But they didn't release it when they were 12. Unless you're saying we should go after the child with criminal charges of hurting themselves, and if so should we also prosecute cutters?
Actually in that case the child would be put into protective care, and the parents would be investigated.
At 18 you're not a child and that's the first time anyone but the "star" saw the film. Unless the state at some point made a habit of going through children's possessions to make sure they've never made a video of themselves masturbating. So once they turn 18 and decide to release their home-video, do you charge them with the crime of molesting themselves?
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
I'm assuming the above means "live-action child porn." The possession and distribution is deemed harmful. This whole tangent is asinine anyway and you've been proven wrong.
But they didn't release it when they were 12. Unless you're saying we should go after the child with criminal charges of hurting themselves, and if so should we also prosecute cutters?
Actually in that case the child would be put into protective care, and the parents would be investigated.
At 18 you're not a child and that's the first time anyone but the "star" saw the film. Unless the state at some point made a habit of going through children's possessions to make sure they've never made a video of themselves masturbating. So once they turn 18 and decide to release their home-video, do you charge them with the crime of molesting themselves?
What if the child was hitler, and the supreme court was entirely comprised of KKK sympathizers?
I'm not saying theres any loopholes to watch it legally. I'm disagreeing with your point that possession should be legal since theres no harm.
Sure you are. If it's a cartoon it's okay because no one was harmed. So who is harmed in my example?
A) There's no way to separate your hypothetical non-abusive child porn from the rest of it and hypothetical child porn which is not the result of abuse is rare enough, if you even think it can exist at all, that it's an acceptable loss in order to prevent very real abuse of children on a large scale.
A) Sure there is, documentation. I consider animated child-porn to also be an acceptable loss.
A) Documentation of what? How are you going to prove that a child wasn't coerced? That's the entire reason we have statutory rape laws.
The key difference is that no fake child porn is the result of abuse, while all of the real stuff is. The exceptions to either are negligible.
But they didn't release it when they were 12. Unless you're saying we should go after the child with criminal charges of hurting themselves, and if so should we also prosecute cutters?
Actually in that case the child would be put into protective care, and the parents would be investigated.
At 18 you're not a child and that's the first time anyone but the "star" saw the film. Unless the state at some point made a habit of going through children's possessions to make sure they've never made a video of themselves masturbating. So once they turn 18 and decide to release their home-video, do you charge them with the crime of molesting themselves?
Wow.
So now you're presenting a situation where someone tries to publish child porn that they made of themselves after they become an adult.
...
I mean this is all very fascinating, but I don't think you comprehend the scope of this debate. Nutty situations that will never, ever exist and have no relevance to any situations that might exist are rather out of the scope of this debate.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
Yeah, it has fuck all to do with fundamental rights that exist in this country.
But they didn't release it when they were 12. Unless you're saying we should go after the child with criminal charges of hurting themselves, and if so should we also prosecute cutters?
Actually in that case the child would be put into protective care, and the parents would be investigated.
At 18 you're not a child and that's the first time anyone but the "star" saw the film. Unless the state at some point made a habit of going through children's possessions to make sure they've never made a video of themselves masturbating. So once they turn 18 and decide to release their home-video, do you charge them with the crime of molesting themselves?
Wow.
So now you're presenting a situation where someone tries to publish child porn that they made of themselves after they become an adult.
...
I mean this is all very fascinating, but I don't think you comprehend the scope of this debate. Nutty situations that will never, ever exist and have no relevance to any situations that might exist are rather out of the scope of this debate.
Oh you are omniscient now? Tell me who wins the 2012 election. Everyone, not just the presidential candidate.
No ones looking for an excuse to look at actual child porn, and most of us don't even want an excuse to look at animated porn, its just we don't feel under current laws animated porn shouldn't be unlawful.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
Yeah, it has fuck all to do with fundamental rights that exist in this country.
I don't think jerking it to pictures of little kids doing it is a fundamental right that exists in this country.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
No, the point of this thread is that censorship is unacceptable except when the production, dissemination, or possession of the product in question causes identifiable harm to a person or to society.
Animated child pornography has not been proven to cause any identifiable harm to any person or to society.
