Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 4529/7006
(10-Dec-2008 at 03:26)


Originally Posted by Spectre19:
I disagree. They may still abuse children, but if they are producing and selling videos they would obviously be doing more of it to produce those videos.
If you blame violent crime on violent movies and sex crime on sex movies, then yes- you could blame child abuse on child porn movies.

Personally I am so convinced by that argument. People have to be already interested in child sex abuse to either make a movie or watch it. The judge in this case seems to take the view that watching a cartoon of that nature also shows an interest in child sex.


Originally Posted by MarsII:
Purchasing or viewing cartoons that depict it would only encourage people to draw it.
Originally Posted by Knightofnight:
And if they can get off on cartoon porn, isn't that better than them trying to acquire some real child porn?
Got any support for that bizarre assumption? Watching animation doesn't encourage me or anybody I know to draw anything. Watching animated child porn could leave people thinking "hey... that animation was quite a turn on - where can I get the real thing?" though.


Originally Posted by MarsII:
I would be hesitant to equate "happy with" to legal. I don't think any of us are happy with depictions of child sex but what should be made illegal is another matter.
Originally Posted by Spectre19:
He never said he was happy with it, he said it shouldn't be illegal.
It is not that different: either way indicates a willingness to allow it.


Originally Posted by MarsII:
What I would say is that cases involving real children are definitely illegal where as the fictional depiction is not our business. We aren't necessarily "happy" with it but don't think it is our business either
If he is getting a sexual thrill from it, then I think there is a problem and it is our business. If he is sat laughing at it, there is no problem.

You appear to be a bit imprecise in identifying the problem. The cartoon is not really the problem, nor are videos/photos. The problem lies in the mind of the people watching them. We don't allow the photos and videos because the serve only one purpose - the only people watching that stuff are people who have a sexual interest in children.

Cartoons are a bit different. They are often humorous, and the problem here is we don't know what this guy who got fined was thinking while he watched it.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1362/1971
(10-Dec-2008 at 04:26)


Quote:
If you blame violent crime on violent movies and sex crime on sex movies, then yes- you could blame child abuse on child porn movies.
read what i said. I didn't say "there is more child abuse because people will be encouraged to do it after seeing a video" I said "there is more child abuse in order to produce the videos". This doesn't apply to violent movies that don't involve real violence. Don't be daft - you've been saying some quite odd things in this thread.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#22  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4530/7006
(10-Dec-2008 at 05:06)


Re: Animated child porn = real child porn?

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
read what i said. I didn't say "there is more child abuse because people will be encouraged to do it after seeing a video" I said "there is more child abuse in order to produce the videos". This doesn't apply to violent movies that don't involve real violence. Don't be daft - you've been saying some quite odd things in this thread.
You are drawing (or seem to be) a causal connection between the existence of child porn videos and the existence of child porn, in the same way that the violent films=crime brigade do.

The point I am making, or trying to, is that violence exists regardless of violent scenes on TV, and child porn exists regardless of child porn videos. In fact, if social history is correct child sex has flourished at various stages in history long before the technology was available to either photograph it or video it. The videos are a symptom, not a cause or an encouragement. The people who abuse children in videos are already child abusers: they don't become child abusers just because they woke up one morning and decided it was a perfect day to make a child abuse video.

The fact that violent movies don't involve real violence is irrelevant. They are viewed as 'real', or at least virtual, by the watchers - "a willing suspension of disbelief". That is why simulated child porn is still illegal, even though it doesn't show real child abuse and doesn't harm anyone. I trust that you don't think such films should be legal based on an absence of any actual harm to chidren?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1856/2856
(10-Dec-2008 at 07:37)


Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Got any support for that bizarre assumption? Watching animation doesn't encourage me or anybody I know to draw anything. Watching animated child porn could leave people thinking "hey... that animation was quite a turn on - where can I get the real thing?" though.
Watching it and then looking for it fuels the market. However, the court is not in the business of telling people what to think. If they think that the animation is a turn on then it isn't our place to make that thought illegal. However, if they set out to do the real thing then that is where the court is concerned. There are no thought police.

Quote:
It is not that different: either way indicates a willingness to allow it.
I wouldn't say that willingness to allow it means happy with it. I wouldn't be happy with McCain winning the election but I would never seek to make it illegal for him to be president. Same with this. I wouldn't be "happy" with the thought of someone getting off to the thought of children but it isn't my place to tell them what to think.

Quote:
If he is getting a sexual thrill from it, then I think there is a problem and it is our business. If he is sat laughing at it, there is no problem.
Again, there are no thought police and there shouldn't be. What he gets his thrills from isn't our business. Who he hurts is.

Quote:
You appear to be a bit imprecise in identifying the problem. The cartoon is not really the problem, nor are videos/photos. The problem lies in the mind of the people watching them. We don't allow the photos and videos because the serve only one purpose - the only people watching that stuff are people who have a sexual interest in children.
We don't allow the photo and video because someone had to abuse a child to make them. Groups like NAMBLA aren't illegal. What they seek to make legal is illegal.

Quote:
Cartoons are a bit different. They are often humorous, and the problem here is we don't know what this guy who got fined was thinking while he watched it.
We never will know what he thinks and we never should.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#24  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4531/7006
(10-Dec-2008 at 08:12)


Quote:
Watching it and then looking for it fuels the market. However, the court is not in the business of telling people what to think. If they think that the animation is a turn on then it isn't our place to make that thought illegal. However, if they set out to do the real thing then that is where the court is concerned. There are no thought police.
This where your argument stops maing sense. If this particular man had been watching simulated sex with a child, by your argument he shouldn't be prosecuted. He is harming nobody, there are no thought poilice, it is not up to us to tell him what to think - yet those videos are illegal. He could even watch an actual sex act on a child, and by your logic as HE is not harming anybody, and there are no thought police, it should still be legal.


