shortlived Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) There is a clear parallel to illegal downloading in that: 1) There are victims (artists who are not compensated for their work) 2) There is a distinction between actors (distributors of illegal content) and consumers (downloaders of illegal content) Some would argue that anyone who knowingly downloads illegal content is guilty of a crime. Others claim that since the content is already available no harm is done. The situation is identical other than the fact that harm done by child porn is much greater than harm done by the loss of compensation for a work. I am not convinced the greater harm is enough to justify completely opposition positions on what is basically the same action. NO. I'm going to have to say that physical and immaterial are two different things. One is a violation of the person the other is violation of materials that are freely distributed. It is notions like this that remind how fouled capitalism is. molesting a child is a crime, taking something that is free that has nothing to do with them is not. IP isn't owed, it is reserved. using IP for non commercial purposes should not be illegal, molesting children should. Comparing the two is like comparing theft and murder. They aren't the same. The stuff costs absolutely nothing to reproduce. it is forcing a medium for reproduction, forcing it to cost money, when it doesn't. This is just a legal corruption. people shouldn't get into IP for money, IP only makes money because of oppression of freedom. Attacking people and violating people (which the government does) is not moral as an offensive action, that is initiating the attack without grounds of self preservation. The world is evil. IP law is unethical. God is the creator not some douchebag who wants to hold the world up and restrict other peoples freedoms, they are the criminal. If their art is so popular people should be wiling to pay for their time in other ways. I can make an electronic image too.. look its called copy and paste.. look I made it myself .. I had to pay for a computer though.. so what now everyone has to pay me? IT Is FREE To DUPLICATE ELECTRONIC FILES.. no money is being deprived. Nothing is being stolden, digital data is being reproduced, there is a difference between making something and steeling something. When you steel something you deprive it from the rightful owner. Reproduction is not deprivation therefore is not theft. There is no victimization, I wouldn't buy your crap if I had to pay for it anyway. The thing that makes pedoporn criminal is if it serves to counsel the offence. Much like depicting rape real or re-enacted or snuff films. (although pedoporn seems to be one of the remaining bastions of this.. ... imo pedo porn is no different then rape porn or snuffs, and other extremely criminal porn, which can be next to imposible to determine if it is real or a production. This is very 'questionable' content areas to say the least right alongside teen porn etc... there is a real difference between reproducing items that encourage support for these types of heinous crimes as opposed to distributing something which in itself does not represent criminality. (although ripped music to a lesser extent may) but authentic productions would not so much. (That is because ripped productions (content stolen from the creator but passed off as their own work, are a type of fraud) Money really has nothing to do with victimization if it already wasn't existing. Saying money was taken that could have existed is a nonexistent crime. Sure it is great to dream but there is absolutely no substance to that. Edited March 3, 2013 by shortlived Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
jacee Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 None of this changes my point: the people making the images are, for the very most part, as far as I understand it, participants in the acts being documented and they are going to want and try to participate in those acts whether or not there's a demand for the images. To the producers of the porn, the images are secondary to the act being imaged, not the other way around. And you know that HOW? Quote
jacee Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) You are void of thought.And you are in a tiny minority of creeps defending child rape flicks.You seem to have intimate knowledge of the perps. Flanagan just toasted his career for less. Edited March 3, 2013 by jacee Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 None of this changes my point: the people making the images are, for the very most part, as far as I understand it, participants in the acts being documented and they are going to want and try to participate in those acts whether or not there's a demand for the images. To the producers of the porn, the images are secondary to the act being imaged, not the other way around. are you suggesting image pornography... of any/all kind... is not an alternate outlet, one other than direct participation in the related act(s)? It would seem rather logical to infer that, given the degrees of illegality associated with pedophilia, its 'devotees' would be more inclined to rely upon its pornographic image extensions over engaging in the direct participating abuse of children... hence, the market, and fueling the market for images. Quote
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) There is a clear parallel to illegal downloading in that: 1) There are victims (artists who are not compensated for their work) 2) There is a distinction between actors (distributors of illegal content) and consumers (downloaders of illegal content) Some would argue that anyone who knowingly downloads illegal content is guilty of a crime.4 The difference is that you can possess it, without downloading it. For example, in cleaning out my closet one day years ago I came across an old copy of Penthouse which had Tracy Lords as the centerfold. She was 15 at the time, so the images definitely constituted child porn. No one knew it when it was published nor purchased. But possessing it is still a crime, and ignorance is no excuse. So if the magazine had been found by a cop and not me (and chucked down the building's garbage chute), there is a minimum sentence and I would have had to go to prison. Then there is that mountain of pictures and videos on the internet of naked young women. As in the case above we can see that a 15 year old was able to fool a major mens magazine and many others in the industry for years (she went on to do porn videos a few months later), it's a near certainty that men who download pornography are on occasion getting images of girls under eighteen without knowing it. Possession of child pornography (4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days. Edited March 3, 2013 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 The harm has already been done making the picture. A child has been raped and by viewing the picture or video of the incident you're only perpetuating further child rape. My understanding is that the vast, vast majority of what constitutes 'child pornography' is made up of simple pictures of the individual by themselves. As I said earlier, it includes teenagers sending pictures and vids to each other, and old pictures from nudist magazines and from the seventies when child porn was temporarily legal and there were actually porn magazines out there devoted to it. It also includes pictures of kids frolicking in the bathtub. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 NO!! Every viewer contributes to the market for child porn, resulting in more children abused to meet 'market demand'. I don't buy it. Even leaving aside the sweeping nature of the child porn laws, which include everyone 17 and under, the production of child porn doesn't rely on a 'market'. Just as men like to take naked pictures of their lovers, if they will oblige, so too do these guys like to take pictures. Are you suggesting men would probably not be as interested in having sex with women if they couldn't take pictures of them? I'm fairly sure that's not the case. Furthermore, this doesn't explain how someone downloading something in his basement, without paying for it, without trading for it, without anyone even noticing the download, contributes to people wanting to have sex with children. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 You are wrong. And disgusting. People have been suspended for less than that given the latest crackdown on insults. Sure hope he doesn't report you... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) suggest you run a googly on 'deep web' and just a couple of top hits from a googly on recent pedo rings busted: Massive online pedophile ring busted by cops Hundreds Arrested in International Child Pornography Sting The problem with these sorts of reports is they rarely give much information. The media is really only interested in the screaming headlines that sells advertising, so you don't get to see or learn much about what went on. The first report has some detail which allows for inferences. It says the web site had 70,000 members which wanted mostly to just operate legally in discussing young boys. Then it said 'some members' moved to private discussion areas which multiple police agencies infiltrated. So when g_bambino said there was no market I think what he really meant was there was no safe way to reach that market. There's no question there is a market for child porn, but it's far safer to run cocaine into Miami than try to set up a web site to sell child pornography. Edited March 3, 2013 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 Could not be more untrue. It fosters demand for the product, leading to increased production of the product and further victimization. I've seen no evidence of that, no studies or documentation. Oh sure, some men who abuse children will seek each other out and do things for each other, but the molestation would already be underway. It is also well-known that it is almost impossible for victims to recover when they know people are continuing to view their abuse day after day. Mentally for them its like being re-victimized again and again. I'm sure there are cases of that, but I don't think it's widespread. My understanding is the vast majority of what we define as child porn does not involve actual sexual assault, but simple pictures. I don't know about you but if I knew there were naked pictures of me online from when I was four years old it really wouldn't bother me... It just seems everyone becomes emotionally attached to the worst case scenarios which the politicians and police love to talk about so much. But they talk about them BECAUSE they're the worst case scenarios and they're trying to scare people to get support for their positions. I guess it just isn't as persuasive to talk about the horrors of pictures of kids playing in the bathtub... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 The thing that makes pedoporn criminal is if it serves to counsel the offence. There's no evidence to support this. Pornography does not inspire people to go out and rape women. That's been proven repeatedly. So there's no reason, lacking any supporting evidence, to suggest child porn does the same for anyone. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) are you suggesting image pornography... of any/all kind... is not an alternate outlet, one other than direct participation in the related act(s)? It would seem rather logical to infer that, given the degrees of illegality associated with pedophilia, its 'devotees' would be more inclined to rely upon its pornographic image extensions over engaging in the direct participating abuse of children... hence, the market, and fueling the market for images. There are two issues here, actually. I recall the presidents commission on pornography set up under Reagan... or was it Nixon? There were a few... In any event, what the psychologists had to say was that violent porn might actually act as a kind of outlet for those inclined, much like a safety valve, and thus would tend to prevent real life sexual violence. The second is that, since no one but an idiot would lay down their credit card to buy this stuff, there's no money to be made on it. Further, my understanding of human nature, particularly with regard to men, is that they like to take sexually related pictures of people. I agree with bambino that the stuff you see on the