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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:00 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Let be me clear, I generally agree with Neil Gaiman and SCOTUS that virtual child pornography is (and should be) protected by free speech. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

However, the cavalier attitude with which some conclude that virtual child pornography can't possibly be harmful or, even if it is, that is acceptable because it is "art" sets my teeth on edge and begs for someone to play Devil's Advocate. So, a few points.

1) I have not yet read Lost Girls because my Amazon order is backordered, so I can't comment on it particularly.

2) Those that think the harm of child pornography comes simply from the harm caused by forcing children to make it are simply wrong.

<snipped for length>

See, e.g., http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/ ... 050102.htm

Note: the last two definitely and the first to a degree apply to virtual child pornography. In fact, "cartoon" characters having sex may be even more useful for the purposes of luring and desensitizing children to sexual abuse.

On the other hand, what exactly is the value of virtual child pornography? How does it contribute to the marketplace of ideas? What redeeming social value does it have that outweighs its potential harm?


All very valid points. The reason that, despite this, I am still dubious about its prohibition is briefly summed up by NG:

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made.


I mentally divide this sort of stuff into three categories. The first is material I wouldn't mind reading or viewing at some point. The second is material that I think has value, but I don't want to experience myself. The third is material I think is valueless.

To be honest, I wouldn't be too fussed if everything in category three just disappeared. But I still won't support attempts to ban it, because my category one or two is someone else's category three. There is stuff which I think is okay, or which I don't want to view but I do think has value, which other people will consider valueless smut to be banned. And my views are pretty radical, so these people are probably going to outnumber me.

Having said that, if someone does use this sort of material for nefarious purposes, then hammering them is fine.

Regardless of our disagreements (I think -- I'm not sure how much you're arguing your actual beliefs here), excellent work on the sourcing.

Phenia wrote:Well, I disagree, because I think rules lawyers are going to use any definition to obnoxiously defend non-art under the guise of its being art, that would otherwise have no defense.


How can you make claims of what is art and what isn't, without having a definition of your own to work from?

Phenia wrote:That doesn't exclude my shit at all. I was engaged in a process of deliberately arranging elements - aforementioned chow mein, post-digestion - in a way that appeals to the sense of smell and vision and conveys the emotions of satisfaction combined with disgust and slight sadness.

I suppose you could now claim it wasn't deliberate. Well, it wasn't accidental, that I can assure you.


Actually, I can very easily claim it's not deliberate. Because to do something deliberately carries with it the meaning of conscious control over the process, which you rather lack in your artistic crap.
Last edited by UNIverseVERSE on Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 1:04 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Bullshit.

There is concrete evidence you seem to blithely ignore that child pornography directly causes child sexual abuse.

There is research and expert opinion (and logic) that merely by being "virtual," virtual child pornography has the same effect.

No slippery slope is involved.

Disagree if you like, but a glib allegation of a logical fallacy doesn't cut it.

Shenanigans. Here is an argument you won't hear used in a realistic discussion, ever: Guns are consistently used in crimes, thus we should ban guns because they encourage and facilitate more and more violent crimes.

In addition, there are a large number of things that desensitize people to certain activities, and most of them are on network tv. You can't go around shouting that one particular legal object you don't like should be banned because it can be and is used in such a way as to promote illegal activities without setting a precedent that all objects of like quality should be banned for the same reason. I would think you of all people could pull together such a simple conclusion.
Last edited by The_pantless_hero on Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:06 pm, edited 3 times 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
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:10 pm

UNIverseVERSE wrote:How can you make claims of what is art and what isn't, without having a definition of your own to work from?


Well, I usually don't, but when other people claim something is art - animated child porn for example - they usually have an operative definition and I'll merrily argue within that.

Personally, as an artist, I have a lot more intuitive mindset about art. I can't say specifically why my hitting piano keys at random isn't art, but I know intuitively it isn't art. And I can't say specifically why Beethoven's sonates are art, but I know intuitively that they are.

A definition that tries to be all-inclusive will wind up including all, and just becomes a bit meaningless. Or it will not be inclusive enough, and will wind up excluding a good deal of art, and is thus inaccurate.

