Originally posted by Nurv47
There is so much wrong with what you just said that I think it would take over an hour to point out all of the flaws in your argument ... I just woke
up ... and I am still tired ...
I'll do my best I guess ...
If you have to guess that this is your best, why bother?
Bye bye free speech argument.
Hello issue of obscene child porn.
... Are you trying to say that cartoons of fictional children are the equivalent to pictures of real children? I honestly feel like I
am going in a circle here ... and I am not sure how much more I can possibly say it anymore ...
Did I say that they were the equivalent?
Is attempted rape the equivalent of rape?
Is attempted murder the equivalent of murder?
Does that make one acceptable and the other unacceptable?
I hope you see my point.
In the examples I use, both are seen as criminal and have punishments, neither acts are acceptable based on the measure of equivalence, nor is the
In this case of images of real children and images portraying children in acts. They are not equivalent nor acceptable to the law, and I agree with
that. They both carry penalties, and these are not equivalent either. I disagree with the sentence. I have read articles that state the court
appointed evaluation felt he withheld information relating to other activities of sexual deviance with minors. I think this may have added to the
severity of his sentence.
On the equivalent, in 2005 a man was sentenced for possessing anime porn and real porn. He got 20 years. So the court does not view the content as
being equivalent, nor do I.
It appears that one seems to be acceptable to you in the instances of cartoons depicting children in sex acts, acts of sexual abuse and bestiality.
But that does not mean that it is acceptable. The Protect Act of 2003 says it. The law says that. Previous decisions by the supreme court relating to
obscene porn and child pornography say that. I agree with it. What I am saying is that I do not differentiate between any images that depict children
in sex acts, sexual abuse or bestiality.
You do, it appears.
You are cool with cartoons that depict children is sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.
You are happy for people to create it, produce it, and trade and sell it and use it for sexual gratification.
One would think child porn would require children no? Not depictions of fictional children ... Should I point out the differences of real
children and drawings?
You think that. In my experience, and the reality of the OP article presents, along with numerous other cases actually
point to evidence that in general, One does not require that child porn is child porn only if there is a victim.
It is the same with animated Adult porn
. Is that not porn purely because there are no real
adults in it? it is classified that way, is it not?
So why would animated child porn be different? So if adult animated porn is classified as porn, why would animated child pornography not be seen
classified exactly as it is, as child pornography? And treated exactly as we treat child pornography.
Please explain that to me?
Are you saying we should accept child pornography?
Children are alive. Drawings are not.
Really, powerful observations.
Children have feelings. Drawings do not.
Children can be exploited. Drawings cannot.
Children can be molested. Drawings cannot.
Children are children. Drawings are drawings.
Child pornography is child pornography. We don't need a victim to define pornography! Or to
define obscene pornography or child pornography.
It seems you think the issue is the difference between real images and images that depict children in sex acts. Where as there seems to be an
overwhelming feeling that there is no real difference and that the best course of action is to legislate against such imagery regardless of its format
This is where you and I differ.
How do you draw the line? Because, I do not draw a line between any images of children being sexually abused, nor does the law, nor do the courts! Go
The content is the same, the acts would be the same, the idea and the purpose of the material is the same. But one is a cartoon. The only thing
missing is a victim! So for you, you only need victims for things to be wrong! Is that your point!
That is what it seems to be.
The actual law is different, the laws are related to what is obscene and what is considered child pornography.
If there is no evidence of real child pornography or child abuse ... why should the justice system waste its time and money prosecuting and
imprisoning someone who is interested in cartoons?
As has been defined in the laws and here a few times, the definition of what is obscene
child pornography does not rely on victims. It seems you do though.
The courts is not wasting its time on people interested in cartoons.
The court prosecuted an individual who broke a law. That is what the court does. The material has been deemed illegal for nearly 7 years. Why have
you not been discussing the value of sexual gratification from obscene child sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality in the cartoon format as being
acceptable because you view it as victimless!
Where have you been?
Think of the time and money that could have been used to actually stop REAL child molesters and child abusers in general.
How do you
know that this has not stopped some? Regardless, this issue is about child pornography. Not the methods used to apprehend a child molester. No doubt
though, I am sure child molesters are encouraged by your acceptance of certain types of images relating to children being sexually abused, as that is
what child molesters probably accept as well. So I will leave you to your affinity with real child molesters.
Read ImaginaryReality1984's second to last post, he explained it well.
I read it. I guess your definition of well explained difers as
much as .
Well I can only speak for myself ... but I was 12 and didn't even know such a law existed ... if I had known then ... perhaps I would have
spoken out. It is obviously law that limits personal freedom ... and masks it as a deviate act. Sure these cartoons and drawings are sick, but I am
not going to demand someone be imprisoned because I don't agree with them over a victimless "crime" ....
I don't demand that people be
imprisoned either. I do demand we set standards though on what we accept. These standards differ then to yours. The reason why people are imprisoned
is another issue, and it is as big as this issue.
They are cartoons ... who cares?
A lot of people care.
At least they are not looking at the real thing ... which would be a MUCH different story and you would have my full support. I don't know
why you mentioned the copy and pasting issue ... that is completely irrelevant.
I mention the copy and paste issue to illustrate how many
different versions of children committing sex acts there are, in order to illustrate the issue. it is not about the style, type or the format, it is
about images of children in sex acts.
BTW, no one needs your full support. The law is there. Get used to it.
Who is asking anyone to tolerate anything? If you don't like the material then don't look at it ... like me.
No one is asking anyone
to tolerate anything, in fact, this is about what is not tolerated. There is no asking. He was an example is what I said of people not tolerating
images of children depicted in sex acts. Wether you like the material or not is irrelevant.
The law is specific on what is child porn, what part of that have you failed to comprehend? Child porn in any form is not tolerated, regardless of who
asks what when or who likes what.
This man was an example of that, that it is not acceptable. You can waffle on in your subjective stance, but there is not subjectivity to grace the
And graffiti can be considered vandalism ... which is an understandable crime seeing as it is property damage.
So in this instance
drawing is understood as criminal with little dispute in general nor an appeal to freedom of speech to justify that criminal behavior? Drawing in that
instance is accepted as criminal. Say like drawing images of children in sex acts as it is seen as generally damaging? Thank you for clarifying the
Except they aren't real children ... How many times will I have to say this? If they depicted REAL children ... I would be VERY upset ... but
they aren't ... it is nothing more than the imagination.
We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and
bestiality. You differentiate between depictions. Those depicting real children and those that have illustrations.
We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. The law does not differentiate. Nor do I.
I draw my limit at Child porn as well, if the issue where one of the analogies you used, my stance would be different.
Shake it all you want buddy, it is all you have going on with your head it, so it seems.
[edit on 16/2/10 by atlasastro]