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
Brutanion
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Jul 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Brutanion » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:48 am

Poliwanacraca wrote: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.


And an even more uncomfortable thought on the same line:
If it was shown that potential paedophiles were less likely to abuse actual children if they had access to simulated child pornography, should that make it readily available as it is in Japan?

I'm not disagreeing with you, just giving a thought.

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:49 am

Brutanion wrote:
Poliwanacraca wrote: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.


And an even more uncomfortable thought on the same line:
If it was shown that potential paedophiles were less likely to abuse actual children if they had access to simulated child pornography, should that make it readily available as it is in Japan?

I'm not disagreeing with you, just giving a thought.


I wouldn't go so far since that would involve a lot more changes than what you're thinking, but I would definitely loosen the law's grip around it, yes.

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnhealthyTruthseeker » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:49 am

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

Does television for 3 year olds actually have kids on it these days?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61Qv_8cFFbQ
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
Dread Lady Nathicana
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 26053
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Dread Lady Nathicana » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:50 am

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


And ... that's all you have to say on the entire post there? Wow. Brilliance, that. :eyebrow:

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:54 am

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:
The Schro wrote:The slippery slope argument is considered a fallacy for good reason.


And ... that's all you have to say on the entire post there? Wow. Brilliance, that. :eyebrow:


I tried to write more but I found myself just rambling about redundant stuff, so I figured I'd just keep it simple >.>

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:00 am

Kormanthor wrote:Porn is not ART! Porn of any type is WRONG ....Period


I link you, again, to Neil Gaiman's blog. Pornography can indeed be art -- he provides the example of Alan Moore's Lost Girls, a pornographic novel including, among other things, depictions of underage incest. Is it nice? No. Is it art? Yes, yes, yes.

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:<snip>
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'.


Again, I encourage you to read the link I've just shown to Kormanthor. Pornography, even pornographic material depicting underage sex, can indeed be art, be unintended for stimulaton, indeed, be harmless.

Edit: Whoops, that was a url tag I wanted, not an italic one.
Last edited by UNIverseVERSE on Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fnord.

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:21 am

Khadgar wrote:It's only child porn if it involves real children involved in porn.


Really? Is it only gay porn if it shows real men? That'd be an amusing discussion to have with your girlfriend. "No, it's not gay because the sodomy is animated!"

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:22 am

Phenia wrote:
Khadgar wrote:It's only child porn if it involves real children involved in porn.


Really? Is it only gay porn if it shows real men? That'd be an amusing discussion to have with your girlfriend. "No, it's not gay because the sodomy is animated!"


Hilarious as that was, he's technically right :\

User avatar
Fatimah
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Nov 11, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Fatimah » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:33 am

No wonder we can't improve as a species. We spend far too much time defending greasy lumps of fail vaguely resembling human males who missed the Social Skills Boat at birth rather than defending human rights which actually need defending.

I'm a 35yo woman who occasionally views porn. I have mixed feelings about that because I'm aware of the existence of sexual slavery here in the United States and of the risks women take in participating in the sex industry even when they're "free" employees. I don't know anyone I see in those images, so I don't know if they're happy, sad, angry, want to be there, originally wanted to be there and changed their minds halfway through (so I could be witnessing a rape and not know it), etc. So I don't view it very often, and I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were banned.

That pornography could be construed as speech is irrelevant. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire, and revealing national security secrets are all speech too. Are they legal? No. For that matter, prostitution isn't legal in most of the United States or in several other countries, either, and porn by definition is prostitution on camera. Why is it legal at all?

Now, getting into the topic here: child porn depicted by drawings instead of photographs or videos may or may not involve actual people. It is worth remembering that Chester the Molester of Hustler fame turned out to be molesting his own children. I would consider such artistic depictions a warning sign, not "art" or "free speech."

Written erotica is something else again. The only human being involved in its creation is the one writing it. But it could be argued that publishing a written piece depicting sexual behavior that is beyond the pale contributes nothing good or useful to society and doesn't even provide a useful dissent from the mainstream political view. I mean, do we want a world in which children are used and raped, or where adults get their jollies from watching children being sexual with one another? I sure don't. In my experience, most people don't. So what would be a legitimate political (or any other kind of) purpose in publishing depictions of same?

