Quote from: kmfkewm on June 16, 2012, 01:26 amQuote from: oscarzululondon on June 15, 2012, 11:45 pmQuote from: kmfkewm on June 15, 2012, 08:41 pmPretty much my goal is to reduce your arguments to their core, which is "The thought of people thinking children are sexually attractive repulses me, let's kill them because of how they feel and think, regardless of what they actually do"We have established that it is possible to legally download child porn in such a way that no information about the demand for child porn can be known, via use of private information retrieval in the Czech Republic. So it is theoretically quite possible to completely shoot down the "demand leads to supply" and "it is illegal" arguments. Numerous scientific studies have been done that shoot down the "child pornography viewing leads to pedophiles being more likely to molest" argument. So really you are simply left with the "These people think things I don't like, let's kill them!!!" argument.Actually that's wrong:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18442288http://ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOP%20IIOCTA%20Executive%20Summary.pdf"A meta-analysis24 of research which looked at prevalence rates of contact sexual offending within different IIOC offender samples established a correlation of 55%"Basically, 55% of people who view child pornography online go on to abuse children in real life.Actually that is wrong and made up bullshit propaganda from law enforcement agencieshttp://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html#ncm40Quote"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 StudyThe 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.so 16% is a more realistic figure, of course then you also need to filter out the people who are called sex offenders for doing things like fucking 16 year olds, that will probably drop at least a few percentage points. Then you also need to take into consideration that this is not at all a comprehensive study, they can at best go off of the people they arrested, and in many cases they found people with CP after busting them in undercover operations where they were pretending to be minors, of course that population of CP possessors is going to have a much higher rate of prior offending. The entire thing is a bunch of propaganda bullshit, at the very worst the figure is 16% and even that is a bullshit exaggeration in reality it is probably below 10%.Of course our common sense should tell us that to say, "Most molesters view child porn" is not the same thing as saying "Most people who view child porn are molesters".I gave some thought to what you said about being able to upload material in such a way that you have no idea how many people have downloaded it. You said that you believed that this would abrogate any moral responsibility from the downloader for encouraging the creator of child pornography to continue to upload such material.Just a few points about this:- Are we sure that this is the way material is shared in practice? Are there no comment sections on images or videos? I imagine there would be on image boards? Also wouldn't it be possible for the people who set up a site like this to monitor visitor traffic to see if there's an interest for their materials, even if they can't tell if a specific file has been downloaded?- Does removing this particular obstacle through use of technology necessarily mean that the downloader won't encourage others by sharing such material themselves with other paedophiles? If so, wouldn't it make them responsible for encouraging the creation and viewing of such materials anyway?- Does removing this particular moral objection to downloading CP i.e that it encourages the creation of yet more CP necessarily mean that there are no other reasons to find such material objectionable? If you don't believe the fact that it causes moral outrage for the majority is a good enough reason to make something illegal where should we draw the line? What about hurtcore and snuff pornography and the like?- Does this issue need to be about legalising or criminalising CP across the board? I imagine you're aware that there are different categories of CP depending on the age of the child and the degree of sexual activity? For instance if a man were caught with a video of intercourse with a six year old girl this would be treated much more severely than a 21 year old man having a picture of his topless 16 year old girlfriend on his phone. As such, can't we just have faith in the current system where apply our common sense on a case by case basis by outlawing more extreme forms of CP involving young children but dealing leniently with teenagers who share provocative images of themselves? V.