It's really very simple, and something we concluded on page two. I understand that your mind of a dense forest of stupidity but really, how many pages do we have to go on before you grasp the concept of this thread and stop misunderstanding or mischaracterizing it? No one is justifying the existence of any kind of child porn. I think it is disgusting, personally. What I am saying is that it is not the government's job to arbitrate decency. It is the government's job to prevent abuse and harm.
The reason your entire presence in this debate is an unimportant tangent is because the people arguing this sanely and without emotion aren't concerned with the "decency" of child pornography. It is completely irrelevant. That something is "indecent" is not an acceptable reason to ban it.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
Yeah, it has fuck all to do with fundamental rights that exist in this country.
I don't think jerking it to pictures of little kids doing it is a fundamental right that exists in this country.
Ho ho ho.
Apparently you don't think freedom of expression is a fundamental right either, at least when it's a drawing or animation that makes you feel icky.
But they didn't release it when they were 12. Unless you're saying we should go after the child with criminal charges of hurting themselves, and if so should we also prosecute cutters?
Actually in that case the child would be put into protective care, and the parents would be investigated.
At 18 you're not a child and that's the first time anyone but the "star" saw the film. Unless the state at some point made a habit of going through children's possessions to make sure they've never made a video of themselves masturbating. So once they turn 18 and decide to release their home-video, do you charge them with the crime of molesting themselves?
Wow.
So now you're presenting a situation where someone tries to publish child porn that they made of themselves after they become an adult.
...
I mean this is all very fascinating, but I don't think you comprehend the scope of this debate. Nutty situations that will never, ever exist and have no relevance to any situations that might exist are rather out of the scope of this debate.
Oh you are omniscient now? Tell me who wins the 2012 election. Everyone, not just the presidential candidate.
No, I'm just sane, unlike you.
Really, you've gone off the deep end. You're presenting absurd hypotheticals, you are either misunderstanding or willfully mischaracterizing our position, and you are trying to gain ground with trivial technicalities. The end result is that you continue to look like a dumbass.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
Yeah, it has fuck all to do with fundamental rights that exist in this country.
I don't think jerking it to pictures of little kids doing it is a fundamental right that exists in this country.
Ho ho ho.
Apparently you don't think freedom of expression is a fundamental right either, at least when it's a drawing or animation that makes you feel icky.
Nonsense. That one crazy anime where the floating naked-chick rips an innocent girl's head off for no reason with the heavy gore and shit in the first fifteen minutes makes me feel icky and I'm not arguing to ban that. Elfen Lied, that's the one.
Really, you've gone off the deep end. You're presenting absurd hypotheticals, you are either misunderstanding or willfully mischaracterizing our position, and you are trying to gain ground with trivial technicalities. The end result is that you continue to look like a dumbass.
So now I'm insane because I posited an example that meets the criteria your argument presents for what constitutes okay child-porn and continue to press for a response to it even though you go "I dun wanna!" over and over. That's not argumentum ad hominem at all.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
Yeah, it has fuck all to do with fundamental rights that exist in this country.
I don't think jerking it to pictures of little kids doing it is a fundamental right that exists in this country.
Ho ho ho.
Apparently you don't think freedom of expression is a fundamental right either, at least when it's a drawing or animation that makes you feel icky.
Nonsense. That one crazy anime where the floating naked-chick rips an innocent girl's head off for no reason with the heavy gore and shit in the first fifteen minutes makes me feel icky and I'm not arguing to ban that. Elfen Lied, that's the one.
Maybe it's not clear to you, but it's pretty clear to the rest of us that child porn crosses some kind of personal threshold for you. Maybe you find other things "icky" but child porn is even more "icky" and passes whatever boundary of ickiness that you are not prepared to accept.
And that's fine...I don't like it either. But it's not a valid reason for banning it. The only valid reason for banning it is if it can be proven to cause direct harm or a substantial indirect harm.
All you've done is argue that possession of child porn isn't harmful to anyone. Which is a weird and funny argument when your overall point is that all child porn should be banned.
And, no, fetishization of children has not been proven to cause harm to society. At least I missed this proof of yours. You seem to think your side of this debate should be "obvious" and you come off as very condescending. Unfortunately, you've proven nothing so you just look like you're flailing about.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
Yeah, it has fuck all to do with fundamental rights that exist in this country.
I don't think jerking it to pictures of little kids doing it is a fundamental right that exists in this country.
Ho ho ho.
Apparently you don't think freedom of expression is a fundamental right either, at least when it's a drawing or animation that makes you feel icky.
Nonsense. That one crazy anime where the floating naked-chick rips an innocent girl's head off for no reason with the heavy gore and shit in the first fifteen minutes makes me feel icky and I'm not arguing to ban that. Elfen Lied, that's the one.
Maybe it's not clear to you, but it's pretty clear to the rest of us that child porn crosses some kind of personal threshold for you. Maybe you find other things "icky" but child porn is even more "icky" and passes whatever boundary of ickiness that you are not prepared to accept.
And that's fine...I don't like it either. But it's not a valid reason for banning it. The only valid reason for banning it is if it can be proven to cause direct harm or a substantial indirect harm.
All you've done is argue that possession of child porn isn't harmful to anyone. Which is a weird and funny argument when your overall point is that all child porn should be banned.
And, no, fetishization of children has not been proven to cause harm to society. At least I missed this proof of yours. You seem to think your side of this debate should be "obvious" and you come off as very condescending. Unfortunately, you've proven nothing so you just look like you're flailing about.
Good for you. Are you going to present an argument that responds to my example or are you content to continue explicitly attacking me personally and only me personally to the exclusion of anything to do with the debate? The latter of course, and that's why I'm done. Good wanking to you.
The ban on possession and distribution of child pornography has been justified because it continues the exploitation and harm to the child caused by the production. (Osborne v. Ohio)
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
Yeah, it has fuck all to do with fundamental rights that exist in this country.
I don't think jerking it to pictures of little kids doing it is a fundamental right that exists in this country.
Ho ho ho.
Apparently you don't think freedom of expression is a fundamental right either, at least when it's a drawing or animation that makes you feel icky.
Nonsense. That one crazy anime where the floating naked-chick rips an innocent girl's head off for no reason with the heavy gore and shit in the first fifteen minutes makes me feel icky and I'm not arguing to ban that. Elfen Lied, that's the one.
Maybe it's not clear to you, but it's pretty clear to the rest of us that child porn crosses some kind of personal threshold for you. Maybe you find other things "icky" but child porn is even more "icky" and passes whatever boundary of ickiness that you are not prepared to accept.
And that's fine...I don't like it either. But it's not a valid reason for banning it. The only valid reason for banning it is if it can be proven to cause direct harm or a substantial indirect harm.
All you've done is argue that possession of child porn isn't harmful to anyone. Which is a weird and funny argument when your overall point is that all child porn should be banned.
And, no, fetishization of children has not been proven to cause harm to society. At least I missed this proof of yours. You seem to think your side of this debate should be "obvious" and you come off as very condescending. Unfortunately, you've proven nothing so you just look like you're flailing about.
Good for you. Are you going to present an argument that responds to my example or are you content to continue explicitly attacking me personally and only me personally to the exclusion of anything to do with the debate? The latter of course, and that's why I'm done. Good wanking to you.
If you would like to present an on-topic, relevant, sane argument or example that relates to the debate, I will respond to you in that way. Sadly, you've not done this at all.
I think an interesting problem that may come up in this area is when computer simulation becomes so good that you can't tell the difference between a real child or a simulated one.
I think an interesting problem that may come up in this area is when computer simulation becomes so good that you can't tell the difference between a real child or a simulated one.
Yeah, I think ElJeffe introduced that within the first couple of pages. It was also brought up in a number of court cases dealing with child pornography laws.
And, yes, at that point, I think we would have to re-evaluate the situation to figure out if the similarity provides a haven for actual rapists. If it becomes literally impossible to tell the difference between live-action child porn and simulated live-action child porn, I think I would be for banning it.
I think an interesting problem that may come up in this area is when computer simulation becomes so good that you can't tell the difference between a real child or a simulated one.
Yeah, I think ElJeffe introduced that within the first couple of pages. It was also brought up in a number of court cases dealing with child pornography laws.
And, yes, at that point, I think we would have to re-evaluate the situation to figure out if the similarity provides a haven for actual rapists. If it becomes literally impossible to tell the difference between live-action child porn and simulated live-action child porn, I think I would be for banning it.
What would this say for video evidence in general, though?
