But for possession and distribution to occur production has to. Also like I said I don't agree with animated kiddie porn, but when something causes no harm to someone, how can we tell them it has no aesthetic value.
Because aesthetic value isn't defined by whether or not it harms someone. Harming someone or not is irrelevant to whether or not a piece has aesthetic value, we don't allow harming people because we can't for society to function. And note that while importing Cuban cigars is illegal, possessing them is not, even though they have to be imported in order for possession to occur.
But whether or not the production or dissemination of something causes harm is the only valid reason for banning it.
Then you agree that there is no valid reason for a ban on the possession or dissemination of live-action child-porn.
I could make a case suggesting that the dissemination of live-action child-porn is harmful because the existence of a trade of snuff-class media (i.e. stuff that is illegal to produce) would increase the production of the banned product. Also, it just doesn't make logical sense to legally allow the trade of goods that are illegal to produce.
I could make a similar case for the possession of live-action child porn.
I mean, I see where you are going with this, and while it is an interesting point from an idealistic perspective, I think it is reasonable to suggest that allowing the possession and trade of contraband is responsible for propagating the creation of said contraband. And since the production of live-action child porn is and should be illegal, dissemination and possession of live-action child porn could reasonably be shown to cause indirect harm to ban them as well.
Yes, I am arguing that the production of live-action child porn is illegal. However, this illegality transfers to the produced art, too, and so the product becomes contraband. If you cannot legally produce something, then the existence of anything created by that illegal action is also legally invalid.
That's odd because I could swear that I could walk uptown and buy a fucking huge bong in a retail store, even though marijuana paraphernalia is contraband and bongs are not a valid means of smoking tobacco.
A quick google search concludes that the information you've just presented either depends on which state your in or is outright incorrect. The retail shop you refer to may, in fact, be selling something illegal. I don't know.
Either way, I don't think you'll be proving your case by suggesting that bongs are a legal good, even if you could prove that they are.
Actually in some states you get away with bongs because they can be used for tobacco and aren't paraphernalia unless their is drug residue on them
Plus you can use them to hold flowers, can't you?
The only legitimate use for child porn is, well, watching child porn. I mean, maybe you could use the DVD case to help prop up the short leg of a slanted table, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DVD case is illegal, just the porn itself.
Actually in some states you get away with bongs because they can be used for tobacco and aren't paraphernalia unless their is drug residue on them
Plus you can use them to hold flowers, can't you?
The only legitimate use for child porn is, well, watching child porn. I mean, maybe you could use the DVD case to help prop up the short leg of a slanted table, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DVD case is illegal, just the porn itself.
Wait is the problem that watching child-porn is bad or that harming people is bad now?
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
Actually in some states you get away with bongs because they can be used for tobacco and aren't paraphernalia unless their is drug residue on them
It's the intent. Of course the store knows you're buying it for pot, but as said, some states are willing to grant the "possibility" that you grow your own tobacco.
Carrying that onto animated child porn, what would an average citizen assume the intent is? To toss one off and then go watch TV, or to better prepare for sex with a minor? The problem being the vocal citizen here in the US seems to got Jesus in a big way, often out-shouting the majority.
While there are child molesters out there, I would like to think that circle of people is smaller and while over-lapping, is distinct from the circle of people who like to watch animated porn.
Actually in some states you get away with bongs because they can be used for tobacco and aren't paraphernalia unless their is drug residue on them
Plus you can use them to hold flowers, can't you?
The only legitimate use for child porn is, well, watching child porn. I mean, maybe you could use the DVD case to help prop up the short leg of a slanted table, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DVD case is illegal, just the porn itself.
Wait is the problem that watching child-porn is bad or that harming people is bad now?
It's that harming people is bad. Did you lose the train of thought I provided for you?
1) The existence of live-action child porn suggests the production of live-action child porn.
2) The production of live-action child porn is illegal.
3) Therefore the existence of live-action child porn is illegal.
4) Possessing and/or distributing/disseminating things that don't have legal existence is illegal.
And I provided you with alternate justifications for #4 up there.
I didn't think I should have to reiterate my point every time I made a statement. When I say "the only legitimate use for child porn is watching child porn," please don't pretend like my other comments just went away. Also, please note the word "legitimate" in my statement. I don't think watching live-action child porn is necessarily illegal, if you could cut that action out of all the other things that lead into someone watching live-action child porn and stick the action in a bubble. But you can't.
Actually in some states you get away with bongs because they can be used for tobacco and aren't paraphernalia unless their is drug residue on them
Plus you can use them to hold flowers, can't you?
The only legitimate use for child porn is, well, watching child porn. I mean, maybe you could use the DVD case to help prop up the short leg of a slanted table, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DVD case is illegal, just the porn itself.
Wait is the problem that watching child-porn is bad or that harming people is bad now?
It's that harming people is bad. Did you lose the train of thought I provided for you?
1) The existence of live-action child porn suggests the production of live-action child porn.
2) The production of live-action child porn is illegal.
3) Therefore the existence of live-action child porn is illegal.
4) Possessing and/or distributing/disseminating things that don't have legal existence is illegal.
And I provided you with alternate justifications for #4 up there.
I didn't think I should have to reiterate my point every time I made a statement. When I say "the only legitimate use for child porn is watching child porn," please don't pretend like my other comments just went away. Also, please note the word "legitimate" in my statement. I don't think watching live-action child porn is necessarily illegal, if you could cut that action out of all the other things that lead into someone watching live-action child porn and stick the action in a bubble. But you can't.
Actually it's more that you changed your train of thought. See, the only legitimate use for animated child-porn is to find a way around the law to watch child-porn. Much like the disgusting thought of trying to smoke tobacco through a bong. Allowing possession of animated child-porn would also encourage production of live-action child-porn unless you can demonstrate that the majority of people who consume animated child-porn are expressly not interested in sexual fantasies involving real humans.
I have not followed the discussion at all, just read the last post and thought I'd chip in.
I'm not sure that there is a logical implication from 2 to 3. You use the verb production in 2, then you say that the only use for child porn is to WATCH it. I have no idea if it's illegal to watch child porn, it probably is, but if it wasn't explicitely outlawed(production AND possession) you'd be not only logically, but factually wrong. I'm pretty sure that separate laws for the different activites are explicitly needed, and you can't outlaw "the existence" of something, unless you word the law exactly in that way.
Actually in some states you get away with bongs because they can be used for tobacco and aren't paraphernalia unless their is drug residue on them
Plus you can use them to hold flowers, can't you?
The only legitimate use for child porn is, well, watching child porn. I mean, maybe you could use the DVD case to help prop up the short leg of a slanted table, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DVD case is illegal, just the porn itself.
Wait is the problem that watching child-porn is bad or that harming people is bad now?
It's that harming people is bad. Did you lose the train of thought I provided for you?
1) The existence of live-action child porn suggests the production of live-action child porn.
2) The production of live-action child porn is illegal.
3) Therefore the existence of live-action child porn is illegal.
4) Possessing and/or distributing/disseminating things that don't have legal existence is illegal.
And I provided you with alternate justifications for #4 up there.
I didn't think I should have to reiterate my point every time I made a statement. When I say "the only legitimate use for child porn is watching child porn," please don't pretend like my other comments just went away. Also, please note the word "legitimate" in my statement. I don't think watching live-action child porn is necessarily illegal, if you could cut that action out of all the other things that lead into someone watching live-action child porn and stick the action in a bubble. But you can't.
Actually it's more that you changed your train of thought. See, the only legitimate use for animated child-porn is to find a way around the law to watch child-porn.
Sorry, what? I'm only talking about live-action child porn. Animated child-porn should be completely legal: production, dissemination, and possession are all fine. No one is harmed in any of these things.
My ultimate point is this: If all possible methods of producing something is illegal, then the producible object is illegal. If the object is illegal, then disseminating, owning, or trading the object is also illegal.
You're just looking for some kind of warped technicality here to get me to admit that live-action child porn is okay in some senses. It isn't, and that's not because I think it's wrong to watch live-action child porn, but rather that I agree with the U.S.'s legal framework which, historically, has suggested that anything that is illegal to produce is, itself, illegal, and that the dissemination and possession of illegal goods are also illegal.
But no ones being harmed in the creation of animated child porn.
In as much as no one's being harmed in the possession of live-action child-porn, yes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the possession of live action child porn may be regarded as a direct subsidy for a criminal activity and the existing criminal market. How can an analogy be made from live action to animated?(if I am LTTP and it's already been discussed, I'd bow my head in shame...)
Actually in some states you get away with bongs because they can be used for tobacco and aren't paraphernalia unless their is drug residue on them
Plus you can use them to hold flowers, can't you?
The only legitimate use for child porn is, well, watching child porn. I mean, maybe you could use the DVD case to help prop up the short leg of a slanted table, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DVD case is illegal, just the porn itself.
Wait is the problem that watching child-porn is bad or that harming people is bad now?
It's that harming people is bad. Did you lose the train of thought I provided for you?
1) The existence of live-action child porn suggests the production of live-action child porn.
2) The production of live-action child porn is illegal.
3) Therefore the existence of live-action child porn is illegal.
4) Possessing and/or distributing/disseminating things that don't have legal existence is illegal.
And I provided you with alternate justifications for #4 up there.
I didn't think I should have to reiterate my point every time I made a statement. When I say "the only legitimate use for child porn is watching child porn," please don't pretend like my other comments just went away. Also, please note the word "legitimate" in my statement. I don't think watching live-action child porn is necessarily illegal, if you could cut that action out of all the other things that lead into someone watching live-action child porn and stick the action in a bubble. But you can't.
Actually it's more that you changed your train of thought. See, the only legitimate use for animated child-porn is to find a way around the law to watch child-porn.
Sorry, what? I'm only talking about live-action child porn. Animated child-porn should be completely legal: production, dissemination, and possession are all fine. No one is harmed in any of these things.
My ultimate point is this: If all possible methods of producing something is illegal, then the producible object is illegal. If the object is illegal, then disseminating, owning, or trading the object is also illegal.
You're just looking for some kind of warped technicality here to get me to admit that live-action child porn is okay in some senses. It isn't, and that's not because I think it's wrong to watch live-action child porn, but rather that I agree with the U.S.'s legal framework which, historically, has suggested that anything that is illegal to produce is, itself, illegal, and that the dissemination and possession of illegal goods are also illegal.
I'm actually not trying to get you to say that any child-porn is okay at all. That's pretty explicitly the opposite of my objective. You just keep presenting arguments that defend a right to possess child-porn. How does allowing people to make and possess and use animated child-porn not create a market for the real thing if possession of the real thing creates a market for further production?
Allowing possession of animated child-porn would also encourage production of live-action child-porn unless you can demonstrate that the majority of people who consume animated child-porn are expressly not interested in sexual fantasies involving real humans.
I already stated - pages ago - why this kind of suggestion has zero value in this debate. (Psst: It's because you're pulling this suggestion out of your ass.)
The burden isn't on me to "demonstrate" that animated child-porn doesn't lead to the production of live-action child porn. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it does. It hasn't been proven, therefore this comment has no value.
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) What's interesting is that child pornography does not actually have any First Amendment protection at all; It is not under an obscenity standard and does not have to appeal to any prurient interest for both production and possession to be illegal. (NY v. Ferber)
So the ban on child porn is for protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors and in destroying the market for the exploitative use of children. (Osborne) The harm of exploitation to an actual child is regarded as ongoing and persistent. SCOTUS never justifies it with the paternalistic interest in protecting the mind of an adult, nor does it justify it with the fact that an adult might go out and start having sex with children after viewing.
As has been said more than a few times in this thread, there are no victims or children involved in purely virtual CP. There is no-one to be exploited or harmed, so the mere possession of the stuff by an adult in the privacy of his or her home cannot be banned. (Stanley v. Georgia) That is not to say that the distribution cannot be regulated, as Stanley only applies to the privacy of one's home.
Arguments against banning animated child pornography.
1) No child is actually being harmed in the work itself.
2) Pedophilia, like many sexual disorders, isn't necessarily caused by the pornography itself but rather derived from an individual's sexual preference. We all have our fetishes that provoke sexual stimuli but what separates pedophiles from the rest of us is that they require a partner that is incapable of consenting.
3) Where there's demand, there's supply. Better that those who enjoy that sort of thing look to media where there is no victim, which would then take business away from underground porn rings that actually do victimize children. If it were legal, more potential kiddy porn providers may opt for the animated variety.
Arguments for banning:
1) Child pornography, either actual, animated or using "young-looking" actors, could still help to reinforce the pedophilia. The consequences of making such material accepted in society are simply impossible to predict, blurring the line between fantasy and reality as the technology improves.
Allowing possession of animated child-porn would also encourage production of live-action child-porn unless you can demonstrate that the majority of people who consume animated child-porn are expressly not interested in sexual fantasies involving real humans.
I already stated - pages ago - why this kind of suggestion has zero value in this debate. (Psst: It's because you're pulling this suggestion out of your ass.)
The burden isn't on me to "demonstrate" that animated child-porn doesn't lead to the production of live-action child porn. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it does. It hasn't been proven, therefore this comment has no value.
I don't see how the two markets are markedly different or separate. That's the positive-claim you're making that you need to support. Mis-stating my argument as a "prove a negative" fallacy doesn't make it so. If allowing people to possess child-porn that already exists causes production of additional child-porn, then that's what it does. I don't see how the assertion that people who dig child-porn dig child-porn gets to be written off without being responded to. You have to establish a difference between the two markets to claim that they're separate markets.
Allowing possession of animated child-porn would also encourage production of live-action child-porn unless you can demonstrate that the majority of people who consume animated child-porn are expressly not interested in sexual fantasies involving real humans.
I already stated - pages ago - why this kind of suggestion has zero value in this debate. (Psst: It's because you're pulling this suggestion out of your ass.)
The burden isn't on me to "demonstrate" that animated child-porn doesn't lead to the production of live-action child porn. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it does. It hasn't been proven, therefore this comment has no value.
I don't see how the two markets are markedly different or separate. That's the positive-claim you're making that you need to support. Mis-stating my argument as a "prove a negative" fallacy doesn't make it so. If allowing people to possess child-porn that already exists causes production of additional child-porn, then that's what it does. I don't see how the assertion that people who dig child-porn dig child-porn gets to be written off without being responded to. You have to establish a difference between the two markets to claim that they're separate markets.
The positive claim you are making is that possession of child porn leads to the production of child porn. I cannot even make that claim about live-action child porn and thankfully, the crux of my argument about banning possession of live-action child porn doesn't depend on the truth or falsity of this. You've also presented the argument that child porn propagates "indecent" and illegal activity. The "decency" angle is dumb and that watching child porn propagates its creation is an unfounded positive supposition that you'd need to prove before it becomes valid.
But here, if it makes it easier for you, I'll change my position: let's not ban the possession of child porn. You win that argument I guess. I no longer care if the possession of live-action child porn is banned. Production should still be banned, of course. This whole argument is an unimportant tangent.
I'll go ahead and respond to your inanity, though. The two markets are different because one sells product that actually requires ACTIVELY RAPING CHILDREN to create and the other sells product that consists of drawing children in sexual acts. The same buyers may exist in both markets but that doesn't suggest anything about the producers and sellers and it doesn't suggest that the existence of one will fuel or propagate the other.
Ask someone who has been sexually molested, especially on camera, how they would feel about said videos still existing.
Yes I'm sure someone who was raped on camera at 12 is going to be okay with cartoons of 12 year-olds getting raped like 9 times out of 10.
You're talking about the issue with live action, and it not causing harm after the fact, but I disagree.
And you're defending finding loop-holes to watch child-porn legally. So what if the kid made the film himself at 12, held onto it until he was 18, then personally authorized distribution?
Ask someone who has been sexually molested, especially on camera, how they would feel about said videos still existing.
Yes I'm sure someone who was raped on camera at 12 is going to be okay with cartoons of 12 year-olds getting raped like 9 times out of 10.
You're talking about the issue with live action, and it not causing harm after the fact, but I disagree.
And you're defending finding loop-holes to watch child-porn legally. So what if the kid made the film himself at 12, held onto it until he was 18, then personally authorized distribution?
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.
Ask someone who has been sexually molested, especially on camera, how they would feel about said videos still existing.
Yes I'm sure someone who was raped on camera at 12 is going to be okay with cartoons of 12 year-olds getting raped like 9 times out of 10.
You're talking about the issue with live action, and it not causing harm after the fact, but I disagree.
And you're defending finding loop-holes to watch child-porn legally. So what if the kid made the film himself at 12, held onto it until he was 18, then personally authorized distribution?
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?
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.
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.
Ask someone who has been sexually molested, especially on camera, how they would feel about said videos still existing.
Yes I'm sure someone who was raped on camera at 12 is going to be okay with cartoons of 12 year-olds getting raped like 9 times out of 10.
You're talking about the issue with live action, and it not causing harm after the fact, but I disagree.
And you're defending finding loop-holes to watch child-porn legally. So what if the kid made the film himself at 12, held onto it until he was 18, then personally authorized distribution?
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?
The child. They're too young at 12 to make that kind of decision.
Ask someone who has been sexually molested, especially on camera, how they would feel about said videos still existing.
Yes I'm sure someone who was raped on camera at 12 is going to be okay with cartoons of 12 year-olds getting raped like 9 times out of 10.
You're talking about the issue with live action, and it not causing harm after the fact, but I disagree.
And you're defending finding loop-holes to watch child-porn legally. So what if the kid made the film himself at 12, held onto it until he was 18, then personally authorized distribution?
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?
The child. They're too young at 12 to make that kind of decision.
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?
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.
Posts
A quick google search concludes that the information you've just presented either depends on which state your in or is outright incorrect. The retail shop you refer to may, in fact, be selling something illegal. I don't know.
Either way, I don't think you'll be proving your case by suggesting that bongs are a legal good, even if you could prove that they are.
Plus you can use them to hold flowers, can't you?
The only legitimate use for child porn is, well, watching child porn. I mean, maybe you could use the DVD case to help prop up the short leg of a slanted table, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DVD case is illegal, just the porn itself.
Wait is the problem that watching child-porn is bad or that harming people is bad now?
It's the intent. Of course the store knows you're buying it for pot, but as said, some states are willing to grant the "possibility" that you grow your own tobacco.
Carrying that onto animated child porn, what would an average citizen assume the intent is? To toss one off and then go watch TV, or to better prepare for sex with a minor? The problem being the vocal citizen here in the US seems to got Jesus in a big way, often out-shouting the majority.
While there are child molesters out there, I would like to think that circle of people is smaller and while over-lapping, is distinct from the circle of people who like to watch animated porn.
It's that harming people is bad. Did you lose the train of thought I provided for you?
1) The existence of live-action child porn suggests the production of live-action child porn.
2) The production of live-action child porn is illegal.
3) Therefore the existence of live-action child porn is illegal.
4) Possessing and/or distributing/disseminating things that don't have legal existence is illegal.
And I provided you with alternate justifications for #4 up there.
I didn't think I should have to reiterate my point every time I made a statement. When I say "the only legitimate use for child porn is watching child porn," please don't pretend like my other comments just went away. Also, please note the word "legitimate" in my statement. I don't think watching live-action child porn is necessarily illegal, if you could cut that action out of all the other things that lead into someone watching live-action child porn and stick the action in a bubble. But you can't.
Actually it's more that you changed your train of thought. See, the only legitimate use for animated child-porn is to find a way around the law to watch child-porn. Much like the disgusting thought of trying to smoke tobacco through a bong. Allowing possession of animated child-porn would also encourage production of live-action child-porn unless you can demonstrate that the majority of people who consume animated child-porn are expressly not interested in sexual fantasies involving real humans.
I have not followed the discussion at all, just read the last post and thought I'd chip in.
I'm not sure that there is a logical implication from 2 to 3. You use the verb production in 2, then you say that the only use for child porn is to WATCH it. I have no idea if it's illegal to watch child porn, it probably is, but if it wasn't explicitely outlawed(production AND possession) you'd be not only logically, but factually wrong. I'm pretty sure that separate laws for the different activites are explicitly needed, and you can't outlaw "the existence" of something, unless you word the law exactly in that way.
In as much as no one's being harmed in the possession of live-action child-porn, yes.
Sorry, what? I'm only talking about live-action child porn. Animated child-porn should be completely legal: production, dissemination, and possession are all fine. No one is harmed in any of these things.
My ultimate point is this: If all possible methods of producing something is illegal, then the producible object is illegal. If the object is illegal, then disseminating, owning, or trading the object is also illegal.
You're just looking for some kind of warped technicality here to get me to admit that live-action child porn is okay in some senses. It isn't, and that's not because I think it's wrong to watch live-action child porn, but rather that I agree with the U.S.'s legal framework which, historically, has suggested that anything that is illegal to produce is, itself, illegal, and that the dissemination and possession of illegal goods are also illegal.
Either God or physics departments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the possession of live action child porn may be regarded as a direct subsidy for a criminal activity and the existing criminal market. How can an analogy be made from live action to animated?(if I am LTTP and it's already been discussed, I'd bow my head in shame...)
God has Johnny Cochran now.
I'm actually not trying to get you to say that any child-porn is okay at all. That's pretty explicitly the opposite of my objective. You just keep presenting arguments that defend a right to possess child-porn. How does allowing people to make and possess and use animated child-porn not create a market for the real thing if possession of the real thing creates a market for further production?
I already stated - pages ago - why this kind of suggestion has zero value in this debate. (Psst: It's because you're pulling this suggestion out of your ass.)
The burden isn't on me to "demonstrate" that animated child-porn doesn't lead to the production of live-action child porn. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it does. It hasn't been proven, therefore this comment has no value.
So the ban on child porn is for protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors and in destroying the market for the exploitative use of children. (Osborne) The harm of exploitation to an actual child is regarded as ongoing and persistent. SCOTUS never justifies it with the paternalistic interest in protecting the mind of an adult, nor does it justify it with the fact that an adult might go out and start having sex with children after viewing.
As has been said more than a few times in this thread, there are no victims or children involved in purely virtual CP. There is no-one to be exploited or harmed, so the mere possession of the stuff by an adult in the privacy of his or her home cannot be banned. (Stanley v. Georgia) That is not to say that the distribution cannot be regulated, as Stanley only applies to the privacy of one's home.
But possession can't exist without creation. You can't make the same argument with animated.
1) No child is actually being harmed in the work itself.
2) Pedophilia, like many sexual disorders, isn't necessarily caused by the pornography itself but rather derived from an individual's sexual preference. We all have our fetishes that provoke sexual stimuli but what separates pedophiles from the rest of us is that they require a partner that is incapable of consenting.
3) Where there's demand, there's supply. Better that those who enjoy that sort of thing look to media where there is no victim, which would then take business away from underground porn rings that actually do victimize children. If it were legal, more potential kiddy porn providers may opt for the animated variety.
Arguments for banning:
1) Child pornography, either actual, animated or using "young-looking" actors, could still help to reinforce the pedophilia. The consequences of making such material accepted in society are simply impossible to predict, blurring the line between fantasy and reality as the technology improves.
I don't see how the two markets are markedly different or separate. That's the positive-claim you're making that you need to support. Mis-stating my argument as a "prove a negative" fallacy doesn't make it so. If allowing people to possess child-porn that already exists causes production of additional child-porn, then that's what it does. I don't see how the assertion that people who dig child-porn dig child-porn gets to be written off without being responded to. You have to establish a difference between the two markets to claim that they're separate markets.
It has already been created, there is plenty of child-porn out there as it is. Possession does not require further harm.
Yes I'm sure someone who was raped on camera at 12 is going to be okay with cartoons of 12 year-olds getting raped like 9 times out of 10.
Well at least they'll be a character they can relate too.
Win.
You're talking about the issue with live action, and it not causing harm after the fact, but I disagree.
The positive claim you are making is that possession of child porn leads to the production of child porn. I cannot even make that claim about live-action child porn and thankfully, the crux of my argument about banning possession of live-action child porn doesn't depend on the truth or falsity of this. You've also presented the argument that child porn propagates "indecent" and illegal activity. The "decency" angle is dumb and that watching child porn propagates its creation is an unfounded positive supposition that you'd need to prove before it becomes valid.
But here, if it makes it easier for you, I'll change my position: let's not ban the possession of child porn. You win that argument I guess. I no longer care if the possession of live-action child porn is banned. Production should still be banned, of course. This whole argument is an unimportant tangent.
I'll go ahead and respond to your inanity, though. The two markets are different because one sells product that actually requires ACTIVELY RAPING CHILDREN to create and the other sells product that consists of drawing children in sexual acts. The same buyers may exist in both markets but that doesn't suggest anything about the producers and sellers and it doesn't suggest that the existence of one will fuel or propagate the other.
And you're defending finding loop-holes to watch child-porn legally. So what if the kid made the film himself at 12, held onto it until he was 18, then personally authorized distribution?
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
A) Sure there is, documentation.
The child. They're too young at 12 to make that kind of decision.
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?
Case in point: Bad Kitty's.
Actually in that case the child would be put into protective care, and the parents would be investigated.
It doesn't demolish the present argument, actually. The Supreme Court allows child-porn that doesn't harm children. That's their stated reasoning.