Kiddie Porn in a CGI world - legal vs. ethical question - Page 2

brownjenkins · 05-04-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But the thing about porn is that it's power lies in addiction to it...it's a lot easier to get away with porn-looking, than killing someone.

While I don't necassarily think that looking at bad pictures makes you emulate or want to emulate them, I do believe that the porn pictures have a lot to do with whatever pedophile rampancy we have in this country...not EVERYONE is strong-willed against the power of pictures.

You are assuming here that pedophila is somehow more prevalent in today's world when you say "rampancy". I'd say not. I just think it is more visible due to the forms of media and communication we have today.

I'm not one who believes that the solution to addiction is removing it's availability. That just drives it underground and adds the factors of money and criminal activity. Better to deal with it out in the open.

Insidious Rex · 05-04-2006, 03:06 PM

Hector are you saying having child porn available on the net makes it more likely people will rape a child? Some people would argue the exact opposite. That in a society where its completely taboo, just having the ability to look at this stuff allows the pedophile to live out his fantasy without engaging in any activity.

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You are assuming here that pedophila is somehow more prevalent in today's world when you say "rampancy". I'd say not. I just think it is more visible due to the forms of media and communication we have today.

I'm not one who believes that the solution to addiction is removing it's availability. That just drives it underground and adds the factors of money and criminal activity. Better to deal with it out in the open.

I didn't specify which centuries had the "rampancy".

...you're right that it is more visible.

Repressing something such as porn in public of course drives it to black market status...that doesn't change the fact that does damage...anywhere.

It ought to be kept OFF of the internet however...CGI or otherwise.

The main concern though is "kiddie porn". Never mind the century.

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hector are you saying having child porn available on the net makes it more likely people will rape a child? Some people would argue the exact opposite. That in a society where its completely taboo, just having the ability to look at this stuff allows the pedophile to live out his fantasy without engaging in any activity.

Argue Argue Argue....but are children bieng raped or not?

You may have heard of Tennessee's recent case of Pamela Rogers, who did it with a 13 year two years back...(she was his teacher)...and she defied her probation terms by contacting the boy, and sending pornographic videos and pictures to him via the internet. Don't tell me porn has nothing to do with it.

brownjenkins · 05-04-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It ought to be kept OFF of the internet however...CGI or otherwise.

I agree with this, but the US does not control the internet. Even China can't completely control it, and they certainly try.

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I agree with this, but the US does not control the internet. Even China can't completely control it, and they certainly try.

Well, trying it trying...and it's better than nothing.

We might as well high-five it *high-fives with BJ*

Insidious Rex · 05-04-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You may have heard of Tennessee's recent case of Pamela Rogers, who did it with a 13 year two years back...(she was his teacher)...and she defied her probation terms by contacting the boy, and sending pornographic videos and pictures to him via the internet. Don't tell me porn has nothing to do with it.

are you saying she sent child porn to him?

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

are you saying she sent child porn to him?

Well, bieng in her twenties, she sure acted juvenile! So she may AS WELL HAVE!
The porn was of her, from what I understand. That was earlier last month or so, and he is now 15.

But I wanted to point out that pornography has TONS to do with sexual rape and pedophilia. A particular picture may not have made Joey go after Jessica, but it is possible that he became addicted to such thoughts because of it.

Insidious Rex · 05-04-2006, 04:00 PM

Well ok... but frankly I dont know if thats relevant to this discussion really. Sending porn (of any kind) to a minor is an offense in this country at least. And whether it enticed him to sleep with her doesnt have any bearing on if porn (of ANY kind) should be banned from the internet. Its not an equivalent scenario really. the equivalent scenario would be an 8 year old sending sex pictures of themselves to a pedophile to entice them to have sex with them. Which isnt what we are talking about at all (and as far as I know just doesnt happen. At least at that age...). We were talking about kiddie porn (CGI in this case) existing to possibly placate the pedophiles desires to go after REAL kids. Or does the existence of it make it more likely that they will go after a real kid.

Rev. Justin Timberlake · 05-04-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Naturally not. The inclination has to be there; merely looking at it by itself will not cause it to sprout into being. But if someone has the inclination towards pedophilia, or any of the other things you mention, then I think stimulating it would make them more likely to actually do what the inclinations are (dis)ordered towards.

Here's an example: But if someone has the inclination towards murder...then I think stimulating it would make them more likely to actually do what the inclinations are (dis)ordered towards.

