts, obsession with those thoughts, and *acting* on those thoughts are clearly manifestations of a *malfunctioning* human brain.
We must all choose the thoughts/emotions/impulses we attach to whenever we can, and people that are dangerously malfunctioning in this regard can be rightly removed from greater society without any need for anger or retribution. Which is the same thing as saying they *should* be removed from greater society, without any need for anger or retribution.
-
Definition of irony anyone? Getting called illiterate by someone who said the following " Its always been true that peadophiles are hated by society and equivocally fucked in the head" listen what are you on about? you mean " unequivocally fucked in the head. Don't use words you don't understand . So all your bullshit and the stupid childish emoticons and we are no further enlightened. I'll ask again, don't worry if I've missed a letter out of one word, don't detract from the issue, tell us without copying other people. Like I said you haven't the intellectual capacity to debate with the O,P you just quote other people and chime in with your fabricated bullshit. Lets have it right, you are a dunce aren't you? People won't take you serious with that avatar, and you know you're a dimwitt You see which way the general consensus is swaying toward and jump on the bandwagon, have some balls and state your point , stop brown nosing and flattering, deceiving and generally being anti social. I'm on to your lies do you hear me?
-
In Australia, the legal age of consent is 16. However, it is illegal to view any form of pornography where any of the participants are under 18 years of age. Australia is very strict on the policing of CP, and rightly so.
So fuck 16 year olds all you want, but if you dare look at a picture they took of themselves flashing their mirror, you deserve to go and be raped to death in prison for the rest of your life because you are a sick dangerous sexual deviant? That makes a lot of sense! I guess if I ever go to Australia I should just find 16 year olds to have sex with instead of look at jailbait pictures on the internet, lol.
It's not tolerated in any part of the community. Good on the US for putting pressure on countries with lax CP laws. Keeping sustained pressure on these countries will eventually force them to reconsider their positions and clean up their acts.
I doubt that some of these countries ever change, CP is very culturally accepted in Japan and all the US imperialism in the world is not going to get them to ban it. If anything the war on CP viewers is going to fizzle out as the diplomatic power of the imperialist US continues to fall. There is no real gain to be had by putting people in prison for viewing CP, other than brainwashed emotional fucktards such as yourself will feel warm and fuzzy about it.
-
pointless trolling
Please address the fundamental problems with your starting position. You haven't even begun to make a valid point until you begin in a valid context.
-
If you agree, then stop letting kmfkewm direct the discussion. He has failed to justify the context in which he stands, and yet you're validating a discussion he wishes to have *within* that context. Refuse to engage until he justifies his starting position.
What? I think I have justified my position quite well through out this entire thread. I have not got around to making a reply to your previous post yet, but I will do so right now. I spent most of yesterday trying to find how common child marriage was in 1850's Australia, and didn't have time to answer your post as well. I think my previous posts have at least proven than wadozo's claim that pedophilia has always been hated by the community is certainly completely incorrect, and given citations that pedophilia (by todays definition) was extremely common and socially acceptable everywhere up to the 16th century, and stretching into the 19th century, and still legal to practice in some places even today. This seems to mean that people engaging in pedophilic relationships WERE the community for almost all of human history, and that they have only been seen as evil in the past hundred and fifty years or so. Certainly today the rabidness against them is at an all time high. However this is a technicality, as I said, due to the fact that pedophilia includes attraction to those up to 13 years old. Essentially you can either admit that attraction to 12 and 13 year olds is not pedophilia, or you have to admit that pedophilia was widespread and socially accepted for most of human history.
We can know that CP is wrong because it willfully imposes great suffering upon those who are not yet capable of understanding what is happening to them. CP is still being made, which means that people are still inflicting terrible suffering upon the innocent.
Why do all of your arguments make it sound like I am saying it should be legal to produce CP? I never have claimed this. The problem I think is that your mind is incapable of seeing the trees in the forest but rather can only view the forest as a whole. This is characterized by your use of the phrase "CP is wrong". You see, I don't argue anything about the morality of CP, rather I break it down into "CP viewing", "CP distribution", "CP production of softcore material", "CP production of hardcore material / rape" , "self produced CP", "Jailbait", etc. This allows me to analyze the individual components of "CP" and come to independent conclusions on their morality, whereas you seem incapable of looking at things as the parts that make them up and rather are forced to look at things as a whole.
Pedo/hebe/ephebo-philia in *thought* is clearly a manifestation of the human brain, and as such is difficult to quantify as categorically bad. However: excessive attachment to those thoughts, obsession with those thoughts, and *acting* on those thoughts are clearly manifestations of a *malfunctioning* human brain.
The consensus of the mental health community is at odds with this statement. Hebephilia and ephebophilia are not considered mental illnesses despite a small fringe group of crusaders lobbying for this to be the case. Additionally, it is pretty well accepted that average males are non-exclusive ephebophiles, so your argument is essentially that males have malfunctioning brains.
We must all choose the thoughts/emotions/impulses we attach to whenever we can, and people that are dangerously malfunctioning in this regard can be rightly removed from greater society without any need for anger or retribution. Which is the same thing as saying they *should* be removed from greater society, without any need for anger or retribution.
Your claim that hebephiles and ephebophiles have malfunctioning brains is contested by the mental health community, so the basis for your argument is largely on a notion pulled out of your own ass.
What you are saying here is definitely true, but it is not really applicable to the child pornography argument. You are attempting to equate fundamentally different things.
No they are fundamentally identical.
Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict a historical event.
Pictures made with cameras inherently depict historical events.
They are propagated and shoved into the collective human consciousness as a reminder and warning about the nature of our more evil impulses when left unchecked.
And you think that no CP is a visual depiction of the evil unchecked impulses of humans?
Perhaps most importantly, there will never again be new pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust. This is where your argument unravels.
A child who turns 18 will never have pornography of them produced again that is illegal to view. On the other hand, there will still be war crimes carried out in the future, and the pictures of these crimes will still be legal to view. My argument certainly does not "unravel" here, you can merely replace the instance of the behavior "the holocaust" with the genus of the behavior "war crimes" and now your argument has fallen apart.
There's no point playing the reduction game that followed this, because these are not comparable concepts.
They are totally comparable concepts, sorry that I reduced your logic to absurdity.
The problem with CP in this context is that children continue to be harmed in the making of it.
Children continue to be harmed by war crimes.... (the holocaust is an individual historical instance of a behavior)
Children depicted in pornography who have now turned 18 do not continue to be harmed by people making child porn... (the present time behavior of making CP does not continue to effect individuals who were affected by it in the past but who can no longer be depicted as the children victims of CP production)
so either I can argue that you are wrong because you place improper importance on the historic property of the instance of a behavior, or I can run along with your argument and claim that it should be legal to view CP of children who have now turned 18, as they cannot continue to be harmed by the production of CP.
Perhaps if you had a proposal to effectively halt to all new CP production, you would see less vitriolic reactions to your position. Until then, it is difficult for people to understand you speaking this way in any other context than the reality we all live in, where innocent children are having their lives ripped from them by those who clearly do/should know better. People who must be sought out, caught, and removed from society. It is *especially* difficult for people to think in this context (no more new CP) because you yourself have failed to propose/clarify it, and are apparently perfectly happy to be misunderstood as long as it gets you lulz.
Sure there are some ways we can reduce the amount of new CP, probably nobody can completely halt it though. I note that you are not against banning people from viewing photographs of the holocaust despite the fact that war crimes continue and are still being photographed today. One way to reduce the amount of CP production is by legalizing the viewing of CP, since studies in every country that has legalized the viewing of CP show that this causes the rate of child sexual abuse to fall significantly. Also, you continue to switch back and forth between arguing against legalizing CP and then using reasoning that only argues against legalizing the production of CP.
-
If you agree, then stop letting kmfkewm direct the discussion. He has failed to justify the context in which he stands, and yet you're validating a discussion he wishes to have *within* that context. Refuse to engage until he justifies his starting position.
What? I think I have justified my position quite well through out this entire thread. I have not got around to making a reply to your previous post yet, but I will do so right now. I spent most of yesterday trying to find how common child marriage was in 1850's Australia, and didn't have time to answer your post as well. I think my previous posts have at least proven than wadozo's claim that pedophilia has always been hated by the community is certainly completely incorrect, and given citations that pedophilia (by todays definition) was extremely common and socially acceptable everywhere up to the 16th century, and stretching into the 19th century, and still legal to practice in some places even today. This seems to mean that people engaging in pedophilic relationships WERE the community for almost all of human history, and that they have only been seen as evil in the past hundred and fifty years or so. Certainly today the rabidness against them is at an all time high. However this is a technicality, as I said, due to the fact that pedophilia includes attraction to those up to 13 years old. Essentially you can either admit that attraction to 12 and 13 year olds is not pedophilia, or you have to admit that pedophilia was widespread and socially accepted for most of human history.
I have no problem taking your words and evidence so far that "pedophilia was widespread and socially accepted for most of human history". The same can be said of many horrific human behaviors including, off the top of my head: slavery, bear baiting, vivisection, circumcision (esp. female), genocide. Our historical views of these practices were clearly incorrect, and the same can be said of CP.
We can know that CP is wrong because it willfully imposes great suffering upon those who are not yet capable of understanding what is happening to them. CP is still being made, which means that people are still inflicting terrible suffering upon the innocent.
Why do all of your arguments make it sound like I am saying it should be legal to produce CP? I never have claimed this.
When arguing about a disturbing topic such as this, it is *your* responsibility to make clear the context in which you are operating. As I said above, it appears that you simply prefer being controversial over being clearly understood.
The problem I think is that your mind is incapable of seeing the trees in the forest but rather can only view the forest as a whole. This is characterized by your use of the phrase "CP is wrong". You see, I don't argue anything about the morality of CP, rather I break it down into "CP viewing", "CP distribution", "CP production of softcore material", "CP production of hardcore material / rape" , "self produced CP", "Jailbait", etc. This allows me to analyze the individual components of "CP" and come to independent conclusions on their morality, whereas you seem incapable of looking at things as the parts that make them up and rather are forced to look at things as a whole.
The problem in my mind, hm? I'm fairly sure I granted you that "CP viewing" may indeed be a valid form of preventing pedophiles from acting on their desires. Let's see:
Perhaps if you had a proposal to effectively halt to all new CP production, you would see less vitriolic reactions to your position
I guess that's a pretty soft way of saying it. If it wasn't clear to you before, it should be now.
But we're still left with the problem of CP *production* which, regardless of your attempts toward "seeing the trees", ignores that those trees currently exist in a putrid and very much thriving forest of suffering and despair. This must be solved or at least positively addressed before we can even begin to have the conversation you're attempting to have. If you don't see this you should really sit quietly for some time and contemplate why, because it is *clearly* true.
Pedo/hebe/ephebo-philia in *thought* is clearly a manifestation of the human brain, and as such is difficult to quantify as categorically bad. However: excessive attachment to those thoughts, obsession with those thoughts, and *acting* on those thoughts are clearly manifestations of a *malfunctioning* human brain.
The consensus of the mental health community is at odds with this statement. Hebephilia and ephebophilia are not considered mental illnesses despite a small fringe group of crusaders lobbying for this to be the case. Additionally, it is pretty well accepted that average males are non-exclusive ephebophiles, so your argument is essentially that males have malfunctioning brains.
Please read what I wrote and you quoted again, this time for comprehension. I never said hebe/ephebo-philia are mental illnesses. I said that acting excessively attaching, obsessing over, and acting on those kinds of thoughts are mainfestations of a malfunctioning brain. Ultimately it's the acting that's the real problem here, but the compulsions and obsessions obviously precipitate the actions.
We must all choose the thoughts/emotions/impulses we attach to whenever we can, and people that are dangerously malfunctioning in this regard can be rightly removed from greater society without any need for anger or retribution. Which is the same thing as saying they *should* be removed from greater society, without any need for anger or retribution.
Your claim that hebephiles and ephebophiles have malfunctioning brains is contested by the mental health community, so the basis for your argument is largely on a notion pulled out of your own ass.
See the immediately above, and do try to refrain from obsessing over my (admittedly beautiful) ass.
What you are saying here is definitely true, but it is not really applicable to the child pornography argument. You are attempting to equate fundamentally different things.
No they are fundamentally identical.
I can't wait to read your supporting argument for this.
Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict a historical event.
Pictures made with cameras inherently depict historical events.
Playing games with language isn't going to wrangle you out of this corner. You are intentionally misinterpreting my meaning here, but allow me to restate: "Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the Holocaust depict a significant and recognizable historical period of human history in which millions of humans attempted to systematically and permanently strip an ethnicity of its dignity, livelihood, and erase it altogether."
They are propagated and shoved into the collective human consciousness as a reminder and warning about the nature of our more evil impulses when left unchecked.
And you think that no CP is a visual depiction of the evil unchecked impulses of humans?
And you believe that the intent behind most CP propagation is to teach each other a lesson about the dangers of human potential when compassion is not held as a high virtue?
Perhaps most importantly, there will never again be new pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust. This is where your argument unravels.
A child who turns 18 will never have pornography of them produced again that is illegal to view. On the other hand, there will still be war crimes carried out in the future, and the pictures of these crimes will still be legal to view. My argument certainly does not "unravel" here, you can merely replace the instance of the behavior "the holocaust" with the genus of the behavior "war crimes" and now your argument has fallen apart.
You simply do not get to invoke historical documents of collective/species level atrocities (e.g. Holocaust, war crimes, etc) as being equivalent with those committed against preyed upon individuals (e.g. child pornography). This is veiled domain switching, and it undermines anything you attempt to build upon it before your argument ever leaves the gate. In short, you have failed to carve out a valid starting position upon which your arguments can stand.
There's no point playing the reduction game that followed this, because these are not comparable concepts.
They are totally comparable concepts, sorry that I reduced your logic to absurdity.
First of all, you did no such thing. If anything, you reduced your own to absurdity.
Secondly, All human thought-in-language reduces to absurdity because communication needs context. You can have a perfectly logical argument that is also perfectly, logically wrong because the context in which it resides is faulty. Which is exactly what's happened here. Your arguments make a certain amount of sense, but the current reality in which you are arguing this is itself faulty and must be addressed.
The problem with CP in this context is that children continue to be harmed in the making of it.
Children continue to be harmed by war crimes.... (the holocaust is an individual historical instance of a behavior)
Yeah, and that continues to be wrong too.
Children depicted in pornography who have now turned 18 do not continue to be harmed by people making child porn... (the present time behavior of making CP does not continue to effect individuals who were affected by it in the past but who can no longer be depicted as the children victims of CP production)
Here you go domain-switching again. You open by referring to a collection of individuals who have already been harmed by saying they are not being harmed by new CP production...COMPLETELY ignoring that there are a continuous flow of NEW individuals being harmed by CP production. You're a smart person, this much is clear. Your empathy, however, leaves much to be desired. This should bother you.
so either I can argue that you are wrong because you place improper importance on the historic property of the instance of a behavior,
If you've successfully made this argument, I have failed to see it. Please point it out to me.
or I can run along with your argument and claim that it should be legal to view CP of children who have now turned 18, as they cannot continue to be harmed by the production of CP.
How do you know that these people are not continuously harmed by the propagation of the CP in which they are involved? How do you know that the very fact that CP continues to be produced (i.e. children continue to be abused in this way) is not increasing the suffering of these victims? Where is your support for this claim?
Perhaps if you had a proposal to effectively halt to all new CP production, you would see less vitriolic reactions to your position. Until then, it is difficult for people to understand you speaking this way in any other context than the reality we all live in, where innocent children are having their lives ripped from them by those who clearly do/should know better. People who must be sought out, caught, and removed from society. It is *especially* difficult for people to think in this context (no more new CP) because you yourself have failed to propose/clarify it, and are apparently perfectly happy to be misunderstood as long as it gets you lulz.
Sure there are some ways we can reduce the amount of new CP, probably nobody can completely halt it though.
Which is why I said "effectively". I'm not naive enough to think we can stop it completely.
I note that you are not against banning people from viewing photographs of the holocaust despite the fact that war crimes continue and are still being photographed today.
Then you should also note that this is not in any way inconsistent, as I have elaborated above.
One way to reduce the amount of CP production is by legalizing the viewing of CP, since studies in every country that has legalized the viewing of CP show that this causes the rate of child sexual abuse to fall significantly. Also, you continue to switch back and forth between arguing against legalizing CP and then using reasoning that only argues against legalizing the production of CP.
Again the problem is "where does the CP come from?". I'm all for destigmatizing hebe/ephebo-philia and possibly even pedophilia in THOUGHT form, and perhaps treatment of the impulses indeed should involve the viewing of CP while under the care of a licensed, scientifically credentialled professional who ultimately bears some responsibility for the actions of the patient. When thoughts become actions, however, that's where we have a problem and that's where your argument continues to fall flat.
-
I have no problem taking your words and evidence so far that "pedophilia was widespread and socially accepted for most of human history". The same can be said of many horrific human behaviors including, off the top of my head: slavery, bear baiting, vivisection, circumcision (esp. female), genocide. Our historical views of these practices were clearly incorrect, and the same can be said of CP.
Against Wadozo I never argued that the historic normality of pedophilia made it morally acceptable, I merely argued against his claim that it has been frowned upon throughout history. If he said that slavery has always been seen as immoral and I showed him citations that it was once very common, it would not mean I support slavery. I think 14 is a good enough age of consent and that is the age I have always argued for, that is not legalization of active pedophilia.
When arguing about a disturbing topic such as this, it is *your* responsibility to make clear the context in which you are operating. As I said above, it appears that you simply prefer being controversial over being clearly understood.
I have said multiple times in this thread that I am only arguing that it should not be illegal to look at CP, maybe you should try reading the thread some time so you can understand my position before trying to attack it.
The problem in my mind, hm? I'm fairly sure I granted you that "CP viewing" may indeed be a valid form of preventing pedophiles from acting on their desires. Let's see:
Yes your mind clearly has problems with detail analysis and it is leading you to irrational behavior that causes great harm to many people when society gets behind it. If you think CP viewing is valid outlet for pedophiles and will lead to less molestation, why are you against making it legal? Because you want more children to be molested??
Perhaps if you had a proposal to effectively halt to all new CP production, you would see less vitriolic reactions to your position
I guess that's a pretty soft way of saying it. If it wasn't clear to you before, it should be now.
Yes please be clear with your language from the start in the future, I do not want to try to decipher your implied meanings and will take everything you say at face value like any rational human would do. Saying that people would react better to me if I had a proposal to halt all production of CP does not in my mind translate into "viewing CP could be an effective outlet for pedophiles and lead to lower levels of molestation", so if that is what you mean then just say it.
But we're still left with the problem of CP *production* which, regardless of your attempts toward "seeing the trees", ignores that those trees currently exist in a putrid and very much thriving forest of suffering and despair.
Sure we should cut down the bad trees. I never said that it should be legal for people to molest kids or to produce CP. You want to spray agent orange on the entire god damn forest because some of the trees in it are bad.
This must be solved or at least positively addressed before we can even begin to have the conversation you're attempting to have. If you don't see this you should really sit quietly for some time and contemplate why, because it is *clearly* true.
Talking about ways to prevent the production of CP is largely a different conversation than talking about why it should be legal for people to view CP. The only relationship they have is the studies showing that when people are allowed to view CP, rates of child molestation decrease. You are trying to change the subject, and imply that I argue something I do not (that CP production should be legal), and therefor are kind of engaging in a strawman fallacy.
Please read what I wrote and you quoted again, this time for comprehension. I never said hebe/ephebo-philia are mental illnesses. I said that acting excessively attaching, obsessing over, and acting on those kinds of thoughts are mainfestations of a malfunctioning brain. Ultimately it's the acting that's the real problem here, but the compulsions and obsessions obviously precipitate the actions.
The mental health community does not consider acting on hebephilic or ephebophilic desire to be the manifestation of a malfunctioning brain. No mental illness listed in the DSM has attraction to or sex with those ages 14+ listed as a criteria for diagnosis. Sex or fantasies of sex with those 13 and under is a diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, and actual mental illness, the actual manifestation of a malfunctioning brain.
See the immediately above, and do try to refrain from obsessing over my (admittedly beautiful) ass.
See the immediately above. Having sex with 14+ year olds is not a diagnostic criteria for any \\ mental illness recognized by the professional community, it is only seen as a manifestation of mental illness by lay people.
Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict a historical event.
Pictures made with cameras inherently depict historical events.
Playing games with language isn't going to wrangle you out of this corner. You are intentionally misinterpreting my meaning here, but allow me to restate: "Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the Holocaust depict a significant and recognizable historical period of human history in which millions of humans attempted to systematically and permanently strip an ethnicity of its dignity, livelihood, and erase it altogether."
How am I playing games with language? You specifically said that a differentiation between pictures of the holocaust and pictures of child molestation is that pictures of the holocaust depict things that happened in the past. I was merely letting you know that all cameras take pictures that depict things in the past, inherently, it is impossible for a camera to take a picture of the immediate present due to the fact that the speed of light is finite, and also the future can not be photographed from the past either. As to your new argument, I already explained that war crimes continue today just as child molestation continues today, and instances of war crimes happened in the past just as instances of child molestation happened in the past. I do not see this differentiation you think you are so clearly showing.
And you believe that the intent behind most CP propagation is to teach each other a lesson about the dangers of human potential when compassion is not held as a high virtue?
I think in many cases people who are against CP have illegally downloaded CP at some point in their lives and confirmed to themselves why they are against it. In fact, many people on this forum who have condemned others for looking at CP have started their argument against people looking at CP with "I looked at CP and it was fucking sick, you should not be allowed to look at it!". But I do not think that it is the primary motivation behind people looking at CP, nope. Do you think if people look at pictures of the holocaust and celebrate them because they are neo Nazis, that they should then be charged with war crimes? Or does it not matter the intent with which a person looks at images of the holocaust with?
You simply do not get to invoke historical documents of collective/species level atrocities (e.g. Holocaust, war crimes, etc) as being equivalent with those committed against preyed upon individuals (e.g. child pornography). This is veiled domain switching, and it undermines anything you attempt to build upon it before your argument ever leaves the gate. In short, you have failed to carve out a valid starting position upon which your arguments can stand.
Fine, forget the holocaust, it is legal to look at the corpse of an individual who was murdered by a serial killer. If I look at such pictures does that make me a serial killer, someone who deserves to go to jail and be treated like a serial killer? What if somebody has a mental illness that causes them to be sexually attracted by dead bodies, if they look at and masturbate to the picture of a person who has been killed be a serial killer, are they then the same as a serial killer?
Children continue to be harmed by war crimes.... (the holocaust is an individual historical instance of a behavior)
Yeah, and that continues to be wrong too.
Yeah, and it continues to be legal to look at the resulting pictures, and nobody thinks we should censor the pictures.
Here you go domain-switching again. You open by referring to a collection of individuals who have already been harmed by saying they are not being harmed by new CP production...COMPLETELY ignoring that there are a continuous flow of NEW individuals being harmed by CP production. You're a smart person, this much is clear. Your empathy, however, leaves much to be desired. This should bother you.
You are the one who set the framework. Your claim was that the difference between pictures of the holocaust and pictures of molestation is that pictures of the holocaust were taken in the past and that the people depicted are no longer being executed. My counter argument was that CP pictures were all taken in the past as well, and many of those depicted are no longer at risk of being depicted in child pornography any more. Are you ignoring that there are still new war crimes being carried out, and that NEW individuals are being harmed by NEW war crimes which result in NEW pictures of war crimes? You tried to differentiate two things and failed to do so, that is all.
Empathy is something that is good to have just as it is good to have some vitamins in your body. Without any empathy you suffer from a disease. On the other hand, too much empathy is poisonous to your mind, just as having too much of a vitamin in your body is poisonous to your body. Having too much empathy leads people to irrationality and rabidness. Most people could stand to have a bit less empathy, and it would be better for the entire world if people had a bit less empathy. That said, I place the empathy that I have with the people who are being systematically hunted down, imprisoned for decades and labeled as sex offenders for life for merely viewing photographs. I think it is better to try to help these people than it is to try to help people who were molested in the past and who are impossible to help without a time machine.
If you've successfully made this argument, I have failed to see it. Please point it out to me.
You: A differentiation between pictures of CP and pictures of the holocaust is that the holocaust took place in the past and no new people are being affected by it today
Me: Pictures of CP and of the holocaust both took place in the past, and in many instances modern CP production has no affect on those who were depicted in CP in the past, just as modern war crimes have no affect on those who were depicted in the holocaust
How do you know that these people are not continuously harmed by the propagation of the CP in which they are involved? How do you know that the very fact that CP continues to be produced (i.e. children continue to be abused in this way) is not increasing the suffering of these victims? Where is your support for this claim?
Where is your support for the claim that CP production today affects those depicted in CP production of the past? A simple proof of my claim is that some of the people who have been depicted in CP in the past are now dead, so modern production cannot possibly have any affect on them.
As for people being continously harmed by the propagation of CP in which they were involved, well I think that this is largely a crock of shit as well. This is a number one argument of those who oppose the legalization of CP viewing. At one end we have the delusional people who say that every time a picture of CP is viewed, the child depicted in the picture is molested all over again. There is not much I can argue with these people because they have no rationality, it is like trying to argue with religious people that God cannot make a rock so big he cannot move it and also move it so therefor he cannot be all powerful. It is impossible to argue with people who disregard reality. On the other hand some of the people who try to be more sophisticated and less obviously retarded try to say that just knowing their CP is being viewed causes stress to the children depicted in the CP. This is an argument I can at least bother trying to argue against, as it is not based on voodoo magic. In these cases I would say that it doesn't matter if people continue to view the CP or not, the child will always have continued stress due to the *possibility* that somebody will view the CP they are depicted in. Let me go back to my PIR example.
Some child molester produces CP of Alice and uploads it to an encrypted keyword search server, tagged with keywords that indicate that it is child pornography. When Bob downloads the CP from the encrypted keyword search server, the server cannot tell that Bob is searching for CP or determine the files returned to him. Now Alice knows that she has had CP of her uploaded to this server in the past, and she knows that people could in the future download it, but she is not capable of knowing that Bob downloaded it. I argue that the mere possibility of the child pornography being viewed is what causes stress to Alice, the fact is that Alice is not capable of knowing that Bob downloaded CP featuring her, and she cannot tell if anybody has ever done so. For all she knows nobody ever searched for CP on the encrypted keyword search server, and nobody ever has seen he picture. But this is not going to remove her stress, because for all she knows somebody has downloaded and viewed her CP. The stress of Alice is not caused by Bob downloading CP featuring her, it is caused by the possibility of Bob or anybody else downloading CP featuring her, and this possibility was created by the person who originally took the photograph of Alice. So the cause of Alice's stress is from the producer of CP, not the people who are viewing her CP. If the stress of Alice is from the people viewing her CP and not from the possibility of people viewing her CP, then it makes sense to completely legalize the viewing of CP so that people viewing it are not arrested and Alice is kept from having awareness that people are viewing her CP. Currently the police inform Alice every single time they arrest someone for viewing CP featuring her, and this behavior of the police would according to you be causing a great deal of stress to Alice, and if it is not the possibility of people viewing her CP that causes stress to Alice then it is fine for people to view her CP so long as she never finds out about it (which is why the police should stop telling her).
So either
A. The stress Alice has from the propagation of her CP is the fault of the person who produced the CP, not the fault of the people viewing the CP
or
B. If the fault is on the people viewing the CP, then it is not the possibility of people viewing the CP that causes Alice stress but her awareness of instances of people viewing her CP, and therefor CP viewing should be legalized to protect Alice from this awareness
Which is why I said "effectively". I'm not naive enough to think we can stop it completely.
So do you want to talk about ways to combat CP production? Because I have some ideas for this as well, but I think this is a somewhat different topic. I think I actually have some good ideas to combat the production of CP though and wouldn't mind sharing them.
Again the problem is "where does the CP come from?". I'm all for destigmatizing hebe/ephebo-philia and possibly even pedophilia in THOUGHT form, and perhaps treatment of the impulses indeed should involve the viewing of CP while under the care of a licensed, scientifically credentialled professional who ultimately bears some responsibility for the actions of the patient. When thoughts become actions, however, that's where we have a problem and that's where your argument continues to fall flat.
hebe and ephebo philia are not even stigmatized in most of the world, especially ephebophilia is legal to act on in almost the entire world including partially in the UK and Australia.
-
Why do you feel so passionate about this kmfkewm? I mean, you must have spent hours in this thread so far, typing, researching, thinking.
I'm not insinuating you're a paedophile yourself - you've said you're not - but why then so much passion and fervour to keep on going with the argument?
-
Why do you feel so passionate about this kmfkewm? I mean, you must have spent hours in this thread so far, typing, researching, thinking.
I'm not insinuating you're a paedophile yourself - you've said you're not - but why then so much passion and fervour to keep on going with the argument?
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
-
A beautifully articulated post abitpeckish and I whole heartedly agree with everything you've written. +1 to you. :)
If you agree, then stop letting kmfkewm direct the discussion. He has failed to justify the context in which he stands, and yet you're validating a discussion he wishes to have *within* that context. Refuse to engage until he justifies his starting position.
We can know that CP is wrong because it willfully imposes great suffering upon those who are not yet capable of understanding what is happening to them. CP is still being made, which means that people are still inflicting terrible suffering upon the innocent.
Pedo/hebe/ephebo-philia in *thought* is clearly a manifestation of the human brain, and as such is difficult to quantify as categorically bad. However: excessive attachment to those thoughts, obsession with those thoughts, and *acting* on those thoughts are clearly manifestations of a *malfunctioning* human brain.
We must all choose the thoughts/emotions/impulses we attach to whenever we can, and people that are dangerously malfunctioning in this regard can be rightly removed from greater society without any need for anger or retribution. Which is the same thing as saying they *should* be removed from greater society, without any need for anger or retribution.
If you agree, then stop letting kmfkewm direct the discussion
kmfkewm can post what he wants. ??? That certainly doesn't mean it's right or he's directing the discussion. How do you propose I stop him?? ???
-
Definition of irony anyone? Getting called illiterate by someone who said the following " Its always been true that peadophiles are hated by society and equivocally fucked in the head" listen what are you on about? you mean " unequivocally fucked in the head. Don't use words you don't understand . So all your bullshit and the stupid childish emoticons and we are no further enlightened. I'll ask again, don't worry if I've missed a letter out of one word, don't detract from the issue, tell us without copying other people. Like I said you haven't the intellectual capacity to debate with the O,P you just quote other people and chime in with your fabricated bullshit. Lets have it right, you are a dunce aren't you? People won't take you serious with that avatar, and you know you're a dimwitt You see which way the general consensus is swaying toward and jump on the bandwagon, have some balls and state your point , stop brown nosing and flattering, deceiving and generally being anti social. I'm on to your lies do you hear me?
John the Cheerleader is a more appropriate name for you. Yeah, you're so intelligent that you haven't posted one single response to the claims made against me which I categorically refuted!! We all know you wouldn't know your ass from your elbow and quite frankly JohnTheBaptist, you're as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike!
Again, who's posts have I plagiarized dickhead?? Feel free to post anything here! I'm still waiting?? If you're talking about the apple and oranges analogy, like I said, feel free to look at my other posts where you will find it written plenty of times! I'm still waiting for you to show me where I was, in your words "sucking DPR's balls"?? Show me where I've even posted in one of his threads or had any correspondence with DPR? This is the second time I've asked you for proof John so either put up or SHUT UP??
have some balls and state your point , stop brown nosing and flattering, deceiving and generally being anti social. I'm on to your lies do you hear me?
Are you a mute?? You obviously cant fucking read! My point is pedophiles are the scum of the earth, vile, sick creatures who are nothing more than oxygen thieves. Any person who gets off on looking at, watching or is involved in the making of CP, doesn't deserve to see the light of day. How anyone could be sexually aroused looking at innocent children being brutally raped and abused is beyond me! >:( That's my fucking position John.
If the best you've got is I left out the "un" on unequivocally and you added the "u" to Qantas, then it's fair to say you've got nothing. It's easy to make accusations against people but it's a different story altogether when you're asked to substantiate those claims. You are without doubt, as silly as a duck. Show us all John, the evidence to prove your accusations against me or fuck off back to the hole you live in, rock spider!!
-
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
I imagine it was because they wanted to help the Jews escape persecution.
So is that it for you then too? Something along the lines of you don't like seeing paedophiles being persecuted/scapegoated etc.? Neither do I if I am honest - there were some really unpleasant scenes of vigilante-ism and press persecution of sex offenders several years ago in the UK which didn't make me feel happy about the society I live in.
I get it. Though many would probably say standing up for Jews is commendable, whereas standing up for paedophiles isn't so much. And you seem to put so much time into it. There are, in my opinion, other oppressed minority groups more deserving of our support.
-
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
I imagine it was because they wanted to help the Jews escape persecution.
So is that it for you then too? Something along the lines of you don't like seeing paedophiles being persecuted/scapegoated etc.? Neither do I if I am honest - there were some really unpleasant scenes of vigilante-ism and press persecution of sex offenders several years ago in the UK which didn't make me feel happy about the society I live in.
I get it. Though many would probably say standing up for Jews is commendable, whereas standing up for paedophiles isn't so much. And you seem to put so much time into it. There are, in my opinion, other oppressed minority groups more deserving of our support.
Well stated. +1
-
So you're saying if CP was legal to view it would take some heat off the darknet..
-
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
I imagine it was because they wanted to help the Jews escape persecution.
So is that it for you then too? Something along the lines of you don't like seeing paedophiles being persecuted/scapegoated etc.? Neither do I if I am honest - there were some really unpleasant scenes of vigilante-ism and press persecution of sex offenders several years ago in the UK which didn't make me feel happy about the society I live in.
I get it. Though many would probably say standing up for Jews is commendable, whereas standing up for paedophiles isn't so much. And you seem to put so much time into it. There are, in my opinion, other oppressed minority groups more deserving of our support.
Most Germans during WWII would have said standing up for Jews is not commendable.
-
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
I imagine it was because they wanted to help the Jews escape persecution.
So is that it for you then too? Something along the lines of you don't like seeing paedophiles being persecuted/scapegoated etc.? Neither do I if I am honest - there were some really unpleasant scenes of vigilante-ism and press persecution of sex offenders several years ago in the UK which didn't make me feel happy about the society I live in.
I get it. Though many would probably say standing up for Jews is commendable, whereas standing up for paedophiles isn't so much. And you seem to put so much time into it. There are, in my opinion, other oppressed minority groups more deserving of our support.
Most Germans during WWII would have said standing up for Jews is not commendable.
Be careful of your use of the generalizing, yet vague term "Most" ... As "Most" of the time, your use of it is unwarranted, and 'most' definitely, unfounded.
Most Germans during WWII were afraid of saying or doing anything that would get them killed. Third Reich was a dictatorship, not a Republic of the People, nor Democracy.
-
Yeah but I am asking about you and your motivation, not Germans and theirs.
I read your posts, and I wonder why you are so dedicated to it, that's all. One line answers about analogous situations don't really satisfy my curiosity. If anything they pique it all the more!
When all is said and done, you're standing up for a minority who are misunderstood and scapegoated. Cool. They aren't the most attractive of groups though, are they?
-
Yeah but I am asking about you and your motivation, not Germans and theirs.
I read your posts, and I wonder why you are so dedicated to it, that's all. One line answers about analogous situations don't really satisfy my curiosity. If anything they pique it all the more!
When all is said and done, you're standing up for a minority who are misunderstood and scapegoated. Cool. They aren't the most attractive of groups though, are they?
It's like the SATs up in here. Nazi Germans are to Pedophiles, as Children in CP are to Jews!
Makes you wonder why there is any debate at all when he puts it that way, doesn't it?
-
I have no problem taking your words and evidence so far that "pedophilia was widespread and socially accepted for most of human history". The same can be said of many horrific human behaviors including, off the top of my head: slavery, bear baiting, vivisection, circumcision (esp. female), genocide. Our historical views of these practices were clearly incorrect, and the same can be said of CP.
Against Wadozo I never argued that the historic normality of pedophilia made it morally acceptable, I merely argued against his claim that it has been frowned upon throughout history. If he said that slavery has always been seen as immoral and I showed him citations that it was once very common, it would not mean I support slavery. I think 14 is a good enough age of consent and that is the age I have always argued for, that is not legalization of active pedophilia.
When arguing about a disturbing topic such as this, it is *your* responsibility to make clear the context in which you are operating. As I said above, it appears that you simply prefer being controversial over being clearly understood.
I have said multiple times in this thread that I am only arguing that it should not be illegal to look at CP, maybe you should try reading the thread some time so you can understand my position before trying to attack it.
The problem in my mind, hm? I'm fairly sure I granted you that "CP viewing" may indeed be a valid form of preventing pedophiles from acting on their desires. Let's see:
Yes your mind clearly has problems with detail analysis and it is leading you to irrational behavior that causes great harm to many people when society gets behind it. If you think CP viewing is valid outlet for pedophiles and will lead to less molestation, why are you against making it legal? Because you want more children to be molested??
Perhaps if you had a proposal to effectively halt to all new CP production, you would see less vitriolic reactions to your position
I guess that's a pretty soft way of saying it. If it wasn't clear to you before, it should be now.
Yes please be clear with your language from the start in the future, I do not want to try to decipher your implied meanings and will take everything you say at face value like any rational human would do. Saying that people would react better to me if I had a proposal to halt all production of CP does not in my mind translate into "viewing CP could be an effective outlet for pedophiles and lead to lower levels of molestation", so if that is what you mean then just say it.
But we're still left with the problem of CP *production* which, regardless of your attempts toward "seeing the trees", ignores that those trees currently exist in a putrid and very much thriving forest of suffering and despair.
Sure we should cut down the bad trees. I never said that it should be legal for people to molest kids or to produce CP. You want to spray agent orange on the entire god damn forest because some of the trees in it are bad.
This must be solved or at least positively addressed before we can even begin to have the conversation you're attempting to have. If you don't see this you should really sit quietly for some time and contemplate why, because it is *clearly* true.
Talking about ways to prevent the production of CP is largely a different conversation than talking about why it should be legal for people to view CP. The only relationship they have is the studies showing that when people are allowed to view CP, rates of child molestation decrease. You are trying to change the subject, and imply that I argue something I do not (that CP production should be legal), and therefor are kind of engaging in a strawman fallacy.
Please read what I wrote and you quoted again, this time for comprehension. I never said hebe/ephebo-philia are mental illnesses. I said that acting excessively attaching, obsessing over, and acting on those kinds of thoughts are mainfestations of a malfunctioning brain. Ultimately it's the acting that's the real problem here, but the compulsions and obsessions obviously precipitate the actions.
The mental health community does not consider acting on hebephilic or ephebophilic desire to be the manifestation of a malfunctioning brain. No mental illness listed in the DSM has attraction to or sex with those ages 14+ listed as a criteria for diagnosis. Sex or fantasies of sex with those 13 and under is a diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, and actual mental illness, the actual manifestation of a malfunctioning brain.
See the immediately above, and do try to refrain from obsessing over my (admittedly beautiful) ass.
See the immediately above. Having sex with 14+ year olds is not a diagnostic criteria for any \\ mental illness recognized by the professional community, it is only seen as a manifestation of mental illness by lay people.
Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict a historical event.
Pictures made with cameras inherently depict historical events.
Playing games with language isn't going to wrangle you out of this corner. You are intentionally misinterpreting my meaning here, but allow me to restate: "Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the Holocaust depict a significant and recognizable historical period of human history in which millions of humans attempted to systematically and permanently strip an ethnicity of its dignity, livelihood, and erase it altogether."
How am I playing games with language? You specifically said that a differentiation between pictures of the holocaust and pictures of child molestation is that pictures of the holocaust depict things that happened in the past. I was merely letting you know that all cameras take pictures that depict things in the past, inherently, it is impossible for a camera to take a picture of the immediate present due to the fact that the speed of light is finite, and also the future can not be photographed from the past either. As to your new argument, I already explained that war crimes continue today just as child molestation continues today, and instances of war crimes happened in the past just as instances of child molestation happened in the past. I do not see this differentiation you think you are so clearly showing.
And you believe that the intent behind most CP propagation is to teach each other a lesson about the dangers of human potential when compassion is not held as a high virtue?
I think in many cases people who are against CP have illegally downloaded CP at some point in their lives and confirmed to themselves why they are against it. In fact, many people on this forum who have condemned others for looking at CP have started their argument against people looking at CP with "I looked at CP and it was fucking sick, you should not be allowed to look at it!". But I do not think that it is the primary motivation behind people looking at CP, nope. Do you think if people look at pictures of the holocaust and celebrate them because they are neo Nazis, that they should then be charged with war crimes? Or does it not matter the intent with which a person looks at images of the holocaust with?
You simply do not get to invoke historical documents of collective/species level atrocities (e.g. Holocaust, war crimes, etc) as being equivalent with those committed against preyed upon individuals (e.g. child pornography). This is veiled domain switching, and it undermines anything you attempt to build upon it before your argument ever leaves the gate. In short, you have failed to carve out a valid starting position upon which your arguments can stand.
Fine, forget the holocaust, it is legal to look at the corpse of an individual who was murdered by a serial killer. If I look at such pictures does that make me a serial killer, someone who deserves to go to jail and be treated like a serial killer? What if somebody has a mental illness that causes them to be sexually attracted by dead bodies, if they look at and masturbate to the picture of a person who has been killed be a serial killer, are they then the same as a serial killer?
Children continue to be harmed by war crimes.... (the holocaust is an individual historical instance of a behavior)
Yeah, and that continues to be wrong too.
Yeah, and it continues to be legal to look at the resulting pictures, and nobody thinks we should censor the pictures.
Here you go domain-switching again. You open by referring to a collection of individuals who have already been harmed by saying they are not being harmed by new CP production...COMPLETELY ignoring that there are a continuous flow of NEW individuals being harmed by CP production. You're a smart person, this much is clear. Your empathy, however, leaves much to be desired. This should bother you.
You are the one who set the framework. Your claim was that the difference between pictures of the holocaust and pictures of molestation is that pictures of the holocaust were taken in the past and that the people depicted are no longer being executed. My counter argument was that CP pictures were all taken in the past as well, and many of those depicted are no longer at risk of being depicted in child pornography any more. Are you ignoring that there are still new war crimes being carried out, and that NEW individuals are being harmed by NEW war crimes which result in NEW pictures of war crimes? You tried to differentiate two things and failed to do so, that is all.
Empathy is something that is good to have just as it is good to have some vitamins in your body. Without any empathy you suffer from a disease. On the other hand, too much empathy is poisonous to your mind, just as having too much of a vitamin in your body is poisonous to your body. Having too much empathy leads people to irrationality and rabidness. Most people could stand to have a bit less empathy, and it would be better for the entire world if people had a bit less empathy. That said, I place the empathy that I have with the people who are being systematically hunted down, imprisoned for decades and labeled as sex offenders for life for merely viewing photographs. I think it is better to try to help these people than it is to try to help people who were molested in the past and who are impossible to help without a time machine.
If you've successfully made this argument, I have failed to see it. Please point it out to me.
You: A differentiation between pictures of CP and pictures of the holocaust is that the holocaust took place in the past and no new people are being affected by it today
Me: Pictures of CP and of the holocaust both took place in the past, and in many instances modern CP production has no affect on those who were depicted in CP in the past, just as modern war crimes have no affect on those who were depicted in the holocaust
How do you know that these people are not continuously harmed by the propagation of the CP in which they are involved? How do you know that the very fact that CP continues to be produced (i.e. children continue to be abused in this way) is not increasing the suffering of these victims? Where is your support for this claim?
Where is your support for the claim that CP production today affects those depicted in CP production of the past? A simple proof of my claim is that some of the people who have been depicted in CP in the past are now dead, so modern production cannot possibly have any affect on them.
As for people being continously harmed by the propagation of CP in which they were involved, well I think that this is largely a crock of shit as well. This is a number one argument of those who oppose the legalization of CP viewing. At one end we have the delusional people who say that every time a picture of CP is viewed, the child depicted in the picture is molested all over again. There is not much I can argue with these people because they have no rationality, it is like trying to argue with religious people that God cannot make a rock so big he cannot move it and also move it so therefor he cannot be all powerful. It is impossible to argue with people who disregard reality. On the other hand some of the people who try to be more sophisticated and less obviously retarded try to say that just knowing their CP is being viewed causes stress to the children depicted in the CP. This is an argument I can at least bother trying to argue against, as it is not based on voodoo magic. In these cases I would say that it doesn't matter if people continue to view the CP or not, the child will always have continued stress due to the *possibility* that somebody will view the CP they are depicted in. Let me go back to my PIR example.
Some child molester produces CP of Alice and uploads it to an encrypted keyword search server, tagged with keywords that indicate that it is child pornography. When Bob downloads the CP from the encrypted keyword search server, the server cannot tell that Bob is searching for CP or determine the files returned to him. Now Alice knows that she has had CP of her uploaded to this server in the past, and she knows that people could in the future download it, but she is not capable of knowing that Bob downloaded it. I argue that the mere possibility of the child pornography being viewed is what causes stress to Alice, the fact is that Alice is not capable of knowing that Bob downloaded CP featuring her, and she cannot tell if anybody has ever done so. For all she knows nobody ever searched for CP on the encrypted keyword search server, and nobody ever has seen he picture. But this is not going to remove her stress, because for all she knows somebody has downloaded and viewed her CP. The stress of Alice is not caused by Bob downloading CP featuring her, it is caused by the possibility of Bob or anybody else downloading CP featuring her, and this possibility was created by the person who originally took the photograph of Alice. So the cause of Alice's stress is from the producer of CP, not the people who are viewing her CP. If the stress of Alice is from the people viewing her CP and not from the possibility of people viewing her CP, then it makes sense to completely legalize the viewing of CP so that people viewing it are not arrested and Alice is kept from having awareness that people are viewing her CP. Currently the police inform Alice every single time they arrest someone for viewing CP featuring her, and this behavior of the police would according to you be causing a great deal of stress to Alice, and if it is not the possibility of people viewing her CP that causes stress to Alice then it is fine for people to view her CP so long as she never finds out about it (which is why the police should stop telling her).
