• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Is pedophilia a sexuality?

Status
Not open for further replies.
StuBurns said:
People create because there is demand. Lock them all up.

However I do think if people can make photorealistic CG kiddy porn, then that would be fair game.
Click to expand...
Arcipello said:
But the content is created because of the demand... It's a circle and one side does not exist without the other.
Click to expand...
No shit, guys.

The act of watching kiddie porn is not causing anybody harm, and is probably what's preventing some sick pedo from acting on his urges.

There will always be content for them to view, as it's been around since the dawn of the Internet and probably earlier.

You wouldn't lock up somebody for watching a murder posted on YouTube, would you? Didn't think so. (And yes, I realize the legal differences between the two.)
 
Neuromancer said:
I don't care if it is or not, it's wrong and acting on it (whether molesting children or downloading child porn) should be strictly enforced.
Click to expand...

Why should downloading child porn be illegal? You are downloading images or video of a crime, not participating in the crime itself. Unless you pay for it of course.
 
Lebron said:
I'm locking you out the studio
Click to expand...
1712237.large.jpg
 
Ken Masters said:
so pedophilia is a civil rights issue?
Click to expand...
There can be no civil rights issue pertaining to pedophilia because there is a lack of consent in one party of a pedophilic relationship, so...

it shares none of the same ground as a homosexual relationship
 
TheHeretic said:
Why should downloading child porn be illegal? You are downloading images or video of a crime, not participating in the crime itself. Unless you pay for it of course.
Click to expand...
Because obviously the people downloading it are, well, paedophiles. I imagine it's like preemptive action in case they act on it physically.
 
Mechanical Snowman said:
Because obviously the people downloading it are, well, paedophiles. I imagine it's like preemptive action in case they act on it physically.
Click to expand...

So its thought crime? We think you we're going to do it, so we deem you already guilty? Someone needs to read 1984.

Watching Al Qaeda beheading videos almost certainly encourages their manufacture, yet nobody is sent to prison because they viewed one.
 
Mechanical Snowman said:
Because obviously the people downloading it are, well, paedophiles. I imagine it's like preemptive action in case they act on it physically.
Click to expand...
Same goes for rapists.
 
MCX said:
No shit, guys.

The act of watching kiddie porn is not causing anybody harm, and is probably what's preventing some sick pedo from acting on his urges.

There will always be content for them to view, as it's been around since the dawn of the Internet and probably earlier.

You wouldn't lock up somebody for watching a murder posted on YouTube, would you? Didn't think so. (And yes, I realize the legal differences between the two.)
Click to expand...
Unlike murder, the victim can't be hurt anymore.

Lets say you were raped on film at the age of 8, probably something you don't want all over the fucking internet is it?

It is nothing like people watching someone being murdered.
 
TheHeretic said:
So its thought crime? We think you we're going to do it, so we deem you already guilty? Someone needs to read 1984.
Click to expand...

If the porn wasn't free, then they're funding the continued exploitation of these children...

And, there's also the privacy issues outlined above.
 
cnizzle06 said:
It's a genetic mutation.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more a mental condition. There's a high rate of people becoming pedophiles when they are subjected to sexual abuse themselves as children...I don't think their genes mutate when that occurs. :lol
 
TheHeretic said:
So its thought crime? We think you we're going to do it, so we deem you already guilty? Someone needs to read 1984.

Watching Al Qaeda beheading videos almost certainly encourages their manufacture, yet nobody is sent to prison because they viewed one.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse what I said for my opinion. I was offering an answer for your question.

I don't think it should be prosecutable and yeah it borders on the concept of 'thought police', and I think that the people trying to combat child pornography in general are misguided and have lost the cause. That is my opinion.
 
StuBurns said:
Unlike murder, the victim can't be hurt anymore.

Lets say you were raped on film at the age of 8, probably something you don't want all over the fucking internet is it?

It is nothing like people watching someone being murdered.
Click to expand...
You still haven't explained how simply VIEWING the porn is hurting anybody.
 
ZephyrFate said:
There can be no civil rights issue pertaining to pedophilia because there is a lack of consent in one party of a pedophilic relationship, so...

it shares none of the same ground as a homosexual relationship
Click to expand...


it was a rhetorical question
 
CrankyJay said:
I'd say it's more a mental condition. There's a high rate of people becoming pedophiles when they are subjected to sexual abuse themselves as children...I don't think their genes mutate when that occurs. :lol
Click to expand...

Sure they do. Just look at the Hulk.
 
Plumbob said:
If the porn wasn't free, then they're funding the continued exploitation of these children...
Click to expand...

Financial support of the creation of child pornography should be a crime, simply viewing it should not be. The latter leads to way too many chances for wrongful imprisonment and it doesn't necessarily solve any problem.

Think about this. Say you download a picture on your computer. It's just a filename, you're not sure what's in there. If it's child porn, the instant you click to download it you are breaking the law. How do you know to get rid of it? Well, by opening it and seeing what it is. Now you're really in deep shit because they can prove that you accessed the file on your computer. How do you make sure you never download a file like this? The only way I can see is by not accessing the internet.

It's an archaic mode of thinking and it needs to be addressed.
 
TheHeretic said:
So its thought crime? We think you we're going to do it, so we deem you already guilty? Someone needs to read 1984.

Watching Al Qaeda beheading videos almost certainly encourages their manufacture, yet nobody is sent to prison because they viewed one.
Click to expand...

No. It's not the thought police at all.

The child who was filmed/photographed did not give express permission for their image to be used (because they can't obviously). That child/minor shouldn't have to deal with their rape being widely distributed all over the internet.
 
CrankyJay said:
Because it speaks to a demand that someone will fulfill by exploiting a child.
Click to expand...

You think people who have sex with children do so to appease an internet fan club to which they can provide free content?
 
KHarvey16 said:
Financial support of the creation of child pornography should be a crime, simply viewing it should not be. The latter leads to way too many chances for wrongful imprisonment and it doesn't necessarily solve any problem.

Think about this. Say you download a picture on your computer. It's just a filename, you're not sure what's in there. If it's child porn, the instant you click to download it you are breaking the law. How do you know to get rid of it? Well, by opening it and seeing what it is. Now you're really in deep shit because they can prove that you accessed the file on your computer. How do you make sure you never download a file like this? The only way I can see is by not accessing the internet.

It's an archaic mode of thinking and it needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Stop it with the boogeyman of one child porn image putting someone away for life. The cops aren't going to waste their time with someone who downloaded one file they didn't really know about. Not to mention this argument is hilarious cause really unless you're on 4chan you're not going to have to deal with an image randomly being CP.
 
MCX said:
You still haven't explained how simply VIEWING the porn is hurting anybody.
Click to expand...
Because the people in the video are victims of sexual abuse. Let's say for example the kid in the video is dead, and their family, no one who can be emotionally hurt by the existence of the film, then sure, the freaks watching it and beating off isn't really that big of an issue. Ultimately if it helps stop someone going out and raping some kid it's a very good thing, but I still think they should be imprisoned instead, I wouldn't trust them that they had control of their urges and I think it's better to have them killed or chained up somewhere than run that risk.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Think about this. Say you download a picture on your computer. It's just a filename, you're not sure what's in there. If it's child porn, the instant you click to download it you are breaking the law. How do you know to get rid of it? Well, by opening it and seeing what it is. Now you're really in deep shit because they can prove that you accessed the file on your computer. How do you make sure you never download a file like this? The only way I can see is by not accessing the internet.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard of anyone getting incarcerated for inadvertently downloading a single picture and then deleting it after realizing what it is. Every news story I've ever seen has included hundreds/thousands of files or a cache of printed material out in a tool shed in the back yard.
 
Devolution said:
No. It's not the thought police at all.

The child who was filmed/photographed did not give express permission for their image to be used (because they can't obviously). That child/minor shouldn't have to deal with their rape being widely distributed all over the internet.
Click to expand...

Which is why the creator and distributor of those images should go to jail for a very long time. Think about what you're suggesting...does it apply to any other video or image? That Erin whatshername from ESPN was in a video taken illegally. Should anyone who watched it or saw screen captures of it go to jail?
 
Lebron said:
I'm still waiting on my Cambodian milk and sugar cookie, sir.
Click to expand...
A sugar cookie man? This is crazy.
A sugar cookie man? This is not what I signed up to GAF for, to be a sugar cookie getter.
 
TheHeretic said:
You think people who have sex with children do so to appease an internet fan club to which they can provide free content?
Click to expand...

If your child was raped wouldn't you want the people distributing her/his image/video punished for doing so? They are being further victimized the more that image/video is thrown around.
 
TheHeretic said:
You think people who have sex with children do so to appease an internet fan club to which they can provide free content?
Click to expand...

I think if they're not selling their material they're sharing it with likeminded people to make themselves feel better FOR BEING SICK FUCKS. Do you understand?
 
Devolution said:
No. It's not the thought police at all.

The child who was filmed/photographed did not give express permission for their image to be used (because they can't obviously). That child/minor shouldn't have to deal with their rape being widely distributed all over the internet.
Click to expand...

Did Nick Berg agree to have his head sawn off with a dull blade? Should his family have to live those images on the internet? These arguments are so basic and dumb they are barely worth debating.
 
CrankyJay said:
Because it speaks to a demand that someone will fulfill by exploiting a child.
Click to expand...
Nope, the viewer still hasn't harmed anybody.

Say a GAFfer embedded a link to a CP video in a thread and you watched it or it even loaded on your PC. Would you believe that you're a pedophile criminal who is funding demand for CP? Of course not. Think outside of your emotions.
 
Vyer said:
Pedo defense force is the worst GAF defense force.
Click to expand...

No-one is defending pedophiles, this is a discussion of the law. If you can't tell the difference then the discussion is over your head to begin with.
 
MCX said:
Nope, the viewer still hasn't harmed anybody.

Say a GAFfer embedded a link to a CP video in a thread and you watched it or it even loaded on your PC. Would you believe that you're a pedophile criminal who is funding demand for CP? Of course not. Think outside of your emotions.
Click to expand...

Inadvertently clicking on something doesn't constitute a demand.

You're making yourself look like a real creep here by challenging everyone's posts. Do you have something you want to share with the rest of us?
 
Devolution said:
Stop it with the boogeyman of one child porn image putting someone away for life. The cops aren't going to waste their time with someone who downloaded one file they didn't really know about. Not to mention this argument is hilarious cause really unless you're on 4chan you're not going to have to deal with an image randomly being CP.
Click to expand...

So say you are on 4chan. Oh well? It's also not true that the cops won't waste their time, there have been stories of very few pieces of questionable porn being found among thousands of files on a computer that lead to imprisonment. Was it downloaded intentionally? Are they pedophiles? It doesn't matter since there is no requirement for the prosecutors to find those things out.

CrankyJay said:
I haven't heard of anyone getting incarcerated for inadvertently downloading a single picture and then deleting it after realizing what it is. Every news story I've ever seen has included hundreds/thousands of files or a cache of printed material out in a tool shed in the back yard.
Click to expand...

See above. It should also be noted that laws written in a way to allow such illogical and counter productive prosecution should be changed no matter if they are abused or not.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Which is why the creator and distributor of those images should go to jail for a very long time. Think about what you're suggesting...does it apply to any other video or image? That Erin whatshername from ESPN was in a video taken illegally. Should anyone who watched it or saw screen captures of it go to jail?
Click to expand...

Probation at least. They are not innocent in this, they are involved in redistribution and further victimization of those who have been assaulted.
 
CrankyJay said:
Inadvertently clicking on something doesn't constitute a demand.

You're making yourself look like a real creep here by challenging everyone's posts. Do you have something you want to share with the rest of us?
Click to expand...
Imply someone is a paedophile for providing a hypothetical situation which criticises the way the law deals with CP. Rly?
 
KHarvey16 said:
See above. It should also be noted that laws written in a way to allow such illogical and counter productive prosecution should be changed no matter if they are abused or not.
Click to expand...

That's an uphill battle. There will pretty much zero support for this as people will see it as relaxing the laws for pedophiles and in terms of this public perception is everything.
 
Devolution said:
Probation at least. They are not innocent in this, they are involved in redistribution and further victimization of those who have been assaulted.
Click to expand...

So anyone who views an image or a video of an illegal act should get "probation at least"? That is seriously your position?
 
TheHeretic said:
Did Nick Berg agree to have his head sawn off with a dull blade? Should his family have to live those images on the internet? These arguments are so basic and dumb they are barely worth debating.
Click to expand...

Thanks for basically making a totally unfair comparison. This post is so dumb it barely constitutes a reply.
 
TheHeretic said:
No-one is defending pedophiles, this is a discussion of the law. If you can't tell the difference then the discussion is over your head to begin with.
Click to expand...

No, I get that PDF tries to use the 'Intellectual/Emotionless' argument to justify themselves, but that's exactly what you are doing. You just don't want to feel bad about it and get to talk down to people on the Internet while you do it.

What are you trying to change? What law needs to be adjusted? What is the purpose of your approach to the current landscape? Because, when you get down to it, your proposal - that downloading child porn should be legal - only helps one person.

Now ask yourself why you want that to happen.
 
CrankyJay said:
That's an uphill battle. There will pretty much zero support for this as people will see it as relaxing the laws for pedophiles and in terms of this public perception is everything.
Click to expand...

Oh zero support? I guess we should just forget it then, surely right and wrong should be decided by a survey.
 
Devolution said:
Thanks for basically making a totally unfair comparison. This post is so dumb it barely constitutes a reply.
Click to expand...

The comparison is identical, both are illegal acts that are performed, with reasons to believe an increase in viewer ship increases the likelihood people will be harmed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Man kicked out of a board meeting for asking why the school library has sexual books.
10
336
Meicyn replied
Remember Elizabeth Smart? From kidnapping and sexual assault survivor to champion bodybuilder
3
171
Bojji replied
RTINGS.com is now a Paywalled Service
2
62
1K
Celcius replied
Is a 60hz display on a laptop bad? I
22
478
deriks replied
  • Poll
HP is selling a laptop with 1.1TB storage, but 1TB is a one year trial for OneDrive
2
64
714
Grildon Tundy replied
Top Bottom