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.
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
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]
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.
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.
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.
Laws should address crimes committed, not try and prevent crimes from being committed by punishing before anything is done.
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!
As I understand it, the first duty of the criminal justice system is crime prevention.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
pedofilia is not freedom of expresion
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.
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.
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.