Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/22/03 03:29 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: point-

They won't be cartoonish - they'll be near-realism artworks or video.

They won't be selling to some perv-mates, they'll be "broadbanding" on cable modems.

So how does Preacher feel about it now?

By "cartoon" I meant "not real." As for broadbanding on cable modems, you aren't going to find it unless you go looking for it, now will you? Why do YOU know so much about this? Been doing a little "research" of your own? :-P

That's good and all. ^_^

But my main question is this:

Does anyone here think that if we make fake or virtual kiddie porn legal, and then put it on the internet "market" to compete with illegal and real kiddie porn, that this will take at least some business away from the real kiddie porn "market?"

Just as, say, 'hentai' takes away some business from the real adult porn industry.

And if so, does anyone here think that if some business is taken away from the real kiddie porn industry and directed towards the fake kiddie porn industry, then even a few kids will be spared the real kiddie porn world?

Like you said, no matter how real it looks, at least that person is drawing it instead of actually getting a kid to molest for the internet business. So that kid is spared.

And if you do think that a few kids will be spared that sick business, do you think that having fake kiddie porn legal would be worth it (as long as some kids are spared real kiddie porn)?
------------------------------
It's like this, right now, let's say we have 10 perverts looking at real kiddie porn on the internet and 10 perverts making real kiddie porn to put on the internet.

Now, let's say that we make fake kiddie porn legal and put it on the market also to compete with the real kiddie porn industry.

Now, let's say that at least 2 of the pervs who watch kiddie porn don't want to risk the prison sentence for seeing illegal real kiddie porn, so they decide to focus most of their attention on the legal fake or virtual kiddie porn

(A lot of guys I've seen are interested in "hentai" or "toon porn" more than they are interested in real porn, amazingly. @_o' And "hentai" or toon porn, and real porn are both legal to boot. Just look at some ads for toon porn on NG to see the success of it----look up and down. -_-').

And, more importantly, let's say that at least 2 perverts who make kiddie porn, don't want to risk going to prison for it or try to risk getting real kids to molest for it. So, they turn to making fake or virtual porn themselves (which is also much easier to make).

Now, we have only about 80% of perverts making and viewing real kiddie porn as apposed to the earlier 100% on both ends.

Now, though this amount may seem small, this drop in demand for real kiddie porn is at least a drop in demand. And any drop in the demand for real kiddie porn is a good one.

More importantly, a drop in demand for producing real kiddie porn (no matter how small that drop is) will cause less real kids to be harmed and used for kiddie porn.

You see how that works? And I was just guessing at the exact numbers. There may be a much stronger drop in real kiddie porn, while viewers are tuning into the legal fake kiddie porn. I base this theory on the overwelming success of "hentai" or "toon porn" (once again, see some NG ads to see what I mean).

Now, what is everyone's feelings on this?

I'm goin with the ninja on this one. I've thought about this debate hard; human morals block my view both ways, right and wrong, with this situation. As a Christian, I'm really split over this whole issue. Honestly, kiddie porn itself is disgusting and shouldn't be tolerated, but I suppose that if fake porn saves the children, then it should be made legal. I really can't say much more than that; I don't support child pornography by any means, but at least the cartoon porn will turn perverts away from the real stuff.

Ale, would you mind if we voted in the PC to let you in. (I feel like I asked this already and never got an answer)

At 5/22/03 11:31 PM, jimsween wrote: Ale, would you mind if we voted in the PC to let you in. (I feel like I asked this already and never got an answer).

Sure. I don't think I ever saw your first post.

In any case, I think my first post said it all. When the time comes, you do what you have to. And if it means saving just one child from that hell of being a sex object before they're ready, I'm for it.

In any case, pedophiles will seek kiddieporn either way, and you can't make the argument that if kiddietoon porn were legal, they would take this as a sign that acting on their desires is acceptable. The law is, afterall, the law.

Okay, I'm going to make this short and sweet.

Hopefully.

How do a majority of child molesters get their start?

Viewing child porn.

How the hell is 'virtual kiddie porn' going to stop a pedophile from going out and practicing what they see on a REAL CHILD?

What a lot of people don't realize is that sexual offenders of any sort are not healthy. While those of us who are healthy and think that child pornography (or any sort of sexual assault for that matter) is wrong...we can see the 'reasoning' behind it, make it sound like it'll help those that are diseased. But when you feed an obsession, what happens? Does that obsession go away?

Or does it get worse?

I'm sorry, but no. Virtual child porn puts our children at risk. It's a gateway to other things, and I, for one, will not EVER compromise the safety of any child for something that MIGHT work.

I need to add something to my previous post.

I do logically understand the 'save even one child, it's okay' thing, but this is what I don't think many people understand...

There's more pedophiles out there than people think. It's not just with small children. It's the grown men that go out to find 14, 15, 16 year old girls and take advantage of them. Or young boys, too.

I -understand- the reasoning behind the argument. But I believe it's going the wrong way. Laws dealing with child pornography should be stronger and less lenient, and under no circumstance should a 'virtual' alternative be offered. Can you imagine how MUCH of it would be out there? It would be accessible to our children, giving them the idea to be more sexually active at a younger age, it would be accessible to those that have never even thought of it as provocative before...and then find themselves turned on? What if it -creates- pedophiles, rather than deters them?

The one pro - less real children getting hurt - is outweighed by the cons and is, I fear, temporary. In the long run, I think it's very probable that MORE children are hurt by those that have been influenced by readily-available virtual kiddie porn.

More children die per year though being run over on the roads, rather than being kidnapped and murdered by the Big Bad (Evil) Paedophile, yet where is the Moral Panic over that?

At 5/25/03 10:26 AM, D2KVirus wrote: More children die per year though being run over on the roads, rather than being kidnapped and murdered by the Big Bad (Evil) Paedophile, yet where is the Moral Panic over that?

There -is- panic over that, in some places. But that's not the subject of this thread. :)

Simply put? The only way to keep children from getting hurt in roads is to outlaw cars. Is that going to happen? HAH! Nope.

But see...kiddie porn is already outlawed, and rightly so. That's the issue here.

Damned cars.

At 5/24/03 02:04 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: two posts

The idea isn't to "stop freaks from molesting kids," since that is something the government unfortunately has no control over. The purpose was to "decrease kids being used in pornography" by providing an alternative that doesn't hurt kids.

I realize that pedophiles watch kiddie porn. But you don't just "turn into a pedophile suddenly" from seeing it. If you are interested in kids sexually, then you have always been that way. I think that it is a mental/emotional disorter and it's not something you can suddenly "hop into." After all, who here that isn't interested in kiddie porn, would suddenly "like it" if they saw it suddenly.

Also, as for virtual kiddie porn "being everywhere where my kids can see," that won't be the case. When is the last time you saw an advertisement for a porn site or a porn video on tv (excluding of course PPV commercials and the "girls gone wild" series which only runs on some channels after 11pm @_o'). The point is that real porn is legal as well, and yet it is still not "advertised everywhere" on tv. And the only time "spicy" commericals are shown is usually after 11pm at night anyway, where kids won't be watching it.

Also, as for virtul kiddie porn "being everywhere on the internet where my kids can see," that's also flawed. Mostly because kiddie porn is already all over the internet where your kids can see. And the problem is that these ads are of REAL KIDS. Which I think would be much more tramatizing to kids (although I agree that both are bad @_o'). The internet is already heavy with porn ads and virtual porn ads. Just look at some of the ads on NG. If you don't want your kids to see, then I suggest you put a parental block on your computer anyway, since all porn is traumatizing anyway. @_o'

Also, strict pedophiles aren't the only ones viewing real kiddie porn. If you go on Limewire or Kazaa and look up practically anything, porn pops up. @_o' And the most disturbing thing is that half of the porn that pops up is 'lollita' or kiddie porn. That shows that the market for "kiddie porn" is much higher than you might think. Sometimes, a kid is just thrown into a porn junkies diet. I actuallly know, because I have an uncle who has a folder with about 20 porn clips in it, which I discovered while using his computer a while back. Ick! @_o' And two of the titles said they involved a '"12 year old girl." Yet, my uncle isn't a pedophile or a "dangerous criminal," which is the sterotype you seem to give to people who watch the perverted stuff.

The point is, that there is real kiddie porn all over the internet now and that strict pedophiles aren't the only ones supporting the business.

If we provide a legal, non-dangerous alternative for these porn junkies, then maybe we can at least entice some of the more normal ones to tune into that instead of supporting an severely illegal business where kids get hurt.

Now, I agree that there will be people who we can't save (such as molesters and strict pedophiles), but are you implying that just because we can't "save all" that we shouldn't save any?

And one of the most important issues about this topic, is how it will affect those who make kiddie porn, and not those who just watch it.

Like I said, if you were a freak who likes kids and decides to make money off of kiddie porn yourself, will you:

A) Risk trying to get kids for your pictures, risk molesting these kids for your pictures, and risk going to prison for it in the long run?

or will you:

B) Just draw kids and not risk any trouble with getting and hurting kids or breaking the law.

The point was that we are providing a substitute for the people who are actually the ones making the kiddie porn and hurting the kids. If they need to let out their bizarre sexual agression, then let them do it on a peace of paper and not on a real kid. Right now, they face a similar prison sentence for doing both, so why should they concern themselves with drawing to get their agression out, if they'd just get a similar prison sentence as if they molested a real kid? Why not just molest a real kid if you're going to have the same prison sentence than you would if you drew it? See where I'm going with this? There isn't any incentive for them to focus their attentions on a less harmful business.

All in all, however, I think the result, which would be even a small drop in the real kiddie porn business that would allow even a few kids to be spared the kiddie porn world (maybe much more), is much more important than my "sense of morality." I think not being in the kiddie porn business would be much more important to those kids than a stranger's sense of morality would be, as well.

I feel we should think about the kids who are currently being tortured in the porn business and how this will affect their lives, before we think about our own "offended" feelings.

At 5/25/03 01:52 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

But see...kiddie porn is already outlawed, and rightly so. That's the issue here.

Actually, the issue isn't legalizing kiddie porn. It's about legalizing fake kiddie porn, to compete with and to take away some of the business of the real kiddie porn industry.

Real kiddie porn would still be savagely illegal. Of course.

In fact, this whole thread is against kiddie porn. But in a way that is more concerned with how it affects the kids being used and not with our own prejudices of it, and how it affects us.

I feel the lives of the kids come first, and not our "offended" or "religous" feelings about the topic.

Damn you, Ninja! Now I have nothing to say!

Okay, this is my issue with the whole thing.

I don't think you realize, Ninja, that I -understand- the idea behind it. But I don't agree with it.

If 'virtual kiddie porn' becomes something that's normal or popular in lieu of the real thing...okay. This is what I'm worried about.

Yes, I agree that pedophilia isn't something that is created. But there's people out there that might have attraction to children that simply don't act upon it because of their moral beliefs and downright fear.

The argument you're making, it sounds like, is that by making virtual kiddie porn okay, it would save hurting a child. But...hypothetically speaking, what about this:

A man, John Doe, has had fantasies about children, but has never viewed child porn because it's illegal and he doesn't want to cross the line into illegality. Then, suddenly...the world of virtual kiddie porn opens this world for him. You don't think that legal virtual child pornography wouldn't be on the national news? HELL YES, and Mr. Doe would hear about it. Since it's legal, he thinks it's okay to view it, and thus...it takes his fantasies farther than they've ever gone before.

So tell me...what happens when he snaps and his diseased mind tells him it's alright to do this to a REAL child? That's what I'm afraid of. Logically speaking, I can't help but think that many people don't view child porn because it's illegal to access, and that's what has kept them away from it. If some realistic facsimile of it suddenly becomes available to them, all it will do is perpetuate their unhealthy desires, rather than encouraging them to get help, and STOP INDULGING.

Can you honestly tell me that you can guarantee there wouldn't be a rise in child molestation, because of ideas put into people's minds by virtual, LEGAL child pornography? I don't think you can. And that chance is exactly why I don't think ANY sort of child porn, be it virtual or not, should be legal.

House, your argument is the same as my objections to legal abortion and condoms in schools. You can make an argument for it and it will have marginal benefits, but it will open the floodgates by condoning these types of behaviors and actions whether it be teenage promiscuity, abortion or pedophilia. Those on the left say that outright banning of things is just an ignorant, knee-jerk conservative reaction, but we understand that it is the only way to truly put a stop to something. Half-measures and allowances soon give way to full-measures and bigger allowances and soon the floodgates are wide open to anything. Only strict, harsh, unyielding laws that are enforced vigorously shall deter pedophiles.

If you allow them to look at kiddie porn, even fake, you're telling them aloud, "We're telling you that you can do this but just don't abuse children", but the hidden message that it whispers in their ears is, "but it's really okay to do it anyway."

But this is ok, House?
barbie porn

At 5/26/03 03:51 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:
If you allow them to look at kiddie porn, even fake, you're telling them aloud, "We're telling you that you can do this but just don't abuse children", but the hidden message that it whispers in their ears is, "but it's really okay to do it anyway."

Amen to that, Commander.

I have differing opinions about the other things, somewhat...but with this, never. I will never compromise on my opinion on things like this, which is why many of my friends believe me to be part of (as you mentioned once) the vast right-wing conspiracy. :)

I'd gladly discuss the condom issue in a thread meant for such, and I believe my opinion on abortion is well known, though likely not my history with it. Those things, though...I just feel they're slightly different than this. Sending a message of "it's okay if it's done THIS way" about something like kiddie porn just...I...gah. It makes me shudder to think about the doors it would open.

At 5/26/03 03:51 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: If you allow them to look at kiddie porn, even fake, you're telling them aloud, "We're telling you that you can do this but just don't abuse children", but the hidden message that it whispers in their ears is, "but it's really okay to do it anyway."

If we allow them to look at fake kiddie porn, and declare a one-month amnesty, say, for people to officially cancel their memberships with these sites and contact Scotland Yard to have stuff deleted from their computer, then legalise fake child porn, it will help.

We will have to increase the sentences that paedophiles get for signing up to these sites to 5 years minimum and people won't do it. They can get their kicks elsewhere, legally.

If you could buy Weed from legalised stores, would you buy it from them or off a dodgy bloke in a pub?

At 5/26/03 10:19 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: If we allow them to look at fake kiddie porn, and declare a one-month amnesty....

That's all well and good, but developing pedophiles are still supplied with child porn.

If you could buy Weed from legalised stores, would you buy it from them or off a dodgy bloke in a pub?

So the government should cave because the fight against drugs is a hard one?

At 5/26/03 04:02 AM, TheShrike wrote: But this is ok, House?
barbie porn

...how is that even relevant?

It's dolls. I didn't click it, but if it's the same site I've seen before, how exactly is that even close to child pornography?

At 5/26/03 03:44 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: That's all well and good, but developing pedophiles are still supplied with child porn.

Yes.....that doesn't hurt real kids. And that's the issue. The point is that they're being supplied with child porn anyway. However, it's REAL child porn. At least we can give them an alternative.

Also, in case you don't know, fake child porn is still in existance. You can access it very easily, actually. But it's just as illegal as seeing real child porn, so why should any pervert bother when they can see the real stuff under the same threats?

Also, your example of the man who is an "immoral freak" and yet strangly also "cares enough about morals" not to do act on them....I assure you is a very small presentage of pedophiles. I

t's not hard to find child porn on the internet. Not hard at all. And the idea of being caught watching it is a light fear, anyway. Especially when you can get the crap on limewire without even looking for it. @_o' So, you're saying that there would be a seriously ill man out there who wouldn't easily look up child porn on the internet because it's "illegal."

......No, the majority of people who really like kids that way, will do it regardless whether or not it's illegal or not. That's why you can see ads for it everywhere on the internet. The whole point is that the government can't control these freaks as well as they'd like to and mostly the fact that having child porn illegal isn't detering perverts.

That's actually the whole reason why this theory was thought up. Having it illegal isn't working! The purpose is to separate fantasy from reality. It's like saying, OK, you can fantasize about rape and whatever and that's OK, cause you're not hurting anyone, but when you actually hurt someone, then you've crossed the line and you must pay the concequences.

Believe it or not, pedophiles still molest kids even though they know it's "wrong." That's why numbers of incidents are so high.

Now, however, look at a cartoon kid and a real kid. See a difference? One's real and one's not. Look at that cartoon girl in the cartoon porn add above. OK, now I'm sure you can imagine what virtual porn must look like @_o'. But how many of you agree that seeing that drawn thing getting raped or whatever would make you feel that it's OK to do it to a living breathing human, which looks much different. The whole point is that it still leaves much about real sex to the imagination. How many of you after seeing virtual porn your whole life would still be somewhat shocked after seeing real live people have sex, or after seeing a real woman's body, etc? There is still a difference there. The hope is that by seperating fantasy from reality, we can help these freaks to outlet their weird sexual desires on fantasy instead of reality.

So, you're saying that a freak will be less likely to molest kids after seeing real kids get molested, which numbs him to the incidents and the ideas, than seeing a cartoon kid get molested?

If he sees it happening to a cartoon, then he's more likely do to it, even though he's less numb to the idea? That's the point.

Real blood and fake blood aren't the same thing. How many of you have watched some violent cartoon where some guy get's his head blown off or something. @_o' Now, it does numb you to some extent, HOWEVER......Now, how many of you think it's OK to do that to someone in real life? Now how many of you would still be even SLIGHTLY shocked to see a real someone get their head blown off in front of you? Now, it's not that we are for the fake blood, but wouldn't it be better to have people who like violence to see cartoon blood than go on the internet and see people die in real life? You think it's equally wrong to see both, even though one involves death and the other....well, doesn't? That's how this works.

Anyway, the whole thing about,pedophiles "thinking it's OK" is honestly sort of stupid, because they DON'T think it's "OK" now and yet they still do it. It's nice to see that you have such strong beliefs in the morals of even the most immoral of people, however. And that you have such a strong belief that dubbing something "illegal" makes criminals, "not do it."

Anyway, though, you still haven't answered how it will affect those who actually make the kiddie porn. Nor did you comment on how strict pedophiles like the guy in the story aren't the only one's supporting the business.

Also, don't you think that seeing a real kid get molested is more numbing than seeing it happen to a cartoon? @_o'

Also, you're story doesn't reallyl make sense. It's like saying that someone who is already adicted to drugs, wouldn't go out and get some simply because they're "illegal." Pedophiles don't work that way. They "need" kids. That's how the sickness works.

So, here, I have a story for you. Mr. Soanso is a pervert. He likes kids. He goes on the internet to see real kids get molested. The fact that it's "illegal" doesn't bother him, because it's unlikely that he'd be caught anyway. He sees real kids getting molested over and over and over again. He slowly starts to get numb to even the most violent of real life images. He begins to spend more and more money on child porn and supports the business greatly. However, once he's numb to it, he decides he wants to do it himself. And he does.

Now, let's say that he does the same with virtual porn. And let's even say that he goes and molests a kid anyway. Well, don't you think he would have done it if he saw real kiddie porn anyway? Yes, he would have. And that's the point. The government has no control over molesters. Mr. Soanso would have molested a kid eventually anyway, whether he looked at real or fake kiddie porn.

However, there's a difference between the first and second senarios. In the first, he supported a business that hurt kids, propelling the business to continue. In the second, he supported a business that didn't hurt kids, dropping the business of the one that did.

You see? Now, here's another senario for all the guys out there. If you saw a cartoon woman naked for about 3 hours, then a real naked woman walked into the room, would you be shocked? If you saw a naked woman for about 3 hours, then another naked woman came into the room, would you be shocked as much?

The point is that there is still a seperation of fantasy and reality. Seeing cartoon violence and nudity does numb you to some extent. However, seeing real violence and nudety numbs you more, because it's real. Now, what's the difference between the first example? One's real and one's not. Now how about the second example? There isn't a difference. Both women are the same. Now, this is important. Watching yourself molesting a kid and seeing a kid get molested by someone else doesn't involve much of a difference, because they both involve the same thing. However, seeing a cartoon get molested and then molesting a person, look and feel very different. The point is, that you are more likely to become numb to REAL molesting from seeing REAL molesting than you would from seeing cartoon molesting. Hence, you are more likely to feel confident enough to molest a kid yourself from seeing REAL molesting, than you would from seeing fake molesting.

So, this theory may actually decrease molesting cases as well (though I don't think by much, since, like I said, these people do it anyway, regardless whether it's illegal or not).

And finally, I wish that it would be broadcasted on the News, because then more freaks would learn about it and hopefully draw their attention there instead. Also, if you see cartoon porn or cartoon rape all the time, you will most likely begin to draw your fantasies to release your sexual agressions than you act them out, because seeing it drawn is what you're used to and more importantly, seeing it drawn is how you get your kicks in the first place, so you're more likely do get more kicks that way. Just look at all the "fan art links" that pop up on cartoon porn ads. @_o' Most of it is stuff that the porn junkies draw themselves! However, I think it would be good to teach these freaks to outlet their sexuality on a piece of paper than on a child. Obviously.

So the government should cave because the fight against drugs is a hard one?

That's not an equal metaphor. A better metaphor would be if the government found a way to make a special drug that got you high but didn't hurt you, anyone else, or support organized crime. That's like fake porn versus real porn.

The "government selling the same drugs as criminals" metaphor would be them selling REAL kiddie porn versus real kiddie porn. Which isn't a difference.

Also, the "condoms in school" metaphor doesn't work either. A closer metaphor would be providing "fake sex," to these kids, not something that would allow them to have REAL sex easier. lol. :P

At 5/26/03 04:49 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
That's not an equal metaphor. A better metaphor would be if the government found a way to make a special drug that got you high but didn't hurt you, anyone else, or support organized crime. That's like fake porn versus real porn.

My statement on drugs was COMPLETELY unrelated to this topic. You can type another novel of a post if it will make you feel better.

Also, the "condoms in school" metaphor doesn't work either. A closer metaphor would be providing "fake sex," to these kids, not something that would allow them to have REAL sex easier. lol. :P

The metaphor was about laws intended to accomodate vs. laws intended to restrict.

At 5/26/03 04:01 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 5/26/03 04:02 AM, TheShrike wrote: But this is ok, House?
barbie porn

...how is that even relevant?

It's dolls. I didn't click it, but if it's the same site I've seen before, how exactly is that even close to child pornography?

it isn't relevant, I just thought I'd point people to that site since I just found it via your sig pic.

Ok, so it has nothing to do with the post, and is completely irrellivant.
I just thought it was funny. =]

At 5/24/03 01:09 PM, TheShrike wrote: In any case, I think my first post said it all. When the time comes, you do what you have to. And if it means saving just one child from that hell of being a sex object before they're ready, I'm for it.

So there's a certain time to become a sex object? I thought being a sex object was generally grouped into the 'not good' category.

At 5/26/03 11:41 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: So there's a certain time to become a sex object? I thought being a sex object was generally grouped into the 'not good' category.

Please... I'm talking about after puberty and at least the age of consent (unless it's Alabama we're talking about)...

You know all about Alabama, dontcha, Judge?

At 5/26/03 06:31 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

My statement on drugs was COMPLETELY unrelated to this topic. You can type another novel of a post if it will make you feel better.

Well, I can see where your mentallity lies. @_o' Sorry if it was too much for you. lol.

Anyway, I wasn't refering so much to your post on the metaphor but to the metaphor itself, which was made by someone else. Sheesh.

The metaphor was about laws intended to accomodate vs. laws intended to restrict.

Um, this theory isn't about "accomodation," or "giving up," it's about "competition" and "reduction." "Accomodation" means "Pro" and "freedom," and "Competition" is "Anti" and "restricted." This is anti-child porn, not pro. If it was, then we certainly wouldn't be for something that would reduce it now would we?

If it was about "accomodation," then the metaphor would be like "the government legalizing all child porn." That's why I said the metaphor isn't the same. @_o' "Accomodating" these freaks would mean that we are giving them free range of whatever porn they wish to produce, which isn't the case. In fact, we're trying to lower the business of these freaks (where kids are getting hurt) by providing something to compete with these freaks.

Is that why you're against it? You thought it was about "accomodation?" Of course not. We're not accomodating people who produce kiddie porn. @_o' How is providing a less dangerous business to compete with them and take some of their business away good for them in any way? How does that "accomodate" them? And more, how can you call that "accomodation" when we aren't even touching how illegal their businesses are? Child porn would still be fearcly illegal. That's not "accomodation" for them, either.

This law is about hopefully restricting the success of the real child porn business, since simply having it "illegal" isn't detering perverts from making and viewing it now. This law is about restricing.

At 5/26/03 11:55 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 5/26/03 11:41 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

You know all about Alabama, dontcha, Judge?

Foul Beast!

THe issue is that with real chil porn, there is a legitimate need to illegalize it, in order to protect the children. By illegalizing virtual child porn, it is getting to a point where the government is punishing thought, specifically pedophillic thoughts. However bad any thoughts may be, no government has a right to intervene in them.

At 5/26/03 07:01 PM, TheShrike wrote:
it isn't relevant, I just thought I'd point people to that site since I just found it via your sig pic.

Ok, so it has nothing to do with the post, and is completely irrellivant.
I just thought it was funny. =]

OH MY GOD! I'd totally forgotten that I linked to that site from my sig! LOL! Teaches me to check it more often, eh?

That site cracked me up when I first saw it.

Okay, now...to Ninja_Scientist. You can word it any way you want, you can make all the arguments you want. I'm generally open minded to new things, progressive things...but this is going one step too far. Child porn, virtual or real, promotes child molestation.

Why not put all efforts toward stopping REAL child porn, rather than advocating the fake stuff? It's a waste of time, and if it's legal, it's more accessible. If it's more accessible, then more people will view it. Which will likely lead to more child molestation. It's very simple logic, and a probable progression.

I refuse to agree with anything that sends "It's okay as long as it's fake" as a message to pedophiles. It's not okay. It never will be okay.