The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[DanishDynamite]

It is actually rather funny, Kevin. You are doing the exact same thing DD does: Instead of looking at my argument, you imply that since I criticize child porn, I must favour censorship and thus argue against “free speech”. Would you please point out where I advocate censorship?

Would you please state whether my assesment of your view is right or wrong? You keep blabing as though you had a point to make, yet you have not anwered my question on whether my understanding of your view is correct or not. So, please answer it.

Like I already said: People with their heads full of law cannot think straight! You simply assume that if somebody criticizes something, they must automatically advocate that this something should be outlawed.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that are full of ****.

You may not get it anyway, but let me try another example: I think that it is very bad idea to make yourself an advocate of kiddie porn, right? Does that imply that I want to take away your right to express this idea, your beloved basic right to “free speech”? If I say that parents should not hit their children, it implies only that I want them to stop doing so, it does not imply that I advocate a law against it, does it?

It would seem to imply that you do not have the convictions of your views. Please answer my simple question. Thanks.

When you get as far as ‘I cannot morally support criminalising kiddie porn without evidence that it is harmful in and of itself’, you don’t even notice how far out you’ve got.

You are beyond help. Unless you answer my simple question.

By the way, I don’t know if you have noticed, but censoring or banning kiddie porn does not seem to be a very efficient way of putting a stop to it, does it?!

Yet another point with no relevance.

Like the rest of your post.

Kindly address my question, dann. Try not to emulate the behaviour of the woo-woos I know you fight. Thanks.

 

[The Atheist]

Let me take a wild guess here: Dann uses a water filter?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Holy cow. If I "cherry-picked" any further I'd be in violation of rule 4. Whereas you quote exactly nothing from the article you cited -- the article that diametrically contradicts you.

As far as I'm concerned this was all hashed out in the previous thread on the topic.

I'm not interested in going over it again every time someone is too lazy to go over it themselves or disingenuous enough to pretend they have not done so in order to waste my time.

As to taking your word for it ... this defies credulity of course. It's not a topic I intended to rehash until I noticed this gem...

As I said, take my word for it or do the work involved in reading my sources and/or the previous discussion of the topic. You seem to be hoping for a third alternative - me doing all the work for you and rehashing that entire subthread here for your entertainment.

 

[dann]

Would you please state whether my assesment of your view is right or wrong? You keep blabing as though you had a point to make, yet you have not anwered my question on whether my understanding of your view is correct or not. So, please answer it.

I have already stated several times that, no, your assessment of what I say is not only wrong, you don't even seem to notice what I actually write:

I don't think that men are usually turned on by A Clockwork Orange (I know that I wasn't), and I am fairly sure that Anthony Burgess did not intend it to turn them on.
And to pre-empt your next argument: Yes, I do know that you can masturbate to the Sears catalogue, but at a pinch you can also use a clog as a hammer if you haven't got the proper tools. That doesn't mean that a clog is a hammer. You can sit on a box, which doesn't make it indistinguishable from a chair. It usually isn't very difficult to distinguish between literature and pornography. I don't think you can find many copies of A Clockwork Orange or Lolita (I don't know about Justine, but I wouldn't think so in that case either) in porn shops. And you don't find many copies of BigNs (Is that how Al Bundy would spell it?) in an ordinary book shop.
The only thing that makes the distinction difficult is that the judiciary system used to ban books that weren't pornography as if they were.

Sorry, dann, but I completely disagree with you. Anyone should be able to write and publish any book they feel like as long as such publication doesn't endanger national security or break any libel laws. Anything else is blatant censorship.

Does your definition of kiddie porn include pseudo child pornography or not?

I am not really interested in your distinction between child pornography and what you call pseudo child pornography. (For lack of a better word?) They are both child pornography, they both encourage masturbation fantasies about children, which is why they should both be discouraged. A paedophile may cling to this distinction only because ‘no children were molested during the production of this movie’, but as a ‘drug’ for paedophiles it works the same way as actual photographs of children being molested. It helps the paedophile get off, gives him immediate relief, but at the same time it reinforces his paedophile tendencies. When you are so keen on creating or maintaining a distinction between real and pseudo in this case, you sound to me almost like the alcoholics who insist that there is a very big difference between liquor and beer, or smokers who insist on a major difference between cigarettes with and without filter. It does not help the paedophiles overcome their fixation on kids in the question of sexuality. On the contrary, it feeds this fixation, which is why it is bad. Like in the case of real drugs, kiddie porn ’light’ is still kiddie porn!
If any of you guys are actually addicted to this stuff – and sometimes it sounds as if you might be – go get some kind of counselling before you start abusing other people and not just your own intelligence.

Let me take a wild guess here: Dann uses a water filter?

In the municipality of Frederiksberg we have our own water supply, separate from that of the rest of Copenhagen.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I am not really interested in your distinction between child pornography and what you call pseudo child pornography. (For lack of a better word?) They are both child pornography, they both encourage masturbation fantasies about children, which is why they should both be discouraged.

How do you think they should be discouraged?

If any of you guys are actually addicted to this stuff – and sometimes it sounds as if you might be – go get some kind of counselling before you start abusing other people and not just your own intelligence.

I tend to think the people who protest too vehemently and project paedophilic tendencies on to others too often are the ones who are most likely to be closet paedophiles. That's just my take on human nature.

 

[The Atheist]

In the municipality of Frederiksberg we have our own water supply, separate from that of the rest of Copenhagen.

Knew it!

 

[The Atheist]

I tend to think the people who protest too vehemently and project paedophilic tendencies on to others too often are the ones who are most likely to be closet paedophiles. That's just my take on human nature.

Ergo: If I am in favour of child pornography and "consensual" child sex, those who oppose me are paedophiles.

Never mind the water in Copenhagen, what the hell do they put in the stuff in Tazzy?

 

[dann]

How do you think they should be discouraged?

I've been doing it here, haven't I? Certainly not by insisting that it is one of most noble features of democracy that everyone be allowed to produce, distribute and enjoy kiddie porn! (And, no, this is still not an argument for censorship!)

I tend to think the people who protest too vehemently and project paedophilic tendencies on to others too often are the ones who are most likely to be closet paedophiles. That's just my take on human nature.

If they actually project, you would be right by definition! (I can see that you don't agree with Piscivore on the point of psychoanalysis!) In the case of most of you I still think that it is a question of not being able to think straight because you've got your heads full of jurisprudence: 'Somebody is trying to forbid something! Let's rush to the defence of the basic human right of free kiddie porn!'

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've been doing it here, haven't I? Certainly not by insisting that it is one of most noble features of democracy that everyone be allowed to produce, distribute and enjoy kiddie porn! (And, no, this is still not an argument for censorship!)

Is there anything else we should do to discourage child pornography? Anything at all? Or is merely saying that it is bad sufficient discouragement?

If they actually project, you would be right by definition! (I can see that you don't agree with Piscivore on the point of psychoanalysis!) In the case of most of you I still think that it is a question of not being able to think straight because you've got your heads full of jurisprudence: 'Somebody is trying to forbid something! Let's rush to the defence of the basic human right of free kiddie porn!'

The legal status of child pornography is the subject of this thread. I don't think it indicates any failing on anybody else's part if you refuse to stick to the subject and criticise those who do. Neither does presenting silly straw men.

 

[slingblade]

I tend to think the people who protest too vehemently and project paedophilic tendencies on to others too often are the ones who are most likely to be closet paedophiles. That's just my take on human nature.

And the hat trick would be if any of them also were victims. Because everyone knows that all victims go on to become offenders.

The concept of "too vehemently" is just a wee little bit outfarkingrageously subjective.

Also debatable would be who gets to decide if what's going on is "projection onto others," or someone legitimately concerned that what they're reading sounds all too sickeningly familiar.

I don't suppose it occurs to many folks that one reason it's hard to tell others you've been abused is because some of them always assume you're probably a perp now, yourself.

Should I warn TAM-goers not to let their kids too close to me? Don't want to take any chances, do we?


Kevin, for that fine triple-threat of grievous insults, I bid you adieu.

Folks, if he responds to me in any way, be kind enough not to quote him, please? Thanks.

 

[Dave1001]

Kevin, for that fine triple-threat of grievous insults, I bid you adieu.

Folks, if he responds to me in any way, be kind enough not to quote him, please? Thanks.

Although Kevin's comment was certainly ill-considered, it was pretty much proportional to Dann's comment. I think acting like Kevin's comment was a spontaneous insult that came out of the blue is bad form. He didn't innovate implying people are pedophiles because of their stance on these issues. Dann, The Atheist, and other anti- pseudo child pornography posters have implied as much for quite a few more posts and for a longer duration than Kevin did. I think it's a bit contrived to claim this level of being insulted by Kevin's post, but not the numerous previous posts implying that someone that defends pseudo child pornography, or even real child pornography, or who argues that some forms of adult-child sexual contact may be non-harmful, is themselves therefore likely to be a child sex abuser or child pornography addict.

It's bad form in either direction, and Kevin isn't one of the more serious offenders of this etiquette in this thread.

 

[Dave1001]

When you are so keen on creating or maintaining a distinction between real and pseudo in this case, you sound to me almost like the alcoholics who insist that there is a very big difference between liquor and beer, or smokers who insist on a major difference between cigarettes with and without filter. It does not help the paedophiles overcome their fixation on kids in the question of sexuality. On the contrary, it feeds this fixation, which is why it is bad. Like in the case of real drugs, kiddie porn ’light’ is still kiddie porn!
If any of you guys are actually addicted to this stuff – and sometimes it sounds as if you might be – go get some kind of counselling before you start abusing other people and not just your own intelligence.

Slingblade, I'm surprised this post didn't offend you equally or more. Given that Kevin's post was a direct and fairly symmetrical (perhaps even milder) response to it, you claim of being insulted only by Kevin's post seems a bit unfair to me. I think both posters were wrong to imply something negative abut a person ("child porn addict" or "child sex abuser") based on their expressed opinion of what should or should be legal or approved in society regarding child pornography, pseudo child pornography, and adult/child sexual contact.

 

[varwoche]

As far as I'm concerned this was all hashed out in the previous thread on the topic.

I'm not interested in going over it again every time someone is too lazy to go over it themselves or disingenuous enough to pretend they have not done so in order to waste my time.

Undistilled argumentum ad whack-a-molem.

In order for me to chase down your third hyper-vague citation, I would require you to, in order: (1) sufficiently explain or else retract your first hyper-vague (incredibly bogus) citation, (2) sufficiently explain or else retract your second hyper-vague (incredibly bogus) citation, (3) not be so vague about your third hyper-vague citation.

(I rate the odds of your compliance about on par as the times when I'm in a game arcade and I ask the whack-a-mole machine to slow down so that I can whack the moles. I'll check back in a week or so to see if I'm wrong about this.)

 

[slingblade]

Although Kevin's comment was certainly ill-considered, it was pretty much proportional to Dann's comment. I think acting like Kevin's comment was a spontaneous insult that came out of the blue is bad form.

I don't see how its supposed "coming out of the blue" is meaningful or makes my reaction "bad form."

He didn't innovate implying people are pedophiles because of their stance on these issues.

I didn't say he innovated anything.

Dann, The Atheist, and other anti- pseudo child pornography posters have implied as much for quite a few more posts and for a longer duration than Kevin did.

They have said that protesting the abuse of children "too vehemently" is indicative of a closet pedophile? Really?

I think it's a bit contrived to claim this level of being insulted by Kevin's post,

I think I don't care how you judge my reactions to anything, Dave.

but not the numerous previous posts implying that someone that defends pseudo child pornography, or even real child pornography, or who argues that some forms of adult-child sexual contact may be non-harmful, is themselves therefore likely to be a child sex abuser or child pornography addict.

Gee, Dave, if you've been keeping up at all, then you're aware I said writing imaginary stories about imaginary children isn't child abuse because no actual children were harmed. Nabokov, remember?

It's bad form in either direction, and Kevin isn't one of the more serious offenders of this etiquette in this thread.

Now that you've finished setting up your strawmen, I'll see if I can find you a match.

 

[Dave1001]

Now that you've finished setting up your strawmen, I'll see if I can find you a match.

I don't see on what basis you're more offended by Kevin's response to Dann's post, then by Dann's post, given that both are implying people are pedophiles or child porn addicts based on the positions they're taking in this discussion.

 

[slingblade]

I don't see on what basis you're more offended by Kevin's response to Dann's post, then by Dann's post, given that both are implying people are pedophiles or child porn addicts based on the positions they're taking in this discussion.

History.

 

[dann]

Is there anything else we should do to discourage child pornography? Anything at all?

In this forum? No, I don't think so.

Or is merely saying that it is bad sufficient discouragement?

In this forum we have had a very hard time trying to convince some of you that kiddie porn (or your invention: psedo child pornography) is not a very good idea and that it should be discouraged. Personally I think that a rational explanation of the topic would probably be more efficient than the threat of punishment. (I have already mentioned that counselling and therapy for the addicts would be a good idea.) The fact that kiddie porn and actual sex with children is not allowed is completely different from serious education about the theme. That it is not allowed merely makes the paedophiles meet in their secret societies in real space or cyberspace where they can persuade each other that they are martyrs, the innocent victims of persecution from a sexually repressive society which does not recognize the legitimite needs of children who want to have sex with adults. And apparently a lot of people share their delusion ....
Nor do I think that the baseball bat is a solution. Fear of punishment usually serves one concern only: 'How do I avoid being discovered/arrested/punished?' It does not make the paedophiles understand that they harm children, and so it does not make them want to stop. And I have already mentioned innocent victims of psychopathic vigilantes in my own country.

The legal status of child pornography is the subject of this thread. I don't think it indicates any failing on anybody else's part if you refuse to stick to the subject and criticise those who do. Neither does presenting silly straw men.

Yes, the legal status of child pornography was the subject of this thread. However, some of you - you in particular - wanted to defend the right to produce, distribute and enjoy it with arguments defending sex with children and kiddie porn. (Always the alleged harmless kind, of course.) Now you are saying that it is not allowed to criticize these arguments concerning sex with children and kiddie porn unless one relates it to "the legal status of child pornography"?!! Like I already said a number of times: When people have their heads full of law, they cannot think straight!


PS I would love to hear how you would teach the paedophiles to distinguish between harmful sex with children and the alleged harmless, good-fun kind of sex with children that you seem to advocate. Since you seem to know about projection, it would be interesting to hear you teach a group of paedophiles how to tell the difference between a child onto whom they have projected their desire to have kiddie sex and a child that is genuinely, automously, of its own volition interested in sex with adults ...
Well, no, actually, I probably don't really want to hear you make this distinction at all!

 

[Roadtoad]

And then there's this. No one is claiming any connections, but still...

 

[Esperdome]

I tend to think the people who protest too vehemently and project paedophilic tendencies on to others too often are the ones who are most likely to be closet paedophiles. That's just my take on human nature.

I don't have any evidence to support this, but in Kevin's defense I've seen this behavior elsewhere.

When I was younger and more attractive to members of both sexes, I often befriended people who in the process of getting to know each other put out blatant anti-gay statements. When I didn't respond equally anti-gay, they assumed I was Bi or gay. Then they made passes at me which to me was over the line and usually ended the relationship. They didn't want to risk me outing them to other friends. Or it was just too weird for me to deal with.

I've never had anyone approach me as an anti-pedophile, so I have no anecdotal evidence here.

 

[Dave1001]

I don't have any evidence to support this, but in Kevin's defense I've seen this behavior elsewhere.

When I was younger and more attractive to members of both sexes, I often befriended people who in the process of getting to know each other put out blatant anti-gay statements. When I didn't respond equally anti-gay, they assumed I was Bi or gay. Then they made passes at me which to me was over the line and usually ended the relationship. They didn't want to risk me outing them to other friends. Or it was just too weird for me to deal with.

I've never had anyone approach me as an anti-pedophile, so I have no anecdotal evidence here.

That's a good point though of course it shouldn't be used to judge any thread participant.

One reason many people become more viruntly anti-underage sex, particularly regarding underage sex with post-pubescent minors, once they become parents is that they may have to deal with the temptation more than those of us who live in a more adult world. As a law student with no kids and away from extended family, I don't spend much time around teens age 13-15. There's not much of a sense of dangerous temptation. In contrast, parents are around the friends of their kids that are age 13-15, and probably have do deal with that type of sexual attraction more frequently. It's understandable if they react with a stronger "anti" stance, much like publicly anti-gay people who are in the closet.

I don't live in a world of temptation of either gay men or 13-15 year old women, those aren't temptations I have to battle. Gay men due to orientation, 13-15 year olds due to a combination of modern Western socialization and living in an adult environment without many teens around. If I did, I could see a strong anti- stance as a defense mechanism.

Once again, this of course isn't a judgment on any thread participants. The antis I assume are that way because it seems to them to be the stance that will result in what's best for society -just like the pros from their perspective.