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: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

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


It's only natural that you would ask that.

My position is that child pornography and the pedophiles who propogate it should be told of how society has such a subversive effect on people, and that they shouldn't blame themselves for being susceptible to it.

In my own words, you could say that i desire a world without perversion of any shape or form, a place where art is appreciated for it's quality and where we can pursue our paths in life without having to worry about such distractions that the world as we know it throws in our paths.

As such, those distractions must be dealt with if my wish is to come true.

Obviously, a world of artistic perfection would be a difficult one to adapt to.

Most likely, this approach stems from the saying that "Society emulates Art".

So, from this one phrase i've coined, one can come to the perspective that animated child pornography, live-action pornography, and anything else so debased and utterly perverted speaks a lot for the society we live in this day and age.

Perhaps we're all looking at the concept of Art the wrong way - that we've gone askew somewhere (that will take time for me to precisely locate, but i can do it if i try
) and because of it "Art" has become something far more than what it was to our traditionalist ancestors.

When people in court fall back on the "It's Art" ploy to excuse their offences against humanity, i can't help but feel truly and utterly apathetic towards whoever is using that ploy.

The action one could take from this perspective is simple; Do not allow Art to be Perverted.

But you asked me about my original approach, and my original action for that was one which is secondary to the action i highlighted in this post.

This is the reason why it is so difficult to deal with pedophiles, and you would have done well to ask.

The secondary approach is one that will stain my hands with blood, sooner or later.




posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


See now here is where we run into problems with trying to regulate such a ban.




Subsection 1B. In any case where the age is not immediately apparent, it is to be assumed the depiction is under the age of 18 years until proof shows otherwise.


How can anyone prove a drawing is over the age of 18?




which person shall not be fully clothed and engaged in ordinary activities normally done in public.


This is a very broad statement. I saw an episode of family guy where Meg the daughter was in her undergarments. Under this regulation that would now be illegal as she was not fully clothed.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



See now here is where we run into problems with trying to regulate such a ban.

Subsection 1B. In any case where the age is not immediately apparent, it is to be assumed the depiction is under the age of 18 years until proof shows otherwise.

How can anyone prove a drawing is over the age of 18?


Yeah, you are certainly right. Of course that was Draft #D1. Others would also have drafts and ultimately a "law writing jam session" could produce something more or less readable and with objective standards to go by.

As you point out, ART has always been an open topic regulated only by the ARTIST. Actually art was NOT regulated at all. Well, if the artist has to eat, he is constrained to produce art he can sell. But I get the point. OTOH, If we are to PROTECT our children from what are described here as INCURABLE UNSTOPPABLE INSATIABLE predators then draconian measures may be called for.

Last night on History Channel tv they showed the means of torture called the Bonze Bull into which the object d'attention was inserted, then the Bull was placed over a roaring fire to heat the interior. Presumably the person inside would offer to "squeal" if let out. Unfortunately the king for whom this device was made got mad at the inventor and put him, his wife and 2 children inside the Bull and ordered his aides to stoke the Flames. That is the last time the inventor appears in history.

[edit on 6/30/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


It is a very difficult topic indeed. It is just too bad that their are people that would prey on children in the first place. As for the bronze bull it sounds like it would be a fitting end for some.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


I'm sorry, did you ignore everything i just posted?

We don't have to kill anyone!



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 



I don't know what you are talking about. I don't understand what your position is. I feel like you are being very vague about where you stand. For example:




My position is that child pornography and the pedophiles who propogate it should be told of how society has such a subversive effect on people, and that they shouldn't blame themselves for being susceptible to it.


I don't understand the point you are trying to make with that statement.

And:



But you asked me about my original approach, and my original action for that was one which is secondary to the action i highlighted in this post.


What original approach and what original action?

If you could try to be more concise. I believe my comprehensive reading skills may be lacking...



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


My original approach concerned using public support to;


A) Protect All Children, Regardless Of Family Privacy.

and;

B) Remove all traces of a perverted nature, while at the same time offering a general amnesty to pedophiles if they come forwards for treatment.

Obviously, not everyone can be treated, which is why i believe my hands would end up stained with blood if i followed this approach.

My primary option is far less extreme, and yet if we worked at it diligently (i.e; gave it time), would acheive the same result.

The primary option is highlighted on this page, btw.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

I don't understand the point you are trying to make with that statement.



If you're looking for a point, you should read the paragraph after that one.

Positions are not things i rely upon to make my case.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 






A) Protect All Children, Regardless Of Family Privacy.


How would this be done?




B) Remove all traces of a perverted nature, while at the same time offering a general amnesty to pedophiles if they come forwards for treatment.


What would be the legal defenition of "perverted nature".

You state you are against legislation (I think???) but clearly your not. In order to give law enforcement the ability to remove items of a "perverted nature" there would have to be laws passed or revised to give them that ability. Or maybe you are saying it should be up to the community to take matters into their own hands? I am still very confused on what we are even debating.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
Or maybe you are saying it should be up to the community to take matters into their own hands?


Correct.

That is the secondary option.

Ultimately, it always falls to the community to enforce legislation in the place of the authorities, so if the community does not care for legislation, then legislation is worthless.

Even now, this very discussion is ultimately about a community trying to decide what to do about this issue.

You are no more in the right to try and figure out a way to deal with this problem than I am, if you want to think about things in the way of "Taking matters into our own hands".

People don't always resort to violence and bloodshed, you know?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Pederasses will get no sympathy from me



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CRDDD
@Aeon937s- Pedophiles CANNOT be helped. No matter how much therapy they have, they will still have a lust for children. Once someone is a pedo, they're always a pedo.


I totally agree with you CRDDD, and also your agreement with whats the other poster's post on putting a bullet to the head of A pedo, so lets cut the chase and start bombing the Vatican?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Jadette, No, I do not think that sex is “naughty”. You misread my post. I agree with you, but in my ideal world this is not something that is flaunted in public.
And, because it is a very powerful instinct and visual representations of an erotic nature do impact the viewer is the very reason I am trying to point out that it is all wrong to put it out there for pedophiles to feed on.

Really jadette, I am an artist and I can certainly create drawings that can be ascertained to be either child or adult. Why must you draw young girls who look like children in erotic poses? Anything that could be thought to be a child regardless of legal age should be banned, as that would be a deceptive practice.

Since I named no one; to anyone being insulted by my posts; all I can say is, you know the old saying, “If the shoe fits…..” No one is under any obligation to identify with being emotionally retarded.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by sparda4355
in order to take away this right you must crush the very foundation of the bill of rights that make America the great country that it is!!!*

Fact: drawings are not people

Fact: drawings don't have rights

Fact: drawings don't have feelings

Fact: drawings are drawings!

Fact: you can't prove that a drawing is under the age of 18, only that based on our opinion the drawing appears to be under the age of 18! You can't even prove that the drawing is that of a human and not an imagionary species created in the mind of the artist!


*You damn sheep.

It's all well and noble for you to look at it that way, but don't ever forget that the people taking advantage of that 'foundation' are well aware of the fact that people like you are protecting their interests.

As for your facts, well done for pointing out a few things that people already know about.


Wow, I’m sorry are you still in the 5th grade? You attempt to insult me by calling me sheep for no reason other than the fact that I hold a different opinion than that of your own!

You follow it up without even the slightest attempt to refute anything that I said…

You mock me for pointing out facts that other people may know, but much like yourself are attempting to ignore!

And your only bold statement is the fact that people take advantage of the fact that people like myself protect there American rights!

Well yes my dear friend… Although I do not agree with their particular lust, and although I personally find it both offensive and repulsive, I will protect their right to draw pictures of look at pictures that others have drawn… As a simpleton you may ask why, so let me make that clear for you!!!

Because when they attempt to take away my right to believe in the God of my choice I expect others whether they believe in my God or not to stand up for my right, when they attempt to take away my right to speak freely about the president or other political views I will expect others to defend that right whether they agree with me or not!

So I end with this, before you prepare to come up against me in an intelligent adult conversation, why don’t you first try thinking before you speak!!!

Good day to you sir!



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by sparda4355
in order to take away this right you must crush the very foundation of the bill of rights that make America the great country that it is!!!*

Fact: drawings are not people

Fact: drawings don't have rights

Fact: drawings don't have feelings

Fact: drawings are drawings!

Fact: you can't prove that a drawing is under the age of 18, only that based on our opinion the drawing appears to be under the age of 18! You can't even prove that the drawing is that of a human and not an imagionary species created in the mind of the artist!


*You damn sheep.

It's all well and noble for you to look at it that way, but don't ever forget that the people taking advantage of that 'foundation' are well aware of the fact that people like you are protecting their interests.

As for your facts, well done for pointing out a few things that people already know about.


I also notice that you made no attempt to refute any of my other replies to this particular subject! You cannot insult others just because they have an opinion that differs from your own!



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   
An issue that has not been highlighted in this topic, is how does one define when a drawing is underage?

I could draw a cartoon styled drawing of a nude girl, without defining an age, without getting bogged down in technicalities, lets assume this character appeared to be late teens/early twenties.

Whether or not the character in question would be under age would be at the soul discretion of the viewer.

At what point does a drawing become illegal? With real people, we can draw a line in the sand and say that "Right, you're old enough to decide yourself now".

However this poses a poblem with Cartoons, as many of them do not have a defined age, and even more importantly, do not make decisions.

The whole point in ages of consent was that it was to define when people are mature enough to make decisions regarding a subject, in this case, the age for porn is 18 in most areas.


However if we try and slap this law onto drawings, you can't really say that the cartoon was not old enough to decide being in pornography... because they are not real.


Regarding characters with defined ages;
While there are many cartoon characters out there etc. that have defined ages, many of them have their ages changed when cartoons are translated into different languages. This could also pose a problem if trying to police such an issue.



While I think the general moral idea behind banning such images is good, it is impossible to police to any great degree due to the fact that it has so many variable technicalities, power hungry law enforcers could abuse the law to jail people for drawings that might not be intended to be "cartoon kiddie porn"



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Where did you go anti-tyrant??? I was looking forward to you defending your point of view by calling me a poopoo head or telling me that your rubber and i'm glue???

If anti-tyrant will not defend his attempt to slander me, will others please go read my reply to his bold faced attach at my intelligence and comment either for or against me.... I would like a vote!



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
They're cartoons, plain and simple. If it gives someone a chance to get their jollies without hurting someone, I see no reason to outlaw it.

Case and point:
Japan has some of the most twisted and disgusting pornography, ever. It also has 1/20 the amount of rapes the US has.Citation

It's better to have a way to release a fantasy in a healthy way, then let it fester and turn someone into a rapist.
The solution to the problem doesn't have to involve anyones life getting ruined.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by sparda4355
 
Sparda, you didn't rise to the provocation, so he probably went elsewhere to play.


reply to post by Rytak
 
Good points and thanks for the link. Do you have something similar on Japan?



new topics




 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join