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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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!