NATION

PASSWORD

"Child Porn"

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Megaloria
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Jul 07, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Megaloria » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:25 am

Galloism wrote:
Kormanthor wrote:It should be banned because it causes harm to alot of people


So does Barney. Seriously, that guy scares the shit out of me.

EDIT: And the Burger King


No power on this Earth could ban the Burger King.
Here's to the losers, bless them all.

User avatar
Xomic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1308
Founded: Oct 12, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Xomic » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:26 am

The Schro wrote:Wait a minute, let me get this straight.
So...there was a furry art website with a child section, and somewhere in the world there was a furry pedo who lured in children.

Why do the two have to be related?
What proof is there that they were?

How do we know the guy wouldn't have done it anyway?

You're associating things with no grounds for them to be associated. If I beat you to death with a hockey stick, does that mean hockey should be banned?

Maybe the government should take some extra effort to target -actual- pedophiles rather than ban the ability to, as that comic guy linked several times said, "put lines on paper."


Yeah, they should go after real pedophiles, and we really do need to redefine the laws so that they're more targeted to bringing in pedophiles, and not honest artists or 'underaged' teenagers (as in people who are 16 to 17, etc) or what have you. I think I speak for everyone when I say people would like these laws better defined.

That being said, however, I do think that this sort of 'art' needs to be monitored, and perhaps regulated to some degree.
Political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21

User avatar
The Schro
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:29 am

Xomic wrote:
The Schro wrote:Wait a minute, let me get this straight.
So...there was a furry art website with a child section, and somewhere in the world there was a furry pedo who lured in children.

Why do the two have to be related?
What proof is there that they were?

How do we know the guy wouldn't have done it anyway?

You're associating things with no grounds for them to be associated. If I beat you to death with a hockey stick, does that mean hockey should be banned?

Maybe the government should take some extra effort to target -actual- pedophiles rather than ban the ability to, as that comic guy linked several times said, "put lines on paper."


Yeah, they should go after real pedophiles, and we really do need to redefine the laws so that they're more targeted to bringing in pedophiles, and not honest artists or 'underaged' teenagers (as in people who are 16 to 17, etc) or what have you. I think I speak for everyone when I say people would like these laws better defined.

That being said, however, I do think that this sort of 'art' needs to be monitored, and perhaps regulated to some degree.


To what extent and why?
No proof has been found that this kind of pornography is harmful under any circumstances. It doesn't drive people to do what they wouldn't already do. You're essentially using the same argument that many extremist feminists do to ban pornography in its entirety, and under the same circumstances, no scientific evidence has ever been found to support them.

So should we just do this to make you feel better? We should start limiting freedoms because it feels like the right thing to do? wut

User avatar
Kormanthor
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1301
Founded: Antiquity
Corrupt Dictatorship

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Kormanthor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:33 am

You all need to wake up and smell the coffee. Porn of any kind is wrong. All of your excuses won't change that.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58863
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Galloism » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:34 am

Kormanthor wrote:You all need to wake up and smell the coffee. Porn of any kind is wrong. All of your excuses won't change that.


Why?

What makes it wrong?
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
The Schro
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:34 am

Kormanthor wrote:You all need to wake up and smell the coffee. Porn of any kind is wrong. All of your excuses won't change that.


You clearly have mounds of evidence to support this!

User avatar
Kormanthor
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1301
Founded: Antiquity
Corrupt Dictatorship

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Kormanthor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:38 am

The evidence should be obvious if you have any sense at all. :roll:
Last edited by Kormanthor on Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dread Lady Nathicana
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 26053
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Dread Lady Nathicana » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:38 am

Ok, here's my take on it.

Porn feeds the imagination. Its meant to stimulate. Its meant to titillate. Its meant to feed an appetite. It doesn't have to be 'real' photos, or videos, it can be made using any number of representative methods.

Sexualizing children is ... well its just plain icky. Granted, you can name any number of instances which skirt the line and can be called 'harmless' or relatively so. Sailor Moon leaps to mind - or any number of anime bits where the girls look or act older, but are listed as younger. But there's a world of difference between that, and illustrating or otherwise representing intentional images of children in obviously sexual situations. I'm not sure how you can interpret something that blatant as being 'harmless' or 'not intended for stimulation'.

