[quote]Professor X wrote:
Strange. Who would send a computer to be fixed that had crap like that on it?[/quote]
A retard.
Im truly sad that anybody would think you did the wrong thing here.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
If a grown man gets of on kiddie porn, that’s a sexual offense.
The point some people are trying to make, is that it shouldn’t be.
If you want to deter child abuse, chop off the heads (the big one and/or the little one) of the abusers. Accessing or owning a file shouldn’t be a crime, no matter the content.
I’m glad you don’t live in the same country as I do. It would be a shame if you had any impact on our legal system. [/quote]
TBH I agree with the first half of his statement.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
<<< Receiving stolen property is a crime because it STILL BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE! >>>
How bout the stolen, freedom, innocence and privacy of these kids? It is actually an inalienable human right that people be permitted to possess and perversely arouse themselves with the digital record of their utterly depraved abuse? Or at least it’s not a right, but it shouldn’t be a crime if discovered? Only those who were in the room during production are culpable? That’s a crime, but providing an audience isn’t?
You need to get your skull outta the #$%*@# books man.[/quote]
Let´s try it this way.
Should it be a crime to own computer animated child pornography?
[quote]orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
<<< Receiving stolen property is a crime because it STILL BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE! >>>
How bout the stolen, freedom, innocence and privacy of these kids? It is actually an inalienable human right that people be permitted to possess and perversely arouse themselves with the digital record of their utterly depraved abuse? Or at least it’s not a right, but it shouldn’t be a crime if discovered? Only those who were in the room during production are culpable? That’s a crime, but providing an audience isn’t?
You need to get your skull outta the #$%*@# books man.
Let´s try it this way.
Should it be a crime to own computer animated child pornography?
[/quote]
It is in Australia.
[quote]ahzaz wrote:
orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
<<< Receiving stolen property is a crime because it STILL BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE! >>>
How bout the stolen, freedom, innocence and privacy of these kids? It is actually an inalienable human right that people be permitted to possess and perversely arouse themselves with the digital record of their utterly depraved abuse? Or at least it’s not a right, but it shouldn’t be a crime if discovered? Only those who were in the room during production are culpable? That’s a crime, but providing an audience isn’t?
You need to get your skull outta the #$%*@# books man.
Let´s try it this way.
Should it be a crime to own computer animated child pornography?
It is in Australia.[/quote]
Among others.
It is illegal throughout the EU. In Germany, it is punishable by up to 5 years in jail.
It is legal in the United States unless it also judged to be “obscene”.
What this shows, is that the protect-the-children argument isn’t all there is to it. This is a thought crime.
Now suppose some well-intentioned law-abiding European citizen receives a computer with animated porn on it and follows Trib’s example. What then?
Stupid laws shouldn’t be respected.
[quote]lixy wrote:
ahzaz wrote:
orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
<<< Receiving stolen property is a crime because it STILL BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE! >>>
How bout the stolen, freedom, innocence and privacy of these kids? It is actually an inalienable human right that people be permitted to possess and perversely arouse themselves with the digital record of their utterly depraved abuse? Or at least it’s not a right, but it shouldn’t be a crime if discovered? Only those who were in the room during production are culpable? That’s a crime, but providing an audience isn’t?
You need to get your skull outta the #$%*@# books man.
Let´s try it this way.
Should it be a crime to own computer animated child pornography?
It is in Australia.
Among others.
It is illegal throughout the EU. In Germany, it is punishable by up to 5 years in jail.
It is legal in the United States unless it also judged to be “obscene”.
What this shows, is that the protect-the-children argument isn’t all there is to it. This is a thought crime.
Now suppose some well-intentioned law-abiding European citizen receives a computer with animated porn on it and follows Trib’s example. What then?
Stupid laws shouldn’t be respected.
[/quote]
Also, theres a difference on how the materials are produced. The drawn/animated porn with children in it is probably drawn by some 40 year old virgin in his parents basement. The REAL child porn is obviously photographs of real children. Both might have the same thoughts behind it, but one is obviously more dangerous.
[quote]ahzaz wrote:
lixy wrote:
ahzaz wrote:
orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
<<< Receiving stolen property is a crime because it STILL BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE! >>>
How bout the stolen, freedom, innocence and privacy of these kids? It is actually an inalienable human right that people be permitted to possess and perversely arouse themselves with the digital record of their utterly depraved abuse?
Or at least it’s not a right, but it shouldn’t be a crime if discovered? Only those who were in the room during production are culpable? That’s a crime, but providing an audience isn’t?
You need to get your skull outta the #$%*@# books man.
Let´s try it this way.
Should it be a crime to own computer animated child pornography?
It is in Australia.
Among others.
It is illegal throughout the EU. In Germany, it is punishable by up to 5 years in jail.
It is legal in the United States unless it also judged to be “obscene”.
What this shows, is that the protect-the-children argument isn’t all there is to it. This is a thought crime.
Now suppose some well-intentioned law-abiding European citizen receives a computer with animated porn on it and follows Trib’s example. What then?
Stupid laws shouldn’t be respected.
Also, theres a difference on how the materials are produced. The drawn/animated porn with children in it is probably drawn by some 40 year old virgin in his parents basement. The REAL child porn is obviously photographs of real children. Both might have the same thoughts behind it, but one is obviously more dangerous.[/quote]
And yet, both can get you jail time.
What is being punished here, the act of harming a child, or a sexual preference?
Interestingly enough, the same people who would tell us that homosexuality is a choice, because even if you are born with certain desires you are not forced to act on them, are obviously not making the same distinction for pedophiles.
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html
This is an interesting study.
What if, just for discussions sake, easily available pornography actually decreases the numbers of actual rapes and sex crimes?
There also seems to be data from the US and other nations supporting this:
http://www.google.at/search?hl=de&q=pornography+sex+crimes&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=
IF the same was true for child pornography, and there is no reason to believe it is not, COULD CRIMINALIZING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEAD TO MORE ABUSED CHILDREN?
[quote]ahzaz wrote:
The REAL child porn is obviously photographs of real children. Both might have the same thoughts behind it, but one is obviously more dangerous.[/quote]
True, but the computer-animated version is an enabler of the worse kind.
If we allow - without penalty - the enjoyment of computer animated child porn, we incentivize the production of real child porn. After all, if no oppprobrium is attached to enjoying fake video images, then we continue to allow market signals to producers of real child porn that their wares will be appreciated.
After all, what freakshow pedophile will be content with computer animation for his jollies and refuse opportunities to view the real thing?
We need to shut the market down of this vileness - and disincentivize impulses to produce it, both directly and indirectly. Civilized society requires hard choices, and here is one example of why certain exceptions to rules we otherwise like are necessary.
[quote]orion wrote:
IF the same was true for child pornography, and there is no reason to believe it is not, COULD CRIMINALIZING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEAD TO MORE ABUSED CHILDREN?[/quote]
Child pornography [u][b]is[/b][/u] child abuse, so there couldn’t be a reduction in it by allowing more of it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
True, but the computer-animated version is an enabler of the worse kind.
[/quote]
So I take it violent video games, movies and literary works where cold-blooded murder is committed are also enablers.
Ban them, why don’t you?
Nevermind…I know you’re trying to.
[quote]lixy wrote:
So I take it violent video games, movies and literary works where cold-blooded murder is committed are also enablers.[/quote]
Why would you assume that and never once ask if there might be a qualitative difference?
Nevermind…I know it’s because your culture and your education have done nothing to promote critical thinking. Trust funds can’t buy everything, aye?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Nevermind…I know you’re trying to.[/quote]
Oh, and this is a curious(ly stupid) line - locate and produce a single instance where I have advocated banning violent video games.
I’ll wait patiently. Looking forward to it.
Nope, sorry. The cause of the masterbating pedophile is not mine. I’m rather comfortable with making illegal the production, distribution, and possession of animated pedophilia.
Call it a thought crime, I could care less. It shames me not that some degenerate will miss out on slick Pixar-like productions of children being sodomized because of my opposition.
Go ahead, I’m a damn “Fascist.” A “Statist.” A blah-dee-blah-blah. Not losing sleep over this one, folks.
By the way, what color is the ribbon?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
So I take it violent video games, movies and literary works where cold-blooded murder is committed are also enablers.
Why would you assume that and never once ask if there might be a qualitative difference? [/quote]
You make a lots of assumptions yourself about my finances.
Anyway, I don’t see how a video game how anyone supportting the criminalization of video games where one sticks toys up children’s butts, would be OK with a game where you shoot innocent people.
Surely, you must realize that the ultimate “worst kind” of behavior is killing human beings.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
IF the same was true for child pornography, and there is no reason to believe it is not, COULD CRIMINALIZING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEAD TO MORE ABUSED CHILDREN?
Child pornography [u][b]is[/b][/u] child abuse, so there couldn’t be a reduction in it by allowing more of it.
[/quote]
How could anyone possibly abuse a child by trading pictures?
[quote]orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
IF the same was true for child pornography, and there is no reason to believe it is not, COULD CRIMINALIZING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEAD TO MORE ABUSED CHILDREN?
Child pornography [u][b]is[/b][/u] child abuse, so there couldn’t be a reduction in it by allowing more of it.
How could anyone possibly abuse a child by trading pictures?
[/quote]
By providing a market for it?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ahzaz wrote:
The REAL child porn is obviously photographs of real children. Both might have the same thoughts behind it, but one is obviously more dangerous.
True, but the computer-animated version is an enabler of the worse kind.
If we allow - without penalty - the enjoyment of computer animated child porn, we incentivize the production of real child porn. After all, if no oppprobrium is attached to enjoying fake video images, then we continue to allow market signals to producers of real child porn that their wares will be appreciated.
After all, what freakshow pedophile will be content with computer animation for his jollies and refuse opportunities to view the real thing?
[/quote]
This is an interesting assumption that can in no way, shape or form be proven.
The only thing that animated child pornography would lead to for sure is more animated child pornography.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
IF the same was true for child pornography, and there is no reason to believe it is not, COULD CRIMINALIZING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEAD TO MORE ABUSED CHILDREN?
Child pornography [u][b]is[/b][/u] child abuse, so there couldn’t be a reduction in it by allowing more of it.
How could anyone possibly abuse a child by trading pictures?
By providing a market for it?[/quote]
Trading, not buying.
The way I see it, after the pictures have been made, the damage is done.
Now, since those pictures exist and might actually lead to less crimes against children (see post above) who benefits from criminalizing possession?
At worst we might pass laws against this that make us feel good and yet lead to more abused children than a world without these laws.