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

[Checkmite]

Why do you think this will never happen? In an age of near ubiquitous camera phones, security cameras, and web cameras, I think it's more likely than not to happen, on a fairly regular basis. I don't think it's as unlikely as 16 ninjas suddenly surrounding a typical person in an alley. Why do you think differently about this?

Because the idea that someone would take a video of themselves on a camera phone and save it for 20 years just so they could sell it is ludicrous? How many children are going to have the same computer when they're 30 that they had when they were 13? The same phone? How many do you think are going to pointedly keep a disk with such a video of themselves on it for all that time, "in case someday they might decide to sell it"? It's so ridiculous, the idea doesn't really even deserve consideration.

When kids record something with a camera phone, they put it up on the web right away. When kids are talked into doing that sort of thing with a webcam, the pedo who's watching them is the one who records it and puts it up on the web right away. Either way, there's nothing left to sell, because everyone who wants it has already gotten it for free on (insert peer-to-peer file transfer program of your choice here).

 

[The Atheist]

I didn't do that. There aren't only the two possible results, "perfection" and "failure"- that was my point.

Maybe I should switch to Swahili.

Whichever system of justice/law we use, it is never going to achieve 100% compliance, or even close, in any area of human society.

How? If you never set an arbitrary goalpost at all how can it move?

Now you advocate no laws? You've drawn the line several times with your list. That would be the new goalpost, until further evidence was revealed. Isn't that kind of what we're talking about here? Other than your "evidence" being very flimsy, that's exactly what we're talking about! If your evidence was worthwhile, as I've stated MANY times, I'd be on your side. To date, it's not.

Surely that should be the end?

Yes.

Again, I don't live and have never lived in Canada. I just have an inordinate fondness for the Kids in the Hall and Tim Hortons coffee

Sorry, I'd picked up the impression you were in Canada.

You get them to do the best they can.

Yep, and in the case of laws the aim is always 100%. Isn't that why we change them? Isn't that why you're advocating change? To get them closer to your ideal?

You missed my point entirely.
Do the "stiff penalties" eliminate drunk driving "100%"?
Will hightened citizen involvement in this issue- even up to the detriment of every other aspect of their lives- eliminate drunk driving "100%"?

No, I assure you the point missed is all on your side, and again, you're agreeing with me. The lack of equivocation isn't in perpetration - you're always going to get offenders (haven't we agreed on that a few times?). There are, however, no excuses for drunk driving. That was recently shown when an off-duty cop drove while drunk to a crash scene to deliver vital equipment. He pled guilty and was discharged. The law was 100% correct, and in a rare turn-up for justice, the result was, too.

Their own, yes. Not every baby bird in their species equally. Many will actually kill baby birds, even related ones, to promote their own.

Fortunately, as a species, we have almost out-evolved those traits and we have social welfare systems and child protection agencies.

Why do you "see issues with kids in a different light"?

You what? You have kids, you figure that out.

That's patently false.

Of course laws will change, but this one isn't going to anytime soon. Can you name any politician, or even better a political party which, anywhere in the world, which would have this on their agenda? I hate to disillusion you, but chances of law change without political support = 0.

Never say never, so maybe in 1000 years. Not in our lives, I bet you. Even the kind of people who agree with you privately would have no truck with it in public, and rightly so. They are the kind of people (I hope) who far more important agendas to worry about than this, and accordingly, due to not wanting the baggage which goes with it, are not going to touch it with a barge-pole. Come on, mate, a little realism's always helpful.

Maybe your misunderstanding of this is why you feel the need to play Batman, I don't know.

And maybe your misunderstanding of it all is helping you to come out with that. [/insert wanker smiley]

We've covered this, and you clearly didn't listen. A petition isn't the only course of action, and unless you are trying get a measure on a ballot- which is specifically done with a petition- it is a pretty fruitless course of action. Your thinking in this area seems very limited.

My thinking was limited alright - I thought I was dealing with someone quite smart. If you want me to stop using the same example, insert one of these:

1 Gain political support. Have it put on a party agenda. (see above)
2 Discuss it with friends and co-workers and customers.
3 Start a movement, do letter drops and take out advertising to find new members.
4 Talk to taxi- and bus-drivers. (They're always right)
5 Write letters and articles to local newspapers.
6 Start discussing it on internet forums. (There's a good one)
7 Start a petition!
8 Ring talkback radio.
9 Contact local and national television production companies to gauge interest in having a televised debate or documentary made on the subject.
10 Go to a local bar and canvass its patrons.
11 Set up a stand at a local mall and gauge public response.

Besides that, I thought you found the idea of "doing nothing" reprehensible?

Mate, now you've lost the plot. I'm doing nothing because I see nothing which needs changing.

Before we do even that, we have to convince people the studies are even worth doing- and that means hacking away at millenia of accumulated superstition and ignorance.

There you go, some creative thinking at last. Garner support as outlined above so you can sell the idea to a respectable organisation which will then do some serious research into it. Answered your own question.

