Forum Settings
Forums
Pages (2) [1] 2 »
Post New Reply
Poll: Your Thoughts?


#1
Jun 9, 2012 12:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 16
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18377172

I'm glad these sick minded criminals are being brought to justice.

Some Highlights:

So the US has arrested 190 people over child pornography and rescued 18 children in the process.

The US Justice Department also listed Sweden, Serbia and the Netherlands as involved in the operation.

Arrests were made mostly in the US but also took place in countries including Spain, Argentina, the UK and the Philippines.

This operation uncovered a dangerous and depraved group of criminals who were devoted to trading sexually explicit images of children under the age of five.

A 28-year-old man in Michigan was found to have more than 1,200 images and 109 videos of child sex abuse on computers and media storage devices


Your thoughts on this and also on pedophiles? I've heard of people talking about pedophiles aren't bad by trying to compare them to how gays used to be outcasts and looked down upon as well.. preaching about how they may be openly accepted in society some day as well..
Modified by XAnimangaX, Jun 9, 2012 4:39 PM
 
#2
Jun 9, 2012 12:38 PM
Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 346
The biggest difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is that children are not considered by any first world government to be mature enough to consent to sexual interactions, and any such sexual interaction as documented in the pornography seized from those 190 individuals is necessarily abusive and deplorable. An adult man or woman of sound (homosexual) mind, however, is perfectly capable of engaging in harmless, consensual sex with another of the same gender and sexuality, even on video. Being attracted to children is more of a curse than anything, since there's no way for someone like that to safely, harmlessly indulge in his or her sexual desires. That's pitiable, but it doesn't make abusing children acceptable.
 
#3
Jun 9, 2012 12:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 329
Well, I'm not saying that I support cp but these guys...if they had some smarter people they'd be able to get way more than 190. Yes, I'm saying the people who share this material is doing a better job hiding it, than the justice department is able to keep up with.

dkrdude3 said:
Being attracted to children is more of a curse than anything, since there's no way for someone like that to safely, harmlessly indulge in his or her sexual desires.


This is not true, like I said, cp is so easily accessed anyone with a decent computer knowledge can get to it. And even worse, Its really hard to get caught. I mean REALLY REALLY hard. That's because in America, there are so many steps one has to go through to obtain evidence. If the Justice department wants to sstop teh spread of cp, they are targeting the wrong area.

That's why I also think that democracy is destroying America.
Modified by Tamakimouto, Jun 9, 2012 12:47 PM
 
#4
Jun 9, 2012 12:43 PM
Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 37
I wonder what age most of the victims were. If they were around 15 years old, can it really be called "child porn"?

I feel kind of sorry for pedophiles though. Not those who actually watch child porn, but those who have to live their whole life being attracted to children. Those guys could watch hentai though, unless they live in a country were depictions of children is illegal too.
 
#5
Jun 9, 2012 1:02 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 871
Zyrocz said:

Those guys could watch hentai though, unless they live in a country were depictions of children is illegal too.


Expect this list to grow larger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors
 
#6
Jun 9, 2012 2:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5142
I dunno how I feel about pedos, since the only ones we really hear about are the child molesters or are associated with them. If it's an attraction that they can't help, but don't go harming innocent children then I can't judge them too harshly.

On the other hand, whether they act on their attraction or not, I bet most of the cp produced is either forced upon these innocents or they're too young to even know what they're doing (5 years old, seriously?). So by creating a "market" for more, they are sorta indirectly harming them anyway.
 
#7
Jun 9, 2012 2:48 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1323
Well I guess I need to keep a lookout now.
 
#8
Jun 9, 2012 2:52 PM
Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 37
Narmy said:
On the other hand, whether they act on their attraction or not, I bet most of the cp produced is either forced upon these innocents or they're too young to even know what they're doing (5 years old, seriously?). So by creating a "market" for more, they are sorta indirectly harming them anyway.


Yea, that's why it's so messed up that some countries have laws against manga/anime depicting young people. If it's an attraction they can't do anything with, wouldn't it be better to let them atleast watch anime/manga so they wouldn't have to watch cp with real children involved?

The way I see it, the market will always be there and therefore they shouldn't make alternative media, like texts, anime and manga, illegal. It seems kind of ridiculous to criminalize something that probably won't do any harm, but may help.
 
#9
Jun 9, 2012 3:32 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2619
^A pedophile may have no interest in lolicon.

i want to talk about Lolicons vs Pedophiles (your vote)


 
Jun 9, 2012 4:40 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 16
^ Ty. Fixed*
 
Jun 9, 2012 4:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 26476
good riddance, more sickos off the streets

Immahnoob said:
Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit,

tokiyashiro said:

Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me

 
Jun 9, 2012 5:04 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4294
I honestly don't think it should be criminalized, just keep it far away from google searches, most of the people watching that stuff aren't a threat and those who are would be with or without child porn.
Also I love children.
 
Jun 9, 2012 5:16 PM
w i d e f a c e

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 16207
JonyJC said:
I honestly don't think it should be criminalized.
Also I love children.


Contradiction. Unless you mean you love children like that.
 
Jun 9, 2012 5:26 PM
Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 346
JonyJC said:
I honestly don't think it should be criminalized, just keep it far away from google searches, most of the people watching that stuff aren't a threat and those who are would be with or without child porn.
Also I love children.


When pedophiles find communities of other pedophiles sharing pornography, they're able to rationalize their condition and see it as more "normal" and acceptable. This leads to them abusing more children and creating more illegal pornography. If it weren't criminalized, the problem would be MUCH bigger.
 
Jun 9, 2012 5:36 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2215
XAnimangaX said:
This operation uncovered a dangerous and depraved group of criminals who were devoted to trading sexually explicit images of children under the age of five.

A 28-year-old man in Michigan was found to have more than 1,200 images and 109 videos of child sex abuse on computers and media storage devices


Ugh. Really? =.=" I freaking hate Pedophiles. Child Pornography is just awful.
 
Jun 9, 2012 5:41 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 75
It's surprising that there were arrests for possession of CP here in Guam too.

 
Jun 9, 2012 6:01 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 211
They failed at hiding from the law. Pedophiles are sick, but it can't be helped if something in their life made them become like that.
 
Jun 9, 2012 6:08 PM
w i d e f a c e

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 16207
AL19 said:
XAnimangaX said:
This operation uncovered a dangerous and depraved group of criminals who were devoted to trading sexually explicit images of children under the age of five.

A 28-year-old man in Michigan was found to have more than 1,200 images and 109 videos of child sex abuse on computers and media storage devices


Ugh. Really? =.=" I freaking hate Pedophiles. Child Pornography is just awful.


I hope you wouldn't hate someone just for being attracted to children.
 
Jun 9, 2012 6:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 422
Sure it's great they were brought to Justice,
But i don't think it should of been on the news.
 
Jun 9, 2012 6:20 PM
IRC Moderator
That Lazy Guy

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10550
I'm surprised child pornography haven't been discussed to death on MAL yet.
 
Jun 9, 2012 6:23 PM
w i d e f a c e

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 16207
Tachii said:
I'm surprised child pornography haven't been discussed to death on MAL yet.


I wish I could think of something interesting to make a thread about, but I can't.
 
Jun 9, 2012 6:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4294
Post-Josh said:
JonyJC said:
I honestly don't think it should be criminalized.
Also I love children.


Contradiction. Unless you mean you love children like that.

Of course I would admit to that on the internet, geez it's a joke. People have told me I'd make a good kindergarten caretaker but I hate the little shits.

dkrdude3 said:

When pedophiles find communities of other pedophiles sharing pornography, they're able to rationalize their condition and see it as more "normal" and acceptable. This leads to them abusing more children and creating more illegal pornography. If it weren't criminalized, the problem would be MUCH bigger.

I didn't explain myself well, I was talking about criminalizing the viewers, sites would still get busted as in this case there's no way sentient consent was given to those pics.
Modified by JonyJC, Jun 9, 2012 6:30 PM
 
Jun 9, 2012 6:37 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 651
Tachii said:
I'm surprised child pornography haven't been discussed to death on MAL yet.