Bottom line: These works accomplish nothing good or useful, cannot be said to be morally or ethically neutral, and probably encourage bad thoughts and behavior. So there's no reason for them to be legal.

The argument that it prevents child molestation is baseless and irrelevant. The best way to prevent child molestation is to lock up child molesters permanently. Doesn't prevent it before someone commits their first crime, but certainly prevents future similar crimes from that individual. Anyway, if viewing porn or reading erotica kept someone from having a sex life, even a demented one, those activities would have died out a long time ago because 99 percent of guys would not get laid and would wind up removed from the gene pool.

Side note: Going back to whether *any* porn should be legal, I've probably been around the block for longer than some of you have been alive. About all porn is good for, in my experience, is wank material--and low-quality wank material at that. It does nothing to instruct anyone in sexual technique about 90+ percent of the time and can even be said to be harmful to technique. Basically, from what I can tell, the more a man consumes mainstream pornography, the worse he is in bed and the less sensitive a partner he is to a woman. I don't mean channeling Alan Alda, I mean being capable of enough selflessness to be aware of what's going on with her, whether she's enjoying herself and what she might need done for herself sexually. Most guys can't make the cut, I'm sorry to say. So before you start defending porn as part and parcel of your personal sexuality you might want to think twice about outing yourself as a crappy lover, which is pretty much how I and any other woman with similar experience will view you. I guess this is why women of my level of experience are so often dismissed as "sluts" in mainstream pornography--if enough guys knew how badly they were being cheated by that garbage, they'd give it up in droves and destroy the entire industry.

(Side side note: I recognize and affirm that quite a few women are crappy in bed too, not from personal experience but from hearing it from my partners about *their* former partners. Acknowledged. The reasons are complex. Men and women suffer equally in Western countries and the U.S. in particular from a lack of good information about human sexuality and sexual technique. On top of that, women are subjected to the virgin-whore complex, so we're bad if we're sexual, but boring if we're not. On *top* of that, our sexual anatomy's significantly different from that of men, and it's been men writing most of the anatomy books and doing most of the studies about sexuality. This is changing, but slowly. So... yeah. If porn really helped cure any of these problems they'd be cured by now.)

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:43 am

Wow.
That was so horribly ignorant, I...I can't even respond.

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnhealthyTruthseeker » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:46 am

Fatimah wrote:No wonder we can't improve as a species. We spend far too much time defending greasy lumps of fail vaguely resembling human males who missed the Social Skills Boat at birth rather than defending human rights which actually need defending.

I'm a 35yo woman who occasionally views porn. I have mixed feelings about that because I'm aware of the existence of sexual slavery here in the United States and of the risks women take in participating in the sex industry even when they're "free" employees. I don't know anyone I see in those images, so I don't know if they're happy, sad, angry, want to be there, originally wanted to be there and changed their minds halfway through (so I could be witnessing a rape and not know it), etc. So I don't view it very often, and I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were banned.

That pornography could be construed as speech is irrelevant. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire, and revealing national security secrets are all speech too. Are they legal? No. For that matter, prostitution isn't legal in most of the United States or in several other countries, either, and porn by definition is prostitution on camera. Why is it legal at all?

Now, getting into the topic here: child porn depicted by drawings instead of photographs or videos may or may not involve actual people. It is worth remembering that Chester the Molester of Hustler fame turned out to be molesting his own children. I would consider such artistic depictions a warning sign, not "art" or "free speech."

Written erotica is something else again. The only human being involved in its creation is the one writing it. But it could be argued that publishing a written piece depicting sexual behavior that is beyond the pale contributes nothing good or useful to society and doesn't even provide a useful dissent from the mainstream political view. I mean, do we want a world in which children are used and raped, or where adults get their jollies from watching children being sexual with one another? I sure don't. In my experience, most people don't. So what would be a legitimate political (or any other kind of) purpose in publishing depictions of same?

Bottom line: These works accomplish nothing good or useful, cannot be said to be morally or ethically neutral, and probably encourage bad thoughts and behavior. So there's no reason for them to be legal.

The argument that it prevents child molestation is baseless and irrelevant. The best way to prevent child molestation is to lock up child molesters permanently. Doesn't prevent it before someone commits their first crime, but certainly prevents future similar crimes from that individual. Anyway, if viewing porn or reading erotica kept someone from having a sex life, even a demented one, those activities would have died out a long time ago because 99 percent of guys would not get laid and would wind up removed from the gene pool.

Side note: Going back to whether *any* porn should be legal, I've probably been around the block for longer than some of you have been alive. About all porn is good for, in my experience, is wank material--and low-quality wank material at that. It does nothing to instruct anyone in sexual technique about 90+ percent of the time and can even be said to be harmful to technique. Basically, from what I can tell, the more a man consumes mainstream pornography, the worse he is in bed and the less sensitive a partner he is to a woman. I don't mean channeling Alan Alda, I mean being capable of enough selflessness to be aware of what's going on with her, whether she's enjoying herself and what she might need done for herself sexually. Most guys can't make the cut, I'm sorry to say. So before you start defending porn as part and parcel of your personal sexuality you might want to think twice about outing yourself as a crappy lover, which is pretty much how I and any other woman with similar experience will view you. I guess this is why women of my level of experience are so often dismissed as "sluts" in mainstream pornography--if enough guys knew how badly they were being cheated by that garbage, they'd give it up in droves and destroy the entire industry.

(Side side note: I recognize and affirm that quite a few women are crappy in bed too, not from personal experience but from hearing it from my partners about *their* former partners. Acknowledged. The reasons are complex. Men and women suffer equally in Western countries and the U.S. in particular from a lack of good information about human sexuality and sexual technique. On top of that, women are subjected to the virgin-whore complex, so we're bad if we're sexual, but boring if we're not. On *top* of that, our sexual anatomy's significantly different from that of men, and it's been men writing most of the anatomy books and doing most of the studies about sexuality. This is changing, but slowly. So... yeah. If porn really helped cure any of these problems they'd be cured by now.)


Wait, so if something cannot be demonstrated to have a societal benefit, it should be illegal?
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 Schro
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:47 am

Basically, here's what I get:

"Porn makes you worse in bed, porn is for losers, porn has no possible artistic value, and I'm probably the single smartest person in this thread because I'm old."

Just...just no.

Oh, and of course, the opening generalizations that continue throughout the entire thing as far as portraying those who enjoy porn. It's sickening.
Last edited by The Schro on Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
New Khadgar
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Jun 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby New Khadgar » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:54 am

The Schro wrote:I noticed this being brought up in another thread and wanted to start an actual discussion about it.

Not real child porn, where children are forced to do degrading things; but things made through CGI, drawing, or even literature. In America at the moment, it's kind of a hot issue. Kind of. Do you think it should be illegal for some reason? Or are you not interested in stifling the creative interests of artists?


Artists? You consider those people artists? Where are you from, that you would consider such trash as 'art'?

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 10:54 am

A well detailed, well written, grammatically appealing, but completely wrong first post. Now, let me attack it bit by bit:

Fatimah wrote:No wonder we can't improve as a species. We spend far too much time defending greasy lumps of fail vaguely resembling human males who missed the Social Skills Boat at birth rather than defending human rights which actually need defending.


Your attack on such "greasy lumps vaguely resembling human males" comment I will discard, as it kind of ruins your post. However, who are you to decide what rights are worth defending? Besides that, the ability to gradually erode at rights until it becomes more and more acceptable to do so is one of the defining characteristics of human beings in power. It should be our attempt to protect our rights as broadly as we can.

Fatimah wrote:I'm a 35yo woman who occasionally views porn. I have mixed feelings about that because I'm aware of the existence of sexual slavery here in the United States and of the risks women take in participating in the sex industry even when they're "free" employees. I don't know anyone I see in those images, so I don't know if they're happy, sad, angry, want to be there, originally wanted to be there and changed their minds halfway through (so I could be witnessing a rape and not know it), etc. So I don't view it very often, and I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were banned.


I like porn. It's a form of free expression and, well, it's very good sometimes. There's also funny porn out there, which is quite humorous. If you've never seen porn that made you laugh, you haven't seen enough porn. It is, however, a form of speech - as much as any movie, book, painting, or video game is a form of speech. If no one is hurt by it, then it should not be illegal - it's free speech and should remain free speech. That's where the line is drawn, which brings me to the next point:

Fatimah wrote:That pornography could be construed as speech is irrelevant. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire, and revealing national security secrets are all speech too. Are they legal? No. For that matter, prostitution isn't legal in most of the United States or in several other countries, either, and porn by definition is prostitution on camera. Why is it legal at all?