So either
A. The stress Alice has from the propagation of her CP is the fault of the person who produced the CP, not the fault of the people viewing the CP
or
B. If the fault is on the people viewing the CP, then it is not the possibility of people viewing the CP that causes Alice stress but her awareness of instances of people viewing her CP, and therefor CP viewing should be legalized to protect Alice from this awareness
Which is why I said "effectively". I'm not naive enough to think we can stop it completely.
So do you want to talk about ways to combat CP production? Because I have some ideas for this as well, but I think this is a somewhat different topic. I think I actually have some good ideas to combat the production of CP though and wouldn't mind sharing them.
Again the problem is "where does the CP come from?". I'm all for destigmatizing hebe/ephebo-philia and possibly even pedophilia in THOUGHT form, and perhaps treatment of the impulses indeed should involve the viewing of CP while under the care of a licensed, scientifically credentialled professional who ultimately bears some responsibility for the actions of the patient. When thoughts become actions, however, that's where we have a problem and that's where your argument continues to fall flat.
hebe and ephebo philia are not even stigmatized in most of the world, especially ephebophilia is legal to act on in almost the entire world including partially in the UK and Australia.
congratulations. you just argued for the sake of arguing with the person who, not only took to your side of the argument, but wasn't being argumentative. you are easily the biggest asshole on these forums, and for that you have earned yourself -10 karma every 72 hours, for the duration of your time here.
why? because you make controversy posts with no valid argument and everyone here stopped taking you seriously. just letting the world know you're not worth reading; all that negative karma must mean something
it must mean youre a faggot. just like northerstar and johnthebaptist. welcome to karma purgatory.
-
A. I don't give a flying fuck about karma
B. I have more positive karma than negative, you have more negative karma than positive
C. I hold nothing against gay people so being called a faggot is not upsetting to me
D. I have had many valid arguments, feel free to read the thread and try to come with some of your own, if you are capable (not likely).
-
Yeah but I am asking about you and your motivation, not Germans and theirs.
I read your posts, and I wonder why you are so dedicated to it, that's all. One line answers about analogous situations don't really satisfy my curiosity. If anything they pique it all the more!
When all is said and done, you're standing up for a minority who are misunderstood and scapegoated. Cool. They aren't the most attractive of groups though, are they?
It's like the SATs up in here. Nazi Germans are to Pedophiles, as Children in CP are to Jews!
Makes you wonder why there is any debate at all when he puts it that way, doesn't it?
It certainly makes me wonder why there is any debate at all. Child molesters sometimes photograph the molestation of children. This means they are victimizing innocent people and taking photographs of the victimization. Nazi Germans exterminated Jews and pictures were taken of the result. This seems like a pretty analogous situation to me, but people don't argue that the Jews depicted in holocaust photographs are executed all over again every time somebody looks at one of the pictures. They also don't claim that the demand for holocaust pictures leads to genocide. But if you look at the pictures of children being molested, you are certainly causing them to be molested all over again, and the demand for these pictures is the sole cause of child molestation.
-
Why do you feel so passionate about this kmfkewm? I mean, you must have spent hours in this thread so far, typing, researching, thinking.
I'm not insinuating you're a paedophile yourself - you've said you're not - but why then so much passion and fervour to keep on going with the argument?
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
You can hide in my attic anytime you want. Its lined with plastic!!
After reading all your arguments you are really just a stupid fuck that likes looking at pics of abused kids.
-
Why do you feel so passionate about this kmfkewm? I mean, you must have spent hours in this thread so far, typing, researching, thinking.
I'm not insinuating you're a paedophile yourself - you've said you're not - but why then so much passion and fervour to keep on going with the argument?
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
You can hide in my attic anytime you want. Its lined with plastic!!
After reading all your arguments you are really just a stupid fuck that likes looking at pics of abused kids.
Nice one novocaine! +1.
What's wrong JohnTheBaptist, the cat got your tongue?? ??? You raise all these allegations against me which as I stated, were ALL LIES, and days later you still haven't replied to them with any proof to back them up. ??? As I previously said, you are so full of SHIT and as others have posted, a pain in the ass TROLL. >:( One only has to read the first few pages of your post history and you'll see the absolute shit you post, mostly attempts to bag other members out with your pretentious, obnoxious points of view, all of which fall way short of the mark. ::)
This is the third (3rd) time Johnny I've asked you to provide the evidence to conclusively prove the assertions you posted about me. They are just bullshit and you know it. My response to your claims is written below in post no. #230. Why make up stories John?
Come on champ, put up or shut up! This is just an illustration of an idiot making up stories which are not only untrue , but totally fictitious. I'm looking forward to seeing what you post in relation to me "sucking DPR's balls" (your words, not mine), where I've posted in his threads and sucked up to him. Show me John where I did this and feel free to post some other proof of your other allegations too. ??? I'm waiting. ::)
-
Why do you feel so passionate about this kmfkewm? I mean, you must have spent hours in this thread so far, typing, researching, thinking.
I'm not insinuating you're a paedophile yourself - you've said you're not - but why then so much passion and fervour to keep on going with the argument?
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
You can hide in my attic anytime you want. Its lined with plastic!!
After reading all your arguments you are really just a stupid fuck that likes looking at pics of abused kids.
Care to share a counter argument, or are you incapable of doing anything other than foaming at the mouth?
Also, do you think the ACLU is full of stupid fucks who just like looking at pics of abused kids?
"The ACLU does not support pornography or child porn. However, we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing certain books or films, even pornographic ones, should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring 'bad or offensive' ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. As the saying goes, 'one man's art is another man’s pornography.' As for child pornography, the ACLU supports the right of the government to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors."
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring "bad" ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.
The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.
And I am sure Jacob Appelbaum is just a stupid fuck who likes looking at pictures of kids being abused (if he is so dumb why are you trusting your life to the anonymity and security systems he is a major contributor to??!)
> Laws are made for the criminals of society because those who wouldn't
> do criminal activity anyway do not need the laws, and indeed do not
> usually suffer them until the time comes that someone/s demonstrate a
> need for them.
>
That is really rich. That's for the civics primer!
> So when people are doing things like spreading even animated child
> porn, and trying to say they're protected under the First Amendment,
> the First Amendment is in grave danger of being seen as outdated.
> Once enough people draw that kind of conclusion, it's only a matter
> of time before it's done away with or changed in order to control the
> criminals in society who would take advantage of our freedoms in
> order to hurt others.
>
[citation required]
> And it's not that animated child porn has victims, it's that it
> encourages victimization of children just like porn encourages it's
> viewers to have sex.
[citation required]
> The only difference here is that when adults
> have sex because they're encouraged by porn, it remains victimless,
I guess you haven't heard that in many parts of the world, such as
Uganda, people are on the verge of being put to death for their sexual
*preferences* alone?
> but when an adult is encouraged by child porn to try and inspire the
> sexual curiosity of a child so that they might also have sex with
> them or at least commit to sexual actions, then victimization has
> occurred. I guess if you wanted to word this in legal terms, it would
> have to do with opposing the sexual corruption of children inspired
> by the sexual encouragement of adults looking at child porn, animated
> or otherwise.
This entire argument is flawed. Please demonstrate or provide evidence
for your claims!
One could equally assert without evidence that the production of erotic
art and the consumption of legal (say, in the US) pornography reduces
adult on adult predatory activity. I bet the Kinsey Institute would have
interesting data on this very topic but well, since this isn't a
conversation based on facts but rather on emotion, I'll not even bother
to dig up a citation. If you show some facts for your arguments, I'm
sure people will bring out data in support of other view points.
So please - show us that the existence of abstract material is the sole
or even a major contributing factor to an act of non-consensual or
otherwise illegal or immoral sexual conduct. Does that currently
non-existent data support your argument? Would it support your argument
for other kinds of abuse?
Does evidence of a killing, such as Oscar Grant's murder in Oakland,
California[0] by the BART police make other police want to kill
civilians? Or does it make people want justice for the death of Oscar
Grant? One might argue that the evidence will actually reduce the
chances that another cop will get to say he meant to pull a stun gun.
Documentation seems to very seriously change the human rights abusers
position of power - be it the police or other groups that derive a
subject's compliance through forced violence.
Or put another more simple way - the problem with child porn is not the
*evidence* of the crime alone, it is that people are actually harming a
living being. The murder of a guy, such as what happened in Oscar
Grant's case, is pretty disturbing - shall we erase that crime from the
archives of history because journalists claim protection under the First
Amendment protections? Why should we create a special class of
information that we flush down the memory hole, where only special
people are allowed to look at it, to judge it and where merely being
accused of being near it is a (cultural) death sentence?
All the best,
Jacob
https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/245056647133818880
Thanks for writing this article. I think the law is more complex in the US than you’ve written – as I think that some states make different distinctions and the prosecution has discretion that varies by jurisdiction.
As a Tor developer, I’ve been attacked for supporting an absolute right to read and an absolute right to speak. No exceptions of any kind should be built into the fabric of our networks or into the fabric of our societies. Prior restraint is wrong, flatly. I’ve made a similar argument to the one presented in your article during public lectures, usually during Q&A time, as a response to extremely angry people in the audience. It usually feels like they haven’t thought things through.
It is important to drive home the point of similar cases where a video is in itself horrible but the crime captured is important to expose. As an example, I present a video. It’s absolutely terrible – a person mulling around during a protest with a red shirt is shot in the head; his brain spills out onto the ground and he appears to die instantly. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpIol2xBPQQ
So, what is the problem here exactly?
The problem is not just the video tape of a Thai King’s sniper killing a person, it is the sniper who kills a person. The video is also presents a problem. It presents evidence that seems to compel people and it moves people to anger or sickness. Those that see the video, I think, should feel the need to take action about the actual crimes documented in the video!
That video is evidence of the sniper’s crimes and to censor it is to take the last moments of the victim and to snuff them out entirely. Again. What could be more despicable than to forever silence the truth about a person unjustly murdered by a monarch and his sniper thugs?
I find it hard to imagine but actually, your article drives it home: the thing more despicable is to systematize it in the form of censorship and to do it in the name of protection; who gains with the video I presented? The tyrant king and his violent murderers.
How many murdering military snipers, abusive cops or monarch’s thugs are on the internet? After the Occupy videos I’ve seen, I’m guessing it is non-zero and likely higher than the total number of child pornographers in absolute numbers. Though I admit, I wouldn’t be surprised by an overlapping set of assholes in those two sets.
Do we ever hear about needing censorship of the internet based on those known internet using criminals and their often well documented crimes? No, not seriously. We rarely, if ever, even hear about accountability thanks to the Blue Shield.
It sounds odd but I think, rightfully we shouldn’t make such an argument seriously. Everyone has a right to speak, even alleged murdering snipers – they also have a right to a fair trial, where evidence, such as the video above, will be used as evidence in an attempt to bring justice. To ensure that justice is created, we must know about the crimes committed against humanity.
We must not shy away from it, that which is so terrible to see and even more terrible, I imagine, to experience. Nor should we destroy the greatest medium for sharing those potential truths that the world has ever seen and certainly not to benefit profiteers, kings or murderers.
Oh yeah and what about the Swedish Pirate Party? They are just sick fuck pedophiles right:
falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade
Child pornography is a toxic subject, but a very important one that cannot and should not be ignored. This is an attempt to bring the topic to a serious discussion, and explain why possession of child pornography need to be re-legalized in the next ten years, and why you need to fight for it to happen.
And the entire libertarian party of the USA is just full of sick fuck pedophiles who want to jack off to pictures of kids being abused right?
http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/25/libertarian-presidential-front-runner-defends-child-porn/
Mary Ruwart, research scientist, perrenial Libertarian Senatorial candidate and front runner for this year’s Libertarian Presidential ticket is being taken to task for comments she made in her book, Short Answers to Tough Questions.
When discussing self choice in relation to child porn, she had this to say: “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
Yeah all of the people fighting for freedom are just total child rapist sick fucks, damn you found us all out! The people who are fighting for your right to use drugs are also fighting for pedophiles right to view child porn. Calling us sick fuck child molesters is funny considering we are the ones making the tools you use to maintain your own freedom, fighting for your own freedom, and standing up to society and the government on your behalf. You are just a selfish fucktard who wants freedom for yourself but slavery for others.
-
Why do you feel so passionate about this kmfkewm? I mean, you must have spent hours in this thread so far, typing, researching, thinking.
I'm not insinuating you're a paedophile yourself - you've said you're not - but why then so much passion and fervour to keep on going with the argument?
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
You can hide in my attic anytime you want. Its lined with plastic!!
After reading all your arguments you are really just a stupid fuck that likes looking at pics of abused kids.
Nice one novocaine! +1.
What's wrong JohnTheBaptist, the cat got your tongue?? ??? You raise all these allegations against me which as I stated, were ALL LIES, and days later you still haven't replied to them with any proof to back them up. ??? As I previously said, you are so full of SHIT and as others have posted, a pain in the ass TROLL. >:( One only has to read the first few pages of your post history and you'll see the absolute shit you post, mostly attempts to bag other members out with your pretentious, obnoxious points of view, all of which fall way short of the mark. ::)
This is the third (3rd) time Johnny I've asked you to provide the evidence to conclusively prove the assertions you posted about me. They are just bullshit and you know it. My response to your claims is written below in post no. #230. Why make up stories John?
Come on champ, put up or shut up! This is just an illustration of an idiot making up stories which are not only untrue , but totally fictitious. I'm looking forward to seeing what you post in relation to me "sucking DPR's balls" (your words, not mine), where I've posted in his threads and sucked up to him. Show me John where I did this and feel free to post some other proof of your other allegations too. ??? I'm waiting. ::)
You again you slut. I told your ass before now you're back with an even more ridiculous avatar. Are you fucking all there? the full shilling. You can take the Australian out of Britain.....*Newsflash* timeline. 3 Australians are arrested and 2 of them are charged, you are back after how long, a well known scammer tells people its" play or be played." see the connection snake?...hhhmmm you ask me 5 times no less to prove these so called unfounded allegations, have you heard the saying the lady doth protest to much? If there are no snitching allegations why are you so fucking worried? You're here lulling people into your obscure and ever growing honeypot , while your puppetmasters pull your strings aren't you snitch?
Please stop provoking the emoters and take your off topic flame war somewhere else.
-
Sorry O,P to detract from your painstaking research. It's lost on these numbskulls anyway. Banging your head against a brick wall. and you have petulant children chiming in with monosyllabic rants like this wanker wadozo, listen snitch you're an irritant, a peasant, with your wellies caked in mud, shoveling shite for a living.
-
which in turn leads to:
A. Pictures of children being molested depict child abuse
B. Viewing pictures of children being molested is not the same as abusing children
I would love for you to give a reasonable and intelligent explanation of why this argument by analogy doesn't work, so far nobody has been able to. I am left to conclude that they think pictures of molestation are magic, whereas pictures of other crimes are not.
..just stumbling into this thread, perhaps someone has already posted the point I will make..
IF you could have just one picture of CP to satisfy ALL the viewers of CP from now to eternity than yes, you can make the case that it would be for the better.. but as we all know in the gripping of porn that novelty is the dragon that is chased and if viewing is legal, than there will be more demand and more demand equals more and more production of CP and thus robbing children of their innocence
if you are the rational and reasonable person you keep saying then you need to throw this argument out of your quiver
-
which in turn leads to:
A. Pictures of children being molested depict child abuse
B. Viewing pictures of children being molested is not the same as abusing children
I would love for you to give a reasonable and intelligent explanation of why this argument by analogy doesn't work, so far nobody has been able to. I am left to conclude that they think pictures of molestation are magic, whereas pictures of other crimes are not.
..just stumbling into this thread, perhaps someone has already posted the point I will make..
IF you could have just one picture of CP to satisfy ALL the viewers of CP from now to eternity than yes, you can make the case that it would be for the better.. but as we all know in the gripping of porn that novelty is the dragon that is chased and if viewing is legal, than there will be more demand and more demand equals more and more production of CP and thus robbing children of their innocence
if you are the rational and reasonable person you keep saying then you need to throw this argument out of your quiver
Well, the amount of currently available CP is in the several millions of files, and I think that would be enough to satisfy essentially all people who are into CP. So your argument doesn't stand. What is the difference between one existing picture and two million existing pictures? But the thing is, at any point in time there is always a number of images of CP and they were always all produced in the past. Also you guys keep falling back on this supply and demand argument which is really dumb because there is no proof that people looking at pictures of CP leads to more CP being produced. My argument about technical systems that perfectly hide demand stands, because your argument means that you are okay with all CP distribution being done through PIR. I also find it very hard to believe that some dude on a P2P network downloading CP from some random fuck will lead to some molester going out and raping a kid on camera. The mechanism of action just isn't clear, and I can give citations to Ph.D researchers who claim that there is no evidence that merely viewing CP translates into the production of CP.
-
It certainly makes me wonder why there is any debate at all. Child molesters sometimes photograph the molestation of children.
Photographers of molested children don't always molest children; sometimes they just watch. Either way; they are victimizing innocent people BY taking photographs of the victimization.
Nazi Germans exterminated Jews and pictures were taken of the result. This seems like a pretty analogous situation to me,
Except for the fact that such a genocide is not an on-going 'abuse' to which the victims are constantly being subjected.
but people don't argue that the Jews depicted in holocaust photographs are executed all over again every time somebody looks at one of the pictures.
Well, actually, that's another matter of psychology and perception.
For instance, if a you or I were to look at pictures of the Jews who were executed, would it be posing actual 'harm' to those victimized? Of course not. But if we were, in fact, jerking off to those pictures... would there be a serious inherent mental issue with us? I would say so. Would we be people to be trusted around the corpses of Jews when no one is looking? Perhaps not. And of course, if we're taking sensitivity into consideration at all here and not just being ignorant to the Jews who survived the Holocaust; you cannot tell me or anyone else in this thread(or anywhere for that matter) that looking at images of the Holocaust does not bring them great hurt.
They also don't claim that the demand for holocaust pictures leads to genocide.
I don't believe there's much of a 'demand' for holocaust pictures in the context upon which your argument is based in regards the topic of CP. If you believe these two examples of the human condition are so clearly analogous, I would(we would) love to see the argument for a demand in Holocaust images for the purpose of sexual or sadistic release.
-
But if you look at the pictures of children being molested, you are certainly causing them to be molested all over again, and the demand for these pictures is the sole cause of child molestation.
Child Pornography, is pornography, correct?
**I once had a friend who was seriously hurt because he jumped down the stairs at a theater after watching a movie where an action star jumped off buildings. (Hey, I didn’t say it was my smartest friend, I just said it was a friend.) That may sound crazy, but because of the way we learn, it’s really not.
The thing is, everyone’s brain is wired to repeat what it sees and hears; it’s a major part of how we learn. And the more senses you get involved in the learning process, the more consistent the message, and the more often you see it, the more likely you are to be influenced by it (30). That’s just one more reason why viewing pornography is dangerous. It’s a short jump from using pornography to imitating what you’re seeing. And just like my friend, sometimes imitating the things you see can really hurt yourself and other people.
Did you know that there’s been a correlation found between people who view pornography and people who commit sexual crimes? Now I’m not saying that viewing pornography will make you go on a sexual crime rampage, but the way pornography affects you, it can influence your judgment and be connected with sexual violence.
Proving this point is kind of tough, because an accurate study “would require a sampling of much more than a thousand males, exposed to pornography through puberty and adolescence, while the other group is totally isolated from it’s influence in all its forms and varying degrees. Each group would then have to be monitored—through the commission of violent crimes or not” (1).
See what I mean? It’s kind of a tough study to set up. “In spite of the lack of formal research, though, the FBI’s own statistics show that pornography is found at 80 percent of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes of the perpetrators” (1). Now I think that’s kind of tough to ignore.
The people who promote pornography think that’s actually easy to ignore. They say either that pornography is harmless, or that there isn’t “conclusive scientific data” that pornography causes sex crimes to justify suppressing pornography. Sounds about right coming from someone who stands to make a profit in the industry. The fact is that the “conclusive scientific data” they’re talking about isn’t really necessary. There’s enough evidence, like the stuff from the FBI, to prove that there’s a link between pornography and sex crimes.
In fact, here’s a bunch of evidence about that link:
* The University of New Hampshire did a study that showed that the states with the highest readership of pornographic magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, also have the highest rape rates (2).
*The Michigan State Police Department found that pornography is used or imitated in 41 percent of the sex crimes they have investigated (3).
*Dr. Victor Cline did research that showed how men who become addicted to pornographic materials begin to want more explicit or deviant material and end up acting out what they have seen (5).
* Now this one will make your skin crawl—Dr. James Dobson interviewed Ted Bundy, one of the nation’s most notorious serial killers, on the day before his execution. Bundy said that the “most damaging kinds of pornography are those that involve sexual violence . . . The wedding of those two forces, as I know only too well, brings about behavior that is just, just too terrible to describe” (1).
*Two doctors noted in their research-based book, Pornography and Sexual Aggression, that “Certain [aggressive] forms of pornography can affect aggressive attitudes toward women and can desensitize an individual’s perception of rape. These attitudes and perceptions are, furthermore, directly related to actual aggressive behavior against women.” They also found that adult pornography was connected with each of the 1,400 child sexual molestation cases in Louisville, Kentucky, and child pornography was connected with the majority of them (21).
*Another review of controlled studies found that extensive viewing of the type of pornographic material commonly sold at adult bookstores was positively correlated with an increased self-reported willingness to commit rape or other forced sexual acts (28).
*The Kingston Sexual Offenders Clinic in Canada found “an unexpected finding” when they conducted a study of their patients over a period of six years. “One of the rapists reported that he used consenting sex depictions to incite rape images in the process of preparing himself to attack a woman. Subsequent questioning revealed a further five rapists who made similar claims, and 10 of the 10 rapists who currently used (pornography) for enjoyment (not necessarily preparatory to offending) also said they used it to incite rape fantasies (22).
*Another study says that a non-rapist population will show increased sexual arousal after having been exposed to “media-presented images of rape,” especially when the female victim demonstrates signs of pleasure and arousal. This exposure, they further claim, may also lead to a lessened sensitivity toward rape, acceptance of rape myths, and increased self-reported likelihood of raping and self-generated rape fantasies (11)(12).
*Dr. Dolf Zillman and Dr. Jennings Bryant showed that continued exposure to pornography had serious negative effects on beliefs about sexuality in general(sounds like kmfkewm), and on attitudes toward women in particular. They also found that pornography desensitizes people to rape as a criminal offense, and that massive exposure to pornography encourages a desire for increasingly deviant materials that depict violence (such as sadomasochism and rape) (29).
* Individuals with a predisposition for aggression (i.e., men who are at relatively high risk for aggression) have shown to be particularly drawn to images of pornography and are more likely to expose themselves to such images in the future than lower-risk individuals. Moreover, a number of priming studies have shown that men with earlier risk characteristics may interpret sexually explicit material differently than lower-risk individuals, such that pornography activates and reinforces inappropriate cognitive representations (e.g., hostility toward women) and fosters the development of sexual preoccupation in these men (14).
*A review study based on 81 research studies (35 using aggressive porn stimuli and 46 using non-aggressive porn stimuli), concluded that “the empirical research on the effects of aggressive pornography shows, with impressive consistency, that exposure to these materials has a negative effect on attitudes toward women and the perceived likelihood to rape.” The study also noted that 70 percent of the 46 non-aggressive studies reported clear evidence of negative effects of exposure (25).
*A meta-analysis, using the results of 24 original experimental studies, found that “violence within the pornography is not necessary to increase the acceptance of ‘rape myths’ (i.e., the myth that women secretly desire to be raped).” The study noted that the link between acceptance of rape myths and exposure to pornography stems from a simple premise—“that most pornography commodifies sex, that women become objects used for male pleasure, and that as objects of desire, they are to be acted on” (25).
*A study for the Canadian Department of Justice found that when they exposed individuals who were habitually “high-frequency porn consumers” to non-violent, dehumanizing porn, those individuals were particularly likely to report that they might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual aggression. The authors noted that the porn the individuals were exposed to was the kind that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream commercial entertainment videos. The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of raping after exposure to this material—20.4 percent of those who were exposed, versus 9.4 percent of those who weren’t exposed (25).
*Another review of a series of studies of “common pornography” found that its consumption led to insensitivity towards victims of sexual violence, trivialization of rape as a criminal offense, trivialization of sexual child abuse as a criminal offense, increased belief that lack of sexual activity leads to health risks and increased acceptance of pre and extra-marital sexuality. The study noted, “habitual male consumers of common pornography appear to be at greater risk of becoming sexually callous towards female sexuality and concerns” (25).
You can see that there’s tons of info that backs up the connection between viewing porn and committing sex crimes. But, just so you get both sides of the issue, the porn pushers think they have evidence to support their point too. Here are the studies they always talk about:
*Berl Kutchinsky of Denmark studied the countries of Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the U.S.A. Kutchinsky showed that for the years 1964 to 1984, as the pornography became increasingly available, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased, or remained relatively stable. These countries all legalized or decriminalized pornography in 1969, 1970, and 1973 respectfully. The rates of nonsexual violent crimes and nonviolent sex crimes (e.g., peeping and flashing) essentially decreased also. Only in the U.S. did it appear that in the 1970s and 1980s, as porn became increasingly available, that rape appeared to increase (5)(15)(16)(17)(18)(5). The theory Kutchinsky came up with based on his studies is that the easy availability of pornography had caused sex crimes to decrease by acting as a “safety-valve” for potential offenders.
*Studies of Croatioa and Shanghai, China also showed significant decreases in rape as pornography became increasingly available. To add to this data, it should be mentioned that yet unpublished studies from Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic also similarly found that as the availability of pornography increased, the incidence of sex crimes decreased (7)( 8 )(9)(10)(19).
So what’s the catch? Why is there support for both sides?
Well, the porn pushers love to talk about these studies because they seem to validate their points. What they don’t like to talk about is how the people who have since reviewed these studies have found some major flaws in the conclusions. It turns out that there are a couple of things that distorted the results:
First of all, at the same time that pornography was legalized in all of those countries, a lot of other sex crimes including peeping, “indecency towards women,” and certain types of incest, were also made legal. So with those things no longer considered a crime, it’s no wonder the crime rates dropped.
Second, Kutchinsky put rape in the same category as less serious sex crimes. That made it easier to hide the fact that serious crimes like rape actually increased after pornography was legalized in Denmark (5).
Porn advocates also don’t like to talk much about the results of studies in Sweden, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, where the number of rapes increased when the constraints on the availability of pornography were lifted. Like how “when South Australia liberalized its laws on pornography and Queensland maintained its conservative policy . . . the number of rapes in Queensland remained at the same low level while South Australia’s showed a six fold increase” over a 13 year period (25).
There are some other things too that pro-pornography people like to say to discount the connection between pornography and sexual crime. Some people say it’s the characteristics of the people involved in sexual crime that matters more than the availability of pornography (1)(26)(27). Other researchers basically suggest that aggressive images rather than sexual images may be the primary instigation toward sexual offense (11)(12). Others reviewing the relation of aggression to sexual assault conclude it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behavior and “may actually provide a catharsis to alleviate sexual aggression” (13). A lot of people call this the “Cathartic Theory.” (So, mostly it’s just a lot of “scientist people” that call it that. I mean, when was the last time you heard one of your friends talk about the Cathartic Theory?)
But no matter what people say to try to try and make pornography seem good or harmless, there’s enough evidence out there that says it’s not, especially when it’s in the wrong hands. With porn being so easy to find, affordable, and accessible, you’ve got to know what you’re up against. Learn the facts about the negative affects of porn—all of them, there’s way more than just the link between porn and sexual crime—and you’ll think twice before looking at it.
Sources:
(1) Anderson, K.J. (2003). “Pornography”. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/porno.html
(2) Baron, L., & Straus, M. (1984). Sexual stratification, pornography, and rape in the United States. In N. M. Malamuth & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography, sexual aggression (pp. 185-209). New York: Academic Press.
(3) Campbell, M.C., & Campbell, J.M. (2005). The Engines of World War III. Retrieved January 2011
(4) Carter, D. L., Prentky, R. A., Knight, R. A., Vanderveer, P. L., Boucher, R. J. (1987). "Use of Pornography in the Criminal and Developmental Histories of Sexual Offenders". Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2: 196–211.
(5) Cline, V. (2009). “Pornography’s Effects on Adults and Children”. Retrieved January 2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20282510/Dr-Victor-Cline-Pornography-s-Effects-on-Adults-and-Children
(6) Davies, K.A. (2004). "Voluntary exposure to pornography and men's attitudes toward feminism and rape". Journal of Sex Research. Retrieved Jan, 2011. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n2_v34/ai_19551963/
(7) Diamond, M. (1999). The effects of pornography: an international perspective. In J. Elias, V. Bullough, V. Elias, G. Brewer, J. Douglas & W. Jarvis (Eds.), Pornography 101: Eroticism, Sexuality and the First Amendment (223–260) Amherst: Prometheus Press.
( 8 ) Diamond, M. (in preparation). Pornography and Sex Crimes in Poland
(9) Diamond, M., & Kotula, O. (in preparation). Pornography and Sex Crimes in Finland.
(10) Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E., Weiss, P. (2010). “Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic. Received: 29 July 2009 / Revised: 30 August 2010 /Accepted: 30 August 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010.
(11) Donnerstein, E., & Linz, D. (1986). Mass media sexual violence and male viewers: current theory and research. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 601?618.
(12) Donnerstein, E., Linz, D., & Penrod, S. (1987). The question of Pornography: Research ?ndings and policy implications. New York: Free Press.
(13) Ferguson, C. J. and R. D. Hartley (2009). "14." Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(5): 323-329.
(14) Kingston, D.A., Fedoroff, P., Firestone, P., Curry, S., Bradford, J.M. (2008). “Pornography Use and Sexual Aggression: The Impact of Frequency and Type of Pornography Use on Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders”. Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 34, p. 341–351.
(15) Kutchinsky, B. (1973). The effect of easy availability of pornography on the incidence of sex crimes: the Danish experience. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 163?181.
(16) Kutchinsky, B. (1983). Obscenity and pornography: behavioral aspects. In S. H. Kadish (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice, vol. 3. (pp. 1077?1086)New York: Free Press.
(17) Kutchinsky, B. (1991). Pornography and rape: theory and practice? Evidence from crime data in four countries where pornography is easily available. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14, 47?64.
(18) Kutchinsky, B. (1992b). Pornography, sex crime and public policy. Paper presented at the Sex Industry and Public Policy, Canberra, Australia.
(19) Landripet, I., Stulhofer, A., & Diamond, M. (2006). “Assessing the in?uence of pornography on sexual violence: a cross-cultural perspective”. Paper presented at the International Academy for Sex Research Amsterdam, The Netherlands (July 12–15).
(20) Malamuth NM. Donnerstein E (1982): The effects of aggressive-pornographic of mass media stimuli. In Berkowitz L (Ed): "Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.15." New York: Academic Press.
(21) Malamuth NM, Donnerstein E (Eds) (1984): "Pornography and Sexual Aggression." New York: Academic Press.
(22) Marshall, W.L. (1988). “The Use of Sexually Explicit Materials by Rapists, Child Molesters and Nonoffenders,” Journal of Sex Research, 25, No. 2, pp. 267-288.
(23) Peters, R. (2004). “The Link between Pornography and Violent Sex Crimes”. Retrieved January 2011. http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/news/Pornography-SexCrimes-Link-RWP.pdf
(24) Silbert, M.H., Pines, A.M. (1984). "Pornography and sexual abuse of women". Sex Roles 10: 857–68.
(25) Watson, B., Welch, S.R. (2000). “Just Harmless Fun? Understanding the Impact of Pornography,” Enough Is Enough, http://www.enough.org/objects/justharmlessfun.pdf
(26) Winick, C., & Evans, J. T. (1994). Is there a national standard with respect to attitudes toward sexually explicit media material? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23(4), 405?419.
(27) Winick, C., & Evans, J. T. (1996). The relationship between nonenforcement of state pornography laws and rates of sex crime arrests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25(5), 439?453.
(28) Zillmann, D. (1986). "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", Included in the Report of the Surgeon General's Workshop on Pornography and Public Health, United States Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, August 4, 1986.
(29) Zillmann, D., Bryant, J. (1982). Pornography, sexual callousness, and the trivialization of rape. Journal of Communication, 32(4), 10-21.
(30) Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2010). Processes underlying the effects of adolescents' use of sexually explicit internet material: The role of perceived realism. Communication Research, 37, 375-399. doi: 10.1177/0093650210362464
**This is a pretty valid argument, not my own, but I cannot completely disagree. Can you? And how?
-
the guy is mental... he skips main point and shoots around in madness
if you want a middle ground, then look for realistic 3D animation for your CP.. but you'll soon find out your kink is in the power trip and depravity of helpless children.
-
Photographers of molested children don't always molest children; sometimes they just watch. Either way; they are victimizing innocent people BY taking photographs of the victimization.
That is a good point, I guess there is a distinction between molesting children and taking pictures of children being molested, but for now I will stick with saying both of them are bad and should be illegal. However, I do come to hold the idea now that it is less bad to take a photograph of a child being molested than it is to molest a child, because of the argument the Swedish Pirate Party guy gave about Google Glass. Certainly if someone is wearing Google Glass and happens upon a child being raped, no logical person would say that he is worthy of being arrested despite the fact that he caused images of a childs molestation to come into existence. However, we always will hold the child rapist responsible for child rape. So clearly there is a big difference between molesting a child and causing images of a child being molested to come into existence.
Except for the fact that such a genocide is not an on-going 'abuse' to which the victims are constantly being subjected.
Wow it must be fun to be able to base all of your arguments on the assumption that you are already correct. I think that is called begging the question. You guys use so many logical fallacies it should make you seriously fucking ashamed of your mental capacity for debate. How is it on-going abuse when someone looks at a picture of child molestation, but not on-going abuse when someone looks at a picture of the people killed during the holocaust? Your entire argument here essentially boils down to "I am right because I am right!".
Seriously dude you are just repeating hollow meaningless propaganda. You might as well tell me that viewing pictures of the holocaust is okay because the people depicted are not subjected to genocide every time the pictures are viewed, but viewing images of child pornography is wrong because the children depicted are molested all over again every time the pictures are viewed. You are just mindlessly repeating the baseless and quite retarded propaganda of the government and other freedom restricting groups. If the government told your dumb ass that every time someone views CP an atom bomb blows up and kills a million people, you would probably tell me that viewing pictures of the holocaust is okay because it doesn't cause an atom bomb to blow up and kill a million people every time you do it.
but people don't argue that the Jews depicted in holocaust photographs are executed all over again every time somebody looks at one of the pictures.
Well, actually, that's another matter of psychology and perception.
No , no it is not. It has nothing at all to do with psychology or perception, at all. It has to do with reality, and the reality is that looking at photographs does not cause what happens in the photographs to happen all over again. Can you seriously fucking debate that? Are you so irrational that you think it is a matter of god damn anything other than objective reality, that photographs do not have magical voodoo powers over those depicted in them?
For instance, if a you or I were to look at pictures of the Jews who were executed, would it be posing actual 'harm' to those victimized? Of course not.
Why not? They were subjected to horrible torture and then were killed and photographs were taken! If a child is subjected to horrible sexual torture and a photograph is taken of it, you will be screaming at the top of your lungs about how looking at that picture not only causes harm to the child all over again, but actually victimizes all children in the entire god damn world. Only a delusional person can possibly hold both of these beliefs, you absolutely must be suffering from cognitive dissonance to think that there is a difference between a picture of a Jew being tortured and killed and a picture of a child being tortured and killed.
But if we were, in fact, jerking off to those pictures... would there be a serious inherent mental issue with us? I would say so.
Sure then we would probably be necrophiles or possibly just extreme sadists, both of these are legitimate diagnosis under the DSM (unlike hebephilia or ephebophilia).
Would we be people to be trusted around the corpses of Jews when no one is looking? Perhaps not.
Why not? Because there is a chance that we might do something bad with them? What if we only fantasize about such things but would never actually do it? You want to arrest people for precrime, because they might do something bad? Why not arrest all men because they might rape somebody. Why not arrest everybody who plays GTA because they might go on a fucking killing rampage. Do you think people who play video games where they mow down tens of thousands of civilians should all be locked up because they might go on a killing spree? Or do you think there is a difference between fantasy and reality? Because the same thing is true in a sexual sense, there is a difference between a persons sexual fantasies and their sexual reality. I would play GTA and get enjoyment from it, but I would never go on a killing spree killing innocent people in real life. Why is it so hard to accept that some people might enjoy jacking off to pictures of things that would be absolutely horrible if they did in real life, and that they would never do in real life?
And of course, if we're taking sensitivity into consideration at all here and not just being ignorant to the Jews who survived the Holocaust; you cannot tell me or anyone else in this thread(or anywhere for that matter) that looking at images of the Holocaust does not bring them great hurt.
Sure nobody said to force the Jews to look at pictures of the holocaust and nobody said to force children to look at images of child abuse.
I don't believe there's much of a 'demand' for holocaust pictures in the context upon which your argument is based in regards the topic of CP. If you believe these two examples of the human condition are so clearly analogous, I would(we would) love to see the argument for a demand in Holocaust images for the purpose of sexual or sadistic release.
First of all, you would be surprised, there are certainly sadists and necrophiles out there who have masturbated to pictures of general death and misery, and I am sure that at least some people have masturbated to pictures of the holocaust. Additionally, have you never heard of shock sites? They may feature images of murdered and otherwise victimized people, and some people really get off on looking at that shit, in a sexual way or otherwise. Such sites even make profit for collecting and hosting such imagery. Additionally, you keep falling back to the tired old "demand for CP translates into supply of CP argument" despite the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that the mere act of somebody looking at CP causes more CP to be produced. Once again, I am forced to bring up my PIR argument, in which it is possible for people to download and view CP without the possibility of any other party becoming aware that this has happened.
-
Sick child rapist. You should be castrated.
lol.. muslim calling kettle a sick child rapist
-
The thing is, everyone’s brain is wired to repeat what it sees and hears; it’s a major part of how we learn. And the more senses you get involved in the learning process, the more consistent the message, and the more often you see it, the more likely you are to be influenced by it (30). That’s just one more reason why viewing pornography is dangerous. It’s a short jump from using pornography to imitating what you’re seeing. And just like my friend, sometimes imitating the things you see can really hurt yourself and other people.
Man this sounds like it is right out of some Christian Science magazine. There has been a lot of research on the underlying claim to this argument, the claim being that exposure to behavior via media influences people into engaging in said behavior. This is a common argument used by Christians while trying to ban everything from violent video games to violent movies to rap songs to porn. First of all, this claim is highly controversial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_violence_research
Second of all, social scientists are the ones making these claims. Here is a hint for you, social scientists are more often than not government propaganda regurgitation machines, with no real education, and paid by the government to agree with the government. You know, the same people who think if you smoke weed you are an addict, and often times the same people running the classes that you are forced to pay to attend if you are caught with drugs or caught with child porn. So in the least scientific group of people to call themselves scientists, a group that is highly infiltrated by the government and which is sometimes indistinguishable from the government propaganda arm, there is internally significant controversy over the effect of violence in the media.
Given that little evidence links media violence to serious physical aggression, bullying or youth violence,[11] at present most of the debate appears to focus on whether media violence may have an impact on more minor forms of aggressiveness. At present, no consensus has been reached on this issue. For example in 1974 the US Surgeon General testified to congress that "the overwhelming consensus and the unanimous Scientific Advisory Committee’s report indicates that televised violence, indeed, does have an adverse effect on certain members of our society."[12] However, by 2001, the US Surgeon General's office, The Department of Health and Human Services had largely reversed itself, relegating media violence to only a minor role and noting many serious limitations in the research.[13] Studies, have also disagreed regarding whether media violence contributes to desensitization[14][15]
Most of the studies saying there is a certain link have been debunked and shown to have been using improper methodologies.
Putting aside the fact that this is a super controversial claim, do you really think that it matters? Do you think we should ban all pornography?! Do you think we should ban action films? Should we ban violent music? Should we ban violent video games? Are you a fundamentalist Christian? Are you a fucking fascist?!
Did you know that there’s been a correlation found between people who view pornography and people who commit sexual crimes? Now I’m not saying that viewing pornography will make you go on a sexual crime rampage, but the way pornography affects you, it can influence your judgment and be connected with sexual violence.
Did you know that a correlation has been found between legal access to violent pornography and lower rates of sexual violence?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study found that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible -- a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. The research results are published online in Springer's journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Did you know that the studies showing a link between violence and pornography consumption have been debunked just like all of the other fucking propaganda bullshit you mindless government brainwashed drones love to spew?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography
The link between pornography and sexual aggression has been the subject of multiple metaanalyses.[13] Metaanalyses conducted in the 1990s suggested to researchers that there might not be an association of any kind between pornography and rape supportive attitudes in non-experimental studies.[14] However, a metaanalysis by Hald, et al (2010)[15] suggests that there is a link between consumption of violent pornography and rape-supportive attitudes in certain populations of men, particularly when moderating variables are taken into consideration.
In a recent review of this literature Ferguson and Hartley (2009) argue that the results from controlled studies are inconsistent.[16] They state that the authors of some studies tended to highlight positive findings while deemphasizing null findings, demonstrating confirmation bias in the published literature. Ferguson and Hartley concluded that controlled studies, on balance, were not able to support links between pornography and sexual violence.
Proving this point is kind of tough, because an accurate study “would require a sampling of much more than a thousand males, exposed to pornography through puberty and adolescence, while the other group is totally isolated from it’s influence in all its forms and varying degrees. Each group would then have to be monitored—through the commission of violent crimes or not” (1).
Proving this point is exactly what a lot of researchers tried to do, and it led to them having fucking confirmation bias and having their research results debunked in the most recent meta-analysis from 2009.
See what I mean? It’s kind of a tough study to set up. “In spite of the lack of formal research, though, the FBI’s own statistics show that pornography is found at 80 percent of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes of the perpetrators” (1). Now I think that’s kind of tough to ignore.
Whoa I bet that Bibles are found at the scene of most fucking burglaries, correlation causation, learn some real science you fucking social scientist fucktards.
The people who promote pornography think that’s actually easy to ignore. They say either that pornography is harmless, or that there isn’t “conclusive scientific data” that pornography causes sex crimes to justify suppressing pornography. Sounds about right coming from someone who stands to make a profit in the industry. The fact is that the “conclusive scientific data” they’re talking about isn’t really necessary. There’s enough evidence, like the stuff from the FBI, to prove that there’s a link between pornography and sex crimes.
In fact, here’s a bunch of evidence about that link:
The evidence from the FBI is hilarious. Do they think pronography being present at the scene of 80% of violent sex crimes means jack shit? There is also oxygen present at the scene of 100% of sex crimes! Oxygen causes sex crimes (well, that is true kind of, lol). Seriously this is an obvious case of mistaking correlation for causation, any idiot can recognize that. How many of you don't have porn in your house at some point in time? Tons of men use pornography, probably damn near the majority of them have at some point in time.
*The Michigan State Police Department found that pornography is used or imitated in 41 percent of the sex crimes they have investigated (3).
Well , CP is considered a sex crime, so that doesn't mean jack shit.
-
*Dr. Victor Cline did research that showed how men who become addicted to pornographic materials begin to want more explicit or deviant material and end up acting out what they have seen (5).
It is controversial if pornography addiction leads to a desire for more and more explicit material, and progression is not required by most standards to qualify for addiction to pornography, however I do think that progression is a common characteristic of pornography addiction, and many who view CP are actually not pedophiles but rather are pornography addicts. As far as acting out what they have seen, that is highly controversial as well, and would link to the "media and its effect on violence" as well as "access to violent pornography leads to lower rates of sexual violence" studies.
* Now this one will make your skin crawl—Dr. James Dobson interviewed Ted Bundy, one of the nation’s most notorious serial killers, on the day before his execution. Bundy said that the “most damaging kinds of pornography are those that involve sexual violence . . . The wedding of those two forces, as I know only too well, brings about behavior that is just, just too terrible to describe” (1).
Lol, funny that they quote Ted Bundy. Bundy was a sociopath he was trying to manipulate his interviewers when he discussed the effect pornography had on him, sociopaths are well known for such manipulations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy
Multiple biographers,[314][315][316] researchers,[317] and other observers[318] have concluded that Bundy's sudden condemnation of pornography was one last manipulative attempt to shift blame by catering to Dobson's agenda as a longtime anti-pornography advocate, telling him precisely what he wanted to hear.[319] While he asserted in the Dobson interview that detective magazines and other reading material had "corrupted" him and "fueled [his] fantasies ... to the point of becoming a serial killer", in a 1977 letter to Ann Rule he wrote, "Who in the world reads these publications? ... I have never purchased such a magazine, and [on only] two or three occasions have I ever picked one up."[320] He told Michaud and Aynsworth in 1980, and Hagmaier the night before he spoke to Dobson, that pornography played a negligible role in his development as a serial killer.[321] "The problem wasn't pornography," wrote Dekle. "The problem was Bundy."[322]
*Two doctors noted in their research-based book, Pornography and Sexual Aggression, that “Certain [aggressive] forms of pornography can affect aggressive attitudes toward women and can desensitize an individual’s perception of rape. These attitudes and perceptions are, furthermore, directly related to actual aggressive behavior against women.” They also found that adult pornography was connected with each of the 1,400 child sexual molestation cases in Louisville, Kentucky, and child pornography was connected with the majority of them (21).
Highly controversial
*Another review of controlled studies found that extensive viewing of the type of pornographic material commonly sold at adult bookstores was positively correlated with an increased self-reported willingness to commit rape or other forced sexual acts (28).
Highly controversial contradicts other studies that access to violent pronography reduce rates of sexual violence.
*The Kingston Sexual Offenders Clinic in Canada found “an unexpected finding” when they conducted a study of their patients over a period of six years. “One of the rapists reported that he used consenting sex depictions to incite rape images in the process of preparing himself to attack a woman. Subsequent questioning revealed a further five rapists who made similar claims, and 10 of the 10 rapists who currently used (pornography) for enjoyment (not necessarily preparatory to offending) also said they used it to incite rape fantasies (22).
Rapists fantasize about rape when looking at pornography, so what.
*Another study says that a non-rapist population will show increased sexual arousal after having been exposed to “media-presented images of rape,” especially when the female victim demonstrates signs of pleasure and arousal. This exposure, they further claim, may also lead to a lessened sensitivity toward rape, acceptance of rape myths, and increased self-reported likelihood of raping and self-generated rape fantasies (11)(12).
Females have more rape fantasies than anyone else, it is the third most popular female fantasy:
http://www.care2.com/causes/rape-ranked-as-third-most-popular-sexual-fantasy-for-women.html
Rape Ranked as Third Most Popular Sexual Fantasy for Women
do you think this means all of these females want to be raped in reality? Oh wait that is impossible. It is impossible to want to be raped because being raped means you don't want it to happen. That paradox shows the clear separation between fantasy and reality, just as many of the people who look at child porn don't actually want to rape children outside of their fantasies.
*Dr. Dolf Zillman and Dr. Jennings Bryant showed that continued exposure to pornography had serious negative effects on beliefs about sexuality in general(sounds like kmfkewm), and on attitudes toward women in particular. They also found that pornography desensitizes people to rape as a criminal offense, and that massive exposure to pornography encourages a desire for increasingly deviant materials that depict violence (such as sadomasochism and rape) (29).
I will say probably repeated exposure to pornography causes a desire for more extreme pornography, at least in those addicted to pornography. However, this is highly controversial, as are all of the other points Dr. Dolf made.
* Individuals with a predisposition for aggression (i.e., men who are at relatively high risk for aggression) have shown to be particularly drawn to images of pornography and are more likely to expose themselves to such images in the future than lower-risk individuals. Moreover, a number of priming studies have shown that men with earlier risk characteristics may interpret sexually explicit material differently than lower-risk individuals, such that pornography activates and reinforces inappropriate cognitive representations (e.g., hostility toward women) and fosters the development of sexual preoccupation in these men (14).
Almost all men are into porn of one sort or another: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/6709646/All-men-watch-porn-scientists-find.html
Researchers were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with regular users.
But their project stumbled at the first hurdle when they failed to find a single man who had not been seen it.
“We started our research seeking men in their 20s who had never consumed pornography,” said Professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse. “We couldn't find any.”
*A review study based on 81 research studies (35 using aggressive porn stimuli and 46 using non-aggressive porn stimuli), concluded that “the empirical research on the effects of aggressive pornography shows, with impressive consistency, that exposure to these materials has a negative effect on attitudes toward women and the perceived likelihood to rape.” The study also noted that 70 percent of the 46 non-aggressive studies reported clear evidence of negative effects of exposure (25).
I am not going to keep repeating myself, but yeah I already gave links showing that these claims are highly controversial and hotly contested, as well as links showing that much of the research making such claims has been found to be biased and not legitimate.
*A study for the Canadian Department of Justice found that when they exposed individuals who were habitually “high-frequency porn consumers” to non-violent, dehumanizing porn, those individuals were particularly likely to report that they might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual aggression. The authors noted that the porn the individuals were exposed to was the kind that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream commercial entertainment videos. The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of raping after exposure to this material—20.4 percent of those who were exposed, versus 9.4 percent of those who weren’t exposed (25).
Those statistics seem fishy considering that 35% of college aged men say they might rape if they knew they would get away with it
http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html
- In a survey of male college students:
· 35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it (ref 6,7).
You can see that there’s tons of info that backs up the connection between viewing porn and committing sex crimes. But, just so you get both sides of the issue, the porn pushers think they have evidence to support their point too. Here are the studies they always talk about:
Well, even in the social sciences the things this crazy Christian fundamentalist is talking about are highly controversial.
Well, the porn pushers love to talk about these studies because they seem to validate their points. What they don’t like to talk about is how the people who have since reviewed these studies have found some major flaws in the conclusions. It turns out that there are a couple of things that distorted the results:
Well, as my previous links show, the studies that this person is giving links to have also been reviewed and found to have major flaws in them.
First of all, at the same time that pornography was legalized in all of those countries, a lot of other sex crimes including peeping, “indecency towards women,” and certain types of incest, were also made legal. So with those things no longer considered a crime, it’s no wonder the crime rates dropped.
I guess we will need to look at the raw statistics then? Regardless in the study I linked to it mentioned only child sex abuse crimes not all sex crimes
And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. T
Second, Kutchinsky put rape in the same category as less serious sex crimes. That made it easier to hide the fact that serious crimes like rape actually increased after pornography was legalized in Denmark (5).
well as the above link shows, he only claimed that child sex abuse fell after access to child pornography was made possible. So there is no trickery going on with that statistic!
But no matter what people say to try to try and make pornography seem good or harmless, there’s enough evidence out there that says it’s not, especially when it’s in the wrong hands.
There is a lot of evidence that says pornography leads to lower rates of sexual violence and child pornography leads to lower rates of child sex abuse as well.
http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html
The effects of pornography, whether violent or non-violent, on sexual aggression have been debated
decades. The current review examines evidence about the influence of pornography on sexual aggression in
correlational and experimental studies and in real world violent crime data. Evidence for a causal
relationship between exposure to pornography and sexual aggression is slim and may, at certain times, have
been exaggerated by politicians, pressure groups and some social scientists. Some of the debate has focused
on violent pornography, but evidence of any negative effects is inconsistent, and violent pornography is
comparatively rare in the real world. Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse
relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates. Data from other nations have suggested
similar relationships. Although these data cannot be used to determine that pornography has a cathartic
effect on rape behavior, combined with the weak evidence in support of negative causal hypotheses from the
scientific literature, it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to
increased sexual assault behavior.
-
the guy is mental... he skips main point and shoots around in madness
Tell me the main point then so I can address it head on ! :D
-
The thing is, everyone’s brain is wired to repeat what it sees and hears; it’s a major part of how we learn. And the more senses you get involved in the learning process, the more consistent the message, and the more often you see it, the more likely you are to be influenced by it (30). That’s just one more reason why viewing pornography is dangerous. It’s a short jump from using pornography to imitating what you’re seeing. And just like my friend, sometimes imitating the things you see can really hurt yourself and other people.
This is the argument I had in mind. I can speak from my experience with hard pornography and how much it influenced my sex life. Definitely something I wouldn't recommend, seeing how it changed my sexuality for something much rougher. So I assume being exposed regularly to CP would make me:
1) increasingly desentisized to the moral issue, making it ok to take pleasure in viewing child abuse.
2) rewiring my desires and sexual orientation, although I'm not claiming that it would be the case for anyone.
And yes, Km subsequent analogy with violence fails, because being exposed to pornography and being exposed to violence do not produce the same effects, and I mean that in neurological way. Search for interactions between porn, dopamine, novelty-seeking.
http://yourbrainonporn.com/garys-research-dopamine-and-addiction
http://www.justinlong.org/2011/08/on-pornography-and-the-coolidge-effect/
So I would say allowing CP viewing would make things worse, not meaning that anyone who watches CP would be necessarily looking to get some real action,
but it sure would increase the risks at least.
-
Muslims steal little boys and make them wear pink hijab - evidence - search google for 'bacha bazi'
also muslims with vitaligo are hired to dress as white men to root boys - search for michael jackson. he died a muslim
ps. fuk off
-
Why do you feel so passionate about this kmfkewm? I mean, you must have spent hours in this thread so far, typing, researching, thinking.
I'm not insinuating you're a paedophile yourself - you've said you're not - but why then so much passion and fervour to keep on going with the argument?
Why did those who were not Jewish hide Jews in their attics?
You can hide in my attic anytime you want. Its lined with plastic!!
After reading all your arguments you are really just a stupid fuck that likes looking at pics of abused kids.
Care to share a counter argument, or are you incapable of doing anything other than foaming at the mouth?
Also, do you think the ACLU is full of stupid fucks who just like looking at pics of abused kids?
"The ACLU does not support pornography or child porn. However, we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing certain books or films, even pornographic ones, should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring 'bad or offensive' ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. As the saying goes, 'one man's art is another man’s pornography.' As for child pornography, the ACLU supports the right of the government to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors."
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring "bad" ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.
The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.
And I am sure Jacob Appelbaum is just a stupid fuck who likes looking at pictures of kids being abused (if he is so dumb why are you trusting your life to the anonymity and security systems he is a major contributor to??!)
> Laws are made for the criminals of society because those who wouldn't
> do criminal activity anyway do not need the laws, and indeed do not
> usually suffer them until the time comes that someone/s demonstrate a
> need for them.
>
That is really rich. That's for the civics primer!
> So when people are doing things like spreading even animated child
> porn, and trying to say they're protected under the First Amendment,
> the First Amendment is in grave danger of being seen as outdated.
> Once enough people draw that kind of conclusion, it's only a matter
> of time before it's done away with or changed in order to control the
> criminals in society who would take advantage of our freedoms in
> order to hurt others.
>
[citation required]
> And it's not that animated child porn has victims, it's that it
> encourages victimization of children just like porn encourages it's
> viewers to have sex.
[citation required]
> The only difference here is that when adults
> have sex because they're encouraged by porn, it remains victimless,
I guess you haven't heard that in many parts of the world, such as
Uganda, people are on the verge of being put to death for their sexual
*preferences* alone?
> but when an adult is encouraged by child porn to try and inspire the
> sexual curiosity of a child so that they might also have sex with
> them or at least commit to sexual actions, then victimization has
> occurred. I guess if you wanted to word this in legal terms, it would
> have to do with opposing the sexual corruption of children inspired
> by the sexual encouragement of adults looking at child porn, animated
> or otherwise.
This entire argument is flawed. Please demonstrate or provide evidence
for your claims!
One could equally assert without evidence that the production of erotic
art and the consumption of legal (say, in the US) pornography reduces
adult on adult predatory activity. I bet the Kinsey Institute would have
interesting data on this very topic but well, since this isn't a
conversation based on facts but rather on emotion, I'll not even bother
to dig up a citation. If you show some facts for your arguments, I'm
sure people will bring out data in support of other view points.
So please - show us that the existence of abstract material is the sole
or even a major contributing factor to an act of non-consensual or
otherwise illegal or immoral sexual conduct. Does that currently
non-existent data support your argument? Would it support your argument
for other kinds of abuse?
Does evidence of a killing, such as Oscar Grant's murder in Oakland,
California[0] by the BART police make other police want to kill
civilians? Or does it make people want justice for the death of Oscar
Grant? One might argue that the evidence will actually reduce the
chances that another cop will get to say he meant to pull a stun gun.
Documentation seems to very seriously change the human rights abusers
position of power - be it the police or other groups that derive a
subject's compliance through forced violence.
Or put another more simple way - the problem with child porn is not the
*evidence* of the crime alone, it is that people are actually harming a
living being. The murder of a guy, such as what happened in Oscar
Grant's case, is pretty disturbing - shall we erase that crime from the
archives of history because journalists claim protection under the First
Amendment protections? Why should we create a special class of
information that we flush down the memory hole, where only special
people are allowed to look at it, to judge it and where merely being
accused of being near it is a (cultural) death sentence?
All the best,
Jacob
https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/245056647133818880
Thanks for writing this article. I think the law is more complex in the US than you’ve written – as I think that some states make different distinctions and the prosecution has discretion that varies by jurisdiction.
As a Tor developer, I’ve been attacked for supporting an absolute right to read and an absolute right to speak. No exceptions of any kind should be built into the fabric of our networks or into the fabric of our societies. Prior restraint is wrong, flatly. I’ve made a similar argument to the one presented in your article during public lectures, usually during Q&A time, as a response to extremely angry people in the audience. It usually feels like they haven’t thought things through.
It is important to drive home the point of similar cases where a video is in itself horrible but the crime captured is important to expose. As an example, I present a video. It’s absolutely terrible – a person mulling around during a protest with a red shirt is shot in the head; his brain spills out onto the ground and he appears to die instantly. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpIol2xBPQQ
So, what is the problem here exactly?
The problem is not just the video tape of a Thai King’s sniper killing a person, it is the sniper who kills a person. The video is also presents a problem. It presents evidence that seems to compel people and it moves people to anger or sickness. Those that see the video, I think, should feel the need to take action about the actual crimes documented in the video!
That video is evidence of the sniper’s crimes and to censor it is to take the last moments of the victim and to snuff them out entirely. Again. What could be more despicable than to forever silence the truth about a person unjustly murdered by a monarch and his sniper thugs?
I find it hard to imagine but actually, your article drives it home: the thing more despicable is to systematize it in the form of censorship and to do it in the name of protection; who gains with the video I presented? The tyrant king and his violent murderers.
How many murdering military snipers, abusive cops or monarch’s thugs are on the internet? After the Occupy videos I’ve seen, I’m guessing it is non-zero and likely higher than the total number of child pornographers in absolute numbers. Though I admit, I wouldn’t be surprised by an overlapping set of assholes in those two sets.
Do we ever hear about needing censorship of the internet based on those known internet using criminals and their often well documented crimes? No, not seriously. We rarely, if ever, even hear about accountability thanks to the Blue Shield.
It sounds odd but I think, rightfully we shouldn’t make such an argument seriously. Everyone has a right to speak, even alleged murdering snipers – they also have a right to a fair trial, where evidence, such as the video above, will be used as evidence in an attempt to bring justice. To ensure that justice is created, we must know about the crimes committed against humanity.
We must not shy away from it, that which is so terrible to see and even more terrible, I imagine, to experience. Nor should we destroy the greatest medium for sharing those potential truths that the world has ever seen and certainly not to benefit profiteers, kings or murderers.
Oh yeah and what about the Swedish Pirate Party? They are just sick fuck pedophiles right:
falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade
Child pornography is a toxic subject, but a very important one that cannot and should not be ignored. This is an attempt to bring the topic to a serious discussion, and explain why possession of child pornography need to be re-legalized in the next ten years, and why you need to fight for it to happen.
And the entire libertarian party of the USA is just full of sick fuck pedophiles who want to jack off to pictures of kids being abused right?
http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/25/libertarian-presidential-front-runner-defends-child-porn/
Mary Ruwart, research scientist, perrenial Libertarian Senatorial candidate and front runner for this year’s Libertarian Presidential ticket is being taken to task for comments she made in her book, Short Answers to Tough Questions.
When discussing self choice in relation to child porn, she had this to say: “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
Yeah all of the people fighting for freedom are just total child rapist sick fucks, damn you found us all out! The people who are fighting for your right to use drugs are also fighting for pedophiles right to view child porn. Calling us sick fuck child molesters is funny considering we are the ones making the tools you use to maintain your own freedom, fighting for your own freedom, and standing up to society and the government on your behalf. You are just a selfish fucktard who wants freedom for yourself but slavery for others.
Its hard to argue with a stupid fuck without a shread of empathy and I am far from foaming at the mouth.
ACUL whoever the fuck can go fuck themselves too. I dont need to be part of, thank, support any group fighting for my freedom to use or distribute drugs.
You're so up yourself. You are concerned about everyones freedom including mine.
Well Im here to fight for the freedom of the children in the pictures
Everyone close to me, my family, friends all know I use drugs. What about you? Does your mum know you like/support child pornography??
Ever wonder why they segregate you cunts from the rest of the prison population? Hardcore rapists, serial killers, murders and general lowlife gangbangers will fucking stick you like a pig in a heartbeat. What does that tell you??
You will ALWAYS have to hide under your rock!! Because people like me are going to keep you there.
Fuck you cunt
-
Its hard to argue with a stupid fuck without a shread of empathy and I am far from foaming at the mouth.
No you are very foaming at the mouth. It is hard to argue with people who think with their emotions. Dude, your entire thought process is not based on reality. It is not based on information, it is closer to the way an animal thinks than the way a human should think. You are quite literally being poisoned to the point of delusional rage by the strong emotions you feel. You have no ability to analyze things or think about things because certain things just trigger this primitive reaction in you and your already probably limited ability to use logic just goes to shit. You might as well start banging on your chest like a fucking ape.
ACUL whoever the fuck can go fuck themselves too. I dont need to be part of, thank, support any group fighting for my freedom to use or distribute drugs.
American Civil Liberties Union. Liberty being the key word. Libertarians. Liberty. The people who fight for freedom take the same opinion as I do. The same people fighting for your helpless ass are fighting for the right of pedophiles to view child porn. It is about freedom for everybody, you want to take freedom away from some people and keep it for yourself.
You're so up yourself. You are concerned about everyones freedom including mine. Well Im here to fight for the freedom of the children in the pictures
Yes I want to live in a world where everybody is free, even people who you find to be disgusting and horrible. I want to live in a world where humans think with logic and do not become intoxicated by emotion. Logic is always the best way to think, emotional thinking is never the best it is always going to lead to bad results. You have a responsibility to the rest of humanity to try to suppress your emotions the best you can so that your logical abilities have a chance of seeing the light of day. Children in pictures are not hurt be people looking at the pictures, just like the people in other horrible images are not hurt by people looking at them. I know it seems to be that they are to you, but this is because you are suffering from delusions due to the empathy overdose this subject causes in you. I know it is hard to see that delusions are not real, but please try really hard. Ok, pictures on a computer, they are just what 1's and 0's okay? They can be represented with the flip of a coin okay, heads and tails. So if I flip a coin multiple times and record the result, no matter how many times I do this it is not going to harm a child. Does that make sense to you? Do you see that my flipping of a coin has not impact on any children in the world? Even if I flip the coin and by chance after so many flips the recorded sequence is identical to a picture of child pornograhpy? See, if I flip a coin forever and record the result, there is a decent chance that I will end up with some child porn ! But we already established that flipping coins doesn't hurt children right? Do you see now how maybe you are being a bit irrational? Take a deep breath and think about it a little, do you really think that if you flip a coin too many times you could end up harming a random child? Do you really think that if I flip a coin too many times, it will lead to a child to be molested again *in the past*? This mechanism of action just does not exist bro, and I am really sorry that you think it does because it makes me think maybe you have some psychotic mental health problem, and I hope that if you do that you remember to take your medication, because it could really help with your scary thoughts. I cannot even imagine how scary it must be for you to live in a world where flipping coins has so much power, but just try to get through it bro.
Ever wonder why they segregate you cunts from the rest of the prison population? Hardcore rapists, serial killers, murders and general lowlife gangbangers will fucking stick you like a pig in a heartbeat. What does that tell you??
Lol did you not read that before you said it? Wow hardcore rapists, serial killers, murderers and general lowlife gangbangers will fucking stick me like a pig in a heartbeat. Is that really meant to tell me something? They are fucking hardcore rapists, serial killers, murderers and general lowlife gangbangers you dumb fuck they are all in jail because the stuck somebody like a pig in the first fucking place lol.
You will ALWAYS have to hide under your rock!! Because people like me are going to keep you there.
Dude I doubt you have even been out of the same general area of the UK in your entire fucking life, if I really was worried about delusional fucks such as yourself I would just go to Japan or some other country that has a society that totally agrees with me. Age of consent in Japan is 13, 90% of the population is against making CP illegal and it isn't even illegal to distribute softcore CP. Don't think anyone is gonna stick me like a pig there, especially considering I think 13 is pretty young for age of consent and don't even argue in favor of legalizing the distribution of CP so much as I do the viewing of CP (although I really think distribution isn't a big deal either if it isn't for profit).
Fuck you cunt
blah blah blah fuck you too
-
I couldnt be arsed breaking down your comments so nice and neat because I dont have OCD so here it is short n sweet.
Empathy is an emotion. Empathy is king. All other emotions are just noise. My life revolves around not hurting others especially those that cant defend themselves. Anyone that does not conform to this is trash to me.
Hate is an emotion. I hate trash.
Liberty imo is not taking advantage of another OR supporting those that do.
Freedom IS NOT DOING WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU LIKE
Yep the some of the most evil sons a bitches have a line. Dont abuse kids. Dont support those abusing kids,
And what a paedo never got caught?
Never been to the UK.... once again you are a stupid fuck
Does your mum know how much u like child porn?? of course she doesnt because deep down even cunts without any empathy know they are fucking trash.
-
kmfkewm can post what he wants. ??? That certainly doesn't mean it's right or he's directing the discussion. How do you propose I stop him?? ???
kmfkewm: Does the existence and continual renewing of a body of child pornography reflect a moral shortcoming of our species? If not, what is your support for this position? If so, do you think you're helping stop the monsters from creating new monsters with this specific discussion?
-
This thread got old REAL fast...Im not going to debate that it is a good idea to allow people to view CP...Fucking disgusting. Line them up and put one in the back of thier heads!!
-
Empathy is an emotion.
No it isn't empathy is the ability to recognize emotion in others and the capacity to emotionally respond to the emotional state of others.
Empathy is king. All other emotions are just noise.
Empathy is not an emotion.
My life revolves around not hurting others especially those that cant defend themselves.
Good for you, I don't hurt others either! Looking at pictures of people being hurt doesn't hurt them.
Anyone that does not conform to this is trash to me.
Sure I agree but the difference is that you do no understand what causes people to be hurt and what does not.
Hate is an emotion. I hate trash.
Sure, hatred is an emotion.
Liberty imo is not taking advantage of another OR supporting those that do.
The ability to support those who take advantages of other, at least to some degree, is something that people should have the liberty to do.
Freedom IS NOT DOING WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU LIKE
Sure, freedom is doing whatever you like so long as it does not initiate force against others. Looking at pictures doesn't initiate force against anyone. If it were not for the police, most people wouldn't even be able to tell if someone is looking at a picture with them in it or not. At the end of the day my argument really boils down to the simple fact that looking at pictures doesn't cause harm to others, and therefor it should not be illegal to look at pictures.
Yep the some of the most evil sons a bitches have a line. Dont abuse kids. Dont support those abusing kids,
It really depends on what you mean by support, but certainly I think it should be legal for people to express an opinion that it is good for kids to be abused, even though I disagree with the opinion. Censorship is *always* bad.
And what a paedo never got caught?
The vast, vast majority of people who look at CP will never be arrested for it, even in the USA. Every year they identify something like 50 + million IP addresses trading CP on P2P networks, under 500,000 of them are arrested a year, for a total of less than one percent of the total identified per year. There simply are not enough resources to lock up all the people known to have viewed CP, and those are only the people they know have done it not the people using good enough anonymity to avoid detection.
Never been to the UK.... once again you are a stupid fuck
Uh-huh then why do you spell it paedo and mum lol.
Does your mum know how much u like child porn?? of course she doesnt because deep down even cunts without any empathy know they are fucking trash.
Does your mum know all about the porn you look at?! And I also don't recall ever saying I look at child porn....
-
kmfkewm can post what he wants. ??? That certainly doesn't mean it's right or he's directing the discussion. How do you propose I stop him?? ???
kmfkewm: Does the existence and continual renewing of a body of child pornography reflect a moral shortcoming of our species?
Sure continued renewal is a moral shortcoming, it is wrong to produce CP (ignoring self produced blah blah blah), morality is knowing right from wrong, so the fact that people produce CP is a shortcoming in their ability to either recognize or care about right from wrong, and since they are humans they are part of our species, so the continued production of child pornography reflects a moral shortcoming for our species. The existence of child pornography represents that our species has in the past at least had examples of moral shortcomings, just as pictures of the holocaust reflect the same thing, do you propose that we destroy all pictures of the holocaust as well, to censor that our species has had moral shortcomings in the past?
If not, what is your support for this position? If so, do you think you're helping stop the monsters from creating new monsters with this specific discussion?
??
-
Not backing this up with anything empirical, just my feelings and thoughts...
CP = Repulsive 100% of the time. It should have no place in any kind of society.
People who enjoy CP are included in my list of the worst kind of people in the world along with rapists and terrorists.
If you enjoy CP do not ever communicate with me, ever.
-xoxo
-
You think looking at the wrong picture (or flipping a coin too many times..) is just as bad as flying airplanes into two towers and killing thousands of people? Believe me I have no problem to not communicate with someone as crazy as you, as a matter of fact I am rather shocked you are even capable of language.
seriously you think looking at a picture of someone being raped is as bad as raping someone? That is so absurd and alien to me. Something is wrong with you, I don't know what for sure but certainly there is some defect in your mind.
-
You think looking at the wrong picture (or flipping a coin too many times..) is just as bad as flying airplanes into two towers and killing thousands of people? Believe me I have no problem to not communicate with someone as crazy as you, as a matter of fact I am rather shocked you are even capable of language.
seriously you think looking at a picture of someone being raped is as bad as raping someone? That is so absurd and alien to me. Something is wrong with you, I don't know what for sure but certainly there is some defect in your mind.
To clarify, I rank CP lovers lower than terrorists on the worst kinds of people list, but they are still on the list. If you get off to seeing rape, then yeah I think you're quite looney and only a small step away from being that rapist. I'm just glad I don't take the opinions of people who absolutely disgust me into account in any way. I would wish you luck in life, but then I'd be lying.
Worst People in the world list, whom I'd rather see dead (in order, to avoid confusion)
1. Terrorists
2. Rapists (Serial rapists rank higher)
3. Producers and Consumers of CP
-
You think looking at the wrong picture (or flipping a coin too many times..) is just as bad as flying airplanes into two towers and killing thousands of people? Believe me I have no problem to not communicate with someone as crazy as you, as a matter of fact I am rather shocked you are even capable of language.
seriously you think looking at a picture of someone being raped is as bad as raping someone? That is so absurd and alien to me. Something is wrong with you, I don't know what for sure but certainly there is some defect in your mind.
To clarify, I rank CP lovers lower than terrorists on the worst kinds of people list, but they are still on the list. If you get off to seeing rape, then yeah I think you're quite looney and only a small step away from being that rapist. I'm just glad I don't take the opinions of people who absolutely disgust me into account in any way. I would wish you luck in life, but then I'd be lying.
Worst People in the world list, whom I'd rather see dead (in order, to avoid confusion)
1. Terrorists
2. Rapists (Serial rapists rank higher)
3. Producers and Consumers of CP
What is your definition of a terrorist?
-
Just to clarify, I still think you are a fucking wack-a-doo to think that you should even put "looks at arrangements of pixels" on the same list with "violently kills thousands of people", let alone only two below it.
Terrorist - "Allah akbar I bombed a city and killed three thousand people!"
Rapist - "I raped a bunch of defenseless females and scarred them for life!"
CP Viewer - "I flipped a coin one too many times !!!"
-
I will no longer be responding to kmfkewm. To me, he/she..."it", is less-than human until rehabilitated psychologically (note that I'm not saying you necessarily will be like that forever).
@samesamebutdifferent: Anyone or Any group who attempts to obtain control/power/influence/cause action/etc through extreme levels of orchestrated violence/mass-murder without regard to the lives of innocent people. Yep that pretty much sums it up.
-
@samesamebutdifferent: Anyone or Any group who attempts to obtain control/power/influence/cause action/etc through extreme levels of orchestrated violence/mass-murder without regard to the lives of innocent people. Yep that pretty much sums it up.
Well at least you think the government is worse than people who look at CP.
I have a question for the people who think CGI CP should be legal but not "real" CP. What if someone goes to a country where it is legal to download CP, and they download "real" CP and make a CGI representation of it that is identical to the human eye, and then they delete the "real" CP and start to distribute the CGI CP in a country where CGI CP is legal to distribute? Do you have a problem with that as well?
-
Shit breaking my rule on not addressing kmfkewm....
I assume you are referring to the US gov't, if so, then yes I believe most of the modern acts of violence sponsored/committed/endorsed/etc by the USA are far more reprehensible than the reprehensibility of CP-lookers.
-
@samesamebutdifferent: Anyone or Any group who attempts to obtain control/power/influence/cause action/etc through extreme levels of orchestrated violence/mass-murder without regard to the lives of innocent people. Yep that pretty much sums it up.
So pretty much every government on the planet then.
-
Every government? Not necessarily, I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of any violence coming from the Swiss in any capacity. And note that I mentioned "regard". Out of my knowledge in terms of current events, but perhaps the death of some innocents to kill "bad guys" can be justified for some nations. Hypothetically if the US would of shot down the airplanes on 9-11 many innocents would have died but not 3k+ so from a purely numbers perspective it would have been justified. It is when innocent life is completely disregarded that it becomes a moral dilemma IMO, ie drone strikes, nuclear bombs, carpet bombing, genocide, etc.
Sorry didn't mean to steer off-topic...
-
Every government? Not necessarily, I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of any violence coming from the Swiss in any capacity. And note that I mentioned "regard". Out of my knowledge in terms of current events, but perhaps the death of some innocents to kill "bad guys" can be justified for some nations. Hypothetically if the US would of shot down the airplanes on 9-11 many innocents would have died but not 3k+ so from a purely numbers perspective it would have been justified. It is when innocent life is completely disregarded that it becomes a moral dilemma IMO, ie drone strikes, nuclear bombs, carpet bombing, genocide, etc.
Sorry didn't mean to steer off-topic...
The Swiss? are you fucking kidding me, don't let all that neutrality bullshit blind you, they are one of the biggest arms manufacturers on the planet and every fucker has a gun there! there is a reason they never were invaded, they own the show believe me.
-
Every government? Not necessarily, I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of any violence coming from the Swiss in any capacity. And note that I mentioned "regard". Out of my knowledge in terms of current events, but perhaps the death of some innocents to kill "bad guys" can be justified for some nations. Hypothetically if the US would of shot down the airplanes on 9-11 many innocents would have died but not 3k+ so from a purely numbers perspective it would have been justified. It is when innocent life is completely disregarded that it becomes a moral dilemma IMO, ie drone strikes, nuclear bombs, carpet bombing, genocide, etc.
Sorry didn't mean to steer off-topic...
The Swiss? are you fucking kidding me, don't let all that neutrality bullshit blind you, they are one of the biggest arms manufacturers on the planet and every fucker has a gun there! there is a reason they never were invaded, they own the show believe me.
Costa Rica government is pretty laid back these days.. there a few out there that don't seem to bother anyone
-
facts:
1. this discussion about CP only serves to titillate muslims and their protectors
2. muslims suck off lil boys
3. pakistani males are creepy
sources:
(1) Anderson, K.J. (2003). “Pornography”. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/porno.html
(2) Baron, L., & Straus, M. (1984). Sexual stratification, pornography, and rape in the United States. In N. M. Malamuth & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography, sexual aggression (pp. 185-209). New York: Academic Press.
(3) Campbell, M.C., & Campbell, J.M. (2005). The Engines of World War III. Retrieved January 2011
(4) Carter, D. L., Prentky, R. A., Knight, R. A., Vanderveer, P. L., Boucher, R. J. (1987). "Use of Pornography in the Criminal and Developmental Histories of Sexual Offenders". Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2: 196–211.
(5) Cline, V. (2009). “Pornography’s Effects on Adults and Children”. Retrieved January 2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20282510/Dr-Victor-Cline-Pornography-s-Effects-on-Adults-and-Children
(6) Davies, K.A. (2004). "Voluntary exposure to pornography and men's attitudes toward feminism and rape". Journal of Sex Research. Retrieved Jan, 2011. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n2_v34/ai_19551963/
(7) Diamond, M. (1999). The effects of pornography: an international perspective. In J. Elias, V. Bullough, V. Elias, G. Brewer, J. Douglas & W. Jarvis (Eds.), Pornography 101: Eroticism, Sexuality and the First Amendment (223–260) Amherst: Prometheus Press.
( 8 ) Diamond, M. (in preparation). Pornography and Sex Crimes in Poland
(9) Diamond, M., & Kotula, O. (in preparation). Pornography and Sex Crimes in Finland.
(10) Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E., Weiss, P. (2010). “Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic. Received: 29 July 2009 / Revised: 30 August 2010 /Accepted: 30 August 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010.
(11) Donnerstein, E., & Linz, D. (1986). Mass media sexual violence and male viewers: current theory and research. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 601?618.
(12) Donnerstein, E., Linz, D., & Penrod, S. (1987). The question of Pornography: Research ?ndings and policy implications. New York: Free Press.
(13) Ferguson, C. J. and R. D. Hartley (2009). "14." Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(5): 323-329.
(14) Kingston, D.A., Fedoroff, P., Firestone, P., Curry, S., Bradford, J.M. (2008). “Pornography Use and Sexual Aggression: The Impact of Frequency and Type of Pornography Use on Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders”. Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 34, p. 341–351.
(15) Kutchinsky, B. (1973). The effect of easy availability of pornography on the incidence of sex crimes: the Danish experience. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 163?181.
(16) Kutchinsky, B. (1983). Obscenity and pornography: behavioral aspects. In S. H. Kadish (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice, vol. 3. (pp. 1077?1086)New York: Free Press.
(17) Kutchinsky, B. (1991). Pornography and rape: theory and practice? Evidence from crime data in four countries where pornography is easily available. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14, 47?64.
(18) Kutchinsky, B. (1992b). Pornography, sex crime and public policy. Paper presented at the Sex Industry and Public Policy, Canberra, Australia.
(19) Landripet, I., Stulhofer, A., & Diamond, M. (2006). “Assessing the in?uence of pornography on sexual violence: a cross-cultural perspective”. Paper presented at the International Academy for Sex Research Amsterdam, The Netherlands (July 12–15).
(20) Malamuth NM. Donnerstein E (1982): The effects of aggressive-pornographic of mass media stimuli. In Berkowitz L (Ed): "Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.15." New York: Academic Press.
(21) Malamuth NM, Donnerstein E (Eds) (1984): "Pornography and Sexual Aggression." New York: Academic Press.
(22) Marshall, W.L. (1988). “The Use of Sexually Explicit Materials by Rapists, Child Molesters and Nonoffenders,” Journal of Sex Research, 25, No. 2, pp. 267-288.
(23) Peters, R. (2004). “The Link between Pornography and Violent Sex Crimes”. Retrieved January 2011. http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/news/Pornography-SexCrimes-Link-RWP.pdf
(24) Silbert, M.H., Pines, A.M. (1984). "Pornography and sexual abuse of women". Sex Roles 10: 857–68.
(25) Watson, B., Welch, S.R. (2000). “Just Harmless Fun? Understanding the Impact of Pornography,” Enough Is Enough, http://www.enough.org/objects/justharmlessfun.pdf
(26) Winick, C., & Evans, J. T. (1994). Is there a national standard with respect to attitudes toward sexually explicit media material? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23(4), 405?419.
(27) Winick, C., & Evans, J. T. (1996). The relationship between nonenforcement of state pornography laws and rates of sex crime arrests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25(5), 439?453.
(28) Zillmann, D. (1986). "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", Included in the Report of the Surgeon General's Workshop on Pornography and Public Health, United States Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, August 4, 1986.
(29) Zillmann, D., Bryant, J. (1982). Pornography, sexual callousness, and the trivialization of rape. Journal of Communication, 32(4), 10-21.
(30) Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2010). Processes underlying the effects of adolescents' use of sexually explicit internet material: The role of perceived realism. Communication Research, 37, 375-399. doi: 10.1177/0093650210362464
-
Every government? Not necessarily, I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of any violence coming from the Swiss in any capacity. And note that I mentioned "regard". Out of my knowledge in terms of current events, but perhaps the death of some innocents to kill "bad guys" can be justified for some nations. Hypothetically if the US would of shot down the airplanes on 9-11 many innocents would have died but not 3k+ so from a purely numbers perspective it would have been justified. It is when innocent life is completely disregarded that it becomes a moral dilemma IMO, ie drone strikes, nuclear bombs, carpet bombing, genocide, etc.
Sorry didn't mean to steer off-topic...
The Swiss? are you fucking kidding me, don't let all that neutrality bullshit blind you, they are one of the biggest arms manufacturers on the planet and every fucker has a gun there! there is a reason they never were invaded, they own the show believe me.
Wait till Nestle privatizes our water then the Swiss will really run the show. They are working on it.
-
@samesamebutdifferent: Anyone or Any group who attempts to obtain control/power/influence/cause action/etc through extreme levels of orchestrated violence/mass-murder without regard to the lives of innocent people. Yep that pretty much sums it up.
Well at least you think the government is worse than people who look at CP.
I have a question for the people who think CGI CP should be legal but not "real" CP. What if someone goes to a country where it is legal to download CP, and they download "real" CP and make a CGI representation of it that is identical to the human eye, and then they delete the "real" CP and start to distribute the CGI CP in a country where CGI CP is legal to distribute? Do you have a problem with that as well?
Absolutely, the issue that's presented here is the core issue why many of us disparage this behavior: At some point, some child is abused sexually. That person has now added to the counter, bitcoin waillet, bank account, or whatever to promote that person. The only difference here is that the person is not directly involved.
Sexual abuse comes with so many ill-psychological effects that it's not worth it. Why not just have virtual CP? Why even need the child? Surely, they can imagine what it would look like.
-
Every government? Not necessarily, I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of any violence coming from the Swiss in any capacity. And note that I mentioned "regard". Out of my knowledge in terms of current events, but perhaps the death of some innocents to kill "bad guys" can be justified for some nations. Hypothetically if the US would of shot down the airplanes on 9-11 many innocents would have died but not 3k+ so from a purely numbers perspective it would have been justified. It is when innocent life is completely disregarded that it becomes a moral dilemma IMO, ie drone strikes, nuclear bombs, carpet bombing, genocide, etc.
Sorry didn't mean to steer off-topic...
The Swiss? are you fucking kidding me, don't let all that neutrality bullshit blind you, they are one of the biggest arms manufacturers on the planet and every fucker has a gun there! there is a reason they never were invaded, they own the show believe me.
Costa Rica government is pretty laid back these days.. there a few out there that don't seem to bother anyone
The US runs Costa Rica
-
@samesamebutdifferent: Anyone or Any group who attempts to obtain control/power/influence/cause action/etc through extreme levels of orchestrated violence/mass-murder without regard to the lives of innocent people. Yep that pretty much sums it up.
Well at least you think the government is worse than people who look at CP.
I have a question for the people who think CGI CP should be legal but not "real" CP. What if someone goes to a country where it is legal to download CP, and they download "real" CP and make a CGI representation of it that is identical to the human eye, and then they delete the "real" CP and start to distribute the CGI CP in a country where CGI CP is legal to distribute? Do you have a problem with that as well?
Absolutely, the issue that's presented here is the core issue why many of us disparage this behavior: At some point, some child is abused sexually. That person has now added to the counter, bitcoin waillet, bank account, or whatever to promote that person. The only difference here is that the person is not directly involved.
Sexual abuse comes with so many ill-psychological effects that it's not worth it. Why not just have virtual CP? Why even need the child? Surely, they can imagine what it would look like.
What if they make virtual CP that is identical to what real CP of a real existing child being molested would look like? No problems with that? Also, if you think the number of downloads of CP has a causative relationship with child abuse you are insane, but we can solve that problem with PIR based solutions that hide demand. So please answer, are you fine with CP downloaded from systems that technically hide the demand? Because we can avoid the counter. And I already have said so many times that I do not think it should be legal to buy child porn, that you should just stop making any references to money of any sort at all. "Or whatever" is just a way of saying "Damn you have addressed all ways in which viewing CP could theoretically cause economic demand for child abuse, I need to wave my hands so I can keep with this tired debunked argument because I have not got shit else".
Okay so you think virtual child porn is okay (well it is illegal in the US, shit someone went to prison for 15 months for having a cartoon of the Simpsons kids!), but not if the virtual child porn is made using real child porn as a reference. So the magic voodoo effect that happens when someone views real child porn carries over to virtual child porn that is made with the "real" child porn as a reference (I mean, I don't know what real child porn is. If a master painter makes a photorealistic copy of a CP photograph is it then real child porn?!). But what if they make virtual child porn that is photorealistic to what it would look like if a real child who has not been molested was molested? Real child, virtual porn of the child, not based on anything that happened in reality.
Also I want to add this
[A]s critics like Linda Polman have pointed out, the empathetic reflex can lead us astray. When the perpetrators of violence profit from aid—as in the “taxes” that warlords often demand from international relief agencies—they are actually given an incentive to commit further atrocities. It is similar to the practice of some parents in India who mutilate their children at birth in order to make them more effective beggars. The children’s debilities tug at our hearts, but a more dispassionate analysis of the situation is necessary if we are going to do anything meaningful to prevent them.
I think this is a great example of how having too much emotion and empathy can cloud peoples minds in a dangerous and counter productive way. It is really similar with CP, it causes a strong emotional response in you guys and it makes it so you want to ban CP and death to everyone who looks at it blah blah blah, despite the fact that studies show that when CP is legal child sex abuse rates actually fall. So in your emotionally inspired bid to save the children, you are condemning real children to be molested and you are not doing shit to unmolest previously molested children. It is just like how the people giving money to the mutilated beggar children are actually causing the mutilation of beggar children in the first place! This is the type of shit that happens when you think with your emotions, you feel so good and happy that you just gave some money to a poor beggar child who is blind, but because people like you feel sorry for the blind beggar children and give them money, parents blind their children so they can get more money. That is the result of thinking with emotions instead of logical analysis of the details of a situation.
-
@samesamebutdifferent: Anyone or Any group who attempts to obtain control/power/influence/cause action/etc through extreme levels of orchestrated violence/mass-murder without regard to the lives of innocent people. Yep that pretty much sums it up.
Well at least you think the government is worse than people who look at CP.
I have a question for the people who think CGI CP should be legal but not "real" CP. What if someone goes to a country where it is legal to download CP, and they download "real" CP and make a CGI representation of it that is identical to the human eye, and then they delete the "real" CP and start to distribute the CGI CP in a country where CGI CP is legal to distribute? Do you have a problem with that as well?
Absolutely, the issue that's presented here is the core issue why many of us disparage this behavior: At some point, some child is abused sexually. That person has now added to the counter, bitcoin waillet, bank account, or whatever to promote that person. The only difference here is that the person is not directly involved.
Sexual abuse comes with so many ill-psychological effects that it's not worth it. Why not just have virtual CP? Why even need the child? Surely, they can imagine what it would look like.
What if they make virtual CP that is identical to what real CP of a real existing child being molested would look like? No problems with that? Also, if you think the number of downloads of CP has a causative relationship with child abuse you are insane, but we can solve that problem with PIR based solutions that hide demand. So please answer, are you fine with CP downloaded from systems that technically hide the demand? Because we can avoid the counter. And I already have said so many times that I do not think it should be legal to buy child porn, that you should just stop making any references to money of any sort at all. "Or whatever" is just a way of saying "Damn you have addressed all ways in which viewing CP could theoretically cause economic demand for child abuse, I need to wave my hands so I can keep with this tired debunked argument because I have not got shit else".
Okay so you think virtual child porn is okay (well it is illegal in the US, shit someone went to prison for 15 months for having a cartoon of the Simpsons kids!), but not if the virtual child porn is made using real child porn as a reference. So the magic voodoo effect that happens when someone views real child porn carries over to virtual child porn that is made with the "real" child porn as a reference (I mean, I don't know what real child porn is. If a master painter makes a photorealistic copy of a CP photograph is it then real child porn?!). But what if they make virtual child porn that is photorealistic to what it would look like if a real child who has not been molested was molested? Real child, virtual porn of the child, not based on anything that happened in reality.
Also I want to add this
[A]s critics like Linda Polman have pointed out, the empathetic reflex can lead us astray. When the perpetrators of violence profit from aid—as in the “taxes” that warlords often demand from international relief agencies—they are actually given an incentive to commit further atrocities. It is similar to the practice of some parents in India who mutilate their children at birth in order to make them more effective beggars. The children’s debilities tug at our hearts, but a more dispassionate analysis of the situation is necessary if we are going to do anything meaningful to prevent them.
I think this is a great example of how having too much emotion and empathy can cloud peoples minds in a dangerous and counter productive way. It is really similar with CP, it causes a strong emotional response in you guys and it makes it so you want to ban CP and death to everyone who looks at it blah blah blah, despite the fact that studies show that when CP is legal child sex abuse rates actually fall. So in your emotionally inspired bid to save the children, you are condemning real children to be molested and you are not doing shit to unmolest previously molested children. It is just like how the people giving money to the mutilated beggar children are actually causing the mutilation of beggar children in the first place! This is the type of shit that happens when you think with your emotions, you feel so good and happy that you just gave some money to a poor beggar child who is blind, but because people like you feel sorry for the blind beggar children and give them money, parents blind their children so they can get more money. That is the result of thinking with emotions instead of logical analysis of the details of a situation.
Hmm, you need to show me these studies. It's quite easy to misrepresent facts. For example, it may be the case that child sex abuse went down...because it wasn't considered abuse at the time. If CP is legal and available, then the acts themselves in which the CP depicts must have been taken by a person who would otherwise be jailed. It's a shift, not a reduction, per se.
I don't see the point in subjecting children to sexual acts of which they are not physically or mentally ready for. I am not basing this on pure emotion; there are literally almost endless ties to sexual abuse in certain, very persistent mental disorders.
So long as it involves no real children, I see no issue. Those children cannot consent and thus should not be coerced or forced into acts which require such.
-
Ok but you said that if someone makes virtual CP using real CP as a reference, and the virtual CP is to the human eye identical to the real CP, that the virtual CP in this instance should be illegal.
So my question is, what if someone makes virtual CP that depicts a real child who exists in reality being molested, but the child was never molested in reality, but the virtual CP looks identical to what it would look like if the person who made it used real CP of the child being molested as a reference.
Please humor me just a bit more, I am going somewhere with this.
edit: also I agree production of CP should in almost all cases be illegal, ignoring self produced shit etc
-
Ok but you said that if someone makes virtual CP using real CP as a reference, and the virtual CP is to the human eye identical to the real CP, that the virtual CP in this instance should be illegal.
So my question is, what if someone makes virtual CP that depicts a real child who exists in reality being molested, but the child was never molested in reality, but the virtual CP looks identical to what it would look like if the person who made it used real CP of the child being molested as a reference.
Please humor me just a bit more, I am going somewhere with this.
edit: also I agree production of CP should in almost all cases be illegal, ignoring self produced shit etc
I still believe the child is victimized. They have no consent, but VR characters tend to look so ambiguous that I wonder why the person needed a reference. If by some god of CPU and an elite 3d max renderer could make it realistic looking, it would still be a violation of rights. It is for adults, unless they consent.
The issue here is that the kids cannot consent.
-
Ok but you said that if someone makes virtual CP using real CP as a reference, and the virtual CP is to the human eye identical to the real CP, that the virtual CP in this instance should be illegal.
So my question is, what if someone makes virtual CP that depicts a real child who exists in reality being molested, but the child was never molested in reality, but the virtual CP looks identical to what it would look like if the person who made it used real CP of the child being molested as a reference.
Please humor me just a bit more, I am going somewhere with this.
edit: also I agree production of CP should in almost all cases be illegal, ignoring self produced shit etc
I still believe the child is victimized. They have no consent, but VR characters tend to look so ambiguous that I wonder why the person needed a reference. If by some god of CPU and an elite 3d max renderer could make it realistic looking, it would still be a violation of rights. It is for adults, unless they consent.
The issue here is that the kids cannot consent.
Okay but if it is virtual CP of a child that doesn't exist, but it looks photorealistic to a child that could exist because of the 3D rendering abilities of the (probably pretty near) future, then you are okay with that? Looks real, not based on a real child, no molestation really took place.
-
Just so you know 'virtual' images are already pretty near to photorealistic (link is not porn): https://lh3.ggpht.com/_nIWiKIscZJY/SRZ5DYl6DiI/AAAAAAAABWE/tcSAK_PoURw/s400/airb.jpg (this is a painting though actually) here is CGI: http://www.wired.com/design/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/marco_photo_vs_render_v2_660px.jpg (half is CGI half is a real photograph, looks pretty close to me).
But yeah so imagine someone makes an image that is photorealistic and it depicts a child, but the child is not real and no molestation took place. You are okay with this right?
-
Just so you know 'virtual' images are already pretty near to photorealistic (link is not porn): https://lh3.ggpht.com/_nIWiKIscZJY/SRZ5DYl6DiI/AAAAAAAABWE/tcSAK_PoURw/s400/airb.jpg (this is a painting though actually) here is CGI: http://www.wired.com/design/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/marco_photo_vs_render_v2_660px.jpg (half is CGI half is a real photograph, looks pretty close to me).
But yeah so imagine someone makes an image that is photorealistic and it depicts a child, but the child is not real and no molestation took place. You are okay with this right?
Sure, I would have to see studies on pedophilia to ensure there isn't a link between these practicies and social maladaptation. I wouldn't feel right with it, but no, I don't see a logical issue with it.
I don't mean to be an ass, but what is the point you're trying to make? I kind of am interested, but my bed is also quite interesting at this ungodly hour.
-
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.
Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)
I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.
My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.
-
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.
Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)
I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.
My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.
My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.
-
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.
Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)
I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.
My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.
My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.
Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.
I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child?
-
Seriously, this topic needs 20 mother-fucking pages of discussion?
I have a son under 10. If you knowingly and actively view child porn, or virtual or imitation child porn, or fucking squirrels dressed as schoolkids, I will hunt you the fuck down.
Any questions?
-
Seriously, this topic needs 20 mother-fucking pages of discussion?
I have a son under 10. If you knowingly and actively view child porn, or virtual or imitation child porn, or fucking squirrels dressed as schoolkids, I will hunt you the fuck down.
Any questions?
Yes, has the boy been broken in yet? Its a fathers duty you know.
-
Seriously, this topic needs 20 mother-fucking pages of discussion?
I have a son under 10. If you knowingly and actively view child porn, or virtual or imitation child porn, or fucking squirrels dressed as schoolkids, I will hunt you the fuck down.
Any questions?
Yes, has the boy been broken in yet? Its a fathers duty you know.
Not a custom in my country, but how did yours go?
-
Seriously, this topic needs 20 mother-fucking pages of discussion?
I have a son under 10. If you knowingly and actively view child porn, or virtual or imitation child porn, or fucking squirrels dressed as schoolkids, I will hunt you the fuck down.
Any questions?
So you want to put people in prison for looking at virtual child porn as well? Jesus fucking christ dude what the hell is wrong with you?! Do you think that Bart Simpson is abused all over again every time someone looks at cartoons with him in it? But really I can respect you to an extent, because you are essentially just coming right out and saying you want to be the thought police, without trying to make some shit up about protecting children from being abused all over again when their CP is viewed. Or do you think cartoons are abused? Or do you only mean photorealistic virtual CP? So you think photorealistic children have rights but not cartoon children they don't, but of course real children do.
Good God I am not cut out for this world at all I can not keep track of your insanities to even try to blend in if I wanted to. I don't know anything about the rights of cartoon characters, or the magical voodoo properties of photography, or how photorealistic a depicition of a fictional child needs to be before we treat it as a real child. In fact, I am kind of scared right now because I just watched an action movie, and someone shot a guy, and I am seriously concerned that SWAT is about to bust in my house and arrest my TV and send me to prison for harboring a fugitive. Jesus Christ it is the fucking twilight zone or something.
-
Are there even any child porn sites left on the darkweb? I believe that most of them got removed, most of them were hosted on FreedomHosting.
-
Are there even any child porn sites left on the darkweb? I believe that most of them got removed, most of them were hosted on FreedomHosting.
Freenet is a massive cache of CP and it is distributed over 20,000 computers across the world and all of its nodes are protected with plausible deniability and encryption and a lot of it is in darknet mode so it resists total enumeration.
-
I do not even want you to reply to this. I just want to let you know that one day you will realize what a disgusting piece of shit you are and kill yourself. Or hopefully someone will kill you before then.
-
I do not even want you to reply to this. I just want to let you know that one day you will realize what a disgusting piece of shit you are and kill yourself. Or hopefully someone will kill you before then.
Has the OP even said that he himself 'get off' to CP? The impression I was getting is that he just things that it should be decrimalized (which I personally don't agree with). But I don't think that he actually watches and enjoys child porn himself?
Or maybe he does, I may have missed something because of the mass amount of spam and useless and irrelevant posts on this thread.
Locker.
-
People who get turned on by kids cant help the way they feel. Just like if you get turned on by goats, or washing machines or whatever. But they do have the choice whether to act on those feelings or not. We should not censure people for what they feel, only for what they do. It is truly sad that apparently many adults can not relate to sex other adults, and it is a real tragedy to see the innocence of kids being traduced for the pleasure of adults. Sex (really good sex) has a lot to do with intimacy, and surely people who get off on kids are missing a great human experience. Perhaps someone will one day figure out how and why people come to regard kids as sex objects. Maybe they will also discover exactly what it is about domestic appliances too. I have to say I have a stunning vac.....all curves and a wonderful vaginal pink colour not to mention the noises it makes when its sucking wow
Cant see cp being legal any time soon if ever.
-
kmfkewm can post what he wants. ??? That certainly doesn't mean it's right or he's directing the discussion. How do you propose I stop him?? ???
kmfkewm: Does the existence and continual renewing of a body of child pornography reflect a moral shortcoming of our species?
Sure continued renewal is a moral shortcoming, it is wrong to produce CP (ignoring self produced blah blah blah), morality is knowing right from wrong, so the fact that people produce CP is a shortcoming in their ability to either recognize or care about right from wrong, and since they are humans they are part of our species, so the continued production of child pornography reflects a moral shortcoming for our species.
Look, this is definitely a complicated issue. Humans are complicated organisms. I submit, however, that as a general rule you don't need to expend this much effort every time you think of CP. CP is wrong. That's enough to say for now, at this point in our history.
The existence of child pornography represents that our species has in the past at least had examples of moral shortcomings, just as pictures of the holocaust reflect the same thing,
What is the *general intent* behind the existence/propagation of photographs of the Holocaust? Does this match up with the general intent behind the existence/propagation of child pornography? Of course not. Intent *matters*, and neatly dismantels your attempted equivalence of the two.
If not, what is your support for this position? If so, do you think you're helping stop the monsters from creating new monsters with this specific discussion?
??
This discussion in which you continue to bloviate uselessly. Do you think it's oriented toward promoting understanding and solving the problems presented? To me it appears you're basically navel-gazing.
-
I do not even want you to reply to this. I just want to let you know that one day you will realize what a disgusting piece of shit you are and kill yourself. Or hopefully someone will kill you before then.
Has the OP even said that he himself 'get off' to CP? The impression I was getting is that he just things that it should be decrimalized (which I personally don't agree with). But I don't think that he actually watches and enjoys child porn himself?
Or maybe he does, I may have missed something because of the mass amount of spam and useless and irrelevant posts on this thread.
Locker.
So why add to them with your bullshit?
-
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.
Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)
I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.
My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.
My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.
Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.
I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child?
No, that is not what I am implying.
I used the analogy of the actors as an example. An actor may see themselves raped tons of times in movies, yet they don't bear the emotional scars of the rape at a clinical level because the event never actually took place. There's no personalization of the incident as there is with real, forced interourse.
That being said, if by chance there was a photorealistic looking version of a child that was not made a priori, I would imagine that they would be humiliated--but they would not bear the scars as if they were used in filming (i.e. ACTUALLY raped)
To be even clearer:
I don't see a problem as long as no child (i.e. their physical being) is involved at all during the acts in which are depicted. It's a sexual deviance that would be frowned upon by many, but that would nullify my main concern: children developing maladaptive from the actions in which their physicality was involved.
-
People who get turned on by kids cant help the way they feel. Just like if you get turned on by goats, or washing machines or whatever. But they do have the choice whether to act on those feelings or not. We should not censure people for what they feel, only for what they do. It is truly sad that apparently many adults can not relate to sex other adults, and it is a real tragedy to see the innocence of kids being traduced for the pleasure of adults. Sex (really good sex) has a lot to do with intimacy, and surely people who get off on kids are missing a great human experience. Perhaps someone will one day figure out how and why people come to regard kids as sex objects. Maybe they will also discover exactly what it is about domestic appliances too. I have to say I have a stunning vac.....all curves and a wonderful vaginal pink colour not to mention the noises it makes when its sucking wow
Cant see cp being legal any time soon if ever.
CP is already legal in half of the world.
-
Look, this is definitely a complicated issue. Humans are complicated organisms. I submit, however, that as a general rule you don't need to expend this much effort every time you think of CP. CP is wrong. That's enough to say for now, at this point in our history.
So, don't think about the issue and just say no? Doesn't that ring a fucking bell ???
What is the *general intent* behind the existence/propagation of photographs of the Holocaust? Does this match up with the general intent behind the existence/propagation of child pornography? Of course not. Intent *matters*, and neatly dismantels your attempted equivalence of the two.
That means you want to criminalize feelings and makes you the thought police. Do you think if a neo nazi looks at a picture of the holocaust and it makes him happy to know so many Jews have been killed, do you think he should go to prison then? The equivalence is not attempted by me, it is something that exists in reality, you just decide to ignore it and pretend it does not exist so you can avoid cognitive dissonance.
This discussion in which you continue to bloviate uselessly. Do you think it's oriented toward promoting understanding and solving the problems presented? To me it appears you're basically navel-gazing.
I think is oriented toward educating people, but they are so emotional and angry that they cannot even think.
-
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.
Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)
I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.
My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.
My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.
Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.
I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child?
No, that is not what I am implying.
I used the analogy of the actors as an example. An actor may see themselves raped tons of times in movies, yet they don't bear the emotional scars of the rape at a clinical level because the event never actually took place. There's no personalization of the incident as there is with real, forced interourse.
That being said, if by chance there was a photorealistic looking version of a child that was not made a priori, I would imagine that they would be humiliated--but they would not bear the scars as if they were used in filming (i.e. ACTUALLY raped)
To be even clearer:
I don't see a problem as long as no child (i.e. their physical being) is involved at all during the acts in which are depicted. It's a sexual deviance that would be frowned upon by many, but that would nullify my main concern: children developing maladaptive from the actions in which their physicality was involved.
I think you are not understanding the point I am making. You are being very clear, you don't have a problem with photorealistic virtual child porn as long as no actual real child is involved in the production of it. My argument is, what if someone makes photorealistic child porn, and at some point in the future a real child is born who grows up to look identical to the virtual child, and this child is by chance molested and photographed in such a way that real child porn identical to the virtual child porn comes into existence. No real child was harmed in the making of the virtual child porn or even involved with it, but in the future an identical image was made via the abuse of a real child. Do you think looking at the virtual porn is still okay, since no child was abused to produce it, even though it is visually identical to a picture that had a child abused to make it? Or do you think the once acceptable virtual CP becomes immoral to look at after the real CP is produced in the future, even though in the past it was not immoral. Or do you finally realize that there is not a problem with looking at any picture, but it is the molestation itself that is wrong?
-
CP is already legal in half of the world.
So? Female circumcission is legal in certain countries; child slave labour is legal in certain countries; If you had kids would you be in favour of legalising cp everywhere because its not illegal in some other places? It is tempting to say, and this will make sense to a lot of people on sr, that because certain places have legalised some drugs we in the west should be doing the same, and I ofc would agree with that. But getting high is not the same as abusing vulnerable young persons. Theres as much chance of cp being legalised here in the uk as there is of us living in a democratic state, ie practically none.
-
I do not even want you to reply to this. I just want to let you know that one day you will realize what a disgusting piece of shit you are and kill yourself. Or hopefully someone will kill you before then.
Has the OP even said that he himself 'get off' to CP? The impression I was getting is that he just things that it should be decrimalized (which I personally don't agree with). But I don't think that he actually watches and enjoys child porn himself?
Or maybe he does, I may have missed something because of the mass amount of spam and useless and irrelevant posts on this thread.
Locker.
So why add to them with your bullshit?
I can see where you get your karma from...
-
Look, this is definitely a complicated issue. Humans are complicated organisms. I submit, however, that as a general rule you don't need to expend this much effort every time you think of CP. CP is wrong. That's enough to say for now, at this point in our history.
So, don't think about the issue and just say no? Doesn't that ring a fucking bell ???
Again drawing illegitimate comparisons. Your reasoning capabilities have clearly been corrupted by your motivations.
What is the *general intent* behind the existence/propagation of photographs of the Holocaust? Does this match up with the general intent behind the existence/propagation of child pornography? Of course not. Intent *matters*, and neatly dismantels your attempted equivalence of the two.
That means you want to criminalize feelings and makes you the thought police.
What I said means no such thing. If you cannot parse the idea that intent draws a clear distinction between these two things, that is your failure and people need to realize that your opinion can be safely ignored in this category of discussion. You have forfeited your opinion from a serious discussion about this real problem that is happening today in the space of our shared reality.
This discussion in which you continue to bloviate uselessly. Do you think it's oriented toward promoting understanding and solving the problems presented? To me it appears you're basically navel-gazing.
I think is oriented toward educating people, but they are so emotional and angry that they cannot even think.
You are deluding yourself. You are the primary cause of the emotional responses in this topic.
-
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.
Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)
I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.
My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.
My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.
Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.
I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child?
No, that is not what I am implying.
I used the analogy of the actors as an example. An actor may see themselves raped tons of times in movies, yet they don't bear the emotional scars of the rape at a clinical level because the event never actually took place. There's no personalization of the incident as there is with real, forced interourse.
That being said, if by chance there was a photorealistic looking version of a child that was not made a priori, I would imagine that they would be humiliated--but they would not bear the scars as if they were used in filming (i.e. ACTUALLY raped)
To be even clearer:
I don't see a problem as long as no child (i.e. their physical being) is involved at all during the acts in which are depicted. It's a sexual deviance that would be frowned upon by many, but that would nullify my main concern: children developing maladaptive from the actions in which their physicality was involved.
I think you are not understanding the point I am making. You are being very clear, you don't have a problem with photorealistic virtual child porn as long as no actual real child is involved in the production of it. My argument is, what if someone makes photorealistic child porn, and at some point in the future a real child is born who grows up to look identical to the virtual child, and this child is by chance molested and photographed in such a way that real child porn identical to the virtual child porn comes into existence. No real child was harmed in the making of the virtual child porn or even involved with it, but in the future an identical image was made via the abuse of a real child. Do you think looking at the virtual porn is still okay, since no child was abused to produce it, even though it is visually identical to a picture that had a child abused to make it? Or do you think the once acceptable virtual CP becomes immoral to look at after the real CP is produced in the future, even though in the past it was not immoral. Or do you finally realize that there is not a problem with looking at any picture, but it is the molestation itself that is wrong?
The child was never involved directly in this, so I don't see an issue with this photorealism that happened to chance be aligned with the looks of a real child.
-
I do not even want you to reply to this. I just want to let you know that one day you will realize what a disgusting piece of shit you are and kill yourself. Or hopefully someone will kill you before then.
Has the OP even said that he himself 'get off' to CP? The impression I was getting is that he just things that it should be decrimalized (which I personally don't agree with). But I don't think that he actually watches and enjoys child porn himself?
Or maybe he does, I may have missed something because of the mass amount of spam and useless and irrelevant posts on this thread.
Locker.
So why add to them with your bullshit?
I can see where you get your karma from...
Not exactly mister no neg Karma yourself are you?
-
Seriously, this topic needs 20 mother-fucking pages of discussion?
I have a son under 10. If you knowingly and actively view child porn, or virtual or imitation child porn, or fucking squirrels dressed as schoolkids, I will hunt you the fuck down.
Any questions?
So you want to put people in prison for looking at virtual child porn as well? Jesus fucking christ dude what the hell is wrong with you?! Do you think that Bart Simpson is abused all over again every time someone looks at cartoons with him in it? But really I can respect you to an extent, because you are essentially just coming right out and saying you want to be the thought police, without trying to make some shit up about protecting children from being abused all over again when their CP is viewed. Or do you think cartoons are abused? Or do you only mean photorealistic virtual CP? So you think photorealistic children have rights but not cartoon children they don't, but of course real children do.
Good God I am not cut out for this world at all I can not keep track of your insanities to even try to blend in if I wanted to. I don't know anything about the rights of cartoon characters, or the magical voodoo properties of photography, or how photorealistic a depicition of a fictional child needs to be before we treat it as a real child. In fact, I am kind of scared right now because I just watched an action movie, and someone shot a guy, and I am seriously concerned that SWAT is about to bust in my house and arrest my TV and send me to prison for harboring a fugitive. Jesus Christ it is the fucking twilight zone or something.
I've made absolutely no comments about paedophiles attempting to circumvent laws and create 'virtual child porn' to any degree of photorealism, so I really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Fuck, if you're going to rant, at least fucking read what people type.
Your analogy of you watching TV where someone gets shot is completely invalid. For starters, there is the issue of consent. In a civilised society, society dictates to what degree we should protect our young. Now, if your real issue is who should decided this, now that's an interesting topic and worthy of discussion....along with a discussion of paedophilia as a mental illness, and how that could be tackled.
They're interesting topics and I'd be happy to discuss.
But CP is the worst form of abuse, a completely degrading power play between the defenseless and the mentally insane, and frankly as a father I find your protectionist attitudes pretty fucking disgusting.
It's irrelevant how or when our levels of statutory child protection developed, or how many countries allow child slavery or child porn to exist in the current age, too. Seriously, are you interested in advancing society, or just constructing it in your own image?
Seriously, when I think of libertarianism, I'm mainly concerned with how society can be advanced when it's not strangled by bureaucracy....and all you feel compelled to talk about is how cool you are for being one of the first nerds to link RC's with the internet, and how everyone should be allowed to look at children being raped.
I seriously don't understand your priorities or motivations.
-
CP is already legal in half of the world.
So? Female circumcission is legal in certain countries; child slave labour is legal in certain countries; If you had kids would you be in favour of legalising cp everywhere because its not illegal in some other places? It is tempting to say, and this will make sense to a lot of people on sr, that because certain places have legalised some drugs we in the west should be doing the same, and I ofc would agree with that. But getting high is not the same as abusing vulnerable young persons. Theres as much chance of cp being legalised here in the uk as there is of us living in a democratic state, ie practically none.
If you note the person I replied to claimed that CP will never be legal, and I was merely informing him that CP is already legal in half of the world to view. I don't argue that because it is legal in half the world that it should be, I have other good logical reasons for why it should be, read the thread to hear them! However it is worth pointing out that in many developed countries it is legal to view CP, and that this should at least cause you to think that perhaps it is merely cultural conditioning that makes you so against the notion. For example, in Japan, CP being legal to view has popular support. If you were born in Japan, you would probably think it should be legal to view CP.
-
Look, this is definitely a complicated issue. Humans are complicated organisms. I submit, however, that as a general rule you don't need to expend this much effort every time you think of CP. CP is wrong. That's enough to say for now, at this point in our history.
So, don't think about the issue and just say no? Doesn't that ring a fucking bell ???
Again drawing illegitimate comparisons. Your reasoning capabilities have clearly been corrupted by your motivations.
It is not an illegitmate comparison at all. It isn't even a comparison. Not thinking about a subject and not talking about a subject and "Just say no" is ALWAYS wrong, it doesn't matter what the subject in reference is, the idea of mental self censorship and censorship of verbal expression of opinion and the idea that we should blindly hold to a belief without rational analysis exists independently of drugs and of CP and it is ALWAYS bad. You should not even stop thinking about serial killing and stop talking about serial killing and just say no to serial killing, you should think about serial killing and why it is wrong, you should talk about serial killing and how it is wrong and debate with anyone who thinks it is right, you should not just say no to serial killing you should be able to say why serial killing is wrong. There is no comparison, "just say no" exists independently of anything and it is always wrong.
What is the *general intent* behind the existence/propagation of photographs of the Holocaust? Does this match up with the general intent behind the existence/propagation of child pornography? Of course not. Intent *matters*, and neatly dismantels your attempted equivalence of the two.
That means you want to criminalize feelings and makes you the thought police.
What I said means no such thing. If you cannot parse the idea that intent draws a clear distinction between these two things, that is your failure and people need to realize that your opinion can be safely ignored in this category of discussion. You have forfeited your opinion from a serious discussion about this real problem that is happening today in the space of our shared reality.
[/quote]
Why not put my entire quote?
That means you want to criminalize feelings and makes you the thought police. Do you think if a neo nazi looks at a picture of the holocaust and it makes him happy to know so many Jews have been killed, do you think he should go to prison then? The equivalence is not attempted by me, it is something that exists in reality, you just decide to ignore it and pretend it does not exist so you can avoid cognitive dissonance.
If the intent of a Nazi looking at images of the holocaust is to derive pleasure from the extermination of the Jews, using your logic it should be highly illegal for said Nazi to look at the image, because of his intent. Having one set of rules for people who enjoy pictures of the holocaust and one set of rules for people who find such images to be disgusting means you want to be the thought police, plain and simple. If someone looks at pictures of the holocaust and they think "This is horrible!" you think it should not be illegal, but if they look at pictures of the holocaust and think "This is awesome!" then it should be illegal. You want to make the thoughts people have about external stimuli illegal, and this indeed means you are the fucking thought police.
You are deluding yourself. You are the primary cause of the emotional responses in this topic.
I am not the primary cause, the things I am saying are the primary cause. People cannot even bother to think about what I am saying because their emotional response to the subject is too strong, it clouds their mind and turns them into creatures hardly better than wild animals.
-
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.
Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)
I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.
My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.
My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.
Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.
I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child?
No, that is not what I am implying.
I used the analogy of the actors as an example. An actor may see themselves raped tons of times in movies, yet they don't bear the emotional scars of the rape at a clinical level because the event never actually took place. There's no personalization of the incident as there is with real, forced interourse.
That being said, if by chance there was a photorealistic looking version of a child that was not made a priori, I would imagine that they would be humiliated--but they would not bear the scars as if they were used in filming (i.e. ACTUALLY raped)
To be even clearer:
I don't see a problem as long as no child (i.e. their physical being) is involved at all during the acts in which are depicted. It's a sexual deviance that would be frowned upon by many, but that would nullify my main concern: children developing maladaptive from the actions in which their physicality was involved.
I think you are not understanding the point I am making. You are being very clear, you don't have a problem with photorealistic virtual child porn as long as no actual real child is involved in the production of it. My argument is, what if someone makes photorealistic child porn, and at some point in the future a real child is born who grows up to look identical to the virtual child, and this child is by chance molested and photographed in such a way that real child porn identical to the virtual child porn comes into existence. No real child was harmed in the making of the virtual child porn or even involved with it, but in the future an identical image was made via the abuse of a real child. Do you think looking at the virtual porn is still okay, since no child was abused to produce it, even though it is visually identical to a picture that had a child abused to make it? Or do you think the once acceptable virtual CP becomes immoral to look at after the real CP is produced in the future, even though in the past it was not immoral. Or do you finally realize that there is not a problem with looking at any picture, but it is the molestation itself that is wrong?
The child was never involved directly in this, so I don't see an issue with this photorealism that happened to chance be aligned with the looks of a real child.
So even though the virtual CP looks identical to the real CP you are okay with the virtual CP? What if they consist of the exact binary sequence? How can you even tell them apart? This essentially means that you are okay with child pornography, you just don't realize that this is what you are saying I think. You see, the binary sequence for any possible CP file already exists, even independently of the child it depicts being born. Two thousand years ago there was a binary sequence that would depict me being molested on camera, prior to my birth. This sequence is identical to the sequence that would be created by a digital camera if I was molested as a child and a digital camera took a picture of it. This sequence of binary digits has existed since the start of reality itself, indeed it has always existed and it always will exist, just as all numbers have always existed and will always exist, independent of even life itself. You essentially say that you are okay with people possessing this binary sequence so long as the binary sequence is not derived from a child actually being molested, but even after a child is molested you are okay with people having this binary sequence so long as the binary sequence existed prior to the child being molested. But all binary sequences exist and have existed for all time, just as all numbers exist and have existed for all time! This means that you are okay with all child pornography being viewed and distributed, because there is no such thing as a binary sequence that a camera brings into existence, just as there is not number that a human being has brought into existence, all numbers exist independently of any life at all, life only recognizes and names numbers but the numbers are not created by life.
The main point to take from this is that a picture of a child is not a child, it is a really large number, a really large number that has existed since the start of time and which will continue to exist for eternity. Your issue has never been with really big numbers of any sort, your issue is with child molestation, and I agree with you it is wrong for people to molest children. But there is not such a tie between the molestation of a child and an image of CP, because if a photorealistic image of a child is created prior to the depicted child being born and molested on camera to obtain the same exact number, the same exact picture exists independently of the child, and there is no differentiation between the two pictures, they are the same number. Your anger has always been at the person who molests the child it has never been at the people looking at the pictures, but your emotions cloud your ability to see this.
-
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.
Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)
I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.
My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.
My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.
Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.
I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child?
No, that is not what I am implying.
I used the analogy of the actors as an example. An actor may see themselves raped tons of times in movies, yet they don't bear the emotional scars of the rape at a clinical level because the event never actually took place. There's no personalization of the incident as there is with real, forced interourse.
That being said, if by chance there was a photorealistic looking version of a child that was not made a priori, I would imagine that they would be humiliated--but they would not bear the scars as if they were used in filming (i.e. ACTUALLY raped)
To be even clearer:
I don't see a problem as long as no child (i.e. their physical being) is involved at all during the acts in which are depicted. It's a sexual deviance that would be frowned upon by many, but that would nullify my main concern: children developing maladaptive from the actions in which their physicality was involved.
I think you are not understanding the point I am making. You are being very clear, you don't have a problem with photorealistic virtual child porn as long as no actual real child is involved in the production of it. My argument is, what if someone makes photorealistic child porn, and at some point in the future a real child is born who grows up to look identical to the virtual child, and this child is by chance molested and photographed in such a way that real child porn identical to the virtual child porn comes into existence. No real child was harmed in the making of the virtual child porn or even involved with it, but in the future an identical image was made via the abuse of a real child. Do you think looking at the virtual porn is still okay, since no child was abused to produce it, even though it is visually identical to a picture that had a child abused to make it? Or do you think the once acceptable virtual CP becomes immoral to look at after the real CP is produced in the future, even though in the past it was not immoral. Or do you finally realize that there is not a problem with looking at any picture, but it is the molestation itself that is wrong?
The child was never involved directly in this, so I don't see an issue with this photorealism that happened to chance be aligned with the looks of a real child.
So even though the virtual CP looks identical to the real CP you are okay with the virtual CP? What if they consist of the exact binary sequence? How can you even tell them apart? This essentially means that you are okay with child pornography, you just don't realize that this is what you are saying I think. You see, the binary sequence for any possible CP file already exists, even independently of the child it depicts being born. Two thousand years ago there was a binary sequence that would depict me being molested on camera, prior to my birth. This sequence is identical to the sequence that would be created by a digital camera if I was molested as a child and a digital camera took a picture of it. This sequence of binary digits has existed since the start of reality itself, indeed it has always existed and it always will exist, just as all numbers have always existed and will always exist, independent of even life itself. You essentially say that you are okay with people possessing this binary sequence so long as the binary sequence is not derived from a child actually being molested, but even after a child is molested you are okay with people having this binary sequence so long as the binary sequence existed prior to the child being molested. But all binary sequences exist and have existed for all time, just as all numbers exist and have existed for all time! This means that you are okay with all child pornography being viewed and distributed, because there is no such thing as a binary sequence that a camera brings into existence, just as there is not number that a human being has brought into existence, all numbers exist independently of any life at all, life only recognizes and names numbers but the numbers are not created by life.
The main point to take from this is that a picture of a child is not a child, it is a really large number, a really large number that has existed since the start of time and which will continue to exist for eternity. Your issue has never been with really big numbers of any sort, your issue is with child molestation, and I agree with you it is wrong for people to molest children. But there is not such a tie between the molestation of a child and an image of CP, because if a photorealistic image of a child is created prior to the depicted child being born and molested on camera to obtain the same exact number, the same exact picture exists independently of the child, and there is no differentiation between the two pictures, they are the same number. Your anger has always been at the person who molests the child it has never been at the people looking at the pictures, but your emotions cloud your ability to see this.
Ok bro, I'm sorry, but I have to say this: I think you are delving to deeply into philosophical meanderings rather than reading what people are saying here. For example, that whole block of text explaining binary sequences is pretty much the reason why I said that I don't have a problem.
Here I'll try this your way:
Of course, somewhere even, some pile of dirt on some foreign planet could've had the atmospheric conditions, properly aligned magnetic moment, or some force (perhaps one unknown to us atm because particle theory has gaps in it) which, statistically, could have eventuated in a distinct image. The probability quickly approaches zero as you heighten the complexity of the organism, as it is inversely related to entropy. However, such is possible.
I don't see the point in all of that, however. Obviously most people accept that there's a chance of that all happening, even if they don't prefer verbosity The point is as long as no child was originally hurt in their physicality, there is little damage done. We aren't even disagreeing anymore.
-
I've made absolutely no comments about paedophiles attempting to circumvent laws and create 'virtual child porn' to any degree of photorealism, so I really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Fuck, if you're going to rant, at least fucking read what people type.
Did you not even read your own fucking post?
I have a son under 10. If you knowingly and actively view child porn, OR VIRTUAL OR IMITATION child porn, or fucking squirrels dressed as schoolkids, I will hunt you the fuck down.
Your analogy of you watching TV where someone gets shot is completely invalid. For starters, there is the issue of consent. In a civilised society, society dictates to what degree we should protect our young. Now, if your real issue is who should decided this, now that's an interesting topic and worthy of discussion....along with a discussion of paedophilia as a mental illness, and how that could be tackled.
So you think someone with who has a bomb dropped on them and has their corpse shown by the media has consented to this? Because I am pretty sure I have seen children killed by bombings on the news and in the media, including children killed by US bombs in Vietnam all the way to children killed by terrorist bombings. So I think perhaps that I should be concerned that SWAT is going to raid me and arrest my television. I have also seen movies where children are pretend killed by bombs, and according to you this is just as bad since you did say that you are against virtual and imitation CP as well as real CP. I see virtual crimes and imitation crimes almost any time I turn the television on, and if we apply your logic to all things instead of just CP I am one sick fuck to have seen so many people imitation killed in movies, let alone real people killed on the news. Society is neither intelligent nor rational enough to manage itself, it needs a benevolent dictator to take control of it, this is why I am a huge fan of totalitarian libertarianism.
But CP is the worst form of abuse, a completely degrading power play between the defenseless and the mentally insane, and frankly as a father I find your protectionist attitudes pretty fucking disgusting.
I find your insanity to be pretty fucking sad personally, and your actions against others to be totally disgusting. If you really think looking at a picture, hell especially but not limited to a virtual picture, is the worst form of abuse, then you are fucking insane! Plain and simple!
It's irrelevant how or when our levels of statutory child protection developed, or how many countries allow child slavery or child porn to exist in the current age, too. Seriously, are you interested in advancing society, or just constructing it in your own image?
I am entirely interested in advancing society by constructing it in my own image. Also I do not argue that because CP is legal in some countries that it is moral, my argument for the moral neutralness of viewing CP is based on rational analysis not appeal to numbers. However, I was merely correcting people who made claims such as "CP will never be legal" (CP is legal in half of the world, some countries such as Japan have majority support for keeping it that way) as well as "Pedophiles have been hated for all of history" (by todays criteria of pedophilia, pedophilia was the norm through out much of human history). I also like to point out to people that when a behavior is not made illegal in huge sections of the world, that PERHAPS (but not for sure) their own strong opinions on it are influenced by CULTURAL CONDITIONING. It is always good for people to be aware of the fact that cultural conditioning exists, and to try to avoid being influenced by it when discussing things such as morality, which exists independently of cultural confines and universally (unless you are a moral relativist, in which case you are fucked in the head). Just because CP viewing is legal in half the world doesn't mean it is not immoral to view CP, it is not immoral to view CP for a large variety of other reasons, however because it is still legal to view CP in half of the world, and because some first world countries have large support against making it illegal to view, it is a sign that you need to analyze the possibility that your strong feelings toward CP viewers are the result of CULTURAL CONDITIONING, something that anyone who wishes to be rational should attempt to avoid being influenced by.
Seriously, when I think of libertarianism, I'm mainly concerned with how society can be advanced when it's not strangled by bureaucracy....and all you feel compelled to talk about is how cool you are for being one of the first nerds to link RC's with the internet, and how everyone should be allowed to look at children being raped.
That is all I talk about? Also you are not a real libertarian if you are against the right for people to view CP. Censorship and pure libertarianism are mutually exclusive, you cannot claim to support them both at the same time. Also I only made a post about my history in the drug scene because a journalist asked me to talk about it and because I figured people might be interested in it.
I seriously don't understand your priorities or motivations.
I think understanding is something you generally have trouble with so I don't take it very personally.
-
Ok bro, I'm sorry, but I have to say this: I think you are delving to deeply into philosophical meanderings rather than reading what people are saying here. For example, that whole block of text explaining binary sequences is pretty much the reason why I said that I don't have a problem.
Here I'll try this your way:
Of course, somewhere even, some pile of dirt on some foreign planet could've had the atmospheric conditions, properly aligned magnetic moment, or some force (perhaps one unknown to us atm because particle theory has gaps in it) which, statistically, could have eventuated in a distinct image. The probability quickly approaches zero as you heighten the complexity of the organism, as it is inversely related to entropy. However, such is possible.
I don't see the point in all of that, however. Obviously most people accept that there's a chance of that all happening, even if they don't prefer verbosity The point is as long as no child was originally hurt in their physicality, there is little damage done. We aren't even disagreeing anymore.
The point is that no child is hurt by somebody looking at any image. If someone makes photorealistic virtual CP that is identical to real CP that comes to be, I don't see how you can differentiate between the real CP and the virtual CP. They are the same thing! How can you then say that looking at real CP is bad but looking at virtual CP is not bad? It is possible for virtual CP to be identical to real CP! There is no difference at all between virtual CP that is identical to real CP and real CP, they are the same number. How can you even tell them apart to say that looking at one is bad but not the other? It is like saying looking at the number from 2 + 2 is bad but looking at the number 4 is fine. They are the same number! Sure the probability of this situation coming to pass is very very low, although it is not theoretically impossible (unlike a child being molested all over again every time someone looks at an image depicting the child being molested, which is totally impossible). The point was as a thought experiment to demonstrate to you that it is not bad to look at CP be it "real" CP or CP derived from flipping a coin and random chance. If you flip a coin and record the heads and tails as 1 and 0, it is theoretically possible for you to end up with the same exact image file you would end up with if you downloaded CP off of the internet. I can not imagine how you are okay with having the image obtained by flipping a coin but not with having the image downloaded off the internet. What if you put the image you derived by flipping a coin on the internet, and someone downloads it? How can you even tell these images apart they are the same thing!
The point is that an image is not the event depicted in the image. An image of the holocaust is not the holocaust, an image of a child being molested is not child molestation, etc. A picture of a child is not a child, it is a series of 1's and 0's that causes your monitor to color pixels in a certain fashion. You can say in the case of the real CP a child is abused to produce it, but your problem is with the abuse of a child it is not with the resulting series of 1's and 0's, it cannot possibly be with the resulting series of 1's and 0's because the same series of 1's and 0's could be derived by flipping a coin and random chance and you already have said obtaining the image in such a way is morally acceptable. The series of 1's and 0's exist independently of how they are obtained, they are the same sequence if they are derived by the flip of a coin or by the molestation of a child, your issue is not with the CP and it is not with flipping a coin it is entirely with the molestation of children. I have always said molesting children should be illegal, but having a sequence of 1's and 0's should not be illegal, regardless of how the 1's and 0's originally were formed it doesn't matter because they are just a number and all numbers exist independently of even the existence of life itself much less life forms flipping coins or molesting children.
-
Dude, we're agreeing. I am saying that so long as no child is hurt in their direct physicality, I don't care. Unfortunately, such photorealism is not available to people to a satisfactory degree to quench their sexual appetite.
To make it clear: No, there is NO problem so long as the person takes no part in the hurting of a child. By viewing an actual, true-blue molestation, one is supporting them, even if in an indirect way.
If people want to get off to photorealistic children without it being, then so be it. If it happens to align with an actual child, then that's the unfortunate humiliation of them. Oh well.
-
Dude, we're agreeing. I am saying that so long as no child is hurt in their direct physicality, I don't care. Unfortunately, such photorealism is not available to people to a satisfactory degree to quench their sexual appetite.
To make it clear: No, there is NO problem so long as the person takes no part in the hurting of a child. By viewing an actual, true-blue molestation, one is supporting them, even if in an indirect way.
If people want to get off to photorealistic children without it being, then so be it. If it happens to align with an actual child, then that's the unfortunate humiliation of them. Oh well.
But how can you possibly think someone is supporting molestation if they view a "true blue molestation" but not supporting molestation if they view an identical image that was derived by flipping a coin and random chance? They are the same image! The people viewing either image are engaging in identical behavior! I totally totally totally fail to see how the number 4 can be moral to look at in some cases, but the number 4 is immoral to look at in other cases. They are the same exact number, they produce the same exact pixel configuration! How exactly does this work? I honest to god just do not understand how somebody can think in this way. I can not distinguish the sum of 2 and 2 from the sum of 3 and 1, they both result in 4. How is it supporting molestation to look at a picture taken of a molestation, but not supporting molestation to look at an identical image derived by flipping a coin? The lesson you were supposed to take from this is that it doesn't matter if the CP is virtual or not because the result can be the same, and that the issue is with molestation not with looking at pictures. But I am unsure if that is what you have taken from this, you seem to say you agree with me but I don't think you are understanding my point.
-
Put another way, I don't see how the number 4 is different when I write it on paper from when I type it into my computer. They are different instances of the number 4, but they both reference to the same information, they are conceptually identical to each other. If a pedophile molests a child and takes a picture of it, the resulting big number is conceptually identical to the equal big number that my PRNG outputs by sheer random chance. I do not see how it can be moral to view the randomly generated big number but immoral to view the identical big number that was derived by a pedophile taking a photograph of child molestation, they are the same number, just as 4 is 4 regardless of where it is written or how it comes to be. 4 is 4 on my computer and 4 is 4 on a piece of paper, I do not see the conceptual difference between any instance of 4. I think you are essentially saying that some instances of 4 are immoral and other instances of 4 are morally neutral, but I just don't see how this can possibly be. How is the immorality transferred with the exchange of the number? What marks an instance of 4 as tainted? That it was originally derived by the molestation of a child? But it was not originally derived any more than I originally derive 4 when I write it on paper, the number 4 exists independently of life itself, it exists independently of any symbol or word or instantiation.
-
Dude, we're agreeing. I am saying that so long as no child is hurt in their direct physicality, I don't care. Unfortunately, such photorealism is not available to people to a satisfactory degree to quench their sexual appetite.
To make it clear: No, there is NO problem so long as the person takes no part in the hurting of a child. By viewing an actual, true-blue molestation, one is supporting them, even if in an indirect way.
If people want to get off to photorealistic children without it being, then so be it. If it happens to align with an actual child, then that's the unfortunate humiliation of them. Oh well.
But how can you possibly think someone is supporting molestation if they view a "true blue molestation" but not supporting molestation if they view an identical image that was derived by flipping a coin and random chance? They are the same image! The people viewing either image are engaging in identical behavior! I totally totally totally fail to see how the number 4 can be moral to look at in some cases, but the number 4 is immoral to look at in other cases. They are the same exact number, they produce the same exact pixel configuration! How exactly does this work? I honest to god just do not understand how somebody can think in this way. I can not distinguish the sum of 2 and 2 from the sum of 3 and 1, they both result in 4. How is it supporting molestation to look at a picture taken of a molestation, but not supporting molestation to look at an identical image derived by flipping a coin? The lesson you were supposed to take from this is that it doesn't matter if the CP is virtual or not because the result can be the same, and that the issue is with molestation not with looking at pictures. But I am unsure if that is what you have taken from this, you seem to say you agree with me but I don't think you are understanding my point.
Do you have a superiority complex? This is a discussion, yet you are telling me that I'm supposed to learn a lesson from you. This isn't the first allegation of condescension, as it exists quite vividly with the poster above me as well. Please don't think that people are dim-witted or incapable of thought solely because they don't see things your way. People here come from all walks of life, and some of us are quite educated as scientists, mathematicians, writers, and other professions in which logical thought is paramount. Pretentiousness does not a good argument make.
Furthermore, your argument using the number 4 is largely a mischarecterization. The number 4 exists solely as a mental entity with no actual embodiment in a corporeal form. I am not discussing numbers, as they are not sentient nor sapient. This would be akin to saying, "You kill roaches? so why not kill humans!" While valid in and of itself, this argumentation style is a gross oversimplification in an attempt to invalidate a similar--but startlingly more complex--argument.
-
Do you have a superiority complex? This is a discussion, yet you are telling me that I'm supposed to learn a lesson from you.
Are you not trying to teach me a lesson about the morality of CP as well? Debate is about teaching people why you are correct, you are trying to educate me as to why you are correct and I am trying to educate you as to why I am correct. So I did indeed try to teach you a lesson that would allow you to understand why what I am saying is correct.
This isn't the first allegation of condescension, as it exists quite vividly with the poster above me as well.
I was a bit too mean to that poster, although in fairness he was a bit of a jackass and seemed to not recall his original post despite quoting it.
Please don't think that people are dim-witted or incapable of thought solely because they don't see things your way. People here come from all walks of life, and some of us are quite educated as scientists, mathematicians, writers, and other professions in which logical thought is paramount. Pretentiousness does not a good argument make.
Scientists, mathematicians, writers and other professions also have members who believe in gods , they may be quite capable of logical thought in many instances but they are still illogical in others. I don't doubt that some of the people who are trying to argue against me are quite intelligent, but it doesn't mean they are thinking rationally about this particular issue, and indeed I would claim that they are allowing emotion to cloud their cognitive abilities.
Furthermore, your argument using the number 4 is largely a mischarecterization. The number 4 exists solely as a mental entity with no actual embodiment in a corporeal form. I am not discussing numbers, as they are not sentient nor sapient. This would be akin to saying, "You kill roaches? so why not kill humans!" While valid in and of itself, this argumentation style is a gross oversimplification in an attempt to invalidate a similar--but startlingly more complex--argument.
And this is where you are wrong :). The number 4 translates to a series of colored pixels via some algorithm. All images are binary sequences. All binary sequences can be represented as decimal numbers. The only difference between a CP image and the number 4 is its distance from 0. So any discussion of CP is fundamentally a discussion of numbers. You seem to think that numbers representing CP files are moral to look at if they are derived from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, even if the result is the same number produced by a child molester with a camera. I fail to see how these numbers are moral if they come from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, but not if they come from a camera, considering they are otherwise identical numbers just as 4 is 4. If a child molester obtains such a number by taking a photograph of a molestation, you say that the people who view the image produced by this number are immoral for doing so and should be arrested, but if someone views the image produced from the same number it is moral if the original "source" of the number is a PRNG (Source in quotation marks as numbers actually exist independently of anything and are intrinsic to reality). I just don't see how this can be, what is special about one instance of a number or another?
-
Do you have a superiority complex? This is a discussion, yet you are telling me that I'm supposed to learn a lesson from you.
Are you not trying to teach me a lesson about the morality of CP as well? Debate is about teaching people why you are correct, you are trying to educate me as to why you are correct and I am trying to educate you as to why I am correct. So I did indeed try to teach you a lesson that would allow you to understand why what I am saying is correct.
This isn't the first allegation of condescension, as it exists quite vividly with the poster above me as well.
I was a bit too mean to that poster, although in fairness he was a bit of a jackass and seemed to not recall his original post despite quoting it.
Please don't think that people are dim-witted or incapable of thought solely because they don't see things your way. People here come from all walks of life, and some of us are quite educated as scientists, mathematicians, writers, and other professions in which logical thought is paramount. Pretentiousness does not a good argument make.
Scientists, mathematicians, writers and other professions also have members who believe in gods , they may be quite capable of logical thought in many instances but they are still illogical in others. I don't doubt that some of the people who are trying to argue against me are quite intelligent, but it doesn't mean they are thinking rationally about this particular issue, and indeed I would claim that they are allowing emotion to cloud their cognitive abilities.
Furthermore, your argument using the number 4 is largely a mischarecterization. The number 4 exists solely as a mental entity with no actual embodiment in a corporeal form. I am not discussing numbers, as they are not sentient nor sapient. This would be akin to saying, "You kill roaches? so why not kill humans!" While valid in and of itself, this argumentation style is a gross oversimplification in an attempt to invalidate a similar--but startlingly more complex--argument.
And this is where you are wrong :). The number 4 translates to a series of colored pixels via some algorithm. All images are binary sequences. All binary sequences can be represented as decimal numbers. The only difference between a CP image and the number 4 is its distance from 0. So any discussion of CP is fundamentally a discussion of numbers. You seem to think that numbers representing CP files are moral to look at if they are derived from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, even if the result is the same number produced by a child molester with a camera. I fail to see how these numbers are moral if they come from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, but not if they come from a camera, considering they are otherwise identical numbers just as 4 is 4. If a child molester obtains such a number by taking a photograph of a molestation, you say that the people who view the image produced by this number are immoral for doing so and should be arrested, but if someone views the image produced from the same number it is moral if the original "source" of the number is a PRNG (Source in quotation marks as numbers actually exist independently of anything and are intrinsic to reality). I just don't see how this can be, what is special about one instance of a number or another?
I think this argument shows the fundamental flaw of purely logical systems that void humanity as a key aspect. The image in question
You seem to think that numbers representing CP files are moral to look at if they are derived from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, even if the result is the same number produced by a child molester with a camera.
Yes.
I fail to see how these numbers are moral if they come from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, but not if they come from a camera, considering they are otherwise identical numbers just as 4 is 4.
This argument is fine within itself, but it ignores the fact that the camera is obviously not the only entity. The child had to be coerced into the act in order for the camera to take the picture. This is fundamentally different than a render, in which no child need be present. One does not need a real, sentient primer; however, the other does. If the camera rendered the picture on its own, then this would be completely aligned with the argument at hand--but that's not the case.
Also, off-topic: A belief in a deity does not invalidate ones rationality. In fact, since science is largely incomplete and filled with conceptual holes prior to the big bang, the best one can say is that they do not know. A belief does not assert knowledge.
-
Do you have a superiority complex? This is a discussion, yet you are telling me that I'm supposed to learn a lesson from you.
Are you not trying to teach me a lesson about the morality of CP as well? Debate is about teaching people why you are correct, you are trying to educate me as to why you are correct and I am trying to educate you as to why I am correct. So I did indeed try to teach you a lesson that would allow you to understand why what I am saying is correct.
This isn't the first allegation of condescension, as it exists quite vividly with the poster above me as well.
I was a bit too mean to that poster, although in fairness he was a bit of a jackass and seemed to not recall his original post despite quoting it.
Please don't think that people are dim-witted or incapable of thought solely because they don't see things your way. People here come from all walks of life, and some of us are quite educated as scientists, mathematicians, writers, and other professions in which logical thought is paramount. Pretentiousness does not a good argument make.
Scientists, mathematicians, writers and other professions also have members who believe in gods , they may be quite capable of logical thought in many instances but they are still illogical in others. I don't doubt that some of the people who are trying to argue against me are quite intelligent, but it doesn't mean they are thinking rationally about this particular issue, and indeed I would claim that they are allowing emotion to cloud their cognitive abilities.
Furthermore, your argument using the number 4 is largely a mischarecterization. The number 4 exists solely as a mental entity with no actual embodiment in a corporeal form. I am not discussing numbers, as they are not sentient nor sapient. This would be akin to saying, "You kill roaches? so why not kill humans!" While valid in and of itself, this argumentation style is a gross oversimplification in an attempt to invalidate a similar--but startlingly more complex--argument.
And this is where you are wrong :). The number 4 translates to a series of colored pixels via some algorithm. All images are binary sequences. All binary sequences can be represented as decimal numbers. The only difference between a CP image and the number 4 is its distance from 0. So any discussion of CP is fundamentally a discussion of numbers. You seem to think that numbers representing CP files are moral to look at if they are derived from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, even if the result is the same number produced by a child molester with a camera. I fail to see how these numbers are moral if they come from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, but not if they come from a camera, considering they are otherwise identical numbers just as 4 is 4. If a child molester obtains such a number by taking a photograph of a molestation, you say that the people who view the image produced by this number are immoral for doing so and should be arrested, but if someone views the image produced from the same number it is moral if the original "source" of the number is a PRNG (Source in quotation marks as numbers actually exist independently of anything and are intrinsic to reality). I just don't see how this can be, what is special about one instance of a number or another?
I think this argument shows the fundamental flaw of purely logical systems that void humanity as a key aspect. The image in question
You seem to think that numbers representing CP files are moral to look at if they are derived from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, even if the result is the same number produced by a child molester with a camera.
Yes.
I fail to see how these numbers are moral if they come from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, but not if they come from a camera, considering they are otherwise identical numbers just as 4 is 4.
This argument is fine within itself, but it ignores the fact that the camera is obviously not the only entity. The child had to be coerced into the act in order for the camera to take the picture. This is fundamentally different than a render, in which no child need be present. One does not need a real, sentient primer; however, the other does. If the camera rendered the picture on its own, then this would be completely aligned with the argument at hand--but that's not the case.
But that only sounds like it is an argument against production. You already have said if a PRNG or 3D rendering software outputs a number that is identical to a CP file produced in the future, that it is still morally acceptable to look at the resulting image. But it is immoral to look at the same number that came from the camera of a child molester? Sure it is moral to run a PRNG and not moral to molest a child on camera, but the resulting number is the same. How can it be moral for Alice to look at an instance of the number 4 that her PRNG randomly generated, but immoral for Bob to look at an instance of the number 4 that came from the camera of a child molesters camera? 4 is 4, after all. I cannot understand how an instance of the number 4 can be tainted while another instance of the number 4 is not tainted. I find it especially weird that you think this instance of the number 4 remains tainted after it is sent around the internet. Alice sends her number 4 around to different machines on the internet, and it is morally fine for anyone to look at the image it produces, but when Bob sends his number 4 around the internet anyone who looks at it is a sick fuck child molester who should be put to death for causing child abuse to take place all over again in the past. When Alice transmits the number 4 it causes the same thing to happen as when Bob transmits the number 4. I just don't get it honestly, I find the entire notion to be completely alien and something that is straight out of the twilight zone.
The number 4 is moral in some cases, but in other cases the number 4 causes children to be molested in the past. A number 4 that is not tainted can be freely traded and used and cannot become tainted, but a number 4 that is tainted cannot be viewed or become clean via transfer. If I copy one instance of the number 4 I am not a criminal, if I copy another instance of the number 4 I should be castrated. I just don't understand.
-
I honestly don't get how you don't see the difference.
One is made using a live human who has endured sexual abuse
One is made by a computer.
I can't go out and make a snuff film and record it, then say, "it's just an image now" as the picture evidences an actual crime. I can, however, me a render of whatever celebrity I want getting murdered because the act never took place.
I'm going to have to politely discontinue this discussion as it seems to be circular. Somewhere, somehow we are losing each other.
-
I honestly don't get how you don't see the difference.
One is made using a live human who has endured sexual abuse
One is made by a computer.
I can't go out and make a snuff film and record it, then say, "it's just an image now" as the picture evidences an actual crime. I can, however, me a render of whatever celebrity I want getting murdered because the act never took place.
I'm going to have to politely discontinue this discussion as it seems to be circular. Somewhere, somehow we are losing each other.
Numbers are not made by anything only instantiated. Also I never said you should be able to go out and *make* CP (via taking a picture of yourself molesting a child) or *make* a snuff film. People always seem to want to move the argument back to production, something I have never claimed should be legal. It is because they lack ability to analyze the details of a subject I think, they can see a forest but they cannot see the trees that make it up. What if the celebrity gets murdered in the future in exactly the way as depicted in your photorealistic render? Now your render and the real photograph are identical, in either case they are just images and in any case you are a murderer and should go to prison for that!
But yeah I don't think I am going to have much luck to convince you about this at this point, and you are certainly never going to convince me that it is immoral to view an instantiation of a morally neutral number in some cases but morally neutral to view an instantiation of the same morally neutral number in other cases.
-
Actually, I want to say one more thing. This entire argument can be summed up with the following logical construct
Image represented by number X generated by PRNG == Image represented by number X generated by child molesters camera
Therefor if it is morally acceptable to view X it is morally acceptable to view X, because:
X == X
You have already agreed that it is not immoral to view the X on the left, and since X == X I can only conclude that you agree with me that it is not immoral to view child pornography produced by child molesters as well ( even though you don't realize you agree with me, I think deep down at some sub conscious that you must. Just try to ignore your cultural conditioning and use your logical processing abilities and you will see that I am right :) ) .
Was nice to debate with you, thanks for not calling for my immediate castration , have a good night :D.
-
Fuck the kids.
Oops, did that come out wrong? Yikes.
I just want to know where OP's thread on his past with the RC community is.
Link please.
From,
Curious Kenny
-
American Civil Liberties Union. Liberty being the key word. Libertarians. Liberty. The people who fight for freedom take the same opinion as I do. The same people fighting for your helpless ass are fighting for the right of pedophiles to view child porn. It is about freedom for everybody, you want to take freedom away from some people and keep it for yourself.
Could you imagine this scenario kmfkewm?
ACLU rally... 2 members chatting
ACLU SF(sick fuck)- ' Is she ok? wtf happened?
ACLU Dad- ' No she is not ok. Shes more than not ok. She got drugged and was raped at a party. She is only 12 ffs. It has torn her apart.
ACLU SF- 'Did they get who is responsible?'
ACLU Dad -'Yes they did, They have been charged. They made a film the sick cunts IM GONNA KILL THEM
ACLU SF - 'Well thats good. We cant change the fact that the film was made and I know you wont mind because we are libertarians but I have been watching that rape video of your daughter for the last couple of days and it is AWESOME!! It is number 1 video over at sickfucks.onion and gets about 3000hits a day. HEY ACLU SF2 come over here and meet ACLU Dad. His daughter is in that kiddy rape scene I showed you.
ACLU SF2 - Oh so sorry about your daughter. I hope those guys hang for what they did. I know we cant change that. The video is already made but I love the part where she is crying out for your help ACLU dad. Not much grass on the ole pitch aye wink wink. I think she started to enjoy it in the end
ACLU Dad- Yeah it has totally devastated our family but I hope you enjoy that rape film of my daughter. I say that from the bottom of my heart because we are all LIBERTARIANS here.
-
Oh. Right below this one.
Whoops.
-
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.
You have failed to find a solid ground upon which to stake your opinions. Please take a moment to see yourself in the 3rd person. You are not promoting understanding with your discussion tactics, you only appear interested in more detailed discussion. Sometimes that's useful. Regarding this subject, now is not yet one of those times. You have been wrong since you began this discussion, and it's depressing to see how many are willing to unquestioningly follow your wastefully deep dive into so clear-cut of a discussion territory.
navel-gazing
noun
complacent self-absorption; concentration on a single issue at the expense of a wider view.
-
CP is already legal in half of the world.
So? Female circumcission is legal in certain countries; child slave labour is legal in certain countries; If you had kids would you be in favour of legalising cp everywhere because its not illegal in some other places? It is tempting to say, and this will make sense to a lot of people on sr, that because certain places have legalised some drugs we in the west should be doing the same, and I ofc would agree with that. But getting high is not the same as abusing vulnerable young persons. Theres as much chance of cp being legalised here in the uk as there is of us living in a democratic state, ie practically none.
If you note the person I replied to claimed that CP will never be legal, and I was merely informing him that CP is already legal in half of the world to view. I don't argue that because it is legal in half the world that it should be, I have other good logical reasons for why it should be, read the thread to hear them! However it is worth pointing out that in many developed countries it is legal to view CP, and that this should at least cause you to think that perhaps it is merely cultural conditioning that makes you so against the notion. For example, in Japan, CP being legal to view has popular support. If you were born in Japan, you would probably think it should be legal to view CP.
Are you trying to say that my attitude towards the abuse of kids for the sexual pleasure of adults is the result of "cultural conditioning"? No it isnt.
Your logic is weird. You are saying that because something is not illegal in some other place it should not be illegal here. Well does the same then apply to the routine use of torture in some other places? In the end you cannot justify something simply because some other people do it, as a human you have choices about what you do and you must make your own mind up about whether something is right or wrong. Abusing the innocence of children, which may affect the whole rest of their lives, for sexual pleasure is simply very wrong. They cant defend themselves. We should protect our kids, not sell them to others for sex. I take it you dont have kids. well I hope you dont anyway.
Applying some logic of my own; I would say that you would only have spent all this time and effort arguing for the legalisation of paedophilia if you yourself are a paedophile. So tell us, is that the case?
-
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.
You have failed to find a solid ground upon which to stake your opinions. Please take a moment to see yourself in the 3rd person. You are not promoting understanding with your discussion tactics, you only appear interested in more detailed discussion. Sometimes that's useful. Regarding this subject, now is not yet one of those times. You have been wrong since you began this discussion, and it's depressing to see how many are willing to unquestioningly follow your wastefully deep dive into so clear-cut of a discussion territory.
navel-gazing
noun
complacent self-absorption; concentration on a single issue at the expense of a wider view.
Dude, the argument "You are wrong because you are wrong and we shouldn't talk about this because it is not time to talk about this and just say no" is fucking retarded. I am wrong because I am wrong! Oh damn dude you just ran circles around me. Now we better stop talking about this and plug our ears and just say no and maybe LALALALALA. Seriously, when the other side says "Just say no" I think it is obvious who has a foundation to stand on.
Are you trying to say that my attitude towards the abuse of kids for the sexual pleasure of adults is the result of "cultural conditioning"? No it isnt.
I am trying to say that your attitude towards the viewing of CP is the result of cultural conditioning, and there is a very high chance that it is. Do you think if you were born and grew up in Japan that you would be in the 10% of people who are for the criminalization of child pornography viewing? I find that to be unlikely, although it is possible. You are naive if you think you are not influenced by your society.
Your logic is weird. You are saying that because something is not illegal in some other place it should not be illegal here. Well does the same then apply to the routine use of torture in some other places? In the end you cannot justify something simply because some other people do it, as a human you have choices about what you do and you must make your own mind up about whether something is right or wrong.
No I have never once said that because something is legal in other places it should be legal everywhere. I have specifically said that this is not what I think. Please actually read the thread before putting words into my mouth. I only mention that CP is legal to view in half of the world, and supported culturally in some countries such as Japan, to show that there is a significant probability that cultural conditioning has influenced your opinion on it, and that although you perceive your beliefs to be universal they are actually not so. Everybody who is against CP viewing and wants an age of consent at 18 thinks that the entire world agrees with them and has for all of history, I am merely correcting these people by explaining to them that their beliefs are both modern era and geographically restricted.
Abusing the innocence of children, which may affect the whole rest of their lives, for sexual pleasure is simply very wrong. They cant defend themselves. We should protect our kids, not sell them to others for sex. I take it you dont have kids. well I hope you dont anyway.
Uhm, never said we should be able to sell kids for sex. Please if you want to debate me actually debate me instead of debating yourself by putting words into my mouth. I am so sick of people telling me in this thread that paying for CP causes abuse, kids shouldn't be molested, kids shouldn't be sold for sex, etc, because I never have claimed otherwise! You guys cannot actually debate what I am saying because it has a foundation firmly based on logic and truth, and this forces you to pretend that I am making different points than I am so you can actually pretend like you are winning. But you are just debating yourself by proxy, I am not the one making the claims that you implicitly attribute to me.
Applying some logic of my own; I would say that you would only have spent all this time and effort arguing for the legalisation of paedophilia if you yourself are a paedophile. So tell us, is that the case?
I don't really consider myself to be a pedophile. I am not attracted sexually to people who have not reached puberty, or even people who have just recently reached puberty. I prefer tanner stage 4-5, with stage 4 being reached usually no earlier than age 13. By historic definitions of pedophilia (attraction to those who have not reached puberty) this would disqualify me.
The DSM includes attraction up to age 13 as pedophilia today, although this age has slowly progressed over time due to political rather than scientific reasons. I feel pretty confident in saying that for the most part I am attracted primarily to those 14+ though, and as I have no attraction at all to those who have not reached puberty it seems like I would fall somewhere in between hebephilia and ephebophilia rather than pedophilia. Hebephilia includes attraction to those 11-14, ephebophilia attraction to those 15-19, however some definitions allow ephebophiles to also be attracted to 14 year olds.
So I kind of overlap to some extent with all of the chronophilias, if you consider pedophilia to be attraction to those 2-13 years old you could make an argument that I am a pedophile as I find 13 year olds at tanner stage 4 to be sexually attractive, though hebephilia seems to make more sense to me as it includes 11-14, but I am not significantly attracted to 11 or 12 year olds or to 13 year olds who are not tanner stage 4, so probably ephebophilia makes the most sense if you grant a lowered starting age of 14 rather than 15 (which some allow for). Certainly ephebophilia is the only one which does not include attraction to an age group that I am not attracted to.
I am also attracted to people who are in their 30's+ though. So the range of attraction to roughly 14ish-40ish could be considered a variety of different things, but none of them exclusive. Perhaps I am a non-exclusive ephebophile, that is probably what I would claim to be if asked. Personally I think it is probably the normal age range of attraction for somebody my age but most people like to pretend it is not. I also find that I am particularly attracted to those 14-20ish, so primary attraction could actually mean I am indeed an ephebophile, although lack of exclusive attraction or exceptionally particular attraction could mean I am non-exclusive. So I suppose I am a non-exclusive-preferential-ephebophile. Also, I do consider the majority of men to be similar to this, and can give a very good argument for this with several citations if you would like to hear it!
I could probably even have some sexual response to some of those in late tanner stage 3, but it would be very little compared to stage 4 (which I am particularly attracted to) or 5 (which I am also quite attracted to). Anything below tanner stage 3 is universally asexual for me though. It is also worth noting that many people never progress past tanner stage 4 (which is characterized in females by adult quality pubic hair that doesn't cover quite as much area as in stage 5, and typically relatively smaller and particularly perky breasts with slightly upward pointing and more pronounced ends/nipples (as opposed to less perky generally more rounded breasts in stage 5, with level ends/nipples). I do also prefer petiteness and glowing youthful appearing skin, although this is not directly related to sexual maturation).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:
Forensic testimony in alleged child pornography cases commonly asserts that Tanner stage (TS) 4 breast development, characterized by secondary mounding of the areola that is obliterated in TS 5, is evidence of age <18 years. Clinical experience does not support this notion, but there are no relevant studies. We sought to estimate how frequently TS 4 might be interpreted from nonclinical images by individual forensic experts.
METHOD:
Published images of 547 adult women were independently examined by the authors and classified as having TS 4 or TS 5 breast development.
RESULTS:
There was concordance among all 4 of the examiners for 17 of the images, agreement of 3 of the examiners on another 36 images, of 2 examiners on 39 images, and 53 images were designated TS 4 by only 1 examiner, for a total of 153 (26.5%) images that could have been considered by a single forensic expert to represent TS 4.
CONCLUSIONS:
A substantial number of adults have persistent TS 4 breast development. This observation, and the frequent difficulty distinguishing TS 4 from TS 5, even by adolescent development specialists, especially in nonclinical images, renders testimony based on this distinction invalid. Without clinical relevance for distinguishing these advanced stages of breast development, they should both be considered indicative of full maturation. Testimony based on this inappropriate test of maturity should no longer be allowed.
So roughly 1 out of 4 adult females have tanner stage 4 breasts, but the large majority of those 13-15 do, with about 3/4ths of females obtaining tanner stage 5 breasts between the ages of 15 and 17, and 1/4th maintaining tanner stage 4 forever.
-
You can call it pedophilia or ephebophile or what ever you like, it is still so wrong and fucked up. It makes me feel sick. Would you ever actually have sexual intercourse with a 13/14/15 year old?
-
I have been sleeping better at night lately because I have convinced myself the OP has a higher agenda.
I tell myself that his views on this subject are quite the opposite of what he is making out. This engineered thread is drawing out all the sick fucks that are spilling their guts to the OP in PMs. Its an info gathering exercise. I hope he has netted a few.
-
o no not pedo
-
You can call it pedophilia or ephebophile or what ever you like, it is still so wrong and fucked up. It makes me feel sick. Would you ever actually have sexual intercourse with a 13/14/15 year old?
Well, I have never had sex with a 13/14/15 year old, or attempted to do so for that matter. If I was in some magic black box and could have sex with a hot 14 or 15 year old and never have to worry about being arrested for it, well that would be pretty tempting for sure. 13 year old is pretty young and I might even feel a bit bad about having sex with most 13 year olds, so I probably wouldn't I guess even in the black box. It is really hard to say though. I don't think I would feel bad for having sex with a 15 year old, 15 year olds are legal to have sex with in a huge part of the world and they are only one year shy of legal in the majority of the world. Feeling sick at the idea of having sex with a 15 year old seems very strange to me considering 15 year olds are usually at the peak of sexual development, indeed most females reach peak sexual development about half way into 14 years old. So you seemingly think it is sick to be attracted to completely developed teenagers who have completely adult sexual characteristics. This seems to me as if you find the thought of having sex with adults sickening, which is odd. I suppose that you could find the act to not be physically disgusting but disgusting for some other reason. I mean, the thought of someone having sex with a new born makes me sick, and if I saw a picture of someone having sex with a new born I would probably actually feel a little bit upset emotionally by it. If I saw a picture of someone having sex with a 15 year old, I would probably just get an erection, lol. I don't see anything particularly wrong with being attracted to tanner stage 4 and 5, both can be indicative of peak sexual development. I don't really see the magical process that takes place between ages 14 and 16 either, that makes a person so upset at the thought of a 14 year old being sexual but not a 16 year old they are fine. Or maybe you are in some part of USA and think 16 year olds are sexually disgusting as well, in which case I still don't see the change that takes place between 16 and 18.
So to answer your question, in reality I would not actually have sex with a 13, 14 or 15 year old, at least I don't think any circumstance will come up where I have such an opportunity and where I would feel like risking it. If I was in a isolated black box that couldn't exchange information from inside of it with the reality outside of it, I mean I don't know I probably wouldn't have sex with a 13 year old but 14 or 15 maybe I cannot really say without being in such a situation. I know I wouldn't have sex with an 8 year old in such a box though. I mean maybe in your mind you think you think that it is disgusting, but I bet if you actually saw a 14 or 15 year old without knowing their age that you would be tempted to have sex with them as well in many cases. I certainly don't deny that I would have at least the desire to, but maybe something would stop me in practice, so far I have not had any motivation to try to have sex with such people but if an opportunity fell into my lap perhaps I would take it or perhaps I would feel like it would be harmful to them and not, or perhaps I would force myself not to simply because society has it in its mind that it would be wrong for me to. But if it was culturally acceptable for me to I pretty much certainly would have sex with 14 and 15 year olds if any wanted to have sex with me, which is a distinction I can draw between 14 and 15 year olds and say 9 and 10 year olds, which is why I would lean toward calling myself an ephebophile rather than a pedophile.
-
I mean, when I was 14 and 15 I found 14 and 15 year olds to be sexually attractive, didn't you? When did you stop being sexually attracted to 14 and 15 year olds? When you turned 18 did you wake up and suddenly think all of these teenagers you used to be attracted to are no longer attractive? I mean I never really went through such a transformation. When I was maybe 10 or whatever I didn't even think about sex. When I was 12 or so I felt attracted to females but in a very innocent sort of way, puppy love more than sexual attraction. But by the time I was 14 I definitely saw female peers as people I wanted to have sex with, and pretty much that has not changed since that point in time and I rather doubt that it ever does at this point, lol. I mean, yeah I am attracted very much to people in their late teens and twenties as well, even people in their thirties. But I did not wake up one day and stop being sexually attracted to 14 year olds.
-
The reason most people are attracted to 14 year olds when they are 14 but with time they stop being attracted to them is because people develop and mature, something that you haven't done. I am not sure why, maybe you have bad genes, maybe you were not treated well as a could or maybe you took a research chem that didn't mix well with your brain. I don't know what happened to you, but it saddens me.
-
American Civil Liberties Union. Liberty being the key word. Libertarians. Liberty. The people who fight for freedom take the same opinion as I do. The same people fighting for your helpless ass are fighting for the right of pedophiles to view child porn. It is about freedom for everybody, you want to take freedom away from some people and keep it for yourself.
Could you imagine this scenario kmfkewm?
ACLU rally... 2 members chatting
ACLU SF(sick fuck)- ' Is she ok? wtf happened?
ACLU Dad- ' No she is not ok. Shes more than not ok. She got drugged and was raped at a party. She is only 12 ffs. It has torn her apart.
ACLU SF- 'Did they get who is responsible?'
ACLU Dad -'Yes they did, They have been charged. They made a film the sick cunts IM GONNA KILL THEM
ACLU SF - 'Well thats good. We cant change the fact that the film was made and I know you wont mind because we are libertarians but I have been watching that rape video of your daughter for the last couple of days and it is AWESOME!! It is number 1 video over at sickfucks.onion and gets about 3000hits a day. HEY ACLU SF2 come over here and meet ACLU Dad. His daughter is in that kiddy rape scene I showed you.
ACLU SF2 - Oh so sorry about your daughter. I hope those guys hang for what they did. I know we cant change that. The video is already made but I love the part where she is crying out for your help ACLU dad. Not much grass on the ole pitch aye wink wink. I think she started to enjoy it in the end
ACLU Dad- Yeah it has totally devastated our family but I hope you enjoy that rape film of my daughter. I say that from the bottom of my heart because we are all LIBERTARIANS here.
Can you imagine this one?
ACLU SF - Hey there ACLU dad, how is your daughter doing today?
ACLU Dad - She is doing great! We found out that her baby sitter is a pedophile who was feeling urges to rape her, but thankfully since CP is legal to view he just jacked off to that instead
ACLU SF - Wow that is great!
ACLU Dad - Yeah and since we know pedophilia is a mental illness and not something worthy of being killed for in and of itself, he actually felt confident enough to go seek help from a psychologist, and decided he should stop baby sitting kids !
ACLU SF - Sweet, it sure is nice we do not crusade against people for desires they cannot help, and allow them to release their sexual urges through pornography of children who cannot be un-victimized rather than encouraging them to bottle up their feelings, not seek help and molest kids since they need sexual release and are going to get the same sentence for raping your daughter as they would for watching a video of a girl being raped who cannot be unraped without a time machine!
_____
How about this one?
ACLU SF - Hey there ACLU Dad what is happening?
ACLU Dad - OMG my 13 year old son got arrested and charged as a sex offender and is going to prison and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life!!
ACLU SF - OMG what did that little sick fuck do?
ACLU Dad - He took a picture of his dick with his new camera phone and posted it to the internet, and now the police are charging him with production and distribution of child porn!
ACLU SF - Hahaha you almost had me there ACLU dad, thankfully we live in a libertarian society and allow teenagers to take pictures of themselves naked, and even allow others to view such pictures
ACLU Dad - I know, I am just kidding, my son is doing fine and is a perfectly normal and healthy teenager
ACLU SF 2 - I know I saw the pictures when looking at CP, and it was nice to be able to jack off to self produced and published CP instead of go rape some kids!
----------
How about this one
ACLU SF - So what is up ACLU dad !
ACLU Dad - OMG my 18 year old son just got sent to prison for CP possession!
ACLU SF - Wow what a sick fuck
ACLU Dad - No he is actually really normal and not even a pedophile, he just happened to stumble on a CP file and downloaded it out of curiosity, decided he didn't like it and deleted it, but then the FBI swarmed his house and now the entire neighborhood is calling for his castration!
ACLU SF - Wow it sure sucks to live in a world full of emotional nut cases!
-
When i turned 18 looking at 14 15 16 yr olds was out made me sick as still remarked how hot they were they are kids
-
As a survivor myself of horrific childhood abuse that would leave most bowed and bent, gibbering, drooling wrecks, I have this to say to you:
I hope you get ass raped by an angry bear, and a pervert is filming it, then the pervert gets set on fire by the outraged god of innocents.
HUMANS ARE THE ONLY SPECIES THAT VIOLATES ITS YOUNG BEFORE SEXUAL MATURITY!!
CP is a violation. Children, teenagers, young adults do not have the wisdom, maturity, and experience to consent to sexual contact, activities, or being turned into objects. Children NEVER consent to be turned into things. Adults who are broken on the inside, yes, they can and do consent to be turned into things.
I am sure it is an aberration in our species' DNA that makes our children attractive sexually, and once every sick fuck that gets their jollies from our young is exterminated, the desire to violate the bodies and minds of our innocents will be eradicated from our species genetically.
-
The reason most people are attracted to 14 year olds when they are 14 but with time they stop being attracted to them is because people develop and mature, something that you haven't done. I am not sure why, maybe you have bad genes, maybe you were not treated well as a could or maybe you took a research chem that didn't mix well with your brain. I don't know what happened to you, but it saddens me.
The reason most people are attracted to 14 year olds when they are 14, but with time they stop being attracted to them, is because when they are 14 society largely encourages them to have sex with 14 year olds, and with time society says if they have sex with 14 year olds they ought to be castrated and shot in the back of the head. Normal people do not stop being sexually attracted to 14 year olds, although some may actually convince themselves that they are not attracted to 14 year olds I am not convinced of this and suspect many know that they are but just lie and say they are not. Regardless, there are tools for measuring sexual arousal, and the vast majority of men have an equal sexual response to images of 14 year olds as they do to images of 20 year olds. So people can say whatever they want, but science shows us the truth.
-
When i turned 18 looking at 14 15 16 yr olds was out made me sick as still remarked how hot they were they are kids
Wow that is so fucking weird. That is such a weird phenomenon. Did an angel come down from heaven on your 18th birthday and touch you with a magic wand that caused this effect to happen in you? Seriously that is just the oddest shit I cannot imagine turning 18 and having such an intense revelation! So many magical things happen on peoples 18th birthdays what the fuck why didn't any magic happen to me! When people turn 18 the Gods grant them sexual knowledge allowing them to engage in sex, and also the Gods take away their sexual attraction to those under the age of 18. What the fuck I feel left out I never had one of these mind blowing experiences!
As a survivor myself of horrific childhood abuse that would leave most bowed and bent, gibbering, drooling wrecks, I have this to say to you:
I hope you get ass raped by an angry bear, and a pervert is filming it, then the pervert gets set on fire by the outraged god of innocents.
HUMANS ARE THE ONLY SPECIES THAT VIOLATES ITS YOUNG BEFORE SEXUAL MATURITY!!
CP is a violation. Children, teenagers, young adults do not have the wisdom, maturity, and experience to consent to sexual contact, activities, or being turned into objects. Children NEVER consent to be turned into things. Adults who are broken on the inside, yes, they can and do consent to be turned into things.
I am sure it is an aberration in our species' DNA that makes our children attractive sexually, and once every sick fuck that gets their jollies from our young is exterminated, the desire to violate the bodies and minds of our innocents will be eradicated from our species genetically.
Ah yeah I think we might be headed toward a genocide of pedophiles perhaps (in the USA, UK and Australia). They are already forced to live in ghettos and metaphorically wear the stars on their clothing. Gas chambers might be right around the corner. But I still think they will be more understood in a few hundred years and CP legalized. I wonder how many Germans thought that Jews would ever be accepted in Germany.
-
First of all it is already legal to view child porn in New York state, it just isn't legal to save it. The court there has determined that having CP in RAM or a cache on your drive is not a crime, and it is only a crime to intentionally download CP from a website. They are confused on technical things, but essentially they have ruled that you can surf CP but not keep a long term collection of it on your hard drive unless it is from browser cache. Of course federal laws trumps state law, but technically it is already legal to surf CP sites in New York State.
Isn't the reason for CP in RAM/cache being legal because it could have been downloaded without the user's consent? e.g. imagine you're at home looking at regular porn then an advert for CP pops up?
don't you think that making CP legal or more accepted will encourage the production of it?
don't you have any sympathy for the children who are exploited? it is completely unjustifiable and wrong imo, I really don't understand your pov kmfkewm :-\
-
"Ah yeah I think we might be headed toward a genocide of pedophiles perhaps (in the USA, UK and Australia)." I see nothing wrong with exterminating pedophiles. With prejudice. Jews, are they adults, Germans, are they adults? Are they fucking children, or looking at CP? Yes, death sentence to be carried out immediately by the nearest functional adult. No, then go about your adult business. CHILDREN CAN'T CONSENT!!!
-
http://e.asset.soup.io/asset/1113/0046_d56a.jpeg
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
HAMILTON - Township officials took an unprecedented stand against sex offenders last night, signaling to convicted pedophiles they will no longer be welcome residents in much of the township.
The council voted 5-0 to adopt an ordinance prohibiting anyone convicted of a sex offense against a minor from living within 2,500 feet of a school, playground, park or day-care center. Violators will face possible jail time, fines and community service.
In adopting the ordinance, Hamilton became the first community in the state to institute a so-called "pedophile-free zone.
https://irrco.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/sign1.jpg
Freedom of movement was severely restricted. Jews were banned from visiting public places, subjected to nightime curfews and travel restrictions.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-134-0771A-39,_Polen,_Ghetto_Warschau,_Kind_in_Lumpen.jpg/360px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-134-0771A-39,_Polen,_Ghetto_Warschau,_Kind_in_Lumpen.jpg
In total, the Nazis established 356 ghettos in Poland, the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Hungary between 1939 and 1945. There was no uniformity to these ghettos. The ghettos in small towns were generally not sealed off, which was often a temporary measure used until the residents could be sent to bigger ghettos.
Ghetto life was wretched. The ghettos were filthy, with poor sanitation. Extreme overcrowding forced many people to share a room. Disease was rampant. Staying warm was difficult during bitter cold winters without adequate warm clothes and heating fuel.
http://media.miaminewtimes.com/1709169.28.jpg
http://media.miaminewtimes.com/1709170.28.jpg
http://media.miaminewtimes.com/1709172.28.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony
The Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony (also called "Bookville" by former residents) was an encampment of registered sex offenders who were living beneath the Julia Tuttle Causeway — a highway in Miami, Florida — from 2006 to April 2010. The colony was created by a lobbyist named Ron Book, who wrote a local ordinance to restrict convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet (760 m) of schools, parks, bus stops, or homeless shelters. In the city/county of Miami-Dade, this left almost no possibilities for inexpensive housing. Furthermore, Miami-Dade laws are significantly stricter than State of Florida laws on residency restrictions for sex offenders.[1] If sex offenders who were released from prison during this time claimed Miami-Dade as their home, and their addresses were located within this boundary, they were required to report to the camp.
As many as 140 people lived in the colony in July 2009.[4] They were required to be in the camp from 6 at night to 7 in the morning, when a representative from the Department of Corrections arrived to check that they were there.[5] Most of the structures in the encampment, described by The Miami Herald as a "shantytown", were tents, improvised wood, or cardboard structures.[4] Some had plumbing and cooking capacities, and residents of the colony shared generators for electricity to recharge cell phones and their tracking devices.[3]
http://deliciouslyfictitious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Judenstern_Daniel-Ullrich-attrib.jpg
On November 23, 1939 General Governor Hans Frank issued an ordinance that Jews ten years of age and older living in the General Government had to wear the Star of David on armbands or pinned to the chest or back. This made the identification of Jews easier when the Nazis began issuing orders establishing ghettos.
http://marginalrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/sex-offenders.jpg
In 1994, a federal statute called the Jacob Wetterling Act required all states to pass legislation requiring sex offenders to register with state sex offender registries. Then again in 1996, based on a set of New Jersey laws called "Megan's Laws," the federal government required states to pass legislation mandating public notification of personal information for certain sex offenders.
So it doesn't surprise me at all that genocide is the next thing on your mind. Instead of trying to help people who are sick you want to just wipe their genes off the face of the earth. And mind you that a lot of these people *NEVER HURT A FUCKING CHILD* because *PICTURES OF CHILDREN ARE NOT CHILDREN*. You use CP just to identify the people who you hate, you don't even hate child molesters in specific you just hate all pedophiles, and in fact you don't even hate pedophiles in specific you hate and want to exterminate every person in the world who is sexually attracted to anyone under the age of 18, *WHICH IS SCIENTIFICALLY SHOWN TO BE NEARLY EVERY MAN WHO HAS EVER LIVED*. Not to mention of those living under these circumstances who are not living under them for the horrible crime of having an illegal number, many or the rest are living under these conditions for having sex with people who are legal to have sex with in European countries or even across state borders in the USA. I am not standing up for the child rapists and such, but to treat people who looked at pictures in this way or to treat people who had consensual sex with teenagers who are legal in Europe in this way makes you yourself vile fucking scum.
-
"Ah yeah I think we might be headed toward a genocide of pedophiles perhaps (in the USA, UK and Australia)." I see nothing wrong with exterminating pedophiles. With prejudice. Jews, are they adults, Germans, are they adults? Are they fucking children, or looking at CP? Yes, death sentence to be carried out immediately by the nearest functional adult. No, then go about your adult business. CHILDREN CAN'T CONSENT!!!
Pictures of children are not children.
-
HUMANS ARE THE ONLY SPECIES THAT VIOLATES ITS YOUNG BEFORE SEXUAL MATURITY!!
A. That isn't true
https://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/animal-behavior-non-human-animals-engaging-in-pedophilia/
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/04/01/pedophilia-natural-adele-penguins
B. Humans are one of the (if not the) only species that, to a large extent, does not engage in sexual activity with those capable of bearing children (ie: adolescents)
-
American Civil Liberties Union. Liberty being the key word. Libertarians. Liberty. The people who fight for freedom take the same opinion as I do. The same people fighting for your helpless ass are fighting for the right of pedophiles to view child porn. It is about freedom for everybody, you want to take freedom away from some people and keep it for yourself.
Could you imagine this scenario kmfkewm?
ACLU rally... 2 members chatting
ACLU SF(sick fuck)- ' Is she ok? wtf happened?
ACLU Dad- ' No she is not ok. Shes more than not ok. She got drugged and was raped at a party. She is only 12 ffs. It has torn her apart.
ACLU SF- 'Did they get who is responsible?'
ACLU Dad -'Yes they did, They have been charged. They made a film the sick cunts IM GONNA KILL THEM
ACLU SF - 'Well thats good. We cant change the fact that the film was made and I know you wont mind because we are libertarians but I have been watching that rape video of your daughter for the last couple of days and it is AWESOME!! It is number 1 video over at sickfucks.onion and gets about 3000hits a day. HEY ACLU SF2 come over here and meet ACLU Dad. His daughter is in that kiddy rape scene I showed you.
ACLU SF2 - Oh so sorry about your daughter. I hope those guys hang for what they did. I know we cant change that. The video is already made but I love the part where she is crying out for your help ACLU dad. Not much grass on the ole pitch aye wink wink. I think she started to enjoy it in the end
ACLU Dad- Yeah it has totally devastated our family but I hope you enjoy that rape film of my daughter. I say that from the bottom of my heart because we are all LIBERTARIANS here.
Can you imagine this one?
ACLU SF - Hey there ACLU dad, how is your daughter doing today?
ACLU Dad - She is doing great! We found out that her baby sitter is a pedophile who was feeling urges to rape her, but thankfully since CP is legal to view he just jacked off to that instead
ACLU SF - Wow that is great!
ACLU Dad - Yeah and since we know pedophilia is a mental illness and not something worthy of being killed for in and of itself, he actually felt confident enough to go seek help from a psychologist, and decided he should stop baby sitting kids !
ACLU SF - Sweet, it sure is nice we do not crusade against people for desires they cannot help, and allow them to release their sexual urges through pornography of children who cannot be un-victimized rather than encouraging them to bottle up their feelings, not seek help and molest kids since they need sexual release and are going to get the same sentence for raping your daughter as they would for watching a video of a girl being raped who cannot be unraped without a time machine!
_____
How about this one?
ACLU SF - Hey there ACLU Dad what is happening?
ACLU Dad - OMG my 13 year old son got arrested and charged as a sex offender and is going to prison and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life!!
ACLU SF - OMG what did that little sick fuck do?
ACLU Dad - He took a picture of his dick with his new camera phone and posted it to the internet, and now the police are charging him with production and distribution of child porn!
ACLU SF - Hahaha you almost had me there ACLU dad, thankfully we live in a libertarian society and allow teenagers to take pictures of themselves naked, and even allow others to view such pictures
ACLU Dad - I know, I am just kidding, my son is doing fine and is a perfectly normal and healthy teenager
ACLU SF 2 - I know I saw the pictures when looking at CP, and it was nice to be able to jack off to self produced and published CP instead of go rape some kids!
----------
How about this one
ACLU SF - So what is up ACLU dad !
ACLU Dad - OMG my 18 year old son just got sent to prison for CP possession!
ACLU SF - Wow what a sick fuck
ACLU Dad - No he is actually really normal and not even a pedophile, he just happened to stumble on a CP file and downloaded it out of curiosity, decided he didn't like it and deleted it, but then the FBI swarmed his house and now the entire neighborhood is calling for his castration!
ACLU SF - Wow it sure sucks to live in a world full of emotional nut cases!
Dont know about you but when I look at porn the mrs cops it when she gets home. Looking at porn makes me want the real thing.
Once again you are hiding behind the skirts of libertarians fighting for the freedom of a 13 year old taking a pic of his dick or somebody who stumbles across CP to justify your urge to look at pictures of an abused child that happens to be effected by the abuse for the rest of their lives.
I get it. Its a pic. Wow you are a fucking genius. Nobody is fighting for your freedom to view the outcome of abuse if they themselves or their families have been effected by it.
Thats a fact.
My scenario is fail. ACLU dad would have picked up the nearest pointy thing, ACLU pen perhaps, and stuck it into the necks of SF and SF2.
SF and SF2 would never mention to ACLU dad that they watch his daughter getting raped, read "film" because rock spiders dont expose themselves even to those "fighting for their freedom" OR in a country/ state that has a loophole to hide behind because deep down they know they are sick individuals.
My mum knows about my porn/fetishes, she found my stash. She was cool about it. You still have not told me whether your mum/mom/mother knows about your stash?
-
Dude what the actual fuck? What a disgusting fucking thread you have going. Turn the lights off and all the freaks come out ehh? You say the person looking at cp dosent hurt the child directly? Maybe not but it does create more demand for this shit to happen to more helpless kids. And thats exactly what they are dude, fucking kids. Trying to justify your sickness with statistics and bullshit research. Fucking shameful. Get some fucking help you nasty little fucker.
-
Dont know about you but when I look at porn the mrs cops it when she gets home. Looking at porn makes me want the real thing.
No, you want the real thing and looking at porn can satisfy you to an extent as well. Looking at porn does not make you want to have sex with females, you want to have sex with females. If you couldn't have sex with females, looking at porn would help you placate your urges, not make them stronger. I have already linked to research showing this, I am not going to keep repeating myself over and over.
Once again you are hiding behind the skirts of libertarians fighting for the freedom of a 13 year old taking a pic of his dick or somebody who stumbles across CP to justify your urge to look at pictures of an abused child that happens to be effected by the abuse for the rest of their lives.
Libertarians fight for the freedom of ANYBODY to view a picture of ANYTHING. You are mischaracterizing the the beliefs of libertarians by making it seem like they are only fighting for a 13 year old to be able to take a picture of his dick.