That's because it usually derails into a lolicon = pedophile discussion.

I have nothing to say actually on subject. People were caught doing something illegal. Gotta be more careful next time.
 
Jun 9, 2012 8:30 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 283
My issue is the definition of child pornography. Nowadays, you can draw stick figures, and describe them as naked children, and that's considered child porn. :rolleyes: Heck, we have kids being arrested and convicted as sex offenders because they take naked pictures of themselves, thus they are guilty of possession of child porn. Really? Stick figures != child porn. Nudity != child porn. These pursue of re-shaping the actual definition of porn is dangerous, and distract everybody from the real pedophiles hiding in high places.

If those people arrested are real pedophiles, then good. But we have to be careful, as to not cloud our judgement and let the real pedophiles running free.
 
Jun 9, 2012 8:46 PM
w i d e f a c e

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 16207
pika2000 said:
My issue is the definition of child pornography. Nowadays, you can draw stick figures, and describe them as naked children, and that's considered child porn. :rolleyes: Heck, we have kids being arrested and convicted as sex offenders because they take naked pictures of themselves, thus they are guilty of possession of child porn. Really? Stick figures != child porn. Nudity != child porn. These pursue of re-shaping the actual definition of porn is dangerous, and distract everybody from the real pedophiles hiding in high places.

If those people arrested are real pedophiles, then good. But we have to be careful, as to not cloud our judgement and let the real pedophiles running free.


I know people don't tread carefully on this topic (myself included), but you should still choose a word other than pedophile to refer to criminals. Pedophile means you are sexually attracted to children (something that you're arguably born with), it does not mean you possess child porn or intend to molest a child, or anything else. "Pedophiles running free" is like saying "gay people running free" or "straight people running free", it's just a sexual preference.
 
Jun 9, 2012 9:04 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 283
Post-Josh said:

I know people don't tread carefully on this topic (myself included), but you should still choose a word other than pedophile to refer to criminals. Pedophile means you are sexually attracted to children (something that you're arguably born with), it does not mean you possess child porn or intend to molest a child, or anything else. "Pedophiles running free" is like saying "gay people running free" or "straight people running free", it's just a sexual preference.

I agree with your notion, but in most countries, possessing whatever they defined as child "porn" will garner you that label, and fact is it's considered illegal (criminalized), thus my assumption is towards the criminal act itself, not the preference.
 
Jun 9, 2012 11:00 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1440
I don't know how to feel about pedophiles. I want to be compassionate, because no one is perfect and it's a sexual deviation that needs to be treated. But at the same time, it's disgusting to think about what some people do. It's one thing to think about it, but to go out and actually do it is a whole other thing.

I think it just depends on the situation.
 
Jun 9, 2012 11:10 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1464
I think pedophiles are sick to be honest :/
So to be honest i'm glad they got this guy.
but in a way it's the way there born so i don't know how to exactly feel.
 
Jun 9, 2012 11:13 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2662
This operation uncovered a dangerous and depraved group of criminals who were devoted to trading sexually explicit images of children under the age of five.

Seriously? That's far worse than I expected. Thank god they were caught and hopefully those children can recover over time.

 
Jun 9, 2012 11:17 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 663
I'd rather have pedophiles fappin to pictures than doing the actual deed.
tfw no gf
tfw i keep getting the banhammer on here
tfw Koleare keeps banning me every other day
tfw I'm misunderstood by le mod
 
Jun 9, 2012 11:17 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1931
Pedophiles may or may not act on their sexual urges. In fact, if a pedophile remains a virgin and a good person all of his life, then there is really no difference between him and your average Joe. Child pornography, on the other hand, is exploiting the innocence of children for sexual and monetary purposes. There is no excuse for the latter.

Thanks, person who gave me this on another site a long time ago, lol.
 
Jun 9, 2012 11:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2619
What if the pedophile isn't a virgin?




I'm indifferent about pedophiles until they start molesting children.


 
Jun 10, 2012 12:23 AM
Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 346
Gogetters said:
What if the pedophile isn't a virgin?

I'm indifferent about pedophiles until they start molesting children.


That isn't really a fair thing to say. It's sort of like saying "I'm indifferent about homosexuals until they start molesting men/women/children/me." It's stating the obvious. I'm indifferent to [x group] until they start [committing y deplorable act].
 
Jun 10, 2012 12:33 AM
Review Moderator
Offline
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3893
Criminalizing people for simply downloading images of what they're attracted to is beyond retarded. Yes, child pornography is disgusting and should be against the law no matter in what form, but these people should be taken in for psychiatric treatment instead of having their life irreversibly ruined over something that they can't help and likely never intended any harm to others with. The government has this stupid and ignorant belief that all pedophiles are likely to molest real children when that's been shown in countless studies to only be a very, very minor percentage. And especially when stuff like 2D lolicon, goddamn drawings, is enough to land you in jail, it makes you wonder just what the fuck is going on with our society.

If you hate on somebody for simply being a pedophile then you need to reevaluate and educate yourself. Child molesters are the problem, not pedophiles. People don't choose what they are attracted to.
 
Jun 10, 2012 12:42 AM
Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 346
Unfortunately, being "taken in for psychiatric treatment" would pretty much ruin their lives in much the same way. Even if they were "cured," -- which, judging by the success rate of people who seek a "cure" for their homosexuality, seems extremely unlikely -- no one would ever hire them for a job. The majority of people, if they found out that someone had been institutionalized to be "cured" of his or her pedophilia, would would treat that person as the most absolute of pariahs, even if the treatment was successful.
 
Jun 10, 2012 12:56 AM
Review Moderator
Offline
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3893
dkrdude3 said:
Unfortunately, being "taken in for psychiatric treatment" would pretty much ruin their lives in much the same way. Even if they were "cured," -- which, judging by the success rate of people who seek a "cure" for their homosexuality, seems extremely unlikely -- no one would ever hire them for a job. The majority of people, if they found out that someone had been institutionalized to be "cured" of his or her pedophilia, would would treat that person as the most absolute of pariahs, even if the treatment was successful.


Yeah, that's also a valid point so it makes deciding what would be best a lot more difficult. But even if they're unable to find a job due to their mental treatment, it's much better to be living a normal but poor lifestyle than to be imprisoned for god knows how many years and then have your life screwed for after release as well. It's unfair because these people aren't criminals and most likely would never do anything to harm another person, so seeing how people make blanket statements for all pedophiles and treat each one as the devil is a bit sickening.
 
Jun 10, 2012 3:29 AM
Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 37
pika2000 said:
I agree with your notion, but in most countries, possessing whatever they defined as child "porn" will garner you that label, and fact is it's considered illegal (criminalized), thus my assumption is towards the criminal act itself, not the preference.


^ This

What's even more fucked up is that the age of consent is 16 or lower in some countries, but the same countries define people under the age of 18 as "children". Therefore one can be labeled as a pedophile if they have pictures or film of someone they're allowed to have intercourse with.
 
Jun 10, 2012 4:00 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2619
dkrdude3 said:
Gogetters said:
What if the pedophile isn't a virgin?

I'm indifferent about pedophiles until they start molesting children.


That isn't really a fair thing to say. It's sort of like saying "I'm indifferent about homosexuals until they start molesting men/women/children/me." It's stating the obvious. I'm indifferent to [x group] until they start [committing y deplorable act].
Close, but not quite.

A homosexual can get consent, a pedophile cannot.
Modified by Gogetters, Jun 11, 2012 8:57 AM


 
Jun 10, 2012 4:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 18649
I don't know. Pedophiles can't help it. Neither homosexuals.

But is it normal? Imagine if all of us were homosexual... How could we reproduce? I mean we would hate ourselves for doing such an act if we'd force ourselves on it. Children cannot reproduce either.

