NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6175441.stm

This is, in my opinion, total bullshit. The reason everyone hates actual child porn is because it hurts children. This doesn't. If gives people an outlet for antisocial impulses. Not to mention it's not limited to porn. It's "abuse". So tragically inspiring cartoons about a girl overcoming her abusive mother will be banned too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6175441.stm

This is, in my opinion, total bullshit. The reason everyone hates actual child porn is because it hurts children. This doesn't. If gives people an outlet for antisocial impulses. Not to mention it's not limited to porn. It's "abuse". So tragically inspiring cartoons about a girl overcoming her abusive mother will be banned too.

John Reid's right,it IS society's duty to protect children.
They're not doing that by banning CGI graphics.That's bullshit.Jeez,I hate this Government sometimes,they keep ballsing things up.
[/rant]

the sad thing is no one will dare fight this because mirror folk will forever place you as a paedophile

yes it is a wrong and pointless law that is just there to get slow witted perants support

I'm all for freedom of speech, and I wouldn't ban CGI, but I can see why some folks would. Aside from the fact that it's pretty fucked up, it can also be used by kid touchers to introduce an actual child to the idea of being molested.

So, it's not okay to actually abuse children in real life, but it is okay to draw pictures of them being abused and to giggle over them in the privacy of your own fapping pad? Isn't that a little, oh, what's the word? hypocritical?

So, it's not okay to actually abuse children in real life, but it is okay to draw pictures of them being abused and to giggle over them in the privacy of your own fapping pad? Isn't that a little, oh, what's the word? hypocritical?

How, no one is getting abused?

So, it's not okay to actually abuse children in real life, but it is okay to draw pictures of them being abused and to gigle over them in the privacy of your own fapping pad? Isn't that a little, oh, what's the word? hypocritical?

Not really. By banning child abuse in real life you're protecting children from being abused. What are you protecting by banning CGI?

So, it's not okay to actually abuse children in real life, but it is okay to draw pictures of them being abused and to giggle over them in the privacy of your own fapping pad? Isn't that a little, oh, what's the word? hypocritical?That's like comparing murder to shooting someone in a game. The difference being that noone gets hurt when it's just a game/CGI

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6175441.stm

This is, in my opinion, total bullshit. The reason everyone hates actual child porn is because it hurts children. This doesn't. If gives people an outlet for antisocial impulses. Not to mention it's not limited to porn. It's "abuse". So tragically inspiring cartoons about a girl overcoming her abusive mother will be banned too.CGI child porn should be banned for the reason that it can encourage and desensitize people.

kid touchers

bloody pediatricians:mad:

CGI child porn should be banned for the reason that it can encourage and desensitize people.
But surely then you run into this argument?

That's like comparing murder to shooting someone in a game. The difference being that noone gets hurt when it's just a game/CGI

CGI child porn should be banned for the reason that it can encourage and desensitize people.

I'd rather potential paedophiles have an outlet at least they will have more time to get help hopefully

That's like comparing murder to shooting someone in a game. The difference being that noone gets hurt when it's just a game/CGI

But shooting someone in a game desensitizes the player to shooting someone in person. "It's just a game." This why we have news reports about kids shooting each other with Daddy's gun, thinking it would be just like in the game, no one gets hurt.

And child abuse is vile, why would you want to let people spread images of it?

CGI child porn should be banned for the reason that it can encourage and desensitize people.Can it? Does it?

If you want a reason to ban it. A better avenue, imo is that with advances in graphic it will soon become very difficult to distinguish a CGI from a real video. And because of that you'll might either have to ban possession of both or neither.

But shooting someone in a game desensitizes the player to shooting someone in person.I don't believe it does. But if you have any scientiific results to back up that claim, I'll happily look into it.

And child abuse is vile, why would you want to let people spread images of it?Because it's not real and doesn't hurt anyone; and apparantly they want it. I don't have the overwhelming urge to ban things that don't hurt anyone just because I consider them vile.

But shooting someone in a game desensitizes the player to shooting someone in person. "It's just a game." This why we have news reports about kids shooting each other with Daddy's gun, thinking it would be just like in the game, no one gets hurt.

And child abuse is vile, why would you want to let people spread images of it?

So you'd ban movies like The Usual Suspects or the old Sergio Leone westerns because some kid might see them and decide to shoot someone? Since when are people not responsible for their own damn actions? Since when do we censor images that don't do any harm by themselves because someone migh, if a certain hypothesis about human psychology is correct, be desensitized to a certain crime?

Sure it's vile. I wouldn't spread images, nor even watch images of it, but it's just images. Whether or not I or you think it's vile, it's a form of speech and should be protected.

If this is banned then so should every other form of cartoon violence (for those of you out there who don't realise this -and research it if you don't believe me- sexual abuse is a form of violence) - you either ban all cartoon/CGI representations of violence, or you don't ban any. To ban just one specific type is bloody ridiculous.

EDIT: Considering some stuff I've seen happen after people have played certain computer games too much, I reckon only really violent stuff should be banned. OR that such stuff has higher age limits AND SHOPS ACTUALLY FUCKING STICK BY THEM!

But surely then you run into this argument?Indeed you do. However such games are restricted based on violence (restrictions being relative) until you are deemed as emotionally mature enough to be able to play them. At what age are you emotionally mature enough to watch rape or child abuse for enjoyment, even if it is fake?

Indeed you do. However such games are restricted based on violence (restrictions being relative) until you are deemed as emotionally mature enough to be able to play them. At what age are you emotionally mature enough to watch rape or child abuse for enjoyment, even if it is fake?
When you're old enough to work in law enforcement, because they come across that sort of thing on a fairly regular basis.

Incidentally, this law would actually be unconstitutional in Canada. It doesn't prevent harm.

