No, I disagree. He’s a moron. And he’s a dangerous moron. He’s the exact type of dangerous moron that has allowed Fundamentalist Lawmakers and neo-puritian prosecutors to butt-fuck the 1st Admendment all in the name of “protecting the children”. Porno- even Kiddie porn- was legal to possess for a time under many Courts interpretation of the 1st Admendment. Now, it’s not. Well, since I don’t want to look at Kiddy porn, and I think those that do are perverts- I couldn’t get all riled up about this invasion of the 1st Admendment. After all- SCOTUS was correct that the making of hardcore child pornography was a crime- and thus those that published it were profiting from a crime. Thus- reasoning backwards- less profits, less crime, so banning the sale and production of kiddy porn was a legitimate violation of the 1st Ad, as it “protected the children”. Well… OK. :dubious:
But how does prosecuting a legit artist, an innocent father, or a nursing mom- “protect the children”? Its doesn’t- in fact in two of those cases, it has often resulted in the child being taken awy from their loving parents for an indeterminate time while the poor parent bankrupts himself with legal costs.
Here- we’d normally get up a petition, and a wave of outraged citizens would sweep that prosecutor from office in a trice. But- no… not with certain morons out there, who anytime anyone says anything which isn’t 100% in agreement with the neo-puritians- shouts out loudly “AHA- so you’re in favor of kiddy porn!!” :rolleyes:
Or the lawmakers that made it a crime to ban porno where the “stars” were indeed- consenting adults- but made up to pretend they are younger teens. They also made it illegal for an artist to draw a fantasy scene- if it apparently portrayed underaged “children”. However- there were no real children in either sort. Sure- SCOTUS reversed this law- but only after hundreds of arrests and millions of dollars of legal fees. This is the kind of moron that shouts "“AHA- so you’re in favor of kiddy porn!!” at the brave defense attorneys that fought this stupid law, to proetc the 1st Admendment.
This is the kind of moron- who when someone says “Hmm, maybe we shouldn’t send that dude to prison for* 20 years* just for looking at kiddy porn” again shouts out their accusation: “AHA- so you’re in favor of kiddy porn!!”. :rolleyes:
This is the kind of moron who takes quotes out of context, or rephrases some ones words so it almost sounds like they might have *possibly *said something that might be slightly defensive of some things that only the neo-puritian thinks is “kiddy porn” again shouts out- “AHA- so you’re in favor of kiddy porn!!” :rolleyes:
This is the kind of moron that should be muzzled and ignored.
I agree with all of that save for, but I said I would be back in about an hour, so here I am. First, again, I can not respond to your statements about legal pornography “degrading women” , a handy dandy blanket term that you use, until you explain it better, assuming your explanation is rational enuf’ to make it possible to respond.
As for the claim that I ignored post 56, well, DrDeth explained in post 59 (along with others in many other posts) that your definition of porn is faulty. Your idea that my statement in post 55 isn’t really an argument is la lie, plain and simple. I can see why DrDeth was so upset in post 62.
When we are discussing the hysteria that leads to parents being arrested for taking pictures of their toddlers in the bathtub, the kind that consigns all images of nude children, no matter how innocent, to the realm of child porn, you accuse us of defending images of children being sexually exploited. These two kinds of images are DIFF-ER-ENT. We know this. Why don’t you?
See above.
I was explaining DrDeth’s rationale as to why not paying for kiddie porn makes it more morally ambiguous. It can’t be argued that one is supporting a heinous industry, when said industry is not benefiting in any way from the consumption of its products. The movie and music industries whine about this constantly. Imagine if filesharing was undermining the nefarious CP industry in the same way that it is allegedly undermining the legitimate entertainment business. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
Not really. Nope. I’m not one of those people who believes that. I don’t think the human psyche is so simple that it can say; “Hey, I saw it in a movie, so it must be A-OK!”
It’s not and it doesn’t. If you think otherwise, fine. Personally, I find those characterizations outdated and shrill.
I challenge you to find any statement of mine advocating such prosecution. I have said this– “If he meant to make the point that some pictures of children who happen to be nude are not pornography, a point I think most people would agree with, he chose a clumsy way to do it.”
I challenge you to show where I have accused you of being “in favor of kiddy porn.”
See above.
See above.
Cite please?
Well, you would hardly need to do both, now would you?
While you are at it, please tell me which of these statements are out of context or contain words which have been rephrased, and why you continue to refuse to explain or support them.
DrDeth
"*I know one can argue that buying kiddy porn aids ands abets the person who makes it, who possibly wouldn’t make it except for the chance someone would buy it. But since there were penty of sites where perverts would download for free their “work”, it seems like a lot of the current kiddie porn swirling around out there isn’t commercial in it’s original purpose. Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim. * "
"*Next- one can argue that simple possession of hardcore kiddy porn isn’t the heinous crime calling for a sentence 3 times that of Murder. * "
“*If the “kiddie porn” only involves nudity- no actual sex- it that harmful to the child? *”
kung fu lola,
My response to you— kung fu lola
“When we are discussing the hysteria that leads to parents being arrested for taking pictures of their toddlers in the bathtub, the kind that consigns all images of nude children, no matter how innocent, to the realm of child porn, you accuse us of defending images of children being sexually exploited. These two kinds of images are DIFF-ER-ENT. We know this. Why don’t you?”
My words–“If he meant to make the point that some pictures of children who happen to be nude are not pornography,** a point I think most people would agree with**, he chose a clumsy way to do it.”(Emphasis added)
DrDeth made reference to “no actual sex” which I interpreted as “no intercourse.” You corrected my interpretation. I submitted some scenarios that fit your interpretation ** and asked if they would be harmful to the child. Instead of answering my question, you claim that I have accused you of “defending images of children being sexually exploited.” This is not the case, and I challenge you to show otherwise. What I have asked you and DrDeth ** to do is defend affirmative statements you have made. Frankly, inventing accusers out of whole cloth seems much more like hysteria than anything I have said or done.
kung fu lola
“I was explaining DrDeth’s rationale as to why not paying for kiddie porn makes it more morally ambiguous. It can’t be argued that one is supporting a heinous industry, when said industry is not benefiting in any way from the consumption of its products. The movie and music industries whine about this constantly. Imagine if filesharing was undermining the nefarious CP industry in the same way that it is allegedly undermining the legitimate entertainment business. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?”
Well DrDeth said if you just look at it that is not the same as paying for it. I strongly suspect that you cannot look at it without paying for it, which only leaves his reference to non-commercial porn, or porn that is uploaded for free. I suppose you could argue that the amatuers might take business away from the pros, but to suggest that that somehaow makes what they do a good thing is bizarre, to say the least. It’s arguments like that that put you in danger of being accused of “defending child pornography.” And while you are at it, how about answering this question–
"I want to be very careful to understand you here. Are you suggesting that if I were to download a film of a child being raped, for my enjoyment, and perhaps pass this film around to likeminded individuals, that we are committing no crime because we cannot go back in time and undo the rape? " kung fu lola
"*Not really. Nope. I’m not one of those people who believes that. I don’t think the human psyche is so simple that it can say; “Hey, I saw it in a movie, so it must be A-OK!” *’
I am sorry I was unclear. I did not mean to suggest that seeing it in a movie would make someone think it was OK to do. I meant that if am individual is pre-disposed towards having sex with a child, viewing child pornography might make him more likely to act on those desires.