Author Topic: CP or not?  (Read 10699 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
It is kind of interesting when you consider the Western worlds' reaction to the fury over the 'Mohammed Cartoons'...

 

Offline colecampbell666

  • I See Dead Pictures
  • 212
  • Evolution and ascension.
And then there was the whole Bill 8 thing...
Gettin' back to dodgin' lasers.

 

Offline Androgeos Exeunt

  • Captain Oblivious
  • 212
  • Prevents attraction.
    • Wordpress.com Blog
It is kind of interesting when you consider the Western worlds' reaction to the fury over the 'Mohammed Cartoons'...
And then there was the whole Bill 8 thing...

The what and the what? :confused:
My blog

Quote: Tuesday, 3 October 2023 0133 UTC +8, #general
MP-Ryan
Oh you still believe in fairy tales like Santa, the Easter Bunny, and free market competition principles?

 

Offline colecampbell666

  • I See Dead Pictures
  • 212
  • Evolution and ascension.
Bill 8 was the big bill in California where over half of the state voted to ban gay marriage, simply because they could. The Mohammed cartoons were a series of derogatory cartoons about Islam, the man qho drew them got caught up in a ****storm.
Gettin' back to dodgin' lasers.

 

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Steam
    • Something
Bill 8 was the big bill in California where over half of the state voted to ban gay marriage, simply because they could. The Mohammed cartoons were a series of derogatory cartoons about Islam, the man qho drew them got caught up in a ****storm.
With all due respect, I'm not so sure that this topic needs a second hot-button issue that has no chance of doing anything other than derailing it. :p

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
It is kind of interesting when you consider the Western worlds' reaction to the fury over the 'Mohammed Cartoons'...


kiddy porn cartoons are different, because pedophilia is very harmful to children.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
Pedophilia isn't harmful to children in itself. If the pedophile just goes to the park every day and sits and watches the kids play and goes home and wanks afterwards, I see no harm in that. I see that as basically on the same level as looking at kiddy porn cartoons. As long as it stays a fantasy, no one is hurt.
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline Flaser

  • 210
  • man/fish warsie
Well, believe it or not, some people think that just possessing (real) child porn isn't harmful to children, if the person isn't producing any.

Technically they're correct. However they probably paid for it somehow since it's not exactly floating around free, so they're contributing to the problem.

Actually it is available for free. Shudder. Some file-sharing networks are full of them.

The massive raids with international cooperation you hear about? Most of those are nowhere near the "organized dens of crime and exploitation" just a whole bunch of sick ****tards who molest (mostly their own! squick!) children and share their videos on the something Kazaa.

With a little technical know-how it's easy to monitor them and "busting such a massive ring of pedophiles - I mean dozens of members! it must be like a Maffia! (bull****)" looks really-really good on police officers' portfolio.

These men should be prosecuted because they cause the children harm. Though frankly usually not the physical variety most associate with the act. It's psychological 'cause they imprint the children with a very skewed view of sexuality where they must forever be the submissive and on the receiving end. However that's not all - they may view sex as a form of "love" and anyone tend believe that anyone who has sex with them is "loving them".... which may be true, but misses the whole point. Sex isn't about feeling it's act of body. What it expresses is up to the participants but these children's view is already skewed.

Two, no make it three things that piss me off about this whole deal:

1) The moral panic over pedophiles has actually put a lot of innocent people behind bars and modern witch trials were conducted with impossible charges. Read up on this here:
 http://www.geocities.com/jgharris7/witchhunt.html

2) The above moral panic and witch-hunt has actually retarded the cause of anti-molestation and child welfare. Most of these molestations and rape is done by relatives. The child services were finally on the right track and could do some real work... except over eager agents who saw molesters everywhere, fear struck parents and eager to please authorities (whose actions against pedophiles provides really good publicity) has gone into a insane fervor and destroyed this progress.

Now we're back to stranger-danger once again, the candyman you must beware of... which mostly bull****. Yes there are a few monsters out there, but very few. The sad truth is most child molestation is domestic, done by someone who the child trusts by people who may indeed be upstanding citizens in any other aspect and they indeed "love" the children...
...which most of the time doesn't "hurt" them, but harm the child in hidden and really sinister ways.

3) What makes the issue even more murky is that children aren't the "innocent angels" the media and American (blind) stereotypes make them out to be. Even as young as 8 they already have notions of sexuality and 12 years are guaranteed to have taken the first steps on sexuality - which is natural, they are teenagers by then! So instead "pure little angels" what really happens is really young curios teenagers are co-opted into a games of "pleasure".

The pressures that try to suppress sexuality in teenagers doesn't help this at all, especially the religious pressures that equate masturbation and sexuality with sin. Along comes a cool "uncle" who not only dismisses the child's fears, but actively encourages them to go on, release their pressures. He may even smuggle them some porno... or show them how it's done. The child naturally gravitates toward the sole figure who (seemingly) supports them.

When they finally figure out what's happening they don't know what to do. It wasn't a strange man who abducted them and did painful things to them, but a known person they trust who slowly brought them into a relationship that's growing ever more strained and uncomfortable for the child. He's out of his league he doesn't know how to get out or steer it in any direction.

Finally when things come to head everyone assumes that it hurt that they were practically "beat and literally abused". They could be. There are cases like that. Those are easier to solve (which is squicky). However in a lot of cases that child also enjoyed the sex to a degree. It offered them pleasure, but the relationship itself was very straining and put them under pressures that were ever mounting.

However everyone tells them it was WRONG! They must have SUFFERED! ...what if it wasn't painful and there were parts that they enjoyed? The stereotypes of child abuse afterwards cause a different strain on the child. Their actual experiences may differ wildly from the painful and sodomizing debauchery that everyone just "KNOWS MUST HAVE HAPPENED".... and speaks and handles them with the assumption.

Pedophiles often use the above argument to validate their "relationship". They are right to a degree: the children are rarely abused in the manner that the stereotypes assume. But the whole issue is still very damaging and the situation is fright with danger from the get go as the adults ego will inevitably leave a very strong impression on the child.
"I was going to become a speed dealer. If one stupid fairytale turns out to be total nonsense, what does the young man do? If you answered, “Wake up and face reality,” you don’t remember what it was like being a young man. You just go to the next entry in the catalogue of lies you can use to destroy your life." - John Dolan

 

Offline Ziame

  • 28
  • ED ftw
1) Cartoon CP is not ****in' CP it's a frickin cartoon dammit.
2) if one watches CP he's not bad, he's sick, but he doesn't harm the children by watching it
3)...buuuut if you PRODUCE CP then you are OBVIOUSLY harmin' chilren in some way... (by ****in' them dammit)


though CP-ers should be shot on sight IMO.


watch out for dendrophiles
Rabbinic Judaism had a good start with the Old Testament but kinda missed the point about 2000 years ago

ALL HAIL HERRA
/fan of BlackHole

  

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Steam
    • Something
2) if one watches CP he's not bad, he's sick, but he doesn't harm the children by watching it
I'd argue that he does harm children, though, even if he's not the person producing the material.  If no one went out of their way to download and/or buy CP content, then those who produce it for others' consumption would have no incentive to do so.  It wouldn't do anything to stop the slimeballs who produce it merely for their own consumption, but at least it'd be a significant step in the right direction.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
I agree with Mongoose.

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
I agree with Battuta.
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
If no one went out of their way to download and/or buy CP content, then those who produce it for others' consumption would have no incentive to do so.

This argument is contingent upon a group of people who are not themselves interested in child porn producing it. The existance of such a thing is unproveable, and frankly immaterial, to current law.

So in essence if you want to make that stick you're going to have to differentate, in a way I'm not sure is actually possible.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
By downloading an image of child porn, aren't you basically making a copy of it? So you're making more and more child porn. Spreading the image of the abuse all over the place. Pleh.
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
By downloading an image of child porn, aren't you basically making a copy of it? So you're making more and more child porn. Spreading the image of the abuse all over the place. Pleh.

Yes, but Mongoose is posisting the existence of someone make child porn for profit, not because they like child porn, something which, legally, there is no recognized difference in.

If what he wants is to remove the for-profit people from the loop, then there has to be some legal distingushing of them so they can recieve a different punishment. The question is, how do you distingush them from someone who makes it for themselves and then shares it?
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
I don't think any of that is material to the question of whether viewing CP is bad. By viewing CP you not only create a demand for it, you implicitly condone it.

 

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Steam
    • Something
If no one went out of their way to download and/or buy CP content, then those who produce it for others' consumption would have no incentive to do so.

This argument is contingent upon a group of people who are not themselves interested in child porn producing it. The existance of such a thing is unproveable, and frankly immaterial, to current law.

So in essence if you want to make that stick you're going to have to differentate, in a way I'm not sure is actually possible.
Maybe I was unclear, but I wasn't trying to suggest some sort of legal differentiation between the two groups, nor that people who produce CP have no personal interest in it whatsoever.  What I'm positing is that there exists a percentage of people involved in its production, maybe even the majority, who while into the material themselves would not take the massive risk of producing it if not for the greater audience demanding it.  I'd think the main reason that laws against possession exist is to attempt to drive said people out of production.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Mongoose: Fair enough.

I don't think any of that is material to the question of whether viewing CP is bad. By viewing CP you not only create a demand for it, you implicitly condone it.

Which is in turn immaterial to thread's question of what constitutes it. :P Come now, we're already on tangents here.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Bear in mind that you can actually make the argument that mere possession of child porn is damaging to the child themselves. Once images of their abuse are on the internet the victim no longer knows who possesses images of their abuse. Even if their original abuser is caught and all material destroyed they don't know if some sick bastard might still have them.

Whether that argument is enough to validate a long criminal sentence is another matter but you can't say that mere possession of child porn can't be causing harm to the victim.


Oh and Kudos to Flaser for knowing what he's talking about. There's so much hysteria surrounding this issue that people tend to make the mistakes he mentioned.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
photos of child porn Vs Hentai and other cartoon "child" porn

child porn - no arguments of it being wrong because of the harm to the childs psychological development and the conditions the child could be subjected to.  on another element there is the behaviors it could encourage in the viewer.

Cartoons - I put the speech marks around the word child at the start because as with anything based on the artists imagination only the artist knows what was intend the viewer can only interpret the image, now in this being "Not Real" removes the current harm from the child but leaves the issue of behavior it could encourage and if that is a crime, is it an incitement to commit a crime? personally i think no unless there is proof to deliberately incite.
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art