Child porn viruses

[Wanted Bob]

I dont see how pedophilia is an affliction of the mind whereas homosexuality isnt. I don't condone pedophilia, but I can't say everyone who is attracted to children is evil.

 

[Blackthorn]

I didn't ever say they were inherently evil, but I definitely do not consider them to be good. Their perversion however, most definitely is evil. And homosexuality isn't an affliction, there is substantial evidence that it is a predisposition dictated by genetics. Paedophilia is develops psychologically, and can occur at any point of their life. The same way you can develop any particular fetish, it is not something you are born with. To anyone asking for me to present data, i do not have it with me, but these are all areas I have covered during my psychology course at college.

I sincerely hope that at no point in our history will paedophilia ever be considered the same as homosexuality. Not only is such an attitude insulting for gay people, but damaging for society.

 

[Dog--]

I didn't ever say they were inherently evil, but I definitely do not consider them to be good. Their perversion however, most definitely is evil. And homosexuality isn't an affliction, there is substantial evidence that it is a predisposition dictated by genetics. Paedophilia is develops psychologically, and can occur at any point of their life. The same way you can develop any particular fetish, it is not something you are born with. To anyone asking for me to present data, i do not have it with me, but these are all areas I have covered during my psychology course at college.

I sincerely hope that at no point in our history will paedophilia will ever be considered the same as homosexuality. Not only is such an attitude insulting for gay people, but damaging for society.

They literally are the same (you being attracted to kids as opposed to being attracted to the same sex), the only grey area is that homosexuality is consensual, and the thing with paedophilia is that kids don't know what they are doing (too young) so they can't consent to anything. If kids had the same intelligence as someone of age (like 18) then paedophilia wouldn't exist, but kids are stupid to put it bluntly.

Hypothetically if you could put a 40 years olds brain in a 10 year old kid - is that paedophilia if that kid has sex with someone over 18?

 

[Vegeta897]

You can't just say "homosexuals can satisfy their lust without harming anyone, but pedophiles can't". First of all, not all (if any) pedophiles are ONLY attracted to children. You can consider it a fetish just like any other. They don't NEED it to survive.

If you DID have such a person who was only attracted to children, and was reaching the point where he would do anything to satisfy his lust (harm a child) then I agree that person should seek help. But that's not the case for everyone. Not everyone is a ****ing sexual maniac, dude. What if you had a person who was straight and normal, but he just couldn't get any pussy no matter how hard he tried? Should he be locked up, because he couldn't satisfy himself without resorting to forcing a woman to have sex with him (rape)? Logical fallacy alert.

There are a lot more pedophiles in the world than you think, you just don't know that they are because they are good people who don't let one interest take over their lives or influence them to make a bad decision.

I resent you saying that comparing pedophilia to homosexuality would be an insult to homosexuals.

 

[Blackthorn]

Except my point is no one is born a paedophile, so the affliction can be "un-learned" through cognitive therapy, just as anyone would want to be rid of any other fetish which is damaging to them or others. Homosexuality, however, is an issue of gender identity which is far more complex and, importantly, biological in origin.

Edit: If I was a homosexual, and someone was comparing my sexual identity with paedophilia I would be insulted.

Further edit: I can understand that not everyone with paedophilic thoughts will be overwhelmed with the urge to harm children. If it remains entirely internal, then of course they will never be judged, we all have our dark thoughts. But this topic is on those who create and possess child pornography, which means their fetish has become out of control and damaging.

 

[Dog--]

Except my point is no one is born a paedophile, so the affliction can be "un-learned" through cognitive therapy, just as anyone would want to be rid of any other fetish which is damaging to them or others. Homosexuality, however, is an issue of gender identity which is far more complex and, importantly, biological in origin.

Edit: If I was a homosexual, and someone was comparing my sexual identity with paedophilia I would be insulted.

Paedophilia is biological too.. You cant really say what the cause is, because its too hard to test really. The way you grow up shapes the person you are immensely, the only way to see for sure if homosexuality is genetic is if you took the same kid and made him grow up the EXACT same way like 100 times and test the results. Just one thing during a kids childhood could influence them to be a totally different person opposed to if that thing didn't happen to them, but there's no way to test that for sure. I'm having a hard time believing homosexuality is genetic, I agree its not a choice, you think what you think, but paedophilia is the same thing.

 

[Blackthorn]

Case studies of monozygotic twins have shown a positive correlation of homosexuality between them. Also, there are significant hormonal and neurological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. These physical differences show that there are biological causes to homosexuality.

