Iceland Plans to Ban Internet Porn

[The Rebel Alliances]

OK, I can see that. But I still dont really blame the upbringing so much. And I should not have seen the video that young regardless of my upbringing in my opinion.

Just bad luck I suppose. Crap happens. No matter what your intensions are.

Parents still have the power the censor what their children watch themselves. It's not the government's job to raise your kid for you.

Check my earlier posts. You will find that we agree.

[Lolination]

Yes, taking a video of murdering someone should be illegal, as well as possessing it and thus increasing the demand for such content.

Possession doesn't increase demand, as I already mentioned, nor does production. Just because a video is made of a man inflating balloons doesn't mean that the demand for balloon videos is increasing every time the man makes another video.

[Lolination]

Your right to life includes a right to safety in so far as a life is maximized by safety.

And how does sexual contact violate your safety, whether adult or child?

[Souseiseki]

Your right to life includes a right to safety in so far as a life is maximized by safety.

And how does sexual contact violate your safety, whether adult or child?

are you asking why having sex with 3 year olds is bad

[The Zeonic States]

Your right to life includes a right to safety in so far as a life is maximized by safety.

And how does sexual contact violate your safety, whether adult or child?

Watch out he might qoute questionable medical documentation!

And then of course ignore documentation calling his documentation total BS.

[Minoriteeburg]

Your right to life includes a right to safety in so far as a life is maximized by safety.

And how does sexual contact violate your safety, whether adult or child?

I don't quite know how to respond to this....

[Minoriteeburg]

And how does sexual contact violate your safety, whether adult or child?

Watch out he might qoute questionable medical documentation!

And then of course ignore documentation calling his documentation total BS.

Maybe he works for FOX News.

[Lolination]

And how does sexual contact violate your safety, whether adult or child?

are you asking why having sex with 3 year olds is bad

Interesting interpretation, but no. I'm asking why taking a nude photo of a 3 year old puts their safety in jeopardy.

[New England and The Maritimes]

And how does sexual contact violate your safety, whether adult or child?

are you asking why having sex with 3 year olds is bad

This is a pet peeve of mine. It is not "sex." Sex is a specific social activity requiring two or more consenting partners. Sexual activity with a three year old can only be defined in two ways: 1. Sexual Assault/Molestation, or 2. Rape. Those are the only words for that specific action that encompass the nature of the act and its ramifications. So instead ask "Are you asking why raping 3 year olds is bad?"

[Immoren]

Taking family photo of your nekkid lil'kid:OK
Circulating above mentioned photo to gods know where: Not OK.

[Souseiseki]

are you asking why having sex with 3 year olds is bad

This is a pet peeve of mine. It is not "sex." Sex is a specific social activity requiring two or more consenting partners. Sexual activity with a three year old can only be defined in two ways: 1. Sexual Assault/Molestation, or 2. Rape. Those are the only words for that specific action that encompass the nature of the act and its ramifications. So instead ask "Are you asking why raping 3 year olds is bad?"

there's no doubt it's rape, but there's no doubt that most rape is kinda sex too, so i'm wondering where you got the "sex only refers to consensual sex" thing from, but hey

[The Zeonic States]

And how does sexual contact violate your safety, whether adult or child?

I don't quite know how to respond to this....

There is this interesting study out there that found and i quote "they concluded that the general consensus associating CSA with intense, pervasive harm and long-term maladjustment was incorrect"

._. Of course the study was debunked but the medical community, picked a weak, weak, weak reasoning to do on.

Lack of Emperical Research; how they could even find that when he was citing, cause, effect and subject i don't know but it sort of ruined the whole notion of children being forever scarred but that trauma.

Or at least the chance of that scarring lasting a life time being small to minor.

[Minoriteeburg]

This is a pet peeve of mine. It is not "sex." Sex is a specific social activity requiring two or more consenting partners. Sexual activity with a three year old can only be defined in two ways: 1. Sexual Assault/Molestation, or 2. Rape. Those are the only words for that specific action that encompass the nature of the act and its ramifications. So instead ask "Are you asking why raping 3 year olds is bad?"

there's no doubt it's rape, but there's no doubt that most rape is kinda sex too, so i'm wondering where you got the "sex only refers to consensual sex" thing from, but hey

Rape is kinda sex?

Rape is rape. End of story.

[New England and The Maritimes]

This is a pet peeve of mine. It is not "sex." Sex is a specific social activity requiring two or more consenting partners. Sexual activity with a three year old can only be defined in two ways: 1. Sexual Assault/Molestation, or 2. Rape. Those are the only words for that specific action that encompass the nature of the act and its ramifications. So instead ask "Are you asking why raping 3 year olds is bad?"

there's no doubt it's rape, but there's no doubt that most rape is kinda sex too, so i'm wondering where you got the "sex only refers to consensual sex" thing from, but hey

You can use a biological definition, but that carries a lot of implications. Sex is sex, rape is something different when it comes to the social implications and effects. Since sex is entirely a social activity in humans, using a biological definition makes no sense and calling rape sex in any way will only cheapen the meaning of sex and contribute to rapists conflating the two things.

[Lolination]

This is a pet peeve of mine. It is not "sex." Sex is a specific social activity requiring two or more consenting partners. Sexual activity with a three year old can only be defined in two ways: 1. Sexual Assault/Molestation, or 2. Rape. Those are the only words for that specific action that encompass the nature of the act and its ramifications. So instead ask "Are you asking why raping 3 year olds is bad?"

These are two pet peeves of mine:

1. Making up your own definitions
2. Implying porn is sex

Sex: Sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse. Is independent of consent. Rape is a form of sex.

Most child porn in existence are nude photos, not implying any type of sex or molestation.

[Minoriteeburg]

I don't quite know how to respond to this....

There is this interesting study out there that found and i quote "they concluded that the general consensus associating CSA with intense, pervasive harm and long-term maladjustment was incorrect"

._. Of course the study was debunked but the medical community, picked a weak, weak, weak reasoning to do on.

Lack of Emperical Research; how they could even find that when he was citing, cause, effect and subject i don't know but it sort of ruined the whole notion of children being forever scarred but that trauma.

Or at least the chance of that scarring lasting a life time being small to minor.

Well who needs Empirical Research anyway.

A study without research is not much of a study.

[Individuality-ness]

Yes, taking a video of murdering someone should be illegal, as well as possessing it and thus increasing the demand for such content.

Possession doesn't increase demand, as I already mentioned, nor does production. Just because a video is made of a man inflating balloons doesn't mean that the demand for balloon videos is increasing every time the man makes another video.

But if you can get someone to view said videos, that is a demand for more. How do you not see this?

[The Zeonic States]

Watch out he might qoute questionable medical documentation!

And then of course ignore documentation calling his documentation total BS.

Maybe he works for FOX News.

Could be



Personally i think Rind had more then enough data to prove his point but obviously not every one agreed.

[New England and The Maritimes]

There is this interesting study out there that found and i quote "they concluded that the general consensus associating CSA with intense, pervasive harm and long-term maladjustment was incorrect"

._. Of course the study was debunked but the medical community, picked a weak, weak, weak reasoning to do on.

Lack of Emperical Research; how they could even find that when he was citing, cause, effect and subject i don't know but it sort of ruined the whole notion of children being forever scarred but that trauma.

Or at least the chance of that scarring lasting a life time being small to minor.

Well who needs Empirical Research anyway.

A study without research is not much of a study.

Yes, let's say child pornography is harmless because the abused children aren't still scarred horribly by it in their 40s. Makes perfect sense.

[Individuality-ness]

are you asking why having sex with 3 year olds is bad

Interesting interpretation, but no. I'm asking why taking a nude photo of a 3 year old puts their safety in jeopardy.

I don't care if you take a picture of your naked kid. I care if you force said kid to do sexual acts while taking said pictures. And I care if you share this on the Internet to heaven knows where.

[Oterro]

are you asking why having sex with 3 year olds is bad

Interesting interpretation, but no. I'm asking why taking a nude photo of a 3 year old puts their safety in jeopardy.

how is a naked photo sexual contact?

also how are raped three year olds politicians since they evidently don't have a right to privacy much like statesmen

[The Zeonic States]

There is this interesting study out there that found and i quote "they concluded that the general consensus associating CSA with intense, pervasive harm and long-term maladjustment was incorrect"

._. Of course the study was debunked but the medical community, picked a weak, weak, weak reasoning to do on.

Lack of Emperical Research; how they could even find that when he was citing, cause, effect and subject i don't know but it sort of ruined the whole notion of children being forever scarred but that trauma.

Or at least the chance of that scarring lasting a life time being small to minor.

Well who needs Empirical Research anyway.

A study without research is not much of a study.

No they found his research didn't provide good enough empirichal research establishing his claim. As he didn't have enough numbers to document his claim, He needed to do more. Hence why i found it a weak, weak line of denial and done more for public appeal rather then out of them dismissing his theories.

despite his findings being documented within over eight thousand cases.

...If eight thousand cases isn't enough empircal evidence to prove your point might have merit?

Well lets just face some folks want to play the whole rape or immatura sexual activity will scarr their babies forever.

Oh and the fact it was CONFIRMED a few years later well...

<_< If i was rind i would told the entire Medical community to **** off and **** my greasy ****s.

[Minoriteeburg]

Well who needs Empirical Research anyway.

A study without research is not much of a study.

Yes, let's say child pornography is harmless because the abused children aren't still scarred horribly by it in their 40s. Makes perfect sense.

Again, I am sure he works for FOX News.

[Lolination]

Possession doesn't increase demand, as I already mentioned, nor does production. Just because a video is made of a man inflating balloons doesn't mean that the demand for balloon videos is increasing every time the man makes another video.

But if you can get someone to view said videos, that is a demand for more. How do you not see this?

I can't see that because it's wrong. If getting someone to view something increases demand, then marketers would be out of a job, because all people would need to do is show them their product to instill a demand automatically.

[Minoriteeburg]

But if you can get someone to view said videos, that is a demand for more. How do you not see this?

I can't see that because it's wrong. If getting someone to view something increases demand, then marketers would be out of a job, because all people would need to do is show them their product to instill a demand automatically.

It's called commercials.