Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 9, 2011 at 11:30 pm
(April 9, 2011 at 8:42 pm)tackattack Wrote: I believe filming a video that is acting as pedophilia is not the same as pedophilia. It is however the same as filming child pornography,IMO and in the arguments I've shown.
So then the two people engaged in the 'acting' of the murder should not be brought to jail because it is not the same as murder. But on the other hand the person filming the 'act' of this murder should go to jail because they are technically filming a murder and therefore being an accomplice to the 'act' of a murder?
Btw i'm not saying that i think its okay to have a video acting as pedophilia. I personally think its pretty disturbing, but i dont think its wrong because of the fact that the video pretends to be pedophilia or the person filming it is treating it like pedophilia. I think its wrong because the person who buys this video treats this the same as if he had bought a video of pedophilia. Because of that i think it shouldn't be filmed, not that the actual filming or acting is wrong.
~ Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, give a man a religion and he'll die praying for a fish.
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 10, 2011 at 7:49 am (This post was last modified: April 10, 2011 at 8:27 am by tackattack.)
@ Sarcasm- I see your point sarcasm and it's a good one. I completely agree with "the person who buys this video treats this the same as if he had bought a video of pedophilia. Because of that i think it shouldn't be filmed, not that the actual filming or acting is wrong."
I haven't advocated once that anyone go to jail, even though I find it very morally wrong. I've been advocating heavy regulation and tracking. I wish that it wasn't a category of legal porn and the legal producers of such porn are actually doing some societal harm by increasing the demand by condoning and supplying the substitute. The actual act of filming isn't illegal or wrong, but the purpose of the producers are clear.
If I made a cocaine substitute that was legal, but was pretty much exactly the same,only pink in color. Then I went and sold it to my friends as a legal cocaine substitute. I should hold some accountability (at the very least I would have severe guilt) for someone dying from an OD or going on a murdering rampage because of the stuff. It would also become fairly illegal fairly fast. I don't see any remorse or concern for society at all from corporations in general, and it's no different for the porn industry, it's only about catering to the demand and making money. If you make your money by raising a generation of rapists and pedophiles though, shouldn't someone at least try and stop it? I know it's a bit sensationalist, but it's how I feel about the situation.
For instance, Pot is illegal, spice was a legal substitute(whether it actually had the same effects or not is irrelevant). Spice then became illegal, product was seized, taken off the market, and distributors were fined, customers were fined/tracked and it was put on their record. I don't think anyone has yet to go to jail for selling or buying spice here in VA. I think it's pointless to waste the city money on jailing these people supplying or demanding the product. I think though that a stand should be made saying "fantasizing about pedophilia is wrong whether it's faked or not". It is similar to a thought crime which I know RevJ will jump all over. You can't prosecute intent, you can shape society by establishing boundaries.
@-Ashendant- You already stated that child pornography further victimizes the victim, but not how. I asked for specifics and you ignored the question.
(April 9, 2011 at 10:11 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
Tack Wrote:You're confusing my points so I'll try and be concise.
All right Tack. I'm going to do this one more time, and I am going to try to be as sensitive to your wording as possible.
tack Wrote:1)There are laws against pedophilia
Yes, generally speaking in modern society, yes.
tack Wrote:2)There are laws against filming pedophilia (or there are laws against filming minors having sex... whichever wording you prefer, they're the same).
Yes
tack Wrote:3)there are no laws against consenting adults pretending to have sex with a minor..
Look, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in this question. Yes. An adult can "pretend" or "act" like they are younger and have sex with other consenting adults.
tack Wrote:Point A)
You're confusing 2 and 3 above.
I said
Quote: Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act?
I was talking about 1 and 2.. there are laws for both.
What is the purpose of child pornography laws?
So far the only answer the other side has given is to protect the victim.
If the victim has already been victimized... what protection is there? I then proposed several alternative reasons why there are child pornography laws. The key of which is that society doesn't want these images publicly available. There are several reasons for that which I clearly stated. .
Okay. The laws DO protect minors from being victimized as far as laws are concerned these days. They give HARSH penalties for people who do such things, regardless of pornography (filming or pictures) or just the sex act in general. They protect the victim as much as any other law can. There are laws that say murder is illegal, and that HARSH consequences will follow those who are proven to do such a thing. Does the law protect everyone? No. Its going to happen, but some people get caught and their punishment is given. Thus our current system of law.
tack Wrote:Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act?
That is a good question. These laws are drawn from many people over several years. I cannot know why, nor you, except for their wording of the law. Perhaps it would help if you actually posted a law, instead of a generalized question. But, in spirit of the discussion, I will try to answer your question - It is illegal to commit pedophilia in this American society for many reasons IN MY OPINION: Society considers an older person who is emotionally secure taking advantage of a younger person who is emotionally immature to be wrong. A grown woman of 30 years becoming pregnant with a 13 year old boys baby is stressful to society and the "vicitm" (who knows..maybe he likes having a son..I dont know) in our current technological level. In earlier societies, a female reaching the age of puberty was married off as soon as possible because of the level of that societies advancement and life expectancy of the time. Now our society is much more advanced to where, even though they are capable of physically reproducing, it would cause an undue strain on society for them personally, and socially as a whole. Also, the reasons why we cannot WATCH the act (the REAL act, not AN "act") is to protect the victim. Can you imagine if you were molested as a young boy by a gay man (and please, I do not think all gays are this way..it is merely an example for discussion, and I support gay rights) and it was completely legal to see it? You would NEVER be able to go anywhere, or work anywhere without someone finding that video and using it against you. You were victimized at a young age, and wether you liked it or not being a young boy at the time, or wether you even wanted it or not (which is a WHOLE other can of worms that, as I said before, I DONT want to get into and why I made this poll generalized instead of specific) because your "victimization" (as I said, ether you liked it or wanted it or not at the time) is based on a media trail that can follow you into your adult life and very likely adversely effect your social and private life later in life. Our society, currently, tries to protect the youth and their decisions (wether they liked doing them or not) from adversely effecting their ADULT life. Therefore we "seal" a minors criminal records. This is MY OPINION of the laws. I may be dead wrong, but it is my opinion.
tack Wrote:Point B)
If there is no victim for child pornography laws, other than society (as shown in A). Then society deems these images AND the acts of these images wrong. Faking those images with the intent to make them seem real would then defeat the purpose of child pornography laws. It would however alleviate any culpability in the victim area, but not the image area.
Okay. Look, I am going to try to go indepth with you as I possibly can. Besides, you cram so many questions into one question it is difficult to understand what you are asking. As far as your first two sentences of point b, I feel that I answered them already. In my own opinion, I broke down WHAT I THINK, basically, what laws such as this mean. I cannot go any further on those.
Now we are on "faking" images with "intent" to seem real would then defeat the purpose of child pornography laws.
I am going to flat out say NO. All parties are legal adults who consent to such acting, and therefore (as long as those conditions are met) is LEGAL and NOTHING to do with the pedophilia laws. In fact they are MILLIONS OF MILES away from pedophilia laws. If your wife says "I've been a bad girl daddy, and I need to be spanked" do you consider that breaking the pedo laws, as well as incest laws intent? Honestly man. There is no "alleviate any culpability in the victim area" because there is no underaged people to be vicitimized in adult play acting. Its not even a factor. Just ZERO!
No..just..ZERO...man..ZERO!
"but not the image area".- Look man. I cant help but think you are trying to convince me to throw grown, consenting adults in jail for play acting and ban any play acting in consenting adults sex lives. If this is NOT what you are trying to ask me, then I honestly cannot understand what you want me to answer.
If this is NOT what you are trying to say. Then I suggest you sit down, and REALLY try hard to get your wording correct. Write down WHAT YOU THINK. Please do not put it in the form of a question. Just flat out say what you are thinking and expect to be judged afterwards. I refuse to throw consenting adults into jail for play acting...wether on or off the camera.
I appreciate your patience in this discussion. I did post laws, but I'll post them again
Quote:US CEOS laws excerpt
"Child pornography is defined by law as the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2256(1) and (8). This means that any image of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct is illegal contraband. Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2). A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. In addition, for purposes of the child pornography statutes, federal law considers a person under the age of 18 to be a child. See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(1). It is irrelevant that the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state might be lower than 18. A visual depiction for purposes of the federal child pornography laws includes a photograph or videotape, including undeveloped film or videotape, as well as data stored electronically which can be converted into a visual image."
As you see none of the laws you'll find on child pornography talk about a victim of molestation, because that's what molestation laws are for. These laws are about visual depiction of a person under the age of 18. If your actress pretends to be 15 but never states her age and is in fact 18 then that is how they get around the laws, because the buyer assumes she's under 18, but the producer does everything they can to make her seem 15.
So you feel the media trail from child pornography damages a victim in their adulthood. I already talked about that scenario and it's highly unlikely that anyone will be able to identify them as an adult (unless they're name is given of course) and even if they were identified; to acknowledge that publicly or to the victim, would be admitting to possessing and watching child pornography. This reason is far more unlikely than "because society doesn't want to see the images circulating", but at least you're not distinguishing between the laws against the act and the laws against the image.
I'll answer my own question if that will help you. I think the main and glaring reason we have child pornography image laws to protect society from seeing these images, not to protect the child victim in them, although that could be a lesser reason/byproduct. If that is the main reason then faking the images defeats the purpose of the laws, could we agree on that statement?
I am not "trying to convince me to throw grown, consenting adults in jail for play acting and ban any play acting in consenting adults sex lives" I am trying to convince you that people use faked child porn like real child porn, it increases demand for child porn (both the legal and illegal) and that it isn't necessarily illegal to film it, it should regulated/tracked at the very least.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 10, 2011 at 8:58 am
(April 10, 2011 at 7:49 am)tackattack Wrote: @ Sarcasm- I see your point sarcasm and it's a good one. I completely agree with "the person who buys this video treats this the same as if he had bought a video of pedophilia. Because of that i think it shouldn't be filmed, not that the actual filming or acting is wrong."
Surely it's better though that if they are buying it because it resembles child porn that they are using the legal alternative where no child is actually hurt and they are just watching consenting adults. Take away the legal option of paedophiles who are at least making the conscious decision to watch the legal, faked version then all they have is the real thing, which as it's already banned yet still available you could do nothing about.
A) Legal version = nobody gets hurt. No child is abused. It's already regulated so fairly safe.
B) Illegal version = Abuse and exploitation of children. Impossible to regulate.
Take away option A and the demand will still be there yet the only alternative they would have is option B, thus possibly increasing demand and production of option B. It certainly won't stop ANYONE getting hurt and abused who already is.
Quote:If I made a cocaine substitute that was legal, but was pretty much exactly the same,only pink in color. Then I went and sold it to my friends as a legal cocaine substitute. I should hold some accountability (at the very least I would have severe guilt) for someone dying from an OD or going on a murdering rampage because of the stuff.
That would create SOOOOOOO many grey areas in the law. If doing anything that resembled a crime or resembled the outcome the law was trying to stop without actually commiting a crime became illegal it would be such a ridiculous place to live.
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 10, 2011 at 10:12 am (This post was last modified: April 10, 2011 at 10:36 am by reverendjeremiah.)
tack Wrote:I appreciate your patience in this discussion. I did post laws, but I'll post them again
Please dont...have mercy on me...you win man! You are right with everything you said and everything I said was wrong. You win.
Tack Wrote:I'll answer my own question if that will help you. I think the main and glaring reason we have child pornography image laws to protect society from seeing these images, not to protect the child victim in them, although that could be a lesser reason/byproduct. If that is the main reason then faking the images defeats the purpose of the laws, could we agree on that statement?
I am not "trying to convince me to throw grown, consenting adults in jail for play acting and ban any play acting in consenting adults sex lives" I am trying to convince you that people use faked child porn like real child porn, it increases demand for child porn (both the legal and illegal) and that it isn't necessarily illegal to film it, it should regulated/tracked at the very least.
You win man. I can no longer argue the subject. You win. All legal porn is regulated. As far as "tracking" it, I stand in AWE over the size that government will become once Tack is done with it
Tack Wrote:If I made a cocaine substitute that was legal, but was pretty much exactly the same,only pink in color. Then I went and sold it to my friends as a legal cocaine substitute. I should hold some accountability (at the very least I would have severe guilt) for someone dying from an OD or going on a murdering rampage because of the stuff.
The DEA already does this. They will even go over the citizens vote, and eve the Representative and Senates head and arbitrarily make a law on the spot delcaring something a "controlled substance", and can apply a felony punishment to it. So the DEA can arbitrarily declare what you are selling is illegal and take your citizen rights and even your freedom away..arbitrarily, regardless of what society thinks of the substance.
Apparently the moderate and Conservative Americans love a government entity making arbitrary laws on the spot, seeing as they never stopped them from doing so, and even put them into that power.
If my voice mattered I would toss the entire DEA out of the door as a tax payer leech and genuine threat to American freedom. Let States set their own drug enforcement and laws.
Personally I think drugs should be a health issue, not a legal issue.
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 10, 2011 at 6:51 pm
(April 10, 2011 at 8:58 am)Skipper Wrote:
(April 10, 2011 at 7:49 am)tackattack Wrote: @ Sarcasm- I see your point sarcasm and it's a good one. I completely agree with "the person who buys this video treats this the same as if he had bought a video of pedophilia. Because of that i think it shouldn't be filmed, not that the actual filming or acting is wrong."
Surely it's better though that if they are buying it because it resembles child porn that they are using the legal alternative where no child is actually hurt and they are just watching consenting adults. Take away the legal option of paedophiles who are at least making the conscious decision to watch the legal, faked version then all they have is the real thing, which as it's already banned yet still available you could do nothing about.
A) Legal version = nobody gets hurt. No child is abused. It's already regulated so fairly safe.
B) Illegal version = Abuse and exploitation of children. Impossible to regulate.
Take away option A and the demand will still be there yet the only alternative they would have is option B, thus possibly increasing demand and production of option B. It certainly won't stop ANYONE getting hurt and abused who already is.
Quote:If I made a cocaine substitute that was legal, but was pretty much exactly the same,only pink in color. Then I went and sold it to my friends as a legal cocaine substitute. I should hold some accountability (at the very least I would have severe guilt) for someone dying from an OD or going on a murdering rampage because of the stuff.
That would create SOOOOOOO many grey areas in the law. If doing anything that resembled a crime or resembled the outcome the law was trying to stop without actually commiting a crime became illegal it would be such a ridiculous place to live.
I think legal porn actually increases the demand by reaching in and hooking more viewers to the genre. It increases the fantasies about such things because people feel it's legal, feeding the id. Yes, there will probably be an increase in actual child pornography use, which might actually cause more victims temporarily. That will make the criminals, easier to target and victims easier to help. Maybe it won't decrease demand at all, but it will decrease the amount of people desiring such images. It certainly would stop increasing the demand. It certainly won't stop ANYONE getting hurt and abused who already is, but it would is more likely to shrink the overall numbers of abused victims, IMO.
I don't see it as creating gray areas, I see legally faked child porn as gray. It's either legal or illegal. Most people I'm guessing by the vote consider it legal. I consider it illegal, by the law and it's intent. I don't put my personal freedom to watch what I want over the effect it has on society. I don't want anyone else's personal freedom to be more important than the betterment of society, either. Sometimes that means personal freedoms take precedence over unimportant details to the overall scheme of things. The important things though, that cause real damage to people and society, should be confronted. At least from just this kind of discussion it has cause me and probably some others to draw a line in the sand with what they thought is right and wrong. That is less gray area not more. If the vote is to say it's legal for a majority then I'd back the consensus of society. I think faked victimization of children on video would be first seat to someone's personal freedoms to watch it in a truly public political forum, though.
(April 10, 2011 at 10:12 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
tack Wrote:I appreciate your patience in this discussion. I did post laws, but I'll post them again
Please dont...have mercy on me...you win man! You are right with everything you said and everything I said was wrong. You win.
Tack Wrote:I'll answer my own question if that will help you. I think the main and glaring reason we have child pornography image laws to protect society from seeing these images, not to protect the child victim in them, although that could be a lesser reason/byproduct. If that is the main reason then faking the images defeats the purpose of the laws, could we agree on that statement?
I am not "trying to convince me to throw grown, consenting adults in jail for play acting and ban any play acting in consenting adults sex lives" I am trying to convince you that people use faked child porn like real child porn, it increases demand for child porn (both the legal and illegal) and that it isn't necessarily illegal to film it, it should regulated/tracked at the very least.
You win man. I can no longer argue the subject. You win. All legal porn is regulated. As far as "tracking" it, I stand in AWE over the size that government will become once Tack is done with it
Tack Wrote:If I made a cocaine substitute that was legal, but was pretty much exactly the same,only pink in color. Then I went and sold it to my friends as a legal cocaine substitute. I should hold some accountability (at the very least I would have severe guilt) for someone dying from an OD or going on a murdering rampage because of the stuff.
The DEA already does this. They will even go over the citizens vote, and eve the Representative and Senates head and arbitrarily make a law on the spot delcaring something a "controlled substance", and can apply a felony punishment to it. So the DEA can arbitrarily declare what you are selling is illegal and take your citizen rights and even your freedom away..arbitrarily, regardless of what society thinks of the substance.
Apparently the moderate and Conservative Americans love a government entity making arbitrary laws on the spot, seeing as they never stopped them from doing so, and even put them into that power.
If my voice mattered I would toss the entire DEA out of the door as a tax payer leech and genuine threat to American freedom. Let States set their own drug enforcement and laws.
Personally I think drugs should be a health issue, not a legal issue.
Your glaring sarcasm is really irrelevant. It's a discussion, your discussion. I'm trying to clearly state why I am against porn (as asked). It's not about who's right or wrong or who talks the longest or most. You raised some good points and objections and I think you took the time to see my point of view, which I appreciate and have reflected on. It's about sharing ideas, and the above post does little other than change the subject. Class act dodge, btw.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 11, 2011 at 5:50 am
(April 10, 2011 at 6:51 pm)tackattack Wrote: I don't see it as creating gray areas, I see legally faked child porn as gray. It's either legal or illegal.
Legally faked child porn is legal. There is nothing grey about it.
You would create grey areas if you started subjectively deeming anything illegal that went against the laws "intent" as you put it.
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 11, 2011 at 6:37 am
If you can honestly look at legal porn that makes it look like (depicts) the girls are underage (minors) and think it doesn't fall under
"Child pornography is defined by law as the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct."
then this is just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on Skipper.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 11, 2011 at 6:51 am
(April 11, 2011 at 6:37 am)tackattack Wrote: If you can honestly look at legal porn that makes it look like (depicts) the girls are underage (minors) and think it doesn't fall under
"Child pornography is defined by law as the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct."
then this is just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on Skipper.
Under the age of 18. Not, looks under 18. It is the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18.
"Normal" pornography is also illegal for anyone under 18 to partake in, should we tell anyone who looks under 18 they can't become a porn star is they so wish? It's illegal in the UK to buy alcohol if you are under 18. Should anyone who looks under 18 be told they can't buy alcohol even if they can prove they're 20?
The law you are stating clearly says it is the "visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct", you are creating grey areas when you widen that to include anyone who looks under 18 even if they're not just because it dosen't sit comfortably with you.
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 11, 2011 at 6:59 am
I just don't read the law like that. It's not that I'm not comfortable with it, it doesn't make any sense to me. I read it as visually depicting a person under 18 is child pornography. Acting under 18 with a script, outfit and props in a porn visually depicts the actress as being under 18. If she was 18 and was part of a regular porn, even if she looked younger but wasn't scripted as such, would be fine. It clearly though is their intent to depict the actresses as under 18. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 11, 2011 at 7:26 am
Don't know about you fellas, but I have never seen a legal porn with anyone portraying an underage girl.
"Teen" porn, 18 and 19 are 'teens'. Cheerleaders and babysitters? 18 and 19. I've seen plenty where an obviously 25-35 year old women are acting as 18 and 19.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but just like gods and ghosts, I heard of their existance, I just ain't never seen one.
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
--------------- NO MA'AM
![[Image: attemptingtogiveadamnc.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img824.imageshack.us%2Fimg824%2F7042%2Fattemptingtogiveadamnc.gif)
