Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Sparko]

Not to go way off subject but after birth abortion is something I've brought up previously

What does it say about our society when it can seriously consider such a reprehensible evil practice?

Starlight will be proud.

[seer]

Thanks for bringing up this subject seer and exposing some of these creeps for who they really are. There is nothing defensible about the idea of publishing child porn. These people are rotten to their core for even allowing the idea. Starlight I would have expected, but I thought that Jaecp was better than this.

I have not followed all they said but to have child porn to give to the perverts won't they have to actually make the porn? To actually rape the children to take the pictures? I guess it is OK if they do it in Thailand or something.

[Adrift]

I have not followed all they said but to have child porn to give to the perverts won't they have to actually make the porn? To actually rape the children to take the pictures? I guess it is OK if they do it in Thailand or something.

Jaecp is arguing for the creation of animated/CGI child porn. Unfreakingbelieavable

[seer]

2. There are ways to produce porn without scarring another child

How do you do child pornography without emotionally scarring the child?

[seer]

Jaecp is arguing for the creation of animated/CGI child porn. Unfreakingbelieavable

They already have that - but I don't think that a high tech cartoon will satisfy the perv. BTW - I'm for executing child molesters. That seems fair.

[One Bad Pig]

Dude trying to take threads off topic like you just did is bad, but I don't think I'd call it reprehensible evil. I'd save that description for posts by LPOT, MM, or Mossrose.

Your only answer is deliberate misconstrual of rogue's last line?

[Sparko]

Then why does your source refer to the hymen being broken?

...if a girl has intercourse (i.e. is raped) before the age of three her hymen will repair itself.

They are not only talking about raping children, they are saying there are no legal consequences thereof.

I am talking about normal betrothals. Basically arranged marriages, just like they do today, where parents will arrange for their children to be married one day. They don't have sex as children.

What the source says, if you read it, is that it is talking about IF someone did have sex with a child, it would be considered intercourse and therefore rape. In the OT it says that if a man rapes a woman he has to marry her. Therefore the man would have to marry the child - but he would not have her as a sexual partner until she became of age. He would have to care for her. Now to me and you that is immoral enough. because why should a rape victim become the raper's wife? But that was a society that if a woman was no longer a virgin, she would never have a husband to care for her. So basically this was how they forced the man to care for her so she would not be shunned and end up on the streets.

[Adrift]

They already have that - but I don't think that a high tech cartoon will satisfy the perv.

It should be banned. What sort of lizard brained scum creates this garbage? What kind of monster do you have to be to sell it to people? Jesus can't get here soon enough.

[Sparko]

Jaecp is arguing for the creation of animated/CGI child porn. Unfreakingbelieavable

Feeding a perversion doesn't solve it. It makes it worse and the pedophile will stop being satisfied and want the real thing. It encourages them to attack children, not prevent it.

[seer]

It should be banned. What sort of lizard brained scum creates this garbage? What kind of monster do you have to be to sell it to people? Jesus can't get here soon enough.

BTW - Virtual Child Porn was found Constitutional. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/us...verturned.html

[Adrift]

Feeding a perversion doesn't solve it. It makes it worse and the pedophile will stop being satisfied and want the real thing. It encourages them to attack children, not prevent it.

Exactly. You'd think this would be common sense.

[Adrift]

BTW - Virtual Child Porn was found Constitutional. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/us...verturned.html

sick.

[Jaecp]

Are you out of your freaking mind? It's a thought experiment to give people child porn!!??

What world do you people live on that this is even open for consideration? I'm the damned moron?

Again, am I taking crazy pills? Wow. Just wow.





No I didn't. I asked you about incest, not about whether or not we should give people child porn. Again, it blows my freaking mind that this is something you even have to pause to mull over.





Jaecp. I don't care what you've see evidence of. I have seen evidence of it.





And yet we have people in this very thread considering giving child molesters child porn, and they hadn't even stopped to think that there might be larger ramifications to that action. We know for a fact that porn harms people in general. The industry harms those working in it, and it harms those watching it. You and Starlight seriously hadn't considered that child porn might do more of the same, but on our most defenseless and precious?


I thought it was pretty clear that second order problems only occur after a first order problem.




You're seriously considering the benefits of producing CHILD PORN, and you have the gall to be angry at ME!? What the hell is wrong with you? Man if I could reach through this screen right now, I'd punch you in your fat mouth. My anger is real, and it's justified. This is not an idea that sane people workshop Jaecp. It's filthy madness. Just shut up if you have no idea what your thoughts are on the subject. Let smarter people figure it out, because this is certainly NOT the answer.


Thanks for bringing up this subject seer and exposing some of these individuals for who they really are. There is nothing defensible about the idea of publishing child porn. These people are rotten to their core for even allowing the idea. Starlight I would have expected, but I thought that Jaecp was better than this.

At this point, Adrift, I simply don't understand your inability to treat this as a thought experiment. I'm angry because you've long gotten past a simple misunderstanding and, instead, have started making moral accusations about things I repeatedly have felt the need to add excessive negative verbiage to so you'd stop doing so. Doesn't work!

Look, I will seriously consider anything. It's what philosophy is. I'll get into a conversation with nearly anyone about nearly anything and see what kind of weird stuff falls out as a result.

I am going to reply one more time. Please try to remember the following things.

1. I am not proposing we do ANY OF THIS.
2. I have no evidence nor am I arguing that ANY OF THIS is a good idea
3. I am arguing, SOLELY, that IF and ONLY IF it helps PROTECT CHILDREN BY DECREASING THE ODDS A PEDOPHILE RAPES THEM then CGI is the way to go

*ahem*

Are you out of your freaking mind? It's a thought experiment to give people child porn!!??

What world do you people live on that this is even open for consideration? I'm the damned moron?

Again, am I taking crazy pills? Wow. Just wow.

Thought experiments exist to test out ideas that are too crazy, too impossible or too whatever to actually test. This is one of those times. The premises have been laid out and I am interested in your analysis and not your moral outrage as substitution.

No I didn't. I asked you about incest, not about whether or not we should give people child porn. Again, it blows my freaking mind that this is something you even have to pause about to mull over.

I'll mull pretty much anything over. I like puzzles. The only argument you've given for not considering this unsavory concept is moral outrage and since the closest we're going to get to harming another person is some hurt feelings I don't see a reason to accept your moral outrage.

Jaecp. I don't care what you've see evidence of. I have seen evidence of it.

You referenced reddit. That's about as convincing to me as Sea of Red using youtube comments as evidence of anything. It's reddit man, I don't care. You didn't even notice that the stormfront link is the one to amatuer tornado enthusiasts and not the one thats, like, super chill with killing Jewish people.

And yet we have people in this very thread considering giving child molesters child porn, and they hadn't even stopped to think that there might be larger ramifications to that action. We know for a fact that porn harms people in general. The industry harms those working in it, and it harms those watching it. You and Starlight seriously hadn't considered that child porn might do more of the same, but on our most defenseless and precious?

As for "we know for a fact that porn harms people in general" first off, no, I'm not going to grant that watching porn is harmful and, second, the Computer Generated Images that I've been talking about avoids the problems that the adult film industry has about worker exploitation, violence against women, etc etc by being just an animation.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that it's been thought of at this point or all those parts about using CGI wouldn't be there premised upon the idea that existing child porn is not useful for the thought experiment like originally proposed. So yeah, if letting some pedo watch CGI reduces the chance they actually rape a little girl or boy I would be completely fine with them having that CGI and, this is the important part, you should be too, because it decreases the number of child rapes while, because of the magic of CGI, neither harms anyone new nor impacts any specific person who had been used to create child porn in the past.

Assuming, of course, that the premise I laid out back in post 9 is true because as I've kept saying if not then this is all for moot, well, more moot than already.

You're seriously considering the benefits of producing CHILD PORN, and you have the gall to be angry at ME!? What the hell is wrong with you? Man if I could reach through this screen right now, I'd punch you in your fat mouth. My anger is real, and it's justified. This is not an idea that sane people workshop Jaecp. It's filthy madness. Just shut up if you have no idea what your thoughts are on the subject. Let smarter people figure it out, because this is certainly NOT the answer.


Thanks for bringing up this subject seer and exposing some of these individuals for who they really are. There is nothing defensible about the idea of publishing child porn. These people are rotten to their core for even allowing the idea. Starlight I would have expected, but I thought that Jaecp was better than this

Yep! Because you're being a jackass by throwing out moral outrage in lieu of actually addressing anything.

IF viewing pornography can sate a pedophiles desire and if there is a way to create porn that doesn't hurt anyone like CGI then there are two options. Give them something that hurts no one and lowers the number of real flesh and blood children harmed by pedophiles or don't do so, but then you have to explain why not preventing the rape of children through a potentially harmless act (the 1's and 0's don't care that the images are disgusting to normal people) is the more moral choice?

I know this is uncomfortable Adrift, it's not a walk in the park for me, but this is where the logic takes me and if you want to set me or anybody else right you need to drop the moral outrage and actually address something I said.

[Mountain Man]

Because as much as I'm brilliantly intelligent and an unbelievably incredible genius, sometimes I don't quite think of absolutely everything.

The fact that you hadn't even thought this through beyond a pedophile getting off on pictures of nude children exposes the depths of your moral depravity. You are rotten to the core, and the contempt I show you is well-deserved.

[Mountain Man]

Jaecp is arguing for the creation of animated/CGI child porn. Unfreakingbelieavable

They already have that - but I don't think that a high tech cartoon will satisfy the perv.

It won't. Studies have shown that pornography does not satisfy sexual desires, it actually intensifies them. Sooner or later, looking at pictures of virtual children won't be enough and the sicko will want pictures of real children; then they'll want raunchier and raunchier pictures; and eventually even that won't be enough and they'll want to act on their fantasies.

The suggestion that child pornography is an acceptable outlet for pedophiles is absolutely insane.