Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

Originally posted by drraven
These pictures hurt me it hurts me to know they are around, and it hurts me to know there is people that look at them and are supportive of them.

These pictures do not hurt you and if you want to apply that logic then i could argue that Christianity hurts me so lets ban that. If you are truly, psychologically in distress over these images, the kind of distress that needs attention then you should go and seek help because that is your, very strange problem.

Being angry is fine, i'm angry about them but this is not being hurt.

reply to post 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.

Are you for REAL?

Seriously... You think that pedophilia is illegal, NOT BECAUSE it harms children, but because it is Wrong to VIEW that act?

Really?

Listen... Take a Quarter, and find your nearest payphone... call your local police office, and report yourself for VIEWING the depiction of a murder...

You know... so that they can arrest you for the CRIME of murder and all.


Your logic is nonexistant, and your argument is as solid as tissue paper...

Come back when you have a more substantive argument.

-Edrick

reply to post by drraven

Well, if the slogan is, do whatever you like as long as you dont hurt anybody...

These pictures hurt me it hurts me to know they are around, and it hurts me to know there is people that look at them and are supportive of them.

It hurts me to know that you exist.

Therefore, by YOUR logic, YOU should be illeigal.


Do you see why you fail yet?

It is my strong belief that people cannot live in total freedom, we are not capable of making the right decisions without a proper law.

Oh my GOD, are you really this dense?

Who do you think WROTE those laws?

Was it Space Aliens?

Sentient Rectangles from another Dimension?

You realize that these laws Written by these humans that you claim are not capable of making correct decisions...

I mean... Wow... that is just DAFT!

-Edrick

hmmm...

There is no reason to get agitated over this, we just differ on this subject.

All I am saying is that having a sexual preference for children is wrong and people that have them are mentally ill, this has been proven by many experts on this subject.

We should not encourage mental illness, we should attempt to heal it.

please do not make this a name-calling thread, and stay civilised

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Feed those who created it to a pool of hungry fishes.
2nd

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by drraven

It is my strong belief that people cannot live in total freedom, we are not capable of making the right decisions without a proper law.

Oh my GOD, are you really this dense?

Who do you think WROTE those laws?

Was it Space Aliens?

Sentient Rectangles from another Dimension?

You realize that these laws Written by these humans that you claim are not capable of making correct decisions...

I mean... Wow... that is just DAFT!

-Edrick

This is why most governments are made up of more than one person, it is a gathering of people that are SUPPOSED to try everything in their power to make the right decisions, does this mean they are always right? no.

But they are not always wrong either, and on the subject of child pornography, I think they are doing very well banning all forms.

Originally posted by drraven
hmmm...

There is no reason to get agitated over this, we just differ on this subject.

All I am saying is that having a sexual preference for children is wrong and people that have them are mentally ill, this has been proven by many experts on this subject.

Many experts think it is a form of sexual retardation and it cannot be fixed or cured. No one has ever found a cure.

Originally posted by drraven
We should not encourage mental illness, we should attempt to heal it.

please do not make this a name-calling thread, and stay civilised

We have not turned this into name calling, i simply pointed out the very clear logical fallacy in what you have said (and you didn't address that rebuttal). You said that if something hurts you then it should be banned, i took that argument and said that Christianity hurts me and therefore, using your logic it should be banned.

When i said "you can do whatever you like as long as you do not hurt anyone", you misinterpreted the word hurt. I mean either physical harm, harm to property, harm to ones reputation or psychological distress. This does not simply mean you don't like something or are outraged at something, this means causing distress that needs psychological councilling.

As the existence of these cartoon images does not result in any of these things then there is no harm. Disgusting yes, horrible, absolutely, but the images cause no one any harm, they won't hurt your life in any way and therefore they should be protected under freedom of expression.

We don't just ban things because they are distastful, we ban things because they cause harm.

reply to post by drraven


I would ask you to provide evidence that these images hurt people, and i would advise you to read abck in the thread where i link studies that suggest the availability of this pornography actually reduces the number of children who actually are abused.

Indeed if you support a ban on this pornography then you are increasing the number of children that actually get abused as the paedophiles will find some way of getting their fix.

Enjoy that fact.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I was not referring to you when i mentioned the name calling.

I quite understand the point you make on the reduced molestment thing, so does regular porn in adult rape cases.

It is the simple fact that this kind of sexual preference cannot be encouraged, or fed, you must understand what i mean.

How can any government allow this and still sleep at night?

As for religion, i know a lot of horrible things are going on withing religious surroundings, this is why Jesus tells us the true church is not on this earth, but the true church is the true believers, that will be rewarded in the next life for withstanding the evil that preys on them in this life

reply to post by drraven

This is why most governments are made up of more than one person, it is a gathering of people that are SUPPOSED to try everything in their power to make the right decisions, does this mean they are always right? no.