internet is merely the byproducts of what would have happened anyway, regardless of whether there was a camera available. Edited March 3, 2013 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) There are two issues here, actually. I recall the presidents commission on pornography set up under Reagan... or was it Nixon? There were a few... In any event, what the psychologists had to say was that violent porn might actually act as a kind of outlet for those inclined, much like a safety valve, and thus would tend to prevent real life sexual violence. The second is that, since no one but an idiot would lay down their credit card to buy this stuff, there's no money to be made on it. Prove it.Further, my understanding of human nature, particularly with regard to men, is that they like to take sexually related pictures of people. I agree with bambino that the stuff you see on the internet is merely the byproducts of what would have happened anyway, regardless of whether there was a camera available.It has to occur to me that some pervs who view child pornography can also type to defend themselves and minimize and dismiss the suffering of children who to them are just objects.In that event, further argument is just fuel for criminal minds. And that's the scummy feeling I have here. Edited March 3, 2013 by jacee Quote
g_bambino Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 And you are in a tiny minority of creeps defending child rape flicks. You seem to have intimate knowledge of the perps. The obvious fact that you have nothing to retort with except baseless personal attacks and slander speaks volumes in support of my earlier assertion: You are void of thought. Quote
shortlived Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) There's no evidence to support this. Pornography does not inspire people to go out and rape women. That's been proven repeatedly. So there's no reason, lacking any supporting evidence, to suggest child porn does the same for anyone. If you pay for porn then it promotes the porn industry, so you can take you no evidence to support this elsewhere, because you are wrong. Secondarily people jerking off to porn encourages sexual drive to what they are jerking off to, it is behavioral psychology. Keep fooling yourself. There is money in these sorts of activities, likewise people don't have paraphilic tendencies fueled unless they are reinforced. It is a gateway to those people who get off on the stuff, you fuel their addiction it builds their addiction. So while not everyone is counseled or counselling some people are, even inadvertently. Some pedos are also voyeuristic or want their exploits shared as a way of building their fetish. As such in viewing that porn, you are encouraging them to perform other acts which will build their voyeurism further. Why do you think they are sharing it in the first place? To not get found out? If it isn't money, it is to enhance their thrill via voyeurism. If you know how things work you will see you are supporting the acts by viewing, and if deemed sexual content by the viewer, it is as psychologically destructive as viewing anal sex, and building that as "sexually stimulating" activity. They are all paraphilias. While I don't think there is a standard norm, having sex or performing sexual acts with anyone who does have the ability for informed consent or doesn't grant it is a self destruction of the mind to form your psychology to accepting those acts.. supporting any sort of victimization on the auspice of perversion is definitely a form of abetting a victimization, and thus criminal in conduct. Is that common sense evidence enough for you? Edited March 3, 2013 by shortlived Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
g_bambino Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) It would seem rather logical to infer that, given the degrees of illegality associated with pedophilia, its 'devotees' would be more inclined to rely upon its pornographic image extensions over engaging in the direct participating abuse of children... Interesting point. But, it still begs the question: why would the creeps that poduce the porn consumed by paedophiles and hebephiles do so when they've nothing to gain from it? Unlike those that produce porn depicting sex between consenting adults, people who make child porn, snuff films, and the like can't make money off their images (yes, legal porn can be far more easily obtained for free on the Internet; but thousands of sites selling DVDs and with pay access persist, nonetheless). It therefore seems to me that, as I said, for the producers of child porn, the production of images has to be secondary to the act being depicted in them; it cannot be the other way around, since the distribution of the images themselves gain the producer nothing. This makes me question why they produce images of their higly illegal actions at all. The best I can guess is that it either provides them with an added level of excitement or they make their own currency to use in barter with others in possession of child porn. But, it seems nonsensical to document your own sexual acts with a child primarily to obtain images of sex involving children. I'm thus led to conclude again that those who make child porn are driven first and foremost by their desire to have sex with kids, a desire they're obvioulsy willing to act on; which then says to me, they're going to have sex with children, regardless of whether anyone wants images of it or not, not simply because people want the images. If that is indeed the case, it rather undermines the claim that, if there were no demand for child porn, less children would be abused. [ed.: +] Edited March 3, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 ...or they make their own currency to use in barter with others in possession of child porn. But, it seems nonsensical to document your own sexual acts with a child primarily to obtain images of sex involving children. I'm thus led to conclude again that those who make child porn are driven first and foremost by their desire to have sex with kids, a desire they're obvioulsy willing to act on; which then says to me, they're going to have sex with children, regardless of whether anyone wants images of it or not, not simply because people want the images. If that is indeed the case, it rather undermines the claim that, if there were no demand for child porn, less children would be abused. ... a barter system... or where the images themselves become the 'currency'... or, for example, 'bitcoin' - the so-called "underground" currency. clearly, I trust, all commenting MLW members are at a disadvantage to realize the pervasiveness of child porn - to really understand and comment on (with some degree of authority), the exact nature of a child porn "market exchange". I made an earlier reference suggesting a search on the 'dark web', by implication suggesting it might offer others a thousand foot appreciation of just what goes on underneath the 'surface web'. Perhaps this article might speak more forcefully, particularly the references to difficulties law enforcement has in investigating the 'dark net/web'... where the true market exists. 'Dark Net' Keeps FBI From Investigating Child Porn Quote
g_bambino Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 ... a barter system... or where the images themselves become the 'currency'... Yes. But, how does that explain why people make the images in the first place? All the producer can get in return from the consumers is the same thing. Quote
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 Prove it. Prove a negative? Not my job, sweets. It has to occur to me that some pervs who view child pornography can also type to defend themselves and minimize and dismiss the suffering of children who to them are just objects. The ultimate in barren intellect is accusing those who disagree with you of moral failings.Do you think that helps disguise how poor your argument is? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 If you pay for porn then it promotes the porn industry, so you can take you no evidence to support this elsewhere, because you are wrong. Is anyone capable of translating the above into English? Secondarily people jerking off to porn encourages sexual drive to what they are jerking off to, it is behavioral psychology. Utter drivel. You aren't going to watch or be aroused by porn that doesn't aim at what already arouses you. I can watch foot fetish movies all day and it's not going to turn me into a foot fetishist. I can watch gay porn and I'm not going to hanker after some guy's butt. It doesn't work that way. Go watch some bestiality and tell me if that has you hankering to go find a farm. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 ... a barter system... or where the images themselves become the 'currency'... or, for example, 'bitcoin' - the so-called "underground" currency. clearly, I trust, all commenting MLW members are at a disadvantage to realize the pervasiveness of child porn - to really understand and comment on (with some degree of authority), the exact nature of a child porn "market exchange". I made an earlier reference suggesting a search on the 'dark web', by implication suggesting it might offer others a thousand foot appreciation of just what goes on underneath the 'surface web'. Perhaps this article might speak more forcefully, particularly the references to difficulties law enforcement has in investigating the 'dark net/web'... where the true market exists. 'Dark Net' Keeps FBI From Investigating Child Porn I've never heard of any sort of dark net. I would suggest very few people have, and there's no reason most pedophiles would either. Nor would I know how to make use of it or search it or find it. As far as 'pervasive' I've been on the internet since there WAS an internet, and never seen any child porn (admittedly, lots of almost every other kind). So it can't be all that pervasive. I'm sure there's some squirreled away in dark corners but you literally are taking your life into your hands trying to post or find that stuff. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 Yes. But, how does that explain why people make the images in the first place? All the producer can get in return from the consumers is the same thing. I can see that as being reason for those wanting more stuff of more kids. But I agree with you that the molestation is the primary motivator, and taking pictures is mostly for souvenirs. I know some of it is being traded by people who take their lives into their hands, but really, I don't think more than a tiny percentage of people are dumb enough or desperate enough to try that. In the US you can get fifty years in prison for just being in possession of a few pictures. God knows what they'd do to you for actually creating them and trading them online. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
g_bambino Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 I can see that as being reason for those wanting more stuff of more kids. Possibly. But, then, they could simply download it for nothing or get it via bartering using images and videos they didn't make. One need not produce child porn in order to obtain it. Quote
shortlived Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) Yes and violent TV shows don't instill violence in people either. Culture is culture, people are effected by culture. For you to deny that is just out of touch. People exposed to violence are desensitized to its actual effects. Potrayals of sexual violence as acceptable, instills the notion that sexual violence is acceptable. Are you refuting that? "idolization" is a real thing. mimicry and copycating is also "real" denying these things is simply ignorant. While not all porn is depicting violence, porn that depicts violence as acceptable or mundane is very much encouraging sexual violence. media is a form of indoctrination and as such programming which does have social effects. People are programmed by what they view. It works as a subcultural notion and the microscale too. Edited March 3, 2013 by shortlived Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
g_bambino Posted March 3, 2013 Report Posted March 3, 2013 Potrayals of sexual violence as acceptable, instills the notion that sexual violence is acceptable. Are you suggesting those who make child porn are motivated to do so by a desire to indocrinate? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.