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: 20
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Banned. Seeing it in any form affects someone. The majority is luckily appalled by it, but the small percentage that do like it, probably are going to want it even more. That would result in taking higher risks in the real world, with corresponding assault rates. Seems logical to me to ban it.

Allowing any form of childPORN, just because other forms exist seems a weird argument to me. Both are in the basics wrong.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by mortje]




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I submit to you some questions :

- When you're playing a game (PC, or arcade, or console), you're killing a lot of persons. Is this a crime ?

- When you burn the image of somebody, are you actually burning this person ?

- When in a flight simulator, you hit the WTC, are you a terrorist ?

What I'm asking is : the IMAGE of something, is it what it represents ?

Other question, where does the "fight against evil" begin to be evil ?

My opinion is that there is some magic stuff in the thoughts of some posters down here : the illusion is NOT the reality.
BUT the human mind may build the same emotions (sometimes have stronger feelings) with illusions than with the reality.
Is WHY we must condemn the human mind ?
Think of it : if ever we wanted to hang all the persons who have at a moment of their life, THOUGHT something that would deserve it if acted, we would hang half the human population ...

Furthermore, I think that this is the real path to total dictatorship : the condemnation of VIRTUAL criminals.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
@Teapot

Having worked in child protection and having experienced child sex abuse first hand, my fear is that these 'innocent' images will be used to groom the intended victims, giving the air of normality, showing a child a comic book ( I was going to continue with this but I fear that I may provide some dirty pervert with a few ideas on how to procure a real child).


The government is NOT our parent, nor is it your child's parent.

If you want the government to raise your children, then you have a MUCH LARGER problem than fearing child predators.

Secondly, Drawings do not constitute abuse.

Their are no victims, thus any experience that you have of child protective services, and your bringing up this Completely irrelevant tid bit of your personal life only serves to prove to the world at large that you have trouble telling the difference between a painting of a person, and a real person.

Who are you protecting?

I really don't think the *DRAWING* minds.



Child sex abuse not only ruins peoples' lives, sometimes it takes their lives. Many children DIE at the hands of paedophiles.


Once again, your point is irrelevant for this conversation.

You cannot ruin the life of a picture.


And we are *NOT* talking about real children.


To all those who advocate paedophile freedom of expression (the artist), thought and speech (the artist, publisher and perveyour), this is exactly what they want, to be legitimised, perhaps even use your arguements to attempt to capture the moral higher ground.


so, whose freedom of expression are we taking away next?

Who elses Freedoms make you uncomfortable?


Freedom of expression will never be more important than the life of an innocent child.


YES IT IS!

Freedom of expression is the MOST VALUABLE RIGHT THAT ANY BEING HAS!

To take away Freedoms, is to take away Liberty and self determination.

You are consigning your children to LIVE as SLAVES to someone else's will.

You would rather have your children live as slaves?

You make me sick.


But of course, the hidden paedophile agenda of the PTB, with the mass MSM sexualisation of childhood, these cartoons will not be discouraged let alone banned and any child within reach of the perveyours of this material is at risk whilst the paedophile chases the dragon.


Just let us make one word illeigal.... the one that hurts.

Well, maybe just one more, because it is so vile.

Ok, there are a couple more words that make people cringe.

Here is another list of things that you are forbidden by law to say.



This is how the Road to hell is paved with good intentions.


You authorize the government to legislate morality FOR you, and then they have the authority to legislate morality *TO* you.


IT is not about Drawings of child sex.... it is about how this could be perverted into a full fledged BOOK BURNING.



No adult freedom that impinges upon the freedom from abuse of the child can ever take precedence.


Your statement is as Ignorant as it is Irrelevant.

How do drawings of naked children harm *REAL* children?


THEY DON'T


@Teapot Again

Ahhh!!! Poor things! It's not their fault!!! They was forced to hurt/cause hurt to real children cos the nasty people who want to protect children took their comic books away!


You would rather increase the chances that your children are subject to the ravages of a child predator, than allow that same person to harmlessly look at drawings?


How are you thinking to protect your children?

By making it more likely that they will get attacked?

You are are not very nice to the children that you would seek to protect.


@Mortje

Seeing it in any form affects someone.


It is not your right to tell people what they can and cannot do to themselves.

Unless you enjoy having YOUR freedoms taken away.... just so that we are perfectly clear:

Laws are not just reguarded for how they might help, but for how they might be misused.

A law that makes depictions (fake) of ANYTHING illeigal is merely the start of a much longer campaign of censorship that ALWAYS (READ HISTORY!) ends in destroying any "Undesirable" elements of society (Undesirable to the Powers that BE).

