9
   

Is it wrong to view child pornography?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 20 Oct, 2011 10:30 pm

There is a point that I 'm not clear on, to wit:

In early 2OO5, I was in the hospital after surgery.
At around 2 AM, a nurse was in my room,
changing my bedding. She had me lie on my left side,
on the bed, in the changing process. I wore a hospital gown,
open in the back. There was a flash of light, from behind me.
I saw a man in a white lab coat behind me, in the room,
some distance away. It looks like he took a picture of my rear end.
( I 've seen it in mirrors: an ugly sight.) I ignored it; no complaint to the hospital.

If he is looking at that ridiculous, repugnant picture, at his leisure, am I thereby affected ?
Rockhead
 
  2  
Thu 20 Oct, 2011 11:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
no.

you're still the same ass...
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 20 Oct, 2011 11:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
If he is looking at that ridiculous, repugnant picture, at his leisure, am I thereby affected ?
the primitives used to insist that to take a picture of them was to steal their soul.....we seem to now agree with them......we used to think them backwards for their beliefs.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 21 Oct, 2011 05:56 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
no.

you're still the same ass...
Well, my ass is still the same.
I 'll stipulate to that.

Someone in this thread intimated
that if a person looks at a porno picture of u,
that u r thereby affected in some way,
even if u do not know about it,
giving rise to a good cause of action for civil damages, presumably sounding in tort.
I remain more interested in that reasoning process,
than in his conclusion.

I am curious in regard to that principle of cognition.
Maybe it is only age-related ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 21 Oct, 2011 05:59 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
If he is looking at that ridiculous, repugnant picture, at his leisure, am I thereby affected ?
hawkeye10 wrote:
the primitives used to insist that to take a picture of them was to steal their soul.....we seem to now agree
with them......we used to think them backwards for their beliefs.
Well, does it still work if U r backwards when he takes the picture ?
tristan22
 
  1  
Sat 5 Nov, 2011 07:26 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I hope it's ok to say something about this. In witchcraft a picture of someone is often used in a ceremony designed to cast spells to affect that person or victim. Sometimes a picture of the face of a victim is glued to a doll and the doll is then abused, burned, pins stuck into it or whatever. During such rituals It's my belief that the potency of the spell is intensified greatly if it's cast at the height of sexual orgasm and large numbers of participants in such cult rituals get drunk, drugged, dance round a fire and finally participate in an intense sexual frenzy which culminates in the high priest casting the desired spell. The mass energy manufactured by this whole perverse ceremony being used and directed towards the victim, by the high priest and other members, through a photograph and often enhanced further by using items of personal clothing or belongings. Sounds a bit mad maybe. But is it ???? Masturbating to a picture is very common as is masturbating to mental imigary. Such practices are very often carried out under the influence of drink and drugs Collecting personal belongings such as clothes, underwear and such is also a big part of pedofillia. Thing is, I personally think that telepathy is very very real and the proposals here are exactly the same as a black witchcraft ceremony. Does anyone on this forum actually know if maybe a child or anyone could be mentally implanted by such behaviour. Maybe they can be initiated this way, familiarised and given an interest in the practices and even in specific people. If you don't, know, then apart from the whole concept being wrong anyway, because it's obviously a way to indulge a perversion that in fact badly and unquestionably needs to be addressed by psychoanalysts, this is a really dangerous practice that's in my view very likely to affect what I would call a victim of a gross satanic ritual. Think of a twin getting hit by a car and her sister dropping the shopping bags 50 miles away. Millions of examples of this eh !! The intensity of such an incident is hardly greater than a sexual climax which is often called the little death. OMG how could anyone consider this to be acceptable.. A picture stealing your soul has been mentioned and was indeed a common belief by many cultures. You obviously cant literally steal a soul or that person would drop dead, but I think it likely that you can gain access to it, affect it, implant thoughts and attitudes and to some extent control it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 5 Nov, 2011 02:35 pm
@tristan22,
tristan22 wrote:
I hope it's ok to say something about this. In witchcraft a picture of someone is often used in a ceremony designed to cast spells to affect that person or victim. Sometimes a picture of the face of a victim is glued to a doll and the doll is then abused, burned, pins stuck into it or whatever. During such rituals It's my belief that the potency of the spell is intensified greatly if it's cast at the height of sexual orgasm and large numbers of participants in such cult rituals get drunk, drugged, dance round a fire and finally participate in an intense sexual frenzy which culminates in the high priest casting the desired spell. The mass energy manufactured by this whole perverse ceremony being used and directed towards the victim, by the high priest and other members, through a photograph and often enhanced further by using items of personal clothing or belongings. Sounds a bit mad maybe. But is it ???? Masturbating to a picture is very common as is masturbating to mental imigary. Such practices are very often carried out under the influence of drink and drugs Collecting personal belongings such as clothes, underwear and such is also a big part of pedofillia. Thing is, I personally think that telepathy is very very real and the proposals here are exactly the same as a black witchcraft ceremony. Does anyone on this forum actually know if maybe a child or anyone could be mentally implanted by such behaviour. Maybe they can be initiated this way, familiarised and given an interest in the practices and even in specific people. If you don't, know, then apart from the whole concept being wrong anyway, because it's obviously a way to indulge a perversion that in fact badly and unquestionably needs to be addressed by psychoanalysts, this is a really dangerous practice that's in my view very likely to affect what I would call a victim of a gross satanic ritual. Think of a twin getting hit by a car and her sister dropping the shopping bags 50 miles away. Millions of examples of this eh !! The intensity of such an incident is hardly greater than a sexual climax which is often called the little death. OMG how could anyone consider this to be acceptable.. A picture stealing your soul has been mentioned and was indeed a common belief by many cultures. You obviously cant literally steal a soul or that person would drop dead, but I think it likely that you can gain access to it, affect it, implant thoughts and attitudes and to some extent control it.
U think that led to the downfall of Marilyn Monroe ?
or Jayne Mansfield ?
tristan22
 
  1  
Sat 5 Nov, 2011 07:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Jane Mansfield was a high priestess in the church of Satan led by Anton Szander LaVey. Author of the Satanic Bible. He also discovered Marilyn Monroe in a striptease club. He helped her to begin her career. Sex and sexual favours played a major part in their careers and the involvement with the Illuminati is indisputable. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that these Satanist connections were the sole cause of Marilyn and Jane's downfall, or Michael Jackson and many others. Lady Gaga presently being one of the leading representatives and displaying Illuminati symbolism on her person her self and in her videos and her lyrics.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 6 Nov, 2011 05:09 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

the primitives used to insist that to take a picture of them was to steal their soul.....we seem to now agree with them......we used to think them backwards for their beliefs.


Are you suggesting that Dave's soul is in his arse?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 6 Nov, 2011 10:16 am
@izzythepush,
hawkeye10 wrote:
the primitives used to insist that to take a picture of them was to steal their soul.....we seem to now agree with them......we used to think them backwards for their beliefs.
izzythepush wrote:
Are you suggesting that Dave's soul is in his arse?
That was a strange thing that that fellow
in the white lab coat in the hospital took a picture of my ass.
Maybe he collects pictures like that.
I wonder if he violates my rights by looking at it?
Someone in this thread said something to that effect,
but he applied it to kids; maybe it expired. I dunno.

I remember that it was (as of the 1970s or 80s) against the law to take pictures
of people 's faces or of their signatures, if u use them in advertizing.
I remember that because it happened to one of my clients.

I guess the guy in the white coat thawt that my face
was not good enuf to photograph. . . so . . . .
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 7 Nov, 2011 02:04 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I remember that it was (as of the 1970s or 80s) against the law to take pictures
of people 's faces or of their signatures, if u use them in advertizing.
I remember that because it happened to one of my clients.


What do you think your arse was used to advertise? Do you think it was a 'before' or 'after' picture. Hawkeye hasn't answered my question, so do you think you have an arse soul?
0 Replies
 
AlwaysSunshine
 
  1  
Mon 30 Jul, 2012 12:13 pm
I find it pretty irritating to devide beetween pictures, that were made for money and those who are supposed to be available for free.
First, for the kids who were abused it dosnt change anything at all.
Second, theres nothing for free. Even if there are certain pages who seem to show "free" childrens pornography, still earn money by placing ads, generating traffic etc.
So the conclusion, that it is okay because its free is wrong and dosnt help at all.

I understand that it is hard to satisfy such a kind of sexuality. But still, remember, it is more important to protect the right of the children to grow up without beeing harmed, than to make possible to let out any kind of personal desire. Thats the base of our society. Sometimes I feel like kicking someones ass, but I wont. Why? Thats part of our agreement that forms a society, where everybody can decide to enjoy life his way, as long as he or she dosnt harm others.

Concerning 3D based pornography or illustrated scenes of child abuse might be a less harmful option. One point is still to be thougt of. As it is often said, that Ego Shooters are causing some kind of blunting of the brain, also this kind of child pornography might have the effect of giving a feeling of normality after a while. Many might be able to cope with that and be satisfied, others maybe not.

Surely, its not easy to have a sexual desire that cant be fulfilled without beeing contrary to our societys agreement. But just because it is there, is not a reason to make it legal.
north
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jul, 2012 03:17 pm
what bothers me about this thread is that , the victim is sacrificed in order for those who desire this kind of abuse , the victim is never the same and is robbed of any self esteem for the rest of their life where is the victims psychology of importance here ? has it become okay to destroy the victim for sexual want ? it is so and is this another example of the ME generation ? its all about me , the consequences don't matter , I think it has , and its shamful to the extreme
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jul, 2012 03:20 pm
@AlwaysSunshine,
What is "3D based pornography" ?
north
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jul, 2012 03:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

What is "3D based pornography" ?


why does it matter ?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jul, 2012 03:43 pm
@north,
north wrote:
what bothers me about this thread is that, the victim is sacrificed in order for those who desire this kind of abuse, the victim is never the same and is robbed of any self esteem for the rest of their life where is the victims psychology of importance here ? has it become okay to destroy the victim for sexual want ? it is so and is this another example of the ME generation ? its all about me , the consequences don't matter, I think it has, and its shamful to the extreme
I try to put myself into the mind of such a child actor,
by remembering myself in childhood.

It did not occur to me to raise funds by offering my services in that endeavor
( indeed, I did not work at all, not needing additional cash ),
but it seems to me that if I had accepted that job,
I 'd not have been "sacrificed" nor woud my self esteem have been affected,
neither then nor now, many decades later. I have only normal sex
in mind -- nothing weird, no whips nor chains, etc.

Indeed, I felt good then and now, in regard to the sexual pleasure
that I had then FOR FREE. If I had considered it, I 'd surely
have believed that its better to get paid for it.

As a child, my vu of life was that "its all about me" (as u put it).

Can u be more specific in identifying the problems that u see ?
north
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jul, 2012 03:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
north wrote:
what bothers me about this thread is that, the victim is sacrificed in order for those who desire this kind of abuse, the victim is never the same and is robbed of any self esteem for the rest of their life where is the victims psychology of importance here ? has it become okay to destroy the victim for sexual want ? it is so and is this another example of the ME generation ? its all about me , the consequences don't matter, I think it has, and its shamful to the extreme
Quote:
I try to put myself into the mind of such a child actor, by remembering myself in childhood. It did not occur to me to raise funds by offering my services in that endeavor ( indeed, I did not work at all, not needing additional cash ), but it seems to me that if I had accepted that job, I 'd not have been "sacrificed" nor woud my self esteem have been affected, neither then nor now, many decades later.
so you weren't abused
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jul, 2012 03:51 pm
@north,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

What is "3D based pornography" ?
north wrote:
why does it matter ?
Understanding his post.
north
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jul, 2012 03:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,

about my last post , your comments
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 31 Jul, 2012 03:55 pm
@north,

north wrote:
what bothers me about this thread is that, the victim is sacrificed in order for those who desire this kind of abuse, the victim is never the same and is robbed of any self esteem for the rest of their life where is the victims psychology of importance here ? has it become okay to destroy the victim for sexual want ? it is so and is this another example of the ME generation ? its all about me , the consequences don't matter, I think it has, and its shamful to the extreme
Quote:
I try to put myself into the mind of such a child actor, by remembering myself in childhood. It did not occur to me to raise funds by offering my services in that endeavor ( indeed, I did not work at all, not needing additional cash ), but it seems to me that if I had accepted that job, I 'd not have been "sacrificed" nor woud my self esteem have been affected, neither then nor now, many decades later.
north wrote:
so you weren't abused
I have never been abused in any way that I can remember.

I was interested in the reasoning of your post,
as to WHAT u had in mind, in a specific sense.

Do u choose to reveal what u believe happens in this regard ?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/17/2024 at 11:58:14