Quote:
Again, there are no thought police and there shouldn't be. What he gets his thrills from isn't our business. Who he hurts is.
Basically, your argument says that anything that isn't directly, physically, abusing a child should be be legal, because it isn't our place to make being turned on by child sex illegal.


Quote:
We don't allow the photo and video because someone had to abuse a child to make them. Groups like NAMBLA aren't illegal. What they seek to make legal is illegal.
That someone is not the people watching the videos. Only the people who *make* the videos are harming children, so by your logic we should prosecute the makers, who do harm children, but not the people who watch them because they don't harm children.


Quote:
We never will know what he thinks and we never should.
If he thinks it is cool to rape an 8 year old girl I think we absolutely should know. I presume you would rather wait until he does that before you would do anything about it.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1857/2856
(10-Dec-2008 at 09:39)


Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
This where your argument stops maing sense. If this particular man had been watching simulated sex with a child, by your argument he shouldn't be prosecuted. He is harming nobody, there are no thought poilice, it is not up to us to tell him what to think - yet those videos are illegal. He could even watch an actual sex act on a child, and by your logic as HE is not harming anybody, and there are no thought police, it should still be legal.




Basically, your argument says that anything that isn't directly, physically, abusing a child should be be legal, because it isn't our place to make being turned on by child sex illegal.




That someone is not the people watching the videos. Only the people who *make* the videos are harming children, so by your logic we should prosecute the makers, who do harm children, but not the people who watch them because they don't harm children.




If he thinks it is cool to rape an 8 year old girl I think we absolutely should know. I presume you would rather wait until he does that before you would do anything about it.
If I see a murder happen by chance I haven't done anything illegal even if I enjoyed it. If I pay someone to murder someone so I can watch, I've now done something illegal. If I tag along to watch a murder for free and don't report it, then I am doing something illegal. If I permit illegal activities to commence or go unpunished for my entertainment, then it is illegal. However, cartoons and fictional depictions involve nobody being hurt. Watching child porn creates a situation where someone is allowing for child abuse to occur without doing anything about it for their entertainment. They are also creating a situation where this will continue because it is profitable. That is how obtaining these materials hurts others indirectly.

Another point to make is that it isn't illegal to see these things whether or not they are enjoyed. It is illegal to seek and posses these things. This creates the market that harms others. Also, seeking these materials even if you didn't enjoy them would also be illegal. So by your logic, it is ok to buy the materials as long as you don't enjoy them.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#26  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4532/7006
(10-Dec-2008 at 15:15)


Quote:
If I pay someone to murder someone so I can watch, I've now done something illegal. If I tag along to watch a murder for free and don't report it, then I am doing something illegal.
If you pay the movie makers, or stand in the wings watching, then yes - you are probably doing something illegal, but so what? We are talking about movies here, remote from the crime both geographically and temporally.


Quote:
However, cartoons and fictional depictions involve nobody being hurt. Watching child porn creates a situation where someone is allowing for child abuse to occur without doing anything about it for their entertainment. They are also creating a situation where this will continue because it is profitable. That is how obtaining these materials hurts others indirectly.
This is just an emotive argument, not a logical one. If I go to the local child porn provider, which child is being hurt by me? I predict you will say "the child in the video", but that is ridiculous. The child in the video was harmed in the past. That is over, finished, done, and most importantly unchangeable - nothing I can do, or you, or anybody else, can change that. If no act of mine can affect the child being harmed, then logically I am not harming them. You could say that I am being immoral by supporting an industry that harms children, but you have already told us that we shouldn't make moral judgements via the law.

They are saying: you can't have it because we think that's wrong not because it is hurting someone.


Quote:
It is illegal to seek and posses these things. This creates the market that harms others.
Another emotive argument. It would only make sense if child porn existed only for the video market, and removing all videos would eradicate it completely. We both know that is not the case, don't we? All that has changed is that now they video acts that have been occuring for millenia.


Quote:
So by your logic, it is ok to buy the materials as long as you don't enjoy them.
You clearly don't understand.

My argument is that videos are not illegal because they harm children - that is just an emotive justification. They are illegal because the kind of people who get excited by them are potential if not actual criminals. If you have child porn on your PC, you will be arrested. Not because the video is inherently harmful in any way, but because your desire to see it is a strong indicator that you are interested in child sex abuse.

The same argument could apply to a desire to see animated child porn. Or it could be that you find it a hilarious piss-take, in which case it indicates a weird but harmless sense of humour.

Without seeing the video and interviewing the individual charged in this case, we can't know which it is.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#27  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1363/1971
(10-Dec-2008 at 15:19)


Quote:
Another emotive argument. It would only make sense if child porn existed only for the video market, and removing all videos would eradicate it completely. We both know that is not the case, don't we? All that has changed is that now they video acts that have been occuring for millenia.
"Banning child porn will not eliminate all instances of child abuse, so it shouldn't be illegal"

Ok, VoR...

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#28  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4533/7006
(10-Dec-2008 at 15:29)


Re: Animated child porn = real child porn?

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
"Banning child porn will not eliminate all instances of child abuse, so it shouldn't be illegal"

Ok, VoR...
I think you need to read again... a little more carefully...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#29  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1364/1971
(10-Dec-2008 at 16:13)


I read it perfectly.

If you ban child porn, it hurts the child porn industry by taking out the demand. Less porn gets made, and less children get abused.

Your comment - "All that has changed is that now they video acts that have been occuring for millenia." - is bullshit because something else has changed; it happens more as a result.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#30  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4767/4829
(10-Dec-2008 at 17:24)


Lol. That's gonna either shut down 90% of hentai or simply result in an obligatory "I'm 18" from some short flat chested anime kid that would be lucky to pass as a 6th grader. What would the courts do for that? Require that the anime person provide a valid government ID as proof of age?

Anyway, I don't think that it makes sense to ban anime porn of any type. I'm not gonna argue that anime doesn't desensitize people (because it does in my experience) but its a freedom of speech thing.
#31  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1858/2856
(10-Dec-2008 at 17:25)


Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
If you pay the movie makers, or stand in the wings watching, then yes - you are probably doing something illegal, but so what? We are talking about movies here, remote from the crime both geographically and temporally.
So if they commit a murder that they were planning to do anyway and I request that they tape it for my entertainment, then am I doing something illegal?



Quote:
This is just an emotive argument, not a logical one. If I go to the local child porn provider, which child is being hurt by me? I predict you will say "the child in the video", but that is ridiculous. The child in the video was harmed in the past. That is over, finished, done, and most importantly unchangeable - nothing I can do, or you, or anybody else, can change that. If no act of mine can affect the child being harmed, then logically I am not harming them. You could say that I am being immoral by supporting an industry that harms children, but you have already told us that we shouldn't make moral judgements via the law.
The child in the video is being hurt still as well as future children that will be abused. The child cannot give consent to sex nor being taped. Even if someone of legal age was propositioned for sex and consented, that doesn't mean that secretly or forcefully taping and selling it is legal.

On top of this, you are supporting the act of child abuse by purchasing recordings of child abuse. You hurt both the child in the video and children who will suffer from this abuse in the future because someone can make money off of it.

Quote:
They are saying: you can't have it because we think that's wrong not because it is hurting someone.
As stated above.

Quote:
Another emotive argument. It would only make sense if child porn existed only for the video market, and removing all videos would eradicate it completely. We both know that is not the case, don't we? All that has changed is that now they video acts that have been occuring for millenia.
The law against child abuse doesn't automatically eradicate child abuse. If making child porn illegal were the only law against child abuse then that wouldn't make sense but the law against child porn limits the market for child abuse videos. They are related but not the same thing.



Quote:
You clearly don't understand.

My argument is that videos are not illegal because they harm children - that is just an emotive justification. They are illegal because the kind of people who get excited by them are potential if not actual criminals. If you have child porn on your PC, you will be arrested. Not because the video is inherently harmful in any way, but because your desire to see it is a strong indicator that you are interested in child sex abuse.
So we should start arresting poor people based on the likelihood that they will be criminals? What about the children of criminals? What about certain races that have higher rates of crime? Should we arrest or restrict the rights of men because they are involved in more rapes and violent crime. We don't arrest potential criminals, we arrest criminals.

Quote:
The same argument could apply to a desire to see animated child porn. Or it could be that you find it a hilarious piss-take, in which case it indicates a weird but harmless sense of humour.
Animated porn doesn't involve anyone but a legal aged artist and a legal aged consumer. The government has no business in that.

Quote:
Without seeing the video and interviewing the individual charged in this case, we can't know which it is.
You can't read minds so you never will.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#32  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4535/7006
(11-Dec-2008 at 04:50)


Originally Posted by Spectre19:
Your comment - "All that has changed is that now they video acts that have been occuring for millenia." - is bullshit because something else has changed; it happens more as a result.
My comment is supported by both statistics and historical record. What is your statement that videos increase child abuse based on, apart from wishful thinking?

The most common form of child abuse is between father and daughter, or step equivalents. The second is between older children and younger. The exact figures vary depending whose figures you select, but all agree that in 90% of child abuse cases the molester is a family member or a trusted friend of the family, and it is not made for video. This means that even if the entire 10% of strangers abusing children are making child porn videos on a whim, and wouldn't do it without videos, removing the market would still leave 90% of child abuse unaffected.

However, that fantasy is far from reality. The primary source of child porn videos are those made by child sex tourists. These people will still be sex tourists, and still be abusing children, whether they take a video of it or not. The second source is organised groups of child molesters (who may or may not also be child sex tourists), and these too are already child abusers and would be doing this with or without videos.

More damaging to your idea that more child porn videos = more child abuse is the lack of correlation. The number of child porn videos is growing, yet child abuse in general is falling. Historically, child sex abuse has not risen with the increasing availability of videos. In fact, the opposite has happened.

In short, videos of child abuse is a small part of the problem that have no significant effect on the overall statistics. This is a fact, not my opinion.

So, to get back to the topic, as there is no logical basis to the argument that buying videos harms a child directly, or that it increases the likelihood of that happening, why should we ban video but not ban animation?


Originally Posted by MarsII:
So if they commit a murder that they were planning to do anyway and I request that they tape it for my entertainment, then am I doing something illegal?
Of course you are, but why do you keep blabbering about being in direct contact with the film makers when we are discussing videos being watched thousands of miles away, years later, by people who have no idea who the film makers are?


