You're twisting my words. I said "being attracted to", not "downloading and copying". Attraction versus obsession depends on who is using the word. The latter is obviously a problem. In today's sensitive society though, someone who makes a passing comment about an underage girl though can be considered a pedophile.
I appreciate your sane response. I was attempting to point out how subjective the whole thing is (and I think you agree). I do also a agree that producing child porn by victimizing children is not the same as producing a movie that contains a fake murder. If I wasn't clear, I apologize.
Your argument is flawed. Copying child porn and giving it to a friend does NOT cause arousal at the expense of anyone. All events have already transpired. No one is getting paid or encouraged because of this copy. I DO think it is illegal to possess, and hence copy in the first place however.
I understand that. My concern with libertarian philosophy is... where does the army come from needed to stop him? Where's the government to organize the effort? Where's the government to provide housing when all the troops return? Where's the government to take care of the veterans?
Plenty of people ARE aroused by violence. The fact is, movies about people aroused by violence who torture girls are LEGAL (see Hostel and many others). Your argument here is flawed.
LIFE for the first offense? If a 21 year old girl has sex with a 15 year old boy, she should spend her LIFE in prison? As far as I'm concerned, that act should not even be illegal in the first place. Age of consent is too high in this country... 15 is a more reasonable age than 18. I'm getting sidetracked here, but what I think is fine you think deserves life in prison?
So would I. I agree paying for child pornography should be illegal. If you reread what I wrote, you'll see I only said that being attracted to them should not be illegal.
You're not acting rationally. I am personally attracted to asian girls. Am I a scumbag because of that? No. Someone might be attracted to 15 year old girls. Are they a scumbag? No. Does my attraction to such girls mean I will rape them one day? Certainly not. Neither does his.
I was never suggesting child pornography should be legal or that possessing it should be legal. As for it being a problem, I'm not convinced. Provided he never engages in acts with a minor himself (and even then there is a huge different between a 21 year old and a 14 year old versus a 40 year old and a 9 year old), I don't have a problem with it. If he cannot control his desires to engage in such acts, IF HE EVEN HAS THEM, that's a problem. Just as many people enjoying looking at scatological pornography, they do not necessarily want to engage in it themselves. You're assuming Dan wants to rape kids and eventually might simply because he finds 11 year old girls attractive. I find 20 year old asian girls attractive, but I'm not going to rape them.
Even the Catholic church recognizes there is a difference between wanting to do something (which you can't control) and acting on it (which, hypothetically, you can). You're distorting my words. There is nothing illegal about wanting to rape someone -- Yes, I realize that is uncomfortable to hear, but it is true. However, doing it is obviously very illegal, as it should be. I am not against sensible laws to protect people. I am against thought-crimes and making things illegal because of the ideas they portray (animated child pornography), rather than because their production involves the abuse of a minor ("real" child pornography).
I think animated child pornography should be legal, yes. I think CHILD ABUSE should not be legal, and hence pornography with real children should not be as well.
Just to clarify, my sig is a friendly jab at libertarians. It is not in support of them.;-) I completely agree that this is an issue that should not be left up to the market.
I understand your point. Where do you draw the line though? Movies that show rape and murder and torture are okay, but a 14 year old girl dancing around naked is a horrific thing? Furthermore, if someone watches a movie about rape and murder, and then goes out and does it... Does that mean we should ban all movies that contain such material? This hypocrisy seems like a case of tyranny by majority to me. It is okay to show a 14 year old girl getting stabbed, but not her butt (heaven forbid!).
No, I do not. No one is "evil" for being attracted to children, just as no one is "evil" for being gay for for liking women with big butts for for being into (fake) japanese rape pornography. As a society we have to draw the line somewhere to protect ourselves and others, but I do not think that those on the other side are any more "evil" than we are.
No, murderers are not good in my book, just as someone who commits an act of child abuse is not. Being attracted to a child is NOT the same as abusing a child, just as wanting someone to drop dead is not the same as killing them. It is not illegal to wish anyone ill-will.
I did not RTFA -- If he was MASS PRODUCING, that is very different than making personal copies. Similarly, I do agree that giving money to those producing such pornography should be illegal. I was under the impression he was being jailed for copying pornography for personal use, and they used this to lock him up for longer than he would've been otherwise. If he was NOT mass producing, the burning should be of no consequence.
Forgive me for posting without reading, but when I see a phrase like "scumbag pedophile", I get rather pissed off.
I would associate with people who are attracted to children but do NOT act on it. As for letting me in your house, I am not a pedophile, and that fact that I am not willing to persecute people for some fetish beyond their control should not be a mark against me.
Someone who is attracted to children has no more control over it than someone who is gay. Are they "scumbag homosexuals" to you?
1. This verdict is absolutely crap. COPYING child porn is not the same as CREATING NEW child porn. No children are harmed by such an act.
2. Submitter -- Why is he a *scumbag* pedophile? People generally don't choose what and who they're attracted to. It is not illegal to be attracted to children. It is only illegal to act on it. Provided that he doesn't, he can still be a good man in my book.
3. Laws against pedophiles (not against pedophiliac acts -- pedophiles) are counter-productive. For example, it is illegal to create computer-generated child pornography. Why!? Provided that it gives people who are into such things a release, and no children are harmed, I have no problem with it. Many of today's sex-related laws are based on some twisted idea of morality, and nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad example then -- See Ichi the Killer.
You're twisting my words. I said "being attracted to", not "downloading and copying". Attraction versus obsession depends on who is using the word. The latter is obviously a problem. In today's sensitive society though, someone who makes a passing comment about an underage girl though can be considered a pedophile.
I agree. 18 is far too high. 16 or 15 is much more reasonable.
I appreciate your sane response. I was attempting to point out how subjective the whole thing is (and I think you agree). I do also a agree that producing child porn by victimizing children is not the same as producing a movie that contains a fake murder. If I wasn't clear, I apologize.
Your argument is flawed. Copying child porn and giving it to a friend does NOT cause arousal at the expense of anyone. All events have already transpired. No one is getting paid or encouraged because of this copy. I DO think it is illegal to possess, and hence copy in the first place however.
So.... are you single (and of legal age)? Such clear thought is arousing. Provided that you're over 18 of course. If you're not, I'm not aroused.
I understand that. My concern with libertarian philosophy is... where does the army come from needed to stop him? Where's the government to organize the effort? Where's the government to provide housing when all the troops return? Where's the government to take care of the veterans?
Plenty of people ARE aroused by violence. The fact is, movies about people aroused by violence who torture girls are LEGAL (see Hostel and many others). Your argument here is flawed.
LIFE for the first offense? If a 21 year old girl has sex with a 15 year old boy, she should spend her LIFE in prison? As far as I'm concerned, that act should not even be illegal in the first place. Age of consent is too high in this country... 15 is a more reasonable age than 18. I'm getting sidetracked here, but what I think is fine you think deserves life in prison?
So would I. I agree paying for child pornography should be illegal. If you reread what I wrote, you'll see I only said that being attracted to them should not be illegal.
You're not acting rationally. I am personally attracted to asian girls. Am I a scumbag because of that? No. Someone might be attracted to 15 year old girls. Are they a scumbag? No. Does my attraction to such girls mean I will rape them one day? Certainly not. Neither does his.
I was never suggesting child pornography should be legal or that possessing it should be legal. As for it being a problem, I'm not convinced. Provided he never engages in acts with a minor himself (and even then there is a huge different between a 21 year old and a 14 year old versus a 40 year old and a 9 year old), I don't have a problem with it. If he cannot control his desires to engage in such acts, IF HE EVEN HAS THEM, that's a problem. Just as many people enjoying looking at scatological pornography, they do not necessarily want to engage in it themselves. You're assuming Dan wants to rape kids and eventually might simply because he finds 11 year old girls attractive. I find 20 year old asian girls attractive, but I'm not going to rape them.
Even the Catholic church recognizes there is a difference between wanting to do something (which you can't control) and acting on it (which, hypothetically, you can). You're distorting my words. There is nothing illegal about wanting to rape someone -- Yes, I realize that is uncomfortable to hear, but it is true. However, doing it is obviously very illegal, as it should be. I am not against sensible laws to protect people. I am against thought-crimes and making things illegal because of the ideas they portray (animated child pornography), rather than because their production involves the abuse of a minor ("real" child pornography).
I think animated child pornography should be legal, yes. I think CHILD ABUSE should not be legal, and hence pornography with real children should not be as well.
Just to clarify, my sig is a friendly jab at libertarians. It is not in support of them. ;-) I completely agree that this is an issue that should not be left up to the market.
I agree 100% with you, just to clarify. Not reporting an instance of child abuse or encouraging it in any way should be (and is) illegal.
I understand your point. Where do you draw the line though? Movies that show rape and murder and torture are okay, but a 14 year old girl dancing around naked is a horrific thing? Furthermore, if someone watches a movie about rape and murder, and then goes out and does it... Does that mean we should ban all movies that contain such material? This hypocrisy seems like a case of tyranny by majority to me. It is okay to show a 14 year old girl getting stabbed, but not her butt (heaven forbid!).
Do you believe in evil?
No, I do not. No one is "evil" for being attracted to children, just as no one is "evil" for being gay for for liking women with big butts for for being into (fake) japanese rape pornography. As a society we have to draw the line somewhere to protect ourselves and others, but I do not think that those on the other side are any more "evil" than we are.
So murderers are good in your book too?
No, murderers are not good in my book, just as someone who commits an act of child abuse is not. Being attracted to a child is NOT the same as abusing a child, just as wanting someone to drop dead is not the same as killing them. It is not illegal to wish anyone ill-will.
Forgive me, I was mistaken. Thank you for clearing this up.
I did not RTFA -- If he was MASS PRODUCING, that is very different than making personal copies. Similarly, I do agree that giving money to those producing such pornography should be illegal. I was under the impression he was being jailed for copying pornography for personal use, and they used this to lock him up for longer than he would've been otherwise. If he was NOT mass producing, the burning should be of no consequence.
Forgive me for posting without reading, but when I see a phrase like "scumbag pedophile", I get rather pissed off.
I would associate with people who are attracted to children but do NOT act on it. As for letting me in your house, I am not a pedophile, and that fact that I am not willing to persecute people for some fetish beyond their control should not be a mark against me.
Someone who is attracted to children has no more control over it than someone who is gay. Are they "scumbag homosexuals" to you?
Then again, there's the whole 'looking at it on a screen might intice you into doing it for real' thing.
By that logic, I'd expect to never see another movie with violence again.
1. This verdict is absolutely crap. COPYING child porn is not the same as CREATING NEW child porn. No children are harmed by such an act.
2. Submitter -- Why is he a *scumbag* pedophile? People generally don't choose what and who they're attracted to. It is not illegal to be attracted to children. It is only illegal to act on it. Provided that he doesn't, he can still be a good man in my book.
3. Laws against pedophiles (not against pedophiliac acts -- pedophiles) are counter-productive. For example, it is illegal to create computer-generated child pornography. Why!? Provided that it gives people who are into such things a release, and no children are harmed, I have no problem with it. Many of today's sex-related laws are based on some twisted idea of morality, and nothing more.
NeXTStep?