Is it wrong to view child pornography?

I support the paedophile's right to use pictures of previous crimes against children, to aid his harmless sexual fantasies. I do not support any paedophile's belief that it is okay to actually go out and rape children.

Ticomaya wrote:

Of course I'm attacking your character/sickness.

So now my entire character is sick?

Quote:

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your illness.

What for? Is that what you'd do if I was schizophrenic? Attack my schizophrenia? If I had a cancerous growth on my neck, would you attack it?

Paedophilia (in America pedophilia) is a sexual orientation, a predilection, a pattern of thought. It is not a behaviour, thoughts cannot, in a decent free society, be crimes. Therefore paedophilia cannot be considered a crime.

The media all too often these days use the word paedophilia to mean serial rape and murder of children. This is an abuse of language that seems designed specifically to render understanding impossible. A man who has sexually abused children on two occasions is described as a dangerous man, who might graduate to become a paedophile. That is ridiculous. If you mean child killer use the words. They are quite simple and clear. Paedophile means lover of children like anglophile means lover of things English. It does not mean child killer.

There are people who are not sexually attracted to adults of either sex but are sexually attracted to children. These people are paedophiles. This is what paedophilia is, the sexual attraction towards children. Just as many Christian churches draw a distinction between people with homosexual tendencies and those who indulge in homosexual activity we should be quite clear that there is a fundamental difference between being sexually attracted by thoughts of children and chopping up children and burying the bodies. The criminal law does not punish people for wanting to have more money, but it does have sanctions against people who act on that desire in ways which infringe the rights of others. The same is true of paedophilia. Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, it can't be, thoughts alone cannot be criminal...

...Paedophilia is not a crime but it does present problems. As a society we should have the strength to accept that some people simply do have urges we (and probably they) would rather they didn't have. But simply getting very annoyed, unreasonable and violent isn't going to help anybody. Being violently bigoted didn't stop people having homosexual urges either. No problem is ever solved by a refusal to understand it as if that alone would make it go away.

What is it about one's
(A) being in favour of allowing paedophiles to view child porn, that commits one to being
(B) in favour of allowing paedophiles to rape children?

How does B follow from A?

...Paedophilia is not a crime but it does present problems. As a society we should have the strength to accept that some people simply do have urges we (and probably they) would rather they didn't have. But simply getting very annoyed, unreasonable and violent isn't going to help anybody. Being violently bigoted didn't stop people having homosexual urges either. No problem is ever solved by a refusal to understand it as if that alone would make it go away.

stealing from someone else whom I generally agree with:

Quote:

Paedophilia (in America pedophilia) is a sexual orientation, a predilection, a pattern of thought. It is not a behaviour, thoughts cannot, in a decent free society, be crimes. Therefore paedophilia cannot be considered a crime.

The media all too often these days use the word paedophilia to mean serial rape and murder of children. This is an abuse of language that seems designed specifically to render understanding impossible. A man who has sexually abused children on two occasions is described as a dangerous man, who might graduate to become a paedophile. That is ridiculous. If you mean child killer use the words. They are quite simple and clear. Paedophile means lover of children like anglophile means lover of things English. It does not mean child killer.

There are people who are not sexually attracted to adults of either sex but are sexually attracted to children. These people are paedophiles. This is what paedophilia is, the sexual attraction towards children. Just as many Christian churches draw a distinction between people with homosexual tendencies and those who indulge in homosexual activity we should be quite clear that there is a fundamental difference between being sexually attracted by thoughts of children and chopping up children and burying the bodies. The criminal law does not punish people for wanting to have more money, but it does have sanctions against people who act on that desire in ways which infringe the rights of others. The same is true of paedophilia. Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, it can't be, thoughts alone cannot be criminal...

http://www.mwillett.org/mind/paedophilia.htm

Many at a2k should take heed to the conclusion

Quote:

...Paedophilia is not a crime but it does present problems. As a society we should have the strength to accept that some people simply do have urges we (and probably they) would rather they didn't have. But simply getting very annoyed, unreasonable and violent isn't going to help anybody. Being violently bigoted didn't stop people having homosexual urges either. No problem is ever solved by a refusal to understand it as if that alone would make it go away.

You are also, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, supporting the abuse of actual children by supporting the ever-widening market for this abuse, and supporting measures which would make it far harder to prosecute those abusing kids to meet this market.


While some here are reacting viscerally and, in my view, unhelpfully (including me on one occasion in this thread) the arguments against your support for abuse are quite clear and reasoned. Don't try to hide behind the "you're all just being emotional and unevolved" smokescreen.

It won't work.


By the way...Set just highlighted soomething I hadn't noticed.

A man who has sexually abused a child on two occasions IS a dangerous criminal. He may not go on to murder etc, but he has committed two serious crimes, and is a high risk for goiing on to perform more.

I had thought your source fairly reasoned, but that sentence is utter nonsense.

agrote said

Quote:

I support the paedophile's right to use pictures of previous crimes against children, to aid his harmless sexual fantasies. I do not support any paedophile's belief that it is okay to actually go out and rape children.

Do you not subscribe to the general notion the individuals should not be allowed to profit from ill gotten gains? If you do then why is this situation different? I don't think that we should make pictures of crimes illegal, and I am aware that there are people who get off on looking at stuff like pics of murder victims and who get off on it...so far as I know this is not a crime. But I am not sure that I agree with your above statement

You've brought this schizophrenia dodge before, Bubba. Any schizophrenic who commits criminal acts is liable for the consequences of their acts, even if it is only to be incarcerated for the purpose of being forced to undergo treatment.

Tell ya what, Bubba, check into a reputable facility for the treatment of psychologically morbid pathologies, and stick with the program to rid you of your paedophiliac obsession, and you might deserve respect.

Otherwise, i remain convinced that you're just getting your jollies parading your paedophilia with impunity.

Quote:

What is it about one's
(A) being in favour of allowing paedophiles to view child porn, that commits one to being
(B) in favour of allowing paedophiles to rape children?

How does B follow from A?

Just returned from nightwork and off to sleep, so havent fully read everything, but I've already explained this, and it's so obvious that it shouldn't need to be explained

hawkeye10's dimwitted source wrote:

...Paedophilia is not a crime but it does present problems. As a society we should have the strength to accept that some people simply do have urges we (and probably they) would rather they didn't have. But simply getting very annoyed, unreasonable and violent isn't going to help anybody. Being violently bigoted didn't stop people having homosexual urges either. No problem is ever solved by a refusal to understand it as if that alone would make it go away.

This entails the same idiotic bullshit that Agrote attempted to peddle earlier, to the effect that homosexuality is aberrant behavior, and equivalent to paedophilia. The huge divide between heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality between consenting adults, and the paedophile exploiting children incapable of informed consent apparently just shoots over your boy's head there--just as it does for Agrote and for you. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the concept of informed consent. I'm not surprised that you "generally agree" with this half-wit--he thinks just like you do, which is to say, rarely, and not very well at all.

Sickness doesn't have a 'right' to spread itself, and people with their senses about them are not going to stand idly by while even a potential disease spreads itself. They are going to take preventive measures.

Children come first. You getting off second. That's as it should be.

hawkeye10 wrote:

agrote said

Quote:

I support the paedophile's right to use pictures of previous crimes against children, to aid his harmless sexual fantasies. I do not support any paedophile's belief that it is okay to actually go out and rape children.

Do you not subscribe to the general notion the individuals should not be allowed to profit from ill gotten gains? If you do then why is this situation different? I don't think that we should make pictures of crimes illegal, and I am aware that there are people who get off on looking at stuff like pics of murder victims and who get off on it...so far as I know this is not a crime. But I am not sure that I agree with your above statement

It's okay to profit from something terrible as long as the situation wouldn't be any better if you weren't profiting from it. It's okay for new reporters to get paid to report murders and wars and other nasty things. And I think it's okay to be aroused by pictures of sex crimes. There is a problem, however, when people are aroused by committing sex crimes, or when they profit financially from committing them, because this will encourage them to keep committing them.

The arousal gained by the paedophile who views child porn may encourage him to view more child porn. But it won't, by itself, encourage him to harm children.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Every single click on a porn site is worth money. Yes, even the freebees, because that count is how they sell space to advertisers...

Not if there aren't any advertisers.

Quote:

...and it also goes into the calculation of what the domain itself is worth.

What if the images are posted in a forum or a blog, where the domain is not owned by the child porn producers, and none of them oney produced by people clicking on the site goes into the pockets of people who abuse children?

Quote:

2. To trade for more porn: In this case; he who wants porn will increase his likelihood of getting it by supplying porn of his own. He who views encourages production by default, whether he wants to or not.

How does your second sentence follow from your first? If you want porn, you're more likely to get it if you rape a child, film it, and offer the footage to other people with child porn. Okay. I understand that.

But the act of viewing child porn itself remains harmless. Looking at some child porn (in a blog or forum) doesn't encourage anybody else to make more child porn. And it doesn't even encourage you to make more child porn. Your first sentence suggests that not being able to access child porn might encourage you to go out and rape a kid and film it, so that you can get some more child porn.

Good effort, but I don't think you've quite managed to demonstrate that merely viewing child porn is a necessarily harmful act.

Quote:

Accepting porn from any source therefore encourages its production. In the case of child porn it is no different… except that said contribution is contributing to a heinous crime.

The number of hits on the forum message you've just written is not going to encourage you to write more messages. You will be encouraged by what other people write, not by how many people read what you've written. Similarly, merely looking at images of child porn in a forum will not encourage more images of child porn to be created and posted.

Agrote: are rules regarding a minor's incapacity to form consent justified on consequentialist grounds? In other words, is the rule that minors, for instance, are incapable of consenting to enter into contracts productive of more utility than a rule that states otherwise?

If what is written here is truly what Agrote believes, then I don't see the point nor any reason to try to discuss nor argue with him.

I think a skilled mental health worker should be doing any and all discussing with him, and he shouldn't be on forums even where younger people have access to.

It's not just what you do as far as crimes that matter. It's everything you are and stand for, and bring into this world.

Frankly, my first reaction was something Set brought up on this last page. That Agrote gets off parading these ideas around (and nobody can really do much to stop him).

In the case of being able to spread ideas and have a voice - as far as I am concerned - even that is up for grabs if you are a possible harm to children.

Sickness doesn't have a 'right' to spread itself, and people with their senses about them are not going to stand idly by while even a potential disease spreads itself. They are going to take preventive measures.

The holes in the logic of being able to look at children being abused in pictures, and a p's "right" to satisfy himself sexually however he feels he "must", even IF those weren't there - you would still be a threat to children.

And a threat is big enough a problem for people to take action.

I'd be real worried if adults were all of a sudden eager to defend a p's "rights" to get off over those of defenseless children.

Children come first. You getting off second. That's as it should be.

And if that means going without sex or sexual release for the rest of your days, so be it. I don't feel a bit of remorse.

Most of us would feel remorse if there was even an inkling of a possibility we let someone do something that was a harm to a child and we could have done something to stop it.