Your "Morality" and uncontrollable Emotional reactions are the very foundations of a police state where ANY thought that does not conform with the "Party Line" is subject to Punishment.


Think about what the REAL consequences of this decision is.


-Edrick

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Edrick]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


I completely agree with you,and ive already said it multiple times and either people are ignoring me or they cannot distinguish between a flesh and blood child and a drawing for some strange unknown reason.Again,there is no victim in any of this.To equate animated child pornography to real child pornography or the abduction and rape of a real child is baffling.I think people are letting emotions cloud their judgment on the issue from having child and pornography in the same sentence and completely forgetting the animated part.I have not read much into the psychology of paedophiles but if this sort of thing would stop a paedophile going out and preying on REAL children how can anyone possibly be against it?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I have to ask those who are all for this ban on this stuff. Should we also ban the Cistine Chapel? There are plenty of naked pictures of children in there if you have ever seen it. How about we distil your argument.

Your argument:

It is wrong because these drawings are children and child abuse is wrong.


Your argument applied to another crime:

We have videos and pictures depicting death and torture. Therefore they must be banned because murder and torture are wrong.


That is the exact same argument. So why are you for one and not the other? If you are for both then we can extend this to absolutely every crime and basically no movies will ever be made again lol.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by Edrick
 


I completely agree with you,and ive already said it multiple times and either people are ignoring me or they cannot distinguish between a flesh and blood child and a drawing for some strange unknown reason.Again,there is no victim in any of this.To equate animated child pornography to real child pornography or the abduction and rape of a real child is baffling.I think people are letting emotions cloud their judgment on the issue from having child and pornography in the same sentence and completely forgetting the animated part.I have not read much into the psychology of paedophiles but if this sort of thing would stop a paedophile going out and preying on REAL children how can anyone possibly be against it?



Thank you, And I agree that trying to make facts stick to some minds is as difficult as making cheese stick to hope.

They are not listening, because they can't see what consiquences their legislations would cause, because they COMPLETELY trust the Government as they would a BIG BROTHER.

They are completely oblivious to the FACT that Governments ALWAYS quest for more presence in the lives of the governed, and unless the PEOPLE put down their foot, The VERY children that they are trying to protect will become slaves to the very legislators who can make those children "Disappear" to be used for sexual toys for the Elite that they Gave all of their freedoms to.


IT is a complicated road we tread, speeding ever faster toward an unknown horizon.

And the powers that Be do *NOT* want us to THINK.

They want us to FEEL.

Because Feelings are VERY EASY To manipulate.

Tell someone that their children are in danger, and they will give you that childs VERY FUTURE to make themselves FEEL better NOW.

Because they have decided not to think for themselves.


%$^# I'm angry now.


-Edrick (Tear Down the Wall)

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Edrick]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
Because Feelings are VERY EASY To manipulate.

Tell someone that their children are in danger, and they will give you that childs VERY FUTURE to make themselves FEEL better NOW.

Because they have decided not to think for themselves.



Forgetting the whole new world order overtones of your post i agree, people are reacting on emotion. You see i often have that problem, i hope for a calm debate based on logic and any science available and you end up with a load of people going off with their emotions leading the way. It seems some people cannot put their emotional response on the back burner and think it through.

I have read the studies on paedophiles, they are rarely done for obvious reasons. I think i linked some pages and pages back i'm not sure. Basically there is no evidence, at all that watching this porn increases the likelhood of offending and there is some evidence to suggest it may reduce the chances of physical offending and also reduce the amount of real child pornography that is used.

Those are big enough reasons for me to allow this form of pornography. The other big reason is as stated, freedom of expression. There is no victim here, none and therefore i cannot possibly support a ban on it.

I have to go back to my very old argument, one that has served me well about free speech.

You can say what you like, do what you want and think whatever you please as long as you do not harm or by proxy cause harm to anyone.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Edrick
Because Feelings are VERY EASY To manipulate.

Tell someone that their children are in danger, and they will give you that childs VERY FUTURE to make themselves FEEL better NOW.

Because they have decided not to think for themselves.



Forgetting the whole new world order overtones of your post i agree, people are reacting on emotion. You see i often have that problem, i hope for a calm debate based on logic and any science available and you end up with a load of people going off with their emotions leading the way. It seems some people cannot put their emotional response on the back burner and think it through.

I have read the studies on paedophiles, they are rarely done for obvious reasons. I think i linked some pages and pages back i'm not sure. Basically there is no evidence, at all that watching this porn increases the likelhood of offending and there is some evidence to suggest it may reduce the chances of physical offending and also reduce the amount of real child pornography that is used.

