Senran Kagura Estival Versus Trailer Busty As Ever
Genkai Tokki: Seven Pirates – “Much Treasured Chests!”
Nagi Sanzenin Nekomimi Shimapan Figure
Winter 2016 Anime Theme Songs Skillfully Covered
Osomatsu-san’s Iyami Takes The Mound
Alessa said:
Besides all little girls grow up to be whores in the end so if the fruit is picked early there is no harm or foul.
Pedobear approves of this message. xDD
Sankaku Complex Forums » General
-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Anyone that has porn of real children should go to jail, I don't care if they're doing it themselves or not - they're still supporting the act by either buying it or leeching it.
2D, of course, is okay, since no real children are involved. The same goes with 3D that aren't real children... stuff in video games, and things of that sort. Close, but no cigar, so it should stay.
Posted 6 years ago # -
ShadowKit said:
Anyone that has porn of real children should go to jail, I don't care if they're doing it themselves or not - they're still supporting the act by either buying it or leeching it.The act and the archiving would occur even without the emotional support of a community if it was done for free. Also no one rapes a child for purely financial reasons so again it would still occur. Exhibitionists don't need an audience to seek to satisfy their fetish. They hope for an audience but their paraphilia/sexual desire is what encourages them.
Posted 6 years ago # -
You forget!!!!...in order for 3-D to even exist someone has to pose for it! even if it's just a painting - someone had to model. Even 2-D the artist generally has 'someone' (or a group of people's characteristics) in mind. For all you people who say '3-D's disgusting and are revolted when I post a Playboy Model....ask yourself why your repulsed over a 'REAL 3-D' women...subconsciously maybe cause you know she's "Real".
You don't get the Guilt from a 2-D pic cause you know it's fake. I would be HIGHLY disgusted with this site if it 'justified'or allowed 3-D Loli-sex. Utterly repulsed. My whole attack over a week again was to see who was 'Postureing' and who was a 'True Believer' of those 'tastes'...I still wonder about some of you.
In this case 3-D is Disgusting
Posted 6 years ago # -
We're repulsed because you have very poor choice in women.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Gantz_Playboy said:
My whole attack over a week again was to see who was 'Postureing' and who was a 'True Believer' of those 'tastes'...I still wonder about some of you.Are you going to give us the results of your research, Doc?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Blitz said:
Are you going to give us the results of your research, Doc?
No, all results are for his make believe clients.
Posted 6 years ago # -
ShadowKit said:
Anyone that has porn of real children should go to jail, I don't care if they're doing it themselves or not - they're still supporting the act by either buying it or leeching it.2D, of course, is okay, since no real children are involved. The same goes with 3D that aren't real children... stuff in video games, and things of that sort. Close, but no cigar, so it should stay.
Problem is that you don't have to save it. You can accidentaly view CP when you go to 4chan wednesday nights and willfully view it when you go to 12chan. Host should be liable!
Posted 6 years ago # -
ShadowKit said:
Anyone that has porn of real children should go to jail, I don't care if they're doing it themselves or not - they're still supporting the act by either buying it or leeching it.2D, of course, is okay, since no real children are involved. The same goes with 3D that aren't real children... stuff in video games, and things of that sort. Close, but no cigar, so it should stay.
Problem is that you don't have to save it. You can accidentaly view CP when you go to 4chan wednesday nights and willfully view it when you go to 12chan. Host should be liable!
Posted 6 years ago # -
Apologies if there was a misinterpretation in the usage of the term "3D". I do indeed mean "real" when I use it here.
MelancholyMomo said:
To be honest, I agree with most of your argument.. it makes logical sense..but unfortunately the morals and ethics that have been forced into me do not allow me to say no ~_~..
I can respect where you're coming from, although I find it unfortunate that it's come to this. To clarify, the point of my argument is not to say that "CP is okay", but to prevent governments from having too much power to invade the private lives of its citizens, for the sake of a moral crusade. At least the way I view it, you can agree that simple possession doesn't constitute a crime, while still maintaining that you think it's wrong, reprehensible, and not defensible from a moral perspective. The trouble here is, should we be punishing people, not for directly causing harm, but because they have opposing morals to our own?
I still think it's reasonable for the government to investigate and shut down cases that involve the crime of abuse. Provided they are able to distinguish between what's abuse and what is not. And for example, in the case of Scenario A, I think it would be justified that the video in question be deleted, because of the fact that it's the document of a crime. I suppose it would be reasonable that the video's owner, if not found to have committed any other punishable acts than merely having the video, be fined as a way of discouraging him from seeking out other videos of that sort. But should he be put behind bars? Again, if no other crime was found, I don't think so.
Kaiji said:
3D, on the other hand...yeah, fuckers need to get their asses tossed in jail. Not as bad as getting their hands on a real child, but still pretty damn bad. Getting off to it could lead to fantasizing about getting it on with a child, and that has the possibility of resulting in a child getting harmed by the viewer, not to MENTION what could've been done to the child in the video. Just because it seems fine to you doesn't make it right.The sexual abuse of a child does not seem fine to me. And regardless of whether or not an act is considered "right", which I presume to be a moral judgement, the question of whether or not it is a *crime* should depend on whether or not someone is being legitimately harmed. The production of a video depicting actual abuse is unambiguously a crime, but my question is, is viewing and/or possessing that video a crime? If so, who does it hurt?
And as for your argument, it's rather dangerous. Purchasing a gun could tempt you to fantasize about using it, and that has the *possibility* of leading to you testing it out on a person. That doesn't mean that everyone who buys a gun is the type who would allow himself to commit a violent act against another person, and it doesn't mean that nobody should be allowed to own a gun. We can't start punishing people for crimes they *could* commit - only when we have reason to believe that they *intend* to commit a crime is preemptive action, in my opinion, warranted. And not everybody who faps to naked children are violent abusers.
ShadowKit said:
Anyone that has porn of real children should go to jail, I don't care if they're doing it themselves or not - they're still supporting the act by either buying it or leeching it.My argument in this case would be, so punish them for buying it or leeching it, because that promotes the exploitation of these children. But don't tack on an extra offense for possessing the material, because simply having it hurts noone and should not be considered a crime. I dealt with this issue in the second paragraph after the question in my original post.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I think the issue of CP is a very touchy one, and should be dealt with as such.
solace said:
To clarify, the point of my argument is not to say that "CP is okay", but to prevent governments from having too much power to invade the private lives of its citizens, for the sake of a moral crusade.I wholeheartedly agree with this.
solace said:
I still think it's reasonable for the government to investigate and shut down cases that involve the crime of abuse. Provided they are able to distinguish between what's abuse and what is not.This is where things get a bit less clear. Let's say that (as in your scenario C) the video contains a girl who is masturbating to a camera, and there appears to be no coercion. Because of the seriousness of sexual coercion on children, I think the law should trace this video's source and investigate those involved to determine whether or not there was coercion in play. I don't think the person possessing the video should be punished for thought crime, since even if it turns out there was sexual abuse happening, he didn't think that's what he was supporting by downloading said video. The obvious problem with this scheme is tracing the origin of anonymous videos published on the internet at an unknown time from an unknown place. Also, there is not enough people in law enforcement to track down every single video featuring a minor.
I'm not really going anywhere with this, just showing some points to take into consideration.
solace said:
The production of a video depicting actual abuse is unambiguously a crime, but my question is, is viewing and/or possessing that video a crime? If so, who does it hurt?I'd say possessing it should perhaps not be a crime(again, I'm not quite sure about that), but that greater effort should be made to find where the video came from. International CP police would be very useful in this effort if the various countries could agree on it.
Posted 6 years ago # -
solace said:
The production of a video depicting actual abuse is unambiguously a crime, but my question is, is viewing and/or possessing that video a crime? If so, who does it hurt?Well, yeah. It's kinda hurting one of the most important laws "Human dignity is inviolable".
For example let's say there is a video of a child being raped, obviously a crime, and while you miraculously got your hands on it without distributing or in any way encouraging it's further distribution, it's still a offence to the dignity of that child depicted. This video would be the result of a crime and you have no right of indulging yourself in taped suffering of a human being.
I mean, you agree too right, you wouldn't want others owning a video of your childhood in which you were raped?
I know, you would probably say it's not actually hurting them, but I think it's the necessary respect you ought to have for a human.But as long as it was for example some foolish girl who posted a video of herself masturbating on the internet free for all, this gets a bit blurred. If it was really her own doing it's also her own fault. Someone who doesn't have respect herself can't expect others to have some for her.
For the first offence I would go as far as considering serious jail time, though I think it should be mainly act as a deterrent.
For the latter I actually think it's stupid to give fault to anybody. But maybe the underaged person in question should be given some tasks like helping in a nursing home or picking up dog poo in the park for a while, to prevent them getting into some service business later in life. Though things like accusing them for making cp is absurd.Posted 6 years ago # -
anonymous said:
But as long as it was for example some foolish girl who posted a video of herself masturbating on the internet free for all, this gets a bit blurred. If it was really her own doing it's also her own fault. Someone who doesn't have respect herself can't expect others to have some for her.This seems to imply that someone releasing a video of their own self-stimulation to the internet has no respect for their self. Is that an intended implication?
anonymous said:For the latter I actually think it's stupid to give fault to anybody. But maybe the underaged person in question should be given some tasks like helping in a nursing home or picking up dog poo in the park for a while, to prevent them getting into some service business later in life. Though things like accusing them for making cp is absurd.
Wha? Penal community service? Why?
Posted 6 years ago # -
solace said:
Purchasing a gun could tempt you to fantasize about using it, and that has the *possibility* of leading to you testing it out on a person. That doesn't mean that everyone who buys a gun is the type who would allow himself to commit a violent act against another person, and it doesn't mean that nobody should be allowed to own a gun.solace understands me, I want to have a big collections of guns, and well, I only have one at the moment(lack of money because I purchased a Xbox 360), but I want to have them in a shelf only as demonstration, not for real usage.
Edit: Now I think I love solace even more.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Solace said:To clarify, the point of my argument is not to say that "CP is okay", but to prevent governments from having too much power to invade the private lives of its citizens, for the sake of a moral crusade.
I apologize ~ I didn't read your argument fully, just glanced through.
Tehe~anonymous said:
I mean, you agree too right, you wouldn't want others owning a video of your childhood in which you were raped?
I know, you would probably say it's not actually hurting them, but I think it's the necessary respect you ought to have for a human.But as long as it was for example some foolish girl who posted a video of herself masturbating on the internet free for all, this gets a bit blurred.
I agree.. this is a matter that bothers me constantly whenever I view debates on underage sex and child porn. Where do you draw the line..?
I understand and agree that children should be protected from sexual or any kind of abuse in fact.. but I dislike how anyone underage is perceived to be a mindless drone, after all what can you consider a 'child'..?'I'm not interested in age. People who tell me their age are silly. You're as old as you feel.'
There are many cases where a boyfriend or lover has been charged with pedophilia and in some cases are added onto sex offenders list, simply for possessing sexually provocative images of their underage lover.. and in most cases these girls are consenting to this act of sexual gratification, and know what they are doing..
What crime/sin are these men guilty of?
Posted 6 years ago # -
God fucking shit.
Possession of child pornography just makes you
look bad. And i mean really bad. Why would you
wanna risk losing friends to a few video and DVD
collections?Drug dealers look bad, but they make money off of drug
sales because society rejects them. Possession of child
pornography doesn't do shit but loosen your screws up
in that head of yours and possibly ruin the rest of your life.Posted 6 years ago # -
I don't think this topic is here to make everyone think CP = goodness..
and that there is nothing wrong with possessing it..more along the lines of.. looking at the situation/opinion/view ignoring the morals and ethics we have been force-fed, and instead looking at it in a philosophical and logical way..
at least that is what I am trying to do ~
Posted 6 years ago # -
If you guys are familiar with the junior idol scene in akihabara... that shit (be it in DVD or booklets) is legalized CP! What those japs are doing is that it's somewhat similar to Russians and Ukranians but its well established and it's "dumbed down" so they can sell it on the streets. Those Russians and Ukranians sometimes go waay overboard and no wonder INTERPOL is making successful "campaigns" in Eastern (and western) Europe.
Posted 6 years ago # -
SaruDa said:
The obvious problem with this scheme is tracing the origin of anonymous videos published on the internet at an unknown time from an unknown place. Also, there is not enough people in law enforcement to track down every single video featuring a minor.Assuming it were actually possible to implement "full responsibility" and "full trackability" in the internet culture, law enforcement could indeed use it to serve justice to a lot of criminals hiding there. On the other hand, if they had that power, they could also easily abuse it. That's why I support internet anonymity. Some criminals may be able to slip through the net as a result, but personally I think that's a price we just have to pay in order to have the option to be able to subvert authority. People will abuse that power as well, but I'd rather have that than have no alternative but to obey authority - because the fact is, authority doesn't always know or do what's best for you. I believe this is a case of liberty vs. security. There's a sacrifice we all have to make in order to be free. And that sacrifice is what I think this particular example is about.
anonymous said:
Well, yeah. It's kinda hurting one of the most important laws "Human dignity is inviolable".Forgive me for opening with this, but: if human dignity is truly inviolable, then how can it be violated?
That wasn't a serious question. You have indeed made an important point, and I think that's behind what I was thinking when I decided that destroying the video in Scenario A would be justified.
But yes, the concept gets confused when we consider what does and does not constitute child pornography, and what sorts of videos (or pictures) do and do not violate a person's dignity. Hard to say. However, destroying all recordings of humans, or even just children, is not, to me, a satisfactory solution.
I'll admit that I have a pretty nonstandard concept of privacy when it comes to photographs and videos of people. That's a result of my own personality. I'm voyeuristic to a point, but also very passive. I think *watching* a person without any kind of interaction is perfectly harmless. Doesn't mean that people can't take advantage of that situation, but it's something I would never do. If we're talking about being in person, yeah, privacy is important. But looking at a picture or a video of somebody, with or without their knowledge - it's not gonna stain their soul in some esoteric way.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Blitz said:
Are you going to give us the results of your research, Doc?
Yeah...after very careful analysis a panel of distinquished minds has concluded that You and Alessa need to get a room and get it over with- lol.
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.