Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks for keeping that Gio, thought I'd better cull the rest...
-
Viewing child abuse imagery makes you complicit in the crime in the same way being in posession of stolen goods is a crime, even if you didn't steal them, or purchase them from the thief. A friend of mine has a permanent black mark on her record for receiving because a police officer visiting her flat on other business noticed a street sign on the flat wall that some aquaintance of hers had brought over one drunken night. Obviously not the same type of offence etc, but perhaps a closer analogy than watching Saddam do the Tyburn jig.
tyburn jig is one way of putting it...eww. I think webweaver put it more delicately Jeremy, I don't think as a viewer you were complicit in the bombing of Hiroshima, 911, the assassination of Kennedy, the bombing of Dunkirk, the Holocaust. I don't think the schools that seeked out these videos to show us were complicit in these acts.
Having at one point actively sourced a large number of videos of nuclear detonations I don't see myself as complicit in the development, testing or use of nuclear technology. I think it really comes down to what lengths one goes to and for what purpose.
I can't bring myself to try to answer your other abstraction Jeremy, i see it as much of a muchness.
-
Money needn't come into it - I know many child pornographers swap and share their stuff - but the group's insatiable desire for more more more, and their need to continually be sourcing new material is what creates the demand, and therefore at least partly fuels the ongoing sexual abuse of the children featured.
I can agree with that. You cleared that up nicely.
Having seen a couple of pirated Wayan's brother movies i hate to dwell on my complicity in their making.
Sure we could hypothetically dry up the market, but will Van Goph stop painting?
How can we best focus our resources to protect children? How much of the child abuse data confiscated in New Zealand is New Zealand made?
-
Saddam was stolen from his home, filmed being hung so footage of the execution could be distributed to media organizations to make profit.
Child porn is a market, and yet in both instances the profit is peripheral to the atrocity. As I understand it Kyle, a lot of child porn is in fact just freely shared. like most porn there is profit to be made, but most people just freeload (see piracy). There are a billion easier ways to make money, so I feel focusing on money neglects the atrocities and more so the central motives of the protagonists.
Does conveniently bundling viewers and producers into the same handy basket in any way elucidate our understanding of the underlying issues here?
-
Woah there! I think it's extremely important to remember that all pornography involving photographic images and/or video involves a real live person at its heart. Those arrested for possession of child porn in the form of photos or videos are viewing a real live child being abused. It doesn't matter whether or not they would ever "think of engaging in such an act".
The act of downloading/buying/viewing child porn makes them complicit in the act of abuse, whether or not they actually did it themselves. By continuing to add to their collections, they ensure that the child porn industry remains a viable way of making money for those who abuse children - and seeing as children inevitably grow up and stop being children, this means that a ready supply of new victims is always required.
I've been thinking this over webweaver. To make a comparison; I saw the execution of Saddam Hussein. I would argue I was not complicit in the execution of Saddam Hussein regardless of the fact that I willingly clicked on the link.
Banning me from watching this kind of footage would not make the lives of evil dictators safer, because there is more to it than just money. They are acts of cruelty. Were this kind of violence banned, I don't see myself going out, lynching trying and executing people, and to arrest try, imprison and parole (which I will get as I'm hardly likely to reoffend after that shock to the system) me as someone complicit in executing people is a diversion of energy and manpower away from apprehending those guilty of administering the acts. Not a perfect example, but there are many more on the news weekly. Does it stand up to scrutiny?
I'm hesitant to agree that money is a much of a motive here. As with many societal problems and I think the taboo aspect is a primary cause, and this could be better addressed with more considered legislation.
Child pornography where teenagers (played by actors over 18) are depicted having sex is all about the thrill of watching teenagers having sex. Nothing else. That's why I find it morally unacceptable
Why morally unacceptable? Furthermore why morally unacceptable if they were under 18?
Sorry, I was intending to make a distinction between morally unacceptable and socially/politically unacceptable.
So: only the human ape is important?
Word aunty. You gave me flashbacks of contestants eating live creatures on 'The Amazing Race'.
-
Child pornography where teenagers (played by actors over 18) are depicted having sex is all about the thrill of watching teenagers having sex. Nothing else. That's why I find it morally unacceptable
Why morally unacceptable? Furthermore why morally unacceptable if they were under 18?
-
I think 3410 has some valid points, we could hardly argue Paul that enough is being done to protect the children at the moment, and what little we can do will all add up one day.
The question of whether this is harmless fantasy or fuelling desires that would be wrong and illegal if carried out in reality is a tough one,
I'd hazard a guess that just as not all people who fantasize about rape would care to engage in the act, similarly not all those who fantasize about sex with those who are underage are prepared to engage in the act. Currently now there is no morally legitimate outlet for the 'watchers', and i feel making distinctions between watches/fantasizers and engagers could be useful at the very least that it would free up police time.
I'm sure there must be cases of these numerous people we read about being arrested for possession of child porn who would never think of engaging in such an act. If they could be steered towards a more morally acceptable avenue then it could only be a positive.
Tangentally, I had a rather disturbing conversation the other day with someone who had had sex with his parents his entire life (and saw nothing wrong with it), and I found it rather difficult to justify my moral standpoint to him that what he and more so his parents did was wrong. For a moment I got the slightest inkling of how arbitrary these laws and our judgments are. Still don't condone it, but really got me thinking.
-
Nice, I'm always a sucker for a well played voice trumpet.
-
Dinah, an eighteen year old can be made to look under-age, but "child-like"? How would you make an eighteen year old look like an eight year old?
gebetics- diff'rent strokes/ webster.
it is never ok to depict sex with children (or animals, touch my dog and you're a dead man).
You'd probably be better aiming your threat at women there too. Get's you thinking though; people dressed as gorillas? or other animals? ethical conundrum? Underworld? werewolf/vampire? Avatar it's ok if you insert your brain waves in another beast's body? The Narnia Chronicles? Would it be ok to depict a certain Mr Tumnus getting artistic with a 'foxy' centaur mare?
-
Personally, I'm not at all convinced that there's a causal link between porn and decreased sexual violence, but I am pretty convinced that the data indicates a lack of causal link between pornography and increased sexual violence.
I have to agree with you there Emma, Zhang Feng may also.
I Like your Lolicon Joanna, was imagining it was something like Comc Con with confectioneries.