@RevJ-
You're confusing my points so I'll try and be concise.
1)There are laws against pedophilia
2)There are laws against filming pedophilia (or there are laws against filming minors having sex... whichever wording you prefer, they're the same)
3)there are no laws against consenting adults pretending to have sex with a minor.
Point A)
You're confusing 2 and 3 above.
I said
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.
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.
@Sarcasm, not correct at all
You said
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.
there is a distinct line between filming a crime and doing a crime that the other side keeps mixing up. Using the logic that
A=pedophilia=victim
B=child pornography
C=legal porn
A is illegal, B is illegal , C does not imitate A and has no victim, C imitates B, C should be illegal
side note = Anyone who has filmed the act of a murder should go to jail for being an accomplice to murder(or accessory if they're not present at the murder). We also have Aiding and abetting laws in the US. Presence alone is not enough to abet, but I think filming something the murder wants filmed would be considered encouraging the murder and qualify them for equal punishment.
You're confusing my points so I'll try and be concise.
1)There are laws against pedophilia
2)There are laws against filming pedophilia (or there are laws against filming minors having sex... whichever wording you prefer, they're the same)
3)there are no laws against consenting adults pretending to have sex with a minor.
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.
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.
@Sarcasm, not correct at all
You said
Quote:someone thinks that filming a video that is 'acting' as pedophilia is the same as actual pedophilia. Using this logic i can also say anyone filming the 'act' of a murder is also committing murder. Therefore anyone who has filmed the act of a muder should go to jail for committing murder.
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.
there is a distinct line between filming a crime and doing a crime that the other side keeps mixing up. Using the logic that
A=pedophilia=victim
B=child pornography
C=legal porn
A is illegal, B is illegal , C does not imitate A and has no victim, C imitates B, C should be illegal
side note = Anyone who has filmed the act of a murder should go to jail for being an accomplice to murder(or accessory if they're not present at the murder). We also have Aiding and abetting laws in the US. Presence alone is not enough to abet, but I think filming something the murder wants filmed would be considered encouraging the murder and qualify them for equal punishment.
"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
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