Indeed you do. However such games are restricted based on violence (restrictions being relative) until you are deemed as emotionally mature enough to be able to play them. At what age are you emotionally mature enough to watch rape or child abuse for enjoyment, even if it is fake?

The real reason however is to not have to distinguish between
real or unreal , of age or underage. The laws are there so that if
it looks like a child and its an abuse , of a sexual nature of the apparent
child (apparently not limited to sexual abuse) then there is no finessing
out of it.

Whether that is right or not is another matter but the idea is
that it makes it easier to convict.
With real images you don't have to try and find the child in question
to be able to prove they were underage at the time
and therefore that it is child pornography and what with the
ability to doctor images, what after all is to stop what looks like animation
from being created from real images.

Why encourage something like this?

Because it's not real and doesn't hurt anyone; and apparantly they want it. I don't have the overwhelming urge to ban things that don't hurt anyone just because I consider them vile.

Truthdom!

Computer-generated images of child abuse are often found by police stored alongside illegal material held by paedophiles...

So is milk. Should we ban milk because it is often found alongside paedophilic material? Shut up John Reid, we know that you know how logic works, when you come out with non sequitur bullshit like this it is clear that you have no compunction whatsoever in perverting any argument to support your fascistic drive to harm the British people.

When you're old enough to work in law enforcement, because they come across that sort of thing on a fairly regular basis.They watch it for enjoyment? :confused:

John Reid's right,it IS society's duty to protect children.
They're not doing that by banning CGI graphics.That's bullshit.Jeez,I hate this Government sometimes,they keep ballsing things up.
[/rant]

Has the British government gotten to the point where it is arresting parents for having pictures of their own kids yet? The US federal and state governments are already doing that. In some US states it is actually illegal to have pictures of your kids sleeping or in swim wear cause those are automatically pornographic.
2 years back a 12 year old girl was arrested for possession of child pornography for posting pictures of herself in swimwear on the internet. She was charged with child exploitation of herself.
In some US communities, all pictures of children are considered child pornography.
If you ask me, this just proves that the prudes and sexually depraved have seized control of the US cause who else would make these bullshit laws?

Why encourage something like this?

Because you do not have the right to discourage it.

I'm all for freedom of speech, and I wouldn't ban CGI, but I can see why some folks would. Aside from the fact that it's pretty fucked up, it can also be used by kid touchers to introduce an actual child to the idea of being molested.

You don't need CGI to do that. All you need to do is make friends with them. Unfortunately that fact has made a lot of people paranoid where it is now that if a guy wants to hang with his kid or volunteers to babysit a girl's kid because he actually likes the girl (and wants to impress her) he gets charged with automatically being a pedophile.

2 years back a 12 year old girl was arrested for possession of child pornography for posting pictures of herself in swimwear on the internet. She was charged with child exploitation of herself.

That's sorta funny.

So, it's not okay to actually abuse children in real life, but it is okay to draw pictures of them being abused and to giggle over them in the privacy of your own fapping pad? Isn't that a little, oh, what's the word? hypocritical?

Freedom of artistic expression. Would you prefer they go out and actually do these things?

CGI child porn should be banned for the reason that it can encourage and desensitize people.

You do realize they made the same statement about rock and roll and the same statement about violence on TV. In the end it boils down to personal responsibility. Not some song or TV show or some stupid comic book.

Because you do not have the right to discourage it.

If they have the right to watch, then I have the right to discourage.

Freedom of speech, and ideas, goes both ways.

But shooting someone in a game desensitizes the player to shooting someone in person. "It's just a game." This why we have news reports about kids shooting each other with Daddy's gun, thinking it would be just like in the game, no one gets hurt.

And child abuse is vile, why would you want to let people spread images of it?

There is no support for you statement that games cause real life violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6175441.stm

This is, in my opinion, total bullshit. The reason everyone hates actual child porn is because it hurts children. This doesn't. If gives people an outlet for antisocial impulses. Not to mention it's not limited to porn. It's "abuse". So tragically inspiring cartoons about a girl overcoming her abusive mother will be banned too.

Well, shit, I guess I better chuck out my GTA collection before I get busted for CGI murder.

Uh oh, I intentionally ran over a cat in Paperboy. I hope I don't get fined for CGI Animal Cruelty.

Hey, wait a minute, you know what something's called when it's just a depiction that has no baring on reality or on any living person that chooses not to view it?

Fiction. Which is just what this "law" should be.

If they have the right to watch, then I have the right to discourage.

Freedom of speech, and ideas, goes both ways.

Verywell, what I should have said was that you do not have the right to compell anyone to not do something. Feel free to run your mouth is whatever direction you wish, Lord knows I do.

If this is banned then so should every other form of cartoon violence (for those of you out there who don't realise this -and research it if you don't believe me- sexual abuse is a form of violence) - you either ban all cartoon/CGI representations of violence, or you don't ban any. To ban just one specific type is bloody ridiculous.


I really don't think this analogy holds.

The idea goes that if CGI kid porno is banned then so should violent games/ movies.

However, there is a difference between the two.

The purpose of computer generated child pornography is to feed this aberrant sexual appetite.

The purpose of video games is entertainment.

Here is the difference: Those who watch child pornography (whether CGI or not) do it to fuel a real desire within them.

Those who play violent video games do not have the similar desire to kill people. (* there may, of course, be exceptions, but it is not the case for the majority)

In other words, those who watch CGI child porn are actually people who get off by watching sexually subjected kids, while those who play video games are not actually murderers.

Verywell, what I should have said was that you do not have the right to compell anyone to not do something. Feel free to run your mouth is whatever direction you wish, Lord knows I do.

::wink:: Figured that was what you were getting at. Just wanted to point out the language.

Does it really matter if we are not sure its going to help reduce child abuse?
Anything that may give us even the tiniest chance in fighting something so horrible has got to be at least given a chance. Would you still be against this law if you found out that a peadofile that had been abusing you or your children had that on their computer??

I really don't think this analogy holds.

The idea goes that if CGI kid porno is banned then so should violent games/ movies.

However, there is a difference between the two.

The purpose of computer generated child pornography is to feed this aberrant sexual appetite.

The purpose of video games is entertainment.

Here is the difference: Those who watch child pornography (whether CGI or not) do it to fuel a real desire within them.

Those who play violent video games do not have the similar desire to kill people. (* there may, of course, be exceptions, but it is not the case for the majority)

In other words, those who watch CGI child porn are actually people who get off by watching sexually subjected kids, while those who play video games are not actually murderers.

How about simulated rape then?

If they have the right to watch, then I have the right to discourage.

Freedom of speech, and ideas, goes both ways.

it does indeed. The problem is when you go about criminalizing one side's speech rights.

Does Britain allow other forms of violence on TV and in games and comics? Are the creators of these works actively going around and preaching people to go out and actually do these things? I believe somethings should have a minimum age requirement. I think you should have to be 18 minimum to use the internet. But 18 is just an arbitrary date that someone pulled out their rears when they made all these "you have to be this age" kind of laws. 18 doesn't mark anything when it comes to either physical, emotional, or mental development. All it does is mark legal recognition. Problem is that the laws of nature don't follow the laws of man. Indeed nature can actually cause people to break man's law.

How about simulated rape then?

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

I think you should have to be 18 minimum to use the internet.

Seriously? I think that would be a great detriment to the education of kids in the technology that is revolutionizing the world.

If they have the right to watch, then I have the right to discourage.

Freedom of speech, and ideas, goes both ways.

Actually, your rights only extend to the boundaries of other's rights.

Which is a fancy, fore-fathers way of saying "Bugger off"

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

A drawing/CGI image/etc. of a man holding a knife to the throat of a obviously beaten woman while sexually violating her.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6175441.stm

This is, in my opinion, total bullshit. The reason everyone hates actual child porn is because it hurts children. This doesn't. If gives people an outlet for antisocial impulses. Not to mention it's not limited to porn. It's "abuse". So tragically inspiring cartoons about a girl overcoming her abusive mother will be banned too.

I applaud the efforts to get rid of this crap. And the idea that these images "relieve" impulses is simply wrong. You think jerking off makes you not want to go out and do it for real? I don't think so. It is a "plan B" but if you get the opportunity to go a step up and get a real child instead of simply fantasizing, you think these pedos won't jump at the oppurtunity?

I really don't think this analogy holds.

The idea goes that if CGI kid porno is banned then so should violent games/ movies.

However, there is a difference between the two.

The purpose of computer generated child pornography is to feed this aberrant sexual appetite.

The purpose of video games is entertainment.

Here is the difference: Those who watch child pornography (whether CGI or not) do it to fuel a real desire within them.

Those who play violent video games do not have the similar desire to kill people. (* there may, of course, be exceptions, but it is not the case for the majority)

In other words, those who watch CGI child porn are actually people who get off by watching sexually subjected kids, while those who play video games are not actually murderers.

So what you are saying is that if police, investigators, and scientists watch CGI porn it is because they are automatically sexually "aberrant"?

What the hell is sexually aberrant anyway? Anything that goes against the Bible?

Freedom of speech is a nice idea, but its a bit like communism. It doesnt work in pratice. It relies souly on people being nice to other people, and pulling their weight.
Sadly people are in fact human. Pity.

Does it really matter if we are not sure its going to help reduce child abuse?
Anything that may give us even the tiniest chance in fighting something so horrible has got to be at least given a chance. Would you still be against this law if you found out that a peadofile that had been abusing you or your children had that on their computer??

actually, from what I've heard, anyone who has any kind of porn on their computer is a pedophile and needs to be kept away from children. Even if its just Sports Illustrated bikini pictures.

Actually, your rights only extend to the boundaries of other's rights.

Which is a fancy, fore-fathers way of saying "Bugger off"

You missed the point. I can disagree with what someone is saying just as loudly as they can bellow what they believe.

My mere disagreement is not messing with that other person's rights.

~

Besides. All laws are an affront to someone's 'right' to do something. Should murder be allowed, simply because the law against murder limits someone's right to do something? Of course not. Laws are made so that people know exactly where their rights end and another's begin.

That's what we are debating now: if the formation of this particular law protects people by taking away the right, or merely takes away the right.

Seriously? I think that would be a great detriment to the education of kids in the technology that is revolutionizing the world.

I'd personally prefer not to do that but with all the new laws and stuff coming out, it's like the internet is becoming a kids only zone.

I don't believe the internet was made for children. It was made for people capable of rational, logical comprehension and complex thought.

If anything, children should be given a seperate domain suffix and required to stay in that part of the internet. And the government should verify in person that they are real kids. That way you don't adults pretending to be kids so they can find children to abuse.

actually, from what I've heard, anyone who has any kind of porn on their computer is a pedophile and needs to be kept away from children. Even if its just Sports Illustrated bikini pictures.

There is no need to be sarcastic.
Having a desire to watch child pronography is quite different from wanting to watch adult pornography.

So I can't set little Jimmy on fire in the Sims 2 and laugh while he and his entire family turn to ash.

Rats *snaps fingers*

So what you are saying is that if police, investigators, and scientists watch CGI porn it is because they are automatically sexually "aberrant"?

What the hell is sexually aberrant anyway? Anything that goes against the Bible?

