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: 1874/2856
(13-Dec-2008 at 23:01)


Again VoR, you haven't addressed anything, you have just pointed to things that don't exist, claimed the statistics show no correlation, then claimed they do in the very next line, then you yourself threw up strawmen that child porn led to arrests whereas cartoon porn had nothing to do with it just to avoid the topic that the net is what is driving child porn now, attempted to say that evidence shows that more child porn means less child abuse from the statistics that you said mean nothing, ignored the reason that abuse and porn do not correlate and overall, produced no argument that animated porn should be considered illegal because it hurts real people. You just hang on topics that aren't related.

Pathetic.

Cartoons do not have ages. How do you tell the difference between a girl with shaved pubic hair and small breasts and a child? What if an actor of legal age has the same characteristics? If it is these characteristics that make the porn illegal, then underage girls with large breasts would be legal and that doesn't make any sense.

Child porn is illegal because it hurts real children. Cartoon child porn is disgusting but isn't the law's business.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#61  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4550/7006
(14-Dec-2008 at 09:59)


Quote:
you have just pointed to things that don't exist
And provided links to those things that don't exist.


Quote:
claimed the statistics show no correlation
There is no claim: there really is no correlation, unless you are stupid enough to imagine an inverse one. The figure prove it. Read the links.


Quote:
then you yourself threw up strawmen that child porn led to arrests
That is not a strawman, that is the whole point - as you would know if you read the damn thread. It is reality too - I provided two links showing arrests of abusers being made after discovering child porn, and you generously provided another three yourself.


Quote:
attempted to say that evidence shows that more child porn means less child abuse from the statistics that you said mean nothing
Prove that. Post it. I want to see it.


Quote:
ignored the reason that abuse and porn do not correlate and overall
I gave a reason for that, and backed it up with statistics, with links to sources. I don't see you doing that.


Quote:
produced no argument that animated porn should be considered illegal because it hurts real people.
That is because I have more brains than to say something so stupid. That is your argument, not mine. Read the thread, I have explained several times why I think there is a case for *some* animated child porn being illegal.


Quote:
How do you tell the difference between a girl with shaved pubic hair and small breasts and a child?
Quote:
then underage girls with large breasts would be legal and that doesn't make any sense.
Pre-pubescent girls don't have breasts, by definition. I think you should toddle off and learn what 'puberty' means.


Quote:
What if an actor of legal age has the same characteristics?
Well MarsII, if you are dumb enough to believe it when they tell you that the four-foot model with no breasts is really eighteen, then you really do need an adult to take you on one side and explain things...


Quote:
Child porn is illegal because it hurts real children.
It is becoming very obvious, from your continuall repetition of this pointles statement, that you don't read anything, or maybe you just lack what it takes to understand what is being said. Either way, as all you are doing is creating strawmen so you can argue against arguments that exist only in your imagination, you are not worth wasting anymore time on.

If you read the thread, understand the arguments, stop fucking about with strawmen and evasion, and actually produce something of subtance - figures for example - that back up your position, then we can continue.

"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.
#62  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 440/563
(14-Dec-2008 at 10:17)
Seriously, this discussion has degraded into such a dumb argument. Just accept that both of you have a good point and stop rubbishing each other.

Child porn is illegal for several reasons, which have been put forward by both of you. It both directly hurts children and is associated with people who are likely to hurt children. On top of that, people who 'only' watch are encouraging the production of such material, and are therefore at least in part responsible for the atrocities being filmed.

So can we stop the bickering and have a normal discussion?

That said, none of that really applies to the topic, which was whether any of these problems apply to cartoon child porn such as has happened here. I think it is obvious that the production doesn't harm kids, and therefore watching them does not directly harm kids.

The question is: Are people who watch cartoon 'child porn' as likely to offend as people who watch real child porn?

I don't really know the answer to this, but my gut feeling is that this would not be the case. I don't really know of any good evidence either way.
#63  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4552/7006
(14-Dec-2008 at 10:58)


Quote:
The question is: Are people who watch cartoon 'child porn' as likely to offend as people who watch real child porn?
I think that depends on the animated porn. If it is realistic, and clearly intended to be sexual, then yes - I think it probably is. If it is clearly a piss-take, then I would say no - it is more likely to be laughed at by mainstream viewers.


Quote:
That said, none of that really applies to the topic, which was whether any of these problems apply to cartoon child porn such as has happened here. I think it is obvious that the production doesn't harm kids, and therefore watching them does not directly harm kids.
Whether 'normal' kiddy porn harms kids is absolutely on topic, if the argument is that cartoon doesn't but video does.

"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.
#64  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 444/563
(14-Dec-2008 at 11:03)
Re: Animated child porn = real child porn?

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I think that depends on the animated porn. If it is realistic, and clearly intended to be sexual, then yes - I think it probably is. If it is clearly a piss-take, then I would say no - it is more likely to be laughed at by mainstream viewers.
Fair enough. I haven't seen said video so I can't really comment. I don't think the article is specific enough for me to figure it out, either.

Quote:
Whether 'normal' kiddy porn harms kids is absolutely on topic, if the argument is that cartoon doesn't but video does.
I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the silly argument of which was the reason it was illegal. The point is that all those reasons had merit. Sorry for not making that clear. Either way, the argument was never about whether making such videos hurts kids. Everyone accepts that one on face value.
#65  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1876/2856
(14-Dec-2008 at 11:26)


The bottom line is that child porn is illegal because it hurts children directly and cartoon porn doesn't, therefore cartoon porn shouldn't fall under the law as child porn. VoR's argument is that the cartoon porn indicates what kind of person the consumer is and they should be arrested for being likely to molest children rather than having committed any actual crime or done anything to real children.

By the way here is what you quoted VoR:

Quote:
then you yourself threw up strawmen that child porn led to arrests
And here is the whole thing:
Quote:
then you yourself threw up strawmen that child porn led to arrests whereas cartoon porn had nothing to do with it
That's really low, even for your shitty tactics. You always avoid the topic when you are wrong but that's just blatant bullshit. Go toddle off and learn how to debate.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#66  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1375/1971
(14-Dec-2008 at 16:11)


I'm still ignoring your trolling VoR, just came in to ask one thing.

Here's a scenario: A totalitatian regime takes over the world and manages to completely eliminate child abuse and creates a situation where it is virtually impossible to abuse a child and get away with it (universal secuirty monitoring), therefore including the production of child porn. However, they have not yet managed to track down and destroy/remove every child porn movie that still exists. Should it be illegal to watch those movies?

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham

Last edited by Spectre19, 14-Dec-2008 at 16:11.
#67  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4554/7006
(15-Dec-2008 at 04:49)


Originally Posted by dantendo:
I was referring to the silly argument of which was the reason it was illegal. The point is that all those reasons had merit.
Strictly speaking, the argument is over whether *viewing* child porn, as opposed to *making* child porn, harms a child. Illegal comes into it as some people are saying that being illegal proves that it harms children- "it is illegal because it harms children", and therefore, as no child is harmed in making a cartoon, cartoons should be legal.

As you are new to the thread, here is a quick summary.

I don't agree that child porn video increases the harm to children for several reasons:

1) Most children are abused at home by people they know and trust, not by video makers. Statistics say 90%.

2) Research and investigation show that most videos are made by sex tourists and organised rings of child abusers. In other words, the abusers are already abusers, and the children are already child prostitutes or similar. The videos are just a new spin on an old problem.

3) Child abuse is falling while child porn is increasing.


Child porn, despite this, should be illegal because it is demonstrably an excellent way to get at the abusers. People who watch child porn are, on the whole, child abusers. Statistics say 80%, though simple common sense says that somebody who gets off watching child abuse is more likely than somebody who doesn't to abuse a child.

On this basis, if the animated porn is sufficiently realistic and sexual to attract the same audience, it too should be illegal.


Originally Posted by Spectre19:
A totalitatian regime takes over the world and manages to completely eliminate child abuse and creates a situation where it is virtually impossible to abuse a child and get away with it (universal secuirty monitoring), therefore including the production of child porn. However, they have not yet managed to track down and destroy/remove every child porn movie that still exists. Should it be illegal to watch those movies?
A mutually exclusive fantasy - "What if there were videos of child abuse in a world were child abuse has been eliminated?"

"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.
#68  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1376/1971
(15-Dec-2008 at 04:53)


Quote:
A mutually exclusive fantasy - "What if there were videos of child abuse in a world were child abuse has been eliminated?"
I'm not sure what you have against hypothetical impossible scenarios...

If you had read carefully, the child porn movies in this scenario are from instances of child abuse that occured before child abuse was eliminated. If you actually didn't miss that part, then your avoidance of the issue is stupid.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#69  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1878/2856
(15-Dec-2008 at 09:27)


Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post

As you are new to the thread, here is a quick summary.

I don't agree that child porn video increases the harm to children for several reasons:

1) Most children are abused at home by people they know and trust, not by video makers. Statistics say 90%.
Most isn't all. We aren't talking about making child abuse illegal.

Quote:
2) Research and investigation show that most videos are made by sex tourists and organised rings of child abusers. In other words, the abusers are already abusers, and the children are already child prostitutes or similar. The videos are just a new spin on an old problem.
These rings need money to operate. Child porn provides money as well as hold children captive to make it.

Quote:
3) Child abuse is falling while child porn is increasing.
I N T E R N E T


Quote:
Child porn, despite this, should be illegal because it is demonstrably an excellent way to get at the abusers. People who watch child porn are, on the whole, child abusers. Statistics say 80%, though simple common sense says that somebody who gets off watching child abuse is more likely than somebody who doesn't to abuse a child.
If we went by statistics and this logic then the cops could arrest minorities on sight now couldn't they? Or pull teenagers over for traffic offenses they might commit.

Quote:
On this basis, if the animated porn is sufficiently realistic and sexual to attract the same audience, it too should be illegal.
Again, you are going to have to define a cartoon child. Boobs and pubic hair don't make an adult. You haven't addressed this issue.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#70  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4556/7006
(15-Dec-2008 at 13:02)


Quote:
Most isn't all.
Most is 90%. You have quoted it, but obviously not read it. A minimum of 90% of child abuse is completely unconnected to child porn. If you try very hard, and read it a few times, you might even begin to understand what it means.


Quote:
We aren't talking about making child abuse illegal.
Child abuse IS illegal...


Quote:
These rings need money to operate.
Which they get through child prostitution and sex tourism. i guess you didn't read that link.


Quote:
Child porn provides money as well as hold children captive to make it.
Some of those child prostitutes may be filmed in action, but you didn't read that link either. If you are going to insist that children are being used in movies but for nothing else, stop fucking about and back it up. I am not interestested in your unsupported opinions.


Quote:
If we went by statistics and this logic then the cops could arrest minorities on sight now couldn't they?
So you would prefer that all those child abusers caught by following their trail of illegal porn were not caught. Any particular reason for your desire to reduce the child abuse conviction rate?

And... for what seems like the 30th time... owning child porn is illegal. They are being arrested for crime. You really seem to be having a difficult time understanding that little 'they are arresting criminals' detail.


Quote:
Again, you are going to have to define a cartoon child.
Already done, several times. If *you* can't tell the difference between a pre-pubescent girl and a sexually mature one, that is really not my problem - I can and I think most people can - but I do think you should seek help urgently.

"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.
#71  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1879/2856
(15-Dec-2008 at 18:03)


Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Most is 90%. You have quoted it, but obviously not read it. A minimum of 90% of child abuse is completely unconnected to child porn. If you try very hard, and read it a few times, you might even begin to understand what it means.
I see what it means. So even by that logic, you are wrong because 90% of child abuse being unconnected to child porn means that even having child porn wouldn't catch most of them. Maybe because child porn hurts real children and isn't just a tool to investigate abuse?

Quote:
Child abuse IS illegal...
-Strawman

Oh good! Now tell me if 90% of it is unconnected to child porn but child porn requires abuse to happen, then is child porn illegal just to catch that 10% or is it illegal because it harms children. Don't worry, I'll give you a hint: Because it harms children .




Quote:
Which they get through child prostitution and sex tourism. i guess you didn't read that link.
And they get money for selling the videos. Guess you didn't catch that. Also, making these videos allows investigators to find the children. Making cartoons illegal doesn't do that.



Quote:
Some of those child prostitutes may be filmed in action, but you didn't read that link either. If you are going to insist that children are being used in movies but for nothing else, stop fucking about and back it up. I am not interestested in your unsupported opinions.
They might possibly could?! Well that's just a dandy reason to make real child porn illegal and never mind cartoons. Real child porn is evidence against a real child abuser. So stop fucking about and get on topic: cartoons.

Quote:
So you would prefer that all those child abusers caught by following their trail of illegal porn were not caught. Any particular reason for your desire to reduce the child abuse conviction rate?
Following real child porn traces leads to real offenders and real children. Following cartoon porn traces leads to Japan usually.

Quote:
And... for what seems like the 30th time... owning child porn is illegal. They are being arrested for crime. You really seem to be having a difficult time understanding that little 'they are arresting criminals' detail.
-Strawman.

And you can't seem to connect it to cartoon child porn so I'll have to label this one a straw man .

Quote:
Already done, several times. If *you* can't tell the difference between a pre-pubescent girl and a sexually mature one, that is really not my problem - I can and I think most people can - but I do think you should seek help urgently.
Telling the difference with a real human isn't usually hard. That can get blurred in animation. On top of that, you are ignoring the 10-16 range. Or do you think they are fair game for some reason? The limit is 18 because those kids are still kids.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the defining feature that differentiates between a cartoon child and a cartoon adult is if they look physically similar?


Quote:
Here's a scenario: A totalitatian regime takes over the world and manages to completely eliminate child abuse and creates a situation where it is virtually impossible to abuse a child and get away with it (universal secuirty monitoring), therefore including the production of child porn. However, they have not yet managed to track down and destroy/remove every child porn movie that still exists. Should it be illegal to watch those movies?
Yes, the child in the videos should have control over those videos.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#72  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4558/7006
(16-Dec-2008 at 04:05)


Quote:
I see what it means. So even by that logic, you are wrong because 90% of child abuse being unconnected to child porn means that even having child porn wouldn't catch most of them. Maybe because child porn hurts real children and isn't just a tool to investigate abuse?
Catching children being abused in the home is very difficult. The child may not know they are being abused, or may be too ashamed or too scared to say anything. On the other hand, using child porn as a tool requires no child who is willing to talk - it is there on video. That, and the networking involved, makes it a very effective tool for catching abusers, yet for some reason you object to it...

How many actual real-life examples can you find of large rings of abusers being busted *without* being traced through their porn?


Quote:
Oh good! Now tell me if 90% of it is unconnected to child porn but child porn requires abuse to happen, then is child porn illegal just to catch that 10% or is it illegal because it harms children. Don't worry, I'll give you a hint: Because it harms children .
Making videos harms children. Watching them doesn't. Trying to blur the argument by conflating two separate issues is quite a childish little trick.


Quote:
And they get money for selling the videos.
Are you sure about that? The link I provided says otherwise, that many sites are free downloads after the user has uploaded a video.


Quote:
Also, making these videos allows investigators to find the children.
Quote:
Following real child porn traces leads to real offenders and real children.
Congratulations. It is a hell of a slow process but you finally get there. Now work on step two: why it leads to real offenders. It does that because they get the porn FROM somewhere - usually a child abuser. When you have got that one worked out, you can try step three: if the same people are supplying cartoon porn, making that illegal is an equally effective way for police to get to them. Do you want to catch these people or not?


Quote:
And you can't seem to connect it to cartoon child porn so I'll have to label this one a straw man .
Just done it - again. You obviously missed the several previous occasions. BTW... toddle off and learn what a strawman is. Child porn really is illegal - no caricature of your arguments there.


Quote:
That can get blurred in animation.
Simple question: do *you* think Lisa Simpson is an adult?


Quote:
On top of that, you are ignoring the 10-16 range. Or do you think they are fair game for some reason?
If you read the links I provided, in practice prosecutions for abusing sexualy mature girls are very rare, for the very sensible reason that pursuing that would mean en-masse arrests of teenage schoolboys for child abuse. Instead, for sexually mature girls they call that 'under-age sex', or in extreme cases 'statutory rape'.

If you actually thought before typing, it is very obvious that as teenage girls can (and do) voluntarily have sex, and teenage girls can (and do) prostitute themselves to raise money, it is a very different situation to pre-pubescent girls who have no concept of sexuality. For a sexually mature, sexually aware, sexually active teenage girl it is pretty much a technicality. Legally, she cannot consent to sex or prostitute herself while under the age of consent, but in practice we all know they do.

Even the link you provided yourself specifically states 'pre-pubescent', and when was the last time you heard of somebody being prosecuted for watching a video with a 17 year old in it?

Clinical pedophilia

Clinically, pedophilia is defined, to give one definition (from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision, American Psychiatric Association): Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.



Quote:
The limit is 18 because those kids are still kids.
That depends on which country you are in; there is life outside the USA. In some countries it is 16, in others 18, in others again 21. In all countries, paedophilia or child abuse prosecutions almost invariably involve abuse of pre-pubescent children.


Quote:
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the defining feature that differentiates between a cartoon child and a cartoon adult is if they look physically similar?
They don't... that is just your own personal issue for you to deal with. The rest of us know that Marge is an adult and Lisa is a child.

"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.
#73  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1882/2856
(16-Dec-2008 at 04:56)


Quote:
Catching children being abused in the home is very difficult. The child may not know they are being abused, or may be too ashamed or too scared to say anything. On the other hand, using child porn as a tool requires no child who is willing to talk - it is there on video. That, and the networking involved, makes it a very effective tool for catching abusers, yet for some reason you object to it...

How many actual real-life examples can you find of large rings of abusers being busted *without* being traced through their porn?
-Strawman

We are talking about the illegality of cartoons. You are attacking and argument based real child porn. There is the misrepresentation of my argument.

Quote:
Making videos harms children. Watching them doesn't. Trying to blur the argument by conflating two separate issues is quite a childish little trick.
Obtaining/watching/owning real child porn hurts children. Most people accept that.

Quote:
Are you sure about that? The link I provided says otherwise, that many sites are free downloads after the user has uploaded a video.

Ziercke said the trade produced millions of euros in revenue every month with "younger and younger" victims.


The Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography represents a new phase in the war against what has become a multibillion-dollar, international business. Internet service providers, including AOL, already report child porn sites they find.

Don't complain about not reading links again. Finding an example of a free site doesn't mean they are all free. Apparently it makes quite a bit of money.

Are you going to argue that people who pay money to these people aren't causing harm to the children?
Quote:
Congratulations. It is a hell of a slow process but you finally get there. Now work on step two: why it leads to real offenders. It does that because they get the porn FROM somewhere - usually a child abuser. When you have got that one worked out, you can try step three: if the same people are supplying cartoon porn, making that illegal is an equally effective way for police to get to them. Do you want to catch these people or not?
If huh? IF?! What IF you were magically right the entire time? Wouldn't that be the day for you? Go ahead and show that the people making real porn are also cartoonists in their spare time. In addition, show that only pedophiles would have access to the material. In addition, show that people are being harmed in the making of cartoons or the sale of them.

It would also help if they made the internet illegal or do away with right to privacy or any of those pesky rights. Real champion for rights you are!
Quote:
Simple question: do *you* think Lisa Simpson is an adult?

They don't... that is just your own personal issue for you to deal with. The rest of us know that Marge is an adult and Lisa is a child.
You tell me.

Age?
Age?
Age?
Age?
Age?

Quote:
Even the link you provided yourself specifically states 'pre-pubescent', and when was the last time you heard of somebody being prosecuted for watching a video with a 17 year old in it?
The girls gone wild producer was in the news a while ago for making one. It is illegal.

Quote:
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Don't ignore your own links.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#74  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4560/7006
(16-Dec-2008 at 06:30)


Quote:
We are talking about the illegality of cartoons. You are attacking and argument based real child porn. There is the misrepresentation of my argument.
Don't be stupid, I am not misrepresenting anything. I am responding to your statement that "So even by that logic, you are wrong because 90% of child abuse being unconnected to child porn means that even having child porn wouldn't catch most of them." by pointing out that following the child porn trail is very effective compared to waiting for an abused child to talk. How is that misrepresenting what you said?


Quote:
Obtaining/watching/owning real child porn hurts children. Most people accept that.
You just keep trolling out these logical fallacies don't you? This one is called "Argumentum ad populum" - toddle off and learn what it means.


Quote:
Ziercke said the trade produced millions of euros in revenue every month with "younger and younger" victims.
Compared wuth "an estimated 481 million euros ($708 million) of ill-gotten gains were made behind the facade of legitimacy in Germany in 2007" Organised crime earns a whole lot more, just as I said.

This is just another of your strawmen though... those children are being abused anyway, with or without videos. So far, you have totally failed to support your argument that child porn increases child abuse.


Quote:
The Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography represents a new phase in the war against what has become a multibillion-dollar, international business. Internet service providers, including AOL, already report child porn sites they find.
"who use credit cards to buy $29 monthly subscriptions" Wow... thats really raking it in. Obviously, anyone who wants to raise money should take the children out of $200 a trick prostitution and put them into $29 dollar a month videos...


Quote:
Finding an example of a free site doesn't mean they are all free. Apparently it makes quite a bit of money.
I didn't say they were *all* free - there you go misrepresenting my argument again. What free sites do show is that they are not being used as a primary money raising operation. If that were true, they wouldn't be free because that kind of defeats the object, or at least the object that you imagine.

On the other hand, if they are being used as a shop window to display available child prostitutes, to attract child sex tourists to go and hire those girls, it makes a lot of sense.

The video is just a side show. If they didn't have video they would have a photo. if they didn't have a photo they would have verbal description. Regardless of the media, the prostitution and sex tourism would continue, as it did for millennia before video was ever invented.

For the second time, if you are going to insist that child porn increases child abuse... prove it. All you have so far is evasion through a combination of strawmen and red herrings, propped up with a string of logical fallacies.

If you can't prove that watching child porn INCREASES child abuse, then your distinction between watching video and watching animation is unproven, and your whole basis for saying animation should be legal collapses. The ball is in your court.


Quote:
If huh? IF?!
It has been 'if' since page one MarsII. Aren't you reading properly or what?


Quote:
In addition, show that people are being harmed in the making of cartoons or the sale of them.
Another strawman, misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that harm is the reason for either cartoons or videos being illegal. Actually, that is your argument - you are very confused!


Quote:
It would also help if they made the internet illegal or do away with right to privacy or any of those pesky rights. Real champion for rights you are!
And another strawman - where have I ever suggested doing away with the internet? In fact, if you could read you would have noticed the several occasion on which I have pointed out that child abuse was around a long time before the internet.


Quote:
The girls gone wild producer was in the news a while ago for making one. It is illegal.
Stop misrepresenting my arguments. I didn't say it wasn't illegal. In fact i said the opposite.

For a sexually mature, sexually aware, sexually active teenage girl it is pretty much a technicality. Legally, she cannot consent to sex or prostitute herself while under the age of consent, but in practice we all know they do.


Quote:
You tell me.
Another of your childish tricks... she is a child who, like many children, has daydreams and fantasies of being grown up. That is why in the 'dreaming of being grown up' sequences she is - obviously - grown up. To distinguish her form the 'real' child-Lisa. Good attempt, but failed.


Quote:
Don't ignore your own links.
'The person' is the abuser, not the abused...

That should be fucking obvious - a 12 year old boy getting the hots for a 12 year old girl is, very obviously, not a paedophile - understand?

"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.
#75  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1883/2856
(16-Dec-2008 at 08:17)


You aren't even debating cartoons anymore you are just trying to defend your ability to continue to talk. The nail in this arguments coffin is that the group NAMBLA is legal. If they are legal, then making cartoons illegal to possibly catch abusers of real children is preposterous.

Did you even want to try at Lisa Simpson's age? No? Toddle off and do so.

Mars II - American Scientist
Trolls need not reply
PhD - Physical Chemistry

Last edited by Mars II, 16-Dec-2008 at 08:19.
#76  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4561/7006
(16-Dec-2008 at 09:37)


Quote:
The nail in this arguments coffin is that the group NAMBLA is legal. If they are legal, then making cartoons illegal to possibly catch abusers of real children is preposterous.
It is NAMBLA being legal that is preposterous, but that is an issue you should take up with your own government. As I said before, there is life outside the USA.

If you want to insist that NAMBLA makes pursuing child abusers who use animated child porn impossible IN THE USA, then fine - have it your own way. The rest of us don't have a NAMBLA to worry about, so your argument is really quite irrelevant and definitely not a nail in any non-US coffin.

As you are so opposed to using animated child porn as a route to catching child abusers, even to the point of stupid suggestions such as 'you can't tell how old a cartoon character is', I get a strong feeling that you don't really *want* to catch them...


Quote:
Did you even want to try at Lisa Simpson's age? No? Toddle off and do so.
Normal people can distinguish a child without needing to know the age.

If the character looks pre-pubescent, then it IS pre-pubescent. No need to know the age, and for normal people no problem in identification. If said porn is obviously sexual, and being viewed by the same predominantly child abusing audience that views 'normal' child porn, it too should be illegal so that the police can use the same methods to apprehend the child abusers who distribute it. Why, exactly, are you so opposed to that?

"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.
#77  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 18/37
(16-Dec-2008 at 12:00)
Interesting thread and comments. I rarely post in these threads but had to on this one.
First off child abuse in any way is sick as 99.8% of us will agree as do myself.
Now with my two cents.

With today's computer animation technology I'd be surprised if almost lifelike animated child porn isn't already out there. But it can't be illegalized if we still want to live as a somewhat free society. As has been mentioned, no harm is being done to an actual living being.

The perverted thoughts are already there in ones mind that is entertained by this crap anyways....should they be persecuted for having the thoughts. And when people have thoughts creative ones will draw pictures...or animations, or sculptures or whatever!

Lets go a step further....you can do wonders with Adobe PhotoShop...lets say that individual "puts" there self into a picture with a picture of some innocent unknown child found on the internet, into one of there "sexual fantasies".
Sick yes...but again no harm done....the picture of the child was found on the internet and the person added themselves into the picture, the deviant thought was there, just made a little more realistic without harming anyone.

There are help groups and "shrinks" that will help people that admit to having these problems and want to help themselves otherwise we can do nothing if that person just has "thoughts" of this, except suggest help if we know that person.

You can say the same for a variety of things...rape has been mentioned....what about murder?
Hell Stephen King would have been jailed a long ago with some of the material he has written. But you can put what he has written into a movie...animated or not, because NO HARM is being done to anyone by doing so.
On that note.......just made me think...is there any written fictitious child porn floating around out there and if so is that legal?

The list of disturbing things, can go on and on here. The main thing is was anyone harmed in the process. And you can't say in all fairness that someone watching animated child porn will lead to the person moving on to the real thing. It could be a deterrent who knows.
So to end this...maybe at the most the person should have been made to seek mandatory psychological counseling for a certain period of time. Similar to what we do to DUI cases...and like alcohol, possession of animated child porn, is legal, if not distributed w/o a license of some sort. So if you want to risk sharing it over the internet or sharing it with friends, and you get caught, you go see the psycho doctor.

With today's technology, there will be yet unthought-of of issues of morality to come yet, it will be interesting to see what transpires. Like when lifelike robots, androids, whatever they will be called, hit the market in a few decades or less......
#78  
View Public Profile Find more posts by NJDevil Add NJDevil to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4563/7006
(16-Dec-2008 at 14:37)


Quote:
And you can't say in all fairness that someone watching animated child porn will lead to the person moving on to the real thing.
Yet the statistics say that 80% of child porn viewers are also child abusers. So, making the child porn illegal allows the police to follow the porn trail. Take a look at the numerous child abuse rings that have been busted this way.

Now if the child porn is of a kind that attracts the same child abusing audience, meaning sufficiently realistic and sexual, isn't it worth making it illegal? If the viewer is doing nothing worse than watching a movie, then okay - slap a token fine on him. If it leads to an organised crime ring, then we all benefit. That looks good to me; I have no moral objection to catching child abusers.

"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.
#79  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 449/563
(16-Dec-2008 at 21:23)
Re: Animated child porn = real child porn?

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Yet the statistics say that 80% of child porn viewers are also child abusers. So, making the child porn illegal allows the police to follow the porn trail. Take a look at the numerous child abuse rings that have been busted this way.

Now if the child porn is of a kind that attracts the same child abusing audience, meaning sufficiently realistic and sexual, isn't it worth making it illegal? If the viewer is doing nothing worse than watching a movie, then okay - slap a token fine on him. If it leads to an organised crime ring, then we all benefit. That looks good to me; I have no moral objection to catching child abusers.
I don't know that we actually have demonstrated that this was the case. Was there any other child porn on the person in questions' computer? If not, then isn't it likely that he thought it was a bit of a piss take? If so, why wasn't he charged over that instead?
#80  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo 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 00:42.

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