Quote:
The child in the video is being hurt still as well as future children that will be abused.
A simple question: is the child being hurt by the maker of the video or the buyers of the video?


Quote:
We don't arrest potential criminals, we arrest criminals.
Then, as 80% of child porn owners have also abused a child, it was a very sensible move to make owning child porn a criminal offence that they could be arrested for. A far more sensible reason than your 'it could potentially encourage somebody to harm another child in the future'.


Quote:
Animated porn doesn't involve anyone but a legal aged artist and a legal aged consumer. The government has no business in that.
I take it that you know the artist in this case then, or are you just inventing stuff? You could say all the same things about simulated child sex, but you refuse to say anything on that point.

If viewing animated child porn is a strong indicator of criminality, then I would say the government should have business in that. It is government business to prevent child abuse, don't you agree?


Quote:
You can't read minds so you never will.
Humans have developed other ways of communicating, so I don't need any ability to read minds.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#33  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1859/2856
(11-Dec-2008 at 05:13)


Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
My comment is supported by both statistics and historical record. What is your statement that videos increase child abuse based on, apart from wishful thinking?

The most common form of child abuse is between father and daughter, or step equivalents. The second is between older children and younger. The exact figures vary depending whose figures you select, but all agree that in 90% of child abuse cases the molester is a family member or a trusted friend of the family, and it is not made for video. This means that even if the entire 10% of strangers abusing children are making child porn videos on a whim, and wouldn't do it without videos, removing the market would still leave 90% of child abuse unaffected.

However, that fantasy is far from reality. The primary source of child porn videos are those made by child sex tourists. These people will still be sex tourists, and still be abusing children, whether they take a video of it or not. The second source is organised groups of child molesters (who may or may not also be child sex tourists), and these too are already child abusers and would be doing this with or without videos.

More damaging to your idea that more child porn videos = more child abuse is the lack of correlation. The number of child porn videos is growing, yet child abuse in general is falling. Historically, child sex abuse has not risen with the increasing availability of videos. In fact, the opposite has happened.

In short, videos of child abuse is a small part of the problem that have no significant effect on the overall statistics. This is a fact, not my opinion.
You'll probably need sources if you are going to mention statistics that you think back you up.

Quote:
So, to get back to the topic, as there is no logical basis to the argument that buying videos harms a child directly, or that it increases the likelihood of that happening, why should we ban video but not ban animation?
Actually your argument has turned into "it won't have a large impact so it should be legal."

Quote:
Of course you are, but why do you keep blabbering about being in direct contact with the film makers when we are discussing videos being watched thousands of miles away, years later, by people who have no idea who the film makers are?
How many degrees of separation do I need. What if I know a guy who knows a dealer who knows a guy who knows the killers? One or a hundred people in between, It would still be illegal.


Quote:
A simple question: is the child being hurt by the maker of the video or the buyers of the video?
Both.

Quote:
Then, as 80% of child porn owners have also abused a child, it was a very sensible move to make owning child porn a criminal offence that they could be arrested for. A far more sensible reason than your 'it could potentially encourage somebody to harm another child in the future'.
Again, you can not be put in prison for your potential to commit a crime unless you have already committed a crime and are on parole of some sort.

Quote:
I take it that you know the artist in this case then, or are you just inventing stuff? You could say all the same things about simulated child sex, but you refuse to say anything on that point.
The assumption is that the artist is a legal adult. Otherwise this becomes a separate issue. What does it matter if you know the artist or not? Your relationship to the artist isn't an issue besides the fact that it isn't an illegal one. If you want to talk about simulated child sex or young looking models or CG instead of cartoons go ahead. I don't see the relevance.

Quote:
If viewing animated child porn is a strong indicator of criminality, then I would say the government should have business in that. It is government business to prevent child abuse, don't you agree?
Then you would be wrong. That man shouldn't go to jail anymore than a drunk man should for his potential to drive drunk. Are they going to arrest me next because I have hands and therefore am capable of committing crimes? By this logic, the U.S. is justified in keeping prisoners in Guantanamo Bay just for the risk that they may become terrorists if they are let out.

Quote:
Humans have developed other ways of communicating, so I don't need any ability to read minds.
Unless you have a clever way of telling whether or not he thinks its funny or sexy other than asking him to pretty please tell the truth, you are going to need that ability.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#34  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4536/7006
(11-Dec-2008 at 09:06)


Quote:
You'll probably need sources if you are going to mention statistics that you think back you up.
My apologies. The figures are so easily found by anyone with a basic ability to use Google that I didn't see a need to provide them, as I would if you needed to find an esoteric site. Common knowledge and so on. Or perhaps there is an element of evasion here?

Here are some to be going on with.
  • 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member. (2, 44, 76)
  • Another 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.
  • Approximately 40% are abused by older or larger children whom they know. (1, 44)
  • Therefore, only 10% are abused by strangers.

Child Sexual Abuse Cases Fall 31 Percent Over Six Years

Child pornography is closely linked to child sex tourism.

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

Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.



Quote:
Actually your argument has turned into "it won't have a large impact so it should be legal."
Don't paraphrase me innacurately and then tell me that your innacurate paraphrase of what I actually said is wrong. My argument is precisely what I said it is:-

My argument is that videos are not illegal because they harm children - that is just an emotive justification. They are illegal because the kind of people who get excited by them are potential if not actual criminals. If you have child porn on your PC, you will be arrested. Not because the video is inherently harmful in any way, but because your desire to see it is a strong indicator that you are interested in child sex abuse.


Quote:
Both.
Now explain to me how me choosing not to buy that video stops the child in the video being harmed.


Quote:
How many degrees of separation do I need. What if I know a guy who knows a dealer who knows a guy who knows the killers? One or a hundred people in between, It would still be illegal.
Why do you keep rambling on about such a non-issue? It is very simple and easy; not at all hard to understand. If you know who is doing the abusing, when they are doing it, wnd where they are doing it, but fail to do anything about it then either you are a criminal, or you should be. If you have no idea who, or where, or when - such as when you buy a video thousands of miles away and years later - then clearly you are in no position to stop it. Therefore by your reasoning you are not harming anyone and it should be legal.


Quote:
Again, you can not be put in prison for your potential to commit a crime unless you have already committed a crime and are on parole of some sort.
Quote:
That man shouldn't go to jail anymore than a drunk man should for his potential to drive drunk.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said

The child in the video is being hurt still as well as future children that will be abused.

You hurt both the child in the video and children who will suffer from this abuse in the future because someone can make money off of it.

Future abuse is a potential crime, right?

Ignoring that, you are also just plain wrong - on two counts. First, you will be arrested for possesing child porn because it *is* a crime. It is not a potential crime, it is an actual crime. Second, you can be arrested for intending to commit a crime. If you walk out of bar obviously drunk and head for your car, you can be arrested for drinking and driving though you never even turned the car engine on.

You can't be arrested for imagining a crime, or just thinking about it, but if there is a clear intention to commit a crime you can. The Police don't have to stand there watching until the robbery, rape, or murder is in progress before they can make an arrrest.


Quote:
If you want to talk about simulated child sex or young looking models or CG instead of cartoons go ahead. I don't see the relevance.
It is relevant because your argument is that in a video a child is harmed but in an animation they are not - or so you assume. As videos of simulated child sex are also illegal but involve no harm to a child, you need to explain why that is if you are to make the "cartoons should be legal because no child is harmed" argument stick.


Quote:
Are they going to arrest me next because I have hands and therefore am capable of committing crimes?
Now you are moving the goalposts. In your last post it was potential criminals, but now you have changed it to capable of committing crimes.

It is very obvious that nobody is going to be arrested for being capable of a crime, but if try to get through customs with a couple of bags of ingredients that could potentially be a bomb then expect to be arrested.

So, for the third time, do you think that possession of child porn should be ignored because it is only 'potential' crime in your view, and we should wait until a child is actually abused?


Quote:
Unless you have a clever way of telling whether or not he thinks its funny or sexy other than asking him to pretty please tell the truth, you are going to need that ability.
Hell.... better release the entire prison community then. Unless they have some mind readers in there than all the justice system has done is ask them pretty please to tell the truth, and you say that is not good enough.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#35  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1860/2856
(11-Dec-2008 at 11:25)


Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
My apologies. The figures are so easily found by anyone with a basic ability to use Google that I didn't see a need to provide them, as I would if you needed to find an esoteric site. Common knowledge and so on. Or perhaps there is an element of evasion here?

Here are some to be going on with.
  • 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member. (2, 44, 76)
  • Another 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.
  • Approximately 40% are abused by older or larger children whom they know. (1, 44)
  • Therefore, only 10% are abused by strangers.

Child Sexual Abuse Cases Fall 31 Percent Over Six Years

Child pornography is closely linked to child sex tourism.

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

Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.
I like to make you cite your links because then I can go read things like this:

Quote:
Organized crime is involved in the production and distribution of child pornography, which is found as a common element of organized crime profiles.[34][48] When criminals organize to produce and distribute child pornography, they are often called "sex rings."[49][50][51][52][53] In 2003, an international police investigation uncovered an immense Germany-based child pornography ring involving 26,500 suspects who swapped illegal images on the Internet in 166 different countries.[54] In a 2006 case, US and international authorities charged 27 people in nine states and three countries in connection with a child pornography ring that US federal authorities described as "one of the worst" they have discovered. The assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement added that the case reflected three larger trends that are becoming more common in child pornography rings. One is the increasing prevalence of "home-grown" pornographic images that are produced by predators themselves, and include live streaming video images of children being abused, not just the circulation of repeated images. Another trend is the growing use of sophisticated security measures and of peer-to-peer networking, in which participants can share files with one another on their computers rather than downloading them off a web site. The group used encryption and data destruction software to protect the files and screening measures to ensure only authorized participants could enter the chat room. A third trend is the increasingly violent and graphic nature of the images involving the abuse of younger children. [55]

According to Jim Gamble, CEO of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, around 50 per cent of sites showing children being abused are operated on a pay-per-view basis. "The people involved in these sites often aren't doing it because they're deviant by nature. They're doing it because they're business people. It's risk versus profits. We need to reduce the profit motivation." The CEOPP was established in 2006, and targets the finances of organised criminal gangs selling images of child abuse.
Quote:
Child pornography is illegal and it does not have to be looked at in terms of the typical guidelines of the First Amendment, because it is illegal due to the harm it creates to children when child pornography is made, sold and owned.[87].
Sounds a whole lot like what I've been saying. That's specific to the land of the free though.



Quote:
Don't paraphrase me innacurately and then tell me that your innacurate paraphrase of what I actually said is wrong. My argument is precisely what I said it is:-
That's what your logic leads to.

Quote:
My argument is that videos are not illegal because they harm children - that is just an emotive justification. They are illegal because the kind of people who get excited by them are potential if not actual criminals. If you have child porn on your PC, you will be arrested. Not because the video is inherently harmful in any way, but because your desire to see it is a strong indicator that you are interested in child sex abuse.
Again, potential criminals can't be arrested for their potential. As I said, you would lose all basis for criticizing Guantanamo if that were true. So all I ask is use consistent logic.

Quote:
Now explain to me how me choosing not to buy that video stops the child in the video being harmed.
1. The child did not and can not consent to having his/her image used in that way.

2. People creating the porn for money will use the child again and the child will be abused again or other children will.


Quote:
Why do you keep rambling on about such a non-issue? It is very simple and easy; not at all hard to understand. If you know who is doing the abusing, when they are doing it, wnd where they are doing it, but fail to do anything about it then either you are a criminal, or you should be. If you have no idea who, or where, or when - such as when you buy a video thousands of miles away and years later - then clearly you are in no position to stop it. Therefore by your reasoning you are not harming anyone and it should be legal.
If it were so simple then you would have gotten the point from your own links!



Quote:
Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said

The child in the video is being hurt still as well as future children that will be abused.

You hurt both the child in the video and children who will suffer from this abuse in the future because someone can make money off of it.

Future abuse is a potential crime, right?
A potential crime that will be committed by someone who has already committed a crime. Felons out on parole aren't allowed certain rights and privileges such as owning firearms. Sex offenders aren't allowed near children. Therefore, if someone has already committed a crime you can then take steps to prevent them from doing it again. However, if they have done nothing wrong, you can't throw them in jail for having the potential to commit crimes.

Quote:
Ignoring that, you are also just plain wrong - on two counts. First, you will be arrested for possesing child porn because it *is* a crime. It is not a potential crime, it is an actual crime. Second, you can be arrested for intending to commit a crime. If you walk out of bar obviously drunk and head for your car, you can be arrested for drinking and driving though you never even turned the car engine on.
The actual debate is whether or not colored pictures constitutes child abuse. What child is being hurt there? No child was used to make the picture and the consumer hasn't made an attempt to access real child porn, nor the artist. How about this for a new issue, how do you determine if a cartoon child is under age? What if they just look young? Have child like features? How do you know that the cartoons drawn aren't of those characters 20yrs into the future. Hell, the Simpsons has probably been on that long so technically they are legal age.

Quote:
You can't be arrested for imagining a crime, or just thinking about it, but if there is a clear intention to commit a crime you can. The Police don't have to stand there watching until the robbery, rape, or murder is in progress before they can make an arrrest.
So what crime was the man committing by owning a fictional drawing? Who was he hurting? Who was he intending to hurt? You have nothing but pure speculation. Not hard evidence and no real threat.

Quote:
It is relevant because your argument is that in a video a child is harmed but in an animation they are not - or so you assume. As videos of simulated child sex are also illegal but involve no harm to a child, you need to explain why that is if you are to make the "cartoons should be legal because no child is harmed" argument stick.
Are you saying that simulating sex with a child doesn't hurt him or her?


Quote:
Now you are moving the goalposts. In your last post it was potential criminals, but now you have changed it to capable of committing crimes.

It is very obvious that nobody is going to be arrested for being capable of a crime, but if try to get through customs with a couple of bags of ingredients that could potentially be a bomb then expect to be arrested.
The ingredients would have to be illegal first.

Quote:
So, for the third time, do you think that possession of child porn should be ignored because it is only 'potential' crime in your view, and we should wait until a child is actually abused?
If this is your third time asking, then this is my third time responding, you are wrong, real child porn involves real children getting hurt.

Quote:
Hell.... better release the entire prison community then. Unless they have some mind readers in there than all the justice system has done is ask them pretty please to tell the truth, and you say that is not good enough.
I suppose you are right....If you ignore evidence.....But then you think you are right because you ignore a lot of things.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#36  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4537/7006
(11-Dec-2008 at 13:30)


Quote:
According to Jim Gamble, CEO of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, around 50 per cent of sites showing children being abused are operated on a pay-per-view basis. "The people involved in these sites often aren't doing it because they're deviant by nature. They're doing it because they're business people. It's risk versus profits. We need to reduce the profit motivation." The CEOPP was established in 2006, and targets the finances of organised criminal gangs selling images of child abuse.
I am sure you think you are being very clever, but to repeat the response from the first time that quote was posted in this thread ( ) pay-per-view is not video, it is live streaming. It even says that in the quote you posted....

One is the increasing prevalence of "home-grown" pornographic images that are produced by predators themselves, and include live streaming video images of children being abused

Notice the 'produced by the predators themselves' part. The owners of the sites may not be child abusers, but the people doing the actual abusing are - just as I said. FFS MarsII - who the hell is going to screw a kid just to get some cash? My answer is "a child abuser would" - what is your answer?


Quote:
Again, potential criminals can't be arrested for their potential. As I said, you would lose all basis for criticizing Guantanamo if that were true. So all I ask is use consistent logic.
Yeah... no such thing as intention in criminal law is there? What is the point though - you ignored my real life example of potential drink drivers being arrested so there is little point continuing with that.

Have it your way then; pretend that potential terrorist attacks are never stopped, potential suicide bombers are left to finish the job, and potential rapists are given a condom and asked to come back when they have finished.

And, for the 4th (or is it 5th?) time, owning child porn is not a potential crime anyway - it already is one.


Quote:
1. The child did not and can not consent to having his/her image used in that way.
What has that got to do with the buyer? It is the film maker that is producing the image and selling it, not the buyer.


Quote:
People creating the porn for money will use the child again and the child will be abused again or other children will.
*yawn*

From a previous post:

30-40% of victims are abused by a family member.
Another 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.
Approximately 40% are abused by older or larger children whom they know.
Therefore, only 10% are abused by strangers.

and another previous post:

The primary source of child porn videos are those made by child sex tourists. These people will still be sex tourists, and still be abusing children, whether they take a video of it or not. The second source is organised groups of child molesters (who may or may not also be child sex tourists), and these too are already child abusers and would be doing this with or without videos.

More damaging to your idea that more child porn videos = more child abuse is the lack of correlation. The number of child porn videos is growing, yet child abuse in general is falling. Historically, child sex abuse has not risen with the increasing availability of videos. In fact, the opposite has happened.


And again you are contradicting yourself: the child will be abused again or other children will. = potential crime, which you say cannot be illegal.


Quote:
If it were so simple then you would have gotten the point from your own links!
It is simple... just look at the numbers. Only 10% of child abuse is by strangers, and of that 10% most are child sex tourists or organised rings of child abusers. Videos are a small part of the problem, and the people making them are not abusing children just so they can get a part in a movie...


Quote:
A potential crime that will be committed by someone who has already committed a crime.
Do you have some source that says all child porn video makers are convicted felons, or are you just inventing stuff again?


Quote:
The actual debate is whether or not colored pictures constitutes child abuse.
Wrong. The debate is whether a cartoon constitutes child pornography.


Quote:
So what crime was the man committing by owning a fictional drawing? Who was he hurting? Who was he intending to hurt? You have nothing but pure speculation. Not hard evidence and no real threat.
You are rambling on about the wrong thing again. I couldn't care less about your strawman - we are discussing people who VIEW pornography. The criminality or otherwise of the MAKERS is a different issue. Nobody has suggested that MAKING a child porn video is not a crime, and nobody has even suggested that possessing a child porn video should not be a crime.

You say owning a cartoon doesn't harm the child so it should be legal, I am challenging that because owning a video doesn't harm a child - only the maker does that.

Now if you could resist your habit of throwing up strawmen all over the place just to have something to argue about it would help things stay on track.


Quote:
If this is your third time asking, then this is my third time responding, you are wrong, real child porn involves real children getting hurt.
That 'answer' proves my point - because it has no relevance to the question at all!

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#37  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1367/1971
(11-Dec-2008 at 14:26)


Quote:
Notice the 'produced by the predators themselves' part. The owners of the sites may not be child abusers, but the people doing the actual abusing are - just as I said. FFS MarsII - who the hell is going to screw a kid just to get some cash? My answer is "a child abuser would" - what is your answer?
My answer is, it is giving a child abuser an extra incentive to abuse a particular child. This possibly includes those that - in the absence of the child porn industry, and therefore of payment for the deed - would never have abused children (as in they want to, but the risk isn't worth it to them unless they are getting paid).

Quote:
Yeah... no such thing as intention in criminal law is there? What is the point though - you ignored my real life example of potential drink drivers being arrested so there is little point continuing with that.
That's a stupid example anyway. Intent to drive drunk cannot be proven until the driver is sitting behind the wheel, and thus that is the only case in which they should be prosecuted for it.

Quote:
And, for the 4th (or is it 5th?) time, owning child porn is not a potential crime anyway - it already is one.
What? That is the point we are trying to make! Possessing child porn IS a crime, whereas you keep trying to portray it as only being a crime because it indicates a *possible* intention to rape children, and thus not really a crime in and of itself but more like charging for conspiracy... except without establishing that the accused made any plans to rape a child

That's not what it is. Purchasers of child porn fuel the child porn market. This is a patent fact; I would almost go so far as to call it an axiom, but obviously that's going too far. That is why it is illegal to own fucking child porn ffs.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham

Last edited by Spectre19, 11-Dec-2008 at 14:28.
#38  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4538/7006
(11-Dec-2008 at 16:06)


Quote:
My answer is, it is giving a child abuser an extra incentive to abuse a particular child. This possibly includes those that - in the absence of the child porn industry, and therefore of payment for the deed - would never have abused children (as in they want to, but the risk isn't worth it to them unless they are getting paid).
My answer is that those people, on all the available evidence, are so few as to be negligible.


Quote:
That's a stupid example anyway. Intent to drive drunk cannot be proven until the driver is sitting behind the wheel, and thus that is the only case in which they should be prosecuted for it.
The law states that a person is deemed to be responsible for the vehicle if they are in possession of the key to the said vehicle. These offences do not carry mandatory disqualification, although the penalties can still be severe. The onus is on the suspect to prove that they had no intention of driving.

The police often take a very broad view of attempting to drive. For example, a man who had left his car in a pub car park, had too much to drink, and decided to retrieve his briefcase from the boot before phoning for a cab home, was convicted of attempting to drive, and disqualified.


Stupid example, huh? There is no legal definition of 'in charge', so for practical purposes it comes down to being in possession of the keys. if you have the keys, you are assumed to be intending to use them, and the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".

So there we go... practical real life example of a potential drink driving crime being prosecuted. MarsII is just wrong.


Quote:
whereas you keep trying to portray it as only being a crime because it indicates a *possible* intention to rape children, and thus not really a crime in and of itself but more like charging for conspiracy... except without establishing that the accused made any plans to rape a child
That is why I suggested you read again...

