00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

CdmollerV1 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Virtual Child Porn

34,144 Views | 92 Replies

Response to Virtual Child Porn 2003-05-29 03:19:51


Now. Let's say that having child porn DOES make people pedophiles and makes them molest, for the sake of the debate.

Even if that was the case, one of the most important points behind this theory is that HAVING CHILD PORN ILLEGAL NOW ISN'T DETERING ANYONE FROM SEEING. Now, this is thanks to the internet, of course. *sigh*

People are seeing it anyway. Now, this is important. Because we CAN'T stop these people from viewing child porn by making it illegal. It's not working.

So, the best we can do it to make it so that at least some of the porn they see doesn't support the business that causes even more molesting on top of it: real child porn.
--------------
Like this example: Mr. Soanso sees about 50 pictures of child porn a day during his break, which is about an hour. He also gets a subscription to two child porn sites. He "turns into a pedophile" and then about a year later, he molests a kid.

Now, new senario: Mr. Soanso hears that virtual kiddie porn is legal. This interests him. So, he sees about 40 pictures of child porn a day, and then 20 pictures of virtual child porn during his break, which is about an hour. He also gets a subscription to a child porn site and a virtual child porn site. He "turns into a pedophile" and then about a year later, he molests a kid.

Now, here's the important thing. Did Mr. Soanso molest that kid because virtual child porn alone was legal?

No, HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ANYWAY FROM SEEING THE REAL CHILD PORN.

It being illegal or not wasn't detering him, nor anyone else now.

And that's important. Basically, there was no way we could have stopped Mr. Soanso from winding up and molesting a kid, because we can't control him watching kiddie porn.

Virtual child porn legal or not. He would have still done it.

HOWEVER. In the first example, Mr. Soanso was devoting his full attention and money to the business that hurts children. In the second one, he supported the virtual business. Not more. In fact, he only saw 20 pictures. Yet, that's 10 less real kiddie pictures.

Now, say that Mr. Soanso makes up the majority of pedophiles in our population. That means that in the second example, 5% less children are being hurt in the business.
-------------
And, you will note that Mr. Soanso's viewing of all child porn went up 10 pictures a day because virtual child porn was legal.

However, these 10 pictures were virtual, so they didn't matter. The result STILL was that he had 5% less interest in the real child porn pictures, and 50% less involvment in the financial support of that business.

So, those 10 pictures count as nothing but surplus, because they didn't "damage him more" (he still would have become a pedophile and molested that kid had he seen them or not. And, they don't support more molesting in that business, etc).

For example, is a pedophile "more of a pedophile" after seeing 9 pictures instead of 8? Is it "more probable to molest" after seeing 60 pictures instead of 50? No.

There is little correlation between number of pictures and "probablility of molesting." You can have 100 pictures and not molest ever, or have 50 pictures and molest at least once. Depends on the person: Catholic priests or business men, etc. You know what I mean if you watch FOX. lol.

Also, like I said. The amount of porn you see is based on your already existing interest, not vise-versa. If you are really perverted, you'd see 100. If you are less perverted than that, you'd see 50. But you would see this amount based on your already existing amount of desire. Understand?
------------------
All in all, and here's the main point, we couldn' t have stopped Mr. Soanso from molesting that kid, but we COULD have at least dropped his involvement is supporting a business that would cause more kids to be molested on the otherside.

So, though Mr. Soanso went on to molest a kid, which we unfortunately couldn't control. He was propelling the molesting of 100% of real children in that business in the first example, while 5% less in the second one.

And that is the main point. By doing this, we can at least cause less children to be harmed overall.
-------------------
So, you see. They were all relevent and to strengthen my points on virtual child porn.

I won't agree. If you don't understand my simple logic, I'm sorry. In my opinion, and I state publicly that my opinion is NOT fact, virtual child porn is a bad idea. BAD IDEA. That's it.

And that's the point again. You don't have "simple logic."

Unless it depends on what your idea of "simple" and "logic" are. lol. It's bad because it is "a bad idea."

.....that's not quite logic.

The reason why it's not simple, is because you keep changing it based on particular circumstances.

That was what I was trying to point out. If your logic really did work, then it would apply to all similar circumstances (in porn). But it doesn't. So, how can that logic be valid then?

That was my point.

Response to Virtual Child Porn 2003-05-29 19:21:53


I guess this whole issue could work either way. It could discourage real pedophilia by providing pedophiles with a source of non-real child porn, thus protecting innocent children, but it could also increase pedophilia because bastards just want to rape children after looking at the pictures.

Human minds all have different psychology and work in a different way, despite what most psychologists say. You cant always tell what will happen when a person starts looking at fake or real child porn.

I dont think virtual child porn will work anyway. This is because it is sooo much easier to just take pictures of naked children than to create 3d images which can take up to months. I doubt that there will be as many of these sites as there are real childporn sites, and the pedophiles wont want to pay high prices anyway.

If virtual child porn is to be used, I still think we should go after the viewers of it. These arent normal people but sick minded individuals who take pleasure in pictures of naked children, real or not. "Fake" pictures are by no means an excuse to not stop these sickos who may one day rape children or try other perverted things. Its a moral issue.

Virtual child porn is no justification of the sickmindedness of these worthless human beings.

Response to Virtual Child Porn 2003-05-29 21:20:57


At 5/29/03 07:21 PM, Uberleader wrote:

I dont think virtual child porn will work anyway. This is because it is sooo much easier to just take pictures of naked children than to create 3d images which can take up to months. I doubt that there will be as many of these sites as there are real childporn sites, and the pedophiles wont want to pay high prices anyway.

Actually, I think it's the opposite. It's much harder to risk getting/kiddnapping a child, molesting them, keeping them silent, and then not getting caught by anyone or risk going to prison.

However, it's much easier to draw a picture in your own home. You just need some pencils and paper. When I said "virtual child porn" it didn't really mean "computer animated." It meant anything fake, like drawn. Like, "hentai" kinda. Um, I'm not sure if you know what the term, "hentai" is, so it's basically japanese cartoon porn. Check out the ads on NG for an example of it. @_o'

In fact, this type of virtual child porn may actually become popular among pedophiles, considering the success of hentai in the porn business (I mean, you can practically go anywhere on the internet and see "hentai" ads in addition to real porn ads.@_o').

Also, since these sites will be legal, their prices will drop lower than that of the real sites (you know how making something illegal, like drugs and such, raises prices and stuff). And you can "make more for your money" if all you do is draw the pictures.

Now, I don't think that it will "get bigger than real child porn," either. But even if we get just 5% of attention from the pedophilia population tuning in and more importantly, financially supporting the business, then that's 5% less attention and finances the pedophiles are giving the business of real child porn.

Even 5% less interest and financial support could put a few sites out of business and even just a 5% drop in business will spare a few children from the real child porn world.


If virtual child porn is to be used, I still think we should go after the viewers of it. These arent normal people but sick minded individuals who take pleasure in pictures of naked children, real or not. "Fake" pictures are by no means an excuse to not stop these sickos who may one day rape children or try other perverted things. Its a moral issue.

I agree. But unfortunately, thanks to the oh-so-wonderful internet, it's no longer that easy. *sigh*

The reason that this idea was proposed in the first place was actually because being able to catch these freaks has become next to impossible.

Right now, you can look up practically anything on Limewire or Kazaa for example, and kiddie porn pops up. Unfortunately, the authorities can't track the people who download much of this stuff.

So, since we can't stop these freaks from downloading the stuff or checking out pictures off the internet, the least we can do is to make sure that they are at least giving some of their support to a business that doesn't hurt more children in addition.

A drop in the real child porn business, no matter how small, will at least wind up sparing some children that world. And if one child is saved, then I think that's worth it. ^_^

So, my moral outrage towards any sort of child porn, must be put on hold in face of the importance of that result.

Thanks for contributing. ^_^