Unless I'm mistaken, its been proven that most predators do not start at the top of their game, so to speak - it starts small. 'Harmlessly', even. What you see gets the mind working. Once the gears get to turning, it goes from there. If this image creates a reaction, what about this other image over here? And once the images don't do enough, what's the next step to getting that rush? And the next? How far does one go to get that thrill? No, I'm not saying looking at a cartoon of kids having sex, or kids being raped is going to make someone go out and do that. I'm saying its purpose is a rather disgusting one, and it feeds a need, and needs, by nature, tend to grow in these situations.

Yes, I realize many will respond, and rightly so, that 'not everyone follows that pattern'. And that 'if no one is actually harmed by it, what does it matter'. But the fact is, child porn feeds an appetite. And it isn't a healthy one. And I don't think it should be encouraged. Slippery slope? Probably, but then again aren't a lot of issues that get hotly debated more intricate than simple black and white answers?

I'm an artist and writer myself, though not professionally. I appreciate the desires to allow us freedom of expression, and freedom from a lot of uptight and often needless censorship. All the same, I think we have an obligation to be somewhat responsible with that freedom. I for one would rather we not feed the obsessions of folks with an appetite for little kids.

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:42 am

greed and death wrote:The thing with simulated Child porn.
Put a profile on the back for those drawn and have the profile claim they are 18.
Because the differences between a underdeveloped midget 18 year old and a 14 year old are slim to none, and no one wants to outlaw midget porn.

I lol'd
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
Kormanthor
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1301
Founded: Antiquity
Corrupt Dictatorship

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Kormanthor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:44 am

Those types of images regardless of how they were made can stimulate the wrong type of thoughts and actions by some people. This in itself makes it wrong.

User avatar
UnhealthyTruthseeker
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11988
Founded: Aug 16, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnhealthyTruthseeker » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:46 am

Kormanthor wrote:The evidence should be obvious if you have any sense at all. :roll:


Considering the number of intelligent people that have asked you to back up your argument, it might not be as obvious as you seem to think. Besides, you seem to think it's so obvious, it should be unbelievably easy to convince the rest of us, right? Put up, or shut up!
A little homework for you!

What part of L(f(t)) = Int(exp(-s*t)*f(t),t,0,inf) don't you understand?

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:46 am

Kormanthor wrote:Those types of images regardless of how they were made can stimulate the wrong type of thoughts and actions by some people. This in itself makes it wrong.

Welcome to nannyland where no one gets to do anything but sit in front of the tv and watch children's television aimed at 3 year olds.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

User avatar
Sdaeriji
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Sdaeriji » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:49 am

Kormanthor wrote:The evidence should be obvious if you have any sense at all. :roll:


I guess we all have no sense, then. SInce that's the case, either put up evidence to support your accusations, or kindly shut the hell up. Your say-so hardly constitutes a legitimate reason.
Farnhamia wrote:What part of the four-letter word "Rules" are you having trouble with?
Farnhamia wrote:four-letter word "Rules"

User avatar
UnhealthyTruthseeker
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11988
Founded: Aug 16, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnhealthyTruthseeker » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:50 am

Kormanthor wrote:Those types of images regardless of how they were made can stimulate the wrong type of thoughts and actions by some people. This in itself makes it wrong.


Is that all you've got? There are so many things that could potentially stimulate the "wrong type of thoughts" in some people that you would have to consider a great many things inherently wrong. So let's get this straight, because there exists the possibility that someone, somewhere, might think bad thoughts while looking at porn, porn = bad? What bad thoughts are you referring to anyway? Rape, or do you think that sexual thoughts in general are wrong?
A little homework for you!

What part of L(f(t)) = Int(exp(-s*t)*f(t),t,0,inf) don't you understand?

User avatar
Uiri
Diplomat
 
Posts: 875
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Uiri » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:54 am

Kormanthor wrote:Those types of images regardless of how they were made can stimulate the wrong type of thoughts and actions by some people. This in itself makes it wrong.


