Is it wrong to view child pornography?

Saw this on postsecret and thought of this thread....

boomerang wrote:

Saw this on postsecret and thought of this thread....

Don't you think this is a misleading thing to post? Given the fact nobody in this thread, including myself, has questioned whether it is or is not a terrible thing that children get abused.

Though we could get into the drifting of the definition of "molest". It was not long ago that physical contact was required, no more. pages 62-65


Isn't it sad that society is becoming more protective of it's youngsters. Must be torture for those who believe they can touch anything they find interesting. I've seen people erupt over people leaning against their cars, hard to imagine that others might feel the same way about their children or other people's children.

Just one point to consider, which adults reading this slime believe they are not responsible for the safe guard of all the children. Are some people's children fair game because some poor sicko finds them sexy, or are certain sicko's masters of their own fate and leave the children alone because it's the moral thing to do. I won't even bother to mention the legality of the issue, that is a matter that the casual pervert should know everything about.

boomerang wrote:

Saw this on postsecret and thought of this thread....

Don't you think this is a misleading thing to post? Given the fact nobody in this thread, including myself, has questioned whether it is or is not a terrible thing that children get abused.

agrote wrote:

boomerang wrote:

Saw this on postsecret and thought of this thread....

Don't you think this is a misleading thing to post? Given the fact nobody in this thread, including myself, has questioned whether it is or is not a terrible thing that children get abused.

Her abuse is your "entertainment" and that makes it relevent.

Her physique is my "entertainment" (if you want to define 'entertainment' as loosely as that). Not her abuse.

When people look at ordinary adult porn, they are aroused by such things as the nudity or the imagined sexual arousal of the porn actors. They are not aroused by the exploitative nature of the sex industry. The same goes for child porn. Paedophiles are aroused by the children and their imagined sexual pleasure. Not by their suffering.

What a pathetic reply! It shows both your lack of maturity and your incredible naivete about all things sexual. "They are not aroused by the exploitative nature of the sex industry." Sez who? Sez you? There are legions of men AND women who watch porn SOLELY because of it's renditions of women in exploitive situations.

Now you can say "The same goes for child porn." because, as you are less wont to admit, there are legions of child molesters (why don't we just call them what they are?) whose primary gratification comes from the suffering of the child. Ask Polly Klass.

And if you weasel around and say "Well, I'm not like those child molesters, I just like to watch.", I make you this pledge.

I will see you in jail.
I will find a way.

Blahblahblah. Justify away. Deny yourself to death.

You enjoy looking at her abuse. You must. That is what you're looking at when you look at "free" child porn.

Not only are you someone who enjoys looking at torture, you're a bore.

Bye now.

I. Don't. Look. At. Child. Porn.

Hooray for Joe.
We have read nothing but weak and pathetic replies from Agrote.
His alleged credentials belie his sickening motives.

Intrepid wrote:

Hooray for Joe.
We have read nothing but weak and pathetic replies from Agrote.
His alleged credentials belie his sickening motives.

U know, Intrepid,
u are being very rude.

If u were face-to-face at a symposium
for discussion hereof, wud u be so impolite and openly subjective ?

In my experience, most of us,
when we attend live, face-to-face symposia
take pride in being courteous to one another,
being satisfied to point out logical flaws in one another 's respective arguments,
rather than cheering "hooray for our side" and calling attenders
of an opposite viewpoint "pathetic" or having "sickening" motives.

Is it too much to ask that u be CIVIL in discourse?

It looks like u are trying to get your VICTIM to agree with u,
not because u convinced him with dispassionate logic
that his reason ing was flawed, but rather because
u are doing the best u can to HUMILIATE him, personally

and hurt his feelings, REGARDLESS of who is right or rong.

Insofar as figuring out the truth is concerned,
such tactics are counterproductive and CHEATING,
defeating him NOT by sound reasoning,
but by throwing sand in his eyes, figuratively speaking.

Christopher Columbus and Robert Fulton were similarly ridiculed.

Call me a "sicko" again, but I believe
that matters of legal philosphy and social policy
shud be decided on a RATIONAL basis rather than amorphous emotion.

Intrepid, it does not become u
to hide behind the anonymity of your screename to be so impolite to Agrotte..

I 've just gotten back from a trip,
and I don 't know what u r so emotional about (yet),
but perhaps we might hope for better civility.

Intrepid wrote:

Hooray for Joe.
We have read nothing but weak and pathetic replies from Agrote.
His alleged credentials belie his sickening motives.

U know, Intrepid,
u are being very rude.

Thank you for your opinion.
You are entitled to it.

At least you didn't take Joe's post apart.

I take it you agree with him as I did?

If u were face-to-face at a symposium
for discussion hereof, wud u be so impolite and openly subjective ?

Damn straight I would

In my experience, most of us,
when we attend live, face-to-face symposia
take pride in being courteous to one another,
being satisfied to point out logical flaws in one another 's respective arguments,
rather than cheering "hooray for our side" and calling attenders
of an opposite viewpoint "pathetic" or having "sickening" motives.

Again, it is your perogative to act any way that you want.
I will, in kind, act any way that I choose to get my point across

Is it too much to ask that u be CIVIL in discourse?

In this case? YES

It looks like u are trying to get your VICTIM to agree with u,
not because u convinced him with dispassionate logic
that his reason ing was flawed, but rather because
u are doing the best u can to HUMILIATE him, personally

Victim? What are you smoking or drinking?

Since when does someone become a victim in discourse?

I do believe that my logic is superior to his and
definitely superior to yours.

Christopher Columbus and Robert Fulton were similarly ridiculed.

They, to my knowledge, did not advocate the sexual abuse of children

Call me a "sicko" again, but I believe
that matters of legal philosphy and social policy
shud be decided on a RATIONAL basis rather than amorphous emotion.

The opinions of sickos do not make be feel the least bit inferior

Intrepid, it does not become u
to hide behind the anonymity of your screename to be so impolite to Agrotte..

My name is Richard and I do not hide behind or from anything.

Unlike yourself with your arsenal of toy guns.

I 've just gotten back from a trip,
and I don 't know what u r so emotional about (yet),
but perhaps we might hope for better civility.

Go to hades

I can't speak for intrepid, or JoeNation, but something tells me that the three of us would be on cloud nine for the chance to meet and greet argote (the reluctant and intellectual molester) in person. Don't count on the United Kingdom to protect the child molesters, they participate with other civilizations to put the like-minded child perverts away where they can't corrupt families. It's just a matter of time before someone here reports you to the proper authorities, and for all I know the clock is already ticking. Sleep well argote and the apologists.

agrote wrote:

I. Don't. Look. At. Child. Porn.

Are you making a distinction between video/movie pornography and still photos, or are you saying that you do not look at ANY image of nude and/or compromised children?

Also, you have not answered my question as to what YOU think appropriate punishment should be since you think that prison is too much.