Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

Originally posted by zerbot565
you might have miss read or not understood the tone ,

for me there is a difference in it , if you paint a picture of the pope sodomising a child , its a message about the church ,

Others would say that is the victimisation of a child and therefore paedophilic porn. You see how this can be a problem? Once you censor one thing you censor others.

Originally posted by zerbot565
but then again i dont see how manga pockets filled with demons raping and having thier way as art or survival guides for children ,

i mean not to de rail this but , if you watch hentai and what not and all you own is hentai related , it sais quite a lot of you even if you do not understand it your self, your fictive mind is just running loops around smelling panties and wanking of while deamons rape cats , [/qupte]

Are you referring to me when you say "you" or generally a you?

Originally posted by zerbot565
i mean what is the message behind a hentai pocket ? dont buy strawberries because wolfs like fish in 60 b/w pages of rape ?

That one just completely confused me lol.

Originally posted by zerbot565
ok im not saying everything is all rape and peepingtoms, but just because its painted dosent mean it removes the undertone or mellows the message,

is it promoting the act of abuse or not
is it art just because its painted
is it art when its massproduced and sold at cornershops ?
is it music or musac ?
is it a necessety or does it tell us something degenerative about our society ?

is disney all happy go go or what do they realy promote ?

?

I resort back to this simple argument. Do films with killing in promote murder? Do films with rape in promote rape? In fact you know that tv show "dexter"? Does that promote serial murder? Or does it all come under fre speech and should be allowed?

So, here's a different question;

Let us say tomorrow that all of the alphabet soup agencies and police decided to stop policing Child pornography. Let's say instead they uploaded it all into a central database where anyone and everyone could view it.

Who among you would look at the pictures and decide that they want to go out and rape children?

And yet another, even more different question;

How are fantasies different from reality? Well, I can tell you that real people are a constant disappointment when compared against my fantasy imagining of them; especially if I'm thinking pornographic thoughts.

Even in our regular porn fiction, the ridiculously unrealistic is common and creates an expectation of ideals which any rational person will look at and say, "Yeah, you know what? I've met people that age, and none of them ever act like that".

Fantasy and fiction are idealized forms, they don't match reality; only people with a problem distinguishing between the two are the people that need to be worried and fretted about... because they have a pre-existing problem that is unrelated to the fiction/art they are viewing; they have an unrealistic expectation that I could certainly see causing some trouble.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Here we go again....

First off , your comparison of alcoholics is not apples to oranges.....and no i dont think we should make alcohol illegal , i know that might not jive with the point your trying to make.

You were speaking of addiction, I countered with a parabl about a different kind of addiction.

It is apples to apples.

and you are wrong.

Second, how would keeping animated child pornography from being legal pick your pocket? Anytime you legalize something you end up with a wealth of other b.s with it just keep that in mind.

It picks my pocket because law enforcement is not free.

We have to pay taxes to fund this sort of prohibition.

Therefore, by makeing something illeigal, you are essentially saying that I have to foot the bill to ENFORCE its status as illeigal.

Therefore, your perspective on the matter is ignorant.

I absolutely think people should be responsible for themselves.....however people who are alcohoics since you are using that as an example, go through programs like AA that are paid for by YES our taxes in some manner i assume....but i also see that people going to AA and obstain from alcohol ARE being responsible for themselves, hence taking treatment for their addiction...

You are missing the point entirely.

You are claiming that Drawings of child porn should be illeigal because no one is adult enough to take responsibility for their own actions after viewing such a thing.

By making it illegal, you are effectively saying that NO ONE has the personal ability to abstain from child molestation after viewing it.

Therefore, you are wrong.

You think that my statement about people moving on eventually from child animated porn to something more severe is false.......believe that if you want, but ive worked in a social working capacity with addiction, and people who are addicted, and i know this to be true, ive watched it happen time and again....

Your argument is patently childish...

Just because you have seen someone struggle with addiction does not mean that EVERYONE struggles with this same addiction.

You speak of the people who are slaves to their addiction, but you leave out the *VAST MAJORITY* who are not subject to this same problem.

Therefore, you are wrong.

To people who have an addiction to something or who are mentally ill, this idea you have of them just being able to NOT do something doesnt work....the brain rewires itself to need these things, it lets off chemicals....

So, you are saying the main problem here is NOT criminal, but MEDICAL.

Like alcoholics anonymous, and should be treated as an addiction, instead of a *MIGHT HAPPEN SO LETS PUNISH IT BEFORE IT DOES* criminal offense?

Agreed.

When you introduce someoen to said porn, eventually it will become "old hat" and it will lead to more dangerous ground....the "fix" no longer works, it takes more and more to quell it.

But the porn does not create the predisposition to ACT upon these desires.

To claim this is to claim that after watching too many action movies, then you will inevitably be drawn towards murder.

Therefore, you are wrong.

@DaddyBare

Agreed.

@ManBehindTheMask

yes, healthy people use normal porn as a release........and then move on to having sex with other real people.........sometimes while even doing both! Im struggling to figure out how you are failing to see the repercussions here?

I was just asking myself the same thing about you.

Just because some people desire children, and look at depictions of them, does not mean that One ALWAYS leads to the other.

You are trying to state that just because something *COULD* happen, then it *WILL* happen.

And this is a logical fallacy.

Your argument is ill informed, and flawed.

However mark my words, if they were to legalize this, youll see a spike, and youll have your own conscience to deal with

You are claiming knowledge that you do not possess.

Your argument is invalid.

@zerbot565

but if you have grownups drawing pictures of adults engagin in acts of child abuse, pedofilia, peeping tom or what not, you must ask the artist what he/ she is saying with it ,

No, you must NOT.

it is a drawing.

You are ultimately saying that we are not responsible for our own behavior, and that we should be protected from things that *MAY* cause us to MAKE OUR OWN CHOICE to molest a child.

This goes back to my alcohol argument.

Alcohol *MAY* cause people to act violently.... this is true.

But it is the ACT of violence that is the crime, not imbibing a substance that MAY cause us to act this way.

You cannot blame a child molester's actions on a cartoon.

His (or Her) actions are there OWN, and it is no ones fault but their OWN for their own conduct.

IF I were to go out and murder someone, and then in court blame YOU for saying things that angered me enough to kill.

Would it then be right to restrict your freedom of speech to protect lives?


@ManBehindTheMask

Once again, i didnt say it was an addiction

To people who have an addiction to something or who are mentally ill, this idea you have of them just being able to NOT do something doesnt work....the brain rewires itself to need these things, it lets off chemicals....

When you introduce someoen to said porn, eventually it will become "old hat" and it will lead to more dangerous ground....the "fix" no longer works, it takes more and more to quell it.

This is why you are wrong, and either a REALLY bad lier, or just have a really bad memory.

You DID say addiction.

Just for clarification....



@TurkeyBurgers

Yes, I agree...

The LINE IS, if a REAL child was involved, than it is a crime.

If a *REAL* child was NOT involved, then it is NOT a crime.


-Edrick

Right , im a liar......hmmm my answers make a lot of sense to those who work in the field I do....

Sounds to me the people who want to do this would rather enjoy watching it.....would that be YOU and the fellows who think we should do this?

go ahead, hope the feds dont catch you

one has to think doesnt one?

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Right , im a liar......hmmm my answers make a lot of sense to those who work in the field I do....

Appeal to Authority. If you work in a field dealing with Addictions, you will only encounter people who have addictive personalities and problems with Addiction; Your experiences biases you towards a world view that does not reflect reality taken as a whole cloth.

Sounds to me the people who want to do this would rather enjoy watching it.....would that be YOU and the fellows who think we should do this?

go ahead, hope the feds dont catch you

one has to think doesnt one?

Ad Hominem, you are equating those of us who defend civil rights for people who have Paedophilic tendencies as Paedophiles; this is the equivalent of someone defending a free speaking woman as another witch who needs to be burned.

In your mind, you cannot fathom why someone who has never indulged in such behavior can be at the complete support of people who do have such attractions without themselves being the same.

That would be a critical failure of logic.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Right , im a liar......hmmm my answers make a lot of sense to those who work in the field I do....

You were called a liar because you insisted you did not say addiciton. Anyone can see you repeatedly used the word addiction and then denied using it.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Sounds to me the people who want to do this would rather enjoy watching it.....would that be YOU and the fellows who think we should do this?

go ahead, hope the feds dont catch you

one has to think doesnt one?

Ahh classic, you have been utterly out matched and your only way out is to try and personally accuse people of something horrible. You have shown yourself as dishonest, your arguments as deeply flawed and alltogether pretty bad at this debate stuff.

Come back when you can present a better case without the personal accusations.

You're going into a dangerous area, OP.

Banning something that's not child pornography is only asking for many other things to be banned in it's case.

LOLICON IS NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
You're going into a dangerous area, OP.

Banning something that's not child pornography is only asking for many other things to be banned in it's case.

LOLICON IS NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

Erm i never said to ban it so not sure how i'm in the dangerous area. I said i was undecided and tbh i have made up my mind and think it should be allowed. The UK government disagrees and i believe there is now a ban in place, or coming into place anyway.

Amazed this thread still gets replies after all this time, thanks for reading.

And the UK is foolish.

Banning lolicon only then means that soon afterwords, they'll ban hentai, then all of eroge.

What about pornography after that?

But why stop there?

They already don't allow free speech. They've banned several people from entering the country on what they preach, such as Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, and others.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, but they have the right to say it...

Wow, this country is falling down the tubes...

reply to post by Mak Manto


I don't like the idea of this stuff but yes, in the end it's not harming a child and therefore should be allowed. Hentai is next on there list btw as it often depicts men and women of "questionable age". Anyone who watches anime (for those that don't know anime isn't porn) will sometimes find this hentai stuff whilst searching for new series. Sometimes it is very obvious the characters are drawn to be very young, but again, they're not real! Surely that should be the point.

We allow violent films de3picting real life actors and actresses being murdered, tortured, raped etc etc and yet ban something else that not only isn't real but is a cartoon. The real problem they have is defining what is and isn't illegal with hentai as you would need a definitive test. If it is down to the discretion of the police then court cases will fall apart.

I also wonder about the violent hentai, the UK recently banned the violent pornography (again who knows why) so what about the violent hentai?

It's all very very stupid.

unfortunately it is not necessarily the act itself but the compulsive behavior drive this sexual 'fetish'. It's been documented that pornography of such nature can increase the addictions and lead if not aid in an actual incident.

Mu argument is we would not give a terrorist black powder, pvc piping and other household goods to see what he can macgyver up.

So with this in mind, If we allow the tools or "weapons" to be used, which are the fuels for addiction then are we not creating the monster, then punishing it?

reply to post by Edrick

You are missing the point entirely.

You are claiming that Drawings of child porn should be illeigal because no one is adult enough to take responsibility for their own actions after viewing such a thing.

By making it illegal, you are effectively saying that NO ONE has the personal ability to abstain from child molestation after viewing it. Therefore, you are wrong.

This makes me want to toss my cookies? This argument sounds like you are for child pornography. It is not the act of molesting a friggen child that makes it illegal, its that watching it is inappropriate and vial.

reply to post by Jessicaviv


Actually, Jessica, seeing hentai and lolicon has been in Japan for a VERY LONG time, reports and groups have stated that Japan's rape and sex crimes are extremely lower then many countries.

Many think that since lolicon and hentai are easily available, it has a good impact.

Originally posted by Jessicaviv
unfortunately it is not necessarily the act itself but the compulsive behavior drive this sexual 'fetish'. It's been documented that pornography of such nature can increase the addictions and lead if not aid in an actual incident.

Err no sorry stop. No definitive study has said it does and some studies have said that pronography can halt compulsive acts.

Originally posted by Jessicaviv
Mu argument is we would not give a terrorist black powder, pvc piping and other household goods to see what he can macgyver up.

So with this in mind, If we allow the tools or "weapons" to be used, which are the fuels for addiction then are we not creating the monster, then punishing it?

Your argument doesn't stand because your inital premise that pornography use leads to violent acts by some is flawed. Whilst some people may use pornography and then gravitate to actual real life crime, these people were more than likely going to do the act anyway. The pornography could be argued to have delayed their actions. Offenders of all kinds, rapists, paedophiles and serial killers all have rich fantasy lives according to psychologists.

Originally posted by Jessicaviv
This makes me want to toss my cookies? This argument sounds like you are for child pornography. It is not the act of molesting a friggen child that makes it illegal, its that watching it is inappropriate and vial.

That was nothing but a personal attack to try and discredit someone. You should be ashamed of that comment. I am with you in saying that the material is vile and innapropriate but once again, no child is being harmed. If we are to ban anything that is innapropriate then who decides what is and isn't? Some of the things i like you may find highly wrong, things you like i may find highly wrong.

Slippery slope. This is the thing about freedom of expression. You can only ban something if it is directly harmful. This pornography, whilst horrible is not harmful and once again, there are many art works depicting naked children, should we rip those off of gallery walls as well?

Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by Jessicaviv

 

Actually, Jessica, seeing hentai and lolicon has been in Japan for a VERY LONG time, reports and groups have stated that Japan's rape and sex crimes are extremely lower then many countries.

Many think that since lolicon and hentai are easily available, it has a good impact.

In interest of fairness the counter argument to that is that Japanese society is big on shame and a daughter or son being raped could bring great shame on a family and so often it goes unreported.

Personally i agree with you but only right to put in the counter argument

They're drawings.

You can come up with all the long, drawn out speeches you want. You can delve into the psychology of pedophiles all day long. I could go back and read the 24 pages of (I'm sure) stimulating discussion. We could debate whether or not children can be saved or harmed when people view it, but at the end of the day...

They're drawings.

I ask you all, at what point do we consider it too real? If it's a photorealistic computer generated image? If it's a detailed anime image? If it's a Simpsons character? What about a stick figure?

How about never. How 'bout we don't ban them, because they are drawings.

Come to think of it... flat chests, no muscle tone, skinny as a twig... Yeah, if I draw a picture of two stick figures doing the nasty, that's definitely child pornography. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find my eyeballs. They just rolled right out of my head.

In certain countries, and this is no joke, if you make a couple of stick figures having sex, and you put under them the ages five and six, that's legally considered child pornography...

It's completely dumb...

Essentially, the arguments that are invariably brought up by those who find this sort of thing vile and disgusting fall away like gossamer when asked the following, and bigotry's and hatred of "OTHER" is revealed to be the true culprit;

If technology could fascilitate a lifestyle for the Paedophile which prevented any children from being harmed, allowed the Paedophile to indulge their fantasies, reduced the propagation of sexual molestation crimes and child rape and increased everybody's quality of life....

If there was technology that allowed Paedophiles to indulge in whatever fantasy they liked without harm to any other human being...

Would you ban it, merely on account of how revolting and disgusting the idea of such things are to you?

Invariably, people reveal themselves by responding "YES". Such people are idiots, because they prefer harm to society over the alternative. They would rather have children raped than to allow a Paedophile their enjoyment free of harm.

I posted the last to soon. I know I ramble on, please forgive me, I have been on the edge of this for a while now. The fact is, What makes child pornography illegal is that it is a recording of an illegal act, or that is what it USED to be. I feel that when we allow the laws to dictate what we can even DRAW we are in a dictatorship. Of course a lot of people will say "Lock them all up" but when another law is written that infringes upon something they do, it's a whole other story. I do not draw nor view sexual images of children, not because they are illegal, but because I do not find them enticing or stimulating. If someone wants to see images of this nature they will find a way. I would love to see a law written that could effectivly put pedophiles away, but I truly believe that a law banning what I guess could best be described as "intellectual material" is a step in the wrong direction. I have read a law fashioned to ban the outright distrubution of images depicting children engaged in sexual acts, that does show some promise, but I think many of the laws written today are knee jerk reactions and political games. Many of the laws are written so elected officals can say they "went after pedophiles" etc, when all they really did was take one more brick out of the walls of freedom. The witch hunt of today is sex offenders as it was crack dealers in the 80s, in ten years or so it'll be something else. Another little titbit is, why should the US have a law about it anyway, they already have one written, in the US, a person can be charged with "Obsene material" which has a very broad definition, but if it's not "Artistic" in the eyes of the court it is "Obsene" and if it is and it envolves even a depiction of a minor, then the person is subjected to the SAME law as if it was ACTUAL child porn. So why go through all of the BS to create a special law just to address CGI, DRAWN or ANIMA? It makes no sense other than to give lawmakers another feather in their cap and keep the lawyers busy. So to sum it up, a law to ban "Created" child porn is pretty much STUPID

Ouch.

I've got a problem with the entire way the system treats these people, unfortunately they represent one of the slipperiest slopes in our society.

Like any other criminal they are sent to jail to serve a sentence, at the end of which they are released. Unlike other criminals though it doesn't stop there. Police, schools, community groups are all notified that a convicted Pedo has been released into the area.

One look at my next-door neighbour's three children and there is no doubt in my mind that this absolutely required.

However, I don't have kids; a Pedo poses no threat to me.

A burgler does, a murderer does even a fraudster puts me and every other person in the area at risk. Yet there is no requirement to inform anyone that these people have been released.

Why?

According to our system they have paid their debt to society through time served and as such deserve to have every chance to live a productive life.

*~*~*~*

To avoid running in circles and becoming confusing I'm going to cut to the chase...

Regular criminals have roughly an 20/80 reviticism rate (not my figures, did a quick Google). This means that 20% return to crime while 80% move on with their lives.

AT THE LOW END, Pedo's are the opposite at 80/20 (some claim it's 97/3, with the 3% never getting caught again)

Society needs to make a decision; Is this a crime or an illness?

Unpopular though this may be, a Pedo's rights are being violated when the various groups are informed of thier presence in a community. They are not being given the chance to reintegrate like every other person who is sent to and released from prison: If it's a crime then it needs to be treated like every other crime from the initial arrest to thier release from custody.

No posters, no bulletins, no community awareness. Give them the benefit of the doubt extended to every other criminal on the day of their release and leave it at that.

That's the problem though; they cannot be given the benefit of a doubt. Regular crimes do not carry the complusion that paedophilia does for it's perpetrators. While using Google as a spell-checker for the word 'paedophilia' I hit enter... the 'teaser' for each result refered to how this is an illness that is untreatable. Prison does nothing to curtail this behavior, it only postpones the enevitable: I have read numerous accounts of how, within hours of release, Pedo's have been picked up in play parks with bags of candy.

80/20.

At least.

The slippery slope aspect is that we need to permenantly remove this threat from society. This unfortunatly opens the door for all kinds of behaviors and actions to be deemed untreatable and dealt with similarly. Without getting conspiratorial, this means schitzophrenia, autism, MS, MD...name it.

Obviously and correctly this is a door people choose to keep firmly closed. However it leaves Pedo's in limbo; they cannot be kept in jail, but cannot be unconditionally released either.

Where the OP is considered the problem is the same.

Cartoon kiddie porn isn't real. No children are harmed in any way by the expression of something solely generated by the mind of the, um, 'artist'. The arguement that Pedo's may escalate from the cartoon fantasy is invalid; according to our legal system what a person might do tomorrow cannot be held against them today as there is no way to know for sure that it will happen.

Otherwise gun owners should be arrested the moment they take ownership.

Personally? Disgusting though it may be, if it allows these people to function in society then let them have thier cartoons. HOWEVER if they do try to live the fantasy: Put them down. Problem solved and it only costs a few cents, once, instead of years of maintenance costs for incarceration.

Crime or incurable illness? Choose your consequence, make the decision and deal with the situation accordingly.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by [davinci]]