Yet murder is portrayed in the entertainment industry. It is all over the computer game industry.

If we are to have such a reaction to fake child pornography, should we not battle hypocrasy by reacting in the same way to simulated murder? This blanket reaction is based on your abovementioned principle (inclination + stimulus = greater probability of action). If fake child porn-- pornography involving no actual children--is illegal, surely the depiction of murder--no actual murder taking place--in video games or on TV or in movies, et al, should be illegal too? We wouldn't want to incite those inclined to murderous thoughts, to actually commit murder, after all.

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well ok... but frankly I dont know if thats relevant to this discussion really. Sending porn (of any kind) to a minor is an offense in this country at least. And whether it enticed him to sleep with her doesnt have any bearing on if porn (of ANY kind) should be banned from the internet. Its not an equivalent scenario really. the equivalent scenario would be an 8 year old sending sex pictures of themselves to a pedophile to entice them to have sex with them. Which isnt what we are talking about at all (and as far as I know just doesnt happen. At least at that age...). We were talking about kiddie porn (CGI in this case) existing to possibly placate the pedophiles desires to go after REAL kids. Or does the existence of it make it more likely that they will go after a real kid.

Ok. Pedophiles sending porn to kids is fine. got it.....

or not.

I constantly have to come back to this people, who pedo "files" the kids? Who takes pictures of kids in sick ways?...who enjoys pictures of this nature?

I said it before, if Albert is in his basement making them now using photoshop, we won't know it, thank goodness, so Albert you stay there with that stuff...but don't let it get out! And most certainly it must be kept off of the internet.

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

Here's an example: But if someone has the inclination towards murder...then I think stimulating it would make them more likely to actually do what the inclinations are (dis)ordered towards.

Yet murder is portrayed in the entertainment industry. It is all over the computer game industry.

If we are to have such a reaction to fake child pornography, should we not battle hypocrasy by reacting in the same way to simulated murder? This blanket reaction is based on your abovementioned principle (inclination + stimulus = greater probability of action). If fake child porn-- pornography involving no actual children--is illegal, surely the depiction of murder--no actual murder taking place--in video games or on TV or in movies, et al, should be illegal too? We wouldn't want to incite those inclined to murderous thoughts, to actually commit murder, after all.

An old debate: wether porn or violence is more damaging.
But in this society at least, no matter how many killings you've witnessed on film, if you kill someone too, you will be (hopefully they catch this theoretical person) imprisoned and sentenced to trial etc...

But the porn has and is a lot more taboo, because it has been something that is not violent until...well, you know.
It is supposed to be "Joey's Bussiness" that he has Playboy magazines under his bed. But it's found out that Joey has kid porn, it should be evident that this is not merely "lust" or something else which I don't understand, but Joey's infatuation with nudity has reached a level where he needs to be reined in, for the sake of children.
CGI porn accoplishes (i.e. it has the same effect on porn-viewers) the same thing as real porn.

Rev. Justin Timberlake · 05-04-2006, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The main concern though is "kiddie porn".

Or, in this particular case, digital characters rendered in 3D graphics packages.

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

Or, in this particular case, digital characters rendered in 3D graphics packages.

Which is "Art" according to the ACLU and all the others who agree and defend?

It isn't as impersonal as "3D graphics" though.

***Tessar*** · 05-04-2006, 04:43 PM

Hector, I'm going to have to agree that you were a bit off topic--the issue at hand is child pornography, not a child being sent pornography. I can see where what you meant was relevant, but it got dragged sideways a bit.

At least I think that's what Insidious meant

. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Insidious.

Rev. Justin Timberlake · 05-04-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

CGI porn accoplishes (i.e. it has the same effect on porn-viewers) the same thing as real porn.

Bottom line is this: (the most realistic) CGI kiddy porn is like real kiddy porn. Except no children are abused during production.

I will not begin to assume anything about the effects of 3D renderings on a person, let alone the similarities between those effects and the effects of viewing actual children being abused.

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tessar

Hector, I'm going to have to agree that you were a bit off topic--the issue at hand is child pornography, not a child being sent pornography. I can see where what you meant was relevant, but it got dragged sideways a bit.

At least I think that's what Insidious meant

. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Insidious.

Alright....I'll be the first to admit it. But it DID have to do with the subject, more than is admitted. I did get carried away, though not completely...as you'll see that I had quite a few instances where I compared etc...

hectorberlioz · 05-04-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

Bottom line is this: (the most realistic) CGI kiddy porn is like real kiddy porn. Except no children are abused during production.

Good. children are not used, and hopefully the popularity of this less harmful medium replaces the old...

But I hold that it ought to be just as banned from public, including internet as the real thing.

Quote:

I will not begin to assume anything about the effects of 3D renderings on a person, let alone the similarities between those effects and the effects of viewing actual children being abused.

Ok

...I'm assuming that is where Tessar wanted to reprimand me...
Subject for another thread I suppose...

brownjenkins · 05-04-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

We might as well high-five it *high-fives with BJ*

*high-fives hector*

Elfhelm · 05-04-2006, 05:28 PM

I agree with Hector. Ban it. The non-CGI stuff is illegal because it is a form of violence, only its an assault on the mind. Even a complicit child is being violated because his lack of experience makes him believe the adult, who is lying when he says it is real affection and this is a secret not to share with Mom and Dad. The real thing is violent because the child can't defend himself from the deception, because the child is taught to trust adults.

And since the excellent sophists here will quickly seek to extend the argument to violence, I say ban that, too. I'm for banning violent video games. So of course I for banning CGI kiddie porn.

Unlike Hector my rationale isn't because God said so. It's because it is wrong on a societal level. It would hurt me and it would hurt you, too, so it's wrong. Some people don't care if you are hurt so long as they are getting pleasure. We use laws to control this. One such law, I say, is to ban this sort of thing... and violent video games, too.

p.s. Interesting topic. It's amazing how civil everyone is being.

05-04-2006, 03:06 PM	#22
Insidious Rex Quasi Evil Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Maryland, US Posts: 4,634	Hector are you saying having child porn available on the net makes it more likely people will rape a child? Some people would argue the exact opposite. That in a society where its completely taboo, just having the ability to look at this stuff allows the pedophile to live out his fantasy without engaging in any activity. __________________ "People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

05-04-2006, 04:00 PM	#29
Insidious Rex Quasi Evil Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Maryland, US Posts: 4,634	Well ok... but frankly I dont know if thats relevant to this discussion really. Sending porn (of any kind) to a minor is an offense in this country at least. And whether it enticed him to sleep with her doesnt have any bearing on if porn (of ANY kind) should be banned from the internet. Its not an equivalent scenario really. the equivalent scenario would be an 8 year old sending sex pictures of themselves to a pedophile to entice them to have sex with them. Which isnt what we are talking about at all (and as far as I know just doesnt happen. At least at that age...). We were talking about kiddie porn (CGI in this case) existing to possibly placate the pedophiles desires to go after REAL kids. Or does the existence of it make it more likely that they will go after a real kid. __________________ "People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion	brownjenkins	General Messages	208	05-27-2008 12:45 PM
The Conspiracies! (TOC vs. DC!)	Duddun	RPG Forum	321	01-22-2003 07:17 PM
The Entmoot Presidential Debate	Darth Tater	Entmoot Archive	163	12-06-2002 09:44 PM
I made a song!!!!!	StrawberryIcecream	Lord of the Rings Books	999	08-11-2002 01:58 AM

05-04-2006, 04:43 PM	#35
*Tessar* Master and Wielder of the Cardboard Harp of Gondor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: IM IN UR POSTZ, EDITIN' UR WURDZ Posts: 6,433	Hector, I'm going to have to agree that you were a bit off topic--the issue at hand is child pornography, not a child being sent pornography. I can see where what you meant was relevant, but it got dragged sideways a bit. At least I think that's what Insidious meant . Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Insidious.

05-04-2006, 05:28 PM	#40
Elfhelm Marshal of the Eastmark Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,412	I agree with Hector. Ban it. The non-CGI stuff is illegal because it is a form of violence, only its an assault on the mind. Even a complicit child is being violated because his lack of experience makes him believe the adult, who is lying when he says it is real affection and this is a secret not to share with Mom and Dad. The real thing is violent because the child can't defend himself from the deception, because the child is taught to trust adults. And since the excellent sophists here will quickly seek to extend the argument to violence, I say ban that, too. I'm for banning violent video games. So of course I for banning CGI kiddie porn. Unlike Hector my rationale isn't because God said so. It's because it is wrong on a societal level. It would hurt me and it would hurt you, too, so it's wrong. Some people don't care if you are hurt so long as they are getting pleasure. We use laws to control this. One such law, I say, is to ban this sort of thing... and violent video games, too. p.s. Interesting topic. It's amazing how civil everyone is being.