 

[kineaesth]

I dont see how pedophilia is an affliction of the mind whereas homosexuality isnt.

Interestingly, the DSM lists pedophilia as a mental illness -

Most adults who sexually molest children are considered to have pedophilia, a mental disorder described by the American Psychiatric Association's, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.

How Psychiatrists Diagnose Pedophilia

When evaluating who may have pedophiliac, psychiatrists apply three criteria spelled out in DSM-IV. All three must be present for the diagnosis to be made. Whether or not all three criteria are present, an individual who has had a sexual encounter with a child has committed a crime. Psychiatrists nationwide support eh federal and state statues that define the criminality of any sexual act or molestation involving a child.

Treatment for Pedophilia

Pedophilia generally is treated with cognitive-behavior therapy. The therapy may be prescribed alone or in combination with medication. Some examples of medication which have been used include Anti-androgens and selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) But unlike the successful treatment for most other mental illnesses, the outlook for successful treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with pedophilia is guarded. Even after intensive treatment, the course of disorder usually is chronic and lifelong

[their emphasis]

 

[Dog--]

If you take all morality out of the situation, it's just something else people are into..

 

[Qonfused]

An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.

I guess we're forgetting world history.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Interestingly, the DSM lists pedophilia as a mental illness -







[their emphasis]

Thanks for answering my post, from what I had heard before there was never definate proof that it was considered a mental illness, but maybe thats changed.

 

[kineaesth]

Thanks for answering my post, from what I had heard before there was never definate proof that it was considered a mental illness, but maybe thats changed.

Oh, you misunderstand. I don't think it should be a mental illness - the DSM is okay as guidelines but has a lot of silly stuff in it. Plus, they don't ever state that being attracted to children is a mental illness, just acting upon that attraction. Which is also kind of weird.

 

[Wanted Bob]

I took a further look at the article, it appears as though their "treatment" could be applied to any sexual orientation that people didnt like the sounds of, meaning that either ALL forms of sexual orientation that are not heterosexuality should be classified as mental illnesses, or they all shouldnt be.

 

[Dog--]

I took a further look at the article, it appears as though their "treatment" could be applied to any sexual orientation that people didnt like the sounds of, meaning that either ALL forms of sexual orientation that are not heterosexuality should be classified as mental illnesses, or they all shouldnt be.

Thats what I was getting at, but I didn't read the article.

 

[VirusType2]

Except my point is no one is born a paedophile, so the affliction can be "un-learned" through cognitive therapy, just as anyone would want to be rid of any other fetish which is damaging to them or others. Homosexuality, however, is an issue of gender identity which is far more complex and, importantly, biological in origin.

Everything you have said in this thread up to this point has been wrong. You are clearly speaking through emotions and conceptions and not facts and intelligence. Also, being from England, you don't know what a pedophile is. Not only that but [I suspect] spreading misinformation for your own English brainwashed witch-hunt agenda.

Case studies of monozygotic twins have shown a positive correlation of homosexuality between them. Also, there are significant hormonal and neurological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. These physical differences show that there are biological causes to homosexuality.

So what would make you think it would be different for any sexual attraction? LOL Unbelievable. This is inconceivable for a man that follows science and studies these things to intentionally contradict himself. :stare:

You must think sexual attraction is so black or white: Gay or straight.

I got news, there can be any number of different attractions that can be any different strength and combination.

You know why science doesn't know jack shit about all of this? Medical science and technology is evolving at a head spinning rate, but we still don't know that much about sexual attractions; what causes them.

And there isn't much data on them because

Because people don't want to come out about what they are feeling because they fear the reaction from people like yourself; "They are evil people who need to be castrated, shot, hung, strung-up, burned at the stake, need mental help, medication, psychiatrist, burn in hell, etc".

F*ck my pet dog/horse/goat/dead body, etc.

 

[Blackthorn]

At no point did I ever say paedophiles are evil, never. I also never said they should be harmed physically. But yes, I do think paedophiles who act upon their urges should be aided psychologically, and I think possessing child porn should be illegal, which was the entire point of my argument in the first place. This thread was not about passive paedophiles, or those you have found a way to control their urges, it was about those who take an active part in creating, distributing and consuming child pornography.

I also think there is a very clear distinction between homosexuality and paedophilia, whether said paedophilia is acted upon or not. You may not believe this yourself, but I think having an attraction to someone with whom you can form a healthy, mutual relationship that is just as much emotional as it is sexual, is very different to a fetish that can never be acted upon legally.

The fact you resort to insults saddens me, and the irony is you have clearly twisted my words to portray me as something I'm not and push your own agenda. You crossed the line, quite considerably, and I'm done with this thread as it has derailed far from the point that I was making originally.

 

[Vegeta897]

At no point did I ever say paedophiles are evil, never.

This thread was not about passive paedophiles,

Firstly, I do not believe a paedophile can be a good person, that is a perversion far beyond any possible justification.

Nice one, pal.

You've just majorly contradicted yourself. And you've also joined the group of bigots who seem to confuse "pedophile" with "child molester"

I said in my post that pedophiles can be good people, those who have normal human morals and consciences, who would never, and will never harm a child to satisfy their own sexual desires. You responded to that post saying that pedophiles can't be good people. Period. That's all you said. Not only that, you make it explicitly clear that you think just having the perversion alone is enough reason to believe that they can not be a good person.

You sir are and idiot.

 

[Blackthorn]

Saying someone can't be good is different to saying they are evil. Perhaps we have very different standards in what we consider to be good people, but for me the perversion is enough to warrant them not being good. For the record, neither do I think I'm a good person due to flaws in myself, and there are very, very few people in my life that I do consider to be.

 

[Vegeta897]

The fact that you think a person who has a condition which they did not choose to have, which does not harm anyone, which does not affect his life or the lives of those around him, can not be a good person, is ****ing stupid and ridiculous.

One of the people you consider to be good could be a pedophile. You have no way of knowing.

Does that illustrate the point to you? You're being incredibly ignorant.

You're talking about thought crime here. Except it's almost worse than that. You genuinely think a person can not be good just because of something they like. Just because you find that something to be disgusting, or awful, or just because horrible people, who are completely different from pedophiles who aren't horrible people, happen to act upon that interest.

 

[Blackthorn]

Because I have a different moral compass to you, you negate my views as stupid and ridiculous? If any of the people who I consider to be good did turn out to have a sexual attraction towards children, then yes I would no longer consider them that way. But I would not persecute or hate them, or remove them from my life, I would not possibly consider it.

For instance, I have a lot of violence in my mind, a hell of a lot. It is not something I chose to think about, it simply occurs. I believe that is enough to stop me being a good person, by my standards at least. Perhaps to others I could be good, and I would be considered so on a social standard, but not my own. They would not be able to judge what I do not tell them, just as I would not to able to in the theoretical example you made.

You have a far more forgiving view on humanity, and that is commendable, really. But I do not feel I should be insulted simply because mine is more strict. I would never insult anyone in this forum over harmless matters of opinion.

 

[15357]

Ah, I tire of your arguments. Let's just shoot the lot of them and call it a day.

 

[Vegeta897]

I suppose that's a good point Blackthorn, I hadn't considered that there's a different way to look at what makes a person good. I'll never agree that something a person can control and not act upon in an evil or ungood way makes them not a good person. But if that's what you want to believe, I guess you can. As long as you don't take this view into action against someone, which you said you wouldn't, so I'll accept it as valid.

 

[Blackthorn]

Thank you for bringing this to a close. You've raised some interested points regarding morality that I am sure to think about in great depth.

 

[VirusType2]

The fact you resort to insults saddens me, and the irony is you have clearly twisted my words to portray me as something I'm not and push your own agenda. You crossed the line, quite considerably, and I'm done with this thread as it has derailed far from the point that I was making originally.

Hold on slow down. I didn't mean to be disrespectful, but is there any way to respectfully say "You don't know what you are talking about"?

You were essentially saying, "I am a man of science, and 1+1=2, therefore 2+2=64"

At no point did I ever say paedophiles are evil, never.

I think this is clearly close enough for me to simplify by saying you think it's evil:

Firstly, I do not believe a paedophile can be a good person, that is a perversion far beyond any possible justification.

Good/Evil

Anyways, this thread is weird. I dont like this subject. Im outta here.

Basically this for me as well. Unfortunately, this is half the reason why we aren't far along in understanding it.

I also never said they should be harmed physically. But yes, I do think paedophiles who act upon their urges should be aided psychologically

Yes I agree, of course they should be punished/treated etc, if they act on their urges, that would make them a child molester.

I also think there is a very clear distinction between homosexuality and paedophilia, whether said paedophilia is acted upon or not. You may not believe this yourself, but I think having an attraