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

Is pedophilia a sexuality?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Otrebor Nightmarecoat said:
Thats why japan is so much more advanced than our primitive culture. They have loli hentai to suppress the natural urges of wanting to have sex with children.
Click to expand...

So many things wrong with this. For crying out loud, we have furry conventions in 20 states. Japan has one.
 
TheHeretic said:
Again, gross misrepresentations of my position. Having child pornography on your computer, which can but you behind bars, doesn't mean that you viewed it nor that you downloaded it intentionally. If you did so intentionally, which isn't as easy as you seem to think to prove when it comes to the internet, there are serious questions as to whether or not an actual crime has taken place without contributing to its manufacture or distribution.
Click to expand...

I see hundreds of infected computers a month. The idea that 'oops I clicked on this ad' or "i got that damn Security Center virus' will suddenly load your computer with kiddie porn is simply false. I can agree that some sort of unintentional content and being jailed for it would be an issue, but if this is your position you have to have some numbers to show how this gross injustice is happening at such an alarming rate. Because your position, by default, will greatly benefit one specific group of people in addition to this.

KHarvey16 said:
I don't want you to call me a pedo, you already did.

Who does my proposal of re-evaluating the laws benefit? It benefits society as a whole. It focuses efforts not on those who might download pictures, intentionally or not, but on those who create, distribute and fund those activities. If you tell me the law as written does not allow for people to go to jail that shouldn't, I'm going to tell you you don't understand the law. It simply makes more logical sense to do it this way even if the possibility didn't exist.

In relation to our other ideas about justice the prosecution of pedophilia does not fit. I just had a discussion where a poster had to eventually argue that anyone viewing a video or a picture that contained illegal content should be breaking the law, and should be prosecuted. Do you agree or disagree? Surely you recognize why that is ridiculous.

Now stop being a disingenuous coward and type what you mean.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think you are a pedo. You can keep trying, but any righteous indignation you are trying to manufacture is of your own accord. Not going to help you there.

And your benefits paragraph is laughable. Do you think there is not an effort to stop creators and distributors?!? Are you serious?

In addition, if you are going to try to get everyone to buy that there are massive numbers of people who are getting imprisoned because they got a virus or an ad popped up on their screen, I'm afraid you are going to have to back that up. Otherwise, as it seems to be the whole support of your argument, it's just bullshit.

I see why you want someone to call you a pedo. At least then you would actually have something to effectively argue about. :lol
 
CrankyJay said:
That's not what I'm saying. Some of GAF seems to think that there's this invisible man watching your every click on the computer looking for naked children and that if you accidentally open that picture you're going to rot in jail.

Unless the person posting images/videos are complete idiots, most CP you find on the internet is part of an "underground" network in which you have to gain access.
Click to expand...

People have been arrested for possessing naked baby pictures of their kids. Most people dont get in trouble, but that doesn't mean no-one is going to get in trouble.
 
CrankyJay said:
That's not what I'm saying. Some of GAF seems to think that there's this invisible man watching your every click on the computer looking for naked children and that if you accidentally open that picture you're going to rot in jail.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously so naive to think that the authorities can't simply pull your browsing records from your ISP on a moment's notice?

Unless the person posting images/videos are complete idiots, most CP you find on the internet is part of an "underground" network in which you have to gain access.
Click to expand...

And if the person was an idiot?
 
Can any of you guys protesting the treatment of so-called innocents actually link us to real cases or statistics.

Cause a bunch of you keep bringing up the boogeyman virus or omg parents with nekid pics of kids, but you haven't actually provided real substantial instances in which these so called prosecutions occurred.
 
Vyer said:
Again, I don't think you are a pedo. You can keep trying, but any righteous indignation you are trying to manufacture is of your own accord. Not going to help you there.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure thing. Apparently neither I nor Heretic can read properly. You stick with that if it makes you feel better.

Vyer said:
And your benefits paragraph is laughable. Do you think there is not an effort to stop creators and distributors?!? Are you serious?
Click to expand...

If I thought that I would have said that. I don't think that, and wouldn't you know it, I didn't say it either.

Vyer said:
In addition, if you are going to try to get everyone to buy that there are massive numbers of people who are getting imprisoned because they got a virus or an ad popped up on their screen, I'm afraid you are going to have to back that up. Otherwise, as it seems to be the whole support of your argument, it's just bullshit.
Click to expand...

That isn't the whole support of my argument, or even any of it. I never said a massive number and I never said that any number is required for my position. Whose posts are you reading? You have almost zero understanding of what I'm saying.

Vyer said:
I see why you want someone to call you a pedo. At least then you would actually have something to effectively argue about. :lol
Click to expand...

herp derp
 
Otrebor Nightmarecoat said:
Thats why japan is so much more advanced than our primitive culture. They have loli hentai to suppress the natural urges of wanting to have sex with children.
Click to expand...

Why the fuck would you have the urge to have sex with children? In fact, why does Japan have all the weird sexual garbage? Those people are surely screwed up.
 
HyperionX said:
Are you seriously so naive to think that the authorities can't simply pull your browsing records from your ISP on a moment's notice?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you have to give them some cause to do this first? I haven't heard of the authorities randomly pulling peoples browsing records.
 
CrankyJay said:
Wouldn't you have to give them some cause to do this first? I haven't heard of the authorities randomly pulling peoples browsing records.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't believe that either. It's like they can't ask you to empty your pockets without some cause, I imagine it'd be even worse because they have to officially request something not just demand it from a kid who doesn't know his legal rights in the street.
 
TheHeretic said:
Again, gross misrepresentations of my position. Having child pornography on your computer, which can but you behind bars, doesn't mean that you viewed it nor that you downloaded it intentionally. If you did so intentionally, which isn't as easy as you seem to think to prove when it comes to the internet, there are serious questions as to whether or not an actual crime has taken place without contributing to its manufacture or distribution.
Click to expand...


The people that law enforcement will seek to prosecute will most often be the uploaders and the excessive consumers of the material. It's not worth their time, energy or money to prosecute people who simply clicked on a link by accident. It's much easier to convict someone with gigabytes of material rather than a single link. It's just like downloading copyrighted material.

In response to your argument about the difference between paid/free pornography, I'm not sure it's as simple as that. A child pornographer either A) wants payment through subscriptions, B) wants ad money from clicks/downloads, or C) there could be psychological factors involved. For instance, the pornographer could "get off" from the fact that others are watching the video. In any case, it's likely the the pornographer has a reason he produced the material in the first place, and that reason probably involves the presence of an external audience.

Also, I think when weighing the rights of the pedophile and the rights of the child the child comes first. So if there's even a small risk that infringing on the pedophiles "rights" helps protect children, then the choice is still very clearly in favor of the children, especially considering that the trauma of rape is considerably worse than the trauma of being convicted for something that's largely preventable. Incidentally, I don't consider it a particularly strong right to own pictures and videos of naked children, just as it is not a right that people can own images of a woman getting undressed in her home that were taken without her consent. If anything, it's an issue of privacy.
 
spindashing said:
Is hentai a sexuality?

Because I think that's mine.
Click to expand...
O.O :lol :lol :lol
On topic I think it has something to do with some fucked up shit that happened in their childhood. I don't think its genetic.
 
KHarvey16 said:
herp derp
Click to expand...


:lol aaannnddd you said absolutely nothing. Thanks for playing.

HyperionX said:
Are you seriously so naive to think that the authorities can't simply pull your browsing records from your ISP on a moment's notice?

?
Click to expand...

So why doesn't this work both ways? You yourself said it is so difficult to prove your innocence in this regard.
 
Vyer said:
:lol aaannnddd you said absolutely nothing. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you? There was a whole post there that you ignored. I'm beginning to see how it is you don't understand a word I've said.
 
technically, everything is genetic. or onset by genetics. or something along those lines.

however, i wouldnt classify "pedophilia" itself a sexuality. Regardless of age, you still have a sex, whether it be male or female. If you like males, and you're a male, you're homosexual, etc etc etc. I don't see the distinction between whether or not the other person is a 5 year old or 40 year old from A SEXUALITY STANDPOINT.

of course, whether or not its reprehensible or whatever your thoughts on it is, brings up a whole new set of discussions that don't really have anything to relate to whether or not its a "sexuality"
 
Devolution said:
Has he been prosecuted?
Click to expand...

He plead guilty to avoid a maximum sentence.

A case not long before that had a man under similar circumstances sell his house to pay for the legal fee's to prove a dozen files on his computer weren't intentionally downloaded, and he was found not guilty. Except he didn't have a house, at that point.
 
davepoobond said:
technically, everything is genetic. or onset by genetics. or something along those lines.

however, i wouldnt classify "pedophilia" itself a sexuality. Regardless of age, you still have a sex, whether it be male or female. If you like males, and you're a male, you're homosexual, etc etc etc. I don't see the distinction between whether or not the other person is a 5 year old or 40 year old from A SEXUALITY STANDPOINT.

of course, whether or not its reprehensible or whatever your thoughts on it is, brings up a whole new set of discussions that don't really have anything to relate to whether or not its a "sexuality"
Click to expand...

i would argue that humans are naturally hedonists and will

FUCK ANYTHING THAT MOVES
 
TheHeretic said:
He plead guilty to avoid a maximum sentence.
Click to expand...

See that there is a travesty of justice. I think in this instance the prosecution took the law way too literally. Yes he was in possesion of it but was it his fault? No.

That whole case basically sums up why our justice system is a joke. Instead of actually applying the letter of the law to those who indeed deserve justice, they fucked up a young man's life.
 
Devolution said:
See that there is a travesty of justice. I think in this instance the prosecution took the law way too literally. Yes he was in possesion of it but was it his fault? No.

That whole case basically sums up why our justice system is a joke. Instead of actually applying the letter of the law to those who indeed deserve justice, they fucked up a young man's life.
Click to expand...

And If the law allows for that it needs to be adjusted. Again, though, the existence of cases like this is not the only reason it should be changed.
 
Devolution said:
See that there is a travesty of justice. I think in this instance the prosecution took the law way too literally. Yes he was in possesion of it but was it his fault? No.

That whole case basically sums up why our justice system is a joke. Instead of actually applying the letter of the law to those who indeed deserve justice, they fucked up a young man's life.
Click to expand...

No, he was found to be in possession of child pornography, which was the the entire argument we just had.
 
Isn't the female form meant to be attractive once they hit puberty? With most girls hitting puberty between 11 and 13, I can see why that causes so many problems in society. Hell, when I was in Year 12 there were Year 8's as developed as the one's in my own grade. It's... confronting. :lol

Fundamentally, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being attracted to young girls with bodies which have experienced puberty... it's more of a societal construct that deems it 'wrong'.

The real paedophillia, ie, toddlers and sub-10 year olds kids is where that argument doesn't really apply, obviously.
 
Devolution said:
the prosecution could have chosen to not pursue the case.
Click to expand...

Prosecutor misconduct is rampant. Go read about the thousands of cases where the prosecution knew an individual was innocent and put him away anyway. There are even cases where people have been put on death row this way. Prosecutor's make a name for themselves based on body count, and they absolutely cannot be relied upon. The law has to protect people from garbage like what Matthew White has gone through, and after sitting here spouting the most ridiculous arguments on the issue this is pretty rich, and incredibly ignorant.
 
KHarvey16 said:
What is wrong with you? There was a whole post there that you ignored. I'm beginning to see how it is you don't understand a word I've said.
Click to expand...

The idea that the current law has to be changed in order for there to be 'focused efforts' on creators and distributors implies that those efforts are currently not 'focused', and as such is something I would imagine you'd have to be able to back up. Currently, you have not.

And your other argument, that this law can sometimes allow for someone to be accused wrongfully, is also disingenuous. Because just about any law can do the same. Unless your stance is to wipe out laws entirely, then we have to consider that this law itself is flawed and leading to significant numbers of falsely accused and erroneous convictions and is not actually having the desired benefit of targeting people who are downloading child porn. Which is also something you have backed away from.
 
BloodySinner said:
Why the fuck would you have the urge to have sex with children? In fact, why does Japan have all the weird sexual garbage? Those people are surely screwed up.
Click to expand...
maybe that's what this thread is about
 
Vyer said:
The idea that the current law has to be changed in order for there to be 'focused efforts' on creators and distributors implies that those efforts are currently not 'focused', and as such is something I would imagine you'd have to be able to back up. Currently, you have not.
Click to expand...

I can back it up by simply pointing out that the effort is expended to prosecute these people. That 22 year old went to court and will be a sex offender for the rest of his life. A real person had to collect that information, a real person had to do all the paperwork, a real person had to prosecute him and a real person had to do the judging. Of course I'm reducing this immensely by just using the term "a real person" because in reality it is many.

Are they looking for the person who made the porn he downloaded? By him going to jail or being a sex offender, is the victim helped? Are future victims of child abuse helped?

Vyer said:
And your other argument, that this law can sometimes allow for someone to be accused wrongfully, is also disingenuous. Because just about any law can do the same.
Click to expand...

Accused, not prosecuted. All that is required is that a person posses or view the material. It does not need to be shown that the person was a danger to anyone or contributed to the abuse of any child. It also does not need to be shown that the person intentionally found this or that they enjoy sexual satisfaction from viewing it. If you can think of another law with a similar lack of justification we can discuss that too.

Vyer said:
Unless your stance is to wipe out laws entirely, then we have to consider that this law itself is flawed and leading to significant numbers of falsely accused and erroneous convictions and is not actually having the desired benefit of targeting people who are downloading child porn. Which is also something you have backed away from.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep appending this word "significant" to it? I would consider one wrongful conviction through the use of a flawed law reason enough to adjust the law. It doesn't have to be 10 or 100 or 1000. Just 1. It can easily be shown this law is flawed and it's been done here already. I'll ask you though, should someone viewing the Erin Andrews video be prosecuted? If you say no, that's logically inconsistent with what you are arguing for in regards to child porn.
 
it's a fetish not a sexuality.

they have a thing for the innocence of the victims, being able to dominate them and make them their secret toys. the forbidden nature of the act also gets them off.
 
KHarvey16 said:
I can back it up by simply pointing out that the effort is expended to prosecute these people. That 22 year old went to court and will be a sex offender for the rest of his life. A real person had to collect that information, a real person had to do all the paperwork, a real person had to prosecute him and a real person had to do the judging. Of course I'm reducing this immensely by just using the term "a real person" because in reality it is many.

Are they looking for the person who made the porn he downloaded? By him going to jail or being a sex offender, is the victim helped? Are future victims of child abuse helped?
Click to expand...

So, one case then? That's not enough to back up your point. And how do you know that they aren't looking for the creators? That there is no effort beyond that? You have nothing of substance here.

Accused, not prosecuted.
Click to expand...

False accusations are not unique to this law. That's not enough justification for your proposal.

Why do you keep appending this word "significant" to it?
Click to expand...

1. Because all laws have issues with false/wrong accusation. So if you want to wipe out this specific one, the issue of significant numbers is important to justifying it's elimination and your proposal.

and

2. Because, you understand that otherwise, the group that benefits from your proposal is primarily those that download child pornography? This is quite straightforward. You are talking in black and white terms. Fine tune the law? Adjust the procedures involved? Sure. But if you want to talk about elimination, that's an entirely different can of worms.

The 'just one person' cliche is BS, because it deals in those absolutes. If it's either law or no law, than you have to have significant justification for the removal of it.

Otherwise the proposal is bunk, because those that primarily benefit from it are, quite simply, those that download child porn.
 
Vyer said:
1. Because all laws have issues with false/wrong accusation. So if you want to wipe out this specific one, the issue of significant numbers is important to justifying it's elimination and your proposal.

and

2. Because, you understand that otherwise, the group that benefits from your proposal is primarily those that download child pornography? This is quite straightforward. You are talking in black and white terms. Fine tune the law? Adjust the procedures involved? Sure. But if you want to talk about elimination, that's an entirely different can of worms.

The 'just one person' cliche is BS, because it deals in those absolutes. If it's either law or no law, than you have to have significant justification for the removal of it.

Otherwise the proposal is bunk, because those that primarily benefit from it are, quite simply, those that download child porn.
Click to expand...

So still don't understand, or have the ability to comprehend, anything that has been said. A law can be flawed with zero victims, and law or no law is a false dichotomy.
 
TheHeretic said:
So still don't understand, or have the ability to comprehend, anything that has been said. A law can be flawed with zero victims, and law or no law is a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

1. Keep trying to be insulting, it's cute

2. That a law can be flawed is exactly what I have said, and... false dichotomy? :lol So what is your argument, Heretic?
 
Vyer said:
So, one case then? That's not enough to back up your point. And how do you know that they aren't looking for the creators? That there is no effort beyond that? You have nothing of substance here.
Click to expand...

The example of one case is meant to show how the law is flawed. It allows for that one case so it needs to be changed. This isn't a difficult concept.

Vyer said:
False accusations are not unique to this law. That's not enough justification for your proposal.
Click to expand...

Uh, I know. My point is that the qualifications for guilt are flawed. Merely possessing and/or viewing child porn should not be grounds for incarceration or being branded a sex offender. Creating, distributing or financially contributing to the creation of child porn should be THE focus.

Vyer said:
1. Because all laws have issues with false/wrong accusation. So if you want to wipe out this specific one, the issue of significant numbers is important to justifying it's elimination and your proposal.
Click to expand...

See above. I don't care about false accusations. I care when the accusations are true but unworthy of the of punishment, as in the case of the 22 year old.

Vyer said:
and

2. Because, you understand that otherwise, the group that benefits from your proposal is primarily those that download child pornography? This is quite straightforward. You are talking in black and white terms. Fine tune the law? Adjust the procedures involved? Sure. But if you want to talk about elimination, that's an entirely different can of worms.
Click to expand...

Elimination of one facet of the law dealing with child pornography. Make it necessary to show that the person being accused put a child's well being in danger. Show that they are a threat to children. I can't imagine these being unreasonable in a society that prides itself on liberty and freedom.

Vyer said:
The 'just one person' cliche is BS, because it deals in those absolutes. If it's either law or no law, than you have to have significant justification for the removal of it.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this stuff from? I agree that the position you've erected in your own head is ridiculous. Now stop doing that.

Vyer said:
Otherwise the proposal is bunk, because those that primarily benefit from it are, quite simply, those that download child porn.
Click to expand...

In your own flawed, misinformed opinion. You continually demonstrate your inability to understand the simplest ideas and concepts that have been presented to you. You still don't grasp my position.
 
KHarvey16 said:
It allows for that one case so it needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not in the real world. And is it 'changed' or:

Merely possessing and/or viewing child porn should not be grounds for incarceration or being branded a sex offender.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like eliminated. In any case, you have yet to prove why this wouldn't primarily benefit those that intentionally possessed and viewed child porn. One case doesn't cut it.

In your own flawed, misinformed opinion. You continually demonstrate your inability to understand the simplest ideas and concepts that have been presented to you.
Click to expand...
TheHeretic said:
So still don't understand, or have the ability to comprehend, .
Click to expand...


Yes, yes, I know you and Heretic think this tactic gives you some sort of....advantage, I guess. But if this is all you have over any real substance, I'm not too worried about it.
 
Vyer said:
Yes, yes, I know you and Heretic think this tactic gives you some sort of....advantage, I guess. But if this is all you have over any real substance, I'm not too worried about it.
Click to expand...

You genuinely don't understand what the debate is about. Anyway I think this thread has run its course.
 
TheHeretic said:
You genuinely don't understand what the debate is about.
Click to expand...

Oh, I do. You just don't like that the core of the issue is laid out for you because you can't argue it.

TheHeretic said:
Anyway I think this thread has run its course.
Click to expand...

Probably so.
 
I usually agree with KHarvey16's views overall but dude is like the worst debater ever. Every time there's a debate going down and he comes in and starts arguing for the view I agree with, I'm all like "fuck."

But I don't agree with him on this one, so yay.
 
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
323
Meicyn replied
Remember Elizabeth Smart? From kidnapping and sexual assault survivor to champion bodybuilder
3
151
Bojji replied
RTINGS.com is now a Paywalled Service
2
62
1K
Celcius replied
Is a 60hz display on a laptop bad? I
22
457
deriks replied
  • Poll
HP is selling a laptop with 1.1TB storage, but 1TB is a one year trial for OneDrive
2
64
703
Grildon Tundy replied
Top Bottom