 A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N |
to HiVolt
Re: [Serious] On child porn...Well simple possession is somewhere between (minimum) 45 days in BC. In the link below the crown wanted 6 months. As I say, I think sometimes people forget that the above story is how the porn is originally made. » www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b ··· .1294955 |
|
| |
IamGimli (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-28 9:49 am
said by A Lurker:As I say, I think sometimes people forget that the above story is how the porn is originally made. Nobody forgets it but people should not be responsible for crimes they have not committed. Should a person found in possession of a small amount of drugs be charged for the production with intent to distribute? That's why there's different charges for the production of child pornography, it's distribution and it's possession. If they're guilty of producing it the penalties are very different. If they're not they should be responsible for it. |
|
A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N |
A Lurker
Premium Member
2013-Oct-28 10:14 am
said by IamGimli:Nobody forgets it but people should not be responsible for crimes they have not committed.
Should a person found in possession of a small amount of drugs be charged for the production with intent to distribute? You're comparing two things that don't make sense. It's the head in the sand approach. Nobody collecting child porn can seriously tell themselves it's okay because they didn't hurt the child directly. Someone's child was harmed, quite different from say buying pot from your buddy growing it in his basement. Yes, drugs do an amazing amount of harm to groups of people. However, there are potentially non-harmful production methods. Not so with child porn. Your example is more like buying clothing made in third-world countries. There's a pretty good chance that someone was exploited, but not a guarantee. |
|
| |
IamGimli (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-28 10:33 am
said by A Lurker:You're comparing two things that don't make sense. It's the head in the sand approach. Nobody collecting child porn can seriously tell themselves it's okay because they didn't hurt the child directly. Someone's child was harmed, quite different from say buying pot from your buddy growing it in his basement. It doesn't make sense to you only because you choose to judge the situation through emotions rather than fact. The FACT is that the person found in possession of child pornography did not produce it. They did not harm a child. A child may have been harmed in the production of that pornography but the person found in possession of it did not commit that offense, someone else did. Is possession bad? Yes, that's why it's a criminal offense. Is it AS BAD as production? No. That's why it's a different offense, with different sentencing guidelines. You may wish to argue that sentencing for possession should be higher and I don't think many people will disagree with you. If you want to argue that people "forget" about the child or that sentencing for possession should be the same as production then most people will tune you out as nothing but an emotional nut job. |
|
A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N |
A Lurker
Premium Member
2013-Oct-28 7:40 pm
said by IamGimli:They did not harm a child. A child may have been harmed in the production of that pornography 'cause there are nice child porn producers? It's not emotion, it's logic. Someone violated a child to make the porn. Collectors / buyers are just encouraging them to do it again. |
|
| |
to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:The FACT is that the person found in possession of child pornography did not produce it. They did not harm a child. A child may have been harmed in the production of that pornography but the person found in possession of it did not commit that offense, someone else did. But the fact that there are customers willing to pay for child porn is what drives the production of the vast majority of child porn. If the market for child porn were to disappear, there would be fewer children harmed because there would be less demand for the "product", and fewer "someone else's" would make the child porn. |
|
| |
IamGimli (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-29 6:05 am
said by Walter Dnes:But the fact that there are customers willing to pay for child porn is what drives the production of the vast majority of child porn. If the market for child porn were to disappear, there would be fewer children harmed because there would be less demand for the "product", and fewer "someone else's" would make the child porn. ...and yet, those people don't actually produce child pornography, so they can't be held responsibly for it being produced. Just like the dude with a few grams of pot can't be held responsible for every grow op out there. Again, that's why it's mere possession is still a criminal offense, but it cannot be considered as "bad" or be subject to the same sentences. Are car manufacturers responsible for dangerous drivers? If they didn't manufacture the car the dangerous driver couldn't drive dangerously. That kind of emotional, irrational "logic" is a progressive's wet dream. Put the blame on everybody but the person responsible for a bad action. That's also why we've got so many stupid, useless laws. |
|
1 recommendation |
said by IamGimli:Are car manufacturers responsible for dangerous drivers? If they didn't manufacture the car the dangerous driver couldn't drive dangerously.... Now that's [really] a stretch. Automobiles are legitimate products widely used. Child porn has no legitimate use or purpose whatsoever. |
|
 Spike5
Premium Member
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON
1 edit |
Spike5
Premium Member
2013-Oct-29 10:12 am
said by PX Eliezer1 
Child porn has no legitimate use or purpose whatsoever. The entertainment industry often uses it as a way to launder their censorship policies. If the infrastructure is there to block child porn, it can be used to block anything else. This is exactly what is going on in the U.K. right now. The ISP's tried to argue that it was too cost prohibitive to maintain and continually update a blacklist, but the IFPI/BPI called them out on "Project Cleanfeed" as a currently working example, which forced them to use it to block anything else that wasn't child porn. Theres a reason why child porn gets brought up by the entertainment industry as frequently as it does when crying about P2P filesharing. |
|
| |
to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:Now that's [really] a stretch.
