Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

page: 22
11
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
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


Exactly.

I dont see how somebody could argue a picture of that elf getting it sideways could be construed as child porn? Makes no sense to me.

No victim? No crime!




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadline527
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]


A woman is not identified by her breast size.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzylizzy

Originally posted by deadline527
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]


A woman is not identified by her breast size.


Exactly!

Then how do you KNOW that the cartoons are children? You dont.

There is no definitive answer. Its all open to interpretation and if somebody says its child porn they better have a damn good way to PROVE that the cartoon is UNDER 18 years of age.

[edit on 5/30/2009 by deadline527]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzylizzy
 


Decent? You mean like decent people who decry homosexuality and then are caught in the bathroom soliciting sex from a man?

You mean like Decent folks who are for family values, and then are discovered to be banging a hot prostitute on the side of his wife?

Decent like the kind of person who tortures someone, but doesn't call it torture because by redefining it we can fool people into thinking that we're still morally in the right?

Decent like treating unwed mothers as if they have failed and ruined their lives, that pregnancy out of wedlock is the worst thing ever and that they'll burn in hell for all their lives for having unprotected sex when they were never taught to take precautions in the first place?

Decent like Giving homosexual people closure and reconciliation through sanctioning them to get married, and then tearing that right away out of fear and spite?

Decent like calling for the death of all Muslims?

Decent like Protesting at dead soldiers funerals?

Decent like stating that God hates America for allowing sexual deviancy?

Decent like WHAT, you incorrigible twit?

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare do ordain and establish this Constitution of The United States of America.
...
For all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator INALIENABLE RIGHTS...

Inalienable. That means that you don't get to choose who has freedom of speech. That means you don't have the right to choose for them, and that means that if you think you do; you are a traitor and a saboteur, and deserve no better than the firing lines.

That's what you deserve. Yes, because you hate pedophiles you deserve to die. Why? Because your hatred rules you, and because you think it is somehow your god-given right (Not enumerated upon in the constitution, fancy that) to destroy the lives of people who get sexually aroused at images of children.

You think it is your RIGHT to slander, hate, punish and kill them because of an arousal they have; and even worse than that, you believe that they don't deserve any way to possibly curb or satiate any desires; you want them to show themselves as monsters so you can be proven right... because you are not comfortable with the idea that the person sitting next to you in class, or the next door neighbor, or someone you never would have realized just has an uncontrollable reaction in their brain that causes them to be aroused around prepubescent children.

So... you think they should die, and you should die too. Because your beliefs make you prone to violence, prone to take matters into your own hands when it concerns a Paedophile.

I decree that because you have such a violent streak in you, that you be immediately put to death on behalf of the innocent people you MAY murder in the future out of suspicion of their paedophilic nature.

I am sure other upstanding people feel the same about people who have violent reactions to people's sexual dysfunctions; so let's put every puritan to death.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpacePunk
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.


Was this said tongue in cheek? Sarcastically? If you were serious here then i'm very scared of you. You are basically advocating every science fiction dictatorship that has ever been made.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzylizzy
 


It doesn't matter what you think of the material,what we are discussing is the legality of it.And any person using common sense and logic would know it is legal,unless you think drawn children should be given the same rights as real children.In which case you are nuttier than a squirrels diet anyway.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Please address my query; Can you prove that this material has not been used to groom children?

And why so many personal attacks? Have I (or anyone who thinks these type animations pose too high a potential risk to real children), personally attacked you?

You argue for freedom of speech, yet personally attack anyone who dares to disagree!

Why is it important to you to continually suggest that I have in some way failed? Failed at what? I've expressed my thoughts on the subject. That is what I set out to do!



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
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.


Experiential authority often attracts opposition. Those who have either personally experienced such abuse or worked with those who have, do develop an understanding of the, life destroying, impact of sex crime on the victim. Once this understanding is reached, there is no longer any desire to obscurate the issue of protecting children from harm with spurious arguments that freedom of expression is the holy grail we should all aspire to.




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


As I understand it, the first duty of the criminal justice system is crime prevention.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
my question is disturbingly (i think) valid...the article said the NEMEC has "poured"(?) over 5 MILLION IMAGES just in the last year??? uhhmm...how many images does it take to catch the guys??? if they "only" had 4 million, would someone have gone free?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 



Please address my query; Can you prove that this material has not been used to groom children?


Please address my query; Can you prove that you have never raped a child?

Please address my query; Can you prove that the Norse God "Odin" is not the one true god?

Please address my query; can you prove that the invisible intangible leprechaun on my shoulder does not determine who lives, and who dies?


When you have decided that FAIL is no longer your "Thing" please read this article:

en.wikipedia.org...



And why so many personal attacks? Have I (or anyone who thinks these type animations pose too high a potential risk to real children), personally attacked you?


