Silk Road forums

Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 06:01 am

Title: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post 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.

Quote
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.

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: AbuNazir on August 09, 2013, 06:05 am
Sick child rapist. You should be castrated.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 06:15 am
I am a sick child rapist because I can identify trends and extrapolate them to the future?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: AbuNazir on August 09, 2013, 06:24 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 06:29 am
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 06:32 am
Quote
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

Quote
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).
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: AbuNazir on August 09, 2013, 06:41 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 09, 2013, 06:43 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: KintaroBC on August 09, 2013, 07:00 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 07:01 am
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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/

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 07:02 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 07:04 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: KintaroBC on August 09, 2013, 07:06 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: VinnieJones on August 09, 2013, 07:07 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 07:08 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 09, 2013, 07:11 am
And the most epic flame war in Silk Road history has begun!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 07:18 am
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: KintaroBC on August 09, 2013, 07:19 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 07:21 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Alutnarat on August 09, 2013, 07:46 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 07:52 am
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 08:02 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: GetFucked0101 on August 09, 2013, 08:10 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 08:24 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 08:26 am
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

Quote

"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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: TMan99 on August 09, 2013, 08:28 am
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.


Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Alutnarat on August 09, 2013, 08:35 am
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!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 08:47 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 08:48 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 08:54 am
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!".
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: TMan99 on August 09, 2013, 08:57 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Alutnarat on August 09, 2013, 09:02 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Alutnarat on August 09, 2013, 09:04 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 09:16 am

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.



Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 09:21 am
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 09:23 am
Posting in this thread earned me -2 Karma, anyone else?   :)
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 09, 2013, 09:35 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 09:59 am

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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 10:07 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: isallmememe on August 09, 2013, 10:11 am
omg its fucking joepedo. we haven't missed you at &Z btw you fucking nonse cunt.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 09, 2013, 10:16 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 10:25 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Alutnarat on August 09, 2013, 10:28 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 10:32 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Quote
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]

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Alutnarat on August 09, 2013, 10:33 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Alutnarat on August 09, 2013, 10:34 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Quote
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 10:37 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 10:40 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: WhiteShark on August 09, 2013, 10:55 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: isallmememe on August 09, 2013, 10:56 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Alutnarat on August 09, 2013, 10:58 am
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 09, 2013, 10:59 am
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 11:07 am
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: mdmafx on August 09, 2013, 11:26 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: isallmememe on August 09, 2013, 11:34 am

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

Quote
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!!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 11:53 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Raoul Duke on August 09, 2013, 12:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 12:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 12:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: isallmememe on August 09, 2013, 12:23 pm
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.

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 12:37 pm
Quote
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Raoul Duke on August 09, 2013, 12:40 pm
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: isallmememe on August 09, 2013, 12:41 pm
but the vast majority of people who look at holocaust pictures aren't fapping over it.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: isallmememe on August 09, 2013, 12:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: isallmememe on August 09, 2013, 12:45 pm
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Raoul Duke on August 09, 2013, 12:46 pm
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 12:48 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 12:50 pm
Quote
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Candy on August 09, 2013, 12:59 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: isallmememe on August 09, 2013, 01:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Raoul Duke on August 09, 2013, 01:06 pm
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


Quote
Quote
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

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Raoul Duke on August 09, 2013, 01:13 pm
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 01:27 pm
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Raoul Duke on August 09, 2013, 01:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 01:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Raoul Duke on August 09, 2013, 02:09 pm
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 09, 2013, 02:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 02:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 09, 2013, 03:53 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 -

Quote
  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!!  >:(

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 09, 2013, 04:29 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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!

Quote
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?

Quote
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: AussieMitch on August 09, 2013, 05:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: abby on August 09, 2013, 06:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 09:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 09:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 09, 2013, 09:29 pm
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...
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 03:38 am
Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: jackofspades on August 10, 2013, 04:06 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 04:48 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 05:19 am
Quote
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.

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 05:50 am
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

Quote
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/

Quote
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/
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 06:17 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 06:33 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Baby Rapist on August 10, 2013, 06:39 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 06:47 am
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. 
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 06:49 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Baby Rapist on August 10, 2013, 06:54 am
They should legalize and tax it. I would pay a high tax for legal CP of high quality.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 06:54 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 06:55 am
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 06:58 am
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:00 am
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child.pornography.linked.lower.rates.child.sex.abuse

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 07:01 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:06 am
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:09 am
Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
The market thesis has no empirical support
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 07:17 am
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

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 07:21 am
Quote
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."

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:26 am
Quote
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:28 am
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!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 07:28 am
Quote
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."

Quote
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?

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:33 am
Quote
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 07:37 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 07:39 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:40 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:41 am
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 07:48 am
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 07:51 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 07:52 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 07:54 am
Quote
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.


Quote
Then why has child sexual abuse fallen in every single country that legalized viewing CP?

Quote
Because it's decreasing everywhere... Canada, the UK, the United States... all places its very much illegal.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 08:20 am
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...

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.[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...

Quote
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...

Quote
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...

Quote
You're just wrong.



Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: novocaine on August 10, 2013, 08:28 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 08:34 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 08:41 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: CannabisCrusader on August 10, 2013, 08:57 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 09:11 am
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

Quote
The market thesis has no empirical support
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 09:12 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: novocaine on August 10, 2013, 09:15 am
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.\\
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Festivalia on August 10, 2013, 09:15 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: TheGhosst on August 10, 2013, 09:18 am
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'
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 09:19 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 09:23 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 09:24 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Festivalia on August 10, 2013, 09:31 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Festivalia on August 10, 2013, 09:33 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 09:37 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Festivalia on August 10, 2013, 09:38 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 09:44 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Hungry ghost on August 10, 2013, 09:48 am
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!


       
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 09:51 am
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!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 09:54 am
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.

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 09:56 am
I'd say your both. Lol. Dysphoric mania.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_%28psychiatry%29

Yes, you can be both.

Hahahaha.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Hungry ghost on August 10, 2013, 10:02 am

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!"
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 10:16 am
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote

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.


Quote
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.

Quote
     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.     

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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 ;) !
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 10:29 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 10:32 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 10:35 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 10:40 am
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 10:41 am
Quote
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.

Quote
An increase in goal-directed activities - See your OP.

lol

Quote
   
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?

Quote
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.

   
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 10:45 am
It would appear so. ^
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: mary666 on August 10, 2013, 10:49 am
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!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 10:55 am
Quote

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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 10:57 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: mary666 on August 10, 2013, 11:02 am
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  ;)
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 11:08 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 11:18 am
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

Quote
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).
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 11:35 am
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
Shit, even within the same sentence...

Example please?

Quote
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.

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 11:42 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 12:04 pm
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:
Quote
        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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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:

Quote
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.
           
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on August 10, 2013, 12:22 pm
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.





Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Dread Pirate Roberts on August 10, 2013, 07:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 07:19 pm
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 10, 2013, 07:32 pm
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Hungry ghost on August 10, 2013, 07:48 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote

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.


Quote
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.

Quote
     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.     

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 10, 2013, 08:13 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote

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.


Quote
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.

Quote
     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.     

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Festivalia on August 10, 2013, 08:43 pm
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

Quote
     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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Hungry ghost on August 11, 2013, 01:08 pm
I do believe you're talking out of your bottom.

No I'm not.

(Now you say "yes you are")
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 11, 2013, 03:39 pm
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!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: NorthernStar on August 11, 2013, 04:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 11, 2013, 05:40 pm
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.

Quote
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.   

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
        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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 11, 2013, 06:12 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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?

Quote
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! 
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 11, 2013, 06:58 pm
Quote
Incorrect information given by kmfkewm:
Quote
        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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
    "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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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".
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 11, 2013, 06:59 pm

Quote
More fud from kmfkewm:
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
Really absent-minded FUD by kwmkewm:
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Incorrect information given by kmfkewm:
Quote
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?


Quote
And then my moment of Zen:

Just posted by kwmkewm:
Quote
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 11, 2013, 07:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Isobetadine on August 16, 2013, 04:10 pm
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.


Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 16, 2013, 05:12 pm
Quote
- 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.

Quote
-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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
-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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
-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.

Quote
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.

Quote
- 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
-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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: titoprince on August 16, 2013, 09:08 pm
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.






Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 16, 2013, 09:44 pm
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 16, 2013, 10:04 pm
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Hungry ghost on August 16, 2013, 11:02 pm
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.
       
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Hungry ghost on August 16, 2013, 11:23 pm
    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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: titoprince on August 17, 2013, 12:06 am

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.


Quote
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.'


Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 17, 2013, 12:29 am

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.   
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 17, 2013, 12:58 am
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.


Quote
    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.   

Quote
       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.

Quote
      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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Hungry ghost on August 17, 2013, 06:16 am
^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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: AbuNazir on August 17, 2013, 09:32 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Hungry ghost on August 17, 2013, 10:29 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Croskin on August 17, 2013, 02:48 pm
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. 
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: titoprince on August 17, 2013, 04:25 pm
Quote
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 18, 2013, 01:15 am
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' ...

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: operatorplease on August 18, 2013, 01:57 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 18, 2013, 06:42 am
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!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 18, 2013, 03:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 18, 2013, 04:15 pm
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!!  >:(
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 19, 2013, 04:55 pm
^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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote

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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 19, 2013, 05:07 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 19, 2013, 05:18 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 19, 2013, 05:34 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 19, 2013, 05:42 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 19, 2013, 06:04 pm
Quote
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

Quote
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.

   
Quote
  >:(  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.

Quote
>:( 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).

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: titoprince on August 19, 2013, 10:56 pm
Now convinced this thread was created for you to meet a Godwin quota.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 19, 2013, 11:19 pm
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

Quote
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: titoprince on August 20, 2013, 03:06 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 20, 2013, 03:34 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 20, 2013, 04:53 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 20, 2013, 05:03 am
Debating with you have never been a debate

Yup.  Nailed it.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 20, 2013, 09:28 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 20, 2013, 09:34 am
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"
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 20, 2013, 09:57 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 20, 2013, 10:16 am
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"

Quote
  " 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!  >:(

Quote
  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.  ??? ??? ???

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 20, 2013, 04:11 pm
Damn wazado you are one emotional motherfucker. Could you possibly make more emoticons in your post?

Quote
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.

Quote
You've been negged 9 times

I have been negged 42 times since I started this thread :D
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 20, 2013, 04:49 pm
Damn wazado you are one emotional motherfucker. Could you possibly make more emoticons in your post?

Quote
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.  ???
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 20, 2013, 07:59 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: abitpeckish on August 20, 2013, 08:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 21, 2013, 02:38 am
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.  :)

Quote
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.  ???

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 21, 2013, 07:35 am
Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 21, 2013, 07:43 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 21, 2013, 07:54 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 21, 2013, 10:06 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 21, 2013, 12:34 pm
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.  >:(
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: abitpeckish on August 21, 2013, 01:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 21, 2013, 05:36 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 21, 2013, 07:07 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: abitpeckish on August 21, 2013, 07:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 21, 2013, 08:05 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Pictures of Jews being tortured and killed during the holocaust depict a historical event.

Pictures made with cameras inherently depict historical events.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: abitpeckish on August 21, 2013, 09:16 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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:

Quote from: abitpeckish
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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."

Quote
Quote
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?

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 21, 2013, 10:29 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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??

Quote
Quote from: abitpeckish
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.   

Quote
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. 



Quote
Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: frank-butcher24 on August 21, 2013, 10:49 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 21, 2013, 10:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 21, 2013, 11:33 pm
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.


Quote
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??  ???

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 22, 2013, 12:30 am
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??

Quote
  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!!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: frank-butcher24 on August 22, 2013, 07:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 22, 2013, 08:06 pm
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: MangoSeason on August 22, 2013, 08:10 pm
So you're saying if CP was legal to view it would take some heat off the darknet..
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 22, 2013, 08:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 22, 2013, 08:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: frank-butcher24 on August 22, 2013, 08:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 22, 2013, 09:23 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: GetFucked0101 on August 23, 2013, 08:22 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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??

Quote
Quote from: abitpeckish
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.   

Quote
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. 



Quote
Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 23, 2013, 08:50 pm
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).
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 23, 2013, 08:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: novocaine on August 23, 2013, 09:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Wadozo on August 23, 2013, 10:05 pm
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.  ::)
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 23, 2013, 10:16 pm
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?

Quote
"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."

Quote
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.

Quote
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??!)

