Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children, page 22

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Once again, i have linked an article which lists numerous studies and statistics that seems to show, very clearly that the availablility of this form of pornography leads to a decrease in actual, physical child abuse. I will happily keep this stuff legal if a child is saved from abuse because of it's existence.

The banning of this material is also about perceived risk from a minors point of view. Not a pedophiles point of view of whether they have access to this material as a means to avoid or stop abusing children.
I find you narrow point of view astounding.
This is not only about Pedophiles and people who like images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

There are other methods available so as to avoid abusing kids besides access to images of children being sexual abused that do not carry the risks associated with these pornographic images of children.

When are you going to acknowledge that?
That this issue is not about the rights of people that use this material, people you yourself admit you would not let near children.
"YOu see i agree that he shouldn't work with children," post by ImaginaryReality1984

You acknowledge the risk these people present, yet continuously ignore that these laws are about reducing the risk they present by relegating it to a matter of free speech.

Despite this lack of knowledge, we know that abuse images of children are used by abusers for
some of the following purposes:
• To expose children to such images and gradually create an impression that such image are made by many people and therefore it is normal and acceptable to engage in sexual activity with children, preparing and leading to actual abuse;

• To increase fantasies that offenders have, stimulate and lead them to actual abuse; and

• To use the images to break down defences in children, stimulate their curiosity and groom
children (that is to trick or tempt them) into involvement – by falsely claiming this type of exchange is normal and not harmful.

www.ecpat.net...

This is why we have these laws.

Am I clear on your stance: You would rather that these people have these materials because you think it reduces risk regardless of the fact that there are many other options of help, advice, medical, psychological alternatives to combating a persons urge to abuse kids, alternatives that do not carry any of the risks associated with them that this child pornography carries with it?

This is your logic: To reduce risk, you would encourage an activity that carries known risks of harm to children.

That is not reducing risk. It is argued that this is reducing risk by normalization of a behavior so that it is no longer thought of as a risk.
Like the studies you mention, the key phrase you use it that it "seems to reduce" harm.
Have you considered that the reason why these incidents "seem' to have been reduced is that the material is used to normalize the abuse to children, so that they do not report the crime, because they think it is normal?
That is the risk that you take!

Once again, i have linked an article which lists numerous studies and statistics that seems to show, very clearly that the availablility of this form of pornography leads to a decrease in actual, physical child abuse. I will happily keep this stuff legal if a child is saved from abuse because of it's existence.

You are happy to accept a solution that carries risk to children.
Other people are not.
The most logical approach would be to offer solutions with the least amount of risk of harm and abuse to children.
Would you agree with that or not?
Just some of these solutions are Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Medications, Hormone treatment, making images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality illegal.

These all attempt to reduce risk without inducing a risk to children as a side effect.
That would seem logical given that the aim, primarily, is to reduce risk and harm to children and not to remove the rights of pedophiles or other people who enjoy images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. the removal of those rights is a side effect of protecting children, nothing more.

You are not willing to accept the side effects of the effort to protect the interests of children. In fact, you do not even recognize these as such and only focus on the interests and rights of the offender.

That is the issue.

Rather than putting out material of children in images of sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality and hoping that this "would seem" to reduce risk at a cost of normalization of this activity, providing visual tools that encourage the idea and tools for offenders to integrate into their methods and habits of child abuse.

You risk that children can be groomed and educated by pedophiles of first offenders using these cartoons.
You risk that kids will think it is ok, and normal.
That is why we have bans on this material.
Because people think the interests of children are more important than the rights of pedophiles or people who enjoy images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse or bestiality.

You believe this approach is wrong. Because of a principle of free speech.
Your principles relating to free speech over ride your desire to protect the interests of children.
Don't mince your words or try and obfuscate the issue.
This is what you believe.
If you disagree with these laws, you disagree with their purpose and function.
You prefer the principle of free speech relating to images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality over serving the interests and welfare of children.

Whilst I will agree that there is not enough known to be certain about the relationship between material of this type and its effects on the cause of actual abuse, the doubt swings both ways. We don't know enough to be sure that it does not lead to direct abuse in every case. What we DO know is that this material is used, and thus, probably will be used by pedophiles to abuse kids.

In light of this, the safest course of action is to act in the best interests of children by banning the material at the expense of pedophiles and other people who would otherwise enjoy looking at children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

It seems this is a course of action, that is designed to reduce the risk and potential harm to kids, is something you cannot tolerate given your empathy and sympathy for the rights of people who enjoy looking at images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

An empathy and sympathy that does not extend any further than that principle, as you are only serving your self righteous sense of what is right purely relating to a principle of free speech, and not what is right in terms of protecting the welfare and interests of all the children within the shared society.

Awesome dude.

P.S. Still a keyboard warrior or have you contacted your representative regarding your concern?
Did you donate to Handley's Defense?
What have your neighbors thought about the issue, you did canvas them right?
They must be outraged that their rights have been eroded, specifically the right to produce, receive and possess images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

They must be so glad to have you as a community member, given you care more for a principle then the interests of those you live with in relation to a specific matter of images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

Keep up the good work!

Originally posted by atlasastro
There are other methods available so as to avoid abusing kids besides access to images of children being sexual abused that do not carry the risks associated with these pornographic images of children.

You acknowledge the risk these people present, yet continuously ignore that these laws are about reducing the risk they present by relegating it to a matter of free speech.

The stdy you linked appears to talk about pornography involving real children and therefore your point is mute in comparison. Further the above comments you make are in complete disagreement with the EVIDENCE. The study i linked gives very clear evidence that the availability of these images actively prevents abuse of real children. This law does not help children at all, all it does is force offenders to stay well underground and use images of real children being abused.

Once again your standpoint is more likely to lead to the abuse of real, living, actual, children.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Am I clear on your stance: You would rather that these people have these materials because you think it reduces risk regardless of the fact that there are many other options of help, advice, medical, psychological alternatives to combating a persons urge to abuse kids, alternatives that do not carry any of the risks associated with them that this child pornography carries with it?

This is your logic: To reduce risk, you would encourage an activity that carries known risks of harm to children.

Once again you say it causes known harm but the evidence is to the contrary. Your study talked about images involving real children! It appears to me that paedophiels using these fake images do so because they don't want a child harmed. I talked earlier about self hating paedophiles. Some of them get help but most (i believe) don't get help because, well do you think someone is going to go somewhere and admit to being a paedophile? No they're not, so keep these images legal so that they can have their fix and not hurt anyone.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Have you considered that the reason why these incidents "seem' to have been reduced is that the material is used to normalize the abuse to children, so that they do not report the crime, because they think it is normal?
That is the risk that you take!

Did you read the studies? Obviously not. It was stated clearly that the opinion of society had not changed, child abuse was still seen as a terrible thing. It appears that you don't care for evidence at all, you just want it banned, without any logical basis.

Originally posted by atlasastro
You are happy to accept a solution that carries risk to children.

No i am not, again check the evidence. I'm getting very tired of you, you read the evidence and ignore it. Are you a creationist as well?

Originally posted by atlasastro
Just some of these solutions are Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Medications, Hormone treatment, making images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality illegal.

There is no proven treatment for paedophilic behavior just as there is no treatment for homosexual behavior (i'm not saying we need to treat homosexuals but it has been tried). This shows your true ignorance on the topic.

Originally posted by atlasastro
These all attempt to reduce risk without inducing a risk to children as a side effect.
That would seem logical given that the aim, primarily, is to reduce risk and harm to children and not to remove the rights of pedophiles or other people who enjoy images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. the removal of those rights is a side effect of protecting children, nothing more.

Having to repeat myself is getting tiring. The studies suggest, along with epidemiological evidence that when a society has access to these animated images that abuse rates go down. Just like rape rates go down when normal and rape pornography is available.

Originally posted by atlasastro
You are not willing to accept the side effects of the effort to protect the interests of children. In fact, you do not even recognize these as such and only focus on the interests and rights of the offender.
That is the issue.

No i recognise that this pornography can actively prevent the abuse of children by allowing the offenders to get their fix. Your attempt to turn this around and make it seem like i don't care about the children is pathetic.

Originally posted by atlasastro
You risk that children can be groomed and educated by pedophiles of first offenders using these cartoons.

Any offender that actually grooms children will just use real pornography. I mean seriously if they're going to act on their urges you really think they won't cross that line?

Originally posted by atlasastro

Whilst I will agree that there is not enough known to be certain about the relationship between material of this type and its effects on the cause of actual abuse, the doubt swings both ways. We don't know enough to be sure that it does not lead to direct abuse in every case. What we DO know is that this material is used, and thus, probably will be used by pedophiles to abuse kids.

Hang on you've just been going on and on about how it does cause abuse and you even linked a study which you thought proved your point! Even thoughthat study appears to have been talking about pictures of real children, not animated stuff.

You just massively contradicted yourself.

Originally posted by atlasastro
An empathy and sympathy that does not extend any further than that principle, as you are only serving your self righteous sense of what is right purely relating to a principle of free speech, and not what is right in terms of protecting the welfare and interests of all the children within the shared society.

Yet again you try and turn this around as if i don't care about chidlren. This form of tactic in a debate is transparent and it is only done by someone who is losing an argument.

I care about the children, i recognise that the studies appear to show that this animated stuff can reduce the rates of real abuse and at the same time i realise that these images are not real and so should be allowed. If you could provide any proof that having animated images available increases the rate of abuse of real children then i would absolutely be for banning them.

Originally posted by atlasastro
P.S. Still a keyboard warrior or have you contacted your representative regarding your concern?

You obviously don't read my posts do you, i'm not an American so what can i do to change american laws? But once again you are not debating the law, only attacking me to try and win an argument with an ad hom attack.

I won't be bothering with you again because you provide no evidence at all for your claims, you contradict yourself and finally you add little insults in there to try and cause people reading your post to lose their logical perspective.

Not worth my time.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]