Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.

Oh come on, let's be realistic. He's probably not a dangerous psychopath. He just writes like an idiot, and probably leads quite a lonely life.

And it isn't wise to shut yourself off to the possibility that there is a good argument for a position that you disagree with. It's enough to say that you haven't seen a good argument. Dangerous to conclude that "therefore, there isn't one and could never be one."

dlowan wrote:

agrote wrote:

dlowan wrote:

I think you don't because it was not immediately apparent to you that jerking off to pictures of children being abused was wrong.

Am I correct to assume that you subscribe to the view that actions can be "just wrong" because they "just feel wrong"?

No matter how I feel about an action, if I can't see that it has harmful consequences, then I can't condemn it.

It wasn't immediately apparent to me that jerking off to pictures of children being abused ran the risk of giving financial incentives for people to keep abusing children (to make more child porn).

This had nothing to do with my supposed lack of empathy. It had to do with my ignorance about how people make money on the internet.

Quote:

You needed goddess knows how many pages of persuasion, in order to "pretty much" make some concession....and yet you are still arguing the point, as far as I can see.

What point am I 'still' arguing? I thought I was arguing the point that I'm not a heartless bastard. This is a new point.

Quote:

All that argument and drama is not necessary to someone with the tiniest amount of empathy for the victims.

The point is that my ignorance about the internet led me to believe that there were no victims of the crime of viewing child porn. I couldn't see a causal link between looking at child porn and somebody abusing a child. On my mistaken assumption that nobody profits when you look at images on a website, there were no victims for me to have the tiniest amount of empathy for. I had empathy for the victims of abuse, but I wasn't talking about abuse. I was talking about looking at photos of abuse; not taking photos of abuse. I thought that lookign was a victimless crime, and hence empathy for victims just didn't come into it.

Understood?

No...I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that actions can be wrong because they just feel wrong...

And you are cementing my views about your lack of empathy as I speak.

Where empathy ought to have stopped your ridiculous arguments in their tracks was at the level of how victims feel at knowing people are jerking off to their abuse.

That's an important issue, but it shouldn't have stopped my arguments in their tracks. If you access images of a child being abused, it is unlikely that the child is going to know that you have done this. Knowing that his/her abuse has been photographed, the child may grow up to assume that images of his/her abuse are being used as pornography. But if they are going to assume that without knowing it, then they will assume it regardless of whether their pictures actually are being used in this way. Your action of accessing the pictures is not likely to add to the child's trauma.

Years ago, I used to answer the mail for one of the Governors of NY.
We got garbage like that day after day.

Intrepid wrote:

agrote wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will not be deflected therefrom by ad hominem insults.

Not ad hominem. I'm not addressing your views about child porn. I am pursuing the tangential line of argument that you have an incredibly annoying way of writing, and I therefore have good reason to disassociate myself from you. My 'insults' support my claim that you have an annoying way of writing.

Even the sickos that hold similar views on child pornography can't get along. It seems to reflect on their argumentative nature regardless of the subject.

It seems to reflect on the fact that David has an annoying way of writing.

Do you wish to deny that David has an annoying way of writing?

You seem determined to distort everything I say - regardless of the subject - until it conforms to your profile of me as something rotten.

agrote wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

agrote wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will not be deflected therefrom by ad hominem insults.

Not ad hominem. I'm not addressing your views about child porn. I am pursuing the tangential line of argument that you have an incredibly annoying way of writing, and I therefore have good reason to disassociate myself from you. My 'insults' support my claim that you have an annoying way of writing.

Even the sickos that hold similar views on child pornography can't get along. It seems to reflect on their argumentative nature regardless of the subject.

It seems to reflect on the fact that David has an annoying way of writing.

Do you wish to deny that David has an annoying way of writing?

You seem determined to distort everything I say - regardless of the subject - until it conforms to your profile of me as something rotten.

No. I do not deny that David has an annoying way of writing.

agrote wrote:

If you access images of a child being abused, it is unlikely that the child is going to know that you have done this. Knowing that his/her abuse has been photographed, the child may grow up to assume that images of his/her abuse are being used as pornography. But if they are going to assume that without knowing it, then they will assume it regardless of whether their pictures actually are being used in this way. Your action of accessing the pictures is not likely to add to the child's trauma.

I knew it...you're still going.

There comes a time when you have to decide that the signal-to-noise ration is just too damn low.

Intrepid wrote:

agrote wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

agrote wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will not be deflected therefrom by ad hominem insults.

Not ad hominem. I'm not addressing your views about child porn. I am pursuing the tangential line of argument that you have an incredibly annoying way of writing, and I therefore have good reason to disassociate myself from you. My 'insults' support my claim that you have an annoying way of writing.

Even the sickos that hold similar views on child pornography can't get along. It seems to reflect on their argumentative nature regardless of the subject.

It seems to reflect on the fact that David has an annoying way of writing.

Do you wish to deny that David has an annoying way of writing?

You seem determined to distort everything I say - regardless of the subject - until it conforms to your profile of me as something rotten.

No. I do not deny that David has an annoying way of writing.

If you think David has an annoying writing, then when I say "David has an annoying way of writing", why do you assume that this is because I am some sort of argumentative wanker? Why not assume that I am merely observing the undeniable fact that David has an annoying way of writing?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Years ago, I used to answer the mail for one of the Governors of NY.
We got garbage like that day after day.

Did u uz regular English then?

[quote="OmSigDAVID"
Point of Information, Boomer:
HOW was it idiotic ?
David

It's idiotic on several levels even if you ignore the fact that 12 year old boys have been known to stretch the truth to its outer boundries and that the last thing they're worried about is paying taxes.

Then there is the fact that 15 years ago digital photography was not a consumer product except perhaps to the very wealthy computer "geek". It was a film and paper proposition.

Which means that a 12 year old boy would have to take his film to be processed and printed. Having worked for a major photo finishing lab I know the protocol: notify the police. The police take the film and a set of photos, along with the identifying information, have another set returned to the place the film was dropped off, hang out, arrest whoever took them.

But okay, maybe these kids were rich and they had their own darkroom and lots of money to buy paper, chemicals, etc. (DIY print making is not inexpensive!) They would still have to find a distribution network. Without the internet that would have not been easy. So, if they did manage to find a way to sell their images there was undoubtedly an adult behind it.

So now we don't have a bunch of school boys laughing it up over their brilliant plan to evade the IRS, we have a bunch of school boys being exploited by an adult who probably paid them a fraction of what he earned selling their images.

15 years ago it was not nearly so easy to be an amature pornographer.

But maybe you made a typo and meant that you overheard it 5 years ago.

agrote wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

agrote wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

agrote wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will not be deflected therefrom by ad hominem insults.

Not ad hominem. I'm not addressing your views about child porn. I am pursuing the tangential line of argument that you have an incredibly annoying way of writing, and I therefore have good reason to disassociate myself from you. My 'insults' support my claim that you have an annoying way of writing.

Even the sickos that hold similar views on child pornography can't get along. It seems to reflect on their argumentative nature regardless of the subject.

It seems to reflect on the fact that David has an annoying way of writing.

Do you wish to deny that David has an annoying way of writing?

You seem determined to distort everything I say - regardless of the subject - until it conforms to your profile of me as something rotten.

No. I do not deny that David has an annoying way of writing.

If you think David has an annoying writing, then when I say "David has an annoying way of writing", why do you assume that this is because I am some sort of argumentative wanker? Why not assume that I am merely observing the undeniable fact that David has an annoying way of writing?

"Argumentitive wanker" is your words....not mine. All I said is that you can't get along.

Interesting that the "sickos that hold similar views on child pornography" (my words) did not elicit anything from you.

That's an important issue, but it shouldn't have stopped my arguments in their tracks. If you access images of a child being abused, it is unlikely that the child is going to know that you have done this. Knowing that his/her abuse has been photographed, the child may grow up to assume that images of his/her abuse are being used as pornography. But if they are going to assume that without knowing it, then they will assume it regardless of whether their pictures actually are being used in this way. Your action of accessing the pictures is not likely to add to the child's trauma.

agrote wrote:

That's an important issue, but it shouldn't have stopped my arguments in their tracks. If you access images of a child being abused, it is unlikely that the child is going to know that you have done this. Knowing that his/her abuse has been photographed, the child may grow up to assume that images of his/her abuse are being used as pornography. But if they are going to assume that without knowing it, then they will assume it regardless of whether their pictures actually are being used in this way. Your action of accessing the pictures is not likely to add to the child's trauma.

They can assume quite rightly that far more people will be "enjoying" the images of their abuse if viewing those images was legal. I think it would be less traumatic to assume that a thousand people are (illegally) enjoying the images than assuming that a hundred thousand people are (legally) enjoying them.

From what I've read on here, you seem to be quite a private person (when it comes to giving out information about yourself on the Internet). Would you find it less "traumatic" if five people from this forum viewed some humiliating images of you by hacking into your computer and stealing them, or if fifty people from here viewed those humiliating images of you by simply looking at them on a website where they had been published legally?

What Are the Effects of Child Pornography?

It is important to realize these images can have a devastating and lasting effect on children. In addition to any physical injuries they can suffer in the course of their molestation, such as genital bruising, lacerations, or exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, child victims can also experience depression, withdrawal, anger, and other psychological disorders.24 Such effects may continue into adulthood. For instance women abused as children have statistically significant higher rates of nightmares, back pain, headaches, pelvic pain, eating binges, and other similar symptoms.25 Child victims also frequently experience feelings of guilt and responsibility for the abuse and betrayal, a sense of powerlessness, and feelings of worthlessness and low self-esteem.26 These feelings are often expressed through increased fearfulness and changes in sleep patterns including re-occurring memories, flashbacks, dreams, and nightmares associated with posttraumatic stress.27 Younger children tend to externalize stress by re-enacting sexual activities through play, while adolescents may experience negative effects on their growing sexuality as a result of inappropriate early sexual experiences.28

The lives of children featured in these illegal images are forever altered, not only by the molestation but by the permanent record of the exploitation. Once sexual exploitation takes place, the molester may document these encounters on film or video. This documentation can then become the "ammunition" needed to blackmail the child into further submission, which is necessary to continue the relationship and maintain its secrecy. In addition these documented images allow molesters to "relive" their sexual fantasies with children long after the exploitation has stopped.

A greater number of child molesters are now using computer technology to organize and maintain their collections of these illegal images. In addition they are also using the Internet to increase the size of these collections. Personally manufactured illegal images of children are especially valuable on the Internet, which provides the molester with a respected status among fellow exploiters and traders of this material. Once this status is achieved, molesters will often begin to trade images of their own sexual exploits with children among themselves.

When these images reach cyberspace, they are irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. Thus the child is re-victimized as the images are viewed again and again.