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: 21
11
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
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.


Are those children engaged in sexual activity?
Naked child in painting does not equal child porn.

- Lee




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
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?


And with that i'll just ignore anything else you say in this thread because i have stated numerous times that it is wrong. I have stated real child porn is wrong and anyone caught with it needs a lifetime prison sentence. So where did you miss those bits? Or did you just ignore it because you cannot possibly fathom someone defending the animated kind without them supporting the other ideas? If you come up with a good response i'll treat it well.


Originally posted by OhZone
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?


Complete overreaction. You are making a straw man and tearing it down, a very dishonest tactic. I'm sure people will see through it.


Originally posted by OhZone

****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.


Erm so you're saying paedophiles are nothing more than mentally disturbed? If that is the case they could use the insanity defense to get off when they're caught, but we don't allow them to do that now do we, because they are not simply having emotional problems. If your stance that they are simply suffering mental and emotional health problems were taken then every single paedophile could escape prison and after some councilling go back out into the world. Problem is that no study has ever shown a paedophile can be cured.


Originally posted by OhZone
****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?


No because his jokes do actual harm to the child, and i WAS going on about free speech so how about addressing all the arguments made.

As for never knowing about it, is that what is upsetting you? The fact that you know it's about is so distressing? These paedophiles, if they only used this animated stuff (and statistically speaking it seems some do) then where is the harm? Please tell me where the harm is other than your own sensitive morals?


Originally posted by OhZone
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.


And here you prove you don't know anything about the subject. Potential molestor? So anyone who plays a violent game is a potential murderer, anyone who watches S&M porn is a potential rapist etc etc. It doesn't work this way, the way it works is that people who commit actual physical crimes gravitate towards this stuff. It does not influence them to actually make the choice to go and act it out.

Whilst some studies have shown an aggressive increase in any male watching any "normal" pornography, the effect was short lived. We're talking an hour at most and it was mild.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 



Imaginary reality, are you saying that child molestation is OK?


Penalty for Logical Fallacies

quoting out of context.
Intentional fallacy
Red Herring.

You are not arguing the point, your reply is invalid.

Children are not in these pictures, therefore children are not being molested.

Your inability to distinguish a Drawing of a human being, from a human being is bordering on intentional manipulation.

Cease and Desist all Ad Homenim attacks, as a replacement for an actual discussion.

You prove nothing but your own FAIL!

-Edrick



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

Are those children engaged in sexual activity?
Naked child in painting does not equal child porn.

- Lee


Wait hang on a second, so if these children in the animated stuff are not engaging in sexual activity, simply naked then it's all fine? Well then erm you basically agree with my position, well done.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 



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.


Makeing one desire something, is not the same as CHOOSING a thing.

You are implying the people are too weak to prevent themselves from being manipulated like toys by stimuli

Your assertion would indicate that people shown pictures of atrocities for long enough would eventually crave them.


You are inherently leaving out the "Free Will" part of the equation.

Are you implying that if you looked at child porn, then you would become a child molester?

Are you that weak?

-Edrick



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 





Child porn is illegal. Animated or otherwise.


Well ... As others did before me, and to explain how much biased is this argument, let's say ...

"Killing is illegal. Animated or otherwise". Bye bye any fiction, any film if it were true ...

It makes me think to some ayatollahs' thinking.
Make your mind : we live in the XXIst century.
It's no more the time when books were put into fire because they TOLD forbidden things ...

You're not very far from telling "sex is illegal. Child or otherwise"

Confusing virtuality and reality is the path to dire dictatorship !



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

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.


How do you know this? Do you have proof?

Do you have any proof that these animations were not used to groom children?



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 ignore or denigrate emotion is not rational. Humans are emotional beings.

Freedom? For who? Where there is a conflict of interest, who's needs should prevail?

Freedom is an illusion.



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.


Sexualised images of children in MSM is on the increase. Surely, you have noticed?


....the precious little snowflakes.


Do you hate children?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
What if the animated child looks underage, but really isn't?

What if the animated child is having sex with an animal and the animal is dead? Is that Beastiality and necrophilia combined with child porn, or is it just plain fun?

What if the animated child porn actress or actor, seduces the adult and or rapes the adult in the sequence? Is that the animators fault?

What of the animated child porn is contracted through a third party, to do the drawings, then someone applies that to animation? Is the original artist the child molestor or the animator? Or both?

What if aI wanted to see if I could draw a child in a sexual position, and I was not very good at it, and it looked like a monkey having sex with a banana? Would the child porn conviction be based on the interpretation of my crappy animation or the actual intent of it?

I could come up with more, but I think you get the picture.

Did you know you can photograph naked children all you want and it's not illegal? Did you know naked children were created by god and goddess and that naked child pictures are not against the law? Most people think naked child pics are illegal but they aren't. It's once they do something together or are directed to that laws come into play.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The vast majority who play killing games are not potential murderers playing a game will not encourage them to go and kill.
Here in the UK and no doubt in the USA there have been copy cat murders of scenes in films and video games.
We can not be sure that this animation will not feed a paedophiles appetite, if it is only one in a thousand, that is one little girl or boy who will be abused, that is one too many.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 



How do you know this? Do you have proof?

Do you have any proof that these animations were not used to groom children?


Do you have proof that they DO?

Can you prove to me that you DON'T Rape children?

Logical Fallacy: Negative Proof
en.wikipedia.org...

Drawing pictures of ANYTHING does not require the original to be present for its "Artistic" Reproduction.

Did you hear that sound?

That was your FAIL!

Your argument is irrelevant, and trite.

Try again.


To ignore or denigrate emotion is not rational. Humans are emotional beings.


Humans are not WHOLLY Emotional beings.

Emotions do not build cities, nor do they feed our bellies.

Attempting to imply correlation, and causation from an emotional standpoint does not make it TRUE.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion
en.wikipedia.org...

That was YOU Failing again.


Freedom? For who? Where there is a conflict of interest, who's needs should prevail?


The need of the Freedom to express oneself without it becoming a Criminal act just because you get offended.

YOUR Ignorance Offends me, Should YOU be outlawed?


Freedom is an illusion.


Your True aim becomes all the clearer.

Go be a slave somewhere else.


Sexualised images of children in MSM is on the increase. Surely, you have noticed?


Are these PICTURES of children, or are they DRAWINGS that APPEAR to be children?

Do you know the difference between a photograph that uses a REAL subject, and a Drawing that is Completely FAKE?

Logical Fallacy: False attribution
en.wikipedia.org...

You just keep racking up the fail don't you?

An increase of sexualized PICTURES of children in the MSM is not the topic of discussion.

We are speaking about DRAWINGS.

Any further attempt to bring ACTUAL child pornography or photography into this discussion only highlights your inability to comprehend what is being discussed here.

Do not bring it up again, because you will merely FAIL again.


Do you hate children?


Logical Fallacy: Irrelivance, Ad Hominem Attack.
en.wikipedia.org...

Your question is meaningless to the discussion at hand.

We are not discussing CHILDREN.

We are discussing a combination of pigments and colors that APPEAR TO REPRESENT CHILDREN.

Your Abundance of FAIL is disturbing.

-Edrick

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Edrick]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


Like so many, you advocate the robbing of people's freedoms to protect you or your children from potential harm. You speculate that because your own experiences demonstrated something to you that those experiences must be the way everything works.

I have had friends who worked in Child Services, and they have probably as many horror stories as you do... but that doesn't mean they are right when they assume that they should ban an entire subset of IMAGINARY THOUGHT to protect children who MIGHT be harmed by it.

I *MIGHT* Kill someone with a kitchen knife... especially if I lived in England right now and had a momentary desire to kill someone. I *MIGHT* steal a car and run over some pedestrians and hookers because I've played GTA.

Laws should address crimes committed, not try and prevent crimes from being committed by punishing before anything is done.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I am glad you bring up one of the most famously raped and molested logical fallacies!

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

Let us assume, for example, that he is right and that many JAILED Paedophiles/Child Molesters have used or viewed animated child pornography... well, it's unsurprising, when you are jailing people for VIEWING things rather than DOING things.

However, the correlation that people already in jail and interviewed for a study may have viewed such content does NOT mean that all people who view such content are Paedophiles/Child Rapists and deserve to be in Jail.

Some people have a lot of fetishes, the Paedophilia could be a secondary fetish (Meaning that they have other attractions that tend to take precedent, but that they may have moods where they'd like to look at pictures of animated girls getting violated by a sex robot, or werewolf, or her brother or whatever).

Correlation does not equal causation. To the person previously who has TWICE now mentioned these studies they have read; Own up or shut up, show us the studies and where you got them from so we can verify the accuracy and unbiased nature of the study (Which is done by examining who conducted it, who funded it, what the sample size was as well as what cross-section of the populace it surveyed).

The problem with studies in Paedophilia is that they are so few and far between because nobody wants to lend the possibility that they may be wrong in their position on Paedophiles. We want to demonize them more than we want to understand how they work, the same is not true of ANY other criminal (Psychopath and Sociopath Psychology has tremendous amounts of studies).

What can be inferred is this; Pornography reduces the instances of violent sexual crimes in the countries where it is legal and permitted. There will always be a subset of society which have impulsive responses that cause them to behave criminally, with or without pornography (But it can be a trigger for their behavior). These individuals are lone actors, and ARE NOT representative of the common populace at large.