I get it. Its a pic. Wow you are a fucking genius. Nobody is fighting for your freedom to view the outcome of abuse if they themselves or their families have been effected by it.
Thats a fact.
Really, have you taken a poll? Pretty sure that there are plenty of Jewish people who went to death camps who would fight for our right to see holocaust pictures. So I think it is obvious that people who have been effected by abuse would fight for the right of people to view the outcome of the abuse.
My scenario is fail. ACLU dad would have picked up the nearest pointy thing, ACLU pen perhaps, and stuck it into the necks of SF and SF2.
SF and SF2 would never mention to ACLU dad that they watch his daughter getting raped, read "film" because rock spiders dont expose themselves even to those "fighting for their freedom" OR in a country/ state that has a loophole to hide behind because deep down they know they are sick individuals.
Yes Japan is just one sick fuck nation, you sure figured them out. Everybody who doesn't agree with you is a sick fuck and should probably be subjected to genocide.
My mum knows about my porn/fetishes, she found my stash. She was cool about it. You still have not told me whether your mum/mom/mother knows about your stash?
I don't really give a fuck what my mum/mom/mother thinks about CP laws, plenty of people have mums/moms/mothers who are against drugs does that mean drugs should be illegal?!
-
You say the person looking at cp dosent hurt the child directly? Maybe not but it does create more demand for this shit to happen to more helpless kids.
Ahhhhh read the motherfucking thread! I already gave links to research showing that there is *no support* for the notion that merely viewing CP causes more children to be molested! I already gave links to research showing that when pedophiles have access to CP they are less likely to molest children! I already explained that there are technical systems that can perfectly mask demand for content of any sort!
And thats exactly what they are dude, fucking kids. Trying to justify your sickness with statistics and bullshit research. Fucking shameful. Get some fucking help you nasty little fucker.
Yeah fuck those statistics and research we should instead just have a mindless emotional response. Sheesh what the fuck is wrong with me, using research and statistics to come to opinions regarding things, I should be down right ashamed of myself!
-
Its simple supply and demand dumbass. Im not going to read 24 pages of you explaining why its ok to want to look at pics of little boy buttholes. If there is a fucking demand for kiddie porn there will be an increase in kids being violated. There is research to support any bullshit theory any fuckhead dreams up. You have some sort of disconnect in your brain that directs you towards kids. Kids are helpless, you can more easily have your way with them than an adult. I get it. You were picked on or abused as a kid and this is your way of feeling powerful. I get that. Dude get counseling, its not ok. Its not normal or natural.
-
Guess what fucknuts, I wouldn't give a shit sandwich to you if you were starving. If you were on fire, and I had to piss, I would let it run down my leg as I listened to you scream.
I am a volunteer counselor, among other things, for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Guess how many of my clients have been abused by perpetrators who look at CP? If there is no supply, and perpetrators are exterminated from humanity, then our children have a much better chance of becoming who they were meant to be. Instead of the walking dead, with holes in their souls they try to fill with self abuse because they can't stand the shit in their heads they live with every day. Childhood sexual abuse murders the soul of who they started out to be, leaving agonizing, gaping, weeping, sores where their souls should be.
FUCK YOU TO THE EVENT HORIZON OF A BLACK HOLE SO MUCH YOU FUCKING FUCKSTICK.
-
Its simple supply and demand dumbass.
It is not so simple, dumbass. But anyway I can already easily prove that supply and demand is not what has you so bothered. Are you okay with CP being downloaded via Private Information Retrieval? What if there is a system where nobody can tell the demand for certain content, yet anybody can download and view the content? There is no more demand that can be recognized, so that means that it is fine, since your problem is with supply and demand, right? This argument is already solved. If we are so concerned about the unproven supply and demand of CP theory, we should build a PIR based system for pedophiles to be able to download CP from. Nobody can tell the demand anymore, it is not an issue. Right?
Im not going to read 24 pages of you explaining why its ok to want to look at pics of little boy buttholes. If there is a fucking demand for kiddie porn there will be an increase in kids being violated.
This is probably not true, in that people do not decide to violate kids simply because some fucking random person on the internet downloaded some CP, but even assuming that it is true (it probably isn't), there are technical solutions to take care of this problem. So please if you would like to continue to argue, at least have something fresh that doesn't already have a solution for it. Because we can take care of any possibility of demand leading to more supply, via cryptographically masking demand.
There is research to support any bullshit theory any fuckhead dreams up.
So if we don't go off research what should we go off of? Primitive emotional responses?
You have some sort of disconnect in your brain that directs you towards kids.
No I am actually quite normal. Research (I know I know, you hate research and science) demonstrates that normal men have the same sexual response to those 13+ as they do to those 18+. There are tools for measuring sexual arousal. Experiments have been done. Normal men are sexually aroused by 13 year olds for fucks sake. Nothing is wrong with my brain, something is wrong with your brain that makes you feel a compulsion to lie to yourself and to others. You can say whatever you want and maybe you even have convinced yourself, but I have facts on my side and you have nothing at all !
Kids are helpless, you can more easily have your way with them than an adult. I get it. You were picked on or abused as a kid and this is your way of feeling powerful. I get that. Dude get counseling, its not ok. Its not normal or natural.
Dude. Pictures. Of. Kids. Are. Not. Motherfucking. Kids. Jesus christ is that so hard of a concept for you to understand? Or if you are talking about how I think the age of consent should be lowered, well, yeah I think USA should lower its age of consent to be the same as Croatia the same as Germany the same as Japan maybe even. Is that such a horrible thing? Am I such a broken horrible person because I think the age of consent laws in Germany make more sense? Are these countries just full of pedophiles have they just been taken over by sick vile pedophiles who must be castrated and executed? Should USA start dropping bombs on Germany and Japan until they raise their age of consent laws to the all mighty all powerful unquestionable age of 18?
-
Guess what fucknuts, I wouldn't give a shit sandwich to you if you were starving. If you were on fire, and I had to piss, I would let it run down my leg as I listened to you scream.
Yes, I know, you a genocidal homicidal maniac, this has been well established. You also seem to be fixated on feces.
I am a volunteer counselor, among other things, for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Guess how many of my clients have been abused by perpetrators who look at CP?
Wow I bet if I talk to a rape counselor that they will say almost all of their clients have been abused by men. Should we wipe out all men?! Death to the males!
If there is no supply, and perpetrators are exterminated from humanity, then our children have a much better chance of becoming who they were meant to be.
Well I cannot really argue with the fact that if all child abusers and potential child abusers are exterminated that no children will be abused. Do you think we should also exterminate all males to vastly lower the rate of sexual abuse against females? What problems can we not solve with mass murder and genocide?
Instead of the walking dead, with holes in their souls they try to fill with self abuse because they can't stand the shit in their heads they live with every day. Childhood sexual abuse murders the soul of who they started out to be, leaving agonizing, gaping, weeping, sores where their souls should be.
A. Looking at pictures of child abuse is not engaging in child abuse.
B. Pictures of child abuse are not child abuse
C. Having consensual sex with a 14 year old is not going to turn them into the walking dead, lmfao
FUCK YOU TO THE EVENT HORIZON OF A BLACK HOLE SO MUCH YOU FUCKING FUCKSTICK.
Don't you mean past the event horizon?
-
"Don't you mean past the event horizon?"
NO, I DON'T. If you were nearly as intelligent as you think you are, you would understand that you would forever be spread out on the event horizon, by your awareness, stretched into oblivion, no respite, no happy ending, just forever unending FUCK YOU. Yes, I am a homicidal maniac when it comes to those who abuse children mentally, emotionally, spiritually, or physically.
FUCKING IDIOT, why didn't your mother's body absorb you in utero?
-
Your right. Every other person posting on here calling you a sick fuck is wrong. Congrats on that. And I can promise you I am not attracted to kids. It is the most disgusting thing I can think of. We are not like you. Are you trying to convince the rest of us or yourself? No pictures are not kids. But behind every one of these pictures is an actual kid that was wronged. I like how you like to dehumanize the kids in the pics or vids or whatever. I think deep down you realize it is wrong. So you tell yourself its just a picture not a real kid. You are basically attempting to desensitize yourself to the horrible shit you are supporting. Do you have any kids? I bet you dont. And if you do you are even more fucked than previously thought. I teach a course on human behavior. Its my living.My title is subject matter expert. And I promise you have some deep underlaying issues. It is not normal. I dont care what nambla funded research you quote. Maybe you would change your mind if you were able to meet some kids that were current victims of human trafficking for sex. Maybe you would like that? Maybe you would like to see an 8 yr old boy in a real life dungeon with shit shoved up his ass? All beat up bleeding and hopeless. Crying in a pile of his own shit on the floor. Yea? Sound good? Or maybe no? Not really into the physical abuse thing? Dont like violence and bleeding assholes and shit? So you maybe just like the soft shit? Maybe a little gentle sex? It dosent hurt them right? They will probably get over it. I mean emotional scars arent real scars right? Its JUST a picture right? No real kids were harmed in the making of this porn film. You are supporting something terrible. I could give two fucks about you. But I care that any child has to deal with a lifelong psychological issue for a picture for you to jack off to in your basement. Fuck you
-
You keep pulling up all this bullshit about age of consent in different countries and yes they are low and yes you would get "off" if push comes to shove.
Most of these laws are so fucking old, some centuries old and were put into law by predators at the time and are being protected by predators in this age.
But even in Japan that you love to quote so much the laws are actually different within each prefecture. Age of consent is higher. The japanese community as a whole hate fucking pedos. I know because I lived there for 3 years. Its not as open for a predator as yourself, would like it to be. You will find a rock to crawl under there is no doubt about it. I would be surprised if their existing strict laws on CP doesnt get extended to the viewing of CP very soon.
The world despises it. This community quite obviously despises it.
-
You keep pulling up all this bullshit about age of consent in different countries and yes they are low and yes you would get "off" if push comes to shove.
Most of these laws are so fucking old, some centuries old and were put into law by predators at the time and are being protected by predators in this age.
But even in Japan that you love to quote so much the laws are actually different within each prefecture. Age of consent is higher. The japanese community as a whole hate fucking pedos. I know because I lived there for 3 years. Its not as open for a predator as yourself, would like it to be. You will find a rock to crawl under there is no doubt about it. I would be surprised if their existing strict laws on CP doesnt get extended to the viewing of CP very soon.
The world despises it. This community quite obviously despises it.
Novocaine you are a fucking retard. You think that all of these countries with age of consent below the age of 18 or 16 are only that way because of the shadowy pedophile mafia keeping it such? Jesus dude you are seriously suffering from a diagnosable disease I believe, that sounds almost like paranoid schizophrenia.
1. Age of consent in Japan is 13 in Tokyo and Nagano and varies between 13-18 everywhere else -> http://chartsbin.com/view/hxj
2. Child porn is legal in japan -> "Japan and Russia are the two G8 member states where possession of child pornography is legal. Compared to the United Nations, possession of child pornography is legal in 90 out of 193 UN member states.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Japan
3. Softcore Child porn is legal to produce AND distribute in japan - > "child pornography being defined to be explicit images of children having sex, and not the nude and semi-nude images of children that are common in the Japanese child idol industry."
4. Japan REJECTED a proposal to make child porn illegal to possess in 2008 -> "In June, a bill to ban possession of child porn was submitted to parliament's lower house. It is set to be debated in a parliament session expected to start in September." http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/08/us-japan-porn-idUST35097220080808
actually CP is legal to possess in half of the fucking world so clearly you do not speak for the entire world. Also yeah sure many in this community despise it obviously to such an extent they think it should be illegal to view, but funny enough none of the people who have PMed me saying that they agree with me seem to want to mention it on the forum but of course the ones who disagree with me feel socially safe to disagree with me on the forum. Way to go you and your mob have silenced the dissent, but I don't personally give a fuck about what some emotional fools on the internet blabber about when they go into their emotion induced rage so here I am speaking logic to empaths.
-
"Don't you mean past the event horizon?"
NO, I DON'T. If you were nearly as intelligent as you think you are, you would understand that you would forever be spread out on the event horizon, by your awareness, stretched into oblivion, no respite, no happy ending, just forever unending FUCK YOU. Yes, I am a homicidal maniac when it comes to those who abuse children mentally, emotionally, spiritually, or physically.
FUCKING IDIOT, why didn't your mother's body absorb you in utero?
The event horizon is a boundary that if something passes it cannot possibly return from it (other than as hawking radiation). You told me you want me to go to the event horizon, I assumed you actually wanted me to slowly turn into hawking radiation as quantum space foam materialized next to the black hole and got sucked into it giving off hawking radiation due to conservation of mass.
-
Your right. Every other person posting on here calling you a sick fuck is wrong. Congrats on that. And I can promise you I am not attracted to kids.
How about you hook your penis up to a phallometric device and then we can see the truth :). Here is a hint: in studies done on randomly selected males they almost all respond to 13 year olds the same as they do to 20 year olds. You can lie with the organ in your mouth but the one in your pants will betray you :). Also even fucking forensic scientists have trouble to differentiate 14 year olds from 18 year olds based on visual apperance, you must really be something if you can tell the difference. Seriously we need to hook your dick up to a phallometric device and use you as a forensic tool to tell when a photograph is jailbait or legal lol.
We are not like you. Are you trying to convince the rest of us or yourself?
Certainly not trying to convince myself, I have already read the research. I am trying to convince you to stop lying to yourself and others.
No pictures are not kids. But behind every one of these pictures is an actual kid that was wronged. I like how you like to dehumanize the kids in the pics or vids or whatever. I think deep down you realize it is wrong. So you tell yourself its just a picture not a real kid. You are basically attempting to desensitize yourself to the horrible shit you are supporting.
No really I see no difference between a pedophile looking at CP and a pedophile looking at pictures of the holocaust. Behind every picture of the holocaust there is an actual Jew who was exterminated. Why don't you feel so passionately about pictures of the holocaust? I feel just as strongly that pictures of the holocaust should be legal to view! I am consistent and logical, you are emotional and inconsistent with your own belief system.
Do you have any kids? I bet you dont. And if you do you are even more fucked than previously thought. I teach a course on human behavior. Its my living.My title is subject matter expert. And I promise you have some deep underlaying issues. It is not normal. I dont care what nambla funded research you quote.
None of the research I quoted was funded by Nambla, do you happen to work for the government?
Maybe you would change your mind if you were able to meet some kids that were current victims of human trafficking for sex. Maybe you would like that? Maybe you would like to see an 8 yr old boy in a real life dungeon with shit shoved up his ass? All beat up bleeding and hopeless. Crying in a pile of his own shit on the floor. Yea? Sound good? Or maybe no?
No that sounds horrible whoever did that to the child should be punished for sure. See you keep using strawman arguments and other logical fallacies just like everyone else who cannot actually debate me head on without simply reverting to the same tired old mantras that they don't even understand at all. I never said human trafficking for sex should be legal, I never said 8 year olds should be raped in dungeons etc. Stop putting fucking words into my mouth.
Not really into the physical abuse thing? Dont like violence and bleeding assholes and shit? So you maybe just like the soft shit? Maybe a little gentle sex? It dosent hurt them right? They will probably get over it. I mean emotional scars arent real scars right? Its JUST a picture right? No real kids were harmed in the making of this porn film. You are supporting something terrible. I could give two fucks about you. But I care that any child has to deal with a lifelong psychological issue for a picture for you to jack off to in your basement. Fuck you
Did I ever say that it should be legal to have sex with kids when it isn't legal to have sex with them in Japan or Croatia? Nope I don't think I did. So your entire argument is a strawman! You are an expert on human behavior, pretty impressive title, ever done research on mass hysteria? Ever done research on logical fallacies? Yes it is JUST a fucking picture. Also please note that there is an arrow of time. By the time someone jacks off to a picture of a child having been abused, the child has already been abused! Someone jacking off or not jacking off to the produced picture does not change the fucking past! God why is this simple obvious truth so hard for some of you people to grasp!
-
Seriously though I rather appreciate the God Like powers you attribute to me. The Universe was created so I could see pictures of it in my basement! Mountains were created so I could see pictures of it in my basement! Wars were fought and millions died so I could see pictures of it in my basement! Children were molested so I could see pictures of it in my basement! All of existence that has been photographed, every event that has ever been caught on camera, took place entirely because of my demand for it and entirely so I could see it in my basement! I am the way the truth and the light, in the beginning there was kmfkewm and all of reality sprang into being simply because of my demand for pictures to look at in my basement!
-
www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/506.full.pdf
summary: Attraction to children and young teenagers = probably unique mental illness
Attraction to young teenagers and adults = Probably *NORMAL*
Attraction to young teenagers only = Possibly mental illness
In his psycholegal analysis of hebephilia, Fabian1
stakes his position that “adult sexual arousal in re-
sponse to pubescent and postpubescent females is
not likely to be pathologically deviant” (Ref. 1,
p 501). He concludes, however, that “both clinicians
and the courts disagree as to whether hebephilia is a
pathological sexual deviance disorder” (Ref. 1,
p 504). His brief review reflects the polemical, and
indeed contentious, state of opinion among those
weighing in on the legitimacy of hebephilia as a para-
philia. In our commentary, we reflect on the many
arguments opposing such a diagnosis and offer, we
hope, a dispassionate conclusion.
....
What underlies the passion coloring this matter is
the very legitimacy of hebephilia as a true paraphilia.
The argument, quite simply stated, is that sexual in-
terest in, and arousal in response to, pubescent teen-
agers is normative, or, at the very least, not deviant.
Stated otherwise, if men are hard wired to respond
sexually to young pubescent females, can sexual in-
terest in adolescents in the age range of 11 to 14 be
reasonably construed as a true mental disorder?
....
Examined in isolation, there does not appear to be
adequate empirical evidence that sexual arousal in
response to young adolescents constitutes a para-
philia. This larger question, however, is not fully an-
swered, in our opinion, through a narrow or reduc-
tionistic analysis that focuses exclusively on the
arguably normative sexual interest of adult males in
young pubescent females. There are at least three
plausible scenarios. An individual presents with sex-
ual interests that include children (prepubescent)
and young teenagers. Such an individual with a
downward sexual preference profile would most
likely be classifiable as paraphilic. An individual pres-
ents with sexual interests that include adults and
young teenagers. Such an individual with an upward
sexual preference profile is most likely not classifiable
as paraphilic. An individual presents with what ap-
pears to be an exclusive sexual preference for young
teenagers. Although Barbaree and Marshall17 found
no evidence for such a profile, Blanchard et al.4 did.
Clearly, this is an area that warrants further research.
Although O’Donohue16 regards distress and impair-
ment as irrelevant, members of the Paraphilia Work-
ing Group apparently think otherwise. We suggest
that the question of impairment may well be most
pertinent in diagnosing individuals in this third
group: adults with an exclusive sexual preference for
young teenagers. Minimum age difference must be
specified, however. In terms of mental disorder, an
18- or 19-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old is
unlikely to be equivalent to a 30- or 40-year-old hav-
ing sex with a 14-year-old. In the latter case, when
there is a specified minimum age differential or when
the presumptive paraphilic is of a specified minimum
age, exclusive interest may well reflect the kind of
psychosexual and psychosocial deficits that consti-
tute impairment.
In summary, we can do no better than heed the
timely cautionary words of Judd Marmor,27 ex-
pressed 40 years ago:
Clearly, there is nothing about our current sexual attitudes
and practices that can be assumed to be either sacrosanct or
immutable [Ref. 27, p 166]. It seems to this author, there-
fore, that there is no way in which the concepts of normal
and deviant sexual behavior can be divorced from the value
systems of our society; and since such value systems are
always in the process of evolution and change, we must be
prepared to face the possibility that some patterns currently
considered deviant may not always be so regarded
-
More evidence that I am normal, from the scientists and researchers the angry mob would just love to burn at the stake:
http://opd.state.wi.us/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf
what do you know most men have the same arousal pattern to young teenagers as they do to adults, who would have guessed, other than any normal person with a penis lol
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975).
-
The Holocaust is over. Children are being violated as we speak. It is ongoing, as in right now. How the fuck do you know how I feel about the Holocaust? You have no fucking idea. You are making an assumption. You say my belief system is inconsistent based on my feelings on the holocaust vs cp? What evidence did I give you about my views on the holocaust? That statement was completely baseless and asanine. I do not work for the Govt. You seemed to get angry about the dungeon story. Seemed to be the same "emotional rage" or whatever you said earlier. So I truly believe you are not for violent physical harm to children based on your response. But you are in denial about the emotional harm it causes. You get off on pics or vids of children being harmed. Make no mistake they were being harmed when the image was captured. There is no difference between the kid being tortured and a kid having pics taken. Neither can consent. And both will be affected for the rest of their lives. How many people commit suicide every year because of being molested or sexually assaulted as a kid? Do you know? Do you want to know? As long as you get your pictures right? I like how you distance yourself from the crime by saying it happened along time ago. And you were not there, its only a picture of a crime. You are literally getting off to a picture of a life being ruined. The fact that this turns you on tells me there is something that went very wrong when your brain was developing. Whatever event or lifestyle caused this I am sorry. You do need to seek help. And mass hysteria? Are you referring to the tendency of people to become violent and angry about your skewed beliefs? There are 4 f's that drive human behavior. Fornicate, fight, feed, and flee. When someone is endangering a child normal people should go straight to fight. As in fight off whatever is or is attempting to harm the child. You see a child being harmed and go straight to fornicate. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. You should not be attracted to that. And you will argue for your cause till your last breath. Because it is ok in your own mind. But your mind is not ok. Make sense? And then you go off on the "god like powers" rant. Which leads me to believe that your attraction to children is not sexual at all. Its about power. Most sex crimes are not about sex. They are about power and control. You might physically get off to a picture of a kid but mentally its what the kid represents. Which is helplessness and weakness. So you need to ask yourself what happened in your life that made you feel so helpless that you chase this power? Whatever it is that is the event you need to seek help on. Damn did I just get inside your head or what!
-
The Holocaust is over. Children are being violated as we speak. It is ongoing, as in right now. How the fuck do you know how I feel about the Holocaust? You have no fucking idea. You are making an assumption. You say my belief system is inconsistent based on my feelings on the holocaust vs cp? What evidence did I give you about my views on the holocaust? That statement was completely baseless and asanine.
Well, I assume you don't want to ban pictures of the holocaust, but that probably is a bad assumption on my part considering you clearly are in favor of censorship of images of abuse in some cases. Most people are logically inconsistent when it comes to this, but you could just be a total full fledged fascist!
And again, I need to point out that yeah the holocaust is over, the molestation of children depicted in currently available CP is not taking place any more either. For one, cameras capture images of the past, for two, many of the people who were depicted in CP are not children any more and thus cannot be depicted in CP anymore as the child victim. I already went over this. Also, war crimes are still taking place today. The holocaust was an instantiation of a war crime, (most) any given CP image is a picture of an instantiation of molestation, the genus continues in both cases the pictures of instantiations are all in the past. This differentiation you attempt to introduce does not exist, this has already been covered.
I do not work for the Govt. You seemed to get angry about the dungeon story. Seemed to be the same "emotional rage" or whatever you said earlier.
No, it really didn't make me angry at all. If you thought I had an emotional reaction to your little text story you are totally mistaken. If I saw pictures of such an event unfolding I could probably of had a negative emotional response to it, but mere text of anything does not cause me any emotional response at all. There is a near total inability for textual descriptions of events to cause me to feel strong emotion, or much emotion at all for that matter.
So I truly believe you are not for violent physical harm to children based on your response.
I am not for harm of any sort to any child! I do not think children should even be lightly touched on their genitals while they are asleep for christs sake, that is about as non-violently sexual as you can get and I am against it. The horrible mistake you are making is in thinking that I equate looking at pictures of events to participating in the events pictured, because I absolutely totally do no. I see absolutely 0 link between looking at a picture and engaging in or even supporting the act that took place in the picture. I have seen pictures of the holocaust and I don't suppor the holocaust and I am pretty sure that my looking at the pictures of the holocaust did not cause the holocaust to happen or bring any benefit to it.
But you are in denial about the emotional harm it causes. You get off on pics or vids of children being harmed. Make no mistake they were being harmed when the image was captured.
First of all you make the assumption that I look at CP. Second of all, I am in no denial about the emotional harm it causes. Children depicted in CP (not teenagers to nearly the same extent) are emotionally harmed by being depicted in CP. This is pretty obvious, I already know this. I already know pedophiles who jack off to CP are getting off on pics or vids of children being harmed, obviously this is true and no I am not in denial about it at all. The thing is I don't think it matters at all! If someone jacks off to pictures of the holocaust it doesn't do a single fucking thing to any of the people victimized in the holocaust. So yeah I know pedophiles jacking off to CP are getting off on pics or vids of children being harmed, I just fail to see any reason to give a shit about this provided they are not contributing to the children being harmed. Short of some magic voodoo process that is clearly not real, or the dubious and contested claim of supply and demand (demand as a general thing, financial demand sure I give you that), nobody has been able to demonstrate how children are actually harmed when pedophiles look at CP featuring them. Nobody has been able to isolate this harm from the harm caused to the child by their CP merely being available on the internet.
I think that I, on the other hand, have done a great job of using isolation as part of my argument. With my virtual child pornography that is photorealistic to real child pornography argument, I isolated the picture depicting molestation from the act of molestation, and the people I debated with agreed that viewing this imagery is not bad. So once I removed molestation from the equation, they agreed that it is fine for pedophiles to look at the computer generated images. This was my way of isolating the details of the thing being discussed in such a way that more emotional people could objectively look at them. But unfortunately, rather than seeing the light, these people then began to engage in behavior indicative of cognitive dissonance, when they asserted that it is okay to look at X but bad to look at X, where X is the same exact image, in one case clearly isolated from child molestation and in the other case less clearly isolated from child molestation. They argued straight faced with me that it is okay to look at child porn that it is not okay to look at. This actually demonstrates how the strong negative emotion child molestation invokes in them is bleeding over into the images of child molestation and causing them to not be able to think rationally about the subject.
There is no difference between the kid being tortured and a kid having pics taken. Neither can consent. And both will be affected for the rest of their lives. How many people commit suicide every year because of being molested or sexually assaulted as a kid? Do you know? Do you want to know? As long as you get your pictures right?
I mean, I think most kids would rather have nude pictures taken of them than have nude torture pictures taken of them. Yeah I am sure plenty of people kill themselves because they were molested or sexually assaulted as a kid, sure , molestation and sexual assault are bad you are preaching to the choir dude.
I like how you distance yourself from the crime by saying it happened along time ago. And you were not there, its only a picture of a crime. You are literally getting off to a picture of a life being ruined.
So what? Better to get off to a picture of a life being ruined than to ruin a life right? Pictures of crimes are not the crimes pictured. Pictures of child molestation are not child molestation. Pictures of children are not children. Somebody looking at a picture of a life being ruined is not ruining a life. Pictures are not magical.
The fact that this turns you on tells me there is something that went very wrong when your brain was developing. Whatever event or lifestyle caused this I am sorry. You do need to seek help.
First of all the vast majority of underage teenage porn is self produced shit made by kids with their camera phones. 25% of all teenagers (in usa?) have taken and sent naked pictures of themselves with their cellphones (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57465730-10391704/one-in-four-teens-admit-to-sexting-study-finds/). So no they are not horribly abused kids being raped in sex dungeons as you like to allude to, and they are not turning themselves into the walking dead or emotionally ruining themselves or whatever the fuck.
Second of all, if someone gets off to sick shit and they have a fucked up brain, my only question is so what? I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can compartmentalize their sick fantasies from their actions in reality. And I consider looking at a picture to be equal to having a thought. If a person wants to murder somebody and skull fuck their eye socket, sure something is seriously wrong with them. But are they otherwise normal? Do they actually plan to engage in this act? Can they compartmentalize it to the realm of fantasy? Certainly people with very strange and deviant fantasies can compartmentalize them, for example being raped is the third most popular female fantasy, but clearly this is just a fantasy and not something they actually have a desire to do. I do not want to be the thought police, I do not want to equate people who have sick thoughts with people who do sick things, people who have sick desires should not be marginalized and told they are no better than people who do sick things or else what is their motivation to keep their sickness compartmentalized into a fantasy realm rather than act on it? Why should some pedophile who wants to rape kids only look at pictures if he is going to get the same sentence, be forced to live in the same ghetto, the same public humiliation the same banishment from society? Only his own sense of morality will lead him to keep his sickness compartmentalized, no support from society no understanding that a thought does no make a person bad but only an action does, no encouragement for such a person. Such people are essentially encouraged by society to go out and rape kids and only their own sense of morality will prevent them from doing so, no help or support from society or basic level of understanding or acceptance of deviance in the absence of true victimization. And you can say people are victimized when their pictures are looked at all you want but you have seen images of the holocaust yourself I am sure and do you think that you are a war criminal? Do you think that you would be a war criminal if you liked what you saw?
And mass hysteria? Are you referring to the tendency of people to become violent and angry about your skewed beliefs?
No I am referring to pedophile hysteria that is currently quite strong in some countries, particularly the USA, UK and Australia.
There are 4 f's that drive human behavior. Fornicate, fight, feed, and flee. When someone is endangering a child normal people should go straight to fight. As in fight off whatever is or is attempting to harm the child. You see a child being harmed and go straight to fornicate. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. You should not be attracted to that. And you will argue for your cause till your last breath. Because it is ok in your own mind. But your mind is not ok. Make sense? And then you go off on the "god like powers" rant. Which leads me to believe that your attraction to children is not sexual at all. Its about power. Most sex crimes are not about sex. They are about power and control. You might physically get off to a picture of a kid but mentally its what the kid represents. Which is helplessness and weakness. So you need to ask yourself what happened in your life that made you feel so helpless that you chase this power? Whatever it is that is the event you need to seek help on. Damn did I just get inside your head or what!
No you didn't get inside of anything, you are the one who attributed God Like power to me in that you think all photographed events happened so that I can see pictures of them in my basement. Or is it only child sex abuse ? I do not understand the logic behind your system of magic, probably because there is no system it is simply a bunch of emotions that dictate your behavior.
-
This threat repulses me, one man is arguing and justifying the raping of children. Nothing more, nothing less. The children who are abused in child port dont consent, they are raped. this is the big difference between normal porn and cp. As for comparing it to drug taking...really? You are clawing at the walls to justify what you know inside is a wrong desire that you hold. SR users buy and sell drugs, you can argue about drugs being right or wrong all day but in the end as ADULTS we make the choice to do this to our own bodies and risk our own freedom. By supporting CP you make the choice to take somebody elses freedom away, because if you didnt watch it and there was no demand for it then it would not be made, meaning children would not be raped.
I believe that it is an illness. Coimparing it to Nazis view on the jews is completely different, the jews didnt rape and molest children for their perverse gain. Peadophiles do. The way to treat this illness is simple, chemical castration. Quick and painless, remove the urge.
I worry about the OP, that he is obviously active in the support of this sickness and defending it till blue in the face. People may hide behind a screen and big themselves up and make empty threats but i would like to make mine clear and genuine.
I take the hurting of innocents very serious, i have cut a mans face open for hurting an innocent girl and i have broken another bones for the same action. I dont know who you are or where you live and i have no way of finding out BUT, if i ever do stumble upon you and your location is near me, I will pay you a visit. Mark my words. I am not a child making empty threats but a man who has taken a personal offense to you and your existence. Maybe never but you wont be forgotten. I will make you pick up your teeth and make it that if children see your hobbled figure you will scare them away before you have the chance to defile them.
-
Wow, if people are really using Japan as an example of "successful legalizing of Child Pornography", then you need to do your fucking homework. First of all, we're all aware of the dirty-panty vending machines... but are you aware that the birth-rate in Japan is at an all time low? While Suicide rate is at all time high?
Also, statistics show that Japan has one of the highest percentages of single-lonely men.
If you're trying to show the benefits of sniffing dirty panties being socially acceptable, and/or the benefits of legalizing CP, don't use Japan as your example. If anything, Japan should be the example of why sexuality and psychology go hand-in-hand, and why we need to educate more people on the effects of sexuality desensitivity. Who needs a girlfriend when you can sniff panties of strange girls/women all day while watching legal CP, right? ... Who needs to reproduce when you can just cum in a pair of undies, and watch a few kids get 'legally' diddled!?
... If you're sniffing panties, there's a word for you: Desperate.
... If you're viewing CP to get off, there's a word for you: Demented.
You tend to use a lot of analogies, and then when people attack the analogy you spend half your energy defending the analogy! Well, here's an analogy for ya...
Fact: In Indonesia children are not only legally allowed to smoke Cigarettes, it is encouraged by their families(for 'health' benefits). This is due to the legality of advertizing cigarettes TO children, and propaganda from Big Tobacco claiming(just as they did in the US back in the day) it is GOOD for you.
Q: Do these liberal tobacco laws make smoking Cigarettes less harmful to those children?
A: NO.
Can we start flying a different flag if we're going to seek to argue against censorship? OR should we keep making ourselves sound like overly-defensive assholes arguing about whether a 14 year old should be allowed to fuck an adult or not. Sure, we were all 14 once, and I'm sure there were a lot of things we ALL did or wish we could have done, then --but not without regret!
I would hope my assumptions are correct in that we're all adults here. So why are we arguing about a 14 year old's right to consent? If I went out and asked 14 year old girls and boys about consent laws, they would likely agree with you! The only difference is... a 14 year old, arguing for a change in consent laws, wants to be able to get touchy-feely with their teenaged friends; an adult male, arguing for a change in the age of consent, to allow 14 year olds to fuck adults --wants to fuck 14 year olds!
14 year olds are full of curiosities. Adults are full of intentions. Don't use the latter to exploit the former.
-
14 year olds are full of curiosities. Adults are full of intentions. Don't use the latter to exploit the former.
ere
You hit the nail right on the head there. If i have +1 ill give to you, i think i gave my minus to OP though already.
Oh and i looked up the indonesia thing, horrifying that the companies can advertise it.
-
This threat repulses me, one man is arguing and justifying the raping of children.
No I am not. I already said CP production should be illegal. I suggest the USA lowers its age of consent to that of Germany, and adopts CP laws similar to those in Russia or Japan. Is that so horrible? Is it so bad that I think Germany has a better age of consent system than the US does? Is it so awful that I think Russia and Japan have better laws on CP than the US does? Do the governments of Germany, Russia and Japan justify the rape of children? Come on man, I think you can actually use your head a tiny bit to see that I am not arguing for or justifying the rape of children, I am merely trying to get people to think about this fucking issue instead of jump to an immediate emotional response that blinds them to reality.
Nothing more, nothing less. The children who are abused in child port dont consent, they are raped. this is the big difference between normal porn and cp. As for comparing it to drug taking...really? You are clawing at the walls to justify what you know inside is a wrong desire that you hold.
I do not think it is a wrong desire for me to be attracted to young teenagers. I already gave multiple citations showing that it is completely normal for men to be attracted to young teenagers. Phallometric testing has been done that shows that normal men are attracted to young teenagers. I have no shame for being normal and I don't think that it is wrong at all. You seem to be ashamed of your self to the point that you feel the need to lie about your own feelings to yourself and to others. The probability of all of the men in this thread bashing on me for being attracted to teenagers not being themselves attracted to teenagers is so low that it can be discounted. At least some of you are very probably lying, and I think you should ask yourself why do you feel such a strong desire to lie to yourself?!
I already said that it should be illegal to produce most CP, so you can say that CP shows victimized children etc all you want you are just babbling honestly. I already know it does! I already know the pictures of the holocaust show victimized people as well! Why do you want to ban one and not the other?
SR users buy and sell drugs, you can argue about drugs being right or wrong all day but in the end as ADULTS we make the choice to do this to our own bodies and risk our own freedom. By supporting CP you make the choice to take somebody elses freedom away, because if you didnt watch it and there was no demand for it then it would not be made, meaning children would not be raped.
Do you honestly believe that no children were raped before cameras were made? This line is so old and tired it needs to be taken out back and fucking shot to put it out of its misery. The link between people viewing CP (in and of itself) and CP being produced is dubious at best! How about we keep this discussion to the facts, research and statistics instead of jump straight to canned responses from the agencies that make billions of dollars due to CP being illegal to view? This is how it is similar to the war on drugs! These thought terminating canned responses just make me feel sick and sad for the people who cannot think for themselves, and who are so delusional that they believe the party line of 2 + 2 = 5. If you really think some random fuck watching CP that he didn't pay for causes children to be raped you are just absolutely crazy. There is no empirical evidence to support this claim, and I can give a citation for that fact from a Ph.D researcher who doesn't happened to be funded by nambla.
I believe that it is an illness. Coimparing it to Nazis view on the jews is completely different, the jews didnt rape and molest children for their perverse gain. Peadophiles do. The way to treat this illness is simple, chemical castration. Quick and painless, remove the urge.
Sure pedophilia is an illness (hebephilia isn't though, nor is ephebophilia, because THE EXPERTS recognize that MOST MEN want to FUCK YOUNG TEENAGERS). Pedophiles who jack off to CP didn't rape and molest children! Your fundamental problem is that you think looking at a picture causes a person to participate in what the picture shows, despite the fact that this is so obviously untrue that it just absolutely amazes me that anyone could seriously think this way.
I worry about the OP, that he is obviously active in the support of this sickness and defending it till blue in the face. People may hide behind a screen and big themselves up and make empty threats but i would like to make mine clear and genuine.
I take the hurting of innocents very serious, i have cut a mans face open for hurting an innocent girl and i have broken another bones for the same action. I dont know who you are or where you live and i have no way of finding out BUT, if i ever do stumble upon you and your location is near me, I will pay you a visit. Mark my words. I am not a child making empty threats but a man who has taken a personal offense to you and your existence. Maybe never but you wont be forgotten. I will make you pick up your teeth and make it that if children see your hobbled figure you will scare them away before you have the chance to defile them.
Wow we have a bad ass over here. Dude you live in the UK. Fucking 16 year olds is legal in the UK it isn't in half of the USA. That means that your country supports pedophilia, so how about you beat your own ass up you fucking child rape supporter.
-
Wow, if people are really using Japan as an example of "successful legalizing of Child Pornography", then you need to do your fucking homework. First of all, we're all aware of the dirty-panty vending machines... but are you aware that the birth-rate in Japan is at an all time low? While Suicide rate is at all time high?
So?
Also, statistics show that Japan has one of the highest percentages of single-lonely men.
So?
If you're trying to show the benefits of sniffing dirty panties being socially acceptable, and/or the benefits of legalizing CP, don't use Japan as your example. If anything, Japan should be the example of why sexuality and psychology go hand-in-hand, and why we need to educate more people on the effects of sexuality desensitivity. Who needs a girlfriend when you can sniff panties of strange girls/women all day while watching legal CP, right? ... Who needs to reproduce when you can just cum in a pair of undies, and watch a few kids get 'legally' diddled!?
I don't feel as if it is any of my fucking business if people reproduce or not, and I think it is kind of strange that you seem to feel like the actions of the herd are so important to you. Why do you think people must have girlfriends or must reproduce?
... If you're sniffing panties, there's a word for you: Desperate.
... If you're viewing CP to get off, there's a word for you: Demented.
Okay Japan is full of desperate demented men, and not just culturally different from you.
You tend to use a lot of analogies, and then when people attack the analogy you spend half your energy defending the analogy! Well, here's an analogy for ya...
Fact: In Indonesia children are not only legally allowed to smoke Cigarettes, it is encouraged by their families(for 'health' benefits). This is due to the legality of advertizing cigarettes TO children, and propaganda from Big Tobacco claiming(just as they did in the US back in the day) it is GOOD for you.
Q: Do these liberal tobacco laws make smoking Cigarettes less harmful to those children?
That is a pretty shitty analogy since smoking is harmful to children but people viewing CP could actually be beneficial to children in that when pedophiles view CP significant numbers of them are less likely to rape children.
Can we start flying a different flag if we're going to seek to argue against censorship? OR should we keep making ourselves sound like overly-defensive assholes arguing about whether a 14 year old should be allowed to fuck an adult or not. Sure, we were all 14 once, and I'm sure there were a lot of things we ALL did or wish we could have done, then --but not without regret!
No you cannot fly a different flag and claim to argue against censorship, because censorship of CP is censorship.
I would hope my assumptions are correct in that we're all adults here. So why are we arguing about a 14 year old's right to consent? If I went out and asked 14 year old girls and boys about consent laws, they would likely agree with you! The only difference is... a 14 year old, arguing for a change in consent laws, wants to be able to get touchy-feely with their teenaged friends; an adult male, arguing for a change in the age of consent, to allow 14 year olds to fuck adults --wants to fuck 14 year olds!
14 year olds are full of curiosities. Adults are full of intentions. Don't use the latter to exploit the former.
Primarily I want the USA to stop ruining the lives of men who want to fuck 14 year olds, considering it has been scientifically shown to be normal and natural, and especially since it isn't really exploitation or even harmful. Instead the USA is expending its energy trying to force other countries in the world to bow down to it, because USA is imperialistic as hell. This has resulted in Canada, for example, raising its age of consent from 14 in 2008 I believe. The mantra of the USA is might makes right, they don't need any science they just need a bunch of outraged people and some tabloids.
-
You keep pulling up all this bullshit about age of consent in different countries and yes they are low and yes you would get "off" if push comes to shove.
Most of these laws are so fucking old, some centuries old and were put into law by predators at the time and are being protected by predators in this age.
But even in Japan that you love to quote so much the laws are actually different within each prefecture. Age of consent is higher. The japanese community as a whole hate fucking pedos. I know because I lived there for 3 years. Its not as open for a predator as yourself, would like it to be. You will find a rock to crawl under there is no doubt about it. I would be surprised if their existing strict laws on CP doesnt get extended to the viewing of CP very soon.
The world despises it. This community quite obviously despises it.
2. Child porn is legal in japan -> "Japan and Russia are the two G8 member states where possession of child pornography is legal. Compared to the United Nations, possession of child pornography is legal in 90 out of 193 UN member states.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Japan
3. Softcore Child porn is legal to produce AND distribute in japan - > "child pornography being defined to be explicit images of children having sex, and not the nude and semi-nude images of children that are common in the Japanese child idol industry."
actually CP is legal to possess in half of the fucking world so clearly you do not speak for the entire world. Also yeah sure many in this community despise it obviously to such an extent they think it should be illegal to view, but funny enough none of the people who have PMed me saying that they agree with me seem to want to mention it on the forum but of course the ones who disagree with me feel socially safe to disagree with me on the forum. Way to go you and your mob have silenced the dissent, but I don't personally give a fuck about what some emotional fools on the internet blabber about when they go into their emotion induced rage so here I am speaking logic to empaths.
Define CP legal in Japan? Im not up to scratch on loopholes predators use but from where I am sitting Japan do have laws in place for punishing predators in the production, distribution, exporting, importing, lending, etc of CP.
Granted the penalties are a bullshit maximum 3 years or a bullshit pittance of a fine.
Seems to me alot of laws have to be broken and alot of kids lives ruined just so a predator robot like yourself can view a PIC.
Me and my mob silencing the dissent? Please dont use that word to describe yourself and your fellow rock spiders.
Maybe you are just dumber than the rest of your fellow rock spiders If these pricks had a backbone they would be in here supporting you and standing up to their "right" to view "pics" of ABUSED children
But its the rock spider way, you know the masses will squash you fucks at any given time you come out in the open.
Emotional?? I dont think so. More like an animal.. Instinctual, primal urge to protect ones young from predators.
-
I'll cut to the chase on the whole Russia and Japan allowing CP more than most
Japan was part of the Axis..remember they are the only ones that got nuked.. once.. twice.. and hell the current third time could of been a planned job too.. 3 nuke jobs in less than 100 years.. god help them
Russia is Russia - no one trusts them
there is an explanation in fucking up those populations..it's called crippling a nation. Just like the old opium wars from Britain to China
What I am saying is Russia and Japan aren't in the Western club.. as much as Japan gets led to believe it, they are isolated to die off. The West wants Russia to die off too.
I fear for Japan.. it is the happy face smilely on this Earth.. I hope its spirit stays strong and lives on
-
No way I'm reading all 350 of these posts BUT...
OP clearly doesn't have any kids. If you ever leave the fantasy anarchy world you live in and have children, you'll get it.
Also, for the record, most viewers of jews getting gassed dont plan to get off to the photos. I don't need any research to tell me most CP viewers are getting off. Thats the difference, its intangible but makes all the difference.
-
More evidence that I am normal, from the scientists and researchers the angry mob would just love to burn at the stake:
http://opd.state.wi.us/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf
what do you know most men have the same arousal pattern to young teenagers as they do to adults, who would have guessed, other than any normal person with a penis lol
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975).
The difference between all men and predator IS a normal man will see a teenage girl for what she really is. Emotionally immature, vulnerable. A normal man may be aroused read may be, but that is it, he doesnt seek out CP. pics of abused or non consensual content or even consensual pictures of emotionally, vulnerable children for their pleasure.
Why? Because a normal man will see a CP pic for what it is. A child that has been taken advantage of. a child in pain, a child that will have to carry the emotional scars for the rest of their lives. They wont see a pic of a child to satisfy a sick urge. They will be repulsed, sickened.
Am I aroused by 14 year old girls? Maybe once or twice I have thought a young girl is attractive,but then an overwhelming urge fills me to protect that child. to kill predators.
