Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

page: 23
11
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
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.

You obviously have no idea what it's like to be injured, physically and mentally, and betrayed in this way as a child.

I use myself as an example only because I am familiar with my own story. There are many children out there who have worse tales than mine to tell.

- Child sexual abuse injures you. I still suffer pain and suffer from things not working as they should.
- Child sexual abuse leaves you unable to trust, as it's bashed into your psyche that people you should be able to trust are those who are most dangerous to you.
- Child sexual abuse can disrupt relationships between the child and its immediate family, leaving it having to cope with its problems unsupported. - For me that's also meant my children have no relatives.
- Child sexual abuse can make it impossible for the victim to enjoy normal sex as an adult. - That's why my mother acted that way. Her step-brothers had abused her.
Naturally I broke the cycle.
- Child sexual abuse leaves the victim hating itself, and whenever one is sick, depressed or tired the voices of hatred can come back, telling one to kill oneself.
- And this is just a start, there is much more to it.

One can learn to live with all this, but it's one hell of a burden, and it's for life. You might as well tell an amputee to grow his legs back as tell a child abuse victim to get over it.

I would never put myself in the position of counselling a child abuse victim, because I would probably forget my lines and speak form the heart.

- and tell them it would be better to commit suicide than try to live with the pain for a lifetime.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Kailassa thanks for sharing, sorry that all happened to you. However there are a few problems with you commenting on this idea.

1. Bias. There is no way you can possibly approach this with logic.
2. You are talking about the second kind of paedophile, the kind that actually abuses children. We are talking about the first kind, the kind that just needs a release and watches the pornography.

So would you prefer they watch the abuse of real chldren, or fake animated stuff? Getting their release may help some paedophiles to keep their urges under control. Isn't this beneficial?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


First off , your comparison of alcoholics is not apples to oranges.....and no i dont think we should make alcohol illegal , i know that might not jive with the point your trying to make.

Second, how would keeping animated child pornography from being legal pick your pocket? Anytime you legalize something you end up with a wealth of other b.s with it just keep that in mind.

I absolutely think people should be responsible for themselves.....however people who are alcohoics since you are using that as an example, go through programs like AA that are paid for by YES our taxes in some manner i assume....but i also see that people going to AA and obstain from alcohol ARE being responsible for themselves, hence taking treatment for their addiction...

You think that my statement about people moving on eventually from child animated porn to something more severe is false.......believe that if you want, but ive worked in a social working capacity with addiction, and people who are addicted, and i know this to be true, ive watched it happen time and again....

To people who have an addiction to something or who are mentally ill, this idea you have of them just being able to NOT do something doesnt work....the brain rewires itself to need these things, it lets off chemicals....

When you introduce someoen to said porn, eventually it will become "old hat" and it will lead to more dangerous ground....the "fix" no longer works, it takes more and more to quell it.

You dont agree with me and thats fine. i love a good discussion

However, i would hope that the fact that i have experience in this area might carry some weight.

Great thread guys



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
You think that my statement about people moving on eventually from child animated porn to something more severe is false.......believe that if you want, but ive worked in a social working capacity with addiction, and people who are addicted, and i know this to be true, ive watched it happen time and again....

To people who have an addiction to something or who are mentally ill, this idea you have of them just being able to NOT do something doesnt work....the brain rewires itself to need these things, it lets off chemicals....

When you introduce someoen to said porn, eventually it will become "old hat" and it will lead to more dangerous ground....the "fix" no longer works, it takes more and more to quell it.



Emphasis mine. So by this thinking then anyone who watches normal porn will move on and on to more bad and violent things and end up raping people. That is the logical continuation of your argument. As this doesn't happen, at least not in mentally normal individuals, then we must assume your argument is bunk.

Secondly you are making the false claim that it is an addiction. Let us be clear.

Paedophilia is not an addiction, it is a retardation of normal sexual development and to treat it like an addiction, to even give it some claim to be an addiction is giving paedophiles a get out clause that i personally do not want them having. However they can't claim this because the science doesn't back it up.

Many healthy people use normal pornography for a release. My very simple argument is that paedophiles could, and it seems do use this type of porn for that exact reason. I support them using it for this and am glad they have found a release that doesn't involve a child.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
On the subject of "Animated Child Pornography" not the real deal...

I have to say I am of two minds on this subject. as an amateur artist I want to say
"Who the "H" do you think you are to tell me what I can and cannot paint"?
The flip side is.
Anyone who views or makes an image of a child and See's that image as pornographic probability needs to be locked up and kept as far away from real children as possible.

Lets be real people, folks will always see what they want to see... even in a Rorschach inkblot test there will be those who see erotica there, so should we also ban all inkblots too?

the people who are getting upset or excited over this this should schedule a visit to a therapist ASAP



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Kailassa thanks for sharing, sorry that all happened to you. However there are a few problems with you commenting on this idea.

1. Bias. There is no way you can possibly approach this with logic.
2. You are talking about the second kind of paedophile, the kind that actually abuses children. We are talking about the first kind, the kind that just needs a release and watches the pornography.

So would you prefer they watch the abuse of real chldren, or fake animated stuff? Getting their release may help some paedophiles to keep their urges under control. Isn't this beneficial?


What makes you think someone can't use logic just because they have been traumatised?
Perhaps you should try reading this thread of your, as I answered the questions you ask here a few posts back.




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.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

What makes you think someone can't use logic just because they have been traumatised?
Perhaps you should try reading this thread of your, as I answered the questions you ask here a few posts back.



Hmm sorry i must have missed the post. If i had seen that one i wouldn't have said you cannot approach it logically. I must admit it is extremely rare to find someone who can be logical about a subject when they have been directly involved. So my respect to you for that.

Btw i thought grooming was illegal already. At least in the UK i know that the law is if you meet a girl after talking sexually online with her, knowing she is to young you can get in trouble. I'm glad that the police take it seriously.

I do read my thread but i obviously missed something somewhere, everyones human right? Can miss something
Will pin a note to my monitor, it will read "Scroll slower" lol.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread367257
No problem, we're none of us perfect.

Good thread, btw, it's made interesting reading.
Freedom is an important issue in a time when the American, English and Australian governments appear to have banded together to take it from us.
They are like spiders, frightening us with terrorists and paedophiles so we will obediently lie still.
Thus letting them bind us so tight in their spider silk we one day will not be free to even whimper.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Well i'm not sure about some of that but i hat how freedom is abused. People, even in this thread think freedom is great, but as soon as someone mentions the words paedophile, rapist or terrorist they are happy to betray their beliefs in freedom.

Freedom is an absolute, like comedy. Either it's all ok or none of it is. The only limiting factor in comparison is about harm. If a persons freedom harms someone in some way then they don't deserve to have that freedom without punishment. That is why we have laws against murder, rape and paedophilia. If it does no harm then it should remain legal, without question that is the definition of the true form of freedom and those against it are simply clouded by emotion and betraying their own ideals.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


yes, healthy people use normal porn as a release........and then move on to having sex with other real people.........sometimes while even doing both! Im struggling to figure out how you are failing to see the repercussions here?

Also i didnt say it was an addiction, apparently you arent reading my posts....i compared the evolution of the thought processes and actions as comparable to an addiction......the brain reacts to it in a very similar way.....

Ive done this work for a while........trust me, i know what im talking about...of course you wont, youll continue on your path and try to dismiss what i say, but thats ok , thats what debates are about.

However mark my words, if they were to legalize this, youll see a spike, and youll have your own conscience to deal with

[edit on 4-6-2009 by ManBehindTheMask]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
yes, healthy people use normal porn as a release........and then move on to having sex with other real people.........sometimes while even doing both! Im struggling to figure out how you are failing to see the repercussions here?


Actually i'm sure there are many people who never get to have sex and use porn. There are virgins out there you know. Hell check that Susan Boyle chick. I'm sure she's used either fantasy or porn in her life.


Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Also i didnt say it was an addiction, apparently you arent reading my posts....i compared the evolution of the thought processes and actions as comparable to an addiction......the brain reacts to it in a very similar way.....


Erm so again you imply it is an addiction. If they're comparable then it's similar, that is the meaning of those words, i'm saying it is not similar.


Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Ive done this work for a while........trust me, i know what im talking about...of course you wont, youll continue on your path and try to dismiss what i say, but thats ok , thats what debates are about.


Oh my friend, your work actually makes you rather biased. I'm going on science, you do understand that don't you? The science states that it is a retardation of sexual development. That is the leading theory. I quote science, you quote experience. The sad fact is you do not know how many paedophiles out there use this stuff as a release because you will not come into contact with them all. You i am sure come into contact with many active paedophiles. By active i mean people who abuse.

I must admit i coudln't do your job because i'd launch myself over the desk at them. I can remain emotionally detached however at people who just use the porn.


Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
However mark my words, if they were to legalize this, youll see a spike, and youll have your own conscience to deal with



Actually it has been legal for years, many years. It only recently became illegal. So we would have to see a DECLINE in abuse to see if it worked. But hey you obviously didn't read the thread, or the articles listed otherwise you would know that would'nt you.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


to be honest i didnt catch your point of view on it all either...

but what i tried to say was

one might belive that child pornogrofy be it drawn or not was ment for children , not adults , hence the term child pornogrofy ,

bad pun but you seam to lack the humor...

but if you have grownups drawing pictures of adults engagin in acts of child abuse, pedofilia, peeping tom or what not, you must ask the artist what he/ she is saying with it ,

i mean where do you draw the line , is it art , has it a message , is it just a fantasy that one gets to enjoy by one self in the privacy of one´s mind , is it pictures that haunt you , is it just money , is it promoting the act of child abuse or pedofilia ?


questions that only the artist and you the viewer can answer , then again that answer might differ alot from person to person ,

so where do you draw the line ,

is painting a picture of the pope engagin in sodomy with a young boy promoting child pornogrofy

or is selling manga books from a quicke mart with peeping toms and 18 fallos daemon shooting laser seamen at a 12 year old you ve just kiddnapped and druged promoting the act of child pornogrofy or even pedofilia ,

would a painted picture of baby jesus in the nude being brest feed be banned from a museum

?

to me its obvius if it promotes the act of pedofilia or abuse it should be banned no questions asked ,



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
to me its obvius if it promotes the act of pedofilia or abuse it should be banned no questions asked ,




How can you consider something as promoting paedophilia? Art for arts sake could be the excuse. Don't you get it? There is no crime here. You are talking from moral outrage. Many people talk about sex before marriage out of moral outrage. Should we also make that illegal?

You do realise you're actually promoting Sharia law?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Once again, i didnt say it was an addiction, i find it interesting that i can sit here and say that "im not saying it is addiction, the chemicals in the brain just react similar" but you go back and say , that im calling it addiction.....i think i stated pretty clearly what i was saying.


And if you were looking at this from a scientific view, then you would realize that BEING scientific minded, the proof is in the pudding......chemical reactions, brain rewiring etc. etc. etc.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


You said it was comparable. That is saying the same as similar and so you are contradicting yourself if you say it isn't an addiction. So did you simply mispeak?

As for chemicals in the brain, please show your evidence. I will again state that adults who watch normal pornography don't usually progress to violent pornography, even if they never have sex.

I'm sorry but there is no science to back up your claims that paedophiles using this porn will go on to abuse. Some might but i would say they are the type 2 paedophile who were always going to abuse. The figures don't match up, many use child pornography, far fewer abuse. Even if we take into account those that haven't been caught it doesn't seem to match up.

Some are obviously able to hold it at bay with pron, so again i ask you. Would you prefer they use the real chld pornography or this fake stuff?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Im done with the thread, seriously you arent looking at any of this logically....

then you sit there and say you are looking at it scientifically but you arent even aware of the chemical reactions in the brain and rewiring it goes through when there is an illness in place? Come on now, how can you even claim to be looking at this from a scientific aspect when you arent even aware of the simple physiology associated with addiction and/or mental disorders?

Ive made my point, and anyone that works or has worked in the capacity that i have knows the points ive made to be truth

end of discussion on my end



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Im done with the thread, seriously you arent looking at any of this logically....

then you sit there and say you are looking at it scientifically but you arent even aware of the chemical reactions in the brain and rewiring it goes through when there is an illness in place?



Which illness are you on about? Please show exact scientific studies you are referring to. Sexual retardation is psychological, not chemical. If it were simply chemical it could be fixed.


Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Come on now, how can you even claim to be looking at this from a scientific aspect when you arent even aware of the simple physiology associated with addiction and/or mental disorders?


Addiction again? Hang on you say it isn't addiction but you keep MENTIONING addiction! How else am i meant to take this than you thinking it is addiction. If it isn't addiction then quit mentioning that word. You are being far from logical yet accuse me of the same. If you don't like being called on your nonsense then don't post.

Oh and i'm extremely aware of the brain under the effects of addiction and mental illnesses. I spent a large amount of time reading up on it, also spent a large amount of time reading about the brains of paedophiles, rapists and serial killers. I find the entire thing fascinating. So yes well aware.


Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Ive made my point, and anyone that works or has worked in the capacity that i have knows the points ive made to be truth

end of discussion on my end


You have made your points, they wern't based in any kind of logic. You kept mentioning addiction and i brought that up, you kept saying you wern't saying it was addiction yet keep bringing up the chemistry of the brain in relation to addiction. Bsically you were completely and utterly contradicting yourself, or not explaining yourself well.

So is it addiction or not? If not then please don't mention the word addiction again in the thread. The only reason to do so is to claim it is addiction.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
There is a deeper topic that you guys are missing entirely. A REALLY important one that I am surprised no one has brought up yet.

The aspect of TECHNOLOGY.

Someone draws a stick figure having sex and says "That is a 12 year old" are you SERIOUSLY going to prosecute them for drawing a STICK FIGURE?

What if they add a LITTLE bit more detail to the stick figures in the face to make the eyes more realistic and the hair and maybe give it a little bit more life.

This can keep going until the point where it is starting to look pretty real with the availability with more powerful computer art programs becoming more accessible to artists.

You guys know what CGI is right? Computer animation that looks ULTRA realistic?

Anyone seen the new Terminator Movie? They did some pretty realistic looking CGI work of putting real humans in that movie simply with the use of artwork.

Apply that into pornography and it is to the point where you cannot tell if a picture is real or fake. HOW do we deal with something like that?

It is a REALLY tough call.

Either completely ban ALL ART including even REMOTELY involving anything that someone refers to as underage (Fahrenheit 451) or do not ban ANYTHING that is not real and is man made art.

I would CRINGE at the though of a board of officials looking at pictures all day deciding YES or NO to determine if the pictures would be allowed or not.

To tell me that they decided for me allready what was appropriate ART for me to look at and what is not.



And on a completely different note here is something that you might not have ever heard of.

An adult entertainer (AKA Porn Star) named
"Little Lupe".

Little Lupe is over the age of 18 but she looks REALLY young. I mean REALLY REALLY convincingly. What does that say about people who enjoy looking at her videos and photo shoots? Are they fantasizing that she is underage?

Also I could go on nameing Porn Stars who look REALLY young and use it as a gimmick to promote themselves and earn a living but the list is WAY to long.

Anyway
Difficult Issue is DIFFICULT



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
I would CRINGE at the though of a board of officials looking at pictures all day deciding YES or NO to determine if the pictures would be allowed or not.

To tell me that they decided for me allready what was appropriate ART for me to look at and what is not.


You know that sounds eerily familiar to Orwells' 1984. When the information comes in to Winston and he has to approve it and/or edit it. That is basically what some people in this thread are asking for.



Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
And on a completely different note here is something that you might not have ever heard of.

An adult entertainer (AKA Porn Star) named
"Little Lupe".

Little Lupe is over the age of 18 but she looks REALLY young. I mean REALLY REALLY convincingly. What does that say about people who enjoy looking at her videos and photo shoots? Are they fantasizing that she is underage?


If they are then at least they are doing it legally. I am very grateful you bring up this point, my thread is about teh animated kind but this raises an entirely new issue!


Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
Also I could go on nameing Porn Stars who look REALLY young and use it as a gimmick to promote themselves and earn a living but the list is WAY to long.

Anyway
Difficult Issue is DIFFICULT


Pretty difficult. At the start i was struggling if you notice in my original post this entire thread was about helping me make my mind up. IU know it now though. I cannot betray my ideals of freedom. As long as there is no victim (which there isn't) i must suppor tthe existence of this rather horrible material.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by zerbot565
to me its obvius if it promotes the act of pedofilia or abuse it should be banned no questions asked ,




How can you consider something as promoting paedophilia? Art for arts sake could be the excuse. Don't you get it? There is no crime here. You are talking from moral outrage. Many people talk about sex before marriage out of moral outrage. Should we also make that illegal?

You do realise you're actually promoting Sharia law?



you might have miss read or not understood the tone ,

for me there is a difference in it , if you paint a picture of the pope sodomising a child , its a message about the church ,

but then again i dont see how manga pockets filled with demons raping and having thier way as art or survival guides for children ,

i mean not to de rail this but , if you watch hentai and what not and all you own is hentai related , it sais quite a lot of you even if you do not understand it your self, your fictive mind is just running loops around smelling panties and wanking of while deamons rape cats ,

i mean what is the message behind a hentai pocket ? dont buy strawberries because wolfs like fish in 60 b/w pages of rape ?

ok im not saying everything is all rape and peepingtoms, but just because its painted dosent mean it removes the undertone or mellows the message,

is it promoting the act of abuse or not
is it art just because its painted
is it art when its massproduced and sold at cornershops ?
is it music or musac ?
is it a necessety or does it tell us something degenerative about our society ?

is disney all happy go go or what do they realy promote ?

?





new topics




 
11
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join