Which images? You repeatedly claim that porn is wrong for obvious reasons. Whenever someone tries to get you to explain anything you either go ad hominem or state how the reasons are 'obvious'. The reasons are not obvious or everyone would agree that porn is wrong and someone would explain the obvious reasons. This is clearly not the case. If you find porn wrong, back it up.

As for simulated child porn, how long is it before the same laws which apply to real porn apply to simulated porn if we treat simulated child porn the same as real child porn.

I agree though - no victim, no crime. If it is discovered to be the cause of a motivation for a crime, that is another story but we shouldn't pre-emptively make laws.
SH*T HAPPENS
<Franberry> a WA condemnation is more useless than an irl UN sanction

User avatar
Kryozerkia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 11096
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Kryozerkia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:54 am

Kormanthor wrote:
The Schro wrote:
Kormanthor wrote:It should be banned because it causes harm to alot of people


Really? How so?



Are you really so dense that you can ask me a stupid question like that.?

Warned for flamebaiting. Next time, try answering the question instead of being antagonistic.
Problem to Report?
Game-side: Getting Help
Forum-side: Moderation
Technical issue/suggestion: Technical
A-well-a, don't you know about the bird
♦ Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word ♦
♦ A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word

Get the cheese to Sickbay

"Ok folks, show's over... Nothing to see here... Show's OH MY GOD! A horrible plane crash! Hey everybody, get a load of this flaming wreckage! Come on, crowd around, crowd around, don't be shy, crowd around!" -- Chief Wiggum

User avatar
Verdigroth
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 153
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Verdigroth » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:05 am

I don't think it is right, I think there is the possibility to encourage those behaviors in people who are on the edge of committing acts with underage kids. However, I am not an expert in psychology or any social science and so I will have to defer to those people who conduct studies in this field.
Incoming fire has the right of way.

User avatar
Kormanthor
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1301
Founded: Antiquity
Corrupt Dictatorship

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Kormanthor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:06 am

Kryozerkia I have tried to answer the question. I said it was my opinion that it is wrong. I figured if I stated my reasoning being rooted in my Christian Faith that I would be attacked for that. Doesn't seem that I can win regardless of what I do.
Last edited by Kormanthor on Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Schro
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:24 am

Kormanthor wrote:Kryozerkia I have tried to answer the question. I said it was my opinion that it is wrong. I figured if I stated my reasoning being rooted in my Christian Faith that I would be attacked for that. Doesn't seem that I can win regardless of what I do.


Then maybe your position is flawed?
If you believe so strongly in your faith that you believe an entire country should have to follow your religion's morals, perhaps you need to think a few things over as far as 'freedoms' go.

We're not discussing whether or not you feel simulated child pornography is wrong - we're discussing whether or not it should be made illegal.

User avatar
The Schro
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:26 am

Ok, here's my take on it.

Porn feeds the imagination. Its meant to stimulate. Its meant to titillate. Its meant to feed an appetite. It doesn't have to be 'real' photos, or videos, it can be made using any number of representative methods.

Sexualizing children is ... well its just plain icky. Granted, you can name any number of instances which skirt the line and can be called 'harmless' or relatively so. Sailor Moon leaps to mind - or any number of anime bits where the girls look or act older, but are listed as younger. But there's a world of difference between that, and illustrating or otherwise representing intentional images of children in obviously sexual situations. I'm not sure how you can interpret something that blatant as being 'harmless' or 'not intended for stimulation'.

Unless I'm mistaken, its been proven that most predators do not start at the top of their game, so to speak - it starts small. 'Harmlessly', even. What you see gets the mind working. Once the gears get to turning, it goes from there. If this image creates a reaction, what about this other image over here? And once the images don't do enough, what's the next step to getting that rush? And the next? How far does one go to get that thrill? No, I'm not saying looking at a cartoon of kids having sex, or kids being raped is going to make someone go out and do that. I'm saying its purpose is a rather disgusting one, and it feeds a need, and needs, by nature, tend to grow in these situations.

Yes, I realize many will respond, and rightly so, that 'not everyone follows that pattern'. And that 'if no one is actually harmed by it, what does it matter'. But the fact is, child porn feeds an appetite. And it isn't a healthy one. And I don't think it should be encouraged. Slippery slope? Probably, but then again aren't a lot of issues that get hotly debated more intricate than simple black and white answers?


The slippery slope argument is considered a fallacy for good reason.

User avatar
Ranzar
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Jun 22, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Ranzar » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:37 am

For everyone who claims simulated child porn could encourage a pedophile to act, there is one who claims that it could act as a harmless way for pedophiles satisfy their urges and make them less likely to act. Until there is a consensus among researchers on which of these is more likely, we're still in the realm of banning things because they're icky, which I vehemently oppose.

User avatar
Ryadn
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8028
Founded: Sep 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Ryadn » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:38 am

Xomic wrote:Ugh.

Well, to pull out a random example from a subculture you all likely hate, for a long time the furry fandom has allowed various fetishes to exist within it's fold, and a few years back Furaffinity, one of the major art sites devoted to furry art, allowed 'cub porn' on the website officially. Cub Porn is, naturally, a 'furry' form of child porn, all drawn or rendered.

And within this last month it was discovered that a Pedophile was dressing up in fursuits and trying to get children to have sex with him.

:palm:

My point is, naturally, that being permissive of rendered or otherwise drawn child pornography is no good, all it ends up doing is creating an atmosphere where, rather then the pedophile trying to seek professional help for his or her aliment, they begin to feel as if they're doing nothing wrong.


Or it could be that, without the furry sub-culture, the pedophile would have taken a job as an ice cream truck driver and attempted to have sex with children.

Or a clown. Or a day care provider. Or a teacher. Or a priest.
"I hate you! I HATE you collectivist society. You can't tell me what to do, you're not my REAL legitimate government. As soon as my band takes off, and I invent a perpetual motion machine, I am SO out of here!" - Neo Art

"But please, explain how a condom breaking is TOTALLY different from a tire getting blown out. I mean, in one case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own, and in the other case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own." - The Norwegian Blue

User avatar
Ryadn
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8028
Founded: Sep 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Ryadn » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:41 am

The_pantless_hero wrote:
Kormanthor wrote:Those types of images regardless of how they were made can stimulate the wrong type of thoughts and actions by some people. This in itself makes it wrong.

Welcome to nannyland where no one gets to do anything but sit in front of the tv and watch children's television aimed at 3 year olds.


:o

Wouldn't that encourage pedophiles even more?
"I hate you! I HATE you collectivist society. You can't tell me what to do, you're not my REAL legitimate government. As soon as my band takes off, and I invent a perpetual motion machine, I am SO out of here!" - Neo Art

"But please, explain how a condom breaking is TOTALLY different from a tire getting blown out. I mean, in one case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own, and in the other case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own." - The Norwegian Blue

User avatar
Poliwanacraca
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1807
Founded: Jun 08, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Poliwanacraca » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:42 am

IF there were persuasive evidence to suggest that watching/reading simulated child pornography increased one's likelihood of hurting actual kids, then I think there might be a compelling argument to ban it. Without such evidence, repulsive as such porn undoubtedly is, I just can't see banning it as a viable option.
"You know...I've just realized that "Poliwanacraca" is, when rendered in Arabic, an anagram for "Bom-chica-wohw-waaaow", the famous "sexy riff" that was born in the 70's and will live forever..." - Hammurab
----
"Extortion is such a nasty word.
I much prefer 'magnolia'. 'Magnolia' is a much nicer word." - Saint Clair Island

----
"Go forth my snarky diaper babies, and CONQUER!" - Neo Art

User avatar
The_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:44 am

Ryadn wrote:Wouldn't that encourage pedophiles even more?

Does television for 3 year olds actually have kids on it these days?
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!

Doing what we must because we can

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Argotera, Auzkhia, Azalith, Diarcesia, Dooom35796821595, EastKekistan, Fascist Soyouso, Godular, Hediacrana, Houyhnhnm Cities, Jack Thomas Lang, Jmantopia, Kernen, Kowani, Loben The 2nd, Magocratic Aidonaia, Necroghastia, Novus America, The Xenopolis Confederation

Advertisement

Remove ads