Drez, you made a good point there, "how is this any different".
Thing is though, everyone keeps saying, "well, if we ban x, y will be next"
Well, what happens when we keep allowing x, then y?
Is there a line to eventually be drawn, weather this is it or not? I'm not advocating thoughtcrime intentionally, that was never my purpose, but seriously, how much sick shit are we going to keep allowing to cross in front of us before it's just too much?
Maybe a little more moderation wouldn't be such a bad thing?
What do you think about films like Saw? I assume you're opposed to the kind of things that happen in these films. Should they be banned? If not what makes this different?
But CGI hasn't yet hit the point where animated/generated child porn indistinguishable from the real thing is easily produced. So not as much of an issue, there.
When it does, we may have a problem.
I don't think I'd be adverse to laws requiring the producer of an animation deemed indistinguishable from the real thing to maintain records and be able to provide proof that it was animated upon request by the proper authorities. Of course, this would require that the proper authorities maintain / engage someone with the proper technical knowledge to decypher the records.
But CGI hasn't yet hit the point where animated/generated child porn indistinguishable from the real thing is easily produced. So not as much of an issue, there.
I in fact mentioned this last page, but it was buried in righteous indignation and trolling accusations.
Oh, I know. I figured it bore repeating (and another pointing out that it's not really an issue yet) as well.
That, and I had to think for a second how you can justify making rape porn illegal and not this, and decided to do it out loud (to point out the difference from child porn).
Well, then carry on.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Let's look at this another way. Does watching simulated drug use (an episode of The Wire, or a movie like Trainspotting) or a documentary that depicts real drug use promote drug use and instill uncontrollable urges to take drugs? Does killing people in GTA or reading a comic book The Dark Knight promote murder, or instill uncontrollable urges to kill? Does listening to Judas Priest make you want to kill people and commit suicide?
Haven't we been down this road like a million times, already?
The problem with child porn (real child porn, not drawings) is that there is no measure of consent from the participants. It is abuse, in of itself.
Yeah but I'm not about to invite you into my quarters to watch me whack off to rape porn.
I'd hope not. Though, if someone says "huh huh huh, I look at rape porn and whack off, huh huh huh", I'm probably not gonna talk to them that much any more. And, not just because it's TMI.
No, it's because you're a self-righteous snob, got it.
I'm self-righteous about a few, select things: Rape is one of them. Child abuse is another. Enjoying the depiction of either child abuse or rape in a sexual manner is yet another.
Most other things, I'm cool with. I don't care what your religion is or if you have no religion; what you drink or if you don't drink; what drugs you may or may not take; whether or not you pay your bills; whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or other. But use your dick to violate someone or use your dick to get off on the idea of violating someone, and I'm sorry, I just got no time for you. It's not funny. It's not cute. It's not exciting. And it's not cool, regardless of legality.
You can call me an asshole and attack me personally if you want to, if you feel you have to resort to that. But, this is one of those things I really don't think I'll be swayed on.
But CGI hasn't yet hit the point where animated/generated child porn indistinguishable from the real thing is easily produced. So not as much of an issue, there.
When it does, we may have a problem.
I don't think I'd be adverse to laws requiring the producer of an animation deemed indistinguishable from the real thing to maintain records and be able to provide proof that it was animated upon request by the proper authorities. Of course, this would require that the proper authorities maintain / engage someone with the proper technical knowledge to decypher the records.
Stuff classified as porn involving fake underage people could be subject to a tax used to fund the necessary manpower to check up on it. I'm not terribly opposed to taxing the sickest fucks in society for the ability to exercise their right to horrible, horrible shit.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Let's look at this another way. Does watching simulated drug use (an episode of The Wire, or a movie like Trainspotting) promote drug use and instill uncontrollable urges to take drugs? Does killing people in GTA or reading a comic book The Dark Knight promote murder, or instill uncontrollable urges to kill? Does listening to Judas Priest make you want to kill people and commit suicide?
Haven't we been down this road like a million times, already?
I concur, although wouldn't listening to Judas Priest just make you wear lots of leather and like the cock?
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Let's look at this another way. Does watching simulated drug use (an episode of The Wire, or a movie like Trainspotting) promote drug use and instill uncontrollable urges to take drugs? Does killing people in GTA or reading a comic book The Dark Knight promote murder, or instill uncontrollable urges to kill? Does listening to Judas Priest make you want to kill people and commit suicide?
Haven't we been down this road like a million times, already?
There's a reason a lot of pressure was placed on Hollywood to stop showing every character with a cigarette in his mouth.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Drez, you made a good point there, "how is this any different".
Thing is though, everyone keeps saying, "well, if we ban x, y will be next"
Well, what happens when we keep allowing x, then y?
Is there a line to eventually be drawn, weather this is it or not? I'm not advocating thoughtcrime intentionally, that was never my purpose, but seriously, how much sick shit are we going to keep allowing to cross in front of us before it's just too much?
Maybe a little more moderation wouldn't be such a bad thing?
Do you have any evidence that any of this is morally wrong? No? That is where the line is, when you can prove demonstrable harm. You can’t, that as they say, is the end of that. Whereas this law would create harm, to those who get three years because we find what they jack off to to be creepy.
But CGI hasn't yet hit the point where animated/generated child porn indistinguishable from the real thing is easily produced. So not as much of an issue, there.
When it does, we may have a problem.
I don't think I'd be adverse to laws requiring the producer of an animation deemed indistinguishable from the real thing to maintain records and be able to provide proof that it was animated upon request by the proper authorities. Of course, this would require that the proper authorities maintain / engage someone with the proper technical knowledge to decypher the records.
Even if this database was computerized and searchable by the authorities, you could have issues. Because in a sea of realistic CGI child porn, it'd be hard to spot the real thing and thus you'd be forced to, every time, search for every title to verify. And what about clips? Would the owners of realistic CGI porn be required to keep the title metadata intact? Otherwise how would you identify some random 1-minute clip.
On the one hand, I'd hope that societal pressure would keep the pool of realistic CGI child porn small enough that the authorities responsible for checking up on such things (poor bastards that they are) would probably know most of it on sight. On the other, the state of the porn industry regarding other niche subgenres suggests not.
Though we're not there yet, so it hardly matters. And this still wouldn't provide justification for banning other "clearly" animated (2D, hand-drawn, whatever) fake child porn.
You just need to be careful where you draw the line on what kind of entertainment (whether written, auditory, visual, or interactive) gets to be banned. Sure, you might think it seems fair to ban anything that "most" people find repugnant...but then where do you draw that line? If you drew it at even 70% or 80%, I think you'd be surprised what fell on the wrong side of it.
I concur, although wouldn't listening to Judas Priest just make you wear lots of leather and like the cock?
Let's look at this another way. Does watching simulated drug use (an episode of The Wire, or a movie like Trainspotting) promote drug use and instill uncontrollable urges to take drugs? Does killing people in GTA or reading a comic book The Dark Knight promote murder, or instill uncontrollable urges to kill? Does listening to Judas Priest make you want to kill people and commit suicide?
Haven't we been down this road like a million times, already?
There's a reason a lot of pressure was placed on Hollywood to stop showing every character with a cigarette in his mouth.
An alarmist reason, political grandstanding. Not a scientific reason. The exact same reason why laws like the one the OP is advocating are created - for politicians to score easy points. Nobody ever got cancer by watching a Marlboro commercial.
Yeah but I'm not about to invite you into my quarters to watch me whack off to rape porn.
I'd hope not. Though, if someone says "huh huh huh, I look at rape porn and whack off, huh huh huh", I'm probably not gonna talk to them that much any more. And, not just because it's TMI.
No, it's because you're a self-righteous snob, got it.
I'm self-righteous about a few, select things: Rape is one of them. Child abuse is another. Enjoying the depiction of either child abuse or rape in a sexual manner is yet another.
Most other things, I'm cool with. I don't care what your religion is or if you have no religion; what you drink or if you don't drink; what drugs you may or may not take; whether or not you pay your bills; whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or other. But use your dick to violate someone or use your dick to get off on the idea of violating someone, and I'm sorry, I just got no time for you. It's not funny. It's not cute. It's not exciting. And it's not cool, regardless of legality.
You can call me an asshole and attack me personally if you want to, if you feel you have to resort to that. But, this is one of those things I really don't think I'll be swayed on.
You do realise that sexuality isn't something you choose, right? Looking down on someone for enjoying child pornography or rape porn is absolutely no different from looking down on someone for enjoying gay porn.
You can choose to not rape someone, or to not exploit a child. You can't choose to not be turned on by either of them. If you're really going to act like you're better than someone else just because of what they are, something they have no choice in at all, then you're a bad person.
How can you have evidence if something is morally wrong? I mean according to some cultures killing and slavery aren't morally wrong?
This is all a matter of opinion and weather or not it steps on liberties of thought and speech.
You work from a basis of increasing good is morally right, increasing pain is morally wrong, give more weight to the latter then the former and work from their. I'll admit, I have little basis for this belief bar personal experiance, but I find it the perfect place to start from. You just take that and you run with it.
Stuff classified as porn involving fake underage people could be subject to a tax used to fund the necessary manpower to check up on it. I'm not terribly opposed to taxing the sickest fucks in society for the ability to exercise their right to horrible, horrible shit.
I'm not that big on sin taxes. I don't really think it's all that fair to tax someone differently because they are in different business lines than other. There's a fight coming in my jurisdiction about taxing strip clubs and other sexually-oriented businesses at a higher rate (both the businesses and customers) in order for it to be used as a social behavior governor. I'm not sure if it's kosher to tax someone more just because they're unseemly and aren't seen as contributing much to society.
Then again, there's be a lot of money made for the state in the taxation of alcohol and tobacco... so much in fact, that I don't understand why they don't legalize something like cannabis, tax it, and get mass producers to put the small farms out of business. There's a shit load of money to be made there. Even if I do disagree with the special tax (as I do with alcohol and tobacco).
I can see nothing wrong making it possible to prosecute against graphical depictions of child abuse / child sexual images as I (personally) consider them to be wrong. However I say this in the knowledge that UK law is not just based on the letter of the law but also on how it is then followed up in court. Essentially its up to the government to make the law and then the judges to decide what that means. As this law (to my understanding) is being designed to get stop pedophiles trying to get around the existing laws I doubt that any and all art/imagery of a naked child will be removed (so no modesty cloths on old classics cherubs, for example).
True this might cut down on some areas of manga but... well tbh the people that are into the loli comics just weird me out as it is so I don't see it as a great lose.
You do realise that sexuality isn't something you choose, right? Looking down on someone for enjoying child pornography or rape porn is absolutely no different from looking down on someone for enjoying gay porn.
You can choose to not rape someone, or to not exploit a child. You can't choose to not be turned on by either of them. If you're really going to act like you're better than someone else just because of what they are, something they have no choice in at all, then you're a bad person.
I'm sorry, but I don't really equate gay porn that depicts two consenting adults with child porn and especially rape porn, which completely relies on an implied lack of consent for kicks to be had, so I guess I'll just have to be a bad person.
But CGI hasn't yet hit the point where animated/generated child porn indistinguishable from the real thing is easily produced. So not as much of an issue, there.
When it does, we may have a problem.
I don't think I'd be adverse to laws requiring the producer of an animation deemed indistinguishable from the real thing to maintain records and be able to provide proof that it was animated upon request by the proper authorities. Of course, this would require that the proper authorities maintain / engage someone with the proper technical knowledge to decypher the records.
Even if this database was computerized and searchable by the authorities, you could have issues. Because in a sea of realistic CGI child porn, it'd be hard to spot the real thing and thus you'd be forced to, every time, search for every title to verify. And what about clips? Would the owners of realistic CGI porn be required to keep the title metadata intact? Otherwise how would you identify some random 1-minute clip.
On the one hand, I'd hope that societal pressure would keep the pool of realistic CGI child porn small enough that the authorities responsible for checking up on such things (poor bastards that they are) would probably know most of it on sight. On the other, the state of the porn industry regarding other niche subgenres suggests not.
Though we're not there yet, so it hardly matters. And this still wouldn't provide justification for banning other "clearly" animated (2D, hand-drawn, whatever) fake child porn.
You just need to be careful where you draw the line on what kind of entertainment (whether written, auditory, visual, or interactive) gets to be banned. Sure, you might think it seems fair to ban anything that "most" people find repugnant...but then where do you draw that line? If you drew it at even 70% or 80%, I think you'd be surprised what fell on the wrong side of it.
I honestly never considered people keeping clips, etc. on their hard drives, and not being able to trace who made it. :oops:
And while I agree with you that the industry isn't there yet, and that obviously hand- or computer- drawn stuff should not be illegal, I think the question of what we do when the industry does get there (which may not be as far off as we'd like to think) is one that is worthy of discussion.
It's certainly not a black and white issue. On one hand, there's freedom of expression, and no actual children are being harmed. On the other hand, there's the mens rea, with someone wanting to look at a naked child.
I would personally say that it should be illegal, but not carry as harsh a penalty as real child porn.
You do realise that sexuality isn't something you choose, right? Looking down on someone for enjoying child pornography or rape porn is absolutely no different from looking down on someone for enjoying gay porn.
You can choose to not rape someone, or to not exploit a child. You can't choose to not be turned on by either of them. If you're really going to act like you're better than someone else just because of what they are, something they have no choice in at all, then you're a bad person.
I'm sorry, but I don't really equate gay porn that depicts two consenting adults with child porn and especially rape porn, which completely relies on an implied lack of consent for kicks to be had, so I guess I'll just have to be a bad person.
Yeah, that's a good point. Or, it would be, if you assume no rape porn is filmed with the complete consent of everyone involved. When you consider that fact, well, then you're just choosing to be a bad person because you like feeling superior to other people, IE, a snob.
You do realise that sexuality isn't something you choose, right? Looking down on someone for enjoying child pornography or rape porn is absolutely no different from looking down on someone for enjoying gay porn.
Thank you for pointing this out. Though it's a subject for a different thread, the way society deals with pedophiles is pretty fucked up...you take people who may need treatment or at most to be segregated from society (hey, sometimes this can be necessary) and put them in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison. I understand why we do this (as with pretty much every other creature on this planet, we're fiercely protective of our children) but at the end of the day it's not like many people would choose to be child molesters.
And saying they should just "control their urges" is a load of bullshit coming from somebody who doesn't have to deal with those same urges, or control them. When was the last time you had the urge, daily, to kill somebody? If your answer is "now" then you need to seek treatment as well.
Also, this is only a step removed from saying that gays should just "control their urges" or just "learn to like chicks." The only difference being consent, of course...and it's a big one, admittedly.
Which is why I say, honestly, that if fake child porn could actually help such a person control those urges, then making it illegal is the worst thing we could do. Note that "if," as I'm not sure what link (if any) has been shown at this point between fake child porn and behavior.
You do realise that sexuality isn't something you choose, right? Looking down on someone for enjoying child pornography or rape porn is absolutely no different from looking down on someone for enjoying gay porn.
You can choose to not rape someone, or to not exploit a child. You can't choose to not be turned on by either of them. If you're really going to act like you're better than someone else just because of what they are, something they have no choice in at all, then you're a bad person.
I'm sorry, but I don't really equate gay porn that depicts two consenting adults with child porn and especially rape porn, which completely relies on an implied lack of consent for kicks to be had, so I guess I'll just have to be a bad person.
Yeah, that's a good point. Or, it would be, if you assume no rape porn is filmed with the complete consent of everyone involved. When you consider that fact, well, then you're just choosing to be a bad person because you like feeling superior to other people, IE, a snob.
Er.
Do you mean like real rape porn or simulated rape porn? Because it's not actually possible to film real rape porn with the uhm consent of everyone present.
You do realise that sexuality isn't something you choose, right? Looking down on someone for enjoying child pornography or rape porn is absolutely no different from looking down on someone for enjoying gay porn.
You can choose to not rape someone, or to not exploit a child. You can't choose to not be turned on by either of them. If you're really going to act like you're better than someone else just because of what they are, something they have no choice in at all, then you're a bad person.
I'm sorry, but I don't really equate gay porn that depicts two consenting adults with child porn and especially rape porn, which completely relies on an implied lack of consent for kicks to be had, so I guess I'll just have to be a bad person.
Yeah, that's a good point. Or, it would be, if you assume no rape porn is filmed with the complete consent of everyone involved. When you consider that fact, well, then you're just choosing to be a bad person because you like feeling superior to other people.
I'm aware that it's filmed with consent of everyone involved. However, for kicks to be had for rape porn connoseurs, doesn't there have to be an implication of a lack of consent. I.e. the woman's gotta act like she doesn't want it?
Considering the high rate of recidivism among sexual offenders (particularly molestors/pedos) I would totally advocate building Pedo Island as a place to send them away to in order to isolate them from their prey.
We could call it Japan.
Fatty McBeardo on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Which is why I say, honestly, that if fake child porn could actually help such a person control those urges, then making it illegal is the worst thing we could do. Note that "if," as I'm not sure what link (if any) has been shown at this point between fake child porn and behavior.
There's been as much of a link shown between fake child porn and stopping actual child abuse as there has between fake child porn and creating actual child abuse. None
This boils down to tolerating it or not tolerating it, and lumping it in with already illegal real child porn.
You do realise that sexuality isn't something you choose, right? Looking down on someone for enjoying child pornography or rape porn is absolutely no different from looking down on someone for enjoying gay porn.
You can choose to not rape someone, or to not exploit a child. You can't choose to not be turned on by either of them. If you're really going to act like you're better than someone else just because of what they are, something they have no choice in at all, then you're a bad person.
I'm sorry, but I don't really equate gay porn that depicts two consenting adults with child porn and especially rape porn, which completely relies on an implied lack of consent for kicks to be had, so I guess I'll just have to be a bad person.
Yeah, that's a good point. Or, it would be, if you assume no rape porn is filmed with the complete consent of everyone involved. When you consider that fact, well, then you're just choosing to be a bad person because you like feeling superior to other people.
I'm aware that it's filmed with consent of everyone involved. However, for kicks to be had for rape porn connoseurs, doesn't there have to be an implication of a lack of consent. I.e. the woman's gotta act like she doesn't want it?
Does it matter? The bottom line is it doesn't hurt anyone.
But, hey, you know what does hurt people? Discriminating against them based on their sexuality regardless of how they handle it for absolutely no reason. Guess what that makes you.
I skimmed this thread, so I may have missed something, but all I'm seeing from the folks who are in favor of the ban essentially boils down to "it's icky" and that it somehow causes more people to be pedophiles. This is a ridiculous stance and has no standing when looked at logically. There are no actual children being harmed and the idea behind anti-child porn laws is to protect children from being exploited by those who can easily do so.
Considering the high rate of recidivism among sexual offenders (particularly molestors/pedos) I would totally advocate building Pedo Island as a place to send them away to in order to isolate them from their prey.
We could call it Japan.
I thought that was a myth and they actually had a low rate of recidivism.
Also, this is only a step removed from saying that gays should just "control their urges" or just "learn to like chicks." The only difference being consent, of course...and it's a big one, admittedly.
The lack of consent is the entirety of the problem with it.
Also, this is only a step removed from saying that gays should just "control their urges" or just "learn to like chicks." The only difference being consent, of course...and it's a big one, admittedly.
The lack of consent is the entirety of the problem with it.
Simulated kiddie porn: The subject is not real.
Simulated rape porn: The subject's lack of consent is not real.
Does it matter? The bottom line is it doesn't hurt anyone.
But, hey, you know what does hurt people? Discriminating against them based on their sexuality regardless of how they handle it for absolutely no reason. Guess what that makes you.
Then I guess I'm a bad, bad man. Does that make you feel better?
GungHo on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
I'd just like to mention that assuming that such a law banning "simulated" depictions of under-18 people engaging in sex acts would lead to massive amounts of currently legal and mainstream pornography suddenly becoming contraband over night.
Virtually all hentai anime and manga involve high-school age characters, or younger. And God knows shit like Gravion has animated 14 year-old D-cupped girls running around in French maid outfits flashing their panties every 15 seconds. So that's out. Burn 'em! Burn 'em all!
And God help you if you've got an old VHS of Debbie Does Dallas sitting around. High-school cheerleader orgies? Well somebody had to be under 18, it's just common sense.
Thank God you all have me around to make these decisions for you. Don't we all feel better now?
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Does it matter? The bottom line is it doesn't hurt anyone.
But, hey, you know what does hurt people? Discriminating against them based on their sexuality regardless of how they handle it for absolutely no reason. Guess what that makes you.
Then I guess I'm a bad, bad man. Does that make you feel better?
No. You need to get help so as to avoid being harmful to society.
Considering the high rate of recidivism among sexual offenders (particularly molestors/pedos) I would totally advocate building Pedo Island as a place to send them away to in order to isolate them from their prey.
We could call it Japan.
I thought that was a myth and they actually had a low rate of recidivism.
You're probably right, I was being tongue-in-cheek in order to pick on Japan.
That being said, I do think the stakes are very high when it comes to releasing sexual offenders who were most likely sexually assaulted while in prison, not to mention they were also likely sexually abused as children. Even if the recidivism rate isn't that high, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not thanks to how we deal with them.
Does it matter? The bottom line is it doesn't hurt anyone.
But, hey, you know what does hurt people? Discriminating against them based on their sexuality regardless of how they handle it for absolutely no reason. Guess what that makes you.
Then I guess I'm a bad, bad man. Does that make you feel better?
No. You need to get help so as to avoid being harmful to society.
I'm causing harm because I don't want to associate with someone who gets their rocks off of watching rape or child porn, simulated or otherwise? I'm not going to carry a fuckin sign in front of their house. I'm not gonna send out a mailer. I'm just not going to have a beer with them. Ever.
Does it matter? The bottom line is it doesn't hurt anyone.
But, hey, you know what does hurt people? Discriminating against them based on their sexuality regardless of how they handle it for absolutely no reason. Guess what that makes you.
Then I guess I'm a bad, bad man. Does that make you feel better?
No. You need to get help so as to avoid being harmful to society.
He doesn't like that you get off to people being raped, I don't see how that makes him harmful to society, it just means he has a different opinion than you.
You are arguing that his distaste of your opinion makes him harmful to society while advocating the point that someone saying hey, your opinion is bad so you are bad is harmful to society
Does it matter? The bottom line is it doesn't hurt anyone.
But, hey, you know what does hurt people? Discriminating against them based on their sexuality regardless of how they handle it for absolutely no reason. Guess what that makes you.
Then I guess I'm a bad, bad man. Does that make you feel better?
No. You need to get help so as to avoid being harmful to society.
I'm causing harm because I don't want to associate with someone who gets their rocks off of watching rape or child porn, simulated or otherwise? I'm not going to carry a fuckin sign in front of their house. I'm not gonna send out a mailer. I'm just not going to have a beer with them. Ever.
Thus contributing to the overall social rejection of people for no reason at all.
Another reason to oppose this law: It would destroy 4chan, and without 4chan where are we going to get funny pictures of cats? The Internet would lapse into crisis.
Posts
When it does, we may have a problem.
I don't think I'd be adverse to laws requiring the producer of an animation deemed indistinguishable from the real thing to maintain records and be able to provide proof that it was animated upon request by the proper authorities. Of course, this would require that the proper authorities maintain / engage someone with the proper technical knowledge to decypher the records.
Well, then carry on.
Haven't we been down this road like a million times, already?
The problem with child porn (real child porn, not drawings) is that there is no measure of consent from the participants. It is abuse, in of itself.
Most other things, I'm cool with. I don't care what your religion is or if you have no religion; what you drink or if you don't drink; what drugs you may or may not take; whether or not you pay your bills; whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or other. But use your dick to violate someone or use your dick to get off on the idea of violating someone, and I'm sorry, I just got no time for you. It's not funny. It's not cute. It's not exciting. And it's not cool, regardless of legality.
You can call me an asshole and attack me personally if you want to, if you feel you have to resort to that. But, this is one of those things I really don't think I'll be swayed on.
Stuff classified as porn involving fake underage people could be subject to a tax used to fund the necessary manpower to check up on it. I'm not terribly opposed to taxing the sickest fucks in society for the ability to exercise their right to horrible, horrible shit.
I concur, although wouldn't listening to Judas Priest just make you wear lots of leather and like the cock?
~ Buckaroo Banzai
There's a reason a lot of pressure was placed on Hollywood to stop showing every character with a cigarette in his mouth.
How can you have evidence if something is morally wrong? I mean according to some cultures killing and slavery aren't morally wrong?
This is all a matter of opinion and weather or not it steps on liberties of thought and speech.
Even if this database was computerized and searchable by the authorities, you could have issues. Because in a sea of realistic CGI child porn, it'd be hard to spot the real thing and thus you'd be forced to, every time, search for every title to verify. And what about clips? Would the owners of realistic CGI porn be required to keep the title metadata intact? Otherwise how would you identify some random 1-minute clip.
On the one hand, I'd hope that societal pressure would keep the pool of realistic CGI child porn small enough that the authorities responsible for checking up on such things (poor bastards that they are) would probably know most of it on sight. On the other, the state of the porn industry regarding other niche subgenres suggests not.
Though we're not there yet, so it hardly matters. And this still wouldn't provide justification for banning other "clearly" animated (2D, hand-drawn, whatever) fake child porn.
You just need to be careful where you draw the line on what kind of entertainment (whether written, auditory, visual, or interactive) gets to be banned. Sure, you might think it seems fair to ban anything that "most" people find repugnant...but then where do you draw that line? If you drew it at even 70% or 80%, I think you'd be surprised what fell on the wrong side of it.
Is that what happened? Shit!
An alarmist reason, political grandstanding. Not a scientific reason. The exact same reason why laws like the one the OP is advocating are created - for politicians to score easy points. Nobody ever got cancer by watching a Marlboro commercial.
You do realise that sexuality isn't something you choose, right? Looking down on someone for enjoying child pornography or rape porn is absolutely no different from looking down on someone for enjoying gay porn.
You can choose to not rape someone, or to not exploit a child. You can't choose to not be turned on by either of them. If you're really going to act like you're better than someone else just because of what they are, something they have no choice in at all, then you're a bad person.
You work from a basis of increasing good is morally right, increasing pain is morally wrong, give more weight to the latter then the former and work from their. I'll admit, I have little basis for this belief bar personal experiance, but I find it the perfect place to start from. You just take that and you run with it.
p.s. it's whether.
Then again, there's be a lot of money made for the state in the taxation of alcohol and tobacco... so much in fact, that I don't understand why they don't legalize something like cannabis, tax it, and get mass producers to put the small farms out of business. There's a shit load of money to be made there. Even if I do disagree with the special tax (as I do with alcohol and tobacco).
It absolutely steps on liberties of thought and speech.
AH, what else would you ban?
Drawings of bestiality?
Drawings of slavery?
Drawings of murder and killing?
Drawings that depict racist stereotypes?
I guess we should just follow what makes you feel "icky"?
True this might cut down on some areas of manga but... well tbh the people that are into the loli comics just weird me out as it is so I don't see it as a great lose.
I honestly never considered people keeping clips, etc. on their hard drives, and not being able to trace who made it. :oops:
And while I agree with you that the industry isn't there yet, and that obviously hand- or computer- drawn stuff should not be illegal, I think the question of what we do when the industry does get there (which may not be as far off as we'd like to think) is one that is worthy of discussion.
I would personally say that it should be illegal, but not carry as harsh a penalty as real child porn.
Yeah, that's a good point. Or, it would be, if you assume no rape porn is filmed with the complete consent of everyone involved. When you consider that fact, well, then you're just choosing to be a bad person because you like feeling superior to other people, IE, a snob.
Thank you for pointing this out. Though it's a subject for a different thread, the way society deals with pedophiles is pretty fucked up...you take people who may need treatment or at most to be segregated from society (hey, sometimes this can be necessary) and put them in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison. I understand why we do this (as with pretty much every other creature on this planet, we're fiercely protective of our children) but at the end of the day it's not like many people would choose to be child molesters.
And saying they should just "control their urges" is a load of bullshit coming from somebody who doesn't have to deal with those same urges, or control them. When was the last time you had the urge, daily, to kill somebody? If your answer is "now" then you need to seek treatment as well.
Also, this is only a step removed from saying that gays should just "control their urges" or just "learn to like chicks." The only difference being consent, of course...and it's a big one, admittedly.
Which is why I say, honestly, that if fake child porn could actually help such a person control those urges, then making it illegal is the worst thing we could do. Note that "if," as I'm not sure what link (if any) has been shown at this point between fake child porn and behavior.
Er.
Do you mean like real rape porn or simulated rape porn? Because it's not actually possible to film real rape porn with the uhm consent of everyone present.
We could call it Japan.
There's been as much of a link shown between fake child porn and stopping actual child abuse as there has between fake child porn and creating actual child abuse. None
This boils down to tolerating it or not tolerating it, and lumping it in with already illegal real child porn.
Does it matter? The bottom line is it doesn't hurt anyone.
But, hey, you know what does hurt people? Discriminating against them based on their sexuality regardless of how they handle it for absolutely no reason. Guess what that makes you.
I thought that was a myth and they actually had a low rate of recidivism.
Simulated kiddie porn: The subject is not real.
Simulated rape porn: The subject's lack of consent is not real.
You have absolutely no argument.
Virtually all hentai anime and manga involve high-school age characters, or younger. And God knows shit like Gravion has animated 14 year-old D-cupped girls running around in French maid outfits flashing their panties every 15 seconds. So that's out. Burn 'em! Burn 'em all!
And God help you if you've got an old VHS of Debbie Does Dallas sitting around. High-school cheerleader orgies? Well somebody had to be under 18, it's just common sense.
Thank God you all have me around to make these decisions for you. Don't we all feel better now?
No. You need to get help so as to avoid being harmful to society.
No, no...Japan is a real country. At least I think it is...I've never actually been there. Hmm...
You're probably right, I was being tongue-in-cheek in order to pick on Japan.
That being said, I do think the stakes are very high when it comes to releasing sexual offenders who were most likely sexually assaulted while in prison, not to mention they were also likely sexually abused as children. Even if the recidivism rate isn't that high, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not thanks to how we deal with them.
He doesn't like that you get off to people being raped, I don't see how that makes him harmful to society, it just means he has a different opinion than you.
You are arguing that his distaste of your opinion makes him harmful to society while advocating the point that someone saying hey, your opinion is bad so you are bad is harmful to society
Thus contributing to the overall social rejection of people for no reason at all.
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that ostracising someone because of your distaste for their preferences is harmful and serves no purpose whatsoever.