In my opinion this is the reason why there is discrimination versus anything that isn't straight/certain age/living/same species/etc. It's just NOT normal if we're made this way. It's psychological, it's instinct, after all we're mammals and let's say we're animals too.

I can't explain this properly, I don't mind homosexuals neither pedophiles. But don't ever try to tell me it's normal... It's obvious it's not. But as long as they don't harm other people OR push ideas onto people it's okay.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jun 10, 2012 4:45 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2619
People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal"


Immahnoob said:
Children cannot reproduce either.
Youngest person to have a kid was 5.
Youngest person to have a kid in the US was 9.
Modified by Gogetters, Jun 10, 2012 4:48 AM


 
Jun 10, 2012 5:09 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 18649
Gogetters said:
People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal"


Immahnoob said:
Children cannot reproduce either.
Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old.
Youngest person in the United states was 9.

Hmmm, I didn't know that.

But... Did those kids do okay? It's a matter of how their brain took it too. You know, the child might consent, but how is he in grade of understanding what he consented to? I mean, try to explain sex to a child. He won't understand without dumbing up the words, changing them etc. Their body might be ready to reproduce, but can they take it properly? They're not mature enough for such a thing.

And by normal, I mean what fits survival. It's instinct after all. Why do you like that girl over there? You see her attractive because she might be the perfect mother, thus attraction. Why don't you feel that great of going into a dark cave by yourself with only a flashlight? You might get stuck or you might find some animal there that can tear your head off, like a bear, thus you feel fear.

Fascination with being "normal" is just what instincts tell us. Normal is made out of our own culture too.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce, children can reproduce but scarless children surely are rare and even rarer the ones that consent and know what they consent to, so normal surely it is not. But as I said, why arrest or discriminate on such groups if they don't do harm? As long as homosexuals consent to each other and the pedophiles just don't do the act it's okay, nobody is harmed, thus everything works just fine.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jun 10, 2012 5:32 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 651
Immahnoob said:
But as I said, why arrest or discriminate on such groups if they don't do harm? As long as homosexuals consent to each other and the pedophiles just don't do the act it's okay, nobody is harmed, thus everything works just fine.


I don't get your question. "Why arrest or discriminate if they don't do harm?" Pedophiles don't get arrested until they act upon their desires.

Unless you mean them indulging themselves to things already online A.K.A. spilled milk. But harm is still being done there too.

I forgot what I was saying. I would go into detail, but I want to get your question first so I don't end up making examples on the wrong point
 
Jun 10, 2012 5:38 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 18649
Twilight-Sparkle said:
Immahnoob said:
But as I said, why arrest or discriminate on such groups if they don't do harm? As long as homosexuals consent to each other and the pedophiles just don't do the act it's okay, nobody is harmed, thus everything works just fine.


I don't get your question. "Why arrest or discriminate if they don't do harm?" Pedophiles don't get arrested until they act upon their desires.

Unless you mean them indulging themselves to things already online A.K.A. spilled milk. But harm is still being done there too.

I forgot what I was saying. I would go into detail, but I want to get your question first so I don't end up making examples on the wrong point

It's already there and if they did not add it it's not their fault and they did no harm by barely looking at such pornography, thus the laws are quite stupid too. Arrest the ones that uploaded OR shared such stuff, the ones that looked shouldn't even be asked why they did it.

Now what... Don't let them even think about such a thing? I suppose if there will ever be such a technology it would only do us harm then.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jun 10, 2012 5:57 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 651
Immahnoob said:
It's already there and if they did not add it it's not their fault and they did no harm by barely looking at such pornography, thus the laws are quite stupid too. Arrest the ones that uploaded OR shared such stuff, the ones that looked shouldn't even be asked why they did it.

Now what... Don't let them even think about such a thing? I suppose if there will ever be such a technology it would only do us harm then.


Have you read that story about giving a mouse a cookie? People like to bend the law and see how far they can go and still get away with crimes.

If they could easily access "old stuff", it would probably increase the risk of them attempting it IRL when they get tired of the same selection. Hell, some pedophiles would probably even show the children the porn in order to trick them into thinking its normal for, all I know.

Not to mention that some of the pedophiles would bend the law by leaving their home and using some anonymous internet source (like a library that didn't ask for your info or some sap's unlocked wifi) to upload more porn, then destroy the computer they used for the task.

If that happens, you're saying that everyone can just also look at the newly uploaded content without worrying about anything coming to them? You won't be able to tell what's already up from what's new if they don't want you to, and you wouldn't be able to tell the uploaders from the downloaders(unless they are just stupid).

*Insert even more anonymous uploaders from all over the place*, and you have what's going on right now. Only difference is that the law is trying to stop it by drawing a clear line saying that no one should have/watch/distribute any. Makes sense, even though I have your opinions on the subject.

I'm just posting my skepticism and thoughts. I wish that pedophiles did have some safe outlet.
 
Jun 10, 2012 6:05 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 18649
Twilight-Sparkle said:
Immahnoob said:
It's already there and if they did not add it it's not their fault and they did no harm by barely looking at such pornography, thus the laws are quite stupid too. Arrest the ones that uploaded OR shared such stuff, the ones that looked shouldn't even be asked why they did it.

Now what... Don't let them even think about such a thing? I suppose if there will ever be such a technology it would only do us harm then.


Have you read that story about giving a mouse a cookie? People like to bend the law and see how far they can go and still get away with crimes.

If they could easily access "old stuff", it would probably increase the risk of them attempting it IRL when they get tired of the same selection. Hell, some pedophiles would probably even show the children the porn in order to trick them into thinking its normal for, all I know.

Not to mention that some of the pedophiles would bend the law by leaving their home and using some anonymous internet source (like a library that didn't ask for your info or some sap's unlocked wifi) to upload more porn, then destroy what computer that they used for it.

If that happens, you're saying that everyone can just also look at the newly uploaded content without worrying about anything coming to them? You won't be able to tell what's already up from what's new if they don't want you to, and you wouldn't be able to tell the uploaders from the downlloaders( if they aren't stupid).

*Insert even more anonymous uploaders from all over the place*, and you have what's going on right now. Only difference is that the law is trying to stop it by drawing a clear line saying that no one should have/watch/distribute any. Makes sense, even though I have your opinions on the subject.

I'm just posting my skepticism and thoughts. I wish that pedophiles did have some safe outlet.

Hmmm, think of it like this. Those that don't do such acts know it's wrong for others/they'll get into trouble, and those that do can't control themselves.

The ones that do it in real life can't control themselves, thus if you think about it they'll do it anyways.

It's okay to take such material off the internet or in general, but the viewers are not really doing harm until they do it in real life. The "we can't differentiate from viewer, uploader or downloader" stuff can't be used as an excuse by the way.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jun 10, 2012 6:28 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 651
Immahnoob said:
Hmmm, think of it like this. Those that don't do such acts know it's wrong for others/they'll get into trouble, and those that do can't control themselves.

The ones that do it in real life can't control themselves, thus if you think about it they'll do it anyways.

It's okay to take such material off the internet or in general, but the viewers are not really doing harm until they do it in real life. The "we can't differentiate from viewer, uploader or downloader" stuff can't be used as an excuse by the way.


For the record though, I assume that the pedophiles who avoid such acts do so not only because its wrong, but also because they want to avoid punishment. Its the same thing, thread-wise, but I just wanted to state that, even though there is no reason to.

Some people can't control themselves as you say. Everyone has some self control, short of people that are literally insane. They are just.. able to be pushed over the edge easier, especially if you give them a catalyst like allowing them to view such material. Not to mention that it would also attract others into liking that sort of thing when they didn't even know it existed. (<-- I know that from experience, but that's not on topic).

It seems okay to remove the material, which is what they're trying to do. Your last point about not doing harm until its done IRL is obviously true. It's just like saying that playing shooting games is fine until you kill someone in real life.We are obviously discarding them in most examples because no one can even tell if those people are pedophiles. They just happen to be people with a fetish that's frowned upon.

I call it a fetish because I think that this sort of thing is slowly developed, not a thing someone is born with.
 
Jun 10, 2012 6:32 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 836
Immahnoob said:
Twilight-Sparkle said:
Immahnoob said:
It's already there and if they did not add it it's not their fault and they did no harm by barely looking at such pornography, thus the laws are quite stupid too. Arrest the ones that uploaded OR shared such stuff, the ones that looked shouldn't even be asked why they did it.

Now what... Don't let them even think about such a thing? I suppose if there will ever be such a technology it would only do us harm then.


Have you read that story about giving a mouse a cookie? People like to bend the law and see how far they can go and still get away with crimes.

If they could easily access "old stuff", it would probably increase the risk of them attempting it IRL when they get tired of the same selection. Hell, some pedophiles would probably even show the children the porn in order to trick them into thinking its normal for, all I know.

Not to mention that some of the pedophiles would bend the law by leaving their home and using some anonymous internet source (like a library that didn't ask for your info or some sap's unlocked wifi) to upload more porn, then destroy what computer that they used for it.

If that happens, you're saying that everyone can just also look at the newly uploaded content without worrying about anything coming to them? You won't be able to tell what's already up from what's new if they don't want you to, and you wouldn't be able to tell the uploaders from the downlloaders( if they aren't stupid).

*Insert even more anonymous uploaders from all over the place*, and you have what's going on right now. Only difference is that the law is trying to stop it by drawing a clear line saying that no one should have/watch/distribute any. Makes sense, even though I have your opinions on the subject.

I'm just posting my skepticism and thoughts. I wish that pedophiles did have some safe outlet.

Hmmm, think of it like this. Those that don't do such acts know it's wrong for others/they'll get into trouble, and those that do can't control themselves.

The ones that do it in real life can't control themselves, thus if you think about it they'll do it anyways.

It's okay to take such material off the internet or in general, but the viewers are not really doing harm until they do it in real life. The "we can't differentiate from viewer, uploader or downloader" stuff can't be used as an excuse by the way.


I disagree with watching being harmless. Child pornography exists because there is a market for it, which harms children. I view it in a similar light as guilt by association. They may not upload it, but by consuming it, the market continue's and if we can accept viewing child porn as a society, then how are we not accepting sexual exploitation of children?

 
Jun 10, 2012 6:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 115
I feel ambivalent about the viewing of child pornography.

On one hand, the demand for it usually results in more children being abused to make more CP. I have little doubt that it is harmful, and I do not condone people deliberately seeking out CP.

On the other hand, where do you draw the line when prosecuting people who "view" pornography? I'm sure many people don't intend to view CP at all, but accidentally come across it when some jerk uploads some pictures on a 4chan thread. By the time you see the picture, it has already been "downloaded" on your computer and will stay there until it is wiped by other data. There is potential for innocent people to be incriminated. So what are the laws on this?

2D loli isn't even an issue here. While the situation may not be completely black and white, I'm glad to see the US government taking action against something that can actually harm children rather than driving witch hunts against drawings. I continue to support 2D lolicon.
Modified by mezzoguitar, Jun 10, 2012 6:38 AM
 
Jun 10, 2012 6:36 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2619
Immahnoob said:
Gogetters said:
People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal"


Immahnoob said:
Children cannot reproduce either.
Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old.
Youngest person in the United states was 9.

Hmmm, I didn't know that.

But... Did those kids do okay?
Seems like it, yes.

The 5 year old

I have no link for the 9 year old but you can read about it here.


 
Jun 10, 2012 7:38 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1320
Immahnoob said:


But... Did those kids do okay? It's a matter of how their brain took it too. You know, the child might consent, but how is he in grade of understanding what he consented to? I mean, try to explain sex to a child. He won't understand without dumbing up the words, changing them etc. Their body might be ready to reproduce, but can they take it properly? They're not mature enough for such a thing.

And by normal, I mean what fits survival. It's instinct after all. Why do you like that girl over there? You see her attractive because she might be the perfect mother, thus attraction. Why don't you feel that great of going into a dark cave by yourself with only a flashlight? You might get stuck or you might find some animal there that can tear your head off, like a bear, thus you feel fear.

Fascination with being "normal" is just what instincts tell us. Normal is made out of our own culture too.


I assume pedophilia exists for the reason adults that look like children - or have childish characteristics, like flat chests - exist. For instance, I know a girl - she was in college with me - who due to a disease stopped growing and still looks like a gradeschooler. In fact, I thought she was about 10, one of those child geniuses we keep hearing about, when I first saw her. Mentally she's fine it's just her body that's odd - is she supposed to be doomed to a life with no romantic attachments? Why, when people exist who would find her attractive? And even if a guy turns up who looks past her appearance, won't he be condemned by society? Her situation is incredibly fucked up, and the pedophilia scare is hurting her life a lot.

Another point of contention, which somebody already mentioned, is the 'pedophiles' who are themselves children. My sister, when she was 12 or 13 made a video of herself stripping for her boyfriend (who was the same age as her). About a year later, that guy's next girlfriend found the video, flew into a jealous rage, and uploaded it to youtube. It got deleted fairly fast, but the damage was done and the police were already at the door. Thankfully Romania is more lax in this regard and my sister (or my mother) didn't get punished. Should my sister or that other 12 year old girl have gone to prison? Should the parents have gone to prison? I think not. Is my sister traumatized? No. So, such distinctions NEED to be made. It's silly saying that 12 year olds who can make a youtube accounts can't 'consent', when they themselves do the deed.

Then there's the limits of what constitutes child molestation. According to the laws here, 14 is the age of consent within two years of your age, and 16 is the actual one. That is, the law says that a 14-year old can consent to sex with a 16-year old, but not with a 17-year old. Which is also ridiculous - when the 15 year old's boyfriend turns 18, should he instantly be sent to prison for statutory rape? And according to what I hear, a 16 year old can't consent in most of the world.

I also heard of a case in Germany many years ago where a kid was sent to prison for helping his very young sister pee outside. A neighbor reported them.

Regarding the trauma aspect for young children who actually can't consent (unlike the teenagers the laws says can't), I have some personal insight into the matter and strongly believe that the trauma when the sexual act can't traditionally be described as rape (statutory aside) is caused solely by society - more accurately, by people saying things like 'he had sex, he must be traumatized!', 'poor you, poor child', 'people having dirty thoughts will go to HELL', and so on. Children are remarkably resilient, but they are still human, and easily influenced ones at that - when you tell someone something is someway hundred times, at one point the person will start believing it is true. In my personal case, which didn't involve adults so it's different from what's presented in the OP (although they were involved in my personal fantasies), any 'trauma'-esque thoughts - recognized as such many years later - started around the time I was 12, preparing for my First Communion, when the Church classes gave us a list of things regarded as sinful.

In the case of the OP, keep in mind the only ones realistically affected, as long as there was no violence involved and people won't talk about it years later, are the 4 and 5 year olds.Children younger than that can't form memories yet. I'm not saying that it's right (of course it damn well isn't), I'm saying that the way society treats the problem often causes more problems than the act itself.

rekindledflame said:


I disagree with watching being harmless. Child pornography exists because there is a market for it, which harms children. I view it in a similar light as guilt by association. They may not upload it, but by consuming it, the market continue's and if we can accept viewing child porn as a society, then how are we not accepting sexual exploitation of children?


Yes, the market for it harms children. But unless something is left behind - a comment maybe, like a 'thank you', any sign of your presence there, whatever - the person isn't endorsing that 'market'. And I strongly agree that it's not something that should be accepted, however the FBI (or whoever is hunting these people down) is doing both themselves and the children waiting to be rescued a disfavor by going after people who just look at the stuff - the bigger the audience is, the more the criminal will post, the more likely that he'll get captured. If his audience disappears, he'll just go further underground, or disappear from the net entirely and then the potential evidence for capturing the guy disappears too.
 
Pages (2) [1] 2 »