Those are big enough reasons for me to allow this form of pornography. The other big reason is as stated, freedom of expression. There is no victim here, none and therefore i cannot possibly support a ban on it.

I have to go back to my very old argument, one that has served me well about free speech.

You can say what you like, do what you want and think whatever you please as long as you do not harm or by proxy cause harm to anyone.



Yes, I agree... as far as the NWO overtones in my post, you'll have to forgive me.

I believe VERY STRONGLY in the NWO's Existance.

And that existance is the perpetual, and UNENDING human compulsion to give their government (or let their government TAKE) more power that it needs, deserves, or warrants with it original purpose.

Does the NWO exist?

Maybe...


Will no human (or group of humans) EVER take advantage of a Government that has total control over a populous for their own selfish ends?

To believe that would be ignorant of human nature.

There is an old saying that I believe, but is not quite complete...

"Power Corrupts, and Absolute power Corrupts Absolutely."

This statement is TRUE, but only half finished.

Frank Herbert was nice enough to Finish the statement;

"Power corrupts, yes... But what is of more importance is that Power ATTRACTS the corruptible, suspect all who seek it."

You keep centralizing more and more power, you will eventually get parasites that attempt to take over the host, and drain every last ounce of blood out of it.


And, to play me out... Bill Hicks (Related)
www.youtube.com...

-Edrick

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Edrick]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Hang on i think you just proved the point on free speech lol.


I wasn't trying to disprove the point of free speech.



The fake aniated pictures however.............they harm no one, hence protected under free speech.


There is a direct link between people who view those images and actual molestation.
There have been pedophiles that actually have freely admitted this during studies.

I think you are ignoring that reality.


Are we to make things illegal because we don't like them? Wel it that case skat porn should be banned in my humble opinion.


Child porn is illegal.
Animated or otherwise.

- Lee



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
I think you are ignoring that reality.


If we take a look at the estiamted figures of downloads of this stuff and the actual number of convicted or even accused apedophiles, we see a massice difference. Even if we factor the amount of people who don't report it it isn't enough.

On top of that it is easily shown many people have these thoughts but never act upon them so your entire premise is sadly flawed. People can have the thoughts and never act so maybe this stuff could act as a release no? I mention again the paedophile i read about on the BBC's website that had switched from real child pornography to this animated stuff.

I am not ignoring the reality, you are.



Originally posted by lee anoma

Child porn is illegal.
Animated or otherwise.

- Lee



Not yet in the UK, although it is getting close. The legality of it is being argued here. Don't just hide behind the current law, defend it properly with actual facts, studies and other stuff. Your morality means absolutely nothing because morality is subjective by it's very nature and more i will quote Aristotle again.

"The law is reason free from passion"

Some people here would do well to remember that.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


I am not debating on the existence of the NWO, i am simply asking you to not derail my thread with it please. Whilst there have been some interesting accusations regarding the NWO and child exploitation it has no place in this discussion. We are simply debating animated child pronography.

Please stick to that, thanks.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I think that all of you who are so in favor of allowing any kind of porn are sick.

Human morals have been influenced to sink to their lowest, and you are encouraging them to sink to even lower levels of depravity.

So people have these thoughts....so let them.
Feeding them with images nourishes and sustains them.

Of all the species on Earth only humans are capable of sexual decadence.

And why do we need the government to act in the matter?

Because people with warped minds cannot regulate themselves.
Personally I think they should be executed as fast as they are found.

There are those of us who desire to raise humanity to higher standards.
And then there are sickos who like the status quo.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
I think that all of you who are so in favor of allowing any kind of porn are sick.

Human morals have been influenced to sink to their lowest, and you are encouraging them to sink to even lower levels of depravity.


What world do you live in? Morals are subjective. What you consider fine someone else will consider absolutely wrong. Don't you get that?


Originally posted by OhZone
So people have these thoughts....so let them.
Feeding them with images nourishes and sustains them.


This is a simple contradiction. So they are allowed to have thoughts that hurt no one but they are not allowed to have fake images that hurt no one..........


Originally posted by OhZone
Of all the species on Earth only humans are capable of sexual decadence.


I suggest you look up spider monkeys and a few other species that indulge in sex as a way of enforcing heirarchy.


Originally posted by OhZone
And why do we need the government to act in the matter?

Because people with warped minds cannot regulate themselves.
Personally I think they should be executed as fast as they are found.


so if they think it but never act upon it they should be killed? Therefore everyone should be killed because everyone has had violent thoughts at some point, simple psychological fact so if they think of murder do away with them,i ncluding yourself. People with warped minds (as you consider it warped) often don't hurt anyone so why should the government regulate them when they do no harm?


Originally posted by OhZone
There are those of us who desire to raise humanity to higher standards.
And then there are sickos who like the status quo.


Oh so if i support free speech i'm a sick? I i say these thigns disgust me, i hate them etc but support what i think is one of the most critical rights, that being free speech i'm sick?

Mate you need an education.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



I am not debating on the existence of the NWO, i am simply asking you to not derail my thread with it please. Whilst there have been some interesting accusations regarding the NWO and child exploitation it has no place in this discussion. We are simply debating animated child pronography.

Please stick to that, thanks.


Of course, of course...

My apologies... just let my viewpoint on the matter get ahead of me.


Now, I believe that we are getting into the Nitty gritty of what Constitutes a Crime, as this discussion seems to be heading to that area.

Now, there are plenty of people that would believe that anything Illegal is wrong, simply by virtue of it's illegality.

This is not the case however.

Governments are Instituted for VERY specific reasons, and that goes back to the dawn of civilization, and clustered living.

Originally, Humans did not need Laws, per-se... Everyone new everyone in their own little tribes, and if you did something that Endangered the group welfare, you were punished accordingly (usually exile, which for primitive humans meant death.)

When agriculture was formed...

(And yes, I am sticking to your topic ImaginaryReality1984... I'm just choosing a roundabout way of pressing the original point, please bear with me.)

When agriculture formed, and tribes had more food, they inevitably grew.

As these groups grew, peoples relationships and relations in them became more and more detached, to the point that a criminal could not nessecarily be handled by those that knew the offender.

So, the specific situations that caused the crime to take place, and the overall personality of the accused could not be accurately determined with any reliability, and tailor fit punishments by the tribe leaders were all but impossible.

This was the beginning of laws.

Laws in theory and practice only have jurisdiction in regards to human interaction.

That is to say, only when one person interacts with another (in a detrimental fashion) could the laws be applied.

A really good read on this subject is "Of Crimes and Punishments" written in the 17th century by Cesare Bonesana and Marchese Beccaria

Link-y
www.constitution.org...

The basis of law is that nothing that only involves ONE party may be a Law (Or made Illegal) simply because Laws are not intended to regulate individual behavior... Only the Relationships and Interactions between individuals are subject to laws.

For example...

Murder always involves more than one person... the Accused, and the Victim.

As does theft.

And Rape.

Seatbelt "laws" however are a gross violation of the original tenets of Governmental PURPOSE, that of regulating Interpersonal Interactions.

Furthermore... A valid cause of action (Which is a legal term for the paperwork required to make or begin criminal proceedings) Requires 3 distinct things to be valid:

1. An accusation against an individual

2. A damage caused to an individual, an individuals property, or their freedoms.

3. And a requested remedy for this harm


Now, in the case of Drawings of "Apparent" Children engaging in sexual activity...

You have the first part... The accused.

You may even have evidence to support that accusation.

But you have no HARM caused BY That individual.

Noone suffered because of his act of looking at some drawings.

These drawings were not produced from the exploitation of children, they were produced by another person with a similar "Desire"

Not only were no children harmed in their production... no children were INVOLVED in their production.

To say that Legislating these pictures would protect children is an Emotional argument made without the slightest bit of rational thought, Common Sense, or Knowledge of how anything in reality actually works (Not to mention a complete lack of understanding of the term "Freedom")

To say that these pictures cause people to DESIRE to molest children, is akin to the argument made blaming McDonald's for Obesity.

It removes the blame from where it belongs (The fat guy who has the inability to stop eating the Fast Food) and places it somewhere it does not belong (The Fast food that noone is FORCING you to buy)

Just because these pictures are out there, does not mean that they are going to be broadcast on the 5-oclock news to brainwash all the budding young "Molesters" into obeying the "Evil, Sinister" plan to increase attacks on the precious little snowflakes.

Disney is not going to come out with an animated adventure of Prepubescent Lust and sexual gratification.

There is no "Alternative Universe" Little Orphan Annie coming to a cinema near you.


Noone is forcing ANYONE to partake of this "Art"



And anouther thing.


If you are trying to claim that we should stop those who draw these things, "To Protect the Children" then you are obviously missing the entire point.

The children are not being harmed.


"But they COULD be harmed" you cry!

Yes... they could also be struck by lightning.

They could get hit by a bus.

They could win the lottery and be hunted down for the ticket.


Should we outlaw lightning?

Should we outlaw Buses?

Should we outlaw the lottery?


"I don't want my children to be taken advantage of!" you scream.

How are they going to be taken advantage of, if you teach them about REALITY, instead of placing Styrofoam padding on every little sharp corner?



Here is the thing....

WE already have laws on the books to punish the ACTS of child molestation, rape, etc.

If you are trying to PREVENT these things from ever occurring, you should just go ahead and not have kids.

Life sucks sometimes, and Some people are Messed up in the head, that does not mean that we have to make everyone's behavior, leisure activities, thoughts, and viewpoints on life PERFECTLY match your own.

Who really cares if there are pictures out there that offend you?

Pictures offend me too, and I am not running to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT begging them to "Make it all better!"

That is childish.


IF they molest your kids... then we will throw them in JAIL, but until they HARM another PERSON, they have done NOTHING WRONG.

Oh, and if you REALLY want to protect your children... start with getting Fluoride out of the water, or Making cars safer, or something that actually MATTERS to the safety of a child.

-Edrick



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 



Personally I think they should be executed as fast as they are found.


Uh oh...

OhZone is talking about killing people.

Maybe we should see about getting murder charges brought up.

Because as we ALL know, if you talk about, or express ideas of murder, then you are likely to commit murder.

We have to stop this one before they KILL!






-Edrick



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 



There is a direct link between people who view those images and actual molestation.
There have been pedophiles that actually have freely admitted this during studies.

I think you are ignoring that reality.


There is a direct link between people with Drivers Licenses and People who Drive while intoxicated.

There have been Drunk Drivers that actually have freely admitted this during studies.

"Correlation does not imply causation"

Learn to argue better.


-Edrick



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
WOOT!

Thank you for your REALLY Relevant Contribution to the Discussion Mr Penn Jillette.

www.youtube.com...

Enjoy.

-Edrick



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
How do you put an age on a drawing?! Thats what doesn't make sense to me. As long as no children were the models, who cares. NOBODY can stop an artist from drawing a picture of whatever he wants. If there is an artist, or CGI expert who wants to make animated pornography then he is going to do it no matter what. That would be like telling me as a guitar player that I'm not allowed to play certain songs because of the content.

So because it portrays a skinny girl with shaved vagina and small breasts its automatically child porn? Get real. Some people prefer girls with small breasts and petite figures.

While I do believe REAL child pornography should be banned outright, I do not believe a DRAWING of NOBODY but a MADE UP CHARACTER is illegal.

When are we going to arrest any couples who act out school girl fantisies? How about guys who date girls who look underage but aren't? Come on people.

This is opening the door to a whole storm of censorship. Draw a picture of someone getting their head cut off? JAIL! Draw a picture of somebody being raped? JAIL! It seems like as a society we are actually TRYING to put as many people in prison as possible.

How can you have a crime with NO VICTIM? It makes NO sense.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
WOOT!

Thank you for your REALLY Relevant Contribution to the Discussion Mr Penn Jillette.

www.youtube.com...

Enjoy.

-Edrick


Lol i watched this earlier but didn't put it up because i thought the game and this thread were slightly different. There is actually an old thread about that game here on ATS, which i was a part of. You can find it, take a look.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Imaginary reality, are you saying that child molestation is OK?
There are cultures where it is OK you know?
Do you belong to one of them?
Do you want it to be that way here?

If we allow child porn in any form, then why not just go all the way and rent out our children to these sickos? Its the norm in some countries, so why not here?

"Originally posted by OhZone
So people have these thoughts....so let them.
Feeding them with images nourishes and sustains them.

This is a simple contradiction. So they are allowed to have thoughts that hurt no one but they are not allowed to have fake images that hurt no one.......... “


****No, my statement was not a contradiction.
Obviously you cannot censor one’s mind.
But why feed the images that they are generating? Real or fake, they are stimulating.
Oh yes, it is a money maker isn’t it? Good for the economy, and never mind the mental, emotional health problems.

Spider monkeys do not pretend to have any set of morals.
Are you saying that if the lowly monkey does it we should follow their example?Or are you saying that you think they are depraved?

“so if they think it but never act upon it they should be killed?”
****If they think on it and never act on it, no one will ever know will they?

Where did I say anything about free speech?
How about a guy goes into a school or church and tell dirty jokes?
Is his right to free speech to be respected?

If 1984 is the year of your birth, make a special note of all you writings…put them away in safe place and then read them again in 30 or 40 years and see if you still think the same way.

Edrick, I am not saying that children are being harmed by this sick idea.
I am saying that it feeds the appetite of the molester and potential molestor,
The same way that those restaurant ads, food ads and cooking ads make you hungry.

.




top topics



 
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join