- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
lol, whatever. You could and would and it'd be completeeeely legal and morally approved by the government. (viewing and or recording the events, not creating the events. A good distinction)
lol, whatever. You could and would and it'd be completeeeely legal and morally approved by the government. (viewing and or recording the events, not creating the events. A good distinction)
If the only thing that arouses you is children what is your eventual outlet?
Normal porn you can fanaticize, or get a hooker, or sleep around with crazy craigslist chicks.
If it's children, and you want to have real, satisfying sex as most adult males do, there aren't a lot of options that don't involve abusing a child. You can try and fanaticize, or find partners willing to role play (they do exist) but your options are more limited.
I don't see child sex abuse shifting with time like regular porn has, but that's just my opinion.
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
Some people never fuck anyone, you do realize that right? Similarly, you can still fuck an adult if you want. That's not off the table (unless the person really can't have sex with adults because it's so repulsive or something) but you can't realize whatever fantasy you may have with an actual minor. You can try to realize it with roleplay with an adult or something but whatever.
Your basic argument boils down to this: "Oh, but you HAVE to have sex somehow... you just HAVE to." No, you don't. People go decades perfectly fine without sex. You ever see those nuns? Yeah, some get inducted in pretty early and never get laid their whole life. Others don't get laid their whole life because they're rejected by everyone. Yet they live and never rape anyone. Totally fucking doable.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 18,418
- 11,032
- 136
My eyebrows have been raised long enough for them to start to ache when considering and responding to these comments. I've gone back to the relevant posts to make sure I understood the context correctly more than once.
Why on earth would you want to watch someone being sexually abused or put in a microwave?
If you are experiencing such urges, please seek professional help.
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
I don't watch any but if I wanted to, I could. It'd be no big deal and I'd jerk off to it too! ('cause, it's legal, and it'd be a shame to not exercise my freedoms as an 'merikan!) But, hey, I want to go watch anything considered CP by the government? Nah, I can't do that. That would be truly sick and I'm no sicko!! Also... it's illegal.
It doesn't matter why I'm posting this argument. Stick to the topic at hand and stop trying to deride me. You guys are only disgracing yourselves by stooping to such a low level of insults. You cannot come up with good counterarguments and are now using ad-hominems.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 18,418
- 11,032
- 136
Please point out where I've insulted you.
You asked why viewing CP is illegal yet watching someone get beheaded in the name of terrorism is not illegal and I responded, to which you haven't. IMO that's pretty much the end of the thread right there as far as any discussion goes.
I'll point it out again, here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37111600&postcount=5
I'll add one further point to that post being that because CP is neither topical or informative, nor are most people sexually attracted to such content, IMO most people would be turned off by the idea of a lack of sexual consent (ignoring role-playing such scenarios), CP is simply not something "on the menu" of interest to most people, the lack of sexual attributes in children combined with the lack of sexual consent which goes part of parcel of a child's complete ignorance of sexual matters is what most people consider to be morally reprehensible (my attempt to summarise the opinions of most people on the topic of CP in one sentence).
The rest of the time I've simply been mystified by your viewpoints, such as wanting to jerk off to something that you're maybe not attracted to simply because you can. This is not a viewpoint I can even begin to relate to.
Last edited:
This is discussion club so there's no need for any of us to get heated, even though this is a sensitive topic. I'm discussing it in good faith and I think for the most part that the people responding to you have as well regardless of their language. I am starting to wonder if you are however.
Yes, I know that it is possible to live a life without sex. I know that it is also possible to have no interest in sex, and that the two can occur independently of each other.
I think we have good public policy reasons for viewing of child sex abuse to be illegal. It can only be produced by victimizing a child. It does re-victimize the victim, even if you want to hand-wave that by saying that recorded violence also re-victimizes the victim. Crimes committed for sexual gratification have probably always been treated more harshly by the justice system than others, in large part due to the fact that most people find it abhorrent to abuse a child, especially sexually.
The only pro that you have offered is that it may allow some potential offenders to hold the line so to speak, and not victimize a child themselves. There is also a weak free speech argument to be made probably, but I think most would shoot that down as a reasonable restriction pretty quickly.
I think the whole distinction between consenting adults and persons unable to meaningfully consent is worthy of discussion, and I do cringe when I see a 18 year old get arrested because her 17 year old boyfriend sent her a picture of his junk. I also tend to think that if people are placing babies in microwaves and videoing it that we might need a law against viewing or possessing the videos. However, I can't draw the conclusions you are suggesting just because the law occasionally fucks up and views all child sex abuse as equivalent.
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
To respond to what little there was there to respond to: Most people don't find a lot of fetish or kink porn topical or informative or a sexual turn-on but it is completely legal (Again, a lot of people don't but SOME do). Who cares if it's topical or informative or sexually interesting to the masses? The masses are stupid and prude enough as it is, now they need to dictate what porn (legal or not as it currently is) I watch too because what I watch may be too kinky for them? You may as well rule out all kink culture and go back to the 1950s when blowjobs and anal sex was illegal too! Still is illegal in some parts of the USA.
You've been insulting me by saying I'm a pedo and need to seek help. Get the fuck out.
There are so many levels of wrong. What is allowed to be seen shouldn't be dictated by what is "relevant" or is "topical" or is "informative". That sounds like thought police by the government. "Oh, what you were watching wasn't topical or informative. We're going to have to send you to jail for five years." Sounds a lot like Germany in the early 1940s.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 18,418
- 11,032
- 136
Sorry, were you implying that you didn't appreciate insults?
I already addressed that point.
Re: ISIS beheading videos - It's called "the news". Does this need explanation?
You have strongly implied that if it was legal, you would watch it and jerk off to it. Since my impression of "most people" is that the only stuff they watch and jerk off to is stuff they are sexually interested in, it doesn't leave much room for a logical conclusion about your tendencies. You also strongly implied that you would willingly watch someone be sexually abused or put in a microwave. I'm trying to figure out why a) you're surprised at my conclusions or b) insulted. Please point out where the misunderstanding has occurred.
I'm not sure that sounds like anything like Nazi Germany, but hey ho.
Do you therefore think that all content should be legal for all to view/consume? If so, I'm more confused at your argument position than ever, given how insulted you apparently feel. If not, what restrictions do you think should be in place and why, please give a few examples.
Last edited:
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
lol wtf; that (lack of) argument makes no sense. You're just trolling now.
You can already "hunt down toddlers and small children to videotape." That's legal. :hmm:
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
How ignorant are you of Nazi Germany? They banned a shit ton of stuff that they thought would do damage to their cause. America has done the same thing. Thought police has been strong in this world and still is.
I think all content should be legal to view/consume/record. However, this does not mean that the way one goes about recording can be legal. (e.g. invasion of privacy, putting spy cameras in homes, etc. You broke the law to be able to record the content. However, the viewer is not a party to blame for this as they are passive and did not partake in how the recording was made) Or what they record is legal (anything). And yeah, it's a bit of a free speech issue. Yet, that seems to be less and less of a concern these days as we ban more and more things and become more like the UK. (Of which you are apart of, so you understand that)
You seem to not recognize overt sarcasm btw.
Last edited:
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 18,418
- 11,032
- 136
No, you said that stuff being banned because it's not relevant/informative/topical sounds a lot like Nazi Germany. Pretty much every single government ever has banned some form of material from public consumption.
So therefore you would be fine with say CP being broadcast in the US as long as the abuse is going on outside the US?
Do you not see a moral disconnect between "participating is not OK but viewing it is"? Out of vague curiosity, do you think a cameraman who only films the CP is also morally in the clear?
Not from you apparently. You have some pretty strange viewpoints IMO, so for my benefit please can you in future use sarcasm tags? You've skipped past explaining possible misunderstandings so I'm pretty much at a loss with regard to which comments of yours constitute serious viewpoints and which are "overt sarcasm". Did I miss any sarcasm in the post I'm responding to?
Last edited:
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
"Thought police". I've used that term over and over. The idea being that the US and Nazi Germany both have used it and how your argument was boiling down to that. You are saying what is right and wrong for me to watch.
I don't think you understood. The idea is that you cannot do the illegal acts but you can record/view them all you want. It doesn't matter where they occur. Viewing recorded material shouldn't ever be illegal. Let's show an example: You put a camera in a bathroom that you don't have right to put a camera in (or maybe you do but you don't alert people that they're being recorded in a place of expected privacy). A child uses the bathroom. The recorded video was obtained illegally. You recorded someone without their consent in a space with expectations of privacy and they didn't know of the camera. Viewing that video and distributing that video shouldn't be illegal. So in some sense you could say that recording could be illegal but it's more of putting the camera in a place where it's illegal and then recording them. Regardless, viewing the recorded material shouldn't be illegal as it is not participating in the event itself. You are a third party viewing history at that point.
America banned child sex abuse images because child sex abuse is dangerous to the American government's regime?
Some false equivalence there.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 18,418
- 11,032
- 136
TridenT, what purpose do you suppose the law of a country ought to serve?
Because saying that participating in the production of CP should be illegal yet viewing it shouldn't be doesn't seem to serve any purpose IMO.
IMO, the law of a country should be a fair representation of that society's moral code. Forcing people into sexual relations is morally wrong, apparently we can both agree on that, but once the participation element has been outsourced, you therefore think it's morally OK for a multitude of people to take pleasure in the misery of someone else?
Because saying that participating in the production of CP should be illegal yet viewing it shouldn't be doesn't seem to serve any purpose IMO.
IMO, the law of a country should be a fair representation of that society's moral code. Forcing people into sexual relations is morally wrong, apparently we can both agree on that, but once the participation element has been outsourced, you therefore think it's morally OK for a multitude of people to take pleasure in the misery of someone else?
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,213
- 5,794
- 126
Although I understand the misgivings in the OP, I think it's Illegal for good reasons. It does lead to increased exploitation of Children and all those under the current Legal Age in which acting in Porn is allowed. Although the Viewer may not be directly harming anyone, their Demand for such material encourages others to Supply and thus directly harm the under aged. Exploiting the under aged in this way simply should not be allowed, thus the Viewer is culpable.
That said, there really needs to be some distinction and nuance regarding the Crime. I highly suspect that most people who have consumed Internet Porn have inadvertently seen some Under Age material. Many have likely Saved some even, but have no idea that the person(s) are <18, for they may look 18+, but be anywhere from 15ish-17ish. Should people possessing Material within that age range, but also mostly material >18 be treated the same as someone possessing pictures of Toddlers? Definitely not, IMO. In fact, I would say most of them shouldn't be prosecuted at all, just warned about it. Others who have primarily under aged Porn 14-17 are probably knowingly collecting it though and should be prosecuted, but their crime should not be equated to those who are collecting even younger aged porn.
The Law/Courts are probably aware and make these distinctions on their own though, I would hope anyway. However, when charges of making Child Porn are being made against 2 Under Aged kids taking pics of themselves of a sexual nature, I rather think the Law is being an ass. That's not something that should be encouraged, but at the same time, especially when the material was never meant to be distributed, it seems to be a violation of Free Speech.
I also suspect that some people have been charged with possession of Child Porn when they shouldn't have been. Especially in the early days of the internet. When the Police have to scour your PC all the way to recovering Deleted Files, chances are/were good that the person inadvertently came across material they simply did not want. For eg, way back before 2000, I would peruse Newsgroups for porn. At first each category would contain the titled type of porn, but eventually spammers from other genres would begin to spread their wares across many groups. At first it was rather innocuous, but eventually Child Porn, clearly Under 10, began to be spammed across numerous groups. Technically speaking, even though I was in an Adult Group, my browser History and Deleted Files of Child Porn were on my PC. Shortly after that started happening I just quit Newsgroups altogether as at the time the Law seemed to be fumbling about trying to come to grips with the Internet and Newsgroups were just becoming a spammy mess.
So anyway, tl:dr
- Intentionally seeking and viewing Child Porn needs to be Illegal
- Unintentionally viewing and possessing "Child Porn" needs to be assessed on whether the Viewer is aware of the ages involved or perhaps whether they intended for older, but acquired younger inadvertently.
- There needs to be a distinction between certain Age groups within "Child Porn"
That said, there really needs to be some distinction and nuance regarding the Crime. I highly suspect that most people who have consumed Internet Porn have inadvertently seen some Under Age material. Many have likely Saved some even, but have no idea that the person(s) are <18, for they may look 18+, but be anywhere from 15ish-17ish. Should people possessing Material within that age range, but also mostly material >18 be treated the same as someone possessing pictures of Toddlers? Definitely not, IMO. In fact, I would say most of them shouldn't be prosecuted at all, just warned about it. Others who have primarily under aged Porn 14-17 are probably knowingly collecting it though and should be prosecuted, but their crime should not be equated to those who are collecting even younger aged porn.
The Law/Courts are probably aware and make these distinctions on their own though, I would hope anyway. However, when charges of making Child Porn are being made against 2 Under Aged kids taking pics of themselves of a sexual nature, I rather think the Law is being an ass. That's not something that should be encouraged, but at the same time, especially when the material was never meant to be distributed, it seems to be a violation of Free Speech.
I also suspect that some people have been charged with possession of Child Porn when they shouldn't have been. Especially in the early days of the internet. When the Police have to scour your PC all the way to recovering Deleted Files, chances are/were good that the person inadvertently came across material they simply did not want. For eg, way back before 2000, I would peruse Newsgroups for porn. At first each category would contain the titled type of porn, but eventually spammers from other genres would begin to spread their wares across many groups. At first it was rather innocuous, but eventually Child Porn, clearly Under 10, began to be spammed across numerous groups. Technically speaking, even though I was in an Adult Group, my browser History and Deleted Files of Child Porn were on my PC. Shortly after that started happening I just quit Newsgroups altogether as at the time the Law seemed to be fumbling about trying to come to grips with the Internet and Newsgroups were just becoming a spammy mess.
So anyway, tl:dr
- Intentionally seeking and viewing Child Porn needs to be Illegal
- Unintentionally viewing and possessing "Child Porn" needs to be assessed on whether the Viewer is aware of the ages involved or perhaps whether they intended for older, but acquired younger inadvertently.
- There needs to be a distinction between certain Age groups within "Child Porn"
Dr. Zaus
Lifer
- Oct 16, 2008
- 11,764
- 347
- 126
Legal markets increase financial incentives. This would mean that even if it was illegal to make the porn, the ability to charge for it means a LOT more of it would be created.
It's illegal to kill someone AND charge money for the pleasure of seeing someone killed. It's illegal to rape someone AND charge money for the pleasure of seeing someone raped. Incest is illegal AND it's illegal to charge money for the pleasure of seeing it occur. And it's illegal to molest children AND charge money for the pleasure of seeing someone molested.
Even if the charge is in terms of advertising dollars it's still illegal. The only exceptions are when a death is somehow news-worthy.
All of this is logically consistent and should NOT be confused with the quite different matter of turning a 16 year old into a life-long sex-criminal for being in a relationship AND using technology that confuses old people.
Last edited:
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
Your point is that they need to pay. At no point have I brought up that people are paying for it. Most people do not pay for their porn. Child porn is included within that. Most people do not pay to watch any videos. I'm not even going to bother with that kind of argument. No one is paying to watch ISIS behead people.
Dr. Zaus
Lifer
- Oct 16, 2008
- 11,764
- 347
- 126
Which is why at no point have you addressed the real issue behind why child pornography is illegal. As I said, even banner adds are paying for it.
Your "not bothering" with the core problem: increased production due to legalization, is precisely why your argument is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.
Even if 99.9% of users some how didn't pay the .1% increase in those paying because of legalization would be enough to drive the increased production of child molestation porn. Which is why rape, incest, and murder porn are also illegal.
Last edited:
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
There is no "real issue". Increased production due to legalization of viewing isn't a 1:1 correlation. You haven't proven that or given sources at all. No first world nation has legalized production, to my knowledge. So you can't even do a comparison. (Not like comparing various cultures to the USA has ever worked anyway)
And, you keep harping on this like people who view pay for all these things... Because... banner ads? Are you fucking kidding me? Who would pay for banner ads on a website that publicly hosts (important: HOSTS, not torrent files) child porn? That would be incredibly stupid and because I'm all like, "hee, hee, child porn... I'm also going to go click on this ad and support this company that supports my child porn download?" lol wtf. I'd bet very few people directly download this stuff and support companies that knowingly and willing host child porn on their website. I'd bet most child porn was/is hosted on websites like megaupload and then taken down or remains there unknowningly except to a few who spread the links via whatever.
Regardless, it doesn't matter. Why are these other things legal but this isn't? I could jerk off to 18 year olds getting raped and so you think that's going to increase the market-demand/whatever vastly? Skeptical. You don't have evidence for this. You can point to other things that have been legalized and some demand has gone up but usually that involves stuff that isn't illegal to create. So, it's a false equivalency.
Prove it! You can't make these claims without warrants and warrants rely on evidence! So show me the evidence.
You're the one coming and and trying to make a case for legalizing the possession and consumption of images of of child sexual abuse. As far as I've seen all you have done is made a case for images of other abuse to be illegal too.
- Sep 4, 2006
- 16,800
- 45
- 91
You can't have it both ways. It's hypocrisy. Free speech or thought police. Have one or the other. It's really one of the cases where you just can't have it both ways as they are mutually exclusive.
And if you've come out of this with the stance that you want to ban all images of abuse then go for it. If you can manage to get the news to stop putting the imagery up 100% then I'll be floored by the level of thought policing you managed to legislate.
All abuse is equal? Raping a baby is equivalent to the knockout game?
That's a pretty black and white world to live in.
That's a pretty black and white world to live in.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter