It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 
IF it were to save a child from abuse, would that not count as a redeeming value?

I agree on your other points.




posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Then i have to ask you something, what i may consider obscene you wouldn't and vise verca. So who is to deicde what is obscence? Whilst we can all agree child pornography involving real children is not just obscene but absolutely wrong and damaging to the child involved, the fake stuff doesn't have this problem.

I find the idea of porn where one man defecates on a woman obscene but i don't call for it's ban because that is two, consenting adults. The animated stuff doesn't have a consenting party so that can't count as an arguement. I suppose we could say the artist is the consenting party up to a point.

However if it saves a real child from abuse, is it worth allowing it, that's the base point of my confusion i suppose. I've been desperately trying to find the article where the paedophile claims he stopped using real child pornography to use this animated stuff instead. That to me shows there is a small section of these individuals who know what they are doing is wrong and don't want to hurt a child, but they still need to view images to get their fix. That's why i'm confused over whether we should allow the animated stuff.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
That's why i'm confused over whether we should allow the animated stuff.


There's a difference between being confused and hesitating to draw a conclusion.

Admit it, the data we need isn't there.

You have to make your decision based on your own reasoning skills, without having someone else's reasoning to help you.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Well the reason i started the thread was to get both sides of the argument and hopefully get more points of view made. There is nothing wrong with doing so, i'm not asking someone to tell me what to believe. Just a good debate on the issue at hand to help me out.

I've never had any problem with taking a viewpoint, just this ones so very difficult and been made more difficult with the idea of censorship starting small, in the extreme margins and being brought inwards to anything we consider mainstream.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
There is nothing wrong with doing so, i'm not asking someone to tell me what to believe.


Then hurry up and make your decision on how we should act, seeing as you are the acting conflux of the information being passed around in this thread.

Unless, of course, you still think that the reasonings are inconclusive.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Ack, please don't try and harrass me into making a decision, yes i started the thread but that doesn't mean i should make a decision rashly because you decide i should. I will mull it over, taking care to think it through before i come to deciding what is correct.

Or do you think it's ok to force someone into making a decision on an important topic as quickly as possible? Wars have started because of such thinking.

Either way the discussion has been extrememly useful and i'm glad to see that lots of people responded calmly and thought throught the issue.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
OMG, now im really worried, i thought everyone agreed with me on these issues but apparently people here are still discussing this as though they dont know the difference between right and wrong yet. all i can say is that its not about whats considered obscene or not, or whether it prevents harm from reaching children; its about principle. who in their right mind would allow such deviancy to spread only to see it glorified and desensitized. and imagine how fearful would parents be knowing that their neighbor could be looking at child pornography of any kind and expressing a desire to wash away a child's innocence. allowing stuff of that nature sends a strong message to them saying that its okay to be a pedophile and that there's nothing wrong with it. but it aint okay.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Or do you think it's ok to force someone into making a decision on an important topic as quickly as possible? Wars have started because of such thinking.

Either way the discussion has been extrememly useful and i'm glad to see that lots of people responded calmly and thought throught the issue.


Mhmm.

I don't think that's okay, no.

I do happen to think it's nessecary to make sure one has a strategy in case things suddenly get well and truly out of control though.

So you have no contingencies, even?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by gekko
 



IF it were to save a child from abuse, would that not count as a redeeming value?


N O.

I may be perverted but this sounds like asking me if masturbating in public has no socially redeeming value? As in reducing the number of rapes.

It requires self-discipline to guide your thoughts into productive areas. I see not valid or productive reason to encourage forming mental imagines that are patently against the laws of the US and I assert of nature.

[edit on 6/30/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
I do happen to think it's nessecary to make sure one has a strategy in case things suddenly get well and truly out of control though.

So you have no contingencies, even?


Whilst i don't like totalitarianism, this is what mods are for, to keep things on track. So lets get back to the thread.

Not sure what cntingencies i could have, the thread was started in all honesty to raise a very serious question and rather selfishly to try and give me both viewpoints, often from the extremes to try and help me make up my mind on this important issue. It was designed to give me the pro and con arguement and more importantly to check if i'd missed anything (which i had).

Anyway lets leave this thread to the original subject instead of being about my strategies shall we



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Wowee, ever since i made that post in the other thread, it seems the context of our discussions has been rapidly whittled down to a very narrow-minded avenue of thought.

It think it's entirely pertinent, by the way.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I'm assuming the OP is saying this type of cartoon pornography may be used as a calling card for help by those who want help with their addiction and a form of amnesty?

They would apparently have to destroy all illegal real pornagraphy to escape from it and the ramifications of having it. It would seem this suggests some type of self help and weaning off of it.

Many people are self medicators and seem to find some type of distraction from the problems and control stituations they can't face. Many are said to be bipolar and often go through life untreated professionally. Until we see this as a symptom of some type of repetitive cultural disease, we are all deluded and distracted animals in denial.

I would think it needs to be viewed more as mental illness and a disease and that it's control over them suggests they have become a threat to themselves and others because of it.


Since the internet usues constitutional loopholes, than it only seems logical to counteract it with another. This could also be used against the tobacco companies, which is an example of how the monetary system trumps humanity. So, it's these 'financial' double standards that keep these abuses alive and thriving.

Until we have the ability to end these other obvious practices, we are deluding ourselves it will ever stop. Currently the system uses high prices and taxation to convince smokers to quit, which is still refusing to stop the problem directly and another excuse for financial gain. Many may also see this with the current oil crisis.




Since there is a need to protect childen from potential harm whether mentally and or physically, these all have to be weighed in as well by actual statistics, cause and effect.

Statistics may point to that many sexually and mentally abused children may eventually end up in a down spiraling self abusive lifestyle.

Children taken out of homes for this very abuse may then become abused in a foster care facility with the same children or worse. Many of them seen as defiled or whores by themselves and others.

Child prostitutes may then most likely grow up in the system as adult prostitutes and lure others in also. Many runaways may be running away from what they perceived was originally worse; jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Sexualty is a form of release, a sign and reminder of youth and health and to Some the aspect of losing it may represent old age or dying.

From the view point on the other side, I see these types of cartoon loopholes in a sinister light as how people would be introduced to it and that it may represent what some movies have done by drawing out scene sketches as a rehersal........or some comic book fantasy. I would imagine some may aslo recall having been affected by cartoons this way? Video games? So, there appears to be a strong connection or return to youth.

Did YOU forget something?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
As an artist I simply don't see how you could /ever/ regulate something that is as abritrary as the depiction of age of a character in a drawing.

So basicly what would have to happen, is any and all depiction of sexuality, eroticism, or even mild sensuality would have to be banned, just in case, in the mind of the viewer, the characters could be, possibly, seen as 'not of the age of consent'.

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is? Does anyone see how we leave the realm of 'real crime' and into 'thought crime'?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Then I have to ask you something, what I may consider obscene you wouldn't and vise versa. So who is to decide what is obscene? Whilst we can all agree child pornography involving real children is not just obscene but absolutely wrong and damaging to the child involved, the fake stuff doesn't have this problem.


Justice Potter Stewart’s concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). He wrote: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, [obscenity] and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." en.wikipedia.org...



I find the idea of porn where one man defecates on a woman obscene but I don't call for it's ban because that is two, consenting adults. The animated stuff doesn't have a consenting party so that can't count as an argument. I suppose we could say the artist is the consenting party up to a point.


Whatever that bad habit is called, I believe it was claimed to have been a favorite indulgence of Adolph Hitler. I can’t justify what amounts to training and desensitizing our inmate sensitivity (humanity) to such conduct.



I've been desperately trying to find the article where the pedophile claims he stopped using real child pornography to use this animated stuff instead.


Try these links from Google.

www.freethought-forum.com...
muse.jhu.edu.../journals/journal_of_lesbian_and_gay_studies/v013/13.2davies.html



That to me shows there is a small section of these individuals who know what they are doing is wrong and don't want to hurt a child, but they still need to view images to get their fix. That's why I’m confused over whether we should allow the animated stuff.


And I too, but I also think this is one of those instances where we should err on the side of caution rather than adding to the risks already out there for those people who suffer from that pre-disposition and who cannot seem to avoid it. That by the way, may point to a genetic component?

[edit on 6/30/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is? Does anyone see how we leave the realm of 'real crime' and into 'thought crime'?



That distinction was made when we started calling Pornography what it is now instead of Television.

Obviously, considering the fact that pornography apparently isn't welcome in mainstream entertainment channels, the mere act of watching any form of pornography has become a rather anti-social activity.

We left the realm of 'real crime' a long time ago with this one, Jadette.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I could care less about animated child pornography not breaking any laws. It's totally disgusting and should never be allowed! Show a coc aine addict video's of coc aine and users and he will go out to find the real stuff. The same with pedophiles. Animated child pornography will do nothing but fuel the flames and get innocent children hurt and scarred for life.


[edit on 6/30/2008 by Solarskye]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Solarskye
 
You can only speak for your self.

I have seen people do coke on TV, in movies, in graphic novels, in books, in newspapers, in games and in real life loads of times. I have been offerd it for free loads of times but I have never taken any. How on earth do you explain that?

Your statement suggests to me that you are a weak minded individual. Please don't judge everyone else by your own weaknesses.

Seeing is not doing, and has never been. You either do or you don't.

Edit: Pedophiles are no more addicts than you or I are sex addicts. Well I know I am not...


[edit on 30/6/08 by gekko]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by gekko
 


I have been around people smoking crack, but have never been tempted to do it.
Exposure to that drug only reinforces my aversion to it because I can see what it does to people's lives.
Anyway, legal animation is not a hypothetical.
If it is causing harm, we should be able to find evidence of it.
Japan, where this stuff comes from, will probably see a population decline because they loose interest in real sex.
Why go to all that trouble when you can fantasize for a low amount of money?
I saw a thing on CNN this morning where they have "Princess" restaurants.
They cater to women and have all Western men waite on them.
All these fantasy books have turned the girls towards English and American men and they have no interest in Japanese men, who do not live up to the fantasy.
If anything, porn leads to less sex.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
Interesting.

I believe Lolicon is legal in Japan to. Does anyone have child abuse statistics for Japan?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 



I don't like any of this animation, but I am against murder of innocent people. Think logically.


I join in denouncing the death penalty in America. The nicest thing that can be said about the DP is, “it’s barbaric.” I frequently bring to mind Governor George Ryan of Illinois. After watching as 13 men on the Illinois Death Row were found to be INNOCENT and were released from custody, he commuted all the remaining death sentences for 167 men. He said the system was flawed and he wanted it fixed before anyone else was put to death. That number - 13 - works out to 7.7% of those in Illinois were innocent. Assuming that was a sufficient sample to be reliable, then George Bush as governor of Texas has ordered 11 innocent men be put to death. Maybe that is why he acts “rattled?”

this is the reason I'm against the death penalty. You can't give a guy his life back,if he's been wrongly accused and later found out to be innocent. Which happens all the time. hands up who,on this,a conspiracy site,trust their legal system?

how would you feel if you were accused,but were completly innocent. You were found guilty cos of some stupid bit of evidence,or cos the jury didn't like your face. Would be nice to think you've got the cahnce to clear your name. You can't do that when you're dead.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join