But they are not always wrong either, and on the subject of child pornography, I think they are doing very well banning all forms.

Are we talking about child pornography?

Or are we talking about animated pornography?


Child pornogrophy implies two things...

1. That the content itself is pornographic in nature

2. that the subject (one or more) is a child.


Now, lets take a look at this further, shall we?


What is a child?


Is a drawing of a child, a child?

Can a drawing of a fire burn you?

Can a drawing of a gun kill you?

Can a drawing of a Beer get you drunk?

Can a drawing of a mirror reflect your image?

Can a drawing of a child be HARMED?

Can a drawing of a child be emotionally DAMAGED?

Can a drawing of a child FEEL PAIN?



The reason that CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is illegal, is that CHILDREN are harmed in its production, usually by infringing on their rights.


Governments are about Protecting and Preserving the rights of individuals.

A CRIME, by definition, is something that CAUSES HARM OR DAMAGE, by infringing on another persons rights.


What right does a drawing have, that can be infringed?


What damage can you do to a drawing, by depicting it as a child, and having sex?

What emotional harm is brought upon a drawing in this fashion?


This is my problem with your stance...

You think that a DRAWING of a child, *IS* a Child.


Your inability to differenciate between a REAL PERSON, and an *ILLUSION* of a person created by software, or inks on a 2 dimensional surface *IS THE PROBLEM*

Governments are created to protect the RIGHTS of the individual.


we all have the RIGHT to express ourselves.

*YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO THROUGH LIFE WITHOUT BEING OFFENDED*


Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness are written in this order for a particular reason....

Because that is their order of importance.

1. Life is more important than

2. Liberty, which is more important than

3. The pursuit of happiness.


And one persons rights hold the same weight as anouther.


My life is the same value as yours

Your liberty is the same value as mine.

My happiness has the same value as yours.


But my liberty is not more important than your life.

And your happiness is not more important than my liberty.



If the only way for you to be happy is for someone to lose their liberty... then you are just going to have to DEAL with being unhappy.


Ok, that was a rambling tangent.... but I think I got my point across...


This issue is NOT about child pornogrophy... because it is NOT child pornogrophy.

The issue is about:


"And at what price would you throw away your freedom of speech?"


"Because someone drew something that you don't approve of", seems to be your answer.


-Edrick

*YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO THROUGH LIFE WITHOUT BEING OFFENDED*

yes, every one does

reply to post by drraven

*YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO THROUGH LIFE WITHOUT BEING OFFENDED*

yes, every one does

You offend me.


Go to jail for violating my right.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


Well, I do not think i stand completely alone in my idea that freedom should not be given when this issue is at hand.

And what is this about jail all the time?

We have forums like this to help us get our points of view across

[edit on 19-3-2010 by drraven]

reply to post by drraven

Well, I do not think i stand completely alone in my idea that freedom should not be given when this issue is at hand.

Ok, here is my question...


WHAT ISSUE are you talking about?

And what is this about jail all the time?

You said that everyone has the *RIGHT* to go through life without being offended.

YOU offend ME, therefore, you have violated my RIGHT to not be offended.

Therefore, by your own logic, YOU are a criminal.

Q.E.D. Go to Jail

-Edrick

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Edrick]

Well, my issue is, should we or should we not feed a sick urge to watch sexual interaction between infants?

I say no, and i will continue to do so.

This is not going anywhere, I will watch this thread closely, but not reply for a while.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by drraven]

Originally posted by drraven

I quite understand the point you make on the reduced molestment thing, so does regular porn in adult rape cases.

It is the simple fact that this kind of sexual preference cannot be encouraged, or fed, you must understand what i mean.

How can any government allow this and still sleep at night?

I could allow it and sleep at night for a number of reasons.

1) It saves children from real abuse. I couldn't sleep if i banned it and a child got abused because of that ban.

2) The sexual preference will exist even if it is not fed (if fed is the correct word). In fact by pushing it underground we as a society encourage the abuse of children by eliminating the options paedophiles have to release their frustrations. Images that don't involve children (real children) harm absolutely no one.

3) The availability of such porn does not increase the number of paedophiles, this can be seen by looking at any country where this stuff is legal and commonplace. Japan would be the obvious example.


So lets go over this, you agree it reduces the rate of actual abuse and yet you still want it banned. I am sorry but that means, by proxy you are responsible for the abuse of children.

reply to post by drraven

Well, my issue is, should we or should we not feed a sick urge to watch sexual interaction between infants?

I say no, and i will continue to do so.

What is this "WE" stuff?

Are you being held captive and forced to draw depictions of children in sexual situations against your will?

Are you?

Because unless you ARE, then I don't see how *WE* are feeding it.... it seems to be feeding itself through no help on our part.

-Edrick