I think an interesting problem that may come up in this area is when computer simulation becomes so good that you can't tell the difference between a real child or a simulated one.
Yeah, I think ElJeffe introduced that within the first couple of pages. It was also brought up in a number of court cases dealing with child pornography laws.
And, yes, at that point, I think we would have to re-evaluate the situation to figure out if the similarity provides a haven for actual rapists. If it becomes literally impossible to tell the difference between live-action child porn and simulated live-action child porn, I think I would be for banning it.
What would this say for video evidence in general, though?
Yeah I'm thinking at that point in the hypothetical future, other forms of evidence would need to be relied upon (i.e. finding a witness, finding the actual child who was in it, etc)
I think an interesting problem that may come up in this area is when computer simulation becomes so good that you can't tell the difference between a real child or a simulated one.
Yeah, I think ElJeffe introduced that within the first couple of pages. It was also brought up in a number of court cases dealing with child pornography laws.
And, yes, at that point, I think we would have to re-evaluate the situation to figure out if the similarity provides a haven for actual rapists. If it becomes literally impossible to tell the difference between live-action child porn and simulated live-action child porn, I think I would be for banning it.
What would this say for video evidence in general, though?
Yeah...it's tricky. I don't know how I feel about this yet.
I'm hoping there will always be a way to detect "forgeries" from non-forgeries but I have to accept that there may come a time - 5, 10, 50, 500, 5000, whatever - years from now where we will not be able to. The geek in me tingles at the prospect of technology getting to that point, but the cynic in me worries what that might mean for society.
I think an interesting problem that may come up in this area is when computer simulation becomes so good that you can't tell the difference between a real child or a simulated one.
Yeah, I think ElJeffe introduced that within the first couple of pages. It was also brought up in a number of court cases dealing with child pornography laws.
And, yes, at that point, I think we would have to re-evaluate the situation to figure out if the similarity provides a haven for actual rapists. If it becomes literally impossible to tell the difference between live-action child porn and simulated live-action child porn, I think I would be for banning it.
What would this say for video evidence in general, though?
Yeah...it's tricky. I don't know how I feel about this yet.
I'm hoping there will always be a way to detect "forgeries" from non-forgeries but I have to accept that there may come a time - 5, 10, 50, 500, 5000, whatever - years from now where we will not be able to. The geek in me tingles at the prospect of technology getting to that point, but the cynic in me worries what that might mean for society.
But if you think about it, technology like that might eliminate the need to have real live actors anyway
Of course there would be a separate market for "real" stuff - but if you can't tell by looking at it...
Posts
At 18 you're not a child and that's the first time anyone but the "star" saw the film. Unless the state at some point made a habit of going through children's possessions to make sure they've never made a video of themselves masturbating. So once they turn 18 and decide to release their home-video, do you charge them with the crime of molesting themselves?
It demolishes your argument because:
I'm assuming the above means "live-action child porn." The possession and distribution is deemed harmful. This whole tangent is asinine anyway and you've been proven wrong.
What if the child was hitler, and the supreme court was entirely comprised of KKK sympathizers?
A) Documentation of what? How are you going to prove that a child wasn't coerced? That's the entire reason we have statutory rape laws.
Wow.
So now you're presenting a situation where someone tries to publish child porn that they made of themselves after they become an adult.
...
I mean this is all very fascinating, but I don't think you comprehend the scope of this debate. Nutty situations that will never, ever exist and have no relevance to any situations that might exist are rather out of the scope of this debate.
That quote doesn't respond to my example, in fact my example responds to that assertion instead. And I haven't been proven wrong, and it's not a tangent because the whole point of this thread is to make excuses to look at kiddy-porn.
Yeah, it has fuck all to do with fundamental rights that exist in this country.
Oh you are omniscient now? Tell me who wins the 2012 election. Everyone, not just the presidential candidate.
I don't think jerking it to pictures of little kids doing it is a fundamental right that exists in this country.
No, the point of this thread is that censorship is unacceptable except when the production, dissemination, or possession of the product in question causes identifiable harm to a person or to society.
Animated child pornography has not been proven to cause any identifiable harm to any person or to society.
It's really very simple, and something we concluded on page two. I understand that your mind of a dense forest of stupidity but really, how many pages do we have to go on before you grasp the concept of this thread and stop misunderstanding or mischaracterizing it? No one is justifying the existence of any kind of child porn. I think it is disgusting, personally. What I am saying is that it is not the government's job to arbitrate decency. It is the government's job to prevent abuse and harm.
The reason your entire presence in this debate is an unimportant tangent is because the people arguing this sanely and without emotion aren't concerned with the "decency" of child pornography. It is completely irrelevant. That something is "indecent" is not an acceptable reason to ban it.
Ho ho ho.
Apparently you don't think freedom of expression is a fundamental right either, at least when it's a drawing or animation that makes you feel icky.
No, I'm just sane, unlike you.
Really, you've gone off the deep end. You're presenting absurd hypotheticals, you are either misunderstanding or willfully mischaracterizing our position, and you are trying to gain ground with trivial technicalities. The end result is that you continue to look like a dumbass.
Nonsense. That one crazy anime where the floating naked-chick rips an innocent girl's head off for no reason with the heavy gore and shit in the first fifteen minutes makes me feel icky and I'm not arguing to ban that. Elfen Lied, that's the one.
So now I'm insane because I posited an example that meets the criteria your argument presents for what constitutes okay child-porn and continue to press for a response to it even though you go "I dun wanna!" over and over. That's not argumentum ad hominem at all.
Boom, medo with the headshot.
If it has no aesthetic merit and doesn't express anything except "beating the shit out of women at random is fun", yes.
Maybe it's not clear to you, but it's pretty clear to the rest of us that child porn crosses some kind of personal threshold for you. Maybe you find other things "icky" but child porn is even more "icky" and passes whatever boundary of ickiness that you are not prepared to accept.
And that's fine...I don't like it either. But it's not a valid reason for banning it. The only valid reason for banning it is if it can be proven to cause direct harm or a substantial indirect harm.
All you've done is argue that possession of child porn isn't harmful to anyone. Which is a weird and funny argument when your overall point is that all child porn should be banned.
And, no, fetishization of children has not been proven to cause harm to society. At least I missed this proof of yours. You seem to think your side of this debate should be "obvious" and you come off as very condescending. Unfortunately, you've proven nothing so you just look like you're flailing about.
Not really, ace.
(I mean, since we're just playing with silly hypotheticals that barely relate to the proposed ban on animated child porn)
Good for you. Are you going to present an argument that responds to my example or are you content to continue explicitly attacking me personally and only me personally to the exclusion of anything to do with the debate? The latter of course, and that's why I'm done. Good wanking to you.
Now I'm convinced you're just devil's advocating because you're bored.
So... good job I guess?
Sure, why not.
If you would like to present an on-topic, relevant, sane argument or example that relates to the debate, I will respond to you in that way. Sadly, you've not done this at all.
So if it's child porn with a storyline, that's cool?
Okay we'll do that.
I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from, here. It's not obvious that you have a point.
Yeah, I think ElJeffe introduced that within the first couple of pages. It was also brought up in a number of court cases dealing with child pornography laws.
And, yes, at that point, I think we would have to re-evaluate the situation to figure out if the similarity provides a haven for actual rapists. If it becomes literally impossible to tell the difference between live-action child porn and simulated live-action child porn, I think I would be for banning it.
If someones going to rape a child, watching animated porn isn't going to cause them to do it, they're already going to.
Yeah I'm thinking at that point in the hypothetical future, other forms of evidence would need to be relied upon (i.e. finding a witness, finding the actual child who was in it, etc)
Yeah...it's tricky. I don't know how I feel about this yet.
I'm hoping there will always be a way to detect "forgeries" from non-forgeries but I have to accept that there may come a time - 5, 10, 50, 500, 5000, whatever - years from now where we will not be able to. The geek in me tingles at the prospect of technology getting to that point, but the cynic in me worries what that might mean for society.
But if you think about it, technology like that might eliminate the need to have real live actors anyway
Of course there would be a separate market for "real" stuff - but if you can't tell by looking at it...
Live action would get a lot more popular I think
More popular than what? I mean, isn't it at pretty much 100% right now?
I mean more people might go out to watch live shows (stripping, live sex acts) than they do currently
And no I don't believe 100% of people who want to see a naked lady acting sexually go out to shows currently