Cartoon porn kids are people, judge says in Simpsons porn case

The decision is so ridiculous, it's not even funny. It is scary as hell.

And as for the people that defend it, you are so moralistic and right. Please never ever have sex. Darwin will take care of everything else.

Militant stupidity is unfortunately on the rise. :-(

All I can say is, who is in charge of assuring these poor cartoon kids who have been molested in these cartoons get terapy and counseling they need?



Child pornography is illegal because making it requires kids to be sexually abused.

If kids aren't being abused, it's not child pornography IMO...

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


"It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if those who viewed child porn did not view it it wouldn’t be produced and distributed."

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that those that would actually go out and rape a child, are *sick*, and (so) they would do it anyway.

Dutty_Rag is correct. Making it illegal to *look* is a thought crime and can be stretched by moralistic, fear-mongering, self-serving, hypocritical politicians as far as their agenda requires.

Originally posted by RFBurns
[...]
there is nothing to prove that someone out there viewing this sh.. woldnt take it to the next level.
[...]
...remember Columbine? Or have you all forgotten. Those cracker jacks based their little shooting rage on a game...and the victims of that were all "Doom"ed werent they.
[...]

You are wrong, and it is obvious you don't know jack about statistics. To give you an example:

"The shooters of Columbine, *ALL* drunk water!!! ... Now that I think of it, every single murderer in the world had been drinking (gasp) water!!!! So, let's ban water!"

...That's your argument simplified. If you don't see a problem with it, I am sorry.

Eg, action films seem to be very popular. However, they don't seem to influence most people to go around robbing banks, making the casino robbery of the century, shooting, killing, kidnapping, blowing up, demolishing, etc.

Seems to me that your "if they see it, they will do it" theory, doesn't hold much water.

reply to post by waterpie


I bet Hitler, Ted Bundy, and OBL all breathed air too! We need to ban air! Gah, saying looking at the Simpsons stuff will lead to a person going on a cross country kiddie raping tour is ridiculous. Also, when will Australia invade the Vatican to destroy all that child porn? Also, boo on the reshoot of the Nirvana baby, he's wearing trunks! Grr...

[edit on 11-12-2008 by GamerGal]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Dutty_Rag is correct. Making it illegal to *look* is a thought crime and can be stretched by moralistic, fear-mongering, self-serving, hypocritical politicians as far as their agenda requires.

Your argument is based on fallacies; you set up the terms and demonize them.

A thought crime is charging someone for something they are thinking. Those possessing child porn are charged because they have pictures of victims being victimized, fueling the distribution and production of these images that can not be created with out illegally victimizing a child.

Self-serving politicians are not the only people who believe in keeping child porn illegal to view. That right there shows your bias toward this argument. I am not at all a moralistic person, when it comes to these issues legality is important, not morality, because these are legal issues. The case against child porn is a substantial legal one. When I can hear a logical, legal argument that disconnects the abuse of children from viewing child porn and studies that refute claims of how viewing of the porn affects our society then I’ll be willing to change my legal opinion, but not my moral one. Your opinion reeks of your own morality, not legality.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Also, I'm really confused by those who seem to think child porn is mostly rampant around pedos who simply share vids with friends. Don't kid yourselves, it is a full blown industry.

According to experts, child pornography has become a multi-billion dollar commercial enterprise, and is among the fastest growing businesses on the Internet.(1)findarticles.com...

[edit on 11-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

 

Also, I'm really confused by those who seem to think child porn is mostly rampant around pedos who simply share vids with friends. Don't kid yourselves, it is a full blown industry.

According to experts, child pornography has become a multi-billion dollar commercial enterprise, and is among the fastest growing businesses on the Internet.(1)findarticles.com...

[edit on 11-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

If youre referring to me and this statement that I made.

There has to be a need for it yes but the need comes from individuals wanting to get off on being with kids and they video tape it so they can "relive" the event over and over. Later they decide to share with a friend or community but regardless if that community watches it or not, its still there.

Then you should know that I set up that sentence as a hypothetical situation to show you that it even if there were no commercial demand for these types of videos, they would still be made and they would still be passed around.
They would first be made for themselves, then to share with personal or web community friends, my point is that they arent all made to make a buck.
I think most people realize there is a demand for children and sex and I think everyone knows its big business.

To make matters even worse, videos arent the only thing being sold, children themselves are being sold, rented, traded or given away to settle debts, for the purposes of having sex with them.
The scariest part of it all is the people that are in the business of buying and selling arent the stereotypical antisocial pervert thats seen lurking around elementary schools handing out candy.
The perpetrators of these crimes could and have included politicians, clergy men (like thats a surprise), school teachers, police officers, judges and the nice old man next door that always volunteers to watch your children when you have to run an errand.

I hope that clarifies any confusion you may have had about my thoughts on this issue

[edit on 12/12/2008 by Kr0n0s]

reply to post by Kr0n0s

If youre referring to me and this statement that I made.

No. I was addressing Anon and Dutty_Rag. And their "understanding" of the child porn industry.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Oh,my bad /facepalm
Damn, all of that typing and thought i put into it, I even quit reading the new copy of Naruto to make that post too.. well I hope at least I made some good points in it
Sigh... Oh well, i hope that I didnt inadvertently offend you during my rant.

Now im all tired n stuff, so g'night

reply to post by Dutty_Rag

Personally I wanted to see Jeramy Irons do the kid.. The actress was about 25 anyway.

Actually, during filming of Lolita, Dominic Swain was 15 and had a body double for the more steamy scenes.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

 

Also, I'm really confused by those who seem to think child porn is mostly rampant around pedos who simply share vids with friends. Don't kid yourselves, it is a full blown industry.

According to experts, child pornography has become a multi-billion dollar commercial enterprise, and is among the fastest growing businesses on the Internet.(1)findarticles.com...

[edit on 11-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

"multi-billion dollar commercial enterprise"? "among the fastest growing businesses"? Whoa! Can I buy stock yet?

And who are those "experts"? Maybe the uncle of those moralistic, fear-mongering, self-serving, hypocritical politicians? Or their cousin?

And how do those "experts" know? And why don't they use that knowledge to stop it? There is no anonymity in the internet. Maybe because of the moralistic, self-serving, hypocritical agenda?


PS: I am thinking that you may use the drug business as a counter argument, so let me tell you: It is widely known that the PTB are part of the drug business. It is widely known where you have to go to get drugs if you want to, and so if the police wanted to bust them they would. So, if you use the drug business, then you claim that the police and the police is part of the under-age sex "business"?

PS2: The age of consent around the world seems to be from 12 to 21 (actually, to: "must be married"). So why exactly is there a grave psychological trauma for a eg a 15 yo in one country, while in the next country s/he just #ed, got off, and was happy about it? Is it the food or the weather?

Or is it maybe the agenda of the above-mentioned moralistic, fear-mongering, self-serving, hypocritical politicians? The only thing that is "fastest growing business" is the looting of public goods by those politicians, that use moralistic distractions to pacify and control the populace.

Only truth sets free.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

 

Your argument is based on fallacies; you set up the terms and demonize them.

A thought crime is charging someone for something they are thinking. Those possessing child porn are charged because they have pictures of victims being victimized, fueling the distribution and production of these images that can not be created with out illegally victimizing a child.

Self-serving politicians are not the only people who believe in keeping child porn illegal to view. That right there shows your bias toward this argument. I am not at all a moralistic person, when it comes to these issues legality is important, not morality, because these are legal issues. The case against child porn is a substantial legal one. When I can hear a logical, legal argument that disconnects the abuse of children from viewing child porn and studies that refute claims of how viewing of the porn affects our society then I’ll be willing to change my legal opinion, but not my moral one. Your opinion reeks of your own morality, not legality.

First of all, I don't understand the way by which you use the term "legality". It seems to me that "legal" is whatever we may choose. For instance, some centuries ago, it was legal to own slaves. It seems to me that you use "legal" instead of "logical"?

By "morality", I think we mean what most people believe to be "good" (and thus should be done/enforced).

Having said that, my argument isn't a fallacy. I first state it, and then, yes, I use a few descriptive words to "unleash my wrath" :-) But I don't support it with them. It's the other way around.

Anyway. Now:

a) I don't agree that seeing something, necessarily fuels its creation. I think that there are some sick people, that they will do what they must, anyhow.
Even if we accept the possibility of the profit motive, then do you find ok viewing cp pics that you haven't paid for? If not, why?

b) Do you agree that the specific simpsons case is not cp? If it were computer generated pictures of cp that were very realistic (but just data, no real child having anything to do with it), would you agree that it shouldn't be illegal?

c) If a random number generator creates a cp image in my comp, should I go to jail?

d) Do you agree that "conviction for viewing" is a very slippery slope? If yes, even if we accepted the "seeing fuels creation" argument (which I argue against), would you agree that the possible censorship/destruction of free speech/control outweighs the problems of the other side?

e) About: "studies that refute claims of how viewing of the porn affects our society". I thing it should be the other way. They should prove how viewing porn (even cp), does any damage. See my other post, but why don't action films make all people shooting, killing, robbing, demolishing, kidnapping, etc?

f) Should we ban from the internet our own little talk? Someone could argue there are arguments in it that could make some people thing that just viewing real, realistic or not realistic cp is ok, so that could eg make someone fire up a 3d modelling program and make a model.

g) "Those possessing child porn are charged because they have pictures of victims being victimized, fueling the distribution and production". The fact that s/he was first rejected erotically by someone, does it make that someone responsible for fuelling his/her sadness that fuelled the search for porn? (Extreme, but why not?)

I recently saw a documentary about the israely/palestinian fight. In one part, a journalist is actually shot and killed on camera. It is terrible, but do I fuel the snuff film industry? Can't the fight against snuff films, which we all agree to, practically have the effect of censoring of wide spread dissemination of very political images?

PS: Btw, in case it is not clear, I am against abusing anyone.

The Australian government has totally lost the plot with all its war against paedophilia on the net. First it was about that photographer who was just picturing images of babies without clothes in no suggestive positions, and now it's about destrying the life of a guy who viewed totally imaginary images that served off as stupid jokes and have been on the net for years!

This is madness... people in Australia wake up and hit these moral despots as hard as you can, because the next thing you'll hear is people being arrested in parks over child abuse for watching childrens playing around, or even more ludicrous stuff.

This has me thinking about the implications of the "Twilight" movie.

Bella Swan has always been a little bit different. Never one to run with the crowd, Bella never cared about fitting in with the trendy, plastic girls at her Phoenix, Arizona high school. When her mother remarried and Bella chooses to live with her father in the rainy little town of Forks, Washington, she didn't expect much of anything to change. But things do change when she meets the mysterious and dazzlingly beautiful Edward Cullen. For Edward is nothing like any boy she's ever met. He's nothing like anyone she's ever met, period. He's intelligent and witty, and he seems to see straight into her soul. In no time at all, they are swept up in a passionate and decidedly unorthodox romance - unorthodox because Edward really isn't like the other boys. He can run faster than a mountain lion. He can stop a moving car with his bare hands. Oh, and he hasn't aged since 1918. Like all vampires, he's immortal. That's right - vampire. But he doesn't have fangs - that's just in the movies. And he doesn't drink human blood, though Edward and his family are unique among vampires in that lifestyle choice. To Edward, Bella is that thing he has waited 90 years for - a soul mate.

www.imdb.com...

So, is it appropriate for a 90 Year old to have a "passionate" romanance with a teenaged girl? Or does it make it ok just because he's in a teenaged body?

On topic: This is a very slippery slope we are sliding down.

reply to post by waterpie

And who are those "experts"? Maybe the uncle of those moralistic, fear-mongering, self-serving, hypocritical politicians? Or their cousin?

Please produce evidence to any such claims.

And how do those "experts" know? And why don't they use that knowledge to stop it?

The sources are posted at the article, the research is there for anyone to read and address, I'd like to see you debunk their findings instead of going into personal attack mode. Why don't they try and stop it? You're kidding right? Many of these researches involved do, where do you get the notion that no one is attempting to stop it?

reply to post by waterpie

First of all, I don't understand the way by which you use the term "legality". It seems to me that "legal" is whatever we may choose.

Clearly you don't understand because you don't understand legality. Personal moral opinions are based on several things depending on the way you were raised, your religion, etc. Legality focuses on making laws that do not conflict with civil rights clauses. This paticular law conflicts with your right to do something because of several reasons, one being that a victim and harm of another is involved. Morally child porn is wrong in my opinion to make and view. Legally it is also wrong to make and view, with good reason. While my moral opinion on the issue will never change I'd be willing to take another look at my legal opinion if anyone could prove the above I spoke of: that viewing child porn does not fuel the industry, is not harmful to society, and is not linked to child abuse. So far it would seem the exact opposite is true of child porn.

I don't agree that seeing something, necessarily fuels its creation.

You don't have to agree, but with child porn this has clearly been the case.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by waterpie

 

First of all, I don't understand the way by which you use the term "legality". It seems to me that "legal" is whatever we may choose.

Clearly you don't understand because you don't understand legality. Personal moral opinions are based on several things depending on the way you were raised, your religion, etc. Legality focuses on making laws that do not conflict with civil rights clauses.

Clearly if you cut what I said in halve, it is easier for you. I gave an example, that at some time in the past, it was legal to own slaves. Supposing that we all agree that that is not very nice and good and moral, I said that "legal" is just what we choose.

that viewing child porn does not fuel the industry, is not harmful to society, and is not linked to child abuse. So far it would seem the exact opposite is true of child porn.

I agree with your reasoning, but I disagree with your conclusion.
It does not fuel the "industry". What industry? I want to send them money, where are they?
And if there is an "industry" and I can send them money, then surely they can be caught while collecting.
Just viewing an image cannot be harmful to society. (Philosophically, being more information, and accepting that information is good, it is actually by definition better for society.)
It can only be bad for society if it is linked/causes child abuse. That doesn't make any sense.
Why don't action films cause people to steal,kill,kidnap, etc? I asked that again, and you didn't answer. If you were tricked to follow a link, and you were exposed (without wanting) to cp, would that exposure make you more prone to do child abuse?

I don't agree that seeing something, necessarily fuels its creation.

You don't have to agree, but with child porn this has clearly been the case.
[edit on 12-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

"Clearly"? I saw a reference from the article, searched for it with "critic" in google and by browsing one of the first links:
66.102.1.104...:ZAWGmwmqkloJ:www.colorado.edu/Research/cspv/publications/papers/pdf/CSPV-005.pdf+Nation al+Juvenile+Online+Victimization+Study+critic

"
The result is an unusual degree ofconsensus despite a
terribly weak empirical foundation.
...
Such a state of affairs is completely understandable given political pressure to protect society.
...
Overwhelmed by
the need to react quickly, experimental research took a back seat, a position it maintains to this day
...
Furthermore, the
Church of Scientology, cleverly concealed as the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,
has not only interfered with the conduct of offender research
...

For males under age 21 the range is 92,000-130,000...annual estimates of, say, rape have been based on as few as 62
...
When data on assaults are gathered in the context of a “crime survey,” fewer assaults are reported than when the interview also includes items about attitudes, lifestyle, and prosocial behavior (Mihalic & Elliott, 1995). These investigators surmise that many acts ofdomestic violence or aggression are not perceived by respondents as criminal.
...
The study sample was hardly representative of the general adolescent population, but the findings do suggest that juveniles are responsible for a very significant proportion of child molestations
...
Since no one really knows how much rape is actually perpetrated by juveniles (or adults for that matter), it is impossible to say with any certainty what the odds are of being arrested.
...
There have been only four studies that have addressed the association between pornography use and
sexual aggression among teens
...
"
I don't have the time for more, but that is not "clearly".

reply to post by waterpie

gave an example, that at some time in the past, it was legal to own slaves.

Your example was irrelevant, so I didn’t waste my time with it. Apples and oranges. Clearly legality doesn’t always constitute what is right and wrong, since that is not at all what I meant your example is irrelevant, unless you’d like to take into account what I actually said and rephrase your reasoning.

It does not fuel the "industry".

It does, but you’re allowed to disagree with me on this issue. I’m not saying either of us is necessarily wrong or right, I’m supporting the side of this issue that I think has the best legal evidence to support its case.

Just viewing an image cannot be harmful to society.

Where did I say this was the case with all images? Never stated this, that was clearly not my reasoning, I’m talking specifically about the legal arguments that have rooted the laws against viewing child porn.

I don't have the time for more, but that is not "clearly".

Again you are confusing my statement. I’m not saying child porn is simply made or encouraged because of viewing, from a distribution and production stand point though the business clearly thrives because customers view the porn over the internet, it thrives more now than it ever did with the access it has been given, making it legal would be counterproductive to stopping the production. Certain things, such as other videos you find on the internet that are of illegal activity, would still exist but not be posted as often if people showed no interest in them, with child porn this is the case- the interest and demand for it and willingness to pay for it help to fuel its creation.

I’m still waiting for you to validate your opinions of researcher, their research, and the legal case against child pornography, and the politicians who support it as a lawful regulation.


[edit on 12-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by waterpie


It does not fuel the "industry". What industry? I want to send them money, where are they?
And if there is an "industry" and I can send them money, then surely they can be caught while collecting.

You know nothing about child pornography obviously. Go talk to some investigators. You will find a vast industry where people do get paid just fine. America is not the only country in the world you know? Seriously, as much as I appreciate the effort you put into your thoughts, they are based on ignoarance of the real situation, plain and simple.