Actually, I can very easily claim it's not deliberate. Because to do something deliberately carries with it the meaning of conscious control over the process, which you rather lack in your artistic crap.


Well, then you would say John Cage's 4'33'' is not art? The composer has no direct, conscious control over the ambient sound processes the audience will experience. But many claim that to be art.

Or what about aleatoric music? What about photography of natural settings?

To "do something deliberately" does NOT mean you have absolute control over every aspect of it and furthermore, such control is not part of the definition you cited.

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:13 pm

The Schro wrote:Once again, banning something because it's possible for some people to use it is not, in my mind, a valid argument. It's stupid logic that can be applied to anything, whether it be drugs, pornography, guns, or even cars and chairs.

On the other hand, what exactly is the value of virtual child pornography? How does it contribute to the marketplace of ideas? What redeeming social value does it have that outweighs its potential harm?


Well, that depends who you ask. A few studies have found that allowing virtual child pornography might lessen actual crimes carried out on children. Second, think hard about this question: what social values do many other things have that outweigh its potential harm? Normal pornography doesn't have much to its name. "Chairs," as mentioned before, "are often used in barfights and the like; why not just let people sit on the floor? It'd probably be better for their backs, as well."

And one of the things that virtual child pornography give are protections from other dangers - such as more limits on our freedom. As has been mentioned before in the thread, if things like virtual child pornography can be banned, what would stop the same prosecutors from going after virtually anything on the market these days? It seems within the best interests of America, at least until substantial evidence of an actual correlation between virtual child pornography and the generation of a pedophilic mental disorder can be found, to leave it uncensored.

There is concrete evidence you seem to blithely ignore that child pornography directly causes child sexual abuse.


Where is it?

All I have is evidence to the former.

And, again, following some of my arguments already used, I hardly find its ability to be used relevant. The same thing could be said for candy being used to lure small children.

Virtual child pornography is just easy to attack and something that under a glance looks all-too-sinister.

If you don't feel like reading through all that, "actual studies that establish the link between computer-generated child pornography and the subsequent sexual abuse of children apparently do not yet exist."


1) Your Japan study doesn't say what you claim and is one study (not several).

2) The single sentence that you (mis)quote from the Court of Appeals opinion in Ashcroft is factually inaccurate and cites a Student Note from a Law Review as its source. As I already quoted, that same source undermines your argument:

Indeed, even the student note relied upon by the court of appeals found it “relatively easy to infer from proof that children are swayed by images of actual children the conclusion that they will also be swayed by lifelike computer-generated images.” Adelman, supra, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. at 490. The note further stated that “computer-generated images may be even more dangerous than photographic ones,” since “it will soon be possible to create realistic sexually explicit images of a child’s friends or siblings in an effort to convince that child that engaging in sexual acts is acceptable.” [i]Id. at 490-491
.

3) If you can't think of any redeeming social value for adult pornography or chairs, the failure is in your imagination, not in my argument.

4) Your its "ability to be used is irrelevant" argument ignores reality. What is the desirable use of child pornography? Why, if we know it causes harm (not just "could be used" but has been and will be used), shouldn't we regulate or ban it?

5) Obviously there are lines to be drawn here regarding the price of liberty. Child pornography causes too much harm and has too little benefit to be protected by free speech. It falls within the category of obscenity. Virtual child pornography is a harder question. I've already admitted I actually agree more with you on this one, but that is not to say there is no legitimate disagreement.

6) BTW, what is "virtual child pornography'? If I use CGI to make child porn that looks perfectly real, but isn't, should it be protected? What if merely make slight alterations to real child pornography? Where exactly is this line that makes "virtual" child porn harmless and worthwhile?
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:17 pm

The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Bullshit.

There is concrete evidence you seem to blithely ignore that child pornography directly causes child sexual abuse.

There is research and expert opinion (and logic) that merely by being "virtual," virtual child pornography has the same effect.

No slippery slope is involved.

Disagree if you like, but a glib allegation of a logical fallacy doesn't cut it.

Shenanigans. Here is an argument you won't hear used in a realistic discussion, ever: Guns are consistently used in crimes, thus we should ban guns because they encourage and facilitate more and more violent crimes.

In addition, there are a large number of things that desensitize people to certain activities, and most of them are on network tv. You can't go around shouting that one particular legal object you don't like should be banned because it can be and is used in such a way as to promote illegal activities without setting a precedent that all objects of like quality should be banned for the same reason. I would think you of all people could pull together such a simple conclusion.


Are you denying that child pornography causes child sexual abuse?

If so, on what basis, given the evidence?

If not, then what is your objection?

I get that virtual child pornography is not necessarily the same, but your argument doesn't seem to recognize the distinction is not obvious.

And, btw, we ban all sorts of things because they are harmful and/or promote illegal activities. The ban on child porn hasn't led to some massive erosion of all of our freedoms. In claiming otherwise, it is you that are arguing a (foundationless) slippery slope.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Dread Lady Nathicana » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:18 pm

Something to keep in mind with a lot of the arguments about what 'may' be harmful or 'may' be used inappropriately is we're dealing with kids here. Ask anyone who's been abused as a child - you don't 'fix' that. You don't 'make it better'. You can't replace innocence lost. And it isn't a choice on their part.

Old lesson on that thing called Balance of Power. You can't have it all both ways. More protection, less freedom. More freedom, less protection. Its a matter of NOT giving the powers that be carte blanche to walk willy nilly all over what freedoms we haven't already frittered away to them while actually trying to do right by minors, in this instance.

I'm a mom - I've got kids. And unfortunately, I know I can only protect them from so much on my own, under my own roof. Out there with everyone else, its another matter. I can teach, I can guide, I can hope they make good choices, I can monitor their online access, and do all those things a good parent should, but its no guarantee. That's life. And unfortunately, other people can make choices that negatively affect my kids, without their consent. I guess I don't see a problem with trying to limit some of that where we can, and where its appropriate.

Case by case basis, I figure, on whether any one instance is 'porn' or should probably not be protected under the 'art' umbrella. Oddly, I'm usually one in favor of as much freedom as I can get, but in this case ... yeah, it bothers me. Child predators and people who want to cash in on their need for mind candy make me sick. People who use the uncomfortable facts that there are such people and happenings out there to illustrate a point, not so much. And no, I don't think they are the same thing.

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Schro » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:29 pm

1) Your Japan study doesn't say what you claim and is one study (not several).


The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography, without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%.


2) The single sentence that you (mis)quote from the Court of Appeals opinion in Ashcroft is factually inaccurate and cites a Student Note from a Law Review as its source. As I already quoted, that same source undermines your argument:


Regardless, you've yet to show any sources to contradict it. The court never seemed to go beyond "Well, it must!" as far as their own argument, either. They're not infallible - very far from it.

3) If you can't think of any redeeming social value for adult pornography or chairs, the failure is in your imagination, not in my argument.


When did I say I couldn't think of any? I gave you several.
I put that down in parody of your argument rather than a serious interpretation of my own.

4) Your its "ability to be used is irrelevant" argument ignores reality. What is the desirable use of child pornography? Why, if we know it causes harm (not just "could be used" but has been and will be used), shouldn't we regulate or ban it?


But we don't "know that it causes harm." We know that it can.
Again, until actual studies are released that show whether or not virtual child pornography and the development of pedophilia are linked, I see no valid reason to label it 'harmful.'

5) Obviously there are lines to be drawn here regarding the price of liberty. Child pornography causes too much harm and has too little benefit to be protected by free speech. It falls within the category of obscenity. Virtual child pornography is a harder question. I've already admitted I actually agree more with you on this one, but that is not to say there is no legitimate disagreement.


I'm not arguing for actual child pornography.

6) BTW, what is "virtual child pornography'? If I use CGI to make child porn that looks perfectly real, but isn't, should it be protected? What if merely make slight alterations to real child pornography? Where exactly is this line that makes "virtual" child porn harmless and worthwhile?


What I mean by virtual would likely be better replaced with, well...fake? I'm not entire sure and I'm having a bit of a brain freeze here. But essentially, I mean anything that is simply drawn or produced in another method that does not involve the harm or use of an actual child as a model in its creation.

