E
many people assume all child molesters own cp that isn't true at all
Discussion If a person is arrested for looking at child porn because it’s illegal, shouldn’t it be a criminal offense to look at videos of someone being killed?
I don't agree with executions in general so long as we can feasibly safely jail them. You'd have to execute superman if he started raping people if you lacked a red sun room to depower him in.
E
people online always go all KILL KILL KILL when they hear about anything pedophilia or even ephebophilia-related
Watching it for non-fap reasons? But that's what detectives and other people in criminal investigation/prosecution do. So there are reasons for it. If you aren't watching it for those reasons, what good reason could you possibly have? Maybe my car is filled with guns because I'm an off-duty cop. But if I was, there'd be proof of that. So if there isn't, I don't have a good reason to have my car filled with guns.
And "curiosity" is still being patron to the material. Maybe I don't "like" a movie, but I'm curious about it. If I saw it, I'm as much a patron of it as someone who did enjoy it.
Whether people fap to it or not makes no difference if they just downloaded it for free. This being taken into consideration just further reveals how the root of this inconsistency (simple possession of CP being outlawed but of media containing other violent crimes like gore being not) is cheap emotionality. People feel disgust when they think about a pedo possibly fapping to it and want to jail people who didn't harm anyone for it.
So you think just giving attention to things should already be a crime, even if you don't pay for it in any real way? Then I take it you think simple possession of gore, videos of people being punched, animal cruelty, etc, should all be crimes?
Deliberately having sex with a child is a graver crime than someone, say, accidentally getting hit with a car. Or even someone deliberately punching someone.
Animal cruelty videos are already some kinda illegal, I'm pretty sure. They won't let you post them. But animal cruelty, while cruel, is still not as heinous as having sex with a child.
I've covered that before in one of my posts. So what you defend is basically something like: if a person gave attention to CP through downloading it for free from the internet (you consider it to be the most serious one), they must be jailed for 10x time (example); if they gave attention to a Mexican cartel video of people getting their eyes gouged out, 9x (example); if gore related to accidents, 2x, if people being punched, 1x ?
If that's what you defend, I disagree with you because 1) I still don't think that just giving attention to media you payed nothing for should be a crime 2) rape is not more serious than severe torture (gouging someone's eyes out for example is worse than raping, even a child) and 3) I don't think the government should implement a tyrannical rule where people can be jailed for watching media downloaded for free either, but at least you're being consistent. You're for a tyrannical, anti-freedom action but you're not a hypocrite at least.
If you still think only CP simple possession (when obtained for free from the internet - yes, I know I repeat it all the time but it's important to specify because people who pay for it should be prosecuted IMO) should be prosecuted but not the possession of the other media containing crimes, then you're a hypocrite. You admitted they're all crimes and differ only quantitatively (in seriousness) and not qualitatively, so the logical conclusion would be a difference in how harsh the pennalty for each is, not one being a crime and the other not like it's the case today.
Last edited:
It's not a multiplier, more of a "horribleness threshold." And because sex doesn't happen by accident, like gory accidents do, sex involving a kid is always horrible. So horrible that you can't just not have sex with a kid, you can't support the idea of having sex with kids.
And seriousness is a quality.
Now you're getting to the point. That inconsistency is driven by illogical emotion. The guy who downloaded CP for free from the internet, whether he fapped to it or not, is not harming the child depicted in that video in any way. But people still want him (unjustly) jailed because muh feelings.
I don't think laws should be based on emotions like that. They should be based on logic and facts. Did he hurt a child? A: no. Did he finance people who hurt a child? A: no.
I guess that "quantitative x qualitative" thing I said works better in my native language. What I meant is that the difference between rape and torture would be in quantity (one is more serious than the other - I think it's the latter, you apparently think it's the former) not in quality in the sense that both are crimes. Both possess the same quality of being a crime, as opposed to one being a crime and the other being not a crime.
Its really not that hard. To an average person it would take just 5 seconds of thought to see why gore porn possession is different from child porn possession. And why one of them demands a call for action.
It's not 5 seconds of thought. It's 5 seconds of muh feelings. You have failed to provide a satisfactory, logical reply to like 5 or more posts I did in response to you.
But he perpetuates the hurting of children by supporting its materials. It's not about supporting one specific child pornographer, it's about supporting child pornography itself.
How does one support something without paying for it in any way?
Why isn't someone supporting torture and murder when they watch gore? You're focusing on accidents, but I mean real torture gore, things like Mexican cartel vids. They're legal pretty much everywhere. We both could download one right now from surface internet and nothing would happen to either of us.
You spread the materials around, you help it gain a wider audience.
Even Mexican cartel videos aren't for an "audience," they're not meant to be enjoyed. They're meant to terrorize.
My response is the same. I made a 5 point marker for you in your own thread, where it all started. And whatever else I could have said other guys have already stated on this one. You are trying to be contrarian for contrarianism's sake. Your arguments show a surface level understanding of the topic at hand, with a stubborn disregard for the nuances even when they are thrown at your face. This is willful ignorance and I won't waste further time with it. Heck, you remind me of my own Athiest Edgelord phase when I would try to "win" debates with strangers on youtube, by deliberately taking up alternate/contrarian opinions and trying to beat other people's "emotional rambling" with my "logic". To prove that logic supports the underdog(me) and not the foolish mainstream.
Or maybe you just have a 5 TB stack of child sex videos lying somewhere and don't want to be jailed for it. Idk at this point and idc.
Last edited:
E
don't use an accusation like that because he thinks differently
Hence the word "maybe". Its a possibility not an accusation.
E
i doubt it
Now you're talking about distribution, not simple possession. I think there's room for debate about this one. Simple possession for me is dead simple, it should not be a crime.
So the criteria for whether simple possession of media containing crimes, downloaded for free, should be illegal or not is the intentions of the people who created it + whether people enjoy it or not? So if I film myself torturing someone and specify this is for the amusement of sadists, upload it on the internet and someone downloads that for free and watches it, should that person be jailed?
If someone downloaded CP but it can't be proven that they ever fapped to or enjoyed it, should they be freed from charges?
It just makes no sense at all. You guys want to criminalize things like giving attention to things, enjoying things, this is not only illogical and tyrannical but also extremely tough to be applied in practice. I think it's much more reasonable to criminalize things based on criteria like "was someone hurt/damaged by this person's actions", "did this person's actions finance the hurting/damaging of someone", etc.
Murder, theft, rape, torture, financing all of those, these should be crimes. Immoral things that don't actually damage anyone like laughing at unfortunate things, giving rude opinions, looking at things people feel bad when they think about you looking at, enjoying things people feel bad when you enjoy, etc, should not be crimes.
Last edited:
You distribute it from where it came from, to yourself. It spreads to another person, that person being you.
The industry itself needs to be criminalized. Catching one pornographer doesn't do enough to stop child pornography itself.
Maybe someday when the snuff industry grows out of control, similar restrictions will be in place.
All of that is just sophism, my arguments were never addressed, let alone refuted.
That doesn't make any sense. If someone uploads media on the internet and another person downloads it, the first one is the distributor, the second one is just getting it.
Also, crimes against oneself should not be crimes. That cannot be consistently applied. That logic is very similar to criminalizing people for having nudes of themselves from when they were underage. I sincerely hope none of you supports that type of law.
When you "distribute to yourself", that's called simple possession, or receiving, not distributing.
And that has nothing to do with anything I argued.
GG guys, I'm gonna sleep. Please don't defend your fellow men being unjustly jailed for simple possession of media anymore. If you care so much about emotions, please care about the emotions of millions of fellow (very likely incel) men whose lives get ruined forever, without them having hurt anyone, nor contributed to someone being hurt, because of that.
Last edited:
It's not a crime against yourself to seek out child porn.
But you are spreading it by being a receiver of it. You aid in the distribution by being a patron.
You only wanna punish crimes if they hurt a specific individual, or aid a specific bad guy. That argument leaves the industry itself unpunished.
Keep telling yourself that , keep coping and keep saying things devoid of any base in reality via willful ignorance of what goes on in the real world. I can't be expected to go on further when you have demonstrated inability to listen to reason.
Last edited:
No. Females have evolved to use their sexuality to get themselves out of dangerous situations. The average girl would much rather perform a sex act on an adult man than get hit by a car.
Not true. It's perfectly legal to watch animal abuse videos in the US. Women who make crush porn videos get paid for what they do, unlike most men who produce child porn. So animal abuse is more of an industry than child porn.
Assuming both were legal, and you were forced to make a choice, would you rather torture a kitten/puppy to death or have sex with a child prostitute? Animal cruelty may not be the worst thing in the world, but it does involve actual physical harm, unlike most cases of pedophilia.
Last edited:
Watching child porn isn't illegal, at least in my country. Storing/possession and/or distribution is a different story though.
There is such a thing as soft-core child porn and it's just as illegal as hardcore child porn, which does not always involve violence or abuse and is sometimes produced by children themselves. The average person is an NPC who does not distinguish between any of those categories and wants all consumers and producers of child porn to be locked up.
NPC behavior is determined by social norms. The illustrious author of Alice in Wonderland would go to prison if he were alive today because he took lots of nude pictures of the preteen girl he loved.
Last edited:
I agree, there are different kinds of cp acquired in different conditions and for different purposes. Law should consider each case seperately and a pyschological analysis of the offender should reveal the nature of the situation. Also self posted jb is a thing nowadays so law has to consider that as well.
Well, aren't we living in better times
Gore vids is so fucking worst than any type of porn.
I have mixed feelings. Regardless of how I may loathe it, watching stuff like that for free online shouldn't be an outright criminal offense, because it's not actually supporting anybody. Paying for said content or uploading it is a different story though.
However I agree about the double standard, and I fucking despise gore, regardless of whether it's displaying something accidental or criminal. Imagine if it was you, or if it was one of your relatives in video being mutilated or killed, just to have people fap to it online. Yet somehow this is okay, but a self-taken image of a naked 17 y/o isn't, makes sense.
However I agree about the double standard, and I fucking despise gore, regardless of whether it's displaying something accidental or criminal. Imagine if it was you, or if it was one of your relatives in video being mutilated or killed, just to have people fap to it online. Yet somehow this is okay, but a self-taken image of a naked 17 y/o isn't, makes sense.
If I had to choose between one of these two very grave evils? If I absolutely HAD to? I would try to make it quick with the kitten/puppy. I would tell myself over and over that this happens all the time in nature, amongst animals.
Industry according to the Cambridge dictionary:
industry
noun
uk
/ˈɪn.də.stri/ us
/ˈɪn.də.stri/
industry noun (PRODUCTION)
B2 [ U ]
the companies and activities involved in the process of producing goods >>> FOR SALE <<<, especially in a factory or special area:
trade and industry
industry and commerce
The city needs to attract more industry.
The strike seriously reduced coal deliveries to industry.
Prosecute people who have sex with children. Prosecute people who create CP. Prosecute people who pay for CP (not giving attention to or "enjoying" it, PAYING FOR IT, actually supporting it in real, concrete, non-purely-emotional, abstract ways, God, it can't be so difficult), prosecute people who profit money from CP. This is what I've been saying nonstop, how am I letting the industry unpunished?
If I murder someone, I committed a crime. If I see a video I downloaded for free from the internet of someone getting murdered, this is not a crime. EVEN IF THE CRIMINAL WANTED ATTENTION, EVEN IF I FAPPED 10000 TIMES TO IT, EVEN IF I PRINT IT AND MAKE AN ALTAR TO IT IN MY ROOM. It's not different in any way (apart from seriousness, but that's highly subjective and debatable - I hold my position that torture is worse than rape, most-non feminists would agree) from statutory rape or any other crime. God.
It doesn't make ANY sense. Even if we used feelings as criteria, I'd 1000 times prefer a video of a loved person naked or even having sex circulating on the internet, even if underage, than a video of them being tortured to death slowly and agonizingly. Any person who's not mentally handicapped by feminism would agree with me.
Last edited:
That's actually not a fact, you are completely wrong, google "snuff films", these are sold on the deep web all the time, they even take requests from paying customers (what they would like to see)
Producing and possessing snuff films should be illegal. I agree. And unless I am mistaken, it is.
Yeah, but you were just arguing there's a difference between watching videos of people being murdered and child porn because "murders are not filmed for videographic consumption or distribution"
They are, and there's no way to tell if that random gore video you find online is an "official snuff film" or not, its still a video of a murder, so people should get arrested for viewing these murders if they'd be arrested for viewing CP (if the laws are going to be logically consistent)
By "industry" they don't just mean the money making aspect. They don't want it being enjoyed for free either.
I know this is getting repetitive as hell, but there you go again with the criminalization of enjoying things that 1) should not be a criteria for what's a crime and what's not 2) even if you believe it should, it's not applied consistently to other media containing violent crimes, and is therefore hypocritical and 3) is terribly unpractical anyway and 4) is not a criteria for any other crime (it doesn't matter if I enjoyed it or not, if I rob, kill, rape, etc, I'm committing a crime - it doesn't matter if a cry while during it and say repeatedly I didn't enjoy it).
I suggest we stop. I'm tired tbh. I won't even say I won the debate, let people decide for themselves.
Last edited:
The existence of a market for it incentivizes the creation of it. It's necessary to come after the "industry." It's necessary to say "You're not allowed to even seek these materials out." Because if you do, that encourages its creation.
You're repeating the same stuff with other words when I just utterly refuted it in 4 different points. Please, let's stop. This is really tiresome.
You are right that there is no way to know if a gore movie was build for sale. That's why law enforcement is supposed to deal with each case considering the unique circumstances. logical consistency is not the only thing that laws consider(in fact its one of the least important aspect). What is immoral is not necessarily illegal and vice versa.
The reality of the situation is
1. Gore porn watchers have plethora of options to enjoy stuff that is just randomly filmed or even filmed with intent but violence was not commited by producer. This snubs the chance for an industry and it is a fact that deliberate gore video production is much smaller than child porn.
2. Gore porn consumption is fundamentally different from child porn consumption. Just because both are immoral doesn't mean they can be compared. Different psychological phemomena. One is linked with anti social behaviour related to many kinds of psychological disorders. Other is a fundamental sexual urge. This changes the implications for the subject who is consuming either. The state has to use different approaches to decide how to deal with such individuals and which ones to just leave be. Based on the implications of their habits for society.
3. Child molestation is different from violence as well. The risk-reward equation is unbalanced. This is reflected in the fact that a child porn consumer may actually molest children he comes in contact with, but it is highly unlikely even for a grotesque violence consumer to just go on a killing spree. The psychological relation between watching it and doing it are different in both. And in case of child porn it is very closely related.
4. There are healthy ways to consume violence. Everyone does so. We have action movies, movies like Saw etc. And so there are healthy ways for pedophiles to deal with their urges. If they are moving to illegal activities to fulfill those urges the problem lies with them and leaving them be to do so is unwarranted.
5. Most importantly, why is it illegal? Simple, a child porn consumer, even if he indulges in freeware is aiding and abetting the exploitation of children. Nobody just uploads the child rape film he bought on the dark web just because. He knows there are consumers in the network. And those consumers can and do act as distributors in their turn. They are perpetuating a system of exploitation even if they are at the recieving end of it. Plus laws against possession help law enforcement nab distributors. You only downloaded and are not a distributor? Too bad buddy, you should never have downloaded to begin with. Its illegal for good reasons. Try to deal with your pedophilia by legal methods instead of watching literal child rape.
6. By above logic you'd say ban snuff films and I agree. But you say that it can't be differentiated from regular gore porn to which I disagree. And that's what investigation is for. The thing is, logistics in both cases are different as well. Nab a cp watcher and you have 100%hit the nail. Nab a gore watcher who may possess snuff and most likely you are wasting your time.
There will always be snuff, cp, murder, rape, theft etc. Law enforcement has to use their limited resources judiciously to maintain order and curb crime.
People who here believe that law is made to follow some arbitrary criteria of logical consistency clearly have little idea about how laws, culture or society work.(this is for you as well @Mainländer in case you needed a revision.)
Ps.. I am not a glow nigger. I am not even burgercel.
Last edited:
But you haven't refuted it. What we have is an industry grave and widespread enough that the industry itself has to be stopped.
You say "The enjoyment of things should not be a criteria for what's a crime and what's not." That's not refutation. Because you don't explain how we stop this industry, or at the very least why we shouldn't try.
You say "It's not applied consistently to other crimes." Because other crimes don't have as widespread a market as kiddy porn. Again, maybe when snuff becomes a big enough problem they'll come after snuff like they do kiddy porn.
You say "It's not practical." How is it anymore impractical than punishing any other possession of illegal things?
You say "Just because I enjoy/don't enjoy something shouldn't have any effect on whether or not it's a crime." That's you misconstruing my point about detectives. Detectives don't get away with looking at naked kids because they're sitting there like "Oh boy I sure do not find this enjoyable," it's because they represent a necessary exception, and every other instance is a bad reason to see sexualized kids. Again, it's about stopping the "industry." Even if I hate child pornography, if I myself go seek it out, I'm guilty of perpetuating the industry. And that alone needs to not happen.
I did. I defined industry from the dictionary for you. Based on this correct definition, I showed you that an industry is something that sells things.
How do we stop the CP industry? We jail those who have sex with kids, film it, upload it, profit from it and pay for it. Here. Done. But then you give your own personal definition for industry and go back again and again to the attention argument which doesn't make any sense.
Market= people who pay. You can't redefine words.
Also, the CP industry is not as big as you probably think it is. The "3 billion per year" stuff is a myth, do your research.
It's not practical to hire detectives to assess if the person enjoyed it or not everytime someone watches any media containing a crime for free from the internet. This is simply absurd and is not done for any other crime other than simple CP possession (not even that one really, you don't get to say "look, I downloaded a lot of CP, but I didn't really enjoy it, it was just out of curiosity" and get freed. It's absolutely not how things work).
Back to the industry point again. Sigh...
Here's what you have to do, step by step:
- go to the dictionary and see the definition of "industry" for yourself
- accept the actual definition of the word instead of coming up with your own
- accept that people who don't pay for CP don't contribute to any CP industry, just like people who don't pay for movies don't contribute to the movie industry
- realize that giving attention to something is not supporting an industry because the definition of the word "industry" is not what you think it is according to the fucking dictionary
- realize that even if you think giving attention to things still should be a crime (which is utterly retarded and illogical, sorry, I'm losing my patience), you're selectively applying it to simple possession of CP and not to any other crime, giving random emotional or false (the CP industry is too big!) reasons for it
Last edited:
It's not my definition. But you don't like the word "industry?" Fine, whatever word you wanna call it, the objective here is to stop this thing where kiddy porn is made and people are seeking it out. Whether they pay money for it or not, the porn should not exist, and people should not be providing incentive for it.
By the way, for how long are we gonna pretend that these guys want kiddy porn to actually not exist.
Look, I know it's horrible. I get it you hate it that kids are raped. I hate that too, just as I hate that people are tortured, murdered, etc. I'm a Christian and I believe there will be a place without any of these horrible things. 1st Cor 15 1-4, believe in it to check this place out.
Let's end this discussion please, I'm tired of going in circles.
It's not just that kids being raped is bad. It's that there shouldn't be a... system where the rape of kids is incentivized by people who wanna see it. Rapists are bad, and so are their encouragers.
E
Some people can’t look at cp differently like you did because it’s offensive
E
My most controversial thread, starting long debates
Let's examine it objectively and leave out the ethics (subjective).
I personally don't think it should be a criminal offense, because it would honestly just be a waste of resources from the FBI's perspective(money and time) or other similar law enforcement agencies when they could spend those same resources hunting down the creator of the source. Arresting someone for watching cp in an attempt to find the creator is like arresting someone who watched a youtube video in an attempt to find the channel owner. Most of the time, they won't know any info about the creator that wasn't already there. If they could track someone down who was viewing it (the audience), why wouldn't they also be able to track down the person who made it? (the source)
I personally don't think it should be a criminal offense, because it would honestly just be a waste of resources from the FBI's perspective(money and time) or other similar law enforcement agencies when they could spend those same resources hunting down the creator of the source. Arresting someone for watching cp in an attempt to find the creator is like arresting someone who watched a youtube video in an attempt to find the channel owner. Most of the time, they won't know any info about the creator that wasn't already there. If they could track someone down who was viewing it (the audience), why wouldn't they also be able to track down the person who made it? (the source)
E
and also the idea that we should execute those who view it is dumb
Similar threads
Theory
The US Government is a Criminal Gang with No Legitimate Authority to Rule the American People
- Shaktiman
- The Lounge
Emba
Users who are viewing this thread
