Child Porn Proposal

[JBeukema]

You're comparing child porn to guns? Wow, you are dishonest, aren't you? Not that I'm really surprised.

follow that by more blatant dishonesty and gross stupidity , and it's clear that noone should ever take you seriously.


You're not honest r smart enough to discuss the matter at hand; either kill yourself or log off. Either way, stfu

 

[Father Time]

You're comparing child porn to guns? Wow, you are dishonest, aren't you? Not that I'm really surprised.

follow that by more blatant dishonesty and gross stupidity , and it's clear that noone should ever take you seriously.


You're not honest r smart enough to discuss the matter at hand; either kill yourself or log off. Either way, stfu

He said they used child porn in the commission of the crimes, i.e. they used it to help molest children. He then somehow tried to link this to 'child porn causes people to commit crime'. I thought that was a stupid conclusion so I compared it with guns. I could shoot something and thus use the gun in commission of a crime but no one's going to believe the mere ownership of a gun influenced me to do it.

 

[AllieBaba]

UNLESS YOU TOLD THEM YOU COMMITTED THE CRIME BECAUSE YOU OWN THE GUN. Child molesters ADMIT TO USING PORN TO DESENSITIZE CHILDREN AND TO GET IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO LURE IN CHILDREN, HOW TO COVER THEIR TRACKS, AND TO BECOME SEXUALLY EXCITED TO PSYCH THEMSELVES UP.

What a ******* idiot.

 

[JBeukema]

You're a dishonest dumbass


the mere ownership of child porn does influence one to molest children any more than reading Mai Chan's Daily Life causes one to kidnap, rape, torutre, and kill women or watching Saw caused people to become serial killers or playing D00M causes people to go on killing sprees

 

[AllieBaba]

More b.s.

The ONLY reason child porn exists is to victimize children and excite those who dream of it. That's it's only purpose. It has no other purpose. Child molesters admit it plays a HUGE role in their behavior.

So show me some evidence that there is a whole population of predators out there who admit they use Mai Chan's Daily Life to facilitate rape and murder.

 

[AllieBaba]

BTW, I had to search for Mai Chan's Daily Life. Why am I not surprised that someone who is vouching for the validity and wholesomeness of child porn is familiar with that site?

 

[JBeukema]

So show me some evidence that there is a whole population of predators out there who admit they use Mai Chan's Daily Life to facilitate rape and murder.

Thanks for making my case for me

Now we're back to where we were towards the end of page one, before your decided to send this thread spiraling down the drain of stupidity

 

[Agnapostate]

So you, Agna and FT are all in the same club.

Keep fighting the good fight to legally screw kids, and remove all laws protecting them.

You forgot to include the pro-pedophile Newt Gingrich, AllieBabble? Why do I have to keep reminding you of this after you keep ignoring it? Do you work in the Roman Catholic church?

Now, as for the remainder of your typical stupidity...

No it's not, ******. You want to look at convicted pedophiles and study THEM to best learn to prevent attacks on children.

Pedophilia is not determined by legal prosecution and conviction, you moron. It's a mental disorder determined by clinical diagnosis or more informally determined through observation of exhibition of all symptoms of the disorder as established in DSM-IV.

Why is this so hard for people without morals and no sense of decency to understand?

You haven't advanced an ethically sound reason for the prohibition of the viewing of child pornography as of yet, particularly not virtual child pornography, which involves no actual live participants in its creation. There can be a fairly sound ethical distinction drawn between the creation and the mere viewing of child pornography in that it can be determined that the former is often dependent on the sexual abuse of children for its existence, whereas the latter is not and thus serves as a drain of the resources of sex crimes prosecutors by requiring additional expenditures when they could be prosecuting creators and distributors of child pornography. You've thus not demonstrated any immorality in the mere viewing of child pornography, since immoral acts may be best described as those with harmful consequences.

And as noted, you've also illustrated your standard ignorance of empirical research yet again through reference to work on the percentage of sex offenders against children who used CP in the commission of their crimes rather than the percentage of CP viewers who commit sex offenses against children, a tactic also often used by those who claim that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to harder drugs by pointing to high percentages of hard drug users who first used marijuana.

 

[JBeukema]

the pro-pedophile Newt Gingrich,

As for your final point, I forward this argument, which was touched upon earlier in the thread. One cannot make X legal and Y illegal if X = Y. Now, child pornography that is made via the use of children (CP) requires criminal acts be performed in order to produce it. Now, if we tried FT's proposal, then I see the same problems I mentioned fro teh brginning: one cannot expect such a lawto hold, and it woud ikely reult in continued production of CP. This, in turn, means that we would, in effect, be not only failing to stop the production of CP, but would give a reason to continue making it, as one need only falsify the date of creation in order to have a legal defense. (This is why even CP made before the current ban is illegal to trade, though those who produced it before were not tried for something that was legal at the time.) I propose that CP production and distribution continue to be illegal because allowing it to be legal (and allowing a loophole for continued production) is effective decrminalizing the acts required to produce it, as we all know a lsick enough attorney could argue.

Simulated chiold pornography (SNP) that does not use children to make, including but not limited to cartoons, drawings, and animations (eg: 'loli') does not require the performance of illegal acts or the victimization of any children. Also, studies in japan have indicated that it, like other forms of pornography, may provide an outlet for some individuals that may satisfy non-aggressive persons without requiring any child be used. In this regard, we can compare it to violent movies, pornography, and video games.

Therfore, i propose that CP continue to be illegal, but SCP (such as cartoons) continue to provide a legal 'release' that does not require the harming of children.

I wonder if those railing against SCP also want to ban D00M and heavy metal music, the nightly news, darts, professional wrestling, violent cartoons and actikon figures

 

[Agnapostate]

As for your final point, I forward this argument, which was touched upon earlier in the thread. One cannot make X legal and Y illegal if X = Y. Now, child pornography that is made via the use of children (CP) requires criminal acts be performed in order to produce it. Now, if we tried FT's proposal, then I see the same problems I mentioned fro teh brginning: one cannot expect such a lawto hold, and it woud ikely reult in continued production of CP. This, in turn, means that we would, in effect, be not only failing to stop the production of CP, but would give a reason to continue making it, as one need only falsify the date of creation in order to have a legal defense. (This is why even CP made before the current ban is illegal to trade, though those who produced it before were not tried for something that was legal at the time.) I propose that CP production and distribution continue to be illegal because allowing it to be legal (and allowing a loophole for continued production) is effective decrminalizing the acts required to produce it, as we all know a lsick enough attorney could argue.

It's certainly not an argument that hasn't been seen before. It also certainly doesn't seem a sound one, considering the fact that there's mere fallacy involved in assuming that (digital) production and distribution of CP is itself immoral and equivalent to the initial creation of CP. You haven't attempted to justify that premise itself, so the rest of your argument doesn't stand.

 

[JBeukema]

The fact is that allowing it to be openly distributed opens up the market, thereby encouraging its production and all that goes with it. To deny this is dishonest

 

[AllieBaba]

Gosh, now the thread is complete. It should be re-named to "Child Molesters' Lounge".

 

[Agnapostate]

The fact is that allowing it to be openly distributed opens up the market, thereby encouraging its production and all that goes with it. To deny this is dishonest

I never attempted to deny it. It's merely a matter of your ignorance of several basic realities. Firstly, you've not provided basis for the claim that the legalization of viewing of CP after its production encourages production to such a pervasive extent as to warrant re-criminalization, especially by not considering the potential benefits of sex crimes prosecutors' concentration of resources on actual production. Secondly, you've not provided basis for the claim that all CP production itself involves deleterious consequences. We know that all forms of alleged child sexual abuse itself do not, so it seems logical to extend that to CP production to some degree. I doubt you'd find Traci Lords complaining, for example?

Gosh, now the thread is complete. It should be re-named to "Child Molesters' Lounge".

But what about that evil Newt?

 

[JBeukema]

The fact is that allowing it to be openly distributed opens up the market, thereby encouraging its production and all that goes with it. To deny this is dishonest

I never attempted to deny it.

You haven't advanced an ethically sound reason for the prohibition of (child pornography)

So the fact that, as you have agreed, allowing it to be viewed and distributed encouraging its production and the use of children for sexual acts is not 'an ethically sound reason' in your mind? You see nothing wrong with the sexual exploitation of children?

Viewership requires production and/or distribution; Your pathetic attempt at a point was refuted some time ago.

it's clear that you have no interest in reason or honesty, as is par for the course with you.

 

[Agnapostate]

So the fact that, as you have agreed, allowing it to be viewed and distributed encouraging its production and the use of children for sexual acts is not 'an ethically sound reason' in your mind? You see nothing wrong with the sexual exploitation of children?

If you're going to ignore the points made, there's not a point in conversing with you further. I made it clear that distribution of CP once made was not unethical in and of itself, but that production may or may not be unethical depending on the consequences of the production on the alleged "victims." As I said, few would claim that Traci Lords underwent extreme trauma because of her performance in "child pornography." You thus have two issues to address. Firstly, you have to support the claim that legalization of distribution and viewing of CP will result in such prolific production that the benefits of freeing up sex crimes units' resources to target such production will be outweighed by the costs of increased production, and then you have to support the claim that production of CP typically involves consequences for featured persons so negative in nature and scope that it warrants criminalization and draconian restriction. Given the asinine nature of criminalizing pornographic performances by persons above the age of consent because they're under 18 (since the AoC is 16 in the majority of states), you might have trouble doing that.

Viewership requires production and/or distribution; Your pathetic attempt at a point was refuted some time ago.

it's clear that you have no interest in reason or honesty, as is par for the course with you.

Don't make me laugh, idiot. You've been superior in this thread, but that's because you have AllieBabble for competition, which is the equivalent of the high school class nerd bragging that he can beat up a fifth grader.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think we're sort of on the same side, but JB's posts are so convoluted it's impossible to tell initially.

 

[JBeukema]

Allie just gets confused because JB speaks the truth, so she can't discern any partisan agenda

Agna's trying to backpedal after already agreeing to what I said, as he realizes that he just agreed he shouldn't be able to trade kiddy porn with Yukon

 

[AllieBaba]

No, I'm confused because your verbage is often ambiguous...with your commentary starting out one way and ending another.

 

[Agnapostate]

...and then he tops it off by accusing other people of doing the idiotic reversion that he just did.

 

[DavidS]

child porno....should be prosecuted ...at all times...period...no mulligans for child porno....

Apparently, FT wants his library of child pornography to be legal, and to share and trade it without fear of prosecution. He seems, however, unwilling to argue for it openly for some reason....

There is a difference between a photograph of a nude child and a photograph of a nude child engaging in sexual acts.

One is pornography - one is not.