Originally posted by Creshosk
Is there a point when you draw the line? I mean what kind of damage? Emotional, psychological, physical?Cause I'm legitimatly curious if there's a line you draw of these liberations. With the way that AC phrased that would pedophilia eventually become morally acceptable?
That depends. I don't have any problem with men or women being attracted to children, just like I have no problem with men being attracted to men, women being attracted to women or incest as the threat specifies. Simply because I have no problem with anybody's sexual preference so long as it doesn't result in being acted out upon or involving another human in an unconsentual, unwilling way.
If they wanna whack off in their basements to kiddie porn, I don't care. Paedophilia will always exist, so if it's going to be there anyway, might as well have it acted out upon in a way that doesn't involve a guy or woman molesting a child. Granted, a child is getting molested by the porn existing, but it's one LESS child being molested. There are probably millions of people who enjoy that stuff but would never act on it, and if they don't, they're harmless. It's a preference, but it's acting on the preference that's the problem.
Would THAT ever be acceptable? To me, no, because that's unwilling/unconsentual harm of some sort, but then again it's the ATTRACTION that is paedophilia, not the act. You think people wanted to bone Ashlee Simpson as soon as she hit 18? No, so there are a whole lot of paedophiles, technically, in the media, and nobody says anything.
A man whacking off to child porn is certainly no more disgusting than men who carve gaping holes into the end of their penises and let men put their penises in them, which does happen.
-AC
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraWhat ever gave you that idea? This is where the headquarters of a Christian church is.
And here I was thinking Utah was the porn capital of the world.You really do learn something new everyday.
Originally posted by Rogue JediThat I'm quite familiar with.
bukkake!!!
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriOther than the creation of said porn. Unless its the alternative source of drawn or CG'd that doesn't involve any real children.
That depends. I don't have any problem with men or women being attracted to children. If they wanna whack off in their basements to kiddie porn, I don't care. Paedophilia will always exist, so if it's going to be there anyway, might as well have it acted out upon in a way that doesn't involve a guy or woman molesting a child. It's a preference, but it's acting on the preference that's the problem.Would THAT ever be acceptable? To me, no, because that's unwilling/unconsentual harm of some sort.
A man whacking off to child porn is certainly no more disgusting than men who carve gaping holes into the end of their penises and let men put their penises in them, which does happen.
-AC
I agree with you.
It will always happen, and I know some people out there would say "IT'S THE APATHY YOU HAVE THAT ALLOWS CHILD PORN TO CONTINUE!", but those are idiots. It will always exist, always.
It's stupid to suggest we can get rid of it, so if that's the case...damage limitation.
As Doug Stanhope said; "People are running rampant and saying there are lots of paedophiles online. Good, keep them on the net as opposed to the old school way of circling a schoolyard with smarties on a fishing line trying to hook Junior into the Oldsmobile. We should be satisfied with a guy just not f*cking a kid. Do what you want, just don't touch the kid, that should be enough.".
-AC
Originally posted by Creshosk
Other than the creation of said porn. Unless its the alternative source of drawn or CG'd that doesn't involve any real children.I agree with you.
That reminds of that episode of Law and Order where people who made kiddie porn were able to find a legal loophole by taking the nude photos of women over 18 and using computer special effects to make them look 8 or 9. So basically they reversed the computer process of age enhancement.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriWell yeah, the only problem is that the real child porn is made by ...
It will always happen, and I know some people out there would say "IT'S THE APATHY YOU HAVE THAT ALLOWS CHILD PORN TO CONTINUE!", but those are idiots. It will always exist, always.It's stupid to suggest we can get rid of it, so if that's the case...damage limitation.
As Doug Stanhope said; "People are running rampant and saying there are lots of paedophiles online. Good, keep them on the net as opposed to the old school way of circling a schoolyard with smarties on a fishing line trying to hook Junior into the Oldsmobile. We should be satisfied with a guy just not f*cking a kid. Do what you want, just don't touch the kid, that should be enough.".
-AC
I'm sorry there's a bit of a disconnect.. and maybe I'm just confused. But what it sounds like is "child porn is tolerable" and "actually molesting children is not" and ingnoring the "Child porn is made by molesting children." part... Is there something I'm missing?
Originally posted by Quiero MotaThat's... not quite what I meant, but so long as no kids were harmed in this manner then... I guess that's okay... Does that actually happen or was that just a story for the show?
That reminds of that episode of Law and Order where people who made kiddie porn were able to find a legal loophole by taking the nude photos of women over 18 and using computer special effects to make them look 8 or 9. So basically they reversed the computer process of age enhancement.