I am attacking your arguments, as they are ignorant.


You argue for freedom of speech, yet personally attack anyone who dares to disagree!


I am Not Free to counter your claims?

Is that what you are saying?

Have I impinged upon your right of Speech?


Why is it important to you to continually suggest that I have in some way failed? Failed at what? I've expressed my thoughts on the subject. That is what I set out to do!


Yes, you HAVE successfully expressed your thoughts, I am not saying that you failed in your ability to express yourself.

Merely that you are VERY wrong in your premise.

You FAIL at thinking, or having a CORRECT perspective to Express.


As I understand it, the first duty of the criminal justice system is crime prevention.


That is why you are wrong.

Laws are not about preventing crimes, they are about delivering JUSTICE for crimes that HAVE BEEN committed.

You can only be GUILTY of the ACT of committing a crime.

You can not be guilty of "Might Commit a crime in the future"

Lets look at the word "Justice" shall we?

Justice: judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments.

Punish: To cause to suffer for crime or misconduct.

So, justice is (in the negative) is a punishment that results from misconduct.

Misconduct is an ACTION.

Therefore, the meaning of justice is to PUNISH crimes committed, *NOT* to prevent crimes from BEING committed.

Any prevention that punishment would impose is a secondary effect of FEARING punishment for one's actions...

Not a punishment for crimes that *MAY* be committed.


We do not punish crimes that have not occurred.

That, would be tyranny.

Am I going to need to spell this one out in crayon for you?

-Edrick

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Edrick]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by teapot
Experiential authority often attracts opposition. Those who have either personally experienced such abuse or worked with those who have, do develop an understanding of the, life destroying, impact of sex crime on the victim. Once this understanding is reached, there is no longer any desire to obscurate the issue of protecting children from harm with spurious arguments that freedom of expression is the holy grail we should all aspire to.


As an ethicist, and someone who is a cultural observer, I find that I am not only obligated I am pressaged into responding to this comment.

Rape and molestation does not destroy life. It is the personal decision of each individual how they are going to deal with such a devastating and psychologically damaging act committed upon them. If society and the individual decides that they are going to be defined by the fact that they are a rape victim or a child abuse victim, then they will choose to reinforce this mental stance in any way they can.

You, as well as other's in the industry, make the mistake of assuming that human beings are breakable; we are only breakable if we allow ourselves to be broken. It is a dis-empowering to convey to rape victims that they have been robbed of something precious, that they are damaged and that they are forever marred.

Some, I will attest, will never get over their experiences... and that does not increase or decrease the horribleness of such actions.

From personal statistics, however, there is a huge portion of fully functional victims in society who have moved on from the traumas of their past. They may display biased points of view concerning subjects similar that trigger their emotional recall, but they function fine as people; they are not broken by their experiences and they don't let their experiences define them as people.

This, of course, is a much more complex subject than what we are discussing... but I felt like tangenting briefly.

None of the above about abuse victims has anything to do with animated pornography or simulation pornography of any kind; There are no victims to be hurt and it allows the person partaking of such pornography to fantasize beyond reality, as reality tends to be a pale imitation of the imagination.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Thank you, ColdDragon... Exccelent point.

And on a related note, regarding Consensual Sex (Not Rape)

At what point in a persons life, does SEX transform from its default state of "Soul Destroying, Life Shredding, Psyche Damaging, HORROR FILLED experience" into a "Pleasurable, normal act?"

(Sort of Off topic, but somewhat related to the discussion)

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


IMHO when that person is able to take care of any repercussions FROM that act, by themselves. Including pregnancy, possible abortion, complications or any other after effect that would warrant the maturity of being an adult.

As to the topic, also IMHO i think it should be banned.

As anyone who has dealt with addiction, or in the field of rehabilitation of any sort, be it mental or chemical dependencies, knows this is dangerous ground you walk on.

Sure , the animations might be great for a while....or even longer for some people, but the problem that arises is that soon, it just doesnt work.....its not enough, then it will progress to other stages, and sooner or later there is a real threat of actually carrying the fantasy out on child.

Just as in other addictions , abstain from it completely to keep the temptation and demons at bay.

I dont mean it to say that pedophiles are addicted, there is also a mental issue there.....but the transitions in the brain are the same from one stage to the next, when you entice you tread on dangerous ground...]

Dont flame! lol good thread OP!

edit for spelling

[edit on 3-6-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 



IMHO when that person is able to take care of any repercussions FROM that act, by themselves. Including pregnancy, possible abortion, complications or any other after effect that would warrant the maturity of being an adult.


Agreed... that WOULD (Should) be the point...

Now, another related question to your point.

What age does this transformation take place?

(Do you see where I am going?)


As anyone who has dealt with addiction, or in the field of rehabilitation of any sort, be it mental or chemical dependencies, knows this is dangerous ground you walk on.


I don't think that you quite understand what you are attempting to do.

Allow me to extrapolate a point on addiction.

Have you ever heard of Alcoholics Anonymous?

It is a support group for Addiction to Liquor.

Now, addiction IS a bad thing, and Alcohol addiction is ALSO, a horrible thing.

Do you think it is RIGHT to BAN alcohol, just because some people are not able to control their intake for the substance?

Why should the government be allowed to pick my pocket, and take from my paycheck, to prevent the POSSIBLE repercussions of Alcohol, and its subsequent cost of prohibition?

You say that:


IMHO when that person is able to take care of any repercussions FROM that act, by themselves. Including pregnancy, possible abortion, complications or any other after effect that would warrant the maturity of being an adult.


And I agree with that.

And to extrapolate your meaning here... the purpose is to prevent society at large from the burden of having to take care of legions of children born to people who are not responsible enough to take care of them.

By that logical extension, you are claiming that these people addicted to these substances are NOT responsible for themselves, and that we should interfere in their lives (at the taxpayers expense) due to their own lack of Responsibility.

Treating them as DEPENDANTS of the State.


Sure , the animations might be great for a while....or even longer for some people, but the problem that arises is that soon, it just doesnt work.....its not enough, then it will progress to other stages, and sooner or later there is a real threat of actually carrying the fantasy out on child.


When you say "Then it *WILL* progress, you are making a statement that is patently false.

This would indicate that If I showed YOU a picture of an animated child "Getting it on" then YOU would eventually look for children to rape.

You want the government to take responsibility for OUR actions, and this is tyranny.

IF someone *MOLESTS* a child, then THAT is a crime.

Viewing imagery (fictional) that *MAY* lead to molestation is NOT.

We must learn to make people responsible for their own actions.

This is akin to my previous example of the alcohol, and could be extended to .... cough syrup.

Some people may become addicted to cough syrup, and the results of dependency ON the cough syrup may be detrimental.

By your logic, we should outlaw Cough Syrup.


Do you see the Completely NEGATIVE consequences of your wish to regulate Free Will?

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
if its ment for children absolutly it should be allowed

if its ment for adults then the whole point is just pedofilia or worse.

but then again the author or illustrator in question should be asked for their motive in it

i mean mangas in general are about getting it on with your cousin and the daily vouyeristic hand shake

if its withinn common law or general law just put an 18 tag on it

it if it promotes or condones wierdness or obsurdities that goes on beyond whats called healthy i guess the law or laws speak for them selfs.

pedofilia is not freedom of expresion



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 



if its ment for children absolutly it should be allowed


Your statement is to vague to be understood... what is the "IT" that you are referring to?


if its ment for adults then the whole point is just pedofilia or worse.


Once again, your argument is vague, and you did not define "IT"

Please clarify.


but then again the author or illustrator in question should be asked for their motive in it


Should we question the motives of Hollywood Movie makers when they depict someone getting killed?

What about questioning the motives of someone purchasing Duct Tape... because Duct Tape can be used to bind someone for the purposes of torture or rape.

What about questioning the motives of the people who made the game "Grand Theft Auto", just because it may encourage theft.

We punish CRIMES, not motivations.


pedofilia is not freedom of expresion


Pedophilia refers to 2 distinct things.

The ACT of sex with a prepubescent human.

AND

The DESIRE to have sex with a prepubescent child.

One is a crime, the other is not.


Desires are not crimes, no matter what that desire is.

Once you make the choice to ACT on the desire, THEN and ONLY then, does it become a crime.

And in addition to this, the topic of this discussion is "Drawings" that *RESEMBLE* children.

Not actual children themselves.

Thank you for your time, I hope you learned something.

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


I think this is the problem many people here are having. They hear paedophile and think child molestor. The figures for downloaded porn and actual rates of arrest and convictions of abusers are so vastly different that it cannot simply be explained away as them not getting caught. It does seem as if some paedophiles just watch the porn.

Thinking is not a crime, even if you repeatedly contemplate murdering someone, you cannot be arrested for it. Although it's not healthy.

The question people have to ask themselves is would you prefer paedophiles download real pornographic images of children or these fake, cartooney depictions? Those are the only two options because if we ban the animated ones then paedophiles will just use the real thing and will always find ways of distributing it. IT cannot be stopped and many of them will never be caught as they learn all about computers and precautions.

The biggest point however is simply about making this illegal when there is no good reason. Morally it's awful, but legally? If you ban this then logically you must ban all depictions of murder, rape, torture and other horrible acts from films. The films we all watch and enjoy as we know they are fake, we know that a real person isn't being harmed. These absolutely must go if we ban these images, otherwise we're just hypocrites. Led by out emotional outrage instead of law and logic.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by teapot
Experiential authority often attracts opposition. Those who have either personally experienced such abuse or worked with those who have, do develop an understanding of the, life destroying, impact of sex crime on the victim. Once this understanding is reached, there is no longer any desire to obscurate the issue of protecting children from harm with spurious arguments that freedom of expression is the holy grail we should all aspire to.


As an ethicist, and someone who is a cultural observer, I find that I am not only obligated I am pressaged into responding to this comment.

Rape and molestation does not destroy life. It is the personal decision of each individual how they are going to deal with such a devastating and psychologically damaging act committed upon them. If society and the individual decides that they are going to be defined by the fact that they are a rape victim or a child abuse victim, then they will choose to reinforce this mental stance in any way they can.


Serious case of rape and molestation and rape most definitely do destroy life.

I was badly abused for many years as a child by one of the rarer species, a female paedophile, and her four male "minions." (My older brothers who she had trained to rape and torture.)
However saying that "I" was abused is incorrect. I'm a separate personality that developed because of the abuse.
The little girl who was abused is still an abused little girl, frightened and hiding deep inside of me.

Please excuse the confusing terminology. I don't know a better way to express this.

I have been congratulated for getting over things so well, and people have tried to use me as an example to others because I've gone on to do many things and live a busy, useful life, seeming happy and making other people happy. I'm a natural leader, and have always been there for other people who needed help.

But the injured little girl will never grow up to have the life she should have had. I've "met" her - - weird, I know, and I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but it was a very sad and happy and beautiful experience. She is still a child of god, and I believe in the next world she will be mended.


However, and this is the important part, despite all "we" have been through, I still believe one's thoughts should never be criminalised, and one's hand drawn images are personal and private, and should not be subject to any law other than copyright

Yes, pictures can be used to groom children, but so can cookies. Should we outlaw cookies?

A more intelligent answer would be to outlaw grooming. Or to outlaw any convicted paedophile from personally contacting children in the age range he/she is attracted to.


Children are precious. Freedom is precious. And we can protect both.
Don't ever let your government further abuse children by using them as an excuse to steal everyone's precious freedom.




You, as well as other's in the industry, make the mistake of assuming that human beings are breakable; we are only breakable if we allow ourselves to be broken. It is a dis-empowering to convey to rape victims that they have been robbed of something precious, that they are damaged and that they are forever marred.

Now I'm starting to wonder where you are coming from.
We are not discussing rape of adults here, we are discussing the sexual abuse of children.
How can you say that a child, sexually molested from birth by the people it should have been able to trust, is only breakable if they let themselves be broken?

Even adult rape can damage a woman for life. Knowing what's involved, last time a man told me he'd kill me if I didn't let him screw me, I chose death, trying to fight him off even though he had a black belt in karate. As luck would have it I succeeded, but nearly died of my injuries. And I can tell you that dying, in most cases, is preferable to being raped, even for an adult.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Stripping away any sense of emotion or reasoning, Rape is just sex. Devoid of all the baggage and attachment society and humanity puts on it, Rape is just sex.

The body, naturally, has a compunction to respond to stimuli... and as such, the emotional and psychological associations created to violent, involuntary sex are entirely contained within the psychology of each individual entity which was exposed to it.

Viewed objectively, the consequental psychological "Damage" related to the act occurs largely due to the free-association and inner contextualizing of the victim.

Yes, even Children as they mature have the choice of being defined by something that happened in their past or breaking away from it and viewing it as a momentary slice of time in their life wherein their free will was violated.

To define ones self as a "Rape Victim" is to perpetuate your own suffering. I certainly would not want to be defined by a moment when my free will was violated, and I wouldn't want that to become the focal point of my life. I wouldn't want that action to dictate all the rest of my behavior, as well as my opinions.

However, in replying to you, I must say that you have the capacity to reason that the context of this discussion requires whereas differentiation between fantasy and reality are concerned, and as such... I would say you have not been defined by the event in your past, and I must subsequently commend you for both your bravery in relating your story as well as recognizing the difference between what happened to you and what is going on now with fictions in public.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Stripping away any sense of emotion or reasoning, Rape is just sex. Devoid of all the baggage and attachment society and humanity puts on it, Rape is just sex.

Rape is no more "just sex" than sticking horse excreta in someone's mouth ... or whatever other orifice you choose ... is just feeding them.

Rape is violence, hatred and humiliation.

I can't communicate what rape does to your psyche, but I can say that I'd choose, and have chosen, to die rather than to be raped again.

And I'm not religious and I'm no prude.

I wonder if you've forgotten that this thread is about animated porn and paedophilia. And my tale was about being raped before I could even remember. Is the rape of a child also "just sex" in your eyes?

If not, when does that change?

When the child grows into a man strong enough to fight off potential rapists?





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join