Then, as 80% of child porn owners have also abused a child, it was a very sensible move to make owning child porn a criminal offence that they could be arrested for. A far more sensible reason than your 'it could potentially encourage somebody to harm another child in the future'.

I have never said it isn't a crime. I have even said that I am glad it is. What I dispute is that it is a crime because it harms children. Watching a video doesn't do that, and the statistics show that:
a) only a tiny portion of the problem is videos
b) most video makers are already child abusers
c) child sex abuse overall is falling despite the increase in videos
Nothing in there screams 'buying videos leads to a child being harmed' to me...

On the other hand, possession of child porn is very strong indicator that the individual is also an abuser, so hey - arrest the guy for possession and then find out what else the guy is up to. Eight times out of ten you get a child abuser. That does scream to me 'grabbing a guy for possession leads to a lot of child abusers being court, and in my book that is a good thing.

As the 'it harms a child' argument is basically emotive, with neither numbers nor reason to support it, then the position that you and MarsII are taking - possesion of cartoons doesn't harm but possession of videos does - doesn't stand up, so the question becomes how much of an indication of child abuse possesing animated child porn is.

I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect it would really depend on how realistic the animation was. If the animation was very realistic, I would want it to be illegal even if it were all computer generated imagery with no physical child involved at all, hence my repeated question of views on simulated sex. Such simulation *is* illegal, as only child abusers would be interested in such material - another indicator that 'harms a child' is not the reason for illegality.


Quote:
Purchasers of child porn fuel the child porn market. This is a patent fact; I would almost go so far as to call it an axiom
Yep. Child abusers buy child porn from other child abusers. We all know that, so what is your point exactly? Are you suggesting that non-child abusers become child abusers just because they see a video?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#39  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1368/1971
(11-Dec-2008 at 16:43)


Quote:
My answer is that those people, on all the available evidence, are so few as to be negligible.
My answer to that is you're full of shit and twisting the statistics... so what if most of them are "sex tourists" or whatever... if they don't have an audience for their videos, they are less likely to MAKE the videos, and they are likely not to abuse as many children.

Quote:
The law states that a person is deemed to be responsible for the vehicle if they are in possession of the key to the said vehicle. These offences do not carry mandatory disqualification, although the penalties can still be severe. The onus is on the suspect to prove that they had no intention of driving.

The police often take a very broad view of attempting to drive. For example, a man who had left his car in a pub car park, had too much to drink, and decided to retrieve his briefcase from the boot before phoning for a cab home, was convicted of attempting to drive, and disqualified.

Stupid example, huh? There is no legal definition of 'in charge', so for practical purposes it comes down to being in possession of the keys. if you have the keys, you are assumed to be intending to use them, and the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".

So there we go... practical real life example of a potential drink driving crime being prosecuted. MarsII is just wrong.
Did you fucking read what I said? You can't (pragmatically) prove that they had an intention to drive if they are not trying to drive the vehicle ie. in the front seat with the damn keys (even if you 'can' legally).

If your police are allowed to prosecute you for drink driving just for having possession of the keys while intoxicated, then the system is inherently flawed. It is a poor example because it is basically saying "but there is nothing wrong with prosecuting for potential because our flawed drink driving laws allow it in that instance".

Quote:
That is why I suggested you read again...

Then, as 80% of child porn owners have also abused a child, it was a very sensible move to make owning child porn a criminal offence that they could be arrested for. A far more sensible reason than your 'it could potentially encourage somebody to harm another child in the future'.
I read it again. I read it the first time. I understand what you mean, and it's a completely retarded idea. This idea you have here implies that IF watchers of child porn were by and large not child rapists, then child porn possession should be legal. Since this is not the case, you seek to prosecute 100% of child porn possessors not because you think that it should be illegal in itself, but it should be illegal in order to nab the 80% that are child rapists.

Essentially, you advocate knowingly prosecuting owners of child porn that do not abuse children (up to 20% of the total), while at the same time you claim that the only real purpose of the applicable law is to prosecute those that DO abuse children.

Your idea is so inherently flawed it is mind-boggling. "80% of child porn owners are causing harm to children, so let's nab all 100% just to make sure we get them all". If this were the real purpose of the laws in question, it would make far more sense to not ban possession of child porn, but instead to allow very close monitoring of those that possess it. As this is not the form that the laws take in any country as far as I am aware, the most reasonable assumption is that those that drafted such laws were of the opinion that one who possesses child porn is knowingly exacerbating the problem of child porn, and is therefore indirectly and knowingly causing harm to children and should be prosecuted.

Quote:
Yep. Child abusers buy child porn from other child abusers. We all know that, so what is your point exactly? Are you suggesting that non-child abusers become child abusers just because they see a video?
No VoR, for the 3rd time no, that is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that if there were no market for child porn, child abusers that would otherwise be making child porn would not be abusing as many children. I am NOT saying that they would not be child abusers, I said they would do it LESS, enough to satisfy their own urges and not the excess that they would be doing to earn money.

It's not that hard. Fuck.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#40  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sweden going to censor The Pirate Bay as child porn? Dr U Respectable General Discussions 25 10-Jul-2007 00:12
Would you sacrifice a child? The Other Sage Polls Heaven 50 16-Dec-2005 00:47
Fathers and Abortion Zectron Respectable General Discussions 55 17-Nov-2005 07:14
shit - my girlfriend is pregnant Carno Respectable General Discussions 447 21-Nov-2004 15:19
why is porn legal? sir anger Respectable General Discussions 112 24-Feb-2003 03:34


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 22:12.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.