I like how you bring the Bible into the fray. It's the old "oh! someone has values therefore they must be a fundamental Christian puritan! (and therefore their ideas mean nothing)" I am agnostic, you presumptuous ass.

I personally believe-- beliefs based on no holy scripture-- that someone who gets off via children is sexually aberrant.

Nothing good comes from sexually subjecting children.

This, and perhaps beastiality, would be the only forms of sexual aberance that I would describe as such.

I like how you bring the Bible into the fray. It's the old "oh! someone has values therefore they must be a fundamental Christian puritan! (and therefore their ideas mean nothing)" I am agnostic, you presumptuous ass.

I personally believe-- beliefs based on no holy scripture-- that someone who gets off via children is sexually aberrant.

Nothing good comes from sexually subjecting children.

This, and perhaps beastiality, would be the only forms of sexual aberance that I would describe as such.

So basically anything that involves someone who is not able to say no for themselves then? Makes sence.

I'd personally prefer not to do that but with all the new laws and stuff coming out, it's like the internet is becoming a kids only zone.

I don't believe the internet was made for children. It was made for people capable of rational, logical comprehension and complex thought.

If anything, children should be given a seperate domain suffix and required to stay in that part of the internet. And the government should verify in person that they are real kids. That way you don't adults pretending to be kids so they can find children to abuse.

Good idea, but I think it would be impossible to implement, and very easy to get around once in place.

So basically anything that involves someone who is not able to say no for themselves then? Makes sence.

Yeah, that's a good way to put it. ::thumbs up::

What about introducing the death sentance to peadofiles?

There is no need to be sarcastic.
Having a desire to watch child pronography is quite different from wanting to watch adult pornography.

How it is just a desire either way. Actually watching it is a different story but if it is not real no one is being hurt either way and either way it is just a..... well the result....

I'm all for freedom of speech, and I wouldn't ban CGI, but I can see why some folks would. Aside from the fact that it's pretty fucked up, it can also be used by kid touchers to introduce an actual child to the idea of being molested.

If they are showing this sort of stuff to children, that breaks a bunch of already established laws without restricting speech anymore

What about introducing the death sentance to peadofiles?

Wouldn't go that far myself.

Wouldn't go that far myself.

Want to explain why not?

There is no need to be sarcastic.
Having a desire to watch child pronography is quite different from wanting to watch adult pornography.

I wish I was being sarcastic. I almost got accused of being a pedophile just because I had adult porn on my computer. It's like images of anyone under 50 is considered kiddie porn to some people.

I'd personally prefer not to do that but with all the new laws and stuff coming out, it's like the internet is becoming a kids only zone.

I don't believe the internet was made for children. It was made for people capable of rational, logical comprehension and complex thought.

If anything, children should be given a seperate domain suffix and required to stay in that part of the internet. And the government should verify in person that they are real kids. That way you don't adults pretending to be kids so they can find children to abuse.

Not easy to do with the partner trust association that is the internet

Ya could not really afford a topographical change so it would have to be client side implementation of software almost, ya can get pretty close with some current filtering boxes like those available from a few firewall companies but those are a spendy device...

If they are showing this sort of stuff to children, that breaks a bunch of already established laws without restricting speech anymore

I think there are things that children should not be allowed to watch or look at. Because their thinking capacity just isn't complex enough. This is one of those things.

Want to explain why not?

"Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

It's like images of anyone under 50 is considered kiddie porn to some people.

::imagines a 50 year old porn star::


::shudders::


I think that 50+ only porn would effectively kill the porn industry.

Not easy to do with the partner trust association that is the internet

Ya could not really afford a topographical change so it would have to be client side implementation of software almost, ya can get pretty close with some current filtering boxes like those available from a few firewall companies but those are a spendy device...

Why not just have the government pay for it. After all it would be a government imposed mandate. I'm sure parents would be willing to shell out a few extra bucks to keep their kids safe.

Personally, I don't see why it should be banned if it is CGI and not harming anyone...Also, another thing I do not get about this underage stuff. What about the underage people who actually consent to it? Why should it be illegal then? They consented! They gave approval! Why isn't approval enough? Why can't they just either say "yes" or "no" in court [if it ends up in there] that they did, or did not consent to it...crazy fucked up man...:upyours: :headbang: :mad:

"Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Just cause tolkein said it doesnt mean its true. Anyone who would do that sort of thing to a child is just sick. because it doesnt matter if they say things like "Oh, i didnt know it was scaring you" or tell you they are sorry, that kid is going to be mentally scarred for the rest of their lives.
I simply cant see why people like that should be allowed to live.

I really don't think this analogy holds.

The idea goes that if CGI kid porno is banned then so should violent games/ movies.

However, there is a difference between the two.

The purpose of computer generated child pornography is to feed this aberrant sexual appetite.

The purpose of video games is entertainment.

Here is the difference: Those who watch child pornography (whether CGI or not) do it to fuel a real desire within them.

Those who play violent video games do not have the similar desire to kill people. (* there may, of course, be exceptions, but it is not the case for the majority)

In other words, those who watch CGI child porn are actually people who get off by watching sexually subjected kids, while those who play video games are not actually (wanna-be) murderers.

Now that the my use of the word aberrant has been discussed, does someone have a reply to my actual argument?

I would like to know how the logic fails, so that I may make a better argument if it does.

Personally, I don't see why it should be banned if it is CGI and not harming anyone...Also, another thing I do not get about this underage stuff. What about the underage people who actually consent to it? Why should it be illegal then? They consented! They gave approval! Why isn't approval enough? Why can't they just either say "yes" or "no" in court [if it ends up in there] that they did, or did not consent to it...crazy fucked up man...:upyours: :headbang: :mad:

eh? how young are we talking? I think if they are under 16 they do not have the ability to make rational decisions for themselves.

Most of them would say yes just because they see you as an authority figure. I don't think that should count as consent.

I think the point a lot of people here are missing is simple: pedophiles have consciences too.

Seriously, there was a guy on here a while ago, dunno if he's still around, who was a self confessed pedophile but not a child molester. He refused to act on his desires, but he still had them.

This sort of CGI stuff would cater to his desires, and help prevent him from actually going out and acting on it.

Just cause tolkein said it doesnt mean its true. Anyone who would do that sort of thing to a child is just sick. because it doesnt matter if they say things like "Oh, i didnt know it was scaring you" or tell you they are sorry, that kid is going to be mentally scarred for the rest of their lives.
I simply cant see why people like that should be allowed to live.

What if it messes up the kid even more to know that someone s/he knew would be killed because of a direct correlation with him/ her?

What if it prevents kids who are being abused from letting someone know because they are afraid daddy will die then?

What if the person is good in all other respects, but just needs help to get over this one problem?

It would also provide just one other circumstance in which an innocent person could be condemned and killed.

I think the Tolkien quote presents an inherent truth that is just as applicable in this world as it was in his. You can not give life, so neither should you deal out death.

Why not just have the government pay for it. After all it would be a government imposed mandate. I'm sure parents would be willing to shell out a few extra bucks to keep their kids safe.

Um I am not entirly sure you could write off that expense ... the purchasing power ... mother of god I dont even want to think about it probably talking about between 200-300 billion to just get equipment changed on the root ISP's

300+ billion for the intermediate ISP's and a whole shitload for cable runs

Add on top of that a decrease in the performance of the internet as a whole ... and god knows what development on less efficient transport protocols which would have to be supported SOMEHOW by end user or end router solutions (nother couple hundred billion there if not)

I cant even imagine the ability to push that through

Um I am not entirly sure you could write off that expense ... the purchasing power ... mother of god I dont even want to think about it probably talking about between 200-300 billion to just get equipment changed on the root ISP's

I thought he just meant have the government purchase the software already developed (the sort you can download on the internet).

That would be around 30 bucks per family. How many families are in the US?

Either of those two options would require political will.
That 500 billion would have to come not just from temporary tax hikes but also from cuts in other areas. For the domain changes.

Another way I think it could be done is that kids be limited to using the internet at school and that the schools be required to block all non educational websites or all websites not targeted specifically at minors.

And the law should also require a similar set up at home where they have separate computers and seperate connections for the adults and children. Let them have tax breaks to help pay for it.

I thought he just meant have the government purchase the software already developed (the sort you can download on the internet).

That would be around 30 bucks per family. How many families are in the US?

A lot. Put it this way, there are over 300 million people in the US.

Personally, I don't see why it should be banned if it is CGI and not harming anyone...Also, another thing I do not get about this underage stuff. What about the underage people who actually consent to it?
No underage person consents. By definition being 'underage' excludes the possibility of consenting.

Why should it be illegal then? They consented!
No, they didnt, they cannot give consent.

They gave approval! Why isn't approval enough?
Because if people could legally circumvent the law merely if one or another person agreed to it, the law would be without any point.

Why can't they just either say "yes" or "no" in court [if it ends up in there] that they did, or did not consent to it...crazy fucked up man...:upyours: :headbang: :mad:
They can say whether they did it or not. They need not say whether or not they consented, the court knows they did not.

Freedom of speech is a nice idea, but its a bit like communism. It doesnt work in pratice. It relies souly on people being nice to other people, and pulling their weight.
Communism does. Free speech doesn't. Free speech only requires that you not stop me from saying things. You're still allowed to be offended by them. And I'm still allowed to be an ass.

The communisim analogy only works if communism can still be said to be functioning when society descends into violent anarchy.

Now that the my use of the word aberrant has been discussed, does someone have a reply to my actual argument?

I would like to know how the logic fails, so that I may make a better argument if it does.

Okay. What if it's not to fuel, but to vent a desire within? There really isn't good data on this.

Personally, I don't see why it should be banned if it is CGI and not harming anyone...Also, another thing I do not get about this underage stuff. What about the underage people who actually consent to it? Why should it be illegal then? They consented! They gave approval! Why isn't approval enough? Why can't they just either say "yes" or "no" in court [if it ends up in there] that they did, or did not consent to it...crazy fucked up man...:upyours: :headbang: :mad:

Because children don't have the necessary experience or judgement to make such important decisions. That's also why we don't allow ten year olds to have credit cards or driver's licenses. A child is not a small adult. The brain is still developing.

You do realize they made the same statement about rock and roll and the same statement about violence on TV. In the end it boils down to personal responsibility. Not some song or TV show or some stupid comic book.When I watch a violent movie or play a violent video game, I don't get the feeling that I want to imitate it in real life. When I watch porn, however, I do want to imitate it in real life.

When I watch a violent movie or play a violent video game, I don't get the feeling that I want to imitate it in real life. When I watch porn, however, I do want to imitate it in real life.

Really? When I'm done watching porn all I want is a cigarette and a nap.

Really? When I'm done watching porn all I want is a cigarette and a nap.Then you lead a sad life, DCD :D

CGI Children everywhere were very relieved to hear the news.

<snip>
Wrong thread, kiddo.

Wrong thread, kiddo.
Thought it was kinda related but thanks.Deleted it .:)

CGI Children everywhere were very relieved to hear the news.

I'd wager most people, after rubbing one out, don't jump up and go cruise the bars and clubs looking to get laid immediately. Masturbation is what you do when it's not convenient to go out and try to get laid.

I'd wager most people, after rubbing one out, don't jump up and go cruise the bars and clubs looking to get laid immediately. Masturbation is what you do when it's not convenient to go out and try to get laid.

Yeah.

Or like, when you go cruise the bars and clubs looking to get laid, and then finally give up and go home and rub one off.

I'd wager most people, after rubbing one out, don't jump up and go cruise the bars and clubs looking to get laid immediately. Masturbation is what you do when it's not convenient to go out and try to get laid.But you still want to imitate it in real life, don't you? ;)

But you still want to imitate it in real life, don't you? ;)

Sure, just not right after I paste the magazine pages together.

When I watch a violent movie or play a violent video game, I don't get the feeling that I want to imitate it in real life. When I watch porn, however, I do want to imitate it in real life.

Really? You should seek help cause that's a sign that you are sexually deprived and repressed.

Sure, just not right after I paste the magazine pages together.Exactly my point porn makes me think "That was good, I want to try that for real some time" whereas violent games make me think "Gosh that sucked, I'm so glad this isn't real and I can respawn in the game". I think that child porn, whether CGI or not, is going to get reactions similar to what porn gives me, and not what violence gives me.

Exactly my point porn makes me think "That was good, I want to try that for real some time" whereas violent games make me think "Gosh that sucked, I'm so glad this isn't real and I can respawn in the game". I think that child porn, whether CGI or not, is going to get reactions similar to what porn gives me, and not what violence gives me.

So you think watching child porn will make you WANT to go rape a child? that's kinda... uh, pedophiliac...

...has it occurred to you that maybe some of us have the same reaction to child pron as you do to violence?

So you think watching child porn will make you WANT to go rape a child? that's kinda... uh, pedophiliac...

...has it occurred to you that maybe some of us have the same reaction to child pron as you do to violence?

Anyone who's easily swayed by depictions of violence or obscene acts to the point where they'll copy it either are children with no concept of how bad they are, or they have serious issues in the first place.

Exactly my point porn makes me think "That was good, I want to try that for real some time" whereas violent games make me think "Gosh that sucked, I'm so glad this isn't real and I can respawn in the game". I think that child porn, whether CGI or not, is going to get reactions similar to what porn gives me, and not what violence gives me.

Yeah, but since kid touching is illegal maybe the pervs won't think "I want to try this for real" because they know that they'll get locked up with people who's hobbies include sharpening scraps of metal and having no-lube anal sex with kid touchers. Maybe the pervs will use it to get off and take their mind off rape for a while.

Does it really matter if we are not sure its going to help reduce child abuse?
Anything that may give us even the tiniest chance in fighting something so horrible has got to be at least given a chance. Would you still be against this law if you found out that a peadofile that had been abusing you or your children had that on their computer??

Well, A: the pedophiles are going to be there regardless of whether we accept them or not. They'll always have the urge to masturbate to certain things, and logic seems to stand that if they have a simulated version of it, they won't need anything else. If they simply have nothing at all, then they have no outlet, and it seems that children would be more at risk than ever.

and B: It matters because we can't go throwing out random laws that "might" help without any justification whatsoever. Legally speaking, it probably doesn't stand up.

Exactly my point porn makes me think "That was good, I want to try that for real some time" whereas violent games make me think "Gosh that sucked, I'm so glad this isn't real and I can respawn in the game". I think that child porn, whether CGI or not, is going to get reactions similar to what porn gives me, and not what violence gives me.

Not really. If you're violent, you want to hurt people. If you're a pedophile, you want to have sex with children. Playing a violent game won't make you want to hurt someone in real life because you can tell the difference - "This is fun in the game, but people would get hurt if I do it in real life, and I don't want to hurt anyone".

Unlike violence, however, you're not going to be masturbating to kiddie porn unless you already want to have sex with kids - random people probably don't do that. If you don't want to have sex with kids, you're not going to want to masturbate to kiddie porn, and vice-versa. There's no thought process required, really.

And child abuse is vile, why would you want to let people spread images of it?

Many things are vile. Many things are repugnant. Many things offend my moral sensibilities.

But as long as it harms no one I have no right to tell them not to.

Anyone who's easily swayed by depictions of violence or obscene acts to the point where they'll copy it either are children with no concept of how bad they are, or they have serious issues in the first place.

I second that.

Well, A: the pedophiles are going to be there regardless of whether we accept them or not. They'll always have the urge to masturbate to certain things, and logic seems to stand that if they have a simulated version of it, they won't need anything else. If they simply have nothing at all, then they have no outlet, and it seems that children would be more at risk than ever.

and B: It matters because we can't go throwing out random laws that "might" help without any justification whatsoever. Legally speaking, it probably doesn't stand up.

constitutionally it won't hold water.

Not really. If you're violent, you want to hurt people. If you're a pedophile, you want to have sex with children. Playing a violent game won't make you want to hurt someone in real life because you can tell the difference - "This is fun in the game, but people would get hurt if I do it in real life, and I don't want to hurt anyone".

Unlike violence, however, you're not going to be masturbating to kiddie porn unless you already want to have sex with kids - random people probably don't do that. If you don't want to have sex with kids, you're not going to want to masturbate to kiddie porn, and vice-versa. There's no thought process required, really.

WRONG

WRONG

That's it? "WRONG" is all you can post? Well, clearly you've won that debate. Who can argue with that?

constitutionally it won't hold water.

Pity this is happening in the UK.

Pedo or ephebe? I feel that makes a large difference.

When I play violent video games, I enjoy it "BOOM HEADSHOT".
Maybe we have differant reactions, Why do you play violent games and watch violent things if you do not enjoy it?

It's all simulated if it's a game, or a movie, or a tv show. CGI is even more so than most things on TV because it's not even real people pretending.