The fact that you singled out Asians alone for that attribute. I just turned 39, all early twenties look like children to me.

Maybe I'm just reacting to that new guy trying to promote racism as scientific over in R&P.

I sincerely hope so. The reason I singled out Asian is because that's the way it is. I interview far more non-Asians and Europeans, so I have plenty of adequate comparison. Christ, my next-door neighbour (Chinese) has a 19 year old son who could easily attend our Intermediate shool system (age 11-13). The fact that they are all youthful-looking I would have thought was complimentary rather than racist. It would be as racist as me saying they all have black hair. Polynesians are the exact opposite, with the majority being bigger and far older-looking than their competition. That's not racist either, it's an observation.

Restricting speech that is not harmful has a commensurate effect.

Covered. Find the evidence.

"...so let's not shut down the possiblity because of some pretty slogans that make us feel like we're accomplishing something."

It's accomplishing something. It's giving guys like you someone to debate with in a relaxed environment, whereas you and I both know that if, as I suggested to kevin, you took this discussion down to the local workingmen's club, you'd be torn into tiny, little bits and swept up with the cigarette butts. (Unless blue-collar guys, as you'd call them, are a LOT more understanding as to the nuances of free expression and child-porn than their Antipodean counterparts.)

 

[curi0us]

Why don't you tell us about them?

I was hoping you would come up with some yourself. You are blaming pornography for something that has shown up in mainstream literature written by women, rather then making an effective argument against porn you come across as blindly obsessed with using it as scapegoat.

 

[Dave1001]

Because the idea that someone would take a video of themselves on a camera phone and save it for 20 years just so they could sell it is ludicrous? How many children are going to have the same computer when they're 30 that they had when they were 13? The same phone? How many do you think are going to pointedly keep a disk with such a video of themselves on it for all that time, "in case someday they might decide to sell it"? It's so ridiculous, the idea doesn't really even deserve consideration.

When kids record something with a camera phone, they put it up on the web right away. When kids are talked into doing that sort of thing with a webcam, the pedo who's watching them is the one who records it and puts it up on the web right away. Either way, there's nothing left to sell, because everyone who wants it has already gotten it for free on (insert peer-to-peer file transfer program of your choice here).

Change 30 to 18, and 13 to 15. How improbable is it that there are going to be 15 year old kids who record themselves masturbating -for their own sexual gratification- and then decide at age 18 that they want to sell the videos for money? I think that in a nation of 300 million, it's going to happen on multiple occasions, and on a regular basis. In otherwords, I don't think it's unlikely to ever happen, as you've been maintaining. And when it does happen, should the 18 year old be able to legally sell or distribute their own footage of themselve as a minor? My vote is yes.

As for peer-to-peer file transfer programs, for the subset of cases like these that go on the web right away, pee-to-peer ile transfer programs don't destroy markets for media. Otherwise no one would buy any media, because it's pretty much all available through peer-to-peer file transfer programs already.

 

[Checkmite]

Change 30 to 18, and 13 to 15. How improbable is it that there are going to be 15 year old kids who record themselves masturbating -for their own sexual gratification- and then decide at age 18 that they want to sell the videos for money? I think that in a nation of 300 million, it's going to happen on multiple occasions, and on a regular basis. In otherwords, I don't think it's unlikely to ever happen, as you've been maintaining. And when it does happen, should the 18 year old be able to legally sell or distribute their own footage of themselve as a minor? My vote is yes.

I don't think it has to happen even once. The idea that a 15-year-old will tape themselves "doing it" for the sole purpose that they can do it again later while watching themselves doing it seems no less ridiculous than your previous scenario. Kids with cameras record things that they want to show other people.

Let's pretend it's not ridiculous, though. There's nothing special about turning 18 that will make such a person suddenly think about selling that old video that they've been keeping all this time when the number rolls over; but even besides that - considering that the material is illegal, it's even more ridiculous to think that a kid who somehow has a mind to make some money in this fashion is going to wait until he turns 18 to try and do it.

My vote is "no", because there is absolutely no way for a person to prove that such a performance wasn't coerced or otherwise directed by an adult.

As for peer-to-peer file transfer programs, for the subset of cases like these that go on the web right away, pee-to-peer ile transfer programs don't destroy markets for media. Otherwise no one would buy any media, because it's pretty much all available through peer-to-peer file transfer programs already.

Well, when it comes to music and movies, there are alternative channels for obtaining those. Right now, there is no alternative channel for obtaining child pornography, because it is illegal; no one in this day and age will pay money for it (or engage in any other financial transaction) because they will get caught if they try, and everyone knows this - except, of course, for the idiots who save the feds the footwork by using their own credit cards to try and buy the stuff from a fake government website.

 

[dann]

I was hoping you would come up with some yourself. You are blaming pornography for something that has shown up in mainstream literature written by women, rather then making an effective argument against porn you come across as blindly obsessed with using it as scapegoat.

I wasn't even aware that I had made an argument, effective of inefficient, against pornography as such. Could you please explain what you are talking about?

 

[Piscivore]

Maybe I should switch to Swahili.

Whichever system of justice/law we use, it is never going to achieve 100% compliance, or even close, in any area of human society.

But I thought that was unacceptable?

Now you advocate no laws?

No, I advocate not setting any kind of arbitrary "performance quota" on them.

You've drawn the line several times with your list. That would be the new goalpost, until further evidence was revealed.

Do please show me where I did so.

Yep, and in the case of laws the aim is always 100%.

100% what? Compliance? That's impossible, we agreed to that.
100% freedom? Also impossible. I have to accept certain restrictions on my freedoms so others can have theirs.

Isn't that why we change them? Isn't that why you're advocating change? To get them closer to your ideal?

My ideals here cannot be measured in percentages, so I'm really not sure what you mean.

No, I assure you the point missed is all on your side, and again, you're agreeing with me.

My point was that enforcement of any law is not "100%" successful and insisting that this was the only acceptable standard is futile and a bit foolish, if very dramatic and noble-sounding. If you are not saying that now you are agreeing with me.

The lack of equivocation isn't in perpetration

I cannot parse this.

you're always going to get offenders (haven't we agreed on that a few times?).

We are now, it seems.

There are, however, no excuses for drunk driving.

Your link says otherwise:
"In court today, he pleaded guilty but was discharged without conviction. He will also keep his driver's licence... Judge Bidois ruled that special circumstances applied in this case."

That looks like an excuse for impaired driving right there.

What has this to do with what we are discussing?

Fortunately, as a species, we have almost out-evolved those traits and we have social welfare systems and child protection agencies.

Were that true, would we even be talking about the need to have laws to protect children? Would we need these agencies?

You what? You have kids, you figure that out.

I have kids, yes, but I do not see crimes against them as being any different than crimes against any other person. You said YOU DO. Can't you explain why? Do you have any reason? Or is this just another superstition?

I think you know what I suspect.

Of course laws will change, but this one isn't going to anytime soon. Can you name any politician, or even better a political party which, anywhere in the world, which would have this on their agenda? I hate to disillusion you, but chances of law change without political support = 0.

I see it very easily changing the other way, beoming more restrictive. One of those Fox News talking heads was kicking up a fuss about Dakota Fanning's latest project- with all the attendant outrage and fury that comes just before a book-burning or the formation of another Meese Commission or Watch and Ward Society.

Never say never, so maybe in 1000 years. Not in our lives, I bet you.

Fascinating. Where do you get your amazing psychic powers? You might want to double-check with Hammy, he says we are going to be under the thumb of the "Islamofascists" within our lifetimes.

Even the kind of people who agree with you privately would have no truck with it in public, and rightly so.

Subtlety is not silence. Just because they are not screaming at neighbors on street corners or circulating petitions does not mean they aren't out there. We even have our own holiday- "Banned Book Week".

Then there are the NAMBLA guys you invoked. Did you forget about them?

They are the kind of people (I hope) who far more important agendas to worry about than this, and accordingly, due to not wanting the baggage which goes with it, are not going to touch it with a barge-pole. Come on, mate, a little realism's always helpful.

Indeed.

My thinking was limited alright - I thought I was dealing with someone quite smart. If you want me to stop using the same example,

That would go a long way towards demonstrating the same to me, please do.

insert one of these:

1 Gain political support. Have it put on a party agenda. (see above)

That's what I'm working on now. Where do you suppose "political support" comes from, if not the people?

2 Discuss it with friends and co-workers and customers.

Regularly. Go on.

3 Start a movement, do letter drops and take out advertising to find new members.

Will this one do?

4 Talk to taxi- and bus-drivers. (They're always right)

This is bizarre.

5 Write letters and articles to local newspapers.

Done.

6 Start discussing it on internet forums. (There's a good one)

Heh. Okay.

7 Start a petition!

Useless.

8 Ring talkback radio.

I haven't listed to radio since I got my iPod. The radio doesn't work in my van.

9 Contact local and national television production companies to gauge interest in having a televised debate or documentary made on the subject.

Too soon yet. We only just started getting a skeptic viewpoint on CNN (way to go, Randi and RL!)

10 Go to a local bar and canvass its patrons.

Why? this isn't the nineteenth century, were revolutions are brewed in smoky back rooms. I do not need to enflame the proletariat to march upon the halls of power with pitchforks and torches.

11 Set up a stand at a local mall and gauge public response.

Don't be daft.

Mate, now you've lost the plot. I'm doing nothing because I see nothing which needs changing.

So you're content then with the staus quo- with ineffective, irrational, but comforting laws standing as panacea while children are raped and kidnapped because the actual causes are ignored in favour of "kiddie porn is bad, mmkay"?

I thought you cared about kids?

There you go, some creative thinking at last. Garner support as outlined above so you can sell the idea to a respectable organisation which will then do some serious research into it. Answered your own question.

It was not in question to me.

I sincerely hope so. The reason I singled out Asian is because that's the way it is. I interview far more non-Asians and Europeans, so I have plenty of adequate comparison. Christ, my next-door neighbour (Chinese) has a 19 year old son who could easily attend our Intermediate shool system (age 11-13). The fact that they are all youthful-looking I would have thought was complimentary rather than racist. It would be as racist as me saying they all have black hair. Polynesians are the exact opposite, with the majority being bigger and far older-looking than their competition. That's not racist either, it's an observation.

Okay. Walk into a Polynesian bar and "observe" that.

Covered. Find the evidence.

Start here. That should keep you busy for awhile. Then come back, there's lots more.

It's accomplishing something. It's giving guys like you someone to debate with in a relaxed environment, whereas you and I both know that if, as I suggested to kevin, you took this discussion down to the local workingmen's club, you'd be torn into tiny, little bits and swept up with the cigarette butts. (Unless blue-collar guys, as you'd call them, are a LOT more understanding as to the nuances of free expression and child-porn than their Antipodean counterparts.)

I think it is a bit bigoted of you to assume they are not.

In any case, as I've explained, direct confrontation with people on any subject is most often counter-productive. People get defensive, "dig in" with their biases. People don't like to be wrong. It takes subtlety, not the sword.

Walking into a bar (or a Central Park West dinner party, or Governor's Ball, or even a NAMBLA meeting) and telling all the people therein they are wrong and basically stupid isn't very smart, no matter what your agenda. And you know this.

 

[Dave1001]

Right now, there is no alternative channel for obtaining child pornography, because it is illegal; no one in this day and age will pay money for it (or engage in any other financial transaction) because they will get caught if they try, and everyone knows this - except, of course, for the idiots who save the feds the footwork by using their own credit cards to try and buy the stuff from a fake government website.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? I think it's your 2nd statement which is more likely to be true, that there are people who are willing to pay by credit card and other means for child pornography.

 

[curi0us]

I wasn't even aware that I had made an argument, effective of inefficient, against pornography as such. Could you please explain what you are talking about?

I’ll try, let me repeat your statement that I quoted noting that it was you who put the word "pornography" in italics:

You don't see anybody trying to make a subtle distinction between the cases of rape where the victims suffer traumatic emotional damage for the rest of their lives and the few cases where a woman for some reason is suddenly turned on by being raped and starts enjoying it - mainly because the latter are the imaginary, fictitious accounts of pornography, not of real life.

The way I read your post you are singling out pornography for blame in perpetuating the idea that rape can be enjoyable for a women. Do you disagree with my interpretation?

 

[Checkmite]

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? I think it's your 2nd statement which is more likely to be true, that there are people who are willing to pay by credit card and other means for child pornography.

You're right; I misspoke. I should've said that, in this day and age, nobody would CHARGE for real child pornography, because if they do they will be caught, and everyone knows this - again, except for the aforementioned idiots who use credit cards to try and buy the stuff from fake government websites.

 

[The Atheist]

My point was that enforcement of any law is not "100%" successful and insisting that this was the only acceptable standard is futile and a bit foolish, if very dramatic and noble-sounding. If you are not saying that now you are agreeing with me.

While you've just been unable to see the difference between goals and reality.

I cannot parse this.

I take it you mean "understand". It's pretty plain English, would translating it to another language help you?

Your link says otherwise:
"In court today, he pleaded guilty but was discharged without conviction. He will also keep his driver's licence... Judge Bidois ruled that special circumstances applied in this case."

That looks like an excuse for impaired driving right there.

He broke the law. He was charged and pleaded guilty. The judge, using his discretionary powers, let him off with no convicted. That's how the law works - the police prosecute, guilt is established, the judge decides the penalty. In that case, it all worked perfectly.

I have kids, yes, but I do not see crimes against them as being any different than crimes against any other person. You said YOU DO. Can't you explain why? Do you have any reason? Or is this just another superstition?

I think you know what I suspect.

You're a little slow on the uptake, aren't you? Kids cannot take part in debates such as this. Why do you think we restrict voting to 18+? Drinking? Consent? Contractual law?

Or are you advocating children to have the rights of adults?

Do we have the division between kids and adults for superstitious reasons? Or because kids genuinely aren't capable of making informed decisions?

I see it very easily changing the other way, beoming more restrictive. One of those Fox News talking heads was kicking up a fuss about Dakota Fanning's latest project- with all the attendant outrage and fury that comes just before a book-burning or the formation of another Meese Commission or Watch and Ward Society.

Without the benefit of seeing the film I can't comment on whether protest is appropriate or not. Being at a Sundance festival, I'd guess that it's a storm in a teacup.

Being a realist again, if you're genuinely concerned that things might go the other way, the last thing you need is to be pushing this barrow.

Fascinating. Where do you get your amazing psychic powers? You might want to double-check with Hammy, he says we are going to be under the thumb of the "Islamofascists" within our lifetimes.

It's that seventh child thing. Go check out the cricket thread, the Aussies want to burn me at the stake after what I did to their team. Hammegk's just smart, not psychic.

You might want to check out your previous paragraph and figure out how on one hand, you're worried that laws might be tightened, while at the same time not seeing that they won't be relaxed anytime soon.

Subtlety is not silence. Just because they are not screaming at neighbors on street corners or circulating petitions does not mean they aren't out there. We even have our own holiday- "Banned Book Week".

Subtlety isn't silence, but fear is. "The squeaky wheel gets the oil", "He who shouts loudest gets heard most", all that kind of stuff. Why do you think those "moral majority" pricks shout so much? To make sure they're heard. Hell, I've told you how to start the fight, now you want me to do your tactics for you as well? You know all this stuff - or you bloody well ought to. Your "silent minority" is a bit like the Universalist god - so invisible, powerless and wimpy that it may as well not exist anyway.

Then there are the NAMBLA guys you invoked. Did you forget about them?

PARTY!

Will this one do?

Look, I'm not trying to pour water on your parade, here> Basically, we're on the same side, barring one minor problem. Especially when it comes to libraries and librarians, I'd be supportive anytime - all of my family are avid bibliophiles.

An organisation which has been going since the 1870s and has 66,000 members, worldwide? Stormfront has nearly doube that, acquired in 5 years. Your ability to change things is always going to be a long and frustrating process. Arm the librarians, maybe. Get a couple on the news with AK47s, blowing away some hip-hop "artists" - make librarians tough, feared, respected. Kind of like Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds...

I appluad your efforts, but think you have to do some work on your profile.

This is bizarre.

Not as bizarre as your sarcasm appreciation gland removal.

So you're content then with the staus quo- with ineffective, irrational, but comforting laws standing as panacea while children are raped and kidnapped because the actual causes are ignored in favour of "kiddie porn is bad, mmkay"?

What's with this mmkay business? I must've missed the instruction manual somewhere. I've seen ok all my life, but this recent mmkay I find a bit strange. Is it off a tv show or something? Seems to be a very recent phenomenon - but catching on disappointingly quickly. Does okey-dokey become mokey-smokey? You're about the 4th or 5th I've sen with it. Hope it isn't contagious.

Mate, you've drawn a few long bows in this thread, but, "comforting laws standing as panacea while children are raped and kidnapped because the actual causes are ignored in favour of 'kiddie porn is bad' " is one of the worst yet.

What causes are being ignored? Come on. This I gotta see.

Okay. Walk into a Polynesian bar and "observe" that.]/QUOTE]Couple of points - we don't have "Polynesian bars", ours are open to all colours & races. If you mean a Polynesian-dominated bar, of course I would, any day of the week. You think Tongans haven't noticed that they're twice as big as weedy white blokes? You think they're insulted by it? They'd crack up laughing at the crazy palagi. Do you know any Polynesians? What are you on? You started mentioning Maori, you've had a little anal tightening because I said Asian men are youthful-looking and now you're rumbling because I say that Polynesians are bigger than Euros. Hint: they are! They are a HUGE people. They also have black hair and brown eyes.

Start here. That should keep you busy for awhile. Then come back, there's lots more.

Seen a couple on tv. I try to stay away from those kind of things, but I'd consider a bonfire of bibles. Time-honoured American tradition, I believe - book & record bonfires. I believe John Lennon actually drove a couple.

I think it is a bit bigoted of you to assume they are not.

You're determined to label me a bigot in one way or another! Personally, without making stuff up, I give you no chance. Ever been to a workingmen's club? You know, one of those places where blokes who have done 10-14 hours' hard yakka go for a drink after they get cleaned up? Fitters & turners, builders, brickies and street-sweepers, those kind of blokes? Assumption has nothing to do with it - again, plain truth. Ask around, if you don't have contacts in those groups yourself. Find out what the "working joe" thinks about your ideas. THEN come and tell me I'm bigoted. I said a couple of posts ago about people walking around with their eyes closed. I'm worried that you may be one of them.

 

[dann]

I’ll try, let me repeat your statement that I quoted noting that it was you who put the word "pornography" in italics:
The way I read your post you are singling out pornography for blame in perpetuating the idea that rape can be enjoyable for a women. Do you disagree with my interpretation?

Yes, I disagree with your interpretation:

1) What is pornography? Texts, photos or films with the purpose of being masturbation fantasies. To avoid misinterpretation: Other kinds of texts, photos or films may also be used as masturbation fantasies even though it's not their purpose, the same way a crate may be used to sit on. You can use it as a chair, but it is not a chair, and most people are able to tell the difference.

2) For this reason pornography tries to deliver the fantasies that turn its customers on, and luckily most of these customers (if they are straight men) seem to be turned on by fantasizing about women who enjoy sex, who want to have sex and who have sex.

3) Some men are turned on by the fantasy of women who have sex with a man in spite of their aversion to it, a variation of SM fantasies. In the fantasy world of pornography they mostly end up enjoying it. This is on the one hand a consolation since it tells us that these men do not actually dream of hurting women, but on the other hand it is a very dangerous fantasy because some men may think that women actually want to be raped.

4) They don't!!! Even the (not insignificant) minority of women who sometimes fantasize about being raped don't actually want to be raped. (Reminder to potential rapists: There is a big difference between a woman's fantasies of being raped by Brad Pitt and her being raped in reality by you. She is in control of her fantasies, she is not in control when she is being raped!)

5) The idea that women want to be raped is probabably as common among men with rape fantasies as the idea that children want to have sex with adults is prevalent among paedophiles. When on trial many rapists will use this idea as an excuse for their crime.

6) SM and rape fantasies are perversions of sexuality: to fantasize about having sex with someone who does not want to have sex with you, to rape them, to hurt them. These fantasies are easily explained when you consider the attitudes to sexuality and free will prevalent in our societies, but perversions nonetheless.

7) This, by the way, also implies that I don't single "out pornography for blame in perpetuating the idea that rape can be enjoyable", but apart from rapists there are not many people who actually believe in this idea. What Christian (or Moslem) fundamentalists actually mean when they say that scantily dressed women are asking to be raped is that they are sluts who deserve their fate (worse than death) if they are raped. It is a way of condemning a behaviour that they don't approve of. (And remember: A woman may actually dress in a certain way because she wants to get f***ed that night, but that still does not mean that she wants to be f***ed by you.)

 

[The Atheist]

Well said!

I have to say that the question put to you was idiotic. If you'd said, "all men think women want to be raped thanks to porno" there may have been a point, so well answered in great detail.

Word perfect.

 

[Piscivore]

While you've just been unable to see the difference between goals and reality.

I can. I've explained it to you.

I take it you mean "understand".

Yes.
parse
transitive verb:
4. To make sense of; to comprehend.

He broke the law. He was charged and pleaded guilty. The judge, using his discretionary powers, let him off with no convicted. That's how the law works - the police prosecute, guilt is established, the judge decides the penalty. In that case, it all worked perfectly.

I didn't disagree. But you said that " There are, however, no excuses for drunk driving" and as an example you present a case that shows that the judge, at least, thought there was, and that judge's opinion seems to have prevailed.

I'm still not sure what this all has to do with what we were discussing.

You're a little slow on the uptake, aren't you? Kids cannot take part in debates such as this.

No. But we are not talking about involving kids in this discussion.

Why do you think we restrict voting to 18+? Drinking? Consent? Contractual law?

Or are you advocating children to have the rights of adults?

If that's all you meant by "When kids are involved, I'm one of those parents who's happy to be a little over-protective."
"...where children are involved, established protocols giving children a higher place in the safety heirarchy continue to work..."
""I'm always going to see issues with kids in a different light."

Then that's okay. Kids do need to have boundaries. Restricting their freedoms makes sense, and there are legal mechanisms in place to expand those boundries in special circumstances.

In any other group than kids, I'd most likely agree [to erring on the side of more freedoms, not less]."

This is the part I'm having a problem with. Presumably, since we are talking about adults harming children, you are in favour of restricting the rights of adults to a greater degree when directly interactng with children. That I understand too- adults should not be allowed to offer children alcohol, cigarettes, or oral sex, for instance.

But then you go further, and want to or approve of restricting adult freedoms where children are not directly involved. That I do not understand. Why is that step a good thing?

Without the benefit of seeing the film I can't comment on whether protest is appropriate or not. Being at a Sundance festival, I'd guess that it's a storm in a teacup.

I haven't either. It hasn't been generally released yet.

Being a realist again, if you're genuinely concerned that things might go the other way, the last thing you need is to be pushing this barrow.

Why?

It's that seventh child thing.

What?

You might want to check out your previous paragraph and figure out how on one hand, you're worried that laws might be tightened, while at the same time not seeing that they won't be relaxed anytime soon.

Well, first those two situations are not mutually exclusive, and second, I disagree with you on the latter.

Subtlety isn't silence, but fear is.

No, most of the time fear is the loudest voice in the room. I invite you to peruse almost any American news program of October 2001.

"The squeaky wheel gets the oil",

"The nail that sticks up gets hammered down"

"He who shouts loudest gets heard most",

"He who has the weakest argument has the loudest voice"

Why do you think those "moral majority" pricks shout so much?

"Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us."

To make sure they're heard. Hell, I've told you how to start the fight, now you want me to do your tactics for you as well?

I didn't ask, and in fact rejected your advice. Thanks anyway.

Especially when it comes to libraries and librarians, I'd be supportive anytime - all of my family are avid bibliophiles.

Great. Then why are you standing with the censors?

An organisation which has been going since the 1870s and has 66,000 members, worldwide? Stormfront has nearly doube that, acquired in 5 years.

So? The ALA is also probably smaller than the Elks club- what of it?

Your ability to change things is always going to be a long and frustrating process.

Is it ever otherwise?

Arm the librarians, maybe. Get a couple on the news with AK47s, blowing away some hip-hop "artists" - make librarians tough, feared, respected. Kind of like Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds...

Is violence and agression the extent of your thinking?

Besides, I like hip-hop.

Not as bizarre as your sarcasm appreciation gland removal.

I don't like to use it, it's too often missed in text.

What's with this mmkay business? I must've missed the instruction manual somewhere. I've seen ok all my life, but this recent mmkay I find a bit strange. Is it off a tv show or something?

Yes, it is from South Park:
"Mr. Mackey is the school counsellor, well-known for his exaggeratedly large head and inserting "m'kay" into sentences."
"Mr. Mackey gives a drug & alcohol prevention lecture titled "drugs are bad", emphasizing the negative effects of smoking, drinking, marijuana and LSD... The presentation is less than informative, consisting of the following format repeated for each subject: "Drugs are bad, you shouldn't do drugs.""

Mate, you've drawn a few long bows in this thread, but, "comforting laws standing as panacea while children are raped and kidnapped because the actual causes are ignored in favour of 'kiddie porn is bad' " is one of the worst yet.

You said you are happy with the laws as they are now, you don't see a need for them to change, yet children are still raped and kidnapped. This suggests that the laws are not working, or at least far short from your "goal".

On reflection, I might have better used "placebo" instead of "panacea".

What causes are being ignored? Come on. This I gotta see.

The ones we agreed we don't know yet, and are thus not being adressed by current legislation.

Seen a couple on tv. I try to stay away from those kind of things, but I'd consider a bonfire of bibles.

And I'd fight you on that front too.

Time-honoured American tradition, I believe - book & record bonfires.

Hardly honoured, and not even remotely American.

I believe John Lennon actually drove a couple.

I find this profoundly hard to believe. Links?

You're determined to label me a bigot in one way or another!

No, you just keep saying things that seem like it to me. I really want to think better of you. And "walk into a Polynesian bar and "observe" that." was a joke aimed at your suggestion I do likewise in your "workingmen's club".

Personally, without making stuff up, I give you no chance.

Okay.

Ever been to a workingmen's club? You know, one of those places where blokes who have done 10-14 hours' hard yakka go for a drink after they get cleaned up? Fitters & turners, builders, brickies and street-sweepers, those kind of blokes?

"I drink alone", so to speak, but I've known some. I've been one, occasionly. My son has been in scouts with "their" kids. I've read and read of even more of them. "They" were none of them uniform in their opinions, education, agression, religion, or aspiration. And none matched the "working-class hero" cartoon sterotype you seem to be peddaling.

I said a couple of posts ago about people walking around with their eyes closed. I'm worried that you may be one of them.

Likewise. Especially as you keep neatly avoiding the signifigant questions.

It's fun, but I really don't care about your opinions on effecting political change, your view on the working class, or whether or not you are bigoted. I'll grant you that you are not, and I'm reading something into your posts that isn't there.

What I am interested in is clear answers to these questions:
Are the existing laws regarding the restriction of explicit materials that do not harm children in their production doing an adequate job of protecting children from harm?
Are there any benefits to restricting from adults any material that does not cause harm to another person?
Is there any compelling reason why explicit fantasy materials about children but not harming children should be treated to a different standard than explicit fantasy materials about adults but not harming adults (or children)?

Please note that none of them can be answered with "I'm happy with the laws as they are now"- I'm asking why are you happy with the laws as they are now.

 

[dann]

Thank you, Atheist.
The problem is that too many participants in this discussion are only interested in misreading what their opponents write. Piscivore comes closest to actually answering to something when he only slightly misses the point. A discussion with him is futile in my opinion.

 

[Piscivore]

Piscivore comes closest to actually answering to something when he only slightly misses the point. A discussion with him is futile in my opinion.

I guess that's a compliment, thanks.


ETA: The discussion certainly wan't futile form my point of view. Thanks, dann.

 

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, Pisc, but for me, this conversation has turned into a waste.

Dann's covered this: People are intentionally missing points, primarily because they either groove on being outraged, or because they have their points that they want to make, and they can only be made by twisting the arguments made by others. My biggest dread here is that Dann's excellent post about what constitutes pornography will be twisted and mangled, and the gist of it will be lost in the infighting that will follow.

And one more thing: I'm sorry that there are people here who cannot, or worse, will not acknowledge or even try to comprehend Sling's pain. It might have given some depth to this conversation if some people had.

Adios.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry, Pisc, but for me, this conversation has turned into a waste.

For me too. Long ago.

Dann's covered this: People are intentionally missing points, primarily because they either groove on being outraged, or because they have their points that they want to make, and they can only be made by twisting the arguments made by others. My biggest dread here is that Dann's excellent post about what constitutes pornography will be twisted and mangled, and the gist of it will be lost in the infighting that will follow.

Dann's covered nothing aside from his inability to address the OP. Dann is an anarchist and believes firmly that no laws should be made and least of all followed. Given this basic view, anything else dann says on this topic is irrelevant. Afterall, he cannot answer the OP in any other way than: Nothing should be illegal.

And one more thing: I'm sorry that there are people here who cannot, or worse, will not acknowledge or even try to comprehend Sling's pain. It might have given some depth to this conversation if some people had.

Adios.

I'm sure most people here could empathize with here pain. I'm also sure that this is fairly irrelevant to the OP.

 

[Matthew Best]

5) The idea that women want to be raped is probabably as common among men with rape fantasies as the idea that children want to have sex with adults is prevalent among paedophiles. When on trial many rapists will use this idea as an excuse for their crime.

Is this really true (the second sentence, not the first)?

If so, what kind of legal advice are they getting?????

 

[The Atheist]

Yes. parse
transitive verb:
4. To make sense of; to comprehend.

I figured, I was just having an Orwell moment and making sure you were using the trendy ambiguous word rather than the one that fits.

I didn't disagree. But you said that " There are, however, no excuses for drunk driving" and as an example you present a case that shows that the judge, at least, thought there was, and that judge's opinion seems to have prevailed.

I'm still not sure what this all has to do with what we were discussing.

Do you really need me to expain why there are two branches to administration - the legislature and the judiciary?

No. But we are not talking about involving kids in this discussion.

Very good - because they can't speak for themselves!

But then you go further, and want to or approve of restricting adult freedoms where children are not directly involved. That I do not understand. Why is that step a good thing?

We have covered this once or twice.

The possibility exists that childless kiddie-porn may encourage actual abusive behaviour.

Until you address that point, you actually have no case at all.

Why?

If I were worried about freedoms being removed, the last horse I'd be backing would be the one with the least popular support and I think you'd find your proposal fits that bill. I repeat, without evidence - of which you have painfully little - it's a bad issue to push. It has no popular message and a huge number of the vocal majority are going to scream "paedophile" at anyone raising it. Surely, you realise this, after all this time??

I can see your points with 100% clarity and I've belaboured the fact that it you had evidence, I'd agree with you. Would you be surprised if your idea found very little popularity in the mainstream? You can't be that dumb. What you need is some hard evidence that provision of the kind of porn you're talking about has a positive effect. Once you have that, you're made. I keep telling you - go find it!

What?

Sorry, I thought as a sceptic, you'd be familiar with the magical properties of the number Seven. Seven is the number of power and most genuine psychics are seventh children. I am one, as was my father.

Well, first those two situations are not mutually exclusive, and second, I disagree with you on the latter.

I'll give you unders on 15 years.

Yes, it is from South Park:

See, that psychic power again. I knew there'd be a tv program in there somewhere.

At least it wasn't Friends

You said you are happy with the laws as they are now, you don't see a need for them to change, yet children are still raped and kidnapped. This suggests that the laws are not working, or at least far short from your "goal".

What? If there's a crime statute on the books which hasn't been used in more than the last month, it's probably for spitting at a portrait of the Queen while riding a unicycle backwards down Queen St!

NO punishments or laws stop people breaking them!

Suggesting that if child abuse still happens, the answer is to relax the law is just drawing that long bow again. Shall we remove the law against bars serving too-drunk patrons to try and cut drunk-driving?

FIND SOME BLOODY EVIDENCE!

On reflection, I might have better used "placebo" instead of "panacea".

Unquestionably.

The ones we agreed we don't know yet, and are thus not being adressed by current legislation.

Phew, this sounds a lot like Rummy's "unknown unknowns"! If we don't know about it, it's awfully hard to address. See Iraq; Invasion of.

And I'd fight you on that front too.

Well, they make useless toilet paper and I've often wondered whether they'd even burn. I wouldn't actually do it. Well, I don't think so, anyway. Maybe if a bunch of nymphomaniac atheists held one and invited me...

Hardly honoured, and not even remotely American.

I did say "time-honoured" not "honoured". While it's not traditionally American, neither is Halloween, yet I think both are now seen as being more typical of USA than elsewhere.

I find this profoundly hard to believe. Links?

LOL! Not Lennon burning them, but his stuff being burned. "We're more popular the Jesus, us lads" wasn't a popular sentiment.

And none matched the "working-class hero" cartoon sterotype you seem to be peddaling.

Seeing that after my unicycle comment, now I'm worried.

What I am interested in is clear answers to these questions:
Are the existing laws regarding the restriction of explicit materials that do not harm children in their production doing an adequate job of protecting children from harm? Unknown. Your own admission is that evidence is incomplete
Are there any benefits to restricting from adults any material that does not cause harm to another person? Unknown. Your own admission is that evidence is incomplete
Is there any compelling reason why explicit fantasy materials about children but not harming children should be treated to a different standard than explicit fantasy materials about adults but not harming adults (or children)? Unknown. Your own admission is that evidence is incomplete

Please note that none of them can be answered with "I'm happy with the laws as they are now"- I'm asking why are you happy with the laws as they are now.

(My answers in red)

I had answered all those points previously as well, but there you go again - the jury is out. Let me know when they get back in. Hoping that's clear enough.