-
More evidence that I am normal, from the scientists and researchers the angry mob would just love to burn at the stake:
http://opd.state.wi.us/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf
what do you know most men have the same arousal pattern to young teenagers as they do to adults, who would have guessed, other than any normal person with a penis lol
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975).
The difference between all men and predator IS a normal man will see a teenage girl for what she really is. Emotionally immature, vulnerable. A normal man may be aroused read may be, but that is it, he doesnt seek out CP. pics of abused or non consensual content or even consensual pictures of emotionally, vulnerable children for their pleasure.
Why? Because a normal man will see a CP pic for what it is. A child that has been taken advantage of. a child in pain, a child that will have to carry the emotional scars for the rest of their lives. They wont see a pic of a child to satisfy a sick urge. They will be repulsed, sickened.
Am I aroused by 14 year old girls? Maybe once or twice I have thought a young girl is attractive,but then an overwhelming urge fills me to protect that child. to kill predators.
I highly doubt that if a normal man looks at a picture of some 14 year old girl flashing her damn mirror that they are going to be sickened and repulsed by it. It just seems incredibly unlikely. Furthermore, if they look at such pictures or not, it has absolutely zero effect on the pictured teenager. None at all, nada, absolutely no effect. To think otherwise is to think that photographs have a magical property that has never been demonstrated, never been observed, never been explained. Please show me links to the research showing the magical properties of photographs and how viewing them can cause effects to happen to those depicted in them. These is no such research, it isn't real, it isn't even worthy of thinking about because it is so disconnected from reality as to be absolutely absurd!
A normal man *will* be aroused, read *will*, man there have been fucking studies done it isn't a matter of debate it is a matter of hooking random selections of men up to arousal reading equipment and noticing that they have the same exact level of arousal to young teenagers as they do to adults. It isn't a matter of debate at this point, studies have been done, science has been carried out, we have an indisputable conclusion, normal men have the same level of sexual attraction to young teenagers as they do to those in their twenties and thirties! It isn't even an unexpected result
As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females.
It would be mind blowing if the average male wasn't attracted to adolescents! And you think a 14 or 15 year old is so vulnerable but not a 16 year old they are fine. Or not an 18 year old, they are fine. It is just nonsense, some arbitrary number that a bunch of religious wack-a-doos and feminists came up with in the late 19th century based on absolutely no science or jack diddly-shit. And since their global campaign to raise the age of consent to this number, people have been slowly brainwashed in the process, and we can see the result of this brainwashing quite clearly in this thread. Men deny that they are attracted to teenagers under the age of 18, despite the fact that some 14 year olds and some 18 year olds look to be exactly the same age, even to fucking forensic development specialists! We have men lying about their attraction to teenagers but the sexual arousal studies are not lying. And big surprise at that for most of human history it has been acceptable to be attracted to young teenagers and even to have sex with them and marry them! Only after the late 19th century did attitudes on this matter start to shift, and they shifted because of the goals of religious and feminist organizations. The amount of logical fallacies coming from those who are trying to argue with me is just insane, we have people saying that it should be legal to look at pictures that it should be illegal to look at, people saying all kinds of insane shit. A lot of people in this thread seem to think that the global age of consent is already 18 and that it is illegal to view CP in the entire world! All of this is the hallmark of massive and intense indoctrination, and it sucks that you are too far gone to even realize the truth.
Also maybe once or twice you have thought a young girl is attractive haha dude cut the bullshit. You are not fooling me, I have read the research I have read the reasoning behind why men are attracted to young teenagers, you are not fooling anybody. For one you cannot even reliably tell a 14/15 year old girl from an 18 year old girl by looking at her, she could be an older looking 14 year old or a younger looking 18 year old. For two, you are hard wired to find girls of this age to be attractive, if you have only found one or two girls that age to be attractive it must be because you have only seen one or two girls that age. For three, you are crazy if you think that 14 or especially 15 year old girls are just so weak and vulnerable to predators coming and taking advantage of them, but 18 year old girls man they sure have their shit together. Your opinion of young teenage girls appears to be that they are fucking retards and barely different from young children. Your opinion of photographs has no connection with reality what-so-ever and sounds like something that should get you sent to the insane asylum.
No way I'm reading all 350 of these posts BUT...
OP clearly doesn't have any kids. If you ever leave the fantasy anarchy world you live in and have children, you'll get it.
Also, for the record, most viewers of jews getting gassed dont plan to get off to the photos. I don't need any research to tell me most CP viewers are getting off. Thats the difference, its intangible but makes all the difference.
So you admit you are the thought police, not the action police. If a Nazi looks at a picture of the holocaust and gets off on it, you think it is bad, but if some normal person looks at it and is disgusted then it is not bad. The intent of the action is what matters to you, not the action. So I am sure you think the FBI should be able to look at CP because their intent is to bust child pornographers. Do you think the FBI should be able to rape a young girl if their goal is to bust child pornographers? What if an FBI agent infiltrates a lower level rung of a production studio, and they want him to rape little girls, and eventually he can move up the ranks of the organization and topple it if he rapes enough little girls to earn their trust. Should he be allowed then to rape little girls as his intention is to topple the pedophile organization? No? But he should be able to look at pictures of CP if his intent is to arrest pedophiles correct? Yes? But I thought that looking at pictures of CP causes horrible damage to the children depicted, I thought that it leads to more children being molested even! So why are you okay with one of these things but not the other? Why are you so logically inconsistent? Are you a retard or are you a liar?
-
I'm going to try this again because I'm high and feeling philosophical.
Why does the question of the origin of the photographs not matter concisely? I fully understand your binary analogy, but it is a bit unnecessarily verbose for most people who know rudimentary boolean algebra and set theory.
-
I'm going to try this again because I'm high and feeling philosophical.
Why does the question of the origin of the photographs not matter concisely? I fully understand your binary analogy, but it is a bit unnecessarily verbose for most people who know rudimentary boolean algebra and set theory.
Because the photograph has no origin. As you apparently already are aware, digital photographs are merely really big numbers. All numbers exist independently of life, they cannot be created or destroyed they just are. There is a number out there that is identical to a picture of an adult who has never been molested being molested as a child. If I start at 1 and keep counting, eventually I am going to say a number that is equal to a child porn file. When a pedophile takes a picture of a child being molested, they are not creating the number they are merely instantiating it. Now it is true that this is by far the easiest way to instantiate the number that is equal to the child pornography file, although it is theoretically possible to arrive at the same number via coin flips and random chance the probability of this happening is extremely low. In the future it might be possible to arrive at the same number via 3D rendering software, and in these cases the probability of the 3D rendering being equal to a CP file that already exists, without using it as a visual reference, will be extremely low as well. But regardless, in either case it is possible.
The origin of the number doesn't matter because the number has no origin, it just is, like all numbers. The origin of the instantiation of the number doesn't matter because all instances of a number are equal. 1 is 1 regardless of if I come to this number via flipping a coin and random chance, or if I come to this number by starting with 2 and subtracting 1. The act of child molestation is bad, I think we can all agree on that. But the photographic result of child molestation is just a number, it is neutral. Looking at the picture produced by a number that was instantiated by the camera of a pedophile molesting a child is no different than looking at the picture produced by a number that was instantiated by random chance. How could it be different, they are equal numbers, clearly equal in the most fundamental sense of the word.
I don't see how people can attribute such powers to a number. I really don't get how people can think looking at a picture of child abuse causes more children to be abused, or causes additional damage to the depicted child. Paying for such images could create a market sure, and I think paying for the images is bad simply because it is essentially paying for children to be molested. When you view an image of child porn, the child was already molested in the past and there is nothing you can do about it. When you pay somebody who produces child porn for their production, you are funding their enterprise. If you express joy at somebody killing someone, of a particular race for example, in the past, I don't think it should be illegal, even if the killing was horrible and should not have taken place. If you pay somebody because they killed somebody of a particular race, you are essentially paying them to kill people of that race, and this should be illegal.
But we cannot say that newspapers should be banned merely because serial killers may kill to get the stories of the killings published in the papers. It is not the responsibility of the readers of a newspaper if a serial killer kills only because people will read the stories about what he did. Even if people read the stories for their entertainment value (and yeah serial killer stories are quite popular and read for entertainment), it is not their fault that the serial killer kills. We cannot put the responsibility for bad things that happen on the people who enjoy the information created due to the bad things happening, even in cases where the bad things only happened so information relating to them could be produced. Look at the medical information learned from the holocaust, some of the information learned from this horrible tragedy is still used by the medical community today, and it is way controversial as well
Many scholars are now discovering in reputable medical literature multiple references to Nazi experiments, or republished works of former SS doctors. These studies and references frequently bear no disclaimer as to how the data was obtained. Several scientists who have sought to use the Nazi research have stirred soul-searching about the social responsibility and potential abuses of science. These incidents prompt a number of questions for the scientific community. Is it ever appropriate to use data as morally repugnant as that which was extracted from victims of Nazism? If so, under what circumstances?
...
This paper addresses the serious ethical problems of using tainted data from experiments on patients who were murdered and tortured by the Nazis in the name of "research." In particular this paper will address: the scientific validity of the experiments; the medical competence of the experimenters; the social utility in using the experimental data; case studies of proposed uses of the Nazi scientific data; the policy consideration involved when scientists use immorally obtained data; the condition and guidelines as to how and when the data is to be used; and the issue from the victims' perspective.
This project was undertaken with the utmost caution. The reader should be aware that the moral climate in the Jewish community is unforgiving to those who find any redeeming merit from the Nazi horrors. Anyone who dares suggest the historical lessons which can be learned from the Holocaust, or from the victims' suffering, risks being labeled a heretic or a sensationalist bent on distorting history for personal gain. Many in the community seriously fear that insights might replace condemnation of the Nazi evil.2
and again I do not see what the controversy is. Simply because the instantiation of this data had a horrible origin is no reason to censor people from the data, or to not make use of the valuable data. In the case of child porn even I would say that it is valuable information in that some studies have shown if pedophiles have access to it they are at a lower risk of molesting children. So in these cases the acts utilized to instantiate the data are beyond a doubt horrible, but the information produced is morally neutral. Now in the case of child abuse images I can see only one potentially good argument and it is that the children depicted feel stress caused by people viewing the images. And although this appears to be a good argument at surface value, it really is not. Because the children cannot tell when people on the internet are viewing their images. There are even technical solutions that can make it impossible for anyone to tell that someone is viewing the images. But even if the child literally has no chance of ever determining if someone views their image or not, they are still going to feel the same exact stress knowing that somebody might view their image. That is always going to be there for them, once images are put onto the internet there is always a chance that they will surface up at some place or somebody will obtain a copy of them. So the act of a person viewing an image of CP has no real effect on the child depicted, the prolonged stress of the child is because somebody put their image on the internet in the first place. I do not believe for a second that if some random person on Tor goes to a CP site and downloads an image of CP that they have any effect what-so-ever on the depicted child. I also do not believe for a second that their act of downloading an image, which caused a log file to gain an extra line or two on a CP server, is going to translate into more children being molested. Even if a hundred thousand anonymous people download a CP image I do not think that this is going to cause more children to be molested. People simply do not molest children because somebody decided to look at freely available CP on some hidden website. And if you think they do, then why are you against the idea of CP distributed via PIR? Because in these cases we can actually hide the fact that anybody is even downloading any CP to begin with! How can a demand that cannot be known translate into anything?
But no matter how many times I point out that there are technical solutions for hiding the demand of CP, people still keep saying that demand turns into supply, which is a dubious claim by itself. But why can they not think of some new argument by now, I have already explained that we can allow pedophiles to view CP without them contributing to any demand that can be determined. So I do not think anybody really thinks that the problem is that demand leads to supply, because even when I address this (theoretical) issue with a (real) technical system, they continue to be against it. Some of them say that the child is abused each time the image is viewed, but I have already given my reasoning as to why the actual viewing of the image does not harm the child: it is the potential for somebody to view the image that causes prolonged harm to the child, a potential that will always exist after an image is published to the internet or otherwise distributed from the producer. Once I have addressed the demand<->supply argument and the revictimization argument, people pretty much have nothing else to say that could be seen as legitimate. Some will say that it should be illegal merely because the images are so disgusting and are images of abuse, but these same people do not want to outlaw images of the holocaust or other war crimes. They say that it is the intent that matters, that when somebody looks at images of the holocaust they are not getting pleasure from it but when somebody looks at images of CP they are getting pleasure from the suffering that happened to others in the past. But this argument is clearly false, they must care about more than intent: they are fine with the police looking at images of child abuse because their intent is to bust the other people looking at the images for pleasure, but they would not be okay with the police molesting children to catch the people molesting children for pleasure! At a basic level they understand that there is a huge difference between looking at images of CP (something they allow the police to do as their intent is "good") and molesting children (something they would never allow the police to do even if their intent is good!). But even though they must realize there is a massive enormous difference they still like to equate the two.
-
I think the real issues people have with others viewing CP can be categorized roughly as follows:
A. They are bigots and hate pedophiles, independently of anything the pedophile does they hate them because of what they are. This is much how some people hate homosexuals, they don't have a real reason to hate them they just hate them because they are different or perceived as disgusting. Now granted a homosexual engaging in consensual sex with somebody of an old enough age is not creating a victim, but then again a pedophile who does not molest a child or contribute to child molestation also does not create a victim. These people want it to be illegal to view CP because they know pedophiles view CP and this is a way to legitimize their senseless hatred, and to legitimize the destroying of innocent mens lives.
B. They have been worked up and manipulated by the fearmongering media, which needs to keep them afraid to keep ratings up. They have been conditioned via the media (especially the tabloids in the UK it seems to me) into equating pedophiles with child molesters. They cannot separate the two concepts in their mind. They think that there are so many child pornographers out there, not realizing that the media calls anyone busted with CP a child pornographer, even if they didn't produce anything. They think that there are so many sexual predators out there just waiting to snatch their children, not realizing that the media calls anyone busted looking at images a sexual predator, even if the busted person never has molested a child and has no intention of doing so. The media manipulates its stories in such a horrible way to make people think that all of these dangerous sex predators are molesting children left and right and taking pictures of it, even though in the vast majority of cases the only crime the person engaged in was looking at a picture. There is no doubt that people have been worked up into a pedophile hysteria, and yes there are predators out there and there are real child pornographers out there, but the threat that people who look at CP actually pose to society is vastly overblown.
C. They have been convinced that people who look at CP cause child molestation and cause those depicted in CP to be abused all over again. This is largely thanks to the police agencies, although with help from the media as well of course. They have all of these canned responses, most of which are merely thought terminating cliches, such as "Every time an image of child abuse is viewed, the child in the image is molested all over again" and "If there was no demand for child porn, no child porn would be produced". These canned responses are the most dangerous thing because unless you actually think about them they might appear to make sense! And it is so easy in a debate about CP for someone to just say one of the canned responses without actually being engaged in thinking about the matter at hand. Why do they even need to think about it?! Every time an image of child abuse is viewed the child is abused all over again, what is there to think about? But it is rather obvious that it is not true that a child is abused all over again when the image of their abuse is viewed, if this actually happened it would mean that we should make it a war crime to look at images of the holocaust. When you move away from the magical voodoo interpretation of this canned response, and rephrase it as "children are caused stress by the continued existence of their CP", I make reference to my previous argument that it is the *possibility* (the fault of the producer) that their image will be viewed that causes these children stress, not the instantiation of their image being viewed (something that the child may very well never even know happened, and which we can technically prevent from them being able to know happened). As far as supply and demand goes, I have already addressed this as well.
So why are the police agencies lying about the damages caused by people who view child pornography? Well, for two reasons. One of the reasons is the same reason they lie about the dangers of people using drugs I think. Money and power. The war on child porn viewers is a multi-billion dollar industry
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9920665-7.html
WASHINGTON--A prominent Senate Democrat [kmfkewms note: Biden] on Wednesday said federal and local police should use custom software to monitor peer-to-peer networks for illegal activity, and he wants to spend $1 billion in tax dollars to help make that happen.
At an afternoon Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing about child exploitation on the Internet, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said he was under the impression it's "pretty easy to pick out the person engaged in either transmitting or downloading violent scenes of rape, molestation" simply by looking at file names.
and the tools developed in the name of fighting child porn are also used in the name of general censorship and government control.
Now I am not saying that programs like this do not prevent child molestation in some cases. Certainly they do! Probably many thousands of real children have been saved from child molesters because of programs like this. But it is just not worth the collateral damage. For every child molester caught because of a program like this, over 8 people who are not child molesters are sent to prison.
And I do not think those over 8 people did anything wrong, they merely looked at images, as I said before. I don't even doubt that the police and the politicians generally dislike CP (although certainly they also love the budgets and power they get to combat it), but if they are making something a crime and casting it as evil simply to justify such high collateral damage in their pursuit of child molesters, it is sickening! And that is the second reason why I think the police and politicians lie about CP viewing. They need to demonize people who view CP (a group already hated by bigots and idiots) so that they can justify ruining their lives in the pursuit of the actual bad people, the child molesters. Because CP being illegal does lead to children being rescued from child abuse in some instances, certainly. And if CP is legalized and the police cannot raid people who are detected with it, those child molesters could get away for a lot longer. Because if the police raid a random person they know has CP, there is a 16% chance that he is a child molester. But this is not acceptable, because if the police raid a given person they know to be male there is a 5% chance that he is a rapist! Should they then demonize males and be able to arrest them at will? Because if this comes to pass you can expect the rate of adult female rape to drop significantly as well!
-
and as for the number of children saved, well we can do some rough calculations. Currently the P2P monitoring software is far more sophisticated than it was when the article I quoted from came out, and they actually detect over 40 million people a year *sharing* CP on such networks. So the number of detected people has gone up greatly, and therefore the percentage of those arrested is probably greatly below 1% now, because the increase in their man power and especially forensic processing abilities has not increased at such a rate. But we will use only the old figures from 2005-2008:
So far, investigators have recorded more than 642,000 "unique serial numbers" that can be traced to the United States and another 650,000 of them that cannot be traced to a particular country, with the number of unique serial numbers rising steadily each month since "widespread capturing" of the details began in October 2005.
So in 2008 they had detected a total of 1,292,000 people sharing CP on P2P networks. At this time they arrested about 1% of these people (today much less than 1%, but the number detected is much higher as well), meaning 12,920 people. Of those 12,920 people arrested, statistically about 2,067 are child molesters (although this includes sex with teenagers who would be legal in say Germany or Japan or Croatia).
-
So when I hear people saying "Everytime an image of child abuse is viewed the child is abused all over again" or "if there was not a demand for child porn there would not be a supply of molested children", what I really hear them saying is "We must sacrifice the lives of 10,853 harmless people, who might be sick, or might be socially undesirable and seen as disgusting, or who might just be average normal people who were curious, or might even be normal men who do not pretend that they are not attracted to teenagers, or might even have accidentally downloaded something they should not have, so that we can arrest 2,067 child molesters". Because I think that is what they mean in many cases, or what the people who made the canned slogans they repeat really mean, they just don't want to come out and say it. They don't want to say that they are ruining the lives of 10,853 harmless people who pose no threat to society and who cause harm to nobody. So they need to create the perception of harm where there is no harm, in order to justify the sacrifice of lives. And they do this by coming up with illogical slogans that justify the sacrifice of these lives, they turn these harmless men into child abusers by saying "every time an image of child molestation is viewed the child is molested all over again", they turn these harmless men into the child molesters when they say "if there was not a demand for child porn there would not be a supply of molested children", and they do this so they can justify the sacrifice of innocent lives for the protection of children.
Let me know when the police start molesting children to bust child molesters.
I wonder how many violent criminals we could take off the streets if we arrested all black people. Or how many rapists we could take off the street if we arrested all men. Or how many violent criminals we could take off the streets if we arrested all drug users. We cannot support collateral damage and group punishment even if the act of doing so would save thousands of people from being victimized. Society can be segmented into thousands of different groups and if you eliminate any of those groups or imprison any of those groups you are always going to be able to point to a good result that comes from it. Hell, I wonder how many child molesters were killed at the German death camps by virtue of their being Jewish? We must judge people by their individual actions only, and we must not falsely attribute harm to actions that are harmless, no matter how distasteful we find the harmless actions to be and no matter how much we dislike those who commit the harmless actions. We must not attribute harm to harmless actions so that we can punish the group of people who engage in the harmless actions in order to punish a few people deserving of punishment.
-
No way I'm reading all 350 of these posts BUT...
OP clearly doesn't have any kids. If you ever leave the fantasy anarchy world you live in and have children, you'll get it.
Also, for the record, most viewers of jews getting gassed dont plan to get off to the photos. I don't need any research to tell me most CP viewers are getting off. Thats the difference, its intangible but makes all the difference.
So you admit you are the thought police, not the action police. If a Nazi looks at a picture of the holocaust and gets off on it, you think it is bad, but if some normal person looks at it and is disgusted then it is not bad. The intent of the action is what matters to you, not the action. So I am sure you think the FBI should be able to look at CP because their intent is to bust child pornographers. Do you think the FBI should be able to rape a young girl if their goal is to bust child pornographers? What if an FBI agent infiltrates a lower level rung of a production studio, and they want him to rape little girls, and eventually he can move up the ranks of the organization and topple it if he rapes enough little girls to earn their trust. Should he be allowed then to rape little girls as his intention is to topple the pedophile organization? No? But he should be able to look at pictures of CP if his intent is to arrest pedophiles correct? Yes? But I thought that looking at pictures of CP causes horrible damage to the children depicted, I thought that it leads to more children being molested even! So why are you okay with one of these things but not the other? Why are you so logically inconsistent? Are you a retard or are you a liar?
I usually agree with you but, this time, you're just talking wacky!
I get where you're coming from though, I really do. I believe the research may even prove you're right to some degree. However, as I said before, you clearly don't have kids. Once you have kids, shit changes. That happens, we'll talk. Until then, stick to security and other general anarchy conversations :-)
-
So you admit you like to watch CP but think there,s nothing wrong with that, your a pedo then?! You contribute to these kids being abused by people cause you watch it, so your just as guilty as the people making it. I hope in future anyone making or watching CP should be given the same sentence when caught, or put you cunts down like a dog >:(
I think this thread should be locked and removed as it sickens me to see it all the time, this pedohpile has had enough say ;) I,m sure there,s people in here who have suffered as kids inc myself and it really took a lot to read this thread so i really hope it get deleted and if OP makes another one he should be kicked off!!!
-
No way I'm reading all 350 of these posts BUT...
OP clearly doesn't have any kids. If you ever leave the fantasy anarchy world you live in and have children, you'll get it.
Also, for the record, most viewers of jews getting gassed dont plan to get off to the photos. I don't need any research to tell me most CP viewers are getting off. Thats the difference, its intangible but makes all the difference.
So you admit you are the thought police, not the action police. If a Nazi looks at a picture of the holocaust and gets off on it, you think it is bad, but if some normal person looks at it and is disgusted then it is not bad. The intent of the action is what matters to you, not the action. So I am sure you think the FBI should be able to look at CP because their intent is to bust child pornographers. Do you think the FBI should be able to rape a young girl if their goal is to bust child pornographers? What if an FBI agent infiltrates a lower level rung of a production studio, and they want him to rape little girls, and eventually he can move up the ranks of the organization and topple it if he rapes enough little girls to earn their trust. Should he be allowed then to rape little girls as his intention is to topple the pedophile organization? No? But he should be able to look at pictures of CP if his intent is to arrest pedophiles correct? Yes? But I thought that looking at pictures of CP causes horrible damage to the children depicted, I thought that it leads to more children being molested even! So why are you okay with one of these things but not the other? Why are you so logically inconsistent? Are you a retard or are you a liar?
I usually agree with you but, this time, you're just talking wacky!
I get where you're coming from though, I really do. I believe the research may even prove you're right to some degree. However, as I said before, you clearly don't have kids. Once you have kids, shit changes. That happens, we'll talk. Until then, stick to security and other general anarchy conversations :-)
You never answered my question though, and this applies to mary666 as well: if looking at CP is the same as abusing kids, why are you okay with the police looking at CP to bust pedophiles but not okay with the police molesting kids to bust pedophiles? Is it because you know the police looking at CP obviously doesn't hurt anybody, but the police molesting kids would obviously hurt somebody? Doesn't this mean that looking at CP is not the same as molesting kids? So then what can it be that differentiates looking at pictures from molesting kids? You cannot argue intent because the police would have the same intent distributing CP to bust people who look at CP as they would have in molesting kids to bust people molesting kids. The difference is that looking at CP is a victimless crime. So why are you against people looking at CP then? Well I already gave my summary of possible reasons:
A. You are a bigot and hate pedophiles for no legitimate reason
B. You have been whipped up into pedophile hysteria by the media
C. You profit in some way from the war on CP viewers
D. You are okay with eliminating entire groups of people who do not cause harm to others, in order to eliminate a small section of the targeted group that does cause harm to others
So which one is it? If it is A you are no better than a homophobe, if it is B you have been brainwashed, if it is C you are a slave trader and if it is D then you are a very dangerous person and I wonder which group you are going to target next. Are you going to target men to bust rapists? Are you going to target drug users to bust criminals?
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-
I hope in future anyone making or watching CP should be given the same sentence when caught, or put you cunts down like a dog >:(
Don't you realize how counter productive to your ostensible goal that would be? This is the same emotion overdose poisoning that leads people to give money to the blind Indian beggar children in an attempt to help children in India. At face value you are doing something good, and it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it is people like you who cause parents to blind their children in the first place. This is why too much emotional response is a horrible thing.
-
You have no fucking idea cunt.
A,B and C are not even close to the reasons MOST people hate cunts like you that view CP.
D. Victims and those close to somebody who has/IS suffering as a result to some abuse as a child WILL HATE everything and anyone that is associated and enjoy PICTURES of someones ABUSE
It is hard for a manic cunt like yourself to compute this so I suggest you get back under your rock cunt with all your supporters
I really am fantasizing about being locked in a room with you right now kmfpedo!
-
You have no fucking idea cunt.
A,B and C are not even close to the reasons MOST people hate cunts like you that view CP.
D. Victims and those close to somebody who has/IS suffering as a result to some abuse as a child WILL HATE everything and anyone that is associated and enjoy PICTURES of someones ABUSE
It is hard for a manic cunt like yourself to compute this so I suggest you get back under your rock cunt with all your supporters
Sorry but do you happen to have Tourette syndrome? You cannot seem to go very long without saying cunt and it just makes me curious if there has been an outbreak in the UK or something.
In other news, it is not illegal to view pictures of abuse only of child sex abuse. ie: holocaust pictures, general genocide pictures, murders, robberies, police brutality, etc. I already have pretty much proven that the intent of viewing the picture is not what has you upset, or else you would be okay with the police molesting children to stop child abuse (funny as that sounds, you seem to think the police can look at CP to stop child abuse despite thinking that looking at CP is child abuse).
Try to just be open minded man, I think you don't even give any consideration to what I say and just immediately go into rage mode.
-
Hey look, here is a famous legal picture (in USA and most of the world anyway) of child abuse, of a naked child, that is far worse than at least most of the jailbait shit people would get sent to prison for. This girl did not consent to have her picture taken nor did she consent to have her village bombed by the United States. So if somebody looks at this and it arouses them should they be put down for having looked at the image? Did their looking at the image cause the girl to be napalmed all over again? Did their demand for pictures of children being abused, which led them to this picture, cause more villages to have bombs dropped on them? Or is the current viewing of this picture independent of the Vietnam war, in that it has no effect on either the war or the girl depicted in the picture?
http://static.ibnlive.in.com/ibnlive/pix/sitepix/06_2012/napalm_vietnam_picture.jpg
Only the most hardcore child pornography depicts events worse than this one, or naked children being subjected to greater abuse than being burned with napalm.
So why is it legal for a sadistic pedophile to jack off to this picture, but illegal if I look at a self produced picture of some 15 year old girl flashing a mirror?
-
You can pull whatever bullshit statistic or study performed by a pedo out your arse as much as you like.
If I see a picture of a cake, I want to eat it. I will go get a cake and eat it
If I see a picture of my naked girlfriend I want to fuck her. I will fuck her(if she wants)
Surely even a dumb fuck like you understand how advertisement companies work? If we didnt look at an object and not go out and buy it there would be no such thing as advertisements.
So fuck off with your "looking at pictures stops pedos bullshit... its getting old.
-
All these quotes you love so much are of events.. holocaust, genocide, a naked girl burning blah blah.
Pedos dont see pics of abused children as events.. they see them as OBJECTS. People want object..FACT
-
I am pretty sure that there is actually no difference between a picture of one thing or of another.
-
You can pull whatever bullshit statistic or study performed by a pedo out your arse as much as you like.
If I see a picture of a cake, I want to eat it. I will go get a cake and eat it
If I see a picture of my naked girlfriend I want to fuck her. I will fuck her(if she wants)
Surely even a dumb fuck like you understand how advertisement companies work? If we didnt look at an object and not go out and buy it there would be no such thing as advertisements.
So fuck off with your "looking at pictures stops pedos bullshit... its getting old.
You are getting cause and effect mixed up. You don't want to fuck your girlfriend because you saw a naked picture of her, you already wanted to fuck her. You don't see a picture of a cake and want to eat a cake, you want to eat something and then decide to eat a cake. Otherwise you would see pictures of babies being raped and want to rape babies. That doesn't happen now does it? This logic is about equal to the logic that homosexuals can be 'cured' of homosexuality by masturbation to hetrosexual pornography. The fact is, pedophiles want to have sex with kids because it is just who they are. Seeing pictures of molested kids doesn't make pedophiles want to molest kids, they already do want to molest kids. The studies I have cited show that when pedophiles have an alternative route to meet their sexual desire without molesting a child, a lot of them will take the alternative route. Given the choice between looking at CP and having sex with a child, a lot of pedophiles will only look at CP for whatever reason (maybe they don't want to risk having sex with a child, maybe they are aware that it is bad for children to have sex with them). If they do not have an alternative outlet, their urges continue to grow and they have a harder time to resist the temptation of having sex with a child.
It is kind of hard to debate with you when every single study I could possibly quote is in your eyes automatically invalidated (and probably funded by pedophiles) due to the fact that it doesn't agree with you.
-
The Blue Lagoon was good since it had enough context to be the ultimate 'coming of age' movie if their ever was one. If it was just a romp on an island with lots of kids it would of been CP. But were the main actors scarred by making that film? That could be.. but it seems that Atkins and Shields came through it well. I think because how well it was handled. They can view it and see the innocence of it all in its context.
Problem with OP is that he really doesn't understand the emotional side of anything... he just wants to see 40 year old cock in 14 year old's holes
that is as cold as he is
-
I am pretty sure that there is actually no difference between a picture of one thing or of another.
Actually I would like to add on to this. You say that the difference between the picture of the naked vietnamese girl burning from napalm is different from a picture of a naked 15 year old flashing her mirror because people view the vietnamese girl picture as an event but view the naked 15 year old as an object (instead of the event of a 15 year old girl flashing her mirror I suppose). So this really boils down to intent. Do you think it should be illegal for somebody to view the image of the vietnamese girl if they view her as an object for sexual gratification? Because I am sure there are some people out there who would be sexually aroused by that photograph. But I have already proven that you cannot really have intent as your differentiation factor! Because you are okay with the police looking at CP because their intent is to bust pedophiles who look at CP, but you would not be okay with the police molesting children if their intent was to bust child molesters. So you cannot really say that it is the intent of looking at an image, or how a person perceives an image, that causes the act of looking at the image to be bad. In my mind looking at an image is looking at an image and molesting a child is molesting a child, it makes no difference if a person looks at an image with the intent of helping children or if a person molests a child with the intent of helping children. It is the action that matters, not the intent, and I imagine you must agree with this if you agree that the police should not be allowed to molest children to prevent child molestation.
-
The Blue Lagoon was good since it had enough context to be the ultimate 'coming of age' movie if their ever was one. If it was just a romp on an island with lots of kids it would of been CP. But were the main actors scarred by making that film? That could be.. but it seems that Atkins and Shields came through it well. I think because how well it was handled. They can view it and see the innocence of it all in its context.
Ah Brooke Shields, there are some images of her that are more or less identical to softcore CP images from Eastern Europe, but her images have been declared as legal and art! Just like the vietnamese girl burning from napalm is legal but a picture of some random girl burned by a pedophile is illegal.
Problem with OP is that he really doesn't understand the emotional side of anything...
Emotion should not have a role in dictating the law, only logic.
he just wants to see 40 year old cock in 14 year old's holes
that is as cold as he is
So if I want to see 40 year old cock in 18 year old holes I am perfectly normal and that is just A-okay, but subtract 1-4 years from the 18 year old and omfg I am a huge pedophile and should be burned alive most likely. Even though you cannot reliably tell if someone is 14.5 or 18 years old by looking at them? Even though nearly all men have the same sexual response to 14.5 year olds as they do to 18 year olds? What exactly is so cold about that? It is similar to how it is legal to fuck 16 year olds all day in the UK but as soon as you look at a picture of a 16 year old flashing you are a horrible pedophile and should be burned at the stake! What is the magical property of photography that you guys are seeing, that makes it so it is not immoral to look directly at the breasts of a 16 year old, but a horrible sin to look at the photograph of the same breasts?!
-
A. Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict genocide
B. Viewing pictures of the holocaust is not the same as causing genocide to happen
We can reduce these sentences:
A. Pictures of bad thing happening depict bad things
B. Viewing pictures of bad things happening is not doing bad things
which in turn leads to:
A. Pictures of children being molested depict child abuse
B. Viewing pictures of children being molested is not the same as abusing children
Your logic is flawed, because while viewing CP doesn't directly abuse the children, it gives incentive to the people who create these films to produce more CP.
Put another way, If it were not for the people who actually view the CP, the people who produce the content would have no incentive to produce more. So in reality, people who watch CP are advocating the abuse and misuse of these kids.
How about an example with coke and pepsi? If coke and pepsi each sold one bottle a month, the grocery store shelves would not be continually stocked with product.
-
A. Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict genocide
B. Viewing pictures of the holocaust is not the same as causing genocide to happen
We can reduce these sentences:
A. Pictures of bad thing happening depict bad things
B. Viewing pictures of bad things happening is not doing bad things
which in turn leads to:
A. Pictures of children being molested depict child abuse
B. Viewing pictures of children being molested is not the same as abusing children
Your logic is flawed, because while viewing CP doesn't directly abuse the children, it gives incentive to the people who create these films to produce more CP.
Put another way, If it were not for the people who actually view the CP, the people who produce the content would have no incentive to produce more. So in reality, people who watch CP are advocating the abuse and misuse of these kids.
How about an example with coke and pepsi? If coke and pepsi each sold one bottle a month, the grocery store shelves would not be continually stocked with product.
Your logic is flawed because:
A. It is not the responsibility of newspaper readers if a serial killer kills people so others will read about the killings in the newspaper. You cannot legitimately put the blame for child molestation on the people who view the images. Really you are using cop logic here. Is it the fault of drug users that drug cartels kill thousands of innocent people a year? You cannot say it is the fault of someone who views CP that children are molested without saying it is the fault of drug users that innocents are killed by drug cartels. Do you think people who use drugs are advocating the murders of those killed by the drug cartels?
B. The supply<->demand theory of CP viewing is not proven and is highly debated. I find it unlikely that normal people who do not plan to molest kids suddenly realize that omg somebody downloaded a CP file, the demand is there, and then they go out and start to molest kids. Seems like a crock of shit to me. I already said that paying for production should be illegal. I already pointed out that there are technical systems for hiding the demand of CP.
Here, let me give an example of PIR with coke and pepsi. 100 bottles of pepsi and 100 bottles of coke are put inside of a room. People entering the room can take a bottle of either Pepsi or of Coke. When they take a bottle of one, a bottle of the other is destroyed automatically. People leave the room with their selection hidden inside of a paper bag so nobody can see it. Now no matter who goes into the room, they cannot tell the demand for Pepsi versus the demand for coke, because if there is no demand for Pepsi there will still be an equal number of Pepsi bottles to Coke bottles. So nobody can determine the demand for either of them, and therefor the problem of demand leading to supply is taken care of. We can solve any potential demand leading to supply problem, as I have said about a million times now. So even assuming that non-financial demand for CP does lead to supply, which is highly doubtful in itself, and even assuming that we place the blame for supply of CP on people who want to look at it despite the fact that we don't put the blame for cartel murders on drug users, WE CAN PERFECTLY MASK DEMAND. So please until you find a way to break information theoretic private information retrieval, stop with this stupid argument of demand leads to supply. Already solved that issue!
-
ps: people pay for Pepsi and Coke at the grocery store and there is a limited supply. The overwhelming almost totality of CP is available for free and there is an unlimited supply. See the huge difference?
-
So if I want to see 40 year old cock in 18 year old holes I am perfectly normal and that is just A-okay, but subtract 1-4 years from the 18 year old and omfg I am a huge pedophile and should be burned alive most likely. Even though you cannot reliably tell if someone is 14.5 or 18 years old by looking at them? Even though nearly all men have the same sexual response to 14.5 year olds as they do to 18 year olds? What exactly is so cold about that? It is similar to how it is legal to fuck 16 year olds all day in the UK but as soon as you look at a picture of a 16 year old flashing you are a horrible pedophile and should be burned at the stake! What is the magical property of photography that you guys are seeing, that makes it so it is not immoral to look directly at the breasts of a 16 year old, but a horrible sin to look at the photograph of the same breasts?!
Bravo. I think we just got a breakthrough as a shrink would say
You just explained the disconnect you have with consent and non-consent. Being with that 16 year old in UK, without it being rape, is consent. And thus when you are viewing pictures, it is up to the consent of your community and the source of the pictures. If the 16 year old is in a town where it is legal to put her self on the web, and you are in town that allows it then you are fine. Why don't you live in those places?
I am all for state rights. If one state (like South Carolina) wants to be pretty open with their age of consent, etc, then fine.
You want everyplace to accept anything you see that somewhere else accepts. Just move to the places that accept what you like and keep it there.
what is so hard in that?
-
So if I want to see 40 year old cock in 18 year old holes I am perfectly normal and that is just A-okay, but subtract 1-4 years from the 18 year old and omfg I am a huge pedophile and should be burned alive most likely. Even though you cannot reliably tell if someone is 14.5 or 18 years old by looking at them? Even though nearly all men have the same sexual response to 14.5 year olds as they do to 18 year olds? What exactly is so cold about that? It is similar to how it is legal to fuck 16 year olds all day in the UK but as soon as you look at a picture of a 16 year old flashing you are a horrible pedophile and should be burned at the stake! What is the magical property of photography that you guys are seeing, that makes it so it is not immoral to look directly at the breasts of a 16 year old, but a horrible sin to look at the photograph of the same breasts?!
Bravo. I think we just got a breakthrough as a shrink would say
You just explained the disconnect you have with consent and non-consent. Being with that 16 year old in UK, without it being rape, is consent. And thus when you are viewing pictures, it is up to the consent of your community and the source of the pictures. If the 16 year old is in a town where it is legal to put her self on the web, and you are in town that allows it then you are fine. Why don't you live in those places?
I am all for state rights. If one state (like South Carolina) wants to be pretty open with their age of consent, etc, then fine.
You want everyplace to accept anything you see that somewhere else accepts. Just move to the places that accept what you like and keep it there.
what is so hard in that?
I take it that you are not a drug user? Since you think the state determines morality. So were you okay with the holocaust since it was state sanctioned? I am not a moral relativist, I think right and wrong are independent of culture. Moral relativists think slavery was moral before it was made illegal.
I don't see how you can possibly think it is okay to label someone as a child predator and lock them up for decades if they do action X in geographic region A but not if they do X in geographic region B. To me, you are mentally defective, to a far worse degree than most pedophiles are. You have been infected with statism, the worst disease known to humanity (other than possibly religion).
I am not for states rights, I am for individuals rights. The state does not determine the rights of an individual. No matter how many Germans support the holocaust it is still wrong!
-
yes I do drugs.. no I don't think they are LEGAL in my town since I want to do them.. Do I wish they were? yes, but I am not mental like you and think that everyone else is mental that doesn't think like you do
you see?
and you belong to the community whether you like it or not.. even if you dig a hole and be a hermit, you are still part of your community.. sucks huh?
-
yes I do drugs.. no I don't think they are LEGAL in my town since I want to do them.. Do I wish they were? yes, but I am not mental like you and think that everyone else is mental that doesn't think like you do
you see?
and you belong to the community whether you like it or not.. even if you dig a hole and be a hermit, you are still part of your community.. sucks huh?
Why do you do drugs if your community has said that you cannot?! Don't you think you are the slave of your community?! Why don't you just move to a community that lets you do drugs instead of try and make a change in your own community?! I do think everybody is mental and brainwashed or just a slave trader if they want drugs to be illegal. Yes, they have a fucking mental problem, either they want to enslave others or they have been brainwashed by the media and the government, just like with CP viewers. You don't in your community try to convince people that drugs should be legal? You don't use logical arguments to show them why they are wrong in thinking drugs should be illegal? You act like you just bow to the community and are the slave of the community but yet you use drugs? You are totally inconsistent and honestly I think you have a broken mind.
And no I don't belong to my community, I belong to myself. Just as a black slave did not belong to his master. You are a collectivist and a statist and the worst sort of human.
PS: I never said it is legal to look at pictures of flashing 16 year olds in the UK either, I just said it should be. Do you think I think that is legal? Where did I say that ever? I only said it is not wrong and it should not be illegal. You think it is wrong because it is illegal. You think the law determines what is right and what is wrong, yet you are a hypocrite as you use drugs while it is not legal for you to. How about you not throw stones living in a glass house? Before you tell me to move to a place where it is legal to have sex with 16 year olds or look at such pictures how about you move yourself to a state where drugs are legal?
-
A. Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict genocide
B. Viewing pictures of the holocaust is not the same as causing genocide to happen
We can reduce these sentences:
A. Pictures of bad thing happening depict bad things
B. Viewing pictures of bad things happening is not doing bad things
which in turn leads to:
A. Pictures of children being molested depict child abuse
B. Viewing pictures of children being molested is not the same as abusing children
Your logic is flawed, because while viewing CP doesn't directly abuse the children, it gives incentive to the people who create these films to produce more CP.
Put another way, If it were not for the people who actually view the CP, the people who produce the content would have no incentive to produce more. So in reality, people who watch CP are advocating the abuse and misuse of these kids.
How about an example with coke and pepsi? If coke and pepsi each sold one bottle a month, the grocery store shelves would not be continually stocked with product.
Your logic is flawed because:
A. It is not the responsibility of newspaper readers if a serial killer kills people so others will read about the killings in the newspaper. You cannot legitimately put the blame for child molestation on the people who view the images. Really you are using cop logic here. Is it the fault of drug users that drug cartels kill thousands of innocent people a year? You cannot say it is the fault of someone who views CP that children are molested without saying it is the fault of drug users that innocents are killed by drug cartels. Do you think people who use drugs are advocating the murders of those killed by the drug cartels?
B. The supply<->demand theory of CP viewing is not proven and is highly debated. I find it unlikely that normal people who do not plan to molest kids suddenly realize that omg somebody downloaded a CP file, the demand is there, and then they go out and start to molest kids. Seems like a crock of shit to me. I already said that paying for production should be illegal. I already pointed out that there are technical systems for hiding the demand of CP.
Here, let me give an example of PIR with coke and pepsi. 100 bottles of pepsi and 100 bottles of coke are put inside of a room. People entering the room can take a bottle of either Pepsi or of Coke. When they take a bottle of one, a bottle of the other is destroyed automatically. People leave the room with their selection hidden inside of a paper bag so nobody can see it. Now no matter who goes into the room, they cannot tell the demand for Pepsi versus the demand for coke, because if there is no demand for Pepsi there will still be an equal number of Pepsi bottles to Coke bottles. So nobody can determine the demand for either of them, and therefor the problem of demand leading to supply is taken care of. We can solve any potential demand leading to supply problem, as I have said about a million times now. So even assuming that non-financial demand for CP does lead to supply, which is highly doubtful in itself, and even assuming that we place the blame for supply of CP on people who want to look at it despite the fact that we don't put the blame for cartel murders on drug users, WE CAN PERFECTLY MASK DEMAND. So please until you find a way to break information theoretic private information retrieval, stop with this stupid argument of demand leads to supply. Already solved that issue!
I kind of get what you're saying, but there's a disconnect in your drug cartel/user to CP/viewer analogy, becuase drug cartels don't kill their users, that would be stupid. Most of the murders are cartel on cartel crime, or they just flat out eliminate the competition. Drug users don't advocate killing of other cartel members because cartel on cartel crime doesn't have to be part of the equation in the production of drugs, it's an unfortunate circumstance. Not the case with CP.
Basically, you can run a succesful drug business, provide product to everyone, no one has to get shot. But people are greedy. Whereas with CP, you do give incentive to these guys to produce these films. Look, just because the stuff is free doesn't mean someone isn't making money. I've been in internet marketing for over 15 years, stuff that's free on the internet makes money. A good example is Youtube.
-
I kind of get what you're saying, but there's a disconnect in your drug cartel/user to CP/viewer analogy, becuase drug cartels don't kill their users, that would be stupid.
CP producers don't molest the users of CP either??? There is no disconnect in the analogy, you say people viewing CP causes children to be molested (dubious) I say that people buying drugs cause people to be murdered (obvious).
Most of the murders are cartel on cartel crime, or they just flat out eliminate the competition. Drug users don't advocate killing of other cartel members because cartel on cartel crime doesn't have to be part of the equation in the production of drugs, it's an unfortunate circumstance. Not the case with CP.
Drug users must advocate the killing of innocents (it is not true that the cartels only kill cartel members, they kill fucking everybody), because they buy drugs even though the circumstances are such that they are funding murderers! By your logic we should put the blame for the murders of the drug cartels on the people who buy the drugs, and not the people who kill or order killings. And killing has to be part of the equation with a serial killer getting stories of his killings published in the newspapers so people can read them, do you therefore hold responsible for murder the readers of a newspaper that details for entertainment value the exploits of a serial killer? You really need to do some pretty serious mental gymnastics to say that people who view images of CP are responsible for child molestation while claiming that drug users are not responsible for the murders of cartels or that readers of newspaper articles on serial killings are not responsible for murders. PS: The holocaust was required for images of the holocaust, should we charge all who view those images with war crimes?
Basically, you can run a succesful drug business, provide product to everyone, no one has to get shot. But people are greedy. Whereas with CP, you do give incentive to these guys to produce these films. Look, just because the stuff is free doesn't mean someone isn't making money. I've been in internet marketing for over 15 years, stuff that's free on the internet makes money. A good example is Youtube.
Okay so how do you feel about not for profit CP distribution via PIR, where the demand for CP can not be determined. You just dodge the main point I am trying to make by making your hypothetical situations more and more convoluted. We can address any potential for demand to lead to supply. We can address any potential for anybody to profit off of people viewing CP. Even assuming that you are correct, which I certainly do not, we can address perfectly the issues that you bring up. Repeating these issues over and over at this point is to ignore the fact that if they are real they can be addressed.
-
When I was in prison me and a couple other people killed some of you sick fucks. Hope I see you in there one day.
-
When I was in prison me and a couple other people killed some of you sick fucks. Hope I see you in there one day.
You killed people who had never had sex with anybody under the age of 18 or ever even claimed to have ever looked at CP in their entire lives, but who had opinions differing from your own? Wow you do belong in prison!
-
There is no disconnect in the analogy, you say people viewing CP causes children to be molested (dubious) I say that people buying drugs cause people to be murdered (obvious).
There is most certainly a disconnect in the analogy. Your analogy specifically asked the question, "do I think that drug users advocate the murders of those killed by the drug cartels?" But no one HAS to die, it's an unfortunate circumstance.
However, in CP, childern MUST suffer in order for the content to be produced. EPIC Disconnect. BTW- I don't know what PIR means.
-
There is no disconnect in the analogy, you say people viewing CP causes children to be molested (dubious) I say that people buying drugs cause people to be murdered (obvious).
There is most certainly a disconnect in the analogy. Your analogy specifically asked the question, "do I think that drug users advocate the murders of those killed by the drug cartels?" But no one HAS to die, it's an unfortunate circumstance.
However, in CP, childer MUST suffer in order for the content to be produced. EPIC Disconnect. BTW- I don't know what PIR means.
Well technically children don't have to suffer for the content to be produced, it is theoretically possible (although so unlikely that is pretty nearly is impossible) for the same exact image to be produced by the flip of a coin and random chance. So there is not MUST technically. Also children already suffered for CP to be produced. More children don't NEED to suffer for people to view CP, it is just an unfortunate circumstance that they do. And you are not going to unmolest previously molested children.
PIR is private information retrieval, it is a cryptographic technique that allows somebody to obtain an item from a database with no third party (including the host of the database) being able to determine which item they got out of the database. If people only downloaded CP from PIR networks there would be no ability for anybody to claim that demand leads to supply, since demand cannot be determined. Therefore I ask you, are you okay with pedophiles downloading CP from PIR networks that operate without making a profit?
-
When I was in prison me and a couple other people killed some of you sick fucks. Hope I see you in there one day.
You killed people who had never had sex with anybody under the age of 18 or ever even claimed to have ever looked at CP in their entire lives, but who had opinions differing from your own? Wow you do belong in prison!
Well, I mostly helped co-ordinate getting out of securitys view. But to answer your question, yes.
-
When I was in prison me and a couple other people killed some of you sick fucks. Hope I see you in there one day.
You killed people who had never had sex with anybody under the age of 18 or ever even claimed to have ever looked at CP in their entire lives, but who had opinions differing from your own? Wow you do belong in prison!
Well, I mostly helped co-ordinate getting out of securitys view. But to answer your question, yes.
Have you ever considered that you might have killed somebody who wouldn't have even been in prison if they lived in Japan or perhaps Germany? Don't you feel that killing somebody is much worse than looking at a picture?
-
When I was in prison me and a couple other people killed some of you sick fucks. Hope I see you in there one day.
You killed people who had never had sex with anybody under the age of 18 or ever even claimed to have ever looked at CP in their entire lives, but who had opinions differing from your own? Wow you do belong in prison!
Well, I mostly helped co-ordinate getting out of securitys view. But to answer your question, yes.
Have you ever considered that you might have killed somebody who wouldn't have even been in prison if they lived in Japan or perhaps Germany? Don't you feel that killing somebody is much worse than looking at a picture?
Lol no? I don't live in Japan or Germany. That's doesn't even help your case. Stop being a moralfag and trying to justify being a sick fuck. You're a sick fuck, atleast admit it to get some respect.
-
When I was in prison me and a couple other people killed some of you sick fucks. Hope I see you in there one day.
You killed people who had never had sex with anybody under the age of 18 or ever even claimed to have ever looked at CP in their entire lives, but who had opinions differing from your own? Wow you do belong in prison!
Well, I mostly helped co-ordinate getting out of securitys view. But to answer your question, yes.
Have you ever considered that you might have killed somebody who wouldn't have even been in prison if they lived in Japan or perhaps Germany? Don't you feel that killing somebody is much worse than looking at a picture?
Lol no? I don't live in Japan or Germany. That's doesn't even help your case. Stop being a moralfag and trying to justify being a sick fuck. You're a sick fuck, atleast admit it to get some respect.
I don't feel like I am a sick fuck for being sexually attracted to young teenagers, indeed all research indicates that I am perfectly normal in this respect.
-
There is no disconnect in the analogy, you say people viewing CP causes children to be molested (dubious) I say that people buying drugs cause people to be murdered (obvious).
There is most certainly a disconnect in the analogy. Your analogy specifically asked the question, "do I think that drug users advocate the murders of those killed by the drug cartels?" But no one HAS to die, it's an unfortunate circumstance.
However, in CP, childer MUST suffer in order for the content to be produced. EPIC Disconnect. BTW- I don't know what PIR means.
Well technically children don't have to suffer for the content to be produced, it is theoretically possible (although so unlikely that is pretty nearly is impossible) for the same exact image to be produced by the flip of a coin and random chance. So there is not MUST technically. Also children already suffered for CP to be produced. More children don't NEED to suffer for people to view CP, it is just an unfortunate circumstance that they do. And you are not going to unmolest previously molested children.
PIR is private information retrieval, it is a cryptographic technique that allows somebody to obtain an item from a database with no third party (including the host of the database) being able to determine which item they got out of the database. If people only downloaded CP from PIR networks there would be no ability for anybody to claim that demand leads to supply, since demand cannot be determined. Therefore I ask you, are you okay with pedophiles downloading CP from PIR networks that operate without making a profit?
Look I saw one of your comments earlier that said something like, why is it socially acceptable for someone to view a picture of an 18 year old naked, but subtract a few years, and they call you a pedophile. I get that, I realise that most of that is ill logic and cultural programming. What I'm not okay with is the CP industry exploiting very, very young children as a fundamental crop, when you can still mold the child's brain, the child's beliefs for the rest of his or her life. We need to live in a society where the dignity of the individual is always the first value to be honored. If the person being exploited can understand the full reprocussions of what is about to happen to them and they still decide to go forward with it, then fine, otherwise, it's not okay. I'm not trying to sound hippy dippy here, but that's my honest opinion.
-
You can pull whatever bullshit statistic or study performed by a pedo out your arse as much as you like.
If I see a picture of a cake, I want to eat it. I will go get a cake and eat it
If I see a picture of my naked girlfriend I want to fuck her. I will fuck her(if she wants)
Surely even a dumb fuck like you understand how advertisement companies work? If we didnt look at an object and not go out and buy it there would be no such thing as advertisements.
So fuck off with your "looking at pictures stops pedos bullshit... its getting old.
You are getting cause and effect mixed up. You don't want to fuck your girlfriend because you saw a naked picture of her, you already wanted to fuck her. You don't see a picture of a cake and want to eat a cake, you want to eat something and then decide to eat a cake. Otherwise you would see pictures of babies being raped and want to rape babies. That doesn't happen now does it? This logic is about equal to the logic that homosexuals can be 'cured' of homosexuality by masturbation to hetrosexual pornography. The fact is, pedophiles want to have sex with kids because it is just who they are. Seeing pictures of molested kids doesn't make pedophiles want to molest kids, they already do want to molest kids. The studies I have cited show that when pedophiles have an alternative route to meet their sexual desire without molesting a child, a lot of them will take the alternative route. Given the choice between looking at CP and having sex with a child, a lot of pedophiles will only look at CP for whatever reason (maybe they don't want to risk having sex with a child, maybe they are aware that it is bad for children to have sex with them). If they do not have an alternative outlet, their urges continue to grow and they have a harder time to resist the temptation of having sex with a child.
It is kind of hard to debate with you when every single study I could possibly quote is in your eyes automatically invalidated (and probably funded by pedophiles) due to the fact that it doesn't agree with you.
Your pseudoscience suggests that the billions of dollars spent in advertising annually is wasted because when we look at a picture of something we dont actually physically want it?
I look at a picture of a kid and dont see an OBJECT of desire. I guess I wasnt born that way?
When I see pictures or watch films of dead pedos (Snow Town). I am aroused. I want to do that. Kill a predator
-
When I was in prison me and a couple other people killed some of you sick fucks. Hope I see you in there one day.
You killed people who had never had sex with anybody under the age of 18 or ever even claimed to have ever looked at CP in their entire lives, but who had opinions differing from your own? Wow you do belong in prison!
Well, I mostly helped co-ordinate getting out of securitys view. But to answer your question, yes.
Have you ever considered that you might have killed somebody who wouldn't have even been in prison if they lived in Japan or perhaps Germany? Don't you feel that killing somebody is much worse than looking at a picture?
You STILL dont get it. Wtf does legality have to do with this subject? You think the community is going to feel different about you if you are in a state or country that allows you to hide behind a fucking loophole so you can look at kids?
WTF do you want? You want to fuck 14 year olds? Why the fuck would they want to fuck you? 99.9% of 14year olds dont want to fuck a man.. they want to fuck 14-17 year old boys or girls.
-
There is no disconnect in the analogy, you say people viewing CP causes children to be molested (dubious) I say that people buying drugs cause people to be murdered (obvious).
There is most certainly a disconnect in the analogy. Your analogy specifically asked the question, "do I think that drug users advocate the murders of those killed by the drug cartels?" But no one HAS to die, it's an unfortunate circumstance.
However, in CP, childer MUST suffer in order for the content to be produced. EPIC Disconnect. BTW- I don't know what PIR means.
Well technically children don't have to suffer for the content to be produced, it is theoretically possible (although so unlikely that is pretty nearly is impossible) for the same exact image to be produced by the flip of a coin and random chance. So there is not MUST technically. Also children already suffered for CP to be produced. More children don't NEED to suffer for people to view CP, it is just an unfortunate circumstance that they do. And you are not going to unmolest previously molested children.
PIR is private information retrieval, it is a cryptographic technique that allows somebody to obtain an item from a database with no third party (including the host of the database) being able to determine which item they got out of the database. If people only downloaded CP from PIR networks there would be no ability for anybody to claim that demand leads to supply, since demand cannot be determined. Therefore I ask you, are you okay with pedophiles downloading CP from PIR networks that operate without making a profit?
Look I saw one of your comments earlier that said something like, why is it socially acceptable for someone to view a picture of an 18 year old naked, but subtract a few years, and they call you a pedophile. I get that, I realise that most of that is ill logic and cultural programming. What I'm not okay with is the CP industry exploiting very, very young children as a fundamental crop, when you can still mold the child's brain, the child's beliefs for the rest of his or her life. We need to live in a society where the dignity of the individual is always the first value to be honored. If the person being exploited can understand the full reprocussions of what is about to happen to them and they still decide to go forward with it, then fine, otherwise, it's not okay. I'm not trying to sound hippy dippy here, but that's my honest opinion.
Dude I am certainly not okay with people producing CP and fucking ruining the lives of young children! I do not think that it is okay to do that to young children, and really I don't care if pedophiles who actually molest children get mandatory life prison sentences. But before we can be super strict on sex crimes we need to first define them properly. I think we should be super strict on sex crimes, maybe we should not give the death penalty due to the fact that some innocent people are convicted, but life sentence without parole unless proven innocent in the future is fine by me. The same can be done to rapists of adults as well. But I am not okay with someone who has sex with a willing 16 year old being subjected to these conditions. I am not okay with someone who has merely looked at a picture being subjected to these conditions. We need to first lower the age of consent to the minimum that can be thought of as acceptable, and we need to legalize the acts that do not directly result in the sexual abuse of minors. If the age of consent is lowered to 14 years old, as it already is in many nations, and CP is legalized to view, we will not even have a different opinion. Before we can be strict on crime we need to properly define what is criminal and before we properly define what is criminal we need to properly define what it is that should make something criminal. I think something should only be criminal if it directly causes harm to another person, with the other person not have initiated force against you of course. I do not see the harm that is caused to a child by somebody looking at a picture of anything, any indirect harm caused to them (ie: a pedophile decides to rape a kid because the counter on his website went up by one) is not the fault of the person who caused the indirect harm. Just as it is not the fault of a drug user if the cartel they help fund kills an innocent person and not the fault of the readers of a newspaper if a serial killer kills to get his story published so that people read it.
As far as age of consent goes we need to lower it to at least not cast normal men as sexual predators when they do not cause harm to others. There are a few things to take into consideration though. Sure the only important thing to take into consideration is if anybody is victimized. If it is normal for men to be attracted to infants well it is still not okay for them to have sex with infants. So the medical community at least seems to think a person should be capable of consent by the time they turn 15 years old, as at 15 they do not default to the position of the adult in the equation. I cannot fathom an age of consent above 15 years old, especially as most 15 year olds have reached adult physical maturity as well. Some 14 year olds are also certainly able to consent although it might be rarer. 13 year olds are not likely able to consent. So there are a few things we can do. The most fair thing is to have it so individuals take some sort of test and become licensed as capable of consent. Age is not what matters it is the cognitive development of the individual. If I thought it would cause harm to some 14 year old if I had sex with them, well I wouldn't allow myself to take advantage of them. But if they have proven that I will not cause harm to them by having sex with them, why should I not have sex with them if they want to have sex with me? I am not going to lie and say that I am not attracted to 14 year olds because I certainly am, just as normal men are! Another option is to do something like what Germany does, they have two ages of consent. The minimum age of consent in germany is 14, it is legal in many instances for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old. I believe teachers and others in positions of authority over the 14 year old are still not allowed to have sex with them. Also, if a 14 year old makes a claim that they were taken advantage of, then it becomes illegal for the adult to have had sex with them. But if the 14 year old never makes such a claim and the adult is not in a position of authority over them, then it is totally legal. The second age of consent in Germany is 16 years old, and a teacher can have sex with a 16 year old and a 16 year old who consents to sex can not later change her mind and decide she was taken advantage of. Another option is that we can lower the age of consent to the minimum age where a substantial portion of the people have achieved the ability to consent. 15 is when most have, 14 is where several have, so I would say 14 is fine in my book. What is NOT acceptable is what the USA is doing, which is saying that the age of consent is the age where it is EXCEPTIONAL for somebody to not be capable of consenting. It is the exact opposite of what should be done, we should not wait until 99% of people a certain age are capable of consent and punish men who have sex with people in an age range where 80% of people are capable of giving consent.
I think we should be very strict on crime and I have little sympathy for criminals. Hell, I am a totalibertarian, anything that violates the liberty of another should be harshly dealt with. Stealing should result in severe sentences, rape in life sentences, child molestation in life sentences. But before we can be strict on criminals we need to accept that what we currently think of as criminal is not! We need to legalize drugs, we need to legalize the viewing of CP and any other information, we need to lower the age of consent , etc. We need to have laws not that the majority support but that no reasonable person would reject. No reasonable person would reject that stealing is wrong or that child molestation is wrong or that murder is wrong, but there are plenty of reasonable people who reject that the age of consent should be 18 or that it should be illegal to merely view child pornography, and this is evidenced by the fact that the age of consent is below 18 in the majority of the world and child porn is legal to view in half of the world.
-
When I was in prison me and a couple other people killed some of you sick fucks. Hope I see you in there one day.
You killed people who had never had sex with anybody under the age of 18 or ever even claimed to have ever looked at CP in their entire lives, but who had opinions differing from your own? Wow you do belong in prison!
Well, I mostly helped co-ordinate getting out of securitys view. But to answer your question, yes.
Have you ever considered that you might have killed somebody who wouldn't have even been in prison if they lived in Japan or perhaps Germany? Don't you feel that killing somebody is much worse than looking at a picture?
You STILL dont get it. Wtf does legality have to do with this subject? You think the community is going to feel different about you if you are in a state or country that allows you to hide behind a fucking loophole so you can look at kids?
WTF do you want? You want to fuck 14 year olds? Why the fuck would they want to fuck you? 99.9% of 14year olds dont want to fuck a man.. they want to fuck 14-17 year old boys or girls.
Well I never claimed that I am resisting the hoards of 14 year olds trying to jump on my dick lol. And it is not a loophole in these countries, you can try to discredit the laws of these countries all you want to or say that it is the shadowy pedophile mafia that has caused their laws to be such or say whatever you want, but the fact is other countries disagree with your sense of morality and I disagree with it as well. I also find it hard to imagine that if some hot 14 or 15 year old girl wanted to have sex with you that you would not want to fuck her as well. Maybe you wouldn't , hell probably you wouldn't even given how strongly you feel on the matter, but certainly I have no doubt that you would want to.
-
I don't agree with everything you say man, but yeah, I can understarnd some of your points. I certainly don't see our world heading in the direction that you're suggesting. You'll need nothing short of a new paradigm and new way of thinking.
-
Maybe things will get worse before they get better but the general trend over time is freedom. Two hundred years ago black people could be enslaved. Two hundred years from now people will wonder why it was ever a crime to look at any picture. Maybe before that happens there will be a holocaust of pedophiles, but today it is not a crime to be Jewish in Germany. The new paradigm will be anarchy instead of statism and libertarianism instead of slavery to the collective. I can already see that we are moving in this direction in many ways, and who knows how long it will take but I am confident that in some hundred of years people will not be persecuted because of their desires but rather because of their actions. And as I said there are already a number of factors in play that will lead to CP being decriminalized. Teenagers are huge producers of CP at 25% of teenagers in the US having taken sexual pictures of themselves and sent them over the internet. People are not going to tolerate teenagers being turned into sex offenders for being normal humans, and already in many states even of the USA they are discussing decriminalization of jailbait porn for teenagers. It is a small step from there to decriminalization of jailbait porn in general, and indeed some countries have already legalized possession of pornography featuring young teenagers even when other forms of child porn are still illegal to possess. Additionally, although the people as a whole are hysterical about CP possession, the people in positions of power such as federal judges are much more enlightened, and they are calling for reduced sentencing for CP possession and trying to make changes to the law. Additionally as more research is done people will see more and more that the people who view CP are largely not a risk to society, and indeed even that allowing pedophiles to view CP reduces their risk of offending with actual children. Once people are educated on the matter they will become more and more hesitant to sacrifice the lives of children in order to hurt those they find to be disgusting. A logical person who is against child molestation would be in favor of decriminalizing the possession of child pornography if they knew the facts, and the facts are going to keep coming even as some in the government (police, prisons, etc) continue trying to spread misinformation and to suppress the truth.
When the Supreme Court said that child pornography must be illegal and not protected as free speech, the world was a very different place. Back then almost everybody who got child porn was directly funding the molestation of children, almost everybody who produced child porn was sexually abusing children. Today almost nobody involved with child porn has contributed to the molestation of children and the biggest producers of child porn are teenagers with camera phones. The original argument that the supreme court made for criminalization of child porn is irrelevant in the modern world.
-
Maybe things will get worse before they get better but the general trend over time is freedom. Two hundred years ago black people could be enslaved. Two hundred years from now people will wonder why it was ever a crime to look at any picture. Maybe before that happens there will be a holocaust of pedophiles, but today it is not a crime to be Jewish in Germany. The new paradigm will be anarchy instead of statism and libertarianism instead of slavery to the collective. I can already see that we are moving in this direction in many ways, and who knows how long it will take but I am confident that in some hundred of years people will not be persecuted because of their desires but rather because of their actions. And as I said there are already a number of factors in play that will lead to CP being decriminalized. Teenagers are huge producers of CP at 25% of teenagers in the US having taken sexual pictures of themselves and sent them over the internet. People are not going to tolerate teenagers being turned into sex offenders for being normal humans, and already in many states even of the USA they are discussing decriminalization of jailbait porn for teenagers. It is a small step from there to decriminalization of jailbait porn in general, and indeed some countries have already legalized possession of pornography featuring young teenagers even when other forms of child porn are still illegal to possess. Additionally, although the people as a whole are hysterical about CP possession, the people in positions of power such as federal judges are much more enlightened, and they are calling for reduced sentencing for CP possession and trying to make changes to the law. Additionally as more research is done people will see more and more that the people who view CP are largely not a risk to society, and indeed even that allowing pedophiles to view CP reduces their risk of offending with actual children. Once people are educated on the matter they will become more and more hesitant to sacrifice the lives of children in order to hurt those they find to be disgusting. A logical person who is against child molestation would be in favor of decriminalizing the possession of child pornography if they knew the facts, and the facts are going to keep coming even as some in the government (police, prisons, etc) continue trying to spread misinformation and to suppress the truth.
When the Supreme Court said that child pornography must be illegal and not protected as free speech, the world was a very different place. Back then almost everybody who got child porn was directly funding the molestation of children, almost everybody who produced child porn was sexually abusing children. Today almost nobody involved with child porn has contributed to the molestation of children and the biggest producers of child porn are teenagers with camera phones. The original argument that the supreme court made for criminalization of child porn is irrelevant in the modern world.
You should commit suicide.
-
Why should I kill myself? As already stated, I have never had sex with anybody under the age of 18, and indeed child pornography is not something that interests me, nor am I a pedophile for that matter. As previously stated, I am at 'worst' an ephebophile, and as the previously cited research shows this is extremely normal! I mean, can you really say that you don't find this girl (legal picture from out of some movie to ensure it cannot possibly be interpreted as CP of any sort, randomly selected by me so I could find a reference) to be sexually attractive?
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM1OTk1MTM4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzcwNDk5NA@@._V1._SX640_SY964_.jpg
That is what a 15 year old girl looks like, just for your information. I imagine that you have some image in your mind of a young child, and I just want to show you what an actual 15 year old actually looks like. I should kill myself because I find her to be attractive, despite the fact that I don't even try to have sex with girls that age (although think it should be legal to and is natural to)?! Or I should kill myself because I say that people should be able to look at CP, ignoring the fact that I never even said that I myself am into CP (although plenty of others have said as much on my behalf, despite having no clue what I do or do not look at!). Pictures of prepuberty and early puberty kids simply are not attractive to me, I have no desire to look at them. If I could legally look at pictures of naked 15 year old girls, I certainly would, and I imagine a huge portion of males would as well. Maybe all males should just kill themselves.
But my primary point is that you want to kill me for my beliefs rather than my actions, which is truly scary.
Hell I even think this 14 year old girl is pretty attractive:
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BODAwNzIwNjkwNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjIxOTExNA@@._V1._SX640_SY427_.jpg
That girl is what I would consider borderline too young. So I suppose she is my 18 year old, lol. Tho I do find some 13 year olds to be attractive as well (for example http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjA5ODc3MzMyOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTMyMTQyNw@@._V1._SX640_SY960_.jpg seems at least somewhat attractive to me at 13, but she is too young for me to feel comfortable with), but many are simply too young looking. Pretty much as you drop from 14 I am exponentially less likely to find somebody of that age attractive, but it probably doesn't get down to universally not sexually appealing until 11. Though this doesn't mean I think it should be legal to have sex with early developing 12 or 13 year olds, I don't. But 14 I think is old enough in many cases, and most 15 year olds are old enough to consent.
guess I am a total sick fuck :( , oh well I will just take reassurance in the research that normal men are aroused by 12+ year olds as much as they are by 20+ year olds.
-
200 years ago pedos made the law. 200 years from now we will be so protective of children we will execute those for viewing abused pictures of kids.
In my community you cant even take a picture at sporting event of a child unless you are licensed, checked by police and have been hired by the properties owner/leaser . Parents cant even take pictures.
Dont hold your breath about laws getting any easier for rock spiders. People will happily give up their own freedoms to stop you fuckers.
Even under anarchy and libertarianism there are rules that you do not cross without consequences. You cant go up to a libertarian and tell them you enjoyed a rape film of their daughter and expect them not to try and kill you. Under anarchy you cant rape somebody and not expect retaliation, hopefully your life.
As long as there are pedos there will be multiple victims. victims will never fight for your freedom. Not now and not in 200years time.
If your perfect little world plays out, you guys will still have to hide. If the world is as liberal as you are hoping, then the laws regarding victim retaliation will also be liberal. Kill a pedo today!! Get 18months. In 200 years you will get a fucking silver star
-
If I could legally look at pictures of naked 15 year old girls, I certainly would, and I imagine a huge portion of males would as well. Maybe all males should just kill themselves.
But my primary point is that you want to kill me for my beliefs rather than my actions, which is truly scary.
Somehow I get the feeling that following the law is not what you do.
-
In my community you cant even take a picture at sporting event of a child unless you are licensed, checked by police and have been hired by the properties owner/leaser . Parents cant even take pictures.
And that doesn't seem like hysteria to you?
-
my idea of a good looking 15 year old: http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM1OTk1MTM4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzcwNDk5NA@@._V1._SX640_SY964_.jpg
novocains idea of a good looking 15 year old: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Burqa_IMG_1127.jpg
-
In my community you cant even take a picture at sporting event of a child unless you are licensed, checked by police and have been hired by the properties owner/leaser . Parents cant even take pictures.
And that doesn't seem like hysteria to you?
Its an annoyance, its over the top yes. Im the first person to jump up and down when my rights are slightly effected but this I will defend until there is a day when there isnt a sick cunt taking photos to go whack off to of an 11 year old swimming team... getting that appetite for the real thing.
I m sorry I never check any of those links you post on here. No offense. Can you describe them to me?
Oh I just saw burqa in the link.. ha. I get it. The robot has a sense of humour. Who would have thought!
-
I would describe the links as a very hot 15 year old actress, a sexually appealing but border line too young 14 year old actress, and a somewhat sexually appealing but needs another year 13 year old actress.
-
So just to be clear as to my age range for sexual attraction, with references (note that all pictures are merely of actresses from movies and such, and that they have obviously consented to their pictures being viewed, and I am not finding random pictures on myspace, so don't feel like it is inappropriate to use their pictures as references for the development of girls at a certain age)
15 = hot -> http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM1OTk1MTM4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzcwNDk5NA@@._V1._SX640_SY964_.jpg
14 = borderline too young but still quite attractive -> http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BODAwNzIwNjkwNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjIxOTExNA@@._V1._SX640_SY427_.jpg
13 = somewhat attractive but too young -> http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjA5ODc3MzMyOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTMyMTQyNw@@._V1._SX640_SY960_.jpg
12 = clearly too young and not really sexually attractive as looks like a child -> http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTY1OTcxOTI0M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTU2MjM3OA@@._V1._SX640_SY914_.jpg
I just wonder if anybody can really disagree with me? Please before you tell me I should kill myself at least look at what girls look like at the age ranges I am attracted to (in addition to much older as well), and tell me that I am a sick deviant after having done so. Prior to your doing this I don't think I am even going to consider suicide! I mean using these pictures as references of what girls a certain age look like, I see the sharpest difference between 12 (which looks like a child and certainly too young and not sexually appealing to me at all in this instance) and 13 (which looks a lot more sexually appealing but still a bit too young). I don't think that the 13 year old actress looks like a child though. But the 12 year old looks like a child and is not at all appealing to me.
-
Oh god, you're completely mad. I found 15 year old girls attractive when I was 15. Now they're just teenage girls to me. Get the hell out of here.
-
Oh god, you're completely mad. I found 15 year old girls attractive when I was 15. Now they're just teenage girls to me. Get the hell out of here.
I highly doubt that you don't find that 15 year old girl to be attractive, but feel free to keep lying to yourself (or just others) for whatever reason. Like I said, all research is on my side, blah blah blah, maybe you are one of the exceptionally rare males who is not attracted to 15 year olds but it is highly doubtful given how rare they are.
Over the past few days I came up with a nice analogy to show why thinking with emotions is a bad thing. This idea was brought on by novocaines observation that the victims will never side with me.
Imagine that there is a world owned by the couple Alice and Bob, and they create the laws of the world and enforce them but they only enforce laws that have already been created. Alice and Bob have two young kids, Carol and Dan. One day, Carol decides she wants to try MDMA. Unforunately, due to the war on drugs of Alice and Bob, Carol cannot get MDMA from a legitimate source, and rather gets it from the shady dealer Earl. Except to make a quick buck and duck the law, Earl has passed off some dangerous research chemical as MDMA, and because of this Carol overdoses and dies. Now Alice and Bob are quite emotional people, and as they feel they have been victimized by drug users and drug dealers, they create even more strict laws against drugs. In a big round up of drug dealers, they arrest both Earl and another drug dealer named Fran. Now, Fran only sold high quality drugs and never misrepresented them to try to make a buck at the risk of her customers health. But Alice and Bob don't care because Fran is a drug dealer, and drug dealers killed their little girl. So now Alice and Bob feel emotionally satisfied that they have done something in the name of their daughter, cracked down on drugs, etc. But nothing changes! The drug laws are even more restrictive, people have higher motivation to pass off dangerous legal drugs as saught after substances, and although Earl is rightfully in jail Fran is in jail despite never having caused harm to anybody or wronged anybody at all. But any appeal to logic is seen as crazy by Alice and Bob, after all, drug dealers killed their daughter and they are victims of the drug dealers and will never side with the people who hurt their daughter.
In a more logical world, Alice and Bob would realize that although superficially the reason their daughter died is because of the bad drugs Earl sold her, in reality the reason she died is because there was a war on drugs in the first place. If drugs were not forced to be underground, self regulation of the industry would occur on a much larger scale, people like Earl would not be reputable, people would get brand name drugs from legitimate stores and the quality would be assured as the brand of the company selling the drugs would depend on it. Stores like this would likely be operated by dealers like Fran, and dealers like Earl would never even be part of the equation. So instead of seeing drugs and drug dealers as one big system, Alice and Bob would be better to analyze the *details* of the system, and had they done so they would realize the root cause of the problem was not Earl but rather their policy on drugs in the first place. And assuming they have an emotional rather than logic response, the fact that nothing has really changed is going to lead their other child Dan to be at risk of meeting the same fate as Carol. It becomes a perpetual cycle of tragedies, the tragedies being that kids like Carol and Dan are dying, that innocent people like Fran are going to prison despite not really being bad people, etc. The only thing that changes is the emotional response of Alice and Bob, they *FEEL* that their actions are making a difference despite the fact that their actions are causing this horrible cycle.
The same thing holds for CP as well. Imagine the same characters, except this time Carol is abducted, raped and murdered by Earl (and Fran is now Fred). Now Earl also takes pictures of the molestation of Carol and publishes them on the internet. Fred is a pedophile but he doesn't rape kids because he has the ability to control himself. But he doesn't feel that he causes harm to anybody by looking at their photographs, and he views CP to help him manage his deviant urges, plus it is legal to do so in the Land Of Alice and Bob. Now since Alice and Bob are emotional and have an emotional response, immediately after their daughter is killed they crack down on pedophiles. Now just viewing CP gets a death sentence, and they round up many pedophiles and kill them along with Earl (Although Fred remains undetected). Alice and Bob are still hurt at the loss of their daughter, but they feel better and more in control knowing that they have done something. But the situation has not really been made better, in fact it has been made worse. Fred has always had urges to rape kids, but has kept it in check partially by using pornography as an outlet. He knew in the past that viewing CP was legal and he could not get in trouble for it, but now if he looks at it he risks the same death sentence as someone who actually molests kids. Now maybe he is a good person and decides he still will look at pictures instead of rape kids, because he doesn't want to damage kids. But his motivation for not raping kids just got a lot less. He cannot control his desires and he needs an outlet, he could try to abstain from all such activities but realistically that is just not likely to happen. So maybe he ends up abducting and killing Dan, the other child of Alice and Bob. And the cycle of tragedies continues, kids are abducted and raped and photographed and killed, people have emotional responses and it leads them to hurt a lot of people who are not really doing anything that causes harm to society (all the people who were merely looking at photographs), and indeed they make it MORE likely for such people to START causing actual harm to society (because now they will get the same sentence for viewing images as they will for actually raping kids). The only thing good that comes of it is that Alice and Bob feel more in control, they *FEEL* like they are making a difference, but it is just a delusion, just a feeling, a deceptive emotion that is the opiate they use to mask their pain. In reality they are contributing to the problem, and the cycle will continue over and over and nothing will change but more kids will be hurt and more innocent people will be sent to prison and killed. In a more logical world Alice and Bob would be able to *SEE* that it is not Freds fault that their daughter was killled, sure kill Earl he certainly deserves nothing but death, but he is a different thing than Fred. Alice and Bob will say oh we are the victims of pedophiles how could we ever side with them, but in thinking this way (based off of their emotions) they are contributing to tragedies instead of preventing them.
We need to look at the parts of these things and see what the real problem is. The problem is not drug dealers and drugs, the problem is bastards selling dangerous drugs as less dangerous drugs, the problem is caused by the same war on drugs that people rally for when the problem manifests itself with the death of a child. And then they send more and more innocent people to prison, people who if given a chance would stop the deaths associated with drugs or at least reduce them significantly. The problem is not pedophiles looking at pictures, the problem is people who cannot control themselves and/or have no respect for the life of a human. This problem is intensified by the same war on pedophiles looking at pictures, because it equates them with people who abuse children and if they are seen as equal or punished such that they may as well be equal, there is less motivation for them to not rape kids. If they are seen as just as bad to society as the people actually raping kids, they will internalize that in many cases, they will say I am not going to stop doing things like this because I nearly cannot, and if they think I am as bad as possible for looking at pictures why shouldn't I rape kids? And it takes a truly good person and logical person at that to realize that right and wrong are independent of what this brainwashed society says, because even if society says looking at CP is as bad as raping a child I have to respect the pedophiles who know better than this. And it is the same thing, a bunch of preventable tragedies done in the name of the good feelings of the victims, so the current victims can feel good and feel in control and like they are doing something to help, we let them do things that are not only unhelpful but are counter productive, things that lead to the deaths of children and to the demonization of people who should be seen as neutral or even applauded for knowing that looking at a picture is not the same thing as raping a fucking child.
-
Honestly I couldn't even claim that I am certain I could tell the age difference between this 18 year old
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk2MzEwNzY1M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjE3NTI3Nw@@._V1._SX427_SY640_.jpg
versus this 15 year old
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM1OTk1MTM4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzcwNDk5NA@@._V1._SX640_SY964_.jpg
(and actually I think the 18 year old looks younger in this picture of her when she is 19: http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BODE1ODU3NDg0Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjMyMTMzOQ@@._V1._SX618_SY473_.jpg , largely because her skin has more of a glow to it).
But my general point is I don't see how you could possibly find the 18 and 19 year old as attractive but not the 15 year old, the difference between their appearance is negligible, with the only real tell being skin smoothness and glow (which I actually find more attractive anyway, and I imagine most men do as well, or why else would older females spend a fortune trying to make their skin appear like that?).
-
Real CP you know it when you've seen it. They look like little girls. Teen videos and ones that claim to be 14-15 are just high school seniors that are 18 and look younger than they are. That is why Larry flints "barely legal" series are so popular. Some of the most watched videos on porn websites are teen ones, if you type in "teen porn" you will find Millions of teen based websites with girls that look younger than 18 and they even have disclaimers saying so "all models are 18 yeas of age" or some shit, because they look so young, they were picked because of that.
So, for all this RAWR! CP!!" The CP that is disgusting is the shit you KNOW are little girls and I mean LITTLE, not a young teenager. You can find so many models that look 14-15 years old on porn sites and they are 19-21 years old. So, just stop it.
CP you know it when you see it, if there is even a hint of doubt it's probably fake CP (pictures are a Photoshopped all to hell) I think CNN did a special on CP at one point and showed how easy it was to turn in a 20 year old into a 10 year old with some simple Photoshop tricks.
-
Real CP you know it when you've seen it. They look like little girls. Teen videos and ones that claim to be 14-15 are just high school seniors that are 18 and look younger than they are. That is why Larry flints "barely legal" series are so popular. Some of the most watched videos on porn websites are teen ones, if you type in "teen porn" you will find Millions of teen based websites with girls that look younger than 18 and they even have disclaimers saying so "all models are 18 yeas of age" or some shit, because they look so young, they were picked because of that.
So, for all this RAWR! CP!!" The CP that is disgusting is the shit you KNOW are little girls and I mean LITTLE, not a young teenager. You can find so many models that look 14-15 years old on porn sites and they are 19-21 years old. So, just stop it.
CP you know it when you see it, if there is even a hint of doubt it's probably fake CP (pictures are a Photoshopped all to hell) I think CNN did a special on CP at one point and showed how easy it was to turn in a 20 year old into a 10 year old with some simple Photoshop tricks.
Stop what? First of all there is a metric fuck ton of real "CP" featuring teenagers of various under 18 year old ages, it is called jailbait and is a substantial part of CP. Sure, I know that there is also a metric fuck ton of really obvious CP, ranging from 'meh' pictures of nudist kids to 'wtf' pictures of young kids being molested to 'omfgwtf' pictures of little kids being tortured and raped. Big spectrum, I never denied that. I merely said that although I personally am not into CP, I don't deny that I am attracted to teenagers and don't give a flying fuck about jailbait. But, that said, I also don't give a flying fuck what people look at at all! Because a picture of a child being abused is not child abuse, etc. I guess I am just left wondering what it is you want me to just stop? I certainly never said that all CP is jailbait, I only said that jailbait is the only CP I would personally be interested in, since everybody decided I am a pedophile because I support the right of people to free speech etc. I also did mention that most men also are quite similar to me in this way, and indeed you are right the popularity of the fake jailbait sites is just proof of that. But actually if you go to a porn site that allows user uploaded content, a lot of the teen porn you look at is actually underage shit, the same underage teen shit that is traded on illegal forums in some cases. The thing is police don't really give a fuck about it. Some of it is certainly older girls trying to look like young teenagers, but a substantial amount of it is also young teenagers. If you go to porn sites that allow user uploaded content and look at teenage or barely legal pornography there is a very high chance that you have actually looked at underage porn.
Of course if you go to a site that sells content that they produce or contract for themselves, it is overwhelmingly going to be legal. But go to any public porn site that allows users to upload files or galleries, or any amateur site that is real, searching for teen porn is gonna turn up real underage porn, you just wont be able to tell it apart from the legal porn that tries to look like it is underage teenagers. Which is also why this is kind of funny, because some of the people calling me a sick fuck probably look at "legal" porn on such sites and actually it is not as legal as they think it is :P. Barely legal and teen porn is massively popular and unless you are getting it straight from the commercial producers and not from free sites that allow user uploaded content, well, you probably jacked off to a 15 year old at least once by now :P.
-
kmfkewm, wasn't directed at you.
-
I found 15 year old girls attractive when I was 15. Now they're just teenage girls to me.
I'm with you on this. There's a lot more to attraction that the physical looks.
Yeah, a 15 year old can look attractive, but talk to her and you'll see she is still not much more than a young child.
"Has a pretty face, breasts and pubic hair" does not equal "is attractive", in my opinion.
This thread is about CP though, so we are talking mainly about physical looks rather than emotional maturity. But to me, I can't separate the two. Why look at a picture of a 15 year old when you can look at a picture of a 27 year old instead?
-
I found 15 year old girls attractive when I was 15. Now they're just teenage girls to me.
I'm with you on this. There's a lot more to attraction that the physical looks.
Yeah, a 15 year old can look attractive, but talk to her and you'll see she is still not much more than a young child.
"Has a pretty face, breasts and pubic hair" does not equal "is attractive", in my opinion.
This thread is about CP though, so we are talking mainly about physical looks rather than emotional maturity. But to me, I can't separate the two. Why look at a picture of a 15 year old when you can look at a picture of a 27 year old instead?
Honestly I don't care much about the personality of the adult females in the porn I look at, and I have never once talked to any of them. For me attraction is 80% visual, and I think teenagers and young twenty year olds are more visually appealing. Especially when it comes to porn, that is 100% visual attraction there is nothing else to even take into consideration. The emotional maturity of a girl is not encoded into pictures taken of her, just the way light reflects off of her. I am only being a little sarcastic when I say that I think some people must think Harry Potter is real and living creatures exist in photographs.
Sure when it comes to having real relationships with people there is more to take into account, although visual attraction is still a huge role. For short term sexual relationship visual attraction is pretty close to as much the deciding factor as it is in porn. For long term relationship personality and other factors come into play a lot more. But in the context of porn the argument doesn't make much sense to me, because you don't talk to pictures you just enjoy them. In the context of relationship that is meaningful or even short term it comes into play because you seem to think that 14 and 15 year olds are not mentally developed despite being physically developed. I just don't know that I can agree that they are not mentally developed enough, I think even the medical community says that on average a 15 year old is capable of consenting and will not defer to authority. In the case of a 14 year old it might be more risky that they are taken advantage of, but I think 14 is pretty much the borderline from both physical and mental perspective. Younger than that is not likely to be physically mature enough to be more than starting to develop sexually attractive characteristics (and much younger is not gonna have such characteristics at all), and younger than that is not likely to be mature enough to consent. But I think that is a good argument for the age of consent being 14 instead of 18, perhaps with some restrictions for 14-15 like they are off limits to authority figures and can retroactively revoke consent for a period of time. That is the law in Germany and I think it makes more sense, it is a better balance between protecting children and not demonizing normal men who are not even victimizing children in many cases.
18 = can consent to sex with anyone, cannot retrospectively revoke
16 = can consent to sex except with authority figures, cannot revoke previously given consent in the future (I thought they could have sex with people in authority positions as well but I was mistaken. So Germany actually has four age categories: can consent to anyone, can consent to people not in authority positions, can consent to people not in authority positions but can revoke consent retrospectively, cannot consent).
14 = can consent to sex except with authority figures such as teachers or police, can revoke consent in the future and argue that they were taken advantage of and manipulated due to their age
13 = cannot consent at all
German Law on consent:
2) Where sex occurs between an adult (over 18 or 21) and young persons between
14 and 16, prosecution depends on the following circumstances (Sexual abuse of
young persons Art.182):
For a person over 18 years (young adult and adult) sex with young persons between
14 and 16 is forbidden if accompanied by money or gifts of value, or if the adult takes
advantage of the distressed situation of the young person (eg. homelessness) in order
to procure sex. (An exception *may* be granted if the young person is a prostitute.
In addition to this, it is forbidden for a person over 21 years (adult) to perform any
sexual act with a person under 16, if the young person is not capable of sexual
self-determination; (This determination can only be made after the 'victim' has been
given a psychological examination). This last regulation is pursued only on complaint of
the victim's parents or foster-parents, except for cases of public interest.
The legal age of consent for dependent relationships, (e.g., teacher/student etc) is
18 (Sexual abuse of dependants Art. 174).
and it looks like they also break CP into three categories as well
13 and under = child porn , illegal, strictly prosecuted
14-17 = youth porn, legally ambiguous, tolerated
18+ = legal
I think the following quote shows a funny absurdness to their law though:
Giving access and showing pornography to persons under 18 is forbidden. It is, for
instance, legal for a man or woman to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old, and to
video or film this activity, but it is not legal to show this film to the young person
concerned or to any other person under 18.
Although it is no worse than the USA, where it is legal to look directly at the breasts of a 16 year old in some states but illegal to look at a photograph of them.
It actually looks like it is legal to produce porn of 14 year olds for commercial distribution in Germany, provided they have their parents permission, pass a psychological evaluation and are not financially compensated for it.
So really even the claim that CP is legal in 50% of the world is an understatement, in many European countries it seems they allow porn of 14-17 year olds to be viewed and even produced.
-
Wow times sure have changed in the UK huh? Up to 2003 some of your newspapers with national distribution regularly featured pictures of naked 16 year olds on page 3! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3
Before 2003, British tabloids could legally feature 16- and 17-year-old girls as topless models. Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby, and others began their topless modelling careers in the Sun when they were 16, while the Daily Sport was even known to count down the days until it could feature a girl topless on her 16th birthday, as it did with Linsey Dawn McKenzie in 1994. In 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum legal age for topless modelling to 18.
So, 2003 count down to when you can see pictures of 16 year old girls flashing on page 3 of your newspaper, 2013 castrate and shoot the men who want to look at pictures of naked 16 year olds. WTF happened over those ten years?!
-
u seen that man who want to eat a children lolol
-
OP, do you use methamphetamine? No disrespect intended. I just note you have produced a LOT of words in service of this thread, and you are presumably on SR for other reasons than debate.