Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I would definitely allow it. The reason being, I don't think pedophiles choose to be pedophiles, like how gay people don't just one day decide to be gay. Maybe they've liked little kids ever since they were little kids?

So they should allow animated child pornography because it doesn't hurt anyone while at the same time relieving pedophiles. Hopefully this will help keep the pedophiles at bay.




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

What happens when the pedophile gets BORED with watching this filth and wants to turn to scenes of actual children? Or what happens when he watches soo much of it, he has the urge to act out on these feelings?

Watching porn does NOT relieve one of the desire to actually act out on their desires. To think so is VERY naive.

In fact, watching soft core porn can easily lead to watching more hard core porn....more "alternative" porn, etc.

Allowing pedo animation is not the solution. It will only fuel the raging fire that is already out of control.


[edit on 29-6-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
I would definitely allow it. The reason being, I don't think pedophiles choose to be pedophiles, like how gay people don't just one day decide to be gay. Maybe they've liked little kids ever since they were little kids?

So they should allow animated child pornography because it doesn't hurt anyone while at the same time relieving pedophiles. Hopefully this will help keep the pedophiles at bay.


Wow, I simply cannot believe you just said that....very sad.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sparda4355
 


" Who is to say what is normal and what is not..."

Fair enough,

I will add that I believe as you mentioned we have decided as a society what is legal and right when it comes to age difference so if someone is 18 or above they are basically free to have sexual relations with an 80yr old man if they choose.

Now when it comes to little children:

What is wrong and we all should clearly know this I believe is:

INNOCENCE!

Young children are still in a stage of growing up not yet understanding what the world is all about, who they are, what they want let alone their sexuality etc. etc. etc. They are in a state of innocence so if someone of an older age wishes to manipulate them and start a sexual relationship of some kind with them they are being taken advantage of unfairly.

This is what is wrong! I believe it is right for us to make sure they are of an age where they can clearly think and act for themselves not allowing adults to take advantage of them or manipulate them for sexual pleasure in trade for a piece of candy.

So 18yrs old seems like a fair age to let them legally free to choose don't you think?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
No victim no crime.

Everyone claiming that porn watchers need stronger and stronger stuff; wouldn't that lead to every regular guy ending up watching extreme stuff? If they do, evidence should be easy to find. Please show me one scrap of evidence for this feminist myth and I will shut up.

People watch what they like, right or wrong, and thats the end of it. There is not a shred of evidence to support anything else. Looking at a drawing is just that. Looking at a drawing. No more or less. Prove me wrong if you can...

Thought not!

The bloodthirstiness of the moralists here makes me sick!



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrangeAlarmClock
Allowed I think.

Pedo's are going to get their rocks off somehow, you can't stop them all. I'd rather have them watching computer generated child porn instead of real child porn, or worse, have them out raping/molesting kids.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by OrangeAlarmClock]


I would prefer it stop as well, but with major corporations invested in human trafficking and high level political, corporate and religious 'leaders', it's not going away. I lived a safer life as a (kid 50's and 60s) than they do now. Here is a shocking documentary demonstrating how extremely organized this really is

www.franklincase.org... and a summary www.franklincase.org...
and a newspaper article from the 80s about the White House

www.voxfux.com...

This has nothing to do with 'partisan' politics, as I saw through that shell-game paradigm years ago, and they are all honored guests at places like Bohemian Grove.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Wow... I never expected ANYONE here to say allow it. Pedophiles are pedophiles, end of story. By allowing them lolicon, you feed their sexual desire for children. Ok, it doesn't hurt a real child... yet. You can't say it will prevent them from raping a child. Instead of feeding their screwed up desires, they should be in intensive counseling and kept away from children for the rest of their lives. Allowing them lolicon will NOT fulfill their urges for little kids. Otherwise, pornography would remove our desire for sex. Can you say that's what pornography does to you? Do you lose all interest in real sex because you're so obsessed with Naughty Nurses XVII?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
There was a case about animated children, a few years back, that went to the highest appeals court.(US)
It was a big deal because of advancements in computer animation technology.
They were afraid that the animation would get so good that it would be too difficult to tell the difference, from real world.
They could solve the problem by making anything that is a depiction of a naked child illegal.
For now, the drawings are still legal in the US.
I think having access to a picture of a naked child would make someone less likely to go buy a camera and make their own.
That is just my opinion, but it would have to be true about some people.
I am against any kind of victim-less crimes.
Like a child drawing a gun, in class and being arrested.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
This is abovetopsecret, what does this have to do with any information on ufo's or any kind of conspiracy?

Who cares about the legalities of child pornography, if that is what you want to talk about, then find a different forum.

This is ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
Wow... I never expected ANYONE here to say allow it. Pedophiles are pedophiles, end of story. By allowing them lolicon, you feed their sexual desire for children. Ok, it doesn't hurt a real child... yet. You can't say it will prevent them from raping a child. Instead of feeding their screwed up desires, they should be in intensive counseling and kept away from children for the rest of their lives. Allowing them lolicon will NOT fulfill their urges for little kids. Otherwise, pornography would remove our desire for sex. Can you say that's what pornography does to you? Do you lose all interest in real sex because you're so obsessed with Naughty Nurses XVII?

Pornography is a large factor in young men, today, to loosing interest in marriage.
It does lessen desire for sex, with a lot of people.
After Naughty Nurse, a lot of men are ready to go to sleep, not go out to the club to score.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Hi ,

Thank you for your article on Animated stuff, sorry I can not bear to speak the disgusting word`s. but my partner pointed out a very valid point which I believe you all should bear in mind ,before even considering giving these Child abusers any sort of forum or space.
Take a Twenty something Lady who may fall pregnant ,with child ,after a second ,or third date. And when notifying the Man involved she is told He want`s no more to do with Her.
So for the forseeable future all she has is a Vibrator(surely the equivelant of a Animated film) I Do not believe for one minute that the Lady will be satisfied for the rest of her life with her Vibrator? Do you. She may be satisfied for a few months , maybe even a few years. But the rest of Her life, No. So when these Animi Peodo`s have finished getting there kicks then what? Then they will go out and put there Animated Sickness into reality! Also the Animated films will run the major risk of enhancing there knowledge of there related behavoir. They may start out as just Fantasy`s but with the enhanced knowledge that these unrestricted Animated films may bring, who knows where these sick fanasy`s may end or worse Actual behavior!



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It does lessen desire for sex, with a lot of people.
After Naughty Nurse, a lot of men are ready to go to sleep, not go out to the club to score.


Exactly.

You'd think people would realize, well at-least the guys...



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
no chance, absolutely not. Its almost saying that this is acceptable well its not and never should be. Sometimes lines have to be made and never crossed an this is one of them dont feed the fantasies of the mentally ill because that what these people must be.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Ban It! Take names and numbers of all that surf it.

I'm not sure what it is, but I don't like it. There is NO sign that alowing such a media would curb such a ill minded desire. In fact, I'd argue it would more normalize it in the minds of such preditor types. Argumetitivly, if done in such a way, it could also be used as a tool for pediphiles. If such "animated child porn" was done up in cartoonish ways it could then be shown to children by uncle scumbag.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 

Well, it's clear that Child porn falls into a very different realm than adult porn. It won't be long before we see the internet slough off these sites, right or wrong, in the interest of "cleaning up the house." Personally, I say good riddence.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Incarnated
I'm not sure what it is, but I don't like it.


And that sums up the entire argument from the "against corner".

No facts but plenty of bloodlust to make up for it.




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by gekko
 



Not true. If it has to do with CHILDREN, animated or not, and PORN, it shouldn't be alowed.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
It should not be ALLOWED at all!!! By allowing it, they allow the sickos to get their fix, and that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN
!! If someone has even animated child porn, they should be strung up and killed
.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
"Should we allow such pornography so that these people can satiate their lusts? If even one child is saved from abuse, would that make it worth while? "

There is a strong case to be made that such pornography does not "satiate" the misplaced "lust" but rather re-inforces it. Most serial killers are found to have progressed via fantasy reinforcing and and in some ways in their mind legitimizing their urges. The potential resulting damage is to profound to tolerate such pornography. I am all for freedom of speech, but here we are talking about encouraging profound and crippling damage to children. Freedom of speech is conditional on the safety of others. The old example of yelling "fire" in a crowded space where people might get trampled and die. No. This kind of pornography should not be permitted. Pedophiles are pshchologically broken and should be either counseled (though I am unsure this works) or imprisoned.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 
Again we see someone argument that death is a fitting punishment for drawing a picture.

That's pretty sick if you ask me. Makes me think of certain muslim extremists...

[edit on 29/6/08 by gekko]





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join