Quote
> 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

Quote
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

Quote
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/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 23, 2013, 10:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 23, 2013, 10:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: ~o~WaterWalker~o~ on August 24, 2013, 02:24 am

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

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 24, 2013, 04:15 am

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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 24, 2013, 05:08 am

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. 
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Praetorian on August 24, 2013, 05:09 am
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: ~o~WaterWalker~o~ on August 24, 2013, 06:19 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 24, 2013, 07:17 am
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?


Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: negativekarma on August 24, 2013, 08:19 am
Sick child rapist. You should be castrated.

lol.. muslim calling kettle a sick child rapist
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 24, 2013, 08:21 am
Quote
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.

Quote
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?!

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
*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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 24, 2013, 08:21 am

Quote
*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.

Quote
* 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


Quote
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]

Quote
*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

Quote
*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.

Quote
*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.

Quote
*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

Quote
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.

Quote
*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.

Quote
* 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

Quote
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.”

Quote
*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.

Quote
*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

Quote
- 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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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!

Quote
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

Quote
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.
                                                                                                                                                                     
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 24, 2013, 08:52 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: chil on August 24, 2013, 09:24 am
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.


Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: negativekarma on August 24, 2013, 10:38 am
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



Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: novocaine on August 25, 2013, 01:29 am
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?

Quote
"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."

Quote
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.

Quote
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??!)

Quote
> 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

Quote
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

Quote
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/

Quote
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

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 03:42 am
Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
Fuck you cunt

blah blah blah fuck you too
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: novocaine on August 25, 2013, 04:14 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: abitpeckish on August 25, 2013, 04:26 am
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: ShazMo on August 25, 2013, 04:33 am
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!!
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 05:25 am
Quote
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.

Quote
Empathy is king. All other emotions are just noise.

Empathy is not an emotion.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Hate is an emotion. I hate trash.

Sure, hatred is an emotion.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Never been to the UK.... once again you are a stupid fuck

Uh-huh then why do you spell it paedo and mum lol.

Quote
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....
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 05:47 am
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?

Quote
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?

??
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: DefyCode on August 25, 2013, 05:52 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 05:57 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: DefyCode on August 25, 2013, 06:07 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on August 25, 2013, 06:20 am
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 06:22 am
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 !!!"
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: DefyCode on August 25, 2013, 06:34 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 06:40 am
Quote
@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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: DefyCode on August 25, 2013, 06:43 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on August 25, 2013, 06:48 am

@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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: DefyCode on August 25, 2013, 06:56 am
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...
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on August 25, 2013, 07:16 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: ~o~WaterWalker~o~ on August 25, 2013, 07:28 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: negativekarma on August 25, 2013, 08:16 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: cethru on August 25, 2013, 08:58 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 09:16 am
Quote
@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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on August 25, 2013, 09:22 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 09:31 am
Quote
@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

Quote
[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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 09:41 am
Quote
@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

Quote
[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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 09:50 am
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
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 10:09 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 10:13 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 10:15 am
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 10:37 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 10:55 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 11:05 am
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.

Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 11:25 am
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? 
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: TheYowie on August 25, 2013, 12:11 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 25, 2013, 12:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: TheYowie on August 25, 2013, 12:23 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 12:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Locker on August 25, 2013, 12:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 12:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Real_Drugs on August 25, 2013, 01:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Locker on August 25, 2013, 02:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Kozmik on August 25, 2013, 03:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: abitpeckish on August 25, 2013, 05:41 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 25, 2013, 06:23 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 07:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 08:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 08:26 pm
Quote
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 ???

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 08:31 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Kozmik on August 25, 2013, 08:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Locker on August 25, 2013, 09:59 pm
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...
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: abitpeckish on August 25, 2013, 10:30 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 10:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: JohnTheBaptist on August 25, 2013, 11:04 pm
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?
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: TheYowie on August 26, 2013, 12:01 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 26, 2013, 07:04 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 26, 2013, 07:16 am
Quote
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.



Quote
Quote
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?

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 26, 2013, 07:27 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 26, 2013, 07:41 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 26, 2013, 07:41 am
Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 26, 2013, 07:58 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 26, 2013, 08:06 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 26, 2013, 08:18 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: kmfkewm on August 26, 2013, 08:39 am
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.
Title: Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
Post by: Railgun on August 26, 2013, 08:49 am