Watching porn makes you want to go out and rape someone?
Only if the answer is yes do I agree that watching child porn makes pedo's want to go out and rape children. Because they do know it's rape.

How does it work with ambiguous figures. I think Damien Hurst or someone did a picture a little while ago of what appeared to be a child performing oral sex on a man, but in reality was an adult model dressed as a child with her face concealed. I wonder how they'd handle that scenario.


Watching porn makes you want to go out and rape someone?
Only if the answer is yes do I agree that watching child porn makes pedo's want to go out and rape children. Because they do know it's rape.
What if the answer is "watching porn makes me want to go and have sex"?

How does it work with ambiguous figures. I think Damien Hurst or someone did a picture a little while ago of what appeared to be a child performing oral sex on a man, but in reality was an adult model dressed as a child with her face concealed. I wonder how they'd handle that scenario.


What if the answer is "watching porn makes me want to go and have sex"?

If it's not enough to make you rape, I don't think it's enough to make a pedo rape.

If they were going to, they would either way.

I think the point a lot of people here are missing is simple: pedophiles have consciences too.

Seriously, there was a guy on here a while ago, dunno if he's still around, who was a self confessed pedophile but not a child molester. He refused to act on his desires, but he still had them.

This sort of CGI stuff would cater to his desires, and help prevent him from actually going out and acting on it.

I've met a couple of self-proclaimed pedophiles on the internet. Most of them were nice people who loved children to much to do anything to hurt them.

I've met a couple of self-proclaimed pedophiles on the internet. Most of them were nice people who loved children to much to do anything to hurt them.

:fluffle:

No underage person consents. By definition being 'underage' excludes the possibility of consenting.

No, they didnt, they cannot give consent.

Because if people could legally circumvent the law merely if one or another person agreed to it, the law would be without any point.


They can say whether they did it or not. They need not say whether or not they consented, the court knows they did not.

Well, lets see. I am 17. I knew alot when I was 13 and 14. I had the rational of making my own decisions. I knew the consequences, just sometimes I knew, depending on what it was, I could get away with it with just a warning or a talking...or whatever have you.

Though probably the reasons for my way of thinking is that I am a smart kid, always have been. Just lazy on my part though, and didn't always wanna do what I've been told. But I see that even though that <i>I</i> may have had the reasoning and knowledge at a 'young' age [whatever your definition of 'young' is], others may not. But if they don't know about it, should find out about it before engaging in it. And this can apply to anything.

No underage person can consent huh? Hell, I'm underage now and I'd consent if it was the right person.

Sure they can say what they want, but what they have got to get into their mind is what is the truth. Not some threat made against them or a bribe or anything. If they did consent, just say it. If you did not, then say you didn't. It's easy as that.

And the courts know that they didn't consent huh? What if some religious nuthead found out about some underage porn on the underage person's partner's computer? Or even pictures laying picture down on top of a dresser or book case or something? Nevermind that being a dumb thing to do. What if they decide to report them to the police? But when the underage person finds out, and writes down saying they consented[or not if that be the case], what of that?[Even though they might not think of doing that at the time, I would have.] The courts couldn't deny the evidence that the person did consent. But knowing the courts, they probably might think the person being charged made them do that, no matter how much the consenter pleads they did[or did not] consent.

Anyways. Yeah, I'm done with my rant.

-Have a nice day:cool:

There's a difference between fantasy and reality...

There's a difference between fantasy and reality...

No there isn't! Everyone knows that people who fantasize about being raped want to be raped!

:rolleyes:

The worst perversion at play here is the perversion of the law.

I do not understand why you all support someone's desire to sexually subjugate children.

Whether the medium is CGI or not, the fact remains that there is a real desire to see kids in sexually compromising positions.

If someone is hallucinating, we do not cater to his fantasies. "Oh, yes, Brandon, there are pink fluffy bunnies sitting beside you."

If someone is a real murderer, we do not allow him to simulate killing people in his free time in prision.

If someone is cannibilistic, we do not market the new and improved "fake human meat" for her to consume.

Why not? All of these things would allow this person to live out their desires and fantasies without harming a real person.

And yet, they feed the corrupt desires within them. They essentially say, "yes, this is ok. What you desire is right."

Instead of treating the source of the problem, CGI child porn merely satiates the surface symptoms. And worse, it allows this perversion to gain acceptance.

Again, I don't get this.
CGI Child Abuse/Porn does not hurt people
Jerking you meat doesn't make you wanna go out and have sex.
Also, another thing. This isn't as bad as other things. I mean look at what's being put out. There's beastiality growing on the internet. If you want to ban anything, ban beastiality. Think of the animals!

But seriously, that's some nasty crap. Way worse than CGI Child Abuse/Porn...and yet we let that go by, and pass the microscope of examination...Personally, this is a matter of personal choice. If you get off that way, great, just keep it to yourself. [Gays too] But no matter what way you swing, that's your choice. If CGI Child Abuse makes you want to abuse a child in real life, then you got issues buddy. Go see a psychiatrist.

Peace out :cool:

I do not understand why you all support someone's desire to sexually subjugate children.

I don't. That desire exists whether CGI child abuse exists or not.


If someone is hallucinating, we do not cater to his fantasies. "Oh, yes, Brandon, there are pink fluffy bunnies sitting beside you."

Wait, why don't you do this?

If someone is a real murderer, we do not allow him to simulate killing people in his free time in prision.

Actually we do. They have computers in many prisons and convicts are allowed to use them. Including playing various games...

Why not? All of these things would allow this person to live out their desires and fantasies without harming a real person.

I'm glad you see that there is no harm to anyone involved.

And yet, they feed the corrupt desires within them. They essentially say, "yes, this is ok. What you desire is right."

Big deal. So do all video games. Grand Theft Auto. That feeds a corrupt desire, essentially saying, "Yes, it's okay. Stealing from and killing people is right." So, do you support banning of video games?

How about anything else? You know, like movies that involve drug use. Those too?

Where does the line end? Do you just ban and forbid any activity that can be said to "feed a corrupt desire?" That train doesn't HAVE an end station.

Instead of treating the source of the problem, CGI child porn merely satiates the surface symptoms.

CGI child abuse. Meaning, like, any animation in which a child is hurt.

And you're right, it doesn't treat anyone's problem. It's not supposed to.

Can it? Does it?

If you want a reason to ban it. A better avenue, imo is that with advances in graphic it will soon become very difficult to distinguish a CGI from a real video. And because of that you'll might either have to ban possession of both or neither.

Not really, by the human eye it may start to get hard to tell but if you scanned it and looked at how it was made you'd be able to tell

What if the answer is "watching porn makes me want to go and have sex"?
If watching porn makes you want to rape people, then your analogy works. But not until then.

If watching porn makes you want to rape people, then your analogy works. But not until then.

There is a difference between rape and child molestation I feel. A child may be convinced to "consent" but legally can't, while rape is with a non-consenting person. Does porn make me want to rape people, no, does it make me want to go and try and convince someone I'm attracted to to sleep with me, yes.

It gives people an outlet for antisocial impulses.

if people give into those impulses they grow stronger, until eventually many of them actually commit the actions they used to only fantasize about. Almost all sex offenders have a pornography addiction that relates to their crime, and those that continue to veiw pornography will re-offend.

I'm in favor of all forms of pornography being banned, not just the forms that abuse children, so I support this sort of legislation.

There is a difference between rape and child molestation I feel. A child may be convinced to "consent" but legally can't, while rape is with a non-consenting person. Does porn make me want to rape people, no, does it make me want to go and try and convince someone I'm attracted to to sleep with me, yes.
Convinced in an open and honest way the doesn't involve intimidation? Because that's what necessary to make it not be rape.

if people give into those impulses they grow stronger, until eventually many of them actually commit the actions they used to only fantasize about. Almost all sex offenders have a pornography addiction that relates to their crime, and those that continue to veiw pornography will re-offend.

I'm in favor of all forms of pornography being banned, not just the forms that abuse children, so I support this sort of legislation.
By that reasoning, since almost all serial killers eat potatoes, potatoes should be banned?

You've shown only correlation, not causation.

I do not understand why you all support someone's desire to sexually subjugate children.

Whether the medium is CGI or not, the fact remains that there is a real desire to see kids in sexually compromising positions.

If someone is hallucinating, we do not cater to his fantasies. "Oh, yes, Brandon, there are pink fluffy bunnies sitting beside you."

If someone is a real murderer, we do not allow him to simulate killing people in his free time in prision.

If someone is cannibilistic, we do not market the new and improved "fake human meat" for her to consume.

Why not? All of these things would allow this person to live out their desires and fantasies without harming a real person.

And yet, they feed the corrupt desires within them. They essentially say, "yes, this is ok. What you desire is right."

Instead of treating the source of the problem, CGI child porn merely satiates the surface symptoms. And worse, it allows this perversion to gain acceptance.

eh. Actually there are things called video games and online rpgs where people can committ murder and genocide. Some games even have sex scenes in them. Hence your post holds no water.

Again, I don't get this.
CGI Child Abuse/Porn does not hurt people
Jerking you meat doesn't make you wanna go out and have sex.
Also, another thing. This isn't as bad as other things. I mean look at what's being put out. There's beastiality growing on the internet. If you want to ban anything, ban beastiality. Think of the animals!

But seriously, that's some nasty crap. Way worse than CGI Child Abuse/Porn...and yet we let that go by, and pass the microscope of examination...Personally, this is a matter of personal choice. If you get off that way, great, just keep it to yourself. [Gays too] But no matter what way you swing, that's your choice. If CGI Child Abuse makes you want to abuse a child in real life, then you got issues buddy. Go see a psychiatrist.

Peace out :cool:

If its going to be banned then you need to ban all porn and you need to ban all games and movies with violence. Otherwise you are denying the right to equal treatment under the law.

Well pardon me...
but since porn is mostly not about violence, and more about sex, leave the video game violence & movie violence shit out of it.

As for CGI Child Abuse in general. If that's banned, then cartoons with children getting hurt will be banned, as they are computer generated, and are nothing more than many images spliced together to flow as if it was all one motion.

No more cartoons with children fighting or whatever you can think of. Or animation movies, or what have you, about them being abused, and rising above all that, towards the end of the movie by having the parent incarcerated and the child lives with a nice relative, or friend or what have you, that they really want to be with...have you not thought of that?

Frankly I don't have anything else to say, so...there you have it...

I imagine the reason for banning cgi child pornography is that it will encompass all images of naked children for the purpose of pornography ie. a real photo, a cgi graphic, and any modified real photo. It is getting increasing harder to tell the difference a real photo and a cgi graphic.

The website I found this picture on assures me this is a cgi-graphic -
http://www.mildlydiverting.com/interactivewriting/images/cgi_face.jpg

bump

bump

...

...

...

...

THREAD NECROMANCERS: NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, SOME TOPICS ARE DEAD!

Seriously. Every time I forget about this thread it comes back.

Go cry me a river :D

Go cry me a river :D

http://www.urbanrivers.org/web_images/polluted_river.jpg

I'm afraid I can't cry you a good one.

Oh well
Then bleed me an ocean :p


you know I'm just yanking your chain right? hehe :)

you know I'm just yanking your chain right? hehe :)

What! MY TEARS WERE FOR NAUGHT??? :eek:

I'm afraid so...

Apparently I scared him away >.>