Automobiles are legitimate products widely used.
Child porn has no legitimate use or purpose whatsoever. Just as much of a stretch as the "possessors are responsible for the producers" argument. I bet some of your family pictures qualify under the technical definition of child pornography. Do you think we should put you in jail? The only reason people don't get prosecuted for those is because of the power of reservation police officers and Crown prosecutors have. Besides the "legitimate products widely used" argument is a logical fallacy anyway. Things that are morally wrong are wrong no matter the number of people doing it, or not. The victim of a dangerous driver is just as needlessly dead as the victim of a drive-by shooting, or the victim of a murder-suicide, or the victim of a negligent drowning. |
|
vue666 (banned)Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07 |
vue666 (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-30 6:20 am
said by IamGimli:said by PX Eliezer1:Now that's [really] a stretch.
Automobiles are legitimate products widely used.
Child porn has no legitimate use or purpose whatsoever. Just as much of a stretch as the "possessors are responsible for the producers" argument. I bet some of your family pictures qualify under the technical definition of child pornography. Do you think we should put you in jail? The only reason people don't get prosecuted for those is because of the power of reservation police officers and Crown prosecutors have. Besides the "legitimate products widely used" argument is a logical fallacy janyway. Things that are morally wrong are wrong no matter the number of people doing it, or not. The victim of a dangerous driver is just as needlessly dead as the victim of a drive-by shooting, or the victim of a murder-suicide, or the victim of a negligent drowning. Sorry but you are not making any sense...I fail to grasp your logic.... |
|
| |
IamGimli (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-30 6:46 am
said by vue666:Sorry but you are not making any sense...I fail to grasp your logic.... Colour me un-surprised. Your "logic" is nothing but emotions, just like the poster I was responding to. said by vue666:IMHO even the harshest punishment is not harsh enough for people who commit crimes like this against children.... |
|
vue666 (banned)Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07 |
vue666 (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-30 1:46 pm
said by IamGimli:said by vue666:Sorry but you are not making any sense...I fail to grasp your logic.... Colour me un-surprised. Your "logic" is nothing but emotions, just like the poster I was responding to. said by vue666:IMHO even the harshest punishment is not harsh enough for people who commit crimes like this against children.... And you are suggesting that it is a victimless crime, which it certainly is NOT!!!! |
|
| |
1+ |
|
PX Eliezer1
1 recommendation |
to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:I bet some of your family pictures qualify under the technical definition of child pornography. Do you think we should put you in jail? None of mine, I assure you. Speak for yourself. ----- Do you have any idea what is being discussed here, what child porn actually is? In any event, that is a bizarre statement and a desperate rationalization. |
|
| |
IamGimli (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-30 4:40 pm
said by PX Eliezer1:Do you have any idea what is being discussed here, what child porn actually is? I do. Do you? Here's one of the definitions of it, straight from the Criminal Code: (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; Basically any picture that shows anyone under 18 (including infants) without underwear or a diaper on can qualify under that definition. The only "outs" that keep most people from getting charged for their family pictures are the very subjective "dominant characteristic" and "for a sexual purpose" elements, which is where police and Crown discretion come in. A picture depicting a naked infant can be kept by a parent without any criminal act having been committed yet the very same picture in possession of another adult who whacks off to it is a criminal offense. Can you please rationally explain how the infant suddenly becomes a victim when his actual experience is unchanged? |
|
vue666 (banned)Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07
1 edit |
vue666 (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-30 4:55 pm
Can you not discern the difference between a loving parent who loves and cares for their child and a pedophille who has a perverse attraction to children?
A parent takes a photo to retain a loving memory of their infant....a pedophille gets his pleasure from the misery of a child... Sorry but they are not the same thing and to even suggest they are is beyond any logical rational.. |
|
|
| |
said by vue666:Can you not discern the difference between a loving parent who loves and cares for their child and a pedophille who has a perverse attraction to children?
A parent takes a photo to retain a loving memory of their infant....a pedophille gets his pleasure from the misery of a child... Sorry but they are not the same thing and to even suggest they are is beyond any logical rational.. Exactly. I don't think that anyone can make it clearer than this. |
|
| |
to vue666
said by vue666:Can you not discern the difference between a loving parent who loves and cares for their child and a pedophille who has a perverse attraction to children?
A parent takes a photo to retain a loving memory of their infant....a pedophille gets his pleasure from the misery of a child... Sorry but they are not the same thing and to even suggest they are is beyond any logical rational.. Again, using emotion instead of logic and rationality. In the example provided it's the exact same picture, taken by the exact same person, for the exact same reason. In possession of one person it's perfectly fine. In possession of another it's a criminal act. The infant's experience is absolutely no different. |
|
vue666 (banned)Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07 |
vue666 (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-30 5:16 pm
It is quite obvious you do not know the definition of child pornography....to suggest a family's baby pictures are no different than child pornography is unbelievable.. |
|
| |
to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:Again, using emotion instead of logic and rationality. In the example provided it's the exact same picture, taken by the exact same person, for the exact same reason. In possession of one person it's perfectly fine. In possession of another it's a criminal act. The infant's experience is absolutely no different. ^^^ The best example ever of being disingenuous. ----- People making child porn commercially are not selling photos or videos simply of infants with no diapers on. Rather, they are selling photos or videos of children---CHILDREN not just "infants" as in your view---children in bondage and/or with things being done TO them, or being forced to do things TO others. Children who are 4 years old or 10 years old, and who DO know what's going on, and who WILL remember---if they survive. Context does matter. Intent does matter. That's why the law is written the way it is. Perfect? No. But it's human beings trying to do their best to deal with a horrible thing. Pretty much everyone can see that except you. I'll waste no more time on it, I'm not a therapist. |
|
 dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
1 recommendation |
i understand Gimli's point...the child's picture was originally taken as a memoir, an entertaining image of that moment in time...to the parent, the photo of their naked child posing on the bed is humorous and cute...to a sexual deviant whacking off to it, it is a crime...he isn't saying the sexual deviant isn't wrong, his point is about the child's experience with relation to the same photo being used by two different people for two different purposes...the parents for remembrance, the pervert for sexual gratification. |
|
vue666 (banned)Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07 |
vue666 (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-30 10:42 pm
Except...that would be a family photo and not porn...  Or is it your point the parents would give nude photos of their infant to a pervert for his viewing pleasure? This is way too serious of an issue to be taken so lightly...Now go back and re-read the original link that spawned this debate... |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
1 recommendation |
said by vue666:Except...that would be a family photo and not porn... of course it was a family photo...but that is through our eyes, not some deviant's eyes...to someone who likes child porn, they may see it differently, even though the photo itself hasn't changed (nor the child's experience when it was taken)...that was Gimli's point and he is correct...it doesn't make it any less creepy, nor make light of child porn...as i said, i understand what his point was. |
|
vue666 (banned)Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07 |
vue666 (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-31 6:48 am
NO, his original point is child pornography (not family photos) is a victimless crime. He tried to make the comparison between pot and now family photos... Sorry there is no connection there... |
|
 Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
2 recommendations |
Gone
Premium Member
2013-Oct-31 8:58 am
said by vue666:NO, his original point is child pornography (not family photos) is a victimless crime. Are you for fucking real? He never said anything of the sort and you're insulting the intelligence and sensibility of everyone here by posting such ridiculous and inflammatory lies!  |
|
| |
to vue666
...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why it's so difficult to have an actual debate around child pornography. There's always an emotional yahoo who's incapable to actually look at things objectively and we're stuck with a status quo that makes no moral sense.
To say that a simple possessor of child pornography is always and automatically responsible for the abuse of children is just like saying that everyone who's ever watched regular porn is always and automatically responsible for rape and sexual abuse of someone. Reality is otherwise.
I think it would be interesting to do a study to see if pedophiles who are provided with pictures of naked children (even if they're fake pictures, such as anime or CGI) are more or less likely to ever act out on their desires with real children. The real purpose here is to protect children from REAL abuse, and I think anything that achieves that without transferring the victimization elsewhere should be researched, even if that means actually providing them with it.
After all western society has pretty much accepted that one's sexual orientation is not solely a choice but has deep roots in genetics and cultural influence. What we're trying to do now is ignore the fact that some people are sexually attracted to children and just punish these people for that attraction, which isn't something they can control. I think we could be a lot more successful in protecting children if we were able to help these people channel that attraction in a way that doesn't directly involve children but that allows them to experience the sexual release they require (as we all do) nonetheless, instead of being walking time bombs for children.
As difficult it may be for the emotionally irrational to admit, there is a chance that promoting the use of child pornography (which doesn't require the victimization of actual children) could actually result in a SAFER environment for children, and I think it's worth looking into. Unfortunately, because of the stigma associated with child pornography by of those emotionally irrational people very few governments or educators fund that kind of research so we're stuck in a situation that's terrible for both children and pedophile.
After all studies prove that severely addicted criminals create a lot less victims when they're supported through their addictions and provided opportunities to get a controlled fix without having to steal, rob, con, etc. The same principles may just work with pedophiles... |
|
1 recommendation |
said by IamGimli:After all studies prove that severely addicted criminals create a lot less victims when they're supported through their addictions and provided opportunities to get a controlled fix without having to steal, rob, con, etc. The same principles may just work with pedophiles... The obvious response to this idea is to ask if you're willing to allow your pre-teen children to be used so that pedophiles would have "opportunities to get a controlled fix" of child porn. And this includes not just photos of your naked kids, but photos of your naked kids being beaten, whipped, sexually molested, etc. The problem with "child porn" is that it's not just Playboy-with-under-age-models; it's a bunch of sick perversions on top of that. |
|
vue666 (banned)Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07
4 edits |
vue666 (banned)
Member
2013-Oct-31 7:04 pm
said by Walter Dnes:said by IamGimli:After all studies prove that severely addicted criminals create a lot less victims when they're supported through their addictions and provided opportunities to get a controlled fix without having to steal, rob, con, etc. The same principles may just work with pedophiles... The obvious response to this idea is to ask if you're willing to allow your pre-teen children to be used so that pedophiles would have "opportunities to get a controlled fix" of child porn. And this includes not just photos of your naked kids, but photos of your naked kids being beaten, whipped, sexually molested, etc. The problem with "child porn" is that it's not just Playboy-with-under-age-models; it's a bunch of sick perversions on top of that. Exactly. Child pornography is not a victimless crime... A child is molested and coerced to engage in humiliating and disgusting acts for the enjoyment of deviants... In the end the life of an innocent is ruined and the victims must bare the scars for the rest of their life... |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
2 recommendations |
you aren't grasping what he is saying. |
|
Or is it your point the parents would give nude photos of their infant to a pervert for his viewing pleasure?