Prostitution should be legal, in my opinion, and it is in many places. The point of making yelling "fire" in a theater illegal, and revealing national security secrets illegal is that it is very likely that people will be harmed. It's not like its unlikely and probably won't happen; it's very likely that stampeding people will kill somebody in a theater, and that revealing a spy's identity when he's undercover will get him or her killed. People will most likely die. To quote a turn of phrase I heard on NSG - "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

Fatimah wrote:Now, getting into the topic here: child porn depicted by drawings instead of photographs or videos may or may not involve actual people. It is worth remembering that Chester the Molester of Hustler fame turned out to be molesting his own children. I would consider such artistic depictions a warning sign, not "art" or "free speech."


A warning sign... perhaps. However, that does not mean we should ban it. For example, if you look at the 14 warning signs of a serial killer, several of them are quite legal - hating your father and mother, being fascinated with fire, very intelligent (bright-normal range), being male, having trouble holding down a job - etc etc. Here's a link if you want to read the rest of the signs. However, we don't go around banning things because they "might" be a warning sign of something else. We ban things when they are harmful to other people.

Fatimah wrote:Written erotica is something else again. The only human being involved in its creation is the one writing it. But it could be argued that publishing a written piece depicting sexual behavior that is beyond the pale contributes nothing good or useful to society and doesn't even provide a useful dissent from the mainstream political view. I mean, do we want a world in which children are used and raped, or where adults get their jollies from watching children being sexual with one another? I sure don't. In my experience, most people don't. So what would be a legitimate political (or any other kind of) purpose in publishing depictions of same?

Bottom line: These works accomplish nothing good or useful, cannot be said to be morally or ethically neutral, and probably encourage bad thoughts and behavior. So there's no reason for them to be legal.


See though, we don't ban things because they aren't useful, or alcohol would still be banned. We ban things when they cause a substantial harm to people - especially other people - to such a degree that it's worth banning it. Cartoon depictions of underage girls or of rape or murder has not been shown to cause harm to anyone by any study anywhere to my knowledge. Show the harm, and we can bring down the banhammer on it.

Fatimah wrote:The argument that it prevents child molestation is baseless and irrelevant. The best way to prevent child molestation is to lock up child molesters permanently. Doesn't prevent it before someone commits their first crime, but certainly prevents future similar crimes from that individual. Anyway, if viewing porn or reading erotica kept someone from having a sex life, even a demented one, those activities would have died out a long time ago because 99 percent of guys would not get laid and would wind up removed from the gene pool.


I agree that the argument that it prevents child molestation is baseless. There have been no studies to suggest that. However, I am not certain that child molestation is genetic, and I don't know of any studies to support that we can "breed" it out of existence.

Fatimah wrote:Side note: Going back to whether *any* porn should be legal, I've probably been around the block for longer than some of you have been alive. About all porn is good for, in my experience, is wank material--and low-quality wank material at that. It does nothing to instruct anyone in sexual technique about 90+ percent of the time and can even be said to be harmful to technique. Basically, from what I can tell, the more a man consumes mainstream pornography, the worse he is in bed and the less sensitive a partner he is to a woman. I don't mean channeling Alan Alda, I mean being capable of enough selflessness to be aware of what's going on with her, whether she's enjoying herself and what she might need done for herself sexually. Most guys can't make the cut, I'm sorry to say. So before you start defending porn as part and parcel of your personal sexuality you might want to think twice about outing yourself as a crappy lover, which is pretty much how I and any other woman with similar experience will view you. I guess this is why women of my level of experience are so often dismissed as "sluts" in mainstream pornography--if enough guys knew how badly they were being cheated by that garbage, they'd give it up in droves and destroy the entire industry.


Meh, it depends on the person I think. I certainly can't speak for how good I am in bed, but I've never had any complaints, and I've seen a lot of porn over the years. Also, if you think all porn is low-quality wank material, I need to send you some links. I've seen some good shit out there... you just don't know.

Fatimah wrote:(Side side note: I recognize and affirm that quite a few women are crappy in bed too, not from personal experience but from hearing it from my partners about *their* former partners. Acknowledged. The reasons are complex. Men and women suffer equally in Western countries and the U.S. in particular from a lack of good information about human sexuality and sexual technique. On top of that, women are subjected to the virgin-whore complex, so we're bad if we're sexual, but boring if we're not. On *top* of that, our sexual anatomy's significantly different from that of men, and it's been men writing most of the anatomy books and doing most of the studies about sexuality. This is changing, but slowly. So... yeah. If porn really helped cure any of these problems they'd be cured by now.)


Porn doesn't cure the problems either. I personally feel it's kind of neutral in the sexual technique department, but that's another discussion for another thread somewhere else.
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_pantless_hero
Senator
 
Posts: 4302
Founded: Mar 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The_pantless_hero » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:56 am

Fatimah wrote: For that matter, prostitution isn't legal in most of the United States or in several other countries, either, and porn by definition is prostitution on camera. Why is it legal at all?

Lolwhat?

Written erotica is something else again. The only human being involved in its creation is the one writing it. But it could be argued that publishing a written piece depicting sexual behavior that is beyond the pale contributes nothing good or useful to society and doesn't even provide a useful dissent from the mainstream political view. I mean, do we want a world in which children are used and raped, or where adults get their jollies from watching children being sexual with one another? I sure don't. In my experience, most people don't. So what would be a legitimate political (or any other kind of) purpose in publishing depictions of same?

Wow, that was almost an impressive lead in there. Discussing porn and saying porn is bad and the going to warp into OMG CHILD PORN IS BAD. By doing so you apply all people who view porn (including yourself, you shouldn't make implications that degrade yourself when trying to claim a moral high ground) to support and partake in child porn.
Last edited by The_pantless_hero on Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Khadgar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10934
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Khadgar » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:57 am

Phenia wrote:
Khadgar wrote:It's only child porn if it involves real children involved in porn.


Really? Is it only gay porn if it shows real men? That'd be an amusing discussion to have with your girlfriend. "No, it's not gay because the sodomy is animated!"


Considering I'm gay the odder thing to explain would be why I'm dating a chick.

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:58 am

New Khadgar wrote:
Artists? You consider those people artists? Where are you from, that you would consider such trash as 'art'?


Here, try to trace this. Good luck.

Image


No, really! I'm sure you'll be able to do so with very little effort since after all, the people who made it were not artists and lacked any form of artistic skill in anatomy, shading, all that complicated stuff. Ha, how low quality!

And that's not even porn. I've seen much, much better.
Last edited by The Schro on Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:03 am

Fatimah wrote:No wonder we can't improve as a species. We spend far too much time defending greasy lumps of fail vaguely resembling human males who missed the Social Skills Boat at birth rather than defending human rights which actually need defending.


Previously on this forum I have defended paedophiles and child molesters. Not just drawn depictions of underage sex, but the rights of actual paedophiles and of child molesters. I would argue that not defending people or things which should be defended, no matter how
despicable we personally view it, is an excellent way to regress as a species.

Every human has rights, and every one of those rights should be defended. One of the most important of those is freedom of speech and of artistic expression, which is exactly the issue at stake here.

Fatimah wrote:That pornography could be construed as speech is irrelevant. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire, and revealing national security secrets are all speech too. Are they legal? No. For that matter, prostitution isn't legal in most of the United States or in several other countries, either, and porn by definition is prostitution on camera. Why is it legal at all?

Now, getting into the topic here: child porn depicted by drawings instead of photographs or videos may or may not involve actual people. It is worth remembering that Chester the Molester of Hustler fame turned out to be molesting his own children. I would consider such artistic depictions a warning sign, not "art" or "free speech."

Bottom line: These works accomplish nothing good or useful, cannot be said to be morally or ethically neutral, and probably encourage bad thoughts and behavior. So there's no reason for them to be legal.


Bullshit. I link you, as well, to Neil Gaiman's Blog, which lays out an excellent and compelling case for why one should defend freedom of speech and artistic expression, even if one personally considers what is produced with that speech to be obscene or distasteful.

Your 'bottom line' is, practically word for word, the same phrases used to ban the books of de Sade, or to ban James Joyce's Ulysses. Yet now they, particularly the second, are recognised as pioneering works of art, and very influential. The same applies even to works you would condemn, such as (yes, this example again) Lost Girls.

New Khadgar wrote:Artists? You consider those people artists? Where are you from, that you would consider such trash as 'art'?


You are also instructed to research Lost Girls, which is explicit pornography, depicts underage sex, and is undeniably art (and excellent art at that).
Fnord.

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 11:04 am

UNIverseVERSE wrote:You are also instructed to research Lost Girls, which is explicit pornography, depicts underage sex, and is undeniably art (and excellent art at that).

I would like to point out, on a tangent, that Allen Moore is batshit insane.
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
The Schro
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:05 am

The_pantless_hero wrote:
UNIverseVERSE wrote:You are also instructed to research Lost Girls, which is explicit pornography, depicts underage sex, and is undeniably art (and excellent art at that).

I would like to point out, on a tangent, that Allen Moore is batshit insane.


Only a little.

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:10 am

The_pantless_hero wrote:I would like to point out, on a tangent, that Allen Moore is batshit insane.


Well, yes, I never denied that. But he has basically everyone in the comics trade saying "yeah, this is awesome", so there's quality there as well.

Indeed, it might be said that the best artists are the craziest ones.
Fnord.

User avatar
Tranquilizer Cyborgs
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: May 04, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Tranquilizer Cyborgs » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:14 am

Franberry wrote:
The Schro wrote:I noticed this being brought up in another thread and wanted to start an actual discussion about it.

Not real child porn, where children are forced to do degrading things; but things made through CGI, drawing, or even literature. In America at the moment, it's kind of a hot issue. Kind of. Do you think it should be illegal for some reason? Or are you not interested in stifling the creative interests of artists?

I think you can tell my stance well enough. /discuss!

This is basically "do we outlaw art/free expression?" then. Because yeah, its horrible and most people would like to see it get rid of, but if you ban this why not ban political parties?

Tyranny always leads to more Tyranny.


So you want tyranny outlawed? :eyebrow: How very... statist... of you. :lol2:

As for political parties, of course they should be banned, DUH...

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:16 am

Khadgar wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Khadgar wrote:It's only child porn if it involves real children involved in porn.


Really? Is it only gay porn if it shows real men? That'd be an amusing discussion to have with your girlfriend. "No, it's not gay because the sodomy is animated!"


Considering I'm gay the odder thing to explain would be why I'm dating a chick.


Hah. Well OK, then replace "gay porn" with "straight porn" and "real men" with "real men and women?" The point is, just because something is animated porn doesn't mean it's now somehow non-sexual and artistic.

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:17 am

Phenia wrote:
Hah. Well OK, then replace "gay porn" with "straight porn" and "real men" with "real men and women?" The point is, just because something is animated porn doesn't mean it's now somehow non-sexual and artistic.


Why does something need to be non-sexual to be artistic?

User avatar
Khadgar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10934
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Khadgar » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:18 am

Phenia wrote:
Khadgar wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Really? Is it only gay porn if it shows real men? That'd be an amusing discussion to have with your girlfriend. "No, it's not gay because the sodomy is animated!"


Considering I'm gay the odder thing to explain would be why I'm dating a chick.


Hah. Well OK, then replace "gay porn" with "straight porn" and "real men" with "real men and women?" The point is, just because something is animated porn doesn't mean it's now somehow non-sexual and artistic.


I have straight porn too. You're weird. Any rate who says art has to be nonsexual? Art is supposed to evoke a reaction, make you experience something.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alyakia, An Alan Smithee Nation, Andsed, BettaMin, Bluelight-R006, Coutdown, Fartsniffage, Fascist Soyouso, First American Empire, Gesrethe, Ginjarta, Great Lindonia, Great Minarchistan, Hurdergaryp, Island of the Weasels, Jebslund, Joohan, Liriena, Mattantia, Nakena, Nanatsu no Tsuki, New Legland, North Comunist Awelanius, Northern Ateria, Novus America, Platypus Bureaucracy, Proctopeo, Ralnis, Saxipta, Shrillland, The Greater Ohio Valley, The IASM, The New California Republic, The Pendulum Wars, Treadwellia, Uiiop, Upper Secundus, Vizn, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads