Support NeoGAF

[PhlegmMaster]

Whether you're perma-banned for this or just tagged, stop making these disgusting arguments. There's this thing called your "imagination" that anyone, sick freak or not, can use to fantasize. They don't need pictures, real or simulated. While I think that "faked" child porn is covered under the 1st Amendment, real child porn is evidence of a crime, and features someone's son, daughter, sister, brother. There is no justification for making it, disseminating it, or possessing it.

I keep reading and re-reading your post, and I see no argument against my assertions that,

1) There's no pragmatic, "real-world" reason that possessing child porn should be illegal.

2) Child pornography may very well prevent (some) child abuse (not to mention it makes life more bearable for moral, abstaining pedophiles).

Note that I've never said that (2) is an argument in favor of the production of child porn, as that's something with very real, very negative consequences.

 

[GDJustin]

I can't believe some of you defend pedophiles....

 

[East Clintwood]

Whether you're perma-banned for this or just tagged, stop making these disgusting arguments. There's this thing called your "imagination" that anyone, sick freak or not, can use to fantasize. They don't need pictures, real or simulated.

But I think we all agree that pictures are better.
Fantasy < Pictures < Animated GIFs < Videos < POV Videos < Picture of someone real posted on GAF < One of these flashlights < Inflatable Dolls < Peeking through a hole into a bathroom < with women < actually sitting next to someone doing it < Doing it yourself.

real child porn is evidence of a crime, and features someone's son, daughter, sister, brother. There is no justification for making it, disseminating it, or possessing it.

What about orphans or studio owned children? They have no relatives. :lol

 

[East Clintwood]

1) There's no pragmatic, "real-world" reason that possessing child porn should be illegal.

Maybe it's the difficulty of actually figuring out who took the photos/videos. By owning them how can you prove you didn't take/filmed them?

 

[Matt_C]

Many pedos are serial offenders. They are mentally ill.

Sexuality is fine if its consentual. A child does not have the capability to knowingly consent, which is why its illegal.

Spoiler

I loved watching that show when I was growing up. It was rather funny back then.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Maybe it's the difficulty of actually figuring out who took the photos/videos. By owning them how can you prove you didn't take/filmed them?

Well, there's this thing called Innocent Until Proven Guilty, which makes this kind of irrelevant.

That said, I suppose the person could tell the authorities where he found the pics/vids. Which brings me to another point, I think I would support a law that would oblige citizens to send any child porn (along with info regarding its source, if known) to the police, FBI, etc. Amusingly, this would probably make pedophiles the greatest contributors to the, ah, cause.

 

[aoi tsuki]

That said, what does this have to do with the mere possession of child porn? Screwing a kid is bad. Producing child porn is bad. Being aware that someone is producing child porn and not denouncing that person to the authorities is bad.

i think i see what you're trying to say, but you're breaking your own argument.

If someone gets off on children, that's their thing. The problem is that by downloading kiddie porn, they're contributing to the demand of it. And if there is a demand, someone will be there to produce more if it.

 

[adamsappel]

I keep reading and re-reading your post, and I see no argument against my assertions that,

1) There's no pragmatic, "real-world" reason that possessing child porn should be illegal.

2) Child pornography may very well prevent (some) child abuse (not to mention it makes life more bearable for moral, abstaining pedophiles).

Note that I've never said that (2) is an argument in favor of the production of child porn, as that's something with very real, very negative consequences.

1) If your "note" is really how you feel, how does posessing it not contribute to these consequences? Or are you saying existing child porn should be grandfathered in?

2) Are you satisfied with just looking at a picture of a naked person? Or does looking at a picture of a naked person make you want to ****?

 

[Kreed]

1) There's no pragmatic, "real-world" reason that possessing child porn should be illegal.

What about creating demand? If there were less sickos out there downloading the stuff, less of it would be made.

2) Child pornography may very well prevent (some) child abuse (not to mention it makes life more bearable for moral, abstaining pedophiles).

But child abuse has to occur for these "moral pedophiles" to get it in the first place.

 

[Mason]

Did anyone look at his MySpace pictures? He looks like he might be retarded or have Down Syndrome or something.

 

[The Chosen One]

i think i see what you're trying to say, but you're breaking your own argument.

If someone gets off on children, that's their thing. The problem is that by downloading kiddie porn, they're contributing to the demand of it. And if there is a demand, someone will be there to produce more if it.

Exactly.

If a child molester knows there's thousands of other people waiting for his next "series" then that child molester's son/daughter/child will most likely keep getting molested and exploited to satisfy the audience. Yes it's true, the molester would probably already abuse these kids without other people downloading images. However, I think by downloading those images, it probably escalates/worsens the situation further. You can't just casually dismiss this effect.

Also, there's a whole black market (especially worldwide) where child porn is bought and sold. The proliferation of child porn encourages child abductions, child slavery and other horrible acts. I think it's in our country's (and world's) best interest to keep the possession of child porn as taboo and dangerous as possible.

That said I don't agree with the current demonization of pedophiles in America. There's a LOT of closet pedos, more than most are willing to admit. I'm afraid that a lot of these people are afraid to get help because the subject is so life/career damaging. It doesn't help matters either that we're even calling a 19 year-old who dates a 16-17 year old a pedophile. The whole thing has become a witch hunt and doesn't address the core problems/concerns.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

i think i see what you're trying to say, but you're breaking your own argument.

If someone gets off on children, that's their thing. The problem is that by downloading kiddie porn, they're contributing to the demand of it. And if there is a demand, someone will be there to produce more if it.

What about creating demand? If there were less sickos out there downloading the stuff, less of it would be made.

Offer VS Demand is only a relevant concept when there's some sort of exchange being made. In other words, if the pedophiles are downloading the porn without paying for it, they can't be said to create demand.

But even if that wasn't true, as I've said, the crime of possessing child porn wouldn't be that much worse than buying products made by what amounts to slavery. At most, it might warrant 2 or 3 days in prison, not 2+ years.

But child abuse has to occur for these "moral pedophiles" to get it in the first place.

Yes, but by the time the moral pedophile sees the picture or video, the child abuse has already occured. It's not like his actions (or lack thereof) will change what's happened to the child.

1) If your "note" is really how you feel, how does posessing it not contribute to these consequences? Or are you saying existing child porn should be grandfathered in?

I don't understand your question. How does it contribute?

2) Are you satisfied with just looking at a picture of a naked person? Or does looking at a picture of a naked person make you want to ****?

I want to **** whether or not I'm looking at porn. The point is that jacking off to porn is a way to temporarily get rid of sexual urges, just like sex. In the case of pedophiles, ****ing will hurt a kid, jacking off to a picture won't.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I know this is going to be taken the wrong way, but I don't really care:

I feel that pedophiles deserve some sympathy as I do not believe they have a choice whether or not they are attracted to children. It is simply one of the cards they were dealt. Now, this is not to say that pedophilia is at all OK, cause it's not, but I do think people should take this into consideration. Not all pedophiles are the demons people make they them out to be.

More of this "they were born that way" bullshit? My god man, please.

Not all pedophiles are the demons people make them out to be? Dude, they have sex with children. They rape children. They molest children. They violate children. If that's not sick and utterly repulsive I don't know what is.

Even in prison pedophiles are treated like the scum of the earth - rapists/murderers/etc abuse them and consider them way over the line, which is interesting. So now, they deserve no sympathy, and they should get none. Political correct bullshit has no place in the discussion of pedophilia.

 

[pj]

Offer VS Demand is only a relevant concept when there's some sort of exchange being made. In other words, if the pedophiles are downloading the porn without paying for it, they can't be said to create demand.

These people aren't making and distributing child porn out of the goodness of their hearts. They're either selling it or trading it to other pedos for more child porn.

You should quit while you're very, very far behind

 

[PhlegmMaster]

These people aren't making and distributing child porn out of the goodness of their hearts. They're either selling it or trading it to other pedos for more child porn.

I've already addressed the possibility that some people might pay for child porn. As for trading it for more child porn, I don't see how that creates demand.

 

[pj]

I've already addressed the possibility that some people might pay for child porn. As for trading it for more child porn, I don't see how that creates demand.

they're not going to trade for something they already have

 

[PhlegmMaster]

they're not going to trade for something they already have

Oh, come on. I've traded porn (adult porn, lolz) on IRC. Do you think I've ever had to make my own porn because I've run out of pictures to send to other heteros?

And as someone else has already noted, new child porn will always be produced by people who enjoy producing it, just like new amateur porn videos are made all the time by people who have no intention of making money off of them.

 

[aoi tsuki]

Offer VS Demand is only a relevant concept when there's some sort of exchange being made. In other words, if the pedophiles are downloading the porn without paying for it, they can't be said to create demand.

But even if that wasn't true, as I've said, the crime of possessing child porn wouldn't be that much worse than buying products made by what amounts to slavery. At most, it might warrant 2 or 3 days in prison, not 2+ years.

You can't be this simple. Seriously.

First of all, whether or not there's money exchanged directly doesn't change the fact that there's a cycle of supply and demand. Whether it's a watermark, or an pseudonym in the filename, if someone likes what they see, they'll do their best to find who's making it and where to get it. i'm sure things were harder before the internet, and pedos had to code their conversations to weed out who they might be able to befriend. Nowadays, you can hit a newsgroup, chatroom, website, or whatever. At some point money will be exchanged, and somewhere down the road people will barter one set for another. Just because every person involved doesn't pay for their shit doesn't mean they aren't cogs in a much larger machine.

There's also a market now for underage "models". These sites basically consist of young girls posing in various outfits, often promiscuous, in equally as promiscuous. They charge ridiculous amounts for pictures with no apparent artistic merit. While these sites are legal and with the parents consent, they cater to basically the same audience, and they're still exploitive despite the fact that there's no nudity.

Regarding products made by slaves, children or otherwise, we, as buyers, assume that the products we buy were produced in a legal fashion, or they wouldn't be available on the shelves. Yes, we know better, and that sometimes the conditions aren't legal, but there's government agencies that investigate this sort of thing.

 

[pj]

Oh, come on. I've traded porn (adult porn, lolz) on IRC. Do you think I've ever had to make my own porn because I've run out of pictures to send to other heteros?

And as someone else has already noted, new child porn will always be produced by people who enjoy producing it, just like new amateur porn videos are made all the time by people who have no intention of making money off of them.

...

Child porn can't be the bottomless bucket that regular porn is. I don't know why you're defending this so much. I'm not implying that you are a pedophile, but you have some seriously warped views on the subject

 

[Kreed]

Offer VS Demand is only a relevant concept when there's some sort of exchange being made. In other words, if the pedophiles are downloading the porn without paying for it, they can't be said to create demand.

That's not true. Just look at the people who make free web comics, or put up their music for free downloading, etc... If they didn't have SOMEONE out there enjoying their stuff, they wouldn't make it. There doesn't have to be money involved for their to be a demand.

But even if that wasn't true, as I've said, the crime of possessing child porn wouldn't be that much worse than buying products made by what amounts to slavery. At most, it might warrant 2 or 3 days in prison, not 2+ years.

Yes but in most cases like that, the people buying have no idea where the product came from or how it was obtained. When you're downloading child porn, you know what you're downloading.

Yes, but by the time the moral pedophile sees the picture or video, the child abuse has already occured. It's not like his actions (or lack thereof) will change what's happened to the child.

But it may prevent the act or similar acts from happening again.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Ah, so the reason possessing child porn is punishable by a few years in jail is that by downloading it without paying for it, pedophiles are somehow making it possible for someone, somewhere to make money off of exploiting children. It all makes sense now!

Puh-leez. It's all so remote it's barely distinguishable from a purely absolutist moralistic argument, i.e. "By owning child porn you're morally condoning child abuse."

There is no other area where we are so scrupulously concerned with the details of who we might be condoning. The only reason we are so concerned with the possession of child porn (and why To Catch a Predator is such a popular show, for that matter), is that our gut feeling about 'sex' and 'children' is so strong. There's nothing rational about this.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

That's not true. Just look at the people who make free web comics, or put up their music for free downloading, etc... If they didn't have SOMEONE out there enjoying their stuff, they wouldn't make it. There doesn't have to be money involved for their to be a demand.

Ads, donations, publicity for printed comics, merchandise.

Edited to add: The above is the reason webcomic authors who are interested in money will make a webcomic.

But it may prevent the act or similar acts from happening again.

I don't see how.

 

[Barnolde]

Ah, so the reason possessing child porn is punishable by a few years in jail is that by downloading it without paying for it, pedophiles are somehow making it possible for someone, somewhere to make money off of exploiting children. It all makes sense now!

Puh-leez. It's all so remote it's barely distinguishable from a purely absolutist moralistic argument, i.e. "By owning child porn you're morally condoning child abuse."

There is no other area where we are so scrupulously concerned with the details of who we might be condoning. The only reason we are so concerned with the possession of child porn (and why To Catch a Predator is such a popular show, for that matter), is that our gut feeling about 'sex' and 'children' is so strong. There's nothing rational about this.

...

 

[aoi tsuki]

Ah, so the reason possessing child porn is punishable by a few years in jail is that by downloading it without paying for it, pedophiles are somehow making it possible for someone, somewhere to make money off of exploiting children. It all makes sense now!

Puh-leez. It's all so remote it's barely distinguishable from a purely absolutist moralistic argument, i.e. "By owning child porn you're morally condoning child abuse."

There is no other area where we are so scrupulously concerned with the details of who we might be condoning. The only reason we are so concerned with the possession of child porn (and why To Catch a Predator is such a popular show, for that matter), is that our gut feeling about 'sex' and 'children' is so strong. There's nothing rational about this.

And i've already said that it's now easier to talk about pedophilia as part of a lifestyle than it was before. i'd imagine it's just like anything else -- you find a place online that you can talk about something you couldn't talk about in real life without being shunned, and you'll stay there. You'll make friends. It's not extreme to think that at some point you're going to trade pictures or websites, promoting someone else and furthering the cycle in the process. Even the act of discussing it on pedo/loli-friendly areas contributes to the idea that it's not bad, that they're the victims in this.

i don't mean to say that every person who downloads kiddie porn connects with a community or a commercial source. But i think it would be extremely naive to think that given the "anonymity" of the internet and the ability to find whatever one wants, simply downloading free kiddie porn does contribute to the problem of child exploitation and/or abuse.

And with that, i think i'm done with this topic.

 

[TGateKeeper]

Are you serious? Two years? That's totally insane. Do you guys send people to jail for having butt sex too?

member of nambla confirmed. ^

 

[Lakitu]

Sick ****

 

[bishoptl]

Chickenhawks should be castrated and tossed into genpop.

 

[Zombie James]

"Install the music" :lol

 

[tornjaw]

"By owning child porn you're morally condoning child abuse."

 

[Vibri]

More of this "they were born that way" bullshit? My god man, please.

Not all pedophiles are the demons people make them out to be? Dude, they have sex with children. They rape children. They molest children. They violate children. If that's not sick and utterly repulsive I don't know what is.

Even in prison pedophiles are treated like the scum of the earth - rapists/murderers/etc abuse them and consider them way over the line, which is interesting. So now, they deserve no sympathy, and they should get none. Political correct bullshit has no place in the discussion of pedophilia.

Incorrect. Paedophilia is a sexual orientation. What you're describing above is a child molester.

It's NOT illegal to be a paedophile. It is illegal to rape. You won't catch me arguing about the morality of either, but there's a big difference.

 

[Mute]

Incorrect. Paedophilia is a sexual orientation. What you're describing above is a child molester.

It's NOT illegal to be a paedophile. It is illegal to rape. You won't catch me arguing about the morality of either, but there's a big difference.

If you have a sexual orientation towards children, you want to **** them. You want to **** kids. I'd think most pedophiles eventually rape a kid if they're already ****ed up enough to be attracted to them.

 

[RevenantKioku]

If you have a sexual orientation towards children, you want to **** them. You want to **** kids. I'd think most pedophiles eventually rape a kid if they're already ****ed up enough to be attracted to them.

For someone who generally acts reasonable in discussion, this is a surprising response.

 

[Seth C]

If you have a sexual orientation towards children, you want to **** them. You want to **** kids. I'd think most pedophiles eventually rape a kid if they're already ****ed up enough to be attracted to them.

I'd say this is probably incorrect. I fantasize about scoring with a hot mother/daughter combination all the time, but so far it hasn't happened. What are the odds it ever will? They are slim. Just because I want it doesn't mean THEY will. How many mother/daughter pairs can there possibly be who would want to get with one guy as part of a threesome? They have to be willing, because while I want them both I have no desire to rape them. That would be a completely different set of sexual deviances.

So then, are all pedophiles also rapists? Yes, the act would obviously be statutory rape and child molestation either way, but just because they want to have sex with a child doesn't mean they want to force the child to do it. So they would need to find a child that was "willing" (I'm not going to debate their legal right to consent, that would be silly) to have sex with an older person. Odds? Small. Nevermind they are probably fearful of potential imprisonment, social stigma, etc. So really, I'd say the vast majority of people attracted to children do not end up raping/molesting them for one reason or another.

That doesn't make it any less wrong. I'm not here to argue the morality of the thing, simply that being a pedphile does not instantly make one a child molestor or a rapist.

 

[MIMIC]

I saw the R. Kelly sextape.

Am I going to hell?

 

[Seth C]

I saw the R. Kelly sextape.

Am I going to hell?

That depends. Did you enjoy it?

 

[ForzaItalia]

Somewhere, pedo bear is out there with a box of popcorn and refreshing this page every minute as he surfs for his kiddie porn...

 

[Royale with Cheese]

I saw the R. Kelly sextape.

Am I going to hell?

More than likely...sinner.

 

[Powerslave]

I'd say this is probably incorrect. I fantasize about scoring with a hot mother/daughter combination all the time, but so far it hasn't happened. What are the odds it ever will? They are slim. Just because I want it doesn't mean THEY will. How many mother/daughter pairs can there possibly be who would want to get with one guy as part of a threesome? They have to be willing, because while I want them both I have no desire to rape them. That would be a completely different set of sexual deviances.

I thought about this too, but a second later I realized that a child is way more vulnerable and a HELL of a lot easier to take control over than a woman or girl.

 

[Brak]

I saw the R. Kelly sextape.

Am I going to hell?

only if you bought an R. Kelly album.

 

[Widfara]

the bottom line is that it's a kid. even if you only jack off to kids and don't buy shit or distribute shit, you're jacking off to an 8 year old kid.


in other words, a picture of an 8 year old kid exists in a compromising position and you are jacking off to it.

wrong.

 

[Schwowsers]

More of this "they were born that way" bullshit? My god man, please.

Not all pedophiles are the demons people make them out to be? Dude, they have sex with children. They rape children. They molest children. They violate children. If that's not sick and utterly repulsive I don't know what is.

Even in prison pedophiles are treated like the scum of the earth - rapists/murderers/etc abuse them and consider them way over the line, which is interesting. So now, they deserve no sympathy, and they should get none. Political correct bullshit has no place in the discussion of pedophilia.

I never claimed a person's sexuality is decided at birth. All I said was that I do not think they can choose who they are attracted to. Whether their sexuality is a result of genes or chemicals or myriad environmental factors, I have no idea. But whatever the cause, I do not think it's something that can be changed at this point in time.

And as already stated, pedophilia is not the same thing as molestation. The word pedophile simply means an adult who is attracted to children. Most of you may believe otherwise, but I'm sure there are pedophiles who are decent human beings.

 

[Pimpbaa]

but I'm sure there are pedophiles who are decent human beings.

Sorry that's impossible. Pedophiles and the people that defend them absolutely sicken me.

 

[Raguel]

What happened to this thread? I thought it was about making fun of a pedophile bastard and then it turned into a discussion of how pedophilia is not a choice and such nonsense. Are people trying to rationalize pedophilia? Why?

 

[vas_a_morir]

Pedophiles are the lowest of the low. No justification necessary. If you get your rocks off watching little kids get raped/abused, then you are ****ed up so bad that there is no return and no chance of a functionally productive life.

The same goes for scat munchers! fukkin gross!

 

[PhoenixDark]

 

[Tumalu]

I thought about this too, but a second later I realized that a child is way more vulnerable and a HELL of a lot easier to take control over than a woman or girl.

It's not like the only reason not to rape someone is because it would be too hard. It's conceivable that there are people who are attracted to children who also realize doing anything about that attraction is wrong. While I hadn't thought of it this way before, the point that a number of posters have made that this is essentially another dimension of sexual orientation is interesting. Personally I don't think we should shun people strictly for their sexual orientation - people should be aloud to think whatever and however they want. Don't get me wrong though, those who act on their fantasies obviously need to be locked up.

 

[FINALFANTASYDOG]

I don't know what part of the world you're from, but child porn possession charges are pretty severe everywhere. This isn't a North American phenomenon. There are special police task forces and divisions which correspond with one another throughout the world to combat this.

Your anal sex anology makes no ****ing sense whatsoever as it pertains to this subject.

Nope you are wrong on the 1st point

as to the 2nd point I'm not a conspiracy theory nut, i'm a civil liberties nut. merely making possion of just images carry such a huge penlty which are easily reproducable, is incredibly incredibly dangerous, you don't particulary like a person who isn't that reputable already? just get child porn on their computer, report them while being hidden on a tip line and viola, revenge is yours. it ruins thier life so much more then framing them for murder and the burden of proof is next to nothing.

This stratagy also works extremly well for drugs too, you don't even need to plant the drugs, if the person has a gun and can't hear very well

 

[jamesinclair]

Not all pedophiles are the demons people make them out to be? Dude, they have sex with children. They rape children. They molest children. They violate children. a.

Ehm, if you read the article, you;; note that the criminal did not have sex with a child. Did not rape a child. Did not molest a child.

In fact, he was probably molested himself, causing the fetish.



Also....do people who watch scat porn actually...perform scat porn?

Do people who watch bangbus movies actually rent a van and pick up chicks on suburban streets?

 

[Royale with Cheese]

I keep reading and re-reading your post, and I see no argument against my assertions that,

1) There's no pragmatic, "real-world" reason that possessing child porn should be illegal.

2) Child pornography may very well prevent (some) child abuse (not to mention it makes life more bearable for moral, abstaining pedophiles).

Note that I've never said that (2) is an argument in favor of the production of child porn, as that's something with very real, very negative consequences.

My view is this: everybody lives by their own selfish, double-standard dogmas. If somebody's not into child porn, they're a spouse abuser; if they're not self-deprecating and obese, they're an alcoholic.

I have this friend who is so caught up in dining at the most expensive places, purchasing the most expensive crap, and generally living out of his means. Then he complains and snips because somebody else does the same thing. It's like, "WTF?" He goes on and on about how his car is so crappy, when he actually has a car. Why should he complain? Then he goes on about me getting a car and my mother actually trying to help my wife and I sensibly pick something out for ourselves because we're tired of having to rely on him...this one time he goes, "Well, parents always want the best for their kids but they don't realize that sometimes their children will never live up to their expectations." How retarded is that? What's more, he lives with his mommy, unlike myself, who actually has to pay rent and utilities and all that crap.

What it all boils down to is "the American Dream" and the f'd up way it messes with everybody. It translates to a double-standard where a) you fit the mold or you don't or b) you buy into the system the good ol' greedy American way.

We really need to re-evaluate our "morals" in this country before we go standing on soap-boxes in other countries...but that's another story. And speaking of soap-boxes...

 

[MIMIC]

only if you bought an R. Kelly album.

When you say "bought"....