CGI pornography is a much more touchy subject, but as of now we haven't reached a point where beyond some kind of an extremely expensive professional foray (which I find unlikely) it would be possible to recreate realistically that kind of a scene. Alterations to actual child pornography would stay illegal, though I don't honestly see a point in business terms to doing a thing like that - it'd be much cheaper and less risky to just draw, use CGI, etc.

I'd draw the line, again, at "anything that is simply drawn or produced in another method that does not involve the harm or use of an actual child as a model in its creation." Anything that -does- involve the harm of use of an actual child as a model in its creation should be banned for the exploitation of a minor.

And, btw, we ban all sorts of things because they are harmful and/or promote illegal activities. The ban on child porn hasn't led to some massive erosion of all of our freedoms. In claiming otherwise, it is you that are arguing a (foundationless) slippery slope.


America's government is not infallible. I protest just about everything they do, tbh :/
And I disagree. I see the degradation of our speech every day I look around the street or watch the news - but I wouldn't call child pornography a focal point, but rather a result.

Still, every victory won for the people who campaign against freedoms is another pound added to the snowball.

Jesus Christ, so many typos :blink:
Last edited by The Schro on Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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 6:10 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Are you denying that child pornography causes child sexual abuse?

That's a patently absurd charge given that argument has never worked for anything else. Now, whether or not child pornography encourages and facilitates child sexual abuse is another matter. But then there is still the slippery slope.

I get that virtual child pornography is not necessarily the same, but your argument doesn't seem to recognize the distinction is obvious.

An absurd, baseless claim.

And, btw, we ban all sorts of things because they are harmful and/or promote illegal activities.

Knives? Guns? Violent video games? UFC on tv?
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 Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:36 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Are you denying that child pornography causes child sexual abuse?

If so, on what basis, given the evidence?

If not, then what is your objection?

I get that virtual child pornography is not necessarily the same, but your argument doesn't seem to recognize the distinction is not obvious.

And, btw, we ban all sorts of things because they are harmful and/or promote illegal activities. The ban on child porn hasn't led to some massive erosion of all of our freedoms. In claiming otherwise, it is you that are arguing a (foundationless) slippery slope.



The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Are you denying that child pornography causes child sexual abuse?

That's a patently absurd charge given that argument has never worked for anything else. Now, whether or not child pornography encourages and facilitates child sexual abuse is another matter. But then there is still the slippery slope.

I get that virtual child pornography is not necessarily the same, but your argument doesn't seem to recognize the distinction is obvious.

An absurd, baseless claim.

And, btw, we ban all sorts of things because they are harmful and/or promote illegal activities.

Knives? Guns? Violent video games? UFC on tv?


I quoted my full post to make clear that you didn't even try to answer my questions or points.

I asked what evidence you rely on in denying child pornography causes child sexual abuse. I already cited EVIDENCE that it does. Saying that is "patently absurd" and "a slippery slope," isn't responsive.

How is virtual child pornography obviously different from "real" child pornography? How are the harms caused drastically different.

Finally, are you really going to contend that we don't have laws banning items because they are dangerous or harmful? Tanks, for example.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

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 6:46 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I quoted my full post to make clear that you didn't even try to answer my questions or points.

I didn't because I only replied to the important parts. Unless you wanted me to quote the part about how banning real child porn hasn't led to an erosion of rights, but I would hate to call you out on your bullshit even further by pointing out a blatant logical fallacy.

I asked what evidence you rely on in denying child pornography causes child sexual abuse. I already cited EVIDENCE that it does.

Really? You cited evidence that virtual child pornography caused child sexual abuse? I don't recall seeing any police reports saying an 8x11 culprit attacked and raped a child. You proved virtual child porn 'causes' child sexual abuse like violence video game causes people to steal cars, shoot people in the street, and beat them to death with household object, and like guns cause murders.

How is virtual child pornography obviously different from "real" child pornography? How are the harms caused drastically different.

Well other than the obvious fact that real child pornography is evidence that child sexual abuse already occurred and virtual child pornography is a fucking drawing.

Finally, are you really going to contend that we don't have laws banning items because they are dangerous or harmful? Tanks, for example.

Are you going to contend we don't have obviously dangerous items perfectly legal? Guns, tanks, baseball bats, nails, ice picks, piano wire, etc etc.

You are obviously too emotionally vested in this topic to do anything but pull arguments you would otherwise know is such massive, obvious bullshit you could put it on a billboard.
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 Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:49 pm

The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:I quoted my full post to make clear that you didn't even try to answer my questions or points.

I didn't because I only replied to the important parts. Unless you wanted me to quote the part about how banning real child porn hasn't led to an erosion of rights, but I would hate to call you out on your bullshit even further by pointing out a blatant logical fallacy.

I asked what evidence you rely on in denying child pornography causes child sexual abuse. I already cited EVIDENCE that it does.

Really? You cited evidence that virtual child pornography caused child sexual abuse? I don't recall seeing any police reports saying an 8x11 culprit attacked and raped a child. You proved virtual child porn 'causes' child sexual abuse like violence video game causes people to steal cars, shoot people in the street, and beat them to death with household object, and like guns cause murders.

How is virtual child pornography obviously different from "real" child pornography? How are the harms caused drastically different.

Well other than the obvious fact that real child pornography is evidence that child sexual abuse already occurred and virtual child pornography is a fucking drawing.

Finally, are you really going to contend that we don't have laws banning items because they are dangerous or harmful? Tanks, for example.

Are you going to contend we don't have obviously dangerous items perfectly legal? Guns, tanks, baseball bats, nails, ice picks, piano wire, etc etc.

You are obviously too emotionally vested in this topic to do anything but pull arguments you would otherwise know is such massive, obvious bullshit you could put it on a billboard.


*sigh*

You aren't engaging in argument, but pure vitriol, so I'll quit for now.

Yes, I am so overly emotionally vested in such massive obvious bullshit that I MADE CLEAR I AGREE THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS VIRTUAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

I stil insist the issue isn't dismissible by a simple reference to "slippery slope."
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Der Teutoniker
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9452
Founded: Jan 09, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Der Teutoniker » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:52 pm

Franberry wrote:
The Schro wrote:why not ban political parties?


This is a good question.
South Lorenya wrote:occasionally we get someone who has a rap sheet longer than Jormungandr

Austin Setzer wrote:We found a couple of ancient documents, turned them into the bible, and now its the symbol of christianity.

ARM Forces wrote:Strep-throat is an infection in the throat, caused by eating too much refined sugar! Rubbing more sugar directly on it is the worst thing you can possibly do.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Communism and anarchy; same unachievable end, different impractical means.

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 6:55 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:You aren't engaging in argument, but pure vitriol, so I'll quit for now.

Based on what? That I disagree with you?

Yes, I am so overly emotionally vested in such massive obvious bullshit that I MADE CLEAR I AGREE THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS VIRTUAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

And yet you insist on being purposefully obtuse!
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
NERVUN
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 29297
Founded: Mar 24, 2005
Right-wing Utopia

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby NERVUN » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:58 pm

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.

Just as a note, as much as we all love to point at weird Japan, it isn't THAT readily available as people would like to think.
To those who feel, life is a tragedy. To those who think, it's a comedy.
"Men, today you'll be issued small trees. Do what you can for the emperor's glory." -Daistallia 2104 on bonsai charges in WWII
Science may provide the means while religion provides the motivation but humanity and humanity alone provides the vehicle -DaWoad

One-Stop Rules Shop, read it, love it, live by it. Getting Help Mod email: nervun@nationstates.net NSG Glossary
Add 10,145 to post count from Jolt: I have it from an unimpeachable source, that Dark Side cookies look like the Death Star. The other ones look like butterflies, or bunnies, or something.-Grave_n_Idle

Proud Member of FMGADHPAC. Join today!

User avatar
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
Minister
 
Posts: 3138
Founded: Nov 25, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnitedStatesOfAmerica- » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:55 am

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

I would like to know who these people are that are being irreparably harmed by the existence of porn? A lot of adult models I know, seek out adult modeling. Most religious people refer to adult modeling as porn. And at what age does it become child porn? Do we want to be so tight wad about enforcing one person's morality upon everyone else? Do we really want to turn our country into a Christian version of Iran?
Land of Free Beer and the Home of the Kentucky Fried Chicken

User avatar
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
Minister
 
Posts: 3138
Founded: Nov 25, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnitedStatesOfAmerica- » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:03 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.

"the wrong type of thoughts"? So what our country needs now is thought police? We need to have police arrest anyone thinking thoughts we don't like?

People should be free to think what they want. It is the action that should be restricted. Thoughts are harmless, actions less so.
Land of Free Beer and the Home of the Kentucky Fried Chicken

User avatar
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
Minister
 
Posts: 3138
Founded: Nov 25, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnitedStatesOfAmerica- » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:24 am

Phenia wrote:
Khadgar wrote: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.


I do not say that art has to be nonsexual. Art can be nonsexual. Porn cannot.

Are you aware that the first work of fine art, the Venuses of prehistoric times, were meant to turn people on so they would produce children. Under the "anything intended to turn people on" guidelines, we would have to ban museums from displaying sculptures that are thousands of years old as well as paintings that are hundreds of years old. Supposedly since such things had the original intent of sexually turning people on, they have no legit value historically or culturally.
Land of Free Beer and the Home of the Kentucky Fried Chicken

User avatar
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
Minister
 
Posts: 3138
Founded: Nov 25, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnitedStatesOfAmerica- » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:34 am

Phenia wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Umm what's the argument here? The OP said that s/he wasn't talking about when children are forced naked and such, but art. Children have been depicted nude in art for thousands of years. Umm, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, what's the problem?


Animated child porn isn't art. That's the point. It's porn. It's meant to appeal to people sexually, stimulate them so they can fucking masturbate and fulfill their pedophile fantasies. I know I'm being horrible in not considering that "art," how close minded of me.

So you're against it because you're against masturbation?
Again, should the US create a new thought police agency to imprison anyone who has thoughts we don't like or would be offended by?
Land of Free Beer and the Home of the Kentucky Fried Chicken

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:39 am

UnitedStatesOfAmerica- wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Khadgar wrote: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.


I do not say that art has to be nonsexual. Art can be nonsexual. Porn cannot.

Are you aware that the first work of fine art, the Venuses of prehistoric times, were meant to turn people on so they would produce children.


No, they were sculpted as idols to a fertility god. I really don't think crude lumps of stone were necessary to get prehistoric folks to have sex with each other.

Under the "anything intended to turn people on" guidelines, we would have to ban museums from displaying sculptures that are thousands of years old as well as paintings that are hundreds of years old. Supposedly since such things had the original intent of sexually turning people on, they have no legit value historically or culturally.


Of course they have "legit value" historically and culturally, and I never suggested we should ban 'anything meant to turn people on,' that's a strawman.

Your claim that such sculptures are by "original intent" porn is dubious at best, and the comparison of sculptures of Venuses to modern pornography is flawed on off-base. We're not talking about ancient museum sculptures of at best ambiguous meaning, we're talking about modern, explicit and graphic depictions of children having sex distributed to thousands and/or millions (sigh) of people for the purpose of wanking over it.

Now, one of these subjects has relevance to the topic and to modern society. The other does not. Can you guess which is which?

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:41 am

UnitedStatesOfAmerica- wrote:
Phenia wrote:Animated child porn isn't art. That's the point. It's porn. It's meant to appeal to people sexually, stimulate them so they can fucking masturbate and fulfill their pedophile fantasies. I know I'm being horrible in not considering that "art," how close minded of me.

So you're against it because you're against masturbation?


Did you even READ the post you're replying to or did you just go straight to hitting the button on the fallacy creation machine?

Again, should the US create a new thought police agency to imprison anyone who has thoughts we don't like or would be offended by?


:roll:

User avatar
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
Minister
 
Posts: 3138
Founded: Nov 25, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnitedStatesOfAmerica- » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:47 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:One could well conclude from the above that Congress has sufficient grounds to conclude that virtual child pornography does actually lead to child sexual abuse and that justified banning it -- at the very least where it doesn't have other redeeming value.

Only using logic that would lead to and set precedent for the banning of a very large number of seemingly things. That argument is the blatantly obvious underpinning of a slippery slope.


Bullshit.

There is concrete evidence you seem to blithely ignore that child pornography directly causes child sexual abuse.

There is research and expert opinion (and logic) that merely by being "virtual," virtual child pornography has the same effect.

No slippery slope is involved.

Disagree if you like, but a glib allegation of a logical fallacy doesn't cut it.

Yet it is also claimed that regular porn also helps lower a child's inhibitions. Yet regular porn is not illegal to possess.
Anything that depicts another person doing something, can be used to get that child to do that something.
Africa's child soldiers are an example.
Land of Free Beer and the Home of the Kentucky Fried Chicken

User avatar
Dalratha
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Apr 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Dalratha » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:50 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.



OoooH!!

Thought crime - how very futurist/fascist :clap:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

User avatar
Dalratha
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Apr 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Dalratha » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:56 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
The_pantless_hero wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:One could well conclude from the above that Congress has sufficient grounds to conclude that virtual child pornography does actually lead to child sexual abuse and that justified banning it -- at the very least where it doesn't have other redeeming value.

Only using logic that would lead to and set precedent for the banning of a very large number of seemingly things. That argument is the blatantly obvious underpinning of a slippery slope.


Bullshit.

There is concrete evidence you seem to blithely ignore that child pornography directly causes child sexual abuse.

There is research and expert opinion (and logic) that merely by being "virtual," virtual child pornography has the same effect.

No slippery slope is involved.

Disagree if you like, but a glib allegation of a logical fallacy doesn't cut it.


I'd challenge the 'directly causes' - perhaps 'encourages' or 'is linked to'.
Regards CGI or artistic renderings, i'd say the 'link' is much more tenuous, as, with the real deal a child IS BEING abused, with CGI or artistic, a child isn't being abused...

Just my two pence...
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

User avatar
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
Minister
 
Posts: 3138
Founded: Nov 25, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby UnitedStatesOfAmerica- » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:59 am

Phenia wrote:
Of course they have "legit value" historically and culturally, and I never suggested we should ban 'anything meant to turn people on,' that's a strawman.

Your claim that such sculptures are by "original intent" porn is dubious at best, and the comparison of sculptures of Venuses to modern pornography is flawed on off-base. We're not talking about ancient museum sculptures of at best ambiguous meaning, we're talking about modern, explicit and graphic depictions of children having sex distributed to thousands and/or millions (sigh) of people for the purpose of wanking over it.

Now, one of these subjects has relevance to the topic and to modern society. The other does not. Can you guess which is which?


Yet their original purpose was to turn people on sexually. What is the definition of porn? Anything meant to turn people on sexually.
Many couples use porn to help improve their sexual relationships.
I take you are not aware that for thousands of years there have been nude depictions of people who were under the age of 18. Some of these can be seen in museums today and some are being studied.
How do you know people didn't wank over the nude sculptures of an adolescent Venus? A work's cultural value is something that has to be measured by history, not be some group's moral outrage.
Just as we study nude paintings and statues from the past, historians of the future will study today's porn to get a better overall picture of our contemporary society.
Land of Free Beer and the Home of the Kentucky Fried Chicken

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

Re: "Child Porn"

Postby Phenia » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:15 am

UnitedStatesOfAmerica- wrote:
Yet their original purpose was to turn people on sexually.


There is no academic consensus on what the Venus figurines mean and you are not in a position to know what the "original purpose" was. You are wrong and being silly.

Many couples use porn to help improve their sexual relationships.


Uh, so?

How do you know people didn't wank over the nude sculptures of an adolescent Venus?


Now you're just being ignorant. This is not an adolescent.

A work's cultural value is something that has to be measured by history, not be some group's moral outrage. Just as we study nude paintings and statues from the past, historians of the future will study today's porn to get a better overall picture of our contemporary society.


Measuring "cultural value," that's what history is for (according to you)?

What an irrelevant bunch of glib nonsense.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Al Mumtahanah, Blazelander, Bombadil, Camelone, Cappuccina, Falgabard, Galiantus III, Jack Thomas Lang, Jean-Paul Sartre, Kowani, Kuominwave, Lanorth, Martune, New haven america, Pasong Tirad, Perchan, Saciu, Saiwania, Tekania, Telconi, The Japanese Americans, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, The Xenopolis Confederation, Totally Not OEP, Uiiop, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads