Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
I know I usually don't like to make a yes or no debate, but this is an instance where in order to start a topic on such an imbalanced debate I must pick things apart.
Child Pornography is disgusting, of course. The very idea that a child is raped makes most people disgusted (even though I love joking about it). I am no advocate of child pornography and I don't believe it should be MADE.
But once a video is made, is it harmful for another human being to actually view it? Why must the government infringe on his right to view something if he is not hurting anyone? The making of CP hurts children, but the viewing doesn't.
The question is on whether viewing it hurts anyone, and the answer is definitely no. If you want to go with "some people can get emotionally disturbed from viewing it" that argument can be used for anything. While it pains me to know what is "right", I still have to accept that the viewing of CP should not be illegal.
Also, arguments that the viewing of CP can inspire one to actually rape a child is more bullshit. Pedophiles have urges that can not be supressed by avoiding images of children (nude or not). If they are able to safely view child pornography they are not MORE likely to rape a child. I guess the only real argument you can give is that it puts these people behind bars. But that isn't the debate at hand, so I will leave it for another day.
The argument now is on whether the viewing of CP hurts anyone.
Here ya go, a real debate. Well, a real one would be "Should viewing it be legal" but I didn't put that cause I knew that everyone would just say it shouldn't. As stated, I need to ease you guys in, first.
side note: I'm making this debate because I'm tired of the gay marriage, global warming, and "LOLZ, HOW BOUD DAT OBAMA" debates. Something non-cliche, for once.
Side Score: 104
Side Score: 127
I'd say it most certainly hurt the children involved.
Someone's sick penchant for simply VIEWING such horrific acts can only be allowed by the acts taking place to begin with.
Those who perform these acts, video them and then distribute them should be brought to my place. Once I'm done with them, films such as Hostel and Saw will look like G rated Disney movies.
Did you actually type that while sober? What an imbecilic response.
People who make/watch such things should be taken out back and given a new breather hole in their forehead.
That being said, eliminating the makers must stop the viewers since the elimination of the makers doesn't allow for the viewers to view. It would be impossible to view should the makers be eradicated.
It does sound as if you're quite knowledgeable regarding the reasons people rape children. I won't ask why.
Again not all child porn refers to a real child being raped in anyway shape or form. There are instances of drawn, sculpted, and written child porn. In which don't necessarily pertain to anyone being hurt in the first place. Viewing child porn hurts no one and the children cannot be re victimized by the replay or repaint of a video or photo without there own mind destroying them. They do not get a magical spider sense that tingles every time someone gets off nor are they any longer connected to the information except in terms of pixilated rendered form in which case a real child had been abused. This demonization of accessing or possessing child pornography is simply to make people feel better about themselves while harming others.
Odd fetishes and strange behavior can be attributed to a wide variety of mental issues. Most of which are developed in childhood by means of isolation, sexual abuse, physical abuse, (and so on...) later develop in a more absurd manner, such as a sexual fetish. It is strange and hard to understand, but it occurs no less. It is not a healthy state of mind, and viewing pornography of a fetish only further weakens the mind.
Not to mention what occurs to make child pornography. That is a whole other kind of wrong.
Men's sexual abuse of boys is more accurate labeled "male-male molestation". Men's abuse of girls is called male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.
Child molesters are equal opportunity abusers. Even heterosexual abusers will molest boys.
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
No. Homosexuality can and does develop the same way that heterosexuality does, by individual preference. A great way to explain this is by using the example of musical preference, which I assume speaks for itself. A further example is the prominence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, whether it be for lust or dominance is negligeable. If you do not agree, I have an experiment that should result in some form of evidence.
What we do is unite all people and decide to cast no judgement and have no negative disposition towards one another, thusly providing the ideal conditions for mental normity. This should conclude, after generations of practice, by naturally eliminating mental corruptions, such as fetishes or social development issues. If homosexuality persists, than it is undoutably a normal human condition, and not caused by some damaging mental catalyst.
Disregarding the making of, legality of and acceptability of child porn. The viewing of child porn hurts those involved in child porn. Proof arises from the recent case of Vannessa George, and her two accomplices, in the Little Ted's Nursery case. As far as I am aware, the mothers and fathers (and in the future the children) do not know if their child was used and abused in the pictures taken. It causes them all great distress. So the mere knowledge of the existence of child pornography which can be looked at by others surely hurts the child involved and the family supporting that child.
Furthermore to dispute the point made about "1000 videos for 1000 children" and that watching pornographic videos reduces the urge to perform sexually abusive acts towards children, I would like to raise the point that catharsism doesn't always work. It has been shown in aggression that the acting out or observation of aggressive behaviours does NOT discourage/reduce aggressive acts (as in the situations where in ye olde days, in ancient Greece, they would put people to fight each other in pits, as it was thought the audience would have expressed enough aggression in the viewing of it to reduce the aggression in society). And in fact it has been shown that in situations where aggressors act out behaviours they feel positive afterwards and so are encouraged to increase acts of a similar kind, causing an on-going snowball of acts of aggression.
So it can't be said that the viewing of child pornography reduces the chances that they will act out on it in future. However, it also can't be said that it will encourage it. So in reference as to whether or not the viewing of child pornography hurts those viewing it: if the viewer is a paedophile, then it can't be stated how it affects their complicated mental states.
Now, if the viewer is a child it would most definitely cause some sort of mental harm (since we're not specifically arguing the legality of viewing it for pleasure, we must bring into account what happens if someone not WANTING to view it experiences the scenes displayed in child pornography).
Violent movies dont have the same effect, beacause then there would be more people going around shooting everyone simply because they've seen a violent film. Porn does mess you up though, even adult porn. Just as drugs mess you up, porn has addicted many, and makes many want to act out said fantasies. And what if that person is watching child porn, they will want to act out the fantasies.
Yes take for example video games -they show tremendous violence the most infamous video game Grand Theft Auto showing rape. Shooting games in which there is endless killing. Does that make someone want to go on rampage? There are lots of extremely violent films with lots of gore in them. Child porn does not make people who view it into sexual predators who would hunt down children. The same can be said about adult porn - why are men attacking women; or women become more deviant. Or BDSM porn want people want to hurt each other, or granny porn want to chase old ladies.
A rapists may have lots porn but his actions are not determined by porn, what he does is because there is something wrong with him, he does not see the consequence of his actions. He can be someone who rapes women or children -he is a psychopath. Not everyone is a psychopath. Those who find it disgusting should not see it. All porn is disgusting for some people.
The incidence of rape will not be lessened with absence of porn and it does not increase because of it. Ending porn will not end rape, otherwise it would be best solution to all sex crimes.
I hear a lot of people saying we have to look at this and such with an open mind but, honestly, isn't that just selling yourself? If you don't agree with something why would your take the others down with you claiming "have an open mind". Having an open mind to me is supposed to involve things like a new dish at a restaurant or a new country--not criminal acts that harm millions of people regularly. The point of having an open mind is to expand your knowledge in a positive way, not to find some good in a mentally unstable criminal and encourage the rest of the world to say "hey, they're only kids, they wouldn't matter so much. Let's watch them being abused and raped on camera so we can add to the demand!". With the millions of jobless, poor people in the world that desperately need financial aid and money something illegal, easy, and high in demand would definitely spark, even with people who wouldn't usually be attracted in such a thing. Anything to stay alive and keep food on their table, even if they have to risk their morals. I'm not saying I'm closed minded and don't want people to try to accept things they usually wouldn't, it's somewhat of a double standard, but some things are illegal for a reason.
I've met people who act like that. "Don't be so close-minded! Are you against equality or something?!" No. I'm just not into people getting hurt physically or emotionally. Things that cause (directly or indirectly) or have the potential to cause other people physical or emotional pain are never okay and I don't understand how anyone could ever try to excuse themselves for it.
hello pyg , who i hate to love , love to hate.
If i smashed someone in the face with a videotape of cp then it will hurt.
NOT as much as the hurt caused to the victims of cp. unfortunately.
You give me ideas of going out and killing sick twisted arseholes.
CHILD PORN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. EXCUSES FOR CHILD PORN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
IF THIS IS ACCEPTABLE THEN IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR ME TO KILL PEOPLE.
THIS IS HOW MUCH OF A MORON YOU ARE , KINDA. YOU HAVE THE SHITS AT ME AND BECAUSE YOU ARE A TERRORIST YOU JUST DOWNPOINTED ME FOR AGREEING WITH YOU THAT CHILD PORN IS WRONG . ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU DONT REALLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS WRONG? ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU JUST SAY ITS WRONG TO HIDE THE FACT THAT YOU INDULGE IN IT? FUCK YOU , YOU BACKSLIDING ANIMAL!
No pyg it is not about the making of it
But i guess as a victim of child porn i have no right to say people viewing this shit isnt hurtful ?
Yes pyg i understand that it isnt hurtful to the people viewing it.
Thats probably because they are peodophiles and this shit is their on-screen eye candy.How sweet. NOT
I am sorry but they dont give people a certificate to say they have been used in kiddy porn.
Sorry i dont even have an oscar to show for it.
So i guess as far as cuntfacekinda goes , i should go wiki myself an intelligent education.
Then , do you think i might have a justified reason to offer proof ?
Then will i have the right to say that it is hurtful.?
There have another go........
VIEWING CHILD PORN
NOW UPON SAYING THAT,
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THERE IS MOCK CHILDPORN ALSO.
THIS IS WHERE ADULTS WHO STILL LOOK LIKE KIDS MAKE MOCK CHILD PORN MOVIES.
ALL THE PEOPLE STARRING IN THIS TYPE OF PORN ,
ARE ADULTS OF CONSENT ,
I STILL FIND IT WRONG,
IN FACT ,
THOSE ADULTS ,
THAT STAR IN THOSE TYPE OF PORN ,
ARE ADVOCATING CHILDPORN AS OK.
IS NOT OK!
(OK KINDA YOU VILE THING, ARE YOU GONNA DOWNVOTE THIS TOO , FUKING LOSER!)
Dear David , i understand what is being asked. And as i stated ,yes it does hurt that people watch kiddy porn,it hurts me . You see , i am a victim of kiddy porn , them viewing it , hurts me. You and pyggy can alter the essence as much as you like but the answer is still yes .
Yes, I am of the opinion that the viewing, and the eventual obsession that may follow, of child pornography is evil. Looking at it may not matter much, but many people desire it after seeing it, that is when it gets wrong and, if only for that reason, should be banned.
I well look past the part were it causes them to rape children, even though i strongly disagree, I well be arguing about the topic at hand. I say yes because it may(or may not), make the child's self esteem, lower. I'm guessing that most of the children don't know what there doing. When they grow up it 'well come back to haunt them' and they well regret ever doing that. It's a common thing to look at how it effects the one who is seeing it, over the one who is showing it. So lets realize that the child is most likely going to feel insecure about themselves as their life takes it's course.
The viewing is harmful to the stibility of the mind. If you take pleasure in viewing the dehumanizing of a child, you're fucking sick. There is a chance that the people viewing it are doing it to another child, and the child that it is done to repeats it. It is a fact that molestation is a domino affect. If you are molested you are twice as likely to repeat it, it's like saying that a child that views his mother getting beat and raped by their own father takes nothing from it. That is the talk of the stupid, heartless, ignorant, and perverted. This shouldn't be a fucking debate.
wait... are you saying that the child should be arrested for seeing his mom get beaten?
you know what, your argument is flawed on so many levels.
If people are choosing to view child pornography, they are already into kiddie porn. No one watches child pornography and THEN decides to fuck kids. That's like saying Porn will make someone want to fuck. I think natural selection is enough to say that humans just want to fuck and porn is the result of that.
and to disagree with you on the child getting arrested for wathching his mother get beaten. That was not what i was talking about, i'm saying that if a child sees their mother beaten, will they take nothing from it? will it not take from them the innocent view they once had of the world, and they might repeat the abuse.
It's pedo which comes from the greek word pedo meaning child. and Phile (which by all rights has no place in meaning to fuck something because most uses of the word refer to a great fondness of something. For example Thermophile and negrophile.) which means (greek meaning) brotherly lover.
Hey if you think child porn is disgusting well what's your preference? There's old person porn, dead person porn, transexual porn, animal porn, milf porn, hairy men, muscle men, twink, bisexual and the list goes on. There would be no harm in making child porn legal. (I think were talkin' sex scenes with minors). I say consensual sex is good sex. So as long as no one is raped everything is legal.
I will say yes, that viewing child pornography is harmful. If a pedophile starts viewing such pictures or videos (I hope there is no videos) the main person behind those pictures or videos WILL START MAKING MORE. And the making of these pictures or whatever hurts children.
Think about it. Why do think there are many books to the Harry Potter series....Because there are viewers who read them. So yes, on a small scale, viewing is not harmful. But on a huge scale, yes it is. And if at any perspective if it is harmful, then we as humans beings must put a stop to it.
Also, these pictures or videos will make their addiction even worse. Think about it (history repeats itself), when people start to smoke one cigarrete, their addiction slowly increases. Soon they will start smoking more. And soon they will crack and find others ways to recieve that high: They might steal, rob; PERFORM A CRIME.
Porn addicts masterbate ten times a day. Gross. And they realize that they have to stop their addiction AFTER they have masterbated. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ADDICTS IN GENERAL WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET THAT SATISFACTION.
I will never shun anybody for who they are, even child molesters or wife beaters. But that does not mean i support them. (closing statement :))
Well, there are types of porn. Sex porn and visual (pictures) porn. So i do have to stand by to this argument that porn is sex. I have watched celebrity rehab about porn addicts. And believe they needed help because mainly they were unhappy. And they were having sex six times a day and still they were unhappy. Now, they were not child molesters. But what if they were? I bet they will hurt children to recieve satisfaction. But at the end of the day, these addicts come to the realization that they will have to stop. And the reason why i say that is because their realization is too late. The children are already hurt, scarred, and dead.
This is remarkably naive to posit that viewing of child pornography doesn't hurt anyone. It is naive, and contrary to the evidence. Do you think that companies from the beginning till now have spent BILLIONS in marketing research, and then BILLIONS in marketing because the conclusion was negative. To view these children on the web has the same effect as advertisement. Argue with it if you want, but companies have spent billions in research, and maybe trillions in advertisements since the beginning. They have decades of research by professionals, you have your opinion.
Watching child pornography would cause the "cliche" emotional damage to the victim(s) and the child's peers would bully them to no end. Child porn is immoral in many religions (I do acknowledge it's accepted in many as well) anyway. If watching child pornography was legalized that would only influence more people to create it and our prisons would be overflowing with screwed up perverts. Anyone who says it should be legalized as far as I care is interested in such things and would willingly force innocent children into sexual favors and abuse for their own sick joys if they could get away with it/it was legal. Just my measly opinion.
There is just so much I could say here. Especially being someone who spent years of their life trying to forget about what happened to me when I was younger. As far as the whole "it's a safe outlet for them" thing... no. Those people don't get better by watching their fantasies happen. It just gives them more ideas and makes them want more things. Honestly, all violent porn that encourages men to be mean, rude, or cruel to children and those who are weaker (physically or emotionally) than them shouldn't be allowed to exist. Instead of going into all this further, I will just show you something about porn that has a direct relation to this topic and is extremely important to this. Here's the article:
I believe that this article should be required reading in every high school sexual education class. People really need to understand the effects of viewing explicit material (violent, sexual, or both). For the people in that article, it leads to loneliness and maybe to mistrust, but for sexual predators it can lead to a decreased sensitivity about the feelings of others, making it easier for them to target children and not feel much guilt over it. No one should ever watch child pornography because they're promoting that industry and directly hurting those children. It's the same as doing that to the the child themselves. So, yes. Viewing child pornography is always bad: It's bad when people promote that industry - which directly helps the practice of trafficking to continue - and it's even worse to allow a pedophile, who is obviously at the greatest risk of wanting to enact these things, to watch it (and gather more horrible ideas while becoming even more callous about any victim's or possible victim's feelings).
I am a kid. Thanks very much.
I don't view it, it's wrong. I was simply just saying that strictly keeping to the exact question "Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?" it doesn't. Depending on the viewer, it can though.
But usually the viewer, is a paedophile. (N)
Woooooooah, there. Watch the broad, sweeping judgements. Factually speaking, Liberals tend to support science more than Conservatives. Science just makes sense. I've always liked logical things. I'm a Liberal. I do not under any circumstances whatsoever think that child porn is acceptable. I firmly believe that it should be completely obliterated from this earth for all eternity. In fact, I would rather see the entire species be killed in payment for these crimes than see one more story of some disgusting pedophile attack a child after years of sitting around in his house jerking off to child pornography and getting more ideas in his mind. ...Then again, I wouldn't mind if they just did away with porn all together, so maybe I'm not a fair judge of what they should do with porn. But it would give people more time to do important things with their lives rather than wasting their time or procrastinating. Anyway, don't just assume that it's Liberals are the cause of all the problems with child pornography. It might feel like a relief to blame something specific that you don't like (such as a political party) but life really isn't that simple.
NOW, now..CAN'T WE DO WITHOUT THE ASSUMPIONS...
Most of us were were taught to be embarrassed of our own nakedness.
You have been vary well conditioned to believe as you believe.
Such irrationality ..comes with that.
So take a good dose of religion and judge others but not yourself.
On the contrary, not all child porn involves real children therefore your argument is bias and cannot hold ground. Kids do not know when one views such material therefore is blissfully unaware when, where or how the viewing took place. Therefore, it is there imagination that hurts them in the end and not the one doing the viewing.
Now this person is logical. But the fact of the children being molested may hurt them is real.
Not all cases are the same as others insist on. But if one does not pay for the images and the do not distribute them, how do they contribute by looking at them. At the best to be said, they are disrespecting
these children. But it's the FBI that not only posses the CP but as well distributing these images promotes
the viewing of them, thus these images are contaminated evidence by those who pretend to help these children. The FBI could have closed these P2P sites, but instead they were apart of the distribution
of this porn since the year 2003. A fact not well known.
My god, this is a loaded debate. No it doesn't hurt a damn soul but one's own to watch it. You need to keep the legal definition in mind though. Mr.Manhattan, a 17.9999 year old naked girl is a child legally. Would you murder me if I told you I had sex with a 17 year old girl? I saw her naked. What if the legal system chose to lower the age to 16? Some of these depraved cockroaches are now just normal citizens again? What if pedophiles really can't help themselves, what if that's the only sexual interest they have? The viewing of child pornography seems to me to be a deterrent. If one has an outlet, they may make use of it. Also, I can't imagine that all pedophiles are drooling dangers to the playgrounds. They're humans with an abnormality. I would think that many of them (viewers, not uploader those people are disturbed) even have a deep self-loathing. If I was a pedophile I would be scared for my life I think. If all the child porn was magically taken away, would we have pedophiles? Most likely. What venue would they have to express their sexual urges? Just one. I don't have an answer for the uploading part, it's a supply and demand situation, but logistically, one video per 1000 pedophiles seems better than 1000 children.
Agreed, I feel we need to approach every situation with an open mind. I'm not willing to look at any human as a "sick fuck" though. Most of these people were themselves abused. It's not a demonic possession, it's a cycle of abuse. Much like physical and emotional, if people don't work through the hurt, they develop other coping mechanisms. Children may get beaten, grow up and in turn, beat their own children. To demonize one link of the chain is ludicrous. Not only does it stop humanity from understanding the dynamics fully, but it allows intolerance to breed in the form of "I'll pulverize 'em, I'll mertilize 'em" gun-toting and absurd (yet somehow accepted) arguments when debate ensues. I will divulge that I have been a victim of the three abuses mentioned above and what I can say with certainty, the sexual abuse does not eclipse the emotional abuse I received.
A way to put it is that dont rapist watch women before they attack them. Dont many serial killers start by killing animals. Pedophiles are dirty people waiting with their hands down their pants for the right moment to strike. How many serial killers have shown remorse? pedophiles spend more time oggling children than they do asking moral questions.
You would have an argument if you didn't sugar-coat your message with vulgarity, caps spamming, and if you clearly we're a schoolboy troll looking to pick fights. The word argument in the context of debate isn't the same as your playground arguments. Since you view this forum as a place to unload, I think I can help. I'll school you in the proper method of debate, without the vulgarity, anger, or caps you've shown me. (BTW, did you post 3 separate messages to bring your points up?)
1) how fucking dazre you put another child through such a thing.
I'm not putting a child through anything, I'm arguing a side cowards dare not argue for fear of persecution. My point was 1000 videos instead of 1000 children. Since you disagree you are stating that 1000 children is better. This is why you need to be careful what you argue, or a moron might think you yourself are a pedophile.
2) these people are selfish, and are the reason there are so nay crazies in this world.
Therefore according to the great element "fire", no more pedophiles means no more "crazies" is it? Perhaps you are right, perhaps all the world's problems will be solved by eliminating the pedophile population. No wars, famine, crazy car crashes, all gone.
3) If that individual went through the pains of molestation, and dregradation. Why then would they want to subject others to that pain?
For this statement I would direct you to the field of psychology. You are right, it's stupid that when people become traumatized, they often deal with the pain externally. Unfortunately this is how the human mind works. If the internal coping mechanism fails to deal with the trauma, people can spend the rest of their lives spreading the pestilence they endured.
4) So in other words they are selfish, careless, and evil "SICK FUCKS!!!!!!!!
In a word yes, but as with before, I still don't agree with the term "sick fuck". The human mind is far to complex to use a label like that. Humans operate in their best interest, it ensures the survival of the individual. I won't get into it too heavily but there are no selfless good deeds. The human being is selfish, even the best examples of selfless good deeds are ruled by conscience = selfish.
5) A way to put it is that dont rapist watch women before they attack them.
Not even close to the truth. Most rape happens at the spur of the moment. It's true there are individuals that do that but they are a special kind of deranged up there with Bundy, Gacey all that.
6) Dont many serial killers start by killing animals
No, many psychopaths do. Psychopaths engage in disturbing behavior as a result of their apparent lack of empathy. It's a ritualistic behavior that traditionally marks a psychopath as children with the ability to empathize couldn't bring themselves to hurt another being. Not all psychopaths engage in this and not all kill people either. There are many psychopaths that lead fairly normal, successful lives in the world of cut-throat big-business for example.
7) Pedophiles are dirty people waiting with their hands down their pants for the right moment to strike.
Right so all you need to do is walk down the streets with your gun in hand and shoot people with hands in their pants. Go do it! Now! This is exactly the demonizing I was talking about. Pedophilia is a disorder pertaining to sexual interest. Let's look at some other sexual deviants. Balloon poppers, furries, foot fetishists, people into bestiality. All these people walk among us. I will never believe that all these people are drooling perverts just waiting so slam their raging erections into any balloon that they find. These are people with sexual urges that differ from our own. I have met a few people in my time that I viewed as 100% normal, and found one day, that on the weekends they dress up in a rabbit costume or watch online videos of women having sex with horses. If you were at all intelligent you would at least pretend to be ok with pedophiles so you could draw them out and make a citizen's arrest. But your not, not at all. You honestly think that you're doing your part, saving the lives of children by firing up your comp and swearing online. There! Good deed done for the day, you can sleep well tonight. You have absolutely no idea. You are just one of the mouth diarrhea spewing morons that make this world slightly less livable. If this conversation were happening 30 years ago, you would have spammed "commie" in your argument. No other words, just "commie".
8) pedophiles spend more time oggling children than they do asking moral questions.
Really? You seem pretty damn sure of yourself. What I do know is that unless a pedophile is a psychopath, they have the capacity to ask moral questions. I know that humans are neither good nor evil. They are complicated creatures that ensure their own survival and take care of those that they hold dear (with some exceptions of course). For the most part, humanity is on the upswing. Humans possess the ability to deal with their internal garbage and unless there are extenuating outside factors, usually do.
You have been thoroughly served child. Learn from this. Read it. Especially the end of (7) that deals with people exactly like you. You aren't making the world a better place, you make it more intolerant. Given your RETARDED accusation against me, a person who has witness this first hand, I can honestly say that you have not helped my life one bit. You're very lucky I developed into an extremely tolerant person and was able to type this that it may one day benefit you. Even if you won't read it, and continue to rant, I can't say that I care, we won't have lost an avatar in the fight against injustice towards children.
Heh, If you think child porn is disgusting and the people viewing it are then what's your preference? There's old person porn, dead person, transgender, milf, animal, hairy man, fat man, muscle man and the list goes on. No if child pornography viewing were to be legal that would hurt anybody. After all it's a matter of preference.
Really? I gather you'll allow your children to be used for the creation of these movies and will just say that it's OK since those VIEWING it aren't causing harm?
It's obvious that you don't have children nor an IQ above 70.
Your critical thinking skills are so lacking it's scary. If someone views such horrific deeds, that's indicative of someone who condones such horrific deeds. I gather that didn't fire between the lack of axons and dendrons you claim to have?
On the contrary, according to Canadian law Child Porn doesn't even have to involve a real child. Imagined depictions in writings, sculptures, or pictures drawn (Example: lolicon anime) doesn't even hurt a real physical being nor does it have too. Questioning one's IQ certainly doesn't seem fair when your own is questionable.
I choose the side of No strictly because Canadian law (for I am Canadian) persists on making the mind Illegal in this case causing a great outlet for these people to enjoy renditions of children while respectably not harming one. It takes away from artistic freedom. However, I think this "simulated child porn" is just a clever lingual device to demonize this part of the spectrum. While porn of real children is wrong and disgusting the erotica side of it (Simulated child porn) may be more acceptable in terms of giving the deterrent and a place to go because I think not all pedophiles (which by the way is a faulty word in itself for it's literal definition mirrors homosexual and is another lingual faculty of demonization) lack respect for children and if it was societal acceptable to view information without being scrutinized we may have a healthier community as a whole instead of saying these people need to be murdered and automatically thinking all child porn involves real children.
Making child porn usually does hurt people, yes. Viewing it on the other hand, no it doesn't hurt a soul. In saying that, it could indirectly hurt somebody over time; you could be sent to jail for viewing the material which could in turn break up families, relationships, ect. But if somebody were to go onto the internet and download a file filled with pictures of child porn right now it would not hurt anybody, or at least right away anyway. I'm sure that the child involved won't give a shit if someone random on the internet downloads it, but they obviously would give a shit that they even took part in it in the first place. I don't condone child pornography in any way, shape or form; but if someone views it I don't think they should be hated upon by everybody, most of the time they can't help who they are attracted to, in the same way homosexuals can't help who they are attracted to, you need to remember that it wasn't long ago that you could marry a 13 year old and consent to sex with them. My point is that times change, and people change, so in time child porn may become wildly socially acceptable. At the moment though, no it isn't so obviously people are going to call it 'evil' and 'immoral'. But I would like to make myself clear that I find the very idea of child porn absolutely revolting.
Viewing child porn does not hurt anybody right away, but it could over time. I suppose my argument could be more in favor of the "YES" side, but I am adamant that it doesn't hurt anybody.
Making it hurts people, but viewing it? Not so much. Back in high school I use to watch clips of people getting brutally murdered or torn apart in 3rd world nations on gore sites out of curiosity. Does that make me a murderer? No. Does that mean I support murder? No. It just means I watched someone get killed on a web site. That's it. I didn't take part in it, I just watched it. Of course it be a different story if I was actually there. If I was there, and just sat down and watched it happen, then I would be just as guilty as murder for not trying to stop it.
Update: I should also put this out there. In no way, shape, or form, do I support pedophilia. If someone is found looking at child porn, while I don't think they should go to jail, I do think they should be given psychological help.
You watched a guy get murdered, why aren't you in a mental hospital now? Enjoying a video is not a reason to get mental help nor a reason to go to jail.
I believe my opinion is needed here as I will admit here that I am by definition a pedophile, which means "sexually attracted to childen" and not "child molesting rapist that will sexually abuse any child he is alone with." Now here's a few things about me to help the debate: I don't sit at a playground to watch kids, I am attracted to women my age and have a healthy relationship with my girlfriend, and I watch animated child porn as I don't want a child to be harmed in the making of real porn.
Having an obsession with animated porn isn't as awful because it doesn't help the trafficking industry. That still doesn't mean that it's okay to watch it. I'm going to try (probably in vain) to give you an understanding of why it isn't okay: When you watch characters, they're not real. But the emotions being portrayed are the emotions of a human. Not the emotions of a fish or a water bottle. Someone was truly trying to put the real emotions of a real person into that character. So all those reactions and facial expressions you're watching... they're a depiction of a real person and how that person would act. If child in that animated pornography is acting shy or sad or hurt or scared, then they're showing that another human would react as such to this. Meaning that another person would be pained by this, meaning that what you're enjoying is a depiction of someone's pain and all the painful memories that will follow that person throughout their life. If the child in that pornography is acting almost like a grown woman who is "coming onto" the adult, that's even more awful. That depiction is insinuating that it's the child's fault. It's saying that the child wanted it, that the child asked for it, the the child was the one who was responsible for this and not the adult. Society should never excuse an adult, who children are always taught is supposed to be trustworthy and smarter, because a child (who isn't mentally mature enough to comprehend that situation) "started it." Depicting the child as being at fault is absolutely the most horrendous thing anyone could ever possibly imply in animated porn.
So, since all porn depicts real humans with real emotions and even sends specific messages to the viewer about those types of humans, I don't believe that animated child porn is okay either.
I agree with you, however watching a murder is the same thing as watching child porn. I frequently watch murder or killings/beheadings online. This never hurt anyone and does not re victimize the victim. It's impossible to revictimize a victim in this way. These are just renditions of Different vibratory information however, the deed is technically the same. so I have to support the no factor in conjunction with you.
I wouldn't say that you would be AS guilty. How can we be expected to just ALWAYS try to prevent atrocities. Sometimes we do not have the power to do so.
Now, if you had a gun with you and that guy had no defense or back up and you had an opportunity, sure, you should stop him. But circumstances like that are skeptical.
I agree with everything before that sentence, though.
The VIEWING of Child pornography, much like the VEIWING of violent Video games and movies, harms no one but the viewer themselves.
It's sick twisted and wrong to rape a child, but it's sick twisted and wrong to rape a fully grown woman as well. It's terrible to physically abuse a child, just as it's terrible to physically abuse an adult. It's also terrible to mentally abuse someone of any age.
The existence of Child Pornography does not cause pedophilia, nor does it increase the number of pedophiles, because one must have had pedophilic tendencies to create the child pornography in the first place, and one must have the tendencies in order to go searching it out. Otherwise there would be an endless cycle of catch-22 preventing child pornography from ever being made.
Eliminating Child Pornography will not stop child molestation. There will be a demand for such images regardless, you can not stop demand, and you'll never totally eliminate production either.
A victim is made only when a child is harmed in the making. The child is not re-victimized, or harmed again, when someone views what already exists. We don't criminalize people who watch a mass murder on the news, or in a film, or a video game, so why do we only criminalize the viewing of crimes when it deals with child pornography?
Additionally, there are various renditions of "child porn" where a child is not even involved. Paintings, Sculptures, Digital Art, 3D Models, Adults that look like Children, etc. And cases where a child might be involved, but not even aware, or affected by it. Discrete Photography, Discrete Filming, Swimsuit Modelling, Nudist Colonies, etc.
To say the creation of child pornography invariably causes harm to a child is nothing but dishonest. There are times where a child is harmed, and for that, there must be retribution on the perpetrator who harmed her, however, where there is no harm done, a victimless crime, is and aught to be, no crime whatsoever.
Or do we lock teenagers up because they engage in consentual relations with each other under the statutory age limit? Or do we criminalize the lawful marriage of a child in certain societies? Is a man who marries a "midget" woman who looks like a young girl a vile and dirty child molester?
No, of course not.
Does viewing violent images online hurt someone (why is it, no one ever calls for banning violent images online)? Personally, I've seen violent macabre images, that I never searched for, that I'll literally never forget and will always make me feel nauseous.
The ban on viewing these images is just an easy way for politicians to score points with their constituents. It's also an easy target for religious groups... that honestly would like to see no sex before marriage, all nude images banned, and main goal of a theocracy. Unfortunately, these laws haven't helped kids, these laws have ruined lives.