The Populace should never be prosecuted in a court of moral opinion on the basis of lone actors whose impulse control was poor to begin with; This reads as "A guy goes out then rapes and murders a little girl. This does not mean that all men are child rapists. He read comics of raping little girls. This does not mean that all men who read comics of rape or which involve raping little girls are Child Rapists."



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
imaginary reality, yes, if find it incredible that one can find real child porn wrong and yet defend a mock up of same.

Yes, pedos are mental cases…and I do not find insanity to be a defense in aany case. They should all be executed. I do not believe in warehousing useless and dangerous people.
Counseling and other psychiatric care has been found to be of no affect.

Free speech and freedom of expression have to have responsible limitations.

Did I not make myself clear when I said, “If they think on it and never act on it, no one will ever know will they?” You seem to have read more into it than what I said.
What I am meaning is that this guy could go thru his entire life a good and well respected person. What goes on in the privacy of his mind does not show.
Maybe this guy would not watch porn. He just does it in his mind.

On the other hand you are suggesting that there be free availability of this for anyone, which as I have stated stimulates and feed the appetite of those who may have less control over their lives. You seem certain that it would not. I prefer to err on the side of caution,
And not lead them to temptation.

Edrick, don’t you think that there is a vast difference between sexually stimulation pictures or drawing and picture of atrocities?
Isn’t it obvious that people are too weak to resist mental manipulation? Manipulation is the story of man’s history. Sexual stimulation is at the top of the advertizing media’s ploys.

Quote: “You are inherently leaving out the "Free Will" part of the equation”
****Propaganda has been over-riding free will since the beginning of time.

“Are you implying that if you looked at child porn, then you would become a child molester? “

*****Shaking head, (sigh), Edrick, don’t you think that it is obvious that one would have to be predisposed to molesting children in order to be influenced by the porn?

Ther real question here should be:
Why exactly should we cater to the depravities of the lowest among us?
How does this help to make us a kinder, gentler more enlightened society?



[edit on 30-5-2009 by OhZone]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Uhg... here we go again.

I'll try to remain cordial... for the sake of the OP.


imaginary reality, yes, if find it incredible that one can find real child porn wrong and yet defend a mock up of same.


Have you ever watched a movie where someone is murdered?

By your logic, you are to be convicted of killing the person who was portrayed as murdered.

Fantasy does not equal reality.

I find it incredible that you are unable to distinguish between Reality and Fantasy.

With child porn, the CHILDREN are in a position to be harmed.

With DRAWINGS of the same, no children are involved.

No victim = No crime.

I know that you FEEL that it should be a crime...

But we do not make laws based upon your FEELINGS.

Why can't you get that?

We punish ACTIONS, not feelings or thoughts.

And we only punish ACTIONS that HARM others.

The very concept of making a drawing illegal is so unconditionally Tyrannical that you should problem be arrested for even promoting such an idea.

But I (unlike you) am fundamentally opposed to legislating ideas, speech, beliefs, and perceptions.


Free speech and freedom of expression have to have responsible limitations.


Are you going to be responsible for yourself, or would you chose to have an outside agency determine what your responsibility SHOULD be?

What you are doing, whether you know it or not... is GIVING UP your responsibility, because you do not want to act like an adult.

You do not want to take responsibility for your own actions, and you don't think that anyone else should either.

You want the Government to treat us like children, and make all decisions FOR us.

I have morals, just as you do....

IT is not your right to define MY morals FOR me.

They are *MY* morals... get it?


On the other hand you are suggesting that there be free availability of this for anyone


Is pornography available to everyone?
IS Beer freely available to everyone?
are Cigarettes freely available to everyone?

Or is a minimum age required?
Or are these things ALLOWED, but REGULATED?

You assertion of what you think my position is, is quite erroneous and trite.

To disagree with your position "Drawings of child porn should be illegal"

is NOT the same as saying "Drawings of child porn should be freely distributed"

Your argument, ONCE AGAIN, is ridiculous, childish, and obtuse.


which as I have stated stimulates and feed the appetite of those who may have less control over their lives.


Are you saying that they should not be held accountable for their choices?

Once again, correlation does not imply causation.

Your inability to realize this makes your arguments a mere repetition of unintelligible noises, akin to a parrot.

Alcohol stimulates violent tendencies in cases of domestic abuse.

Does this mean that alcohol CAUSES abuse?

No, it does not, and to claim this (which is your logic) is absurd and childish.


Edrick, don’t you think that there is a vast difference between sexually stimulation pictures or drawing and picture of atrocities?


I do not like Gay sex.

I find drawings of Gay sex to be.... somewhat atrocious.

To Gay people, this is sexual stimulating.

Are you saying that just because *YOU* don't like a particular thing, than it is necessarily *EVIL*?

You are claiming more moral authority than you actually wield (which is closer to none)

This is presumptuous, Self Centered, Arrogant, and not to mention, Rude.

How dare you assume to wield moral authority over the world... this is not your place.


Isn’t it obvious that people are too weak to resist mental manipulation? Manipulation is the story of man’s history. Sexual stimulation is at the top of the advertizing media’s ploys.


It is our inherent right to believe whatever we wish.

If it is your choice to believe that there is a magical man in the sky, who non-consensually knocked up a peasant girl to give birth to his son, to die for OUR sin of not believing this magic sky man's original LIE in the garden of Eden...

then that is your choice.

I will not take that away from you.

IT is not my right to outlaw YOUR belief, just because *I* do not believe in it.

Nor is it YOUR right to outlaw ANOUTHER's belief.


Propaganda has been over-riding free will since the beginning of time.


According to MOST religions, all *OTHER* religions are JUST propaganda or lies.

No one has the right to make a belief illegal just because they do not agree with it.


Shaking head, (sigh), Edrick, don’t you think that it is obvious that one would have to be predisposed to molesting children in order to be influenced by the porn?


Well, if they are already predisposed to molesting children, how is banning a DRAWING of child porn going to stop them from wanting to molest children?


Ther real question here should be:
Why exactly should we cater to the depravities of the lowest among us?


What do you mean by "Why should we cater to them"?

WE ARE NOT CATERING TO THEM $%#^&$

They are catering to THEMSELVES!!!!!!!

Is there a Child porn animation studio funded by taxpayer dollars that I don't know about?

IF not... I do not see how *WE* are contributing to this.

Last time I checked, they drew this #$%^ themselves.



How does this help to make us a kinder, gentler more enlightened society?


By not believing that it is our place to tell other people WHAT TO THINK!


-Edrick



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


There is only one easy answer to it all...

Do not commit any thought crimes.

It's that simple. It doesn't matter if someone takes advantages of an actual child or not. It's the thought that is the crime. Thoughts are dangerous. Thoughts gave us the taliban, thougths gave us Dahmer, Gates, and Manson. Thoughts are the gateways to real tangible crimes. We can preempt tangible, physical, crimes if we punish the thought crimes first.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
b]I wonder about those who say it si okay for a man to watch an animated cartoon of a child being sexually abused
It is sick, why feed a perverted fantasy.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by dizzylizzy]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by dizzylizzy]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzylizzy
 



I wonder about those who say it is okay for a man to watch an animated cartoon of a child being sexually abused. It is sick, why feed a perverted fantasy.


It is not a child.

There is no abuse.

IT is only a fantasy.

No one is being damaged, harmed, molested, hurt, forced, etc.

No parties other than those viewing the picture is involved.



Seriously... I wonder about those who think it is okay to make their own moral judgments legally binding, it is sick.

Why feed a Perverted Ego.

-Edrick

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Edrick]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Edrick]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
How do you put an age on a drawing?!

So because your picture doesn't have large breasts, pubic hair, and womanly curves then you can be tossed in jail for child porn?

Examples.

My girlfriend has barely an A cup and no pubic hair and still wears braces. Shes 19. If I was to draw a picture of somebody with her figure and features, she would probably look about 13. Does that mean I should go to jail?

How about this.

Im an artist drawing a picture. Somebody assumes the picture is of somebody under age when in fact that is only their interpretation. So we jail people based on somebodys interpretation of art? Bull.

Ever hear of the ink blot test? People percieve things differently. One may see a child where another sees a woman. And because of that people WILL be tossed in jail for not adding womanly features on their drawings?! Come on.

And we can even go further. A LARGE population of the world is a fan of the school girl fantasy in the bedroom. Should we throw them in jail too when their wife acts and dresses up like a fifteen year old getting a lesson from the teacher? Surely that could fuel a pedophiles desire.

The list is ENDLESS. Once we start putting STUPID laws attached to art its going to be a rough ride down hill.

[edit on 5/30/2009 by deadline527]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by deadline527
 


Excellent point.

Here is a picture (Safe for work, Not Porn.) Take a look.

www.quizilla.com...

She looks pretty young, don't she?

But how old would you say she is?

12?


14?


11?


Go ahead, take a guess.








Times up.....


The answer?



The girl depicted in this picture is an Elf, not human.

She is about 50 or 60 years old.

Because elves live for about 1,000 years, and age visibly slower than humans do.



Do you understand the Fail yet?


-Edrick



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Thank you for pointing out my bad spelling and punctuation, I have dyslexia forgot to use the checker, tounge in cheek.

Comming to a store near you, comic book for paedophiles. Who will make these cartoons has to be a child molester either in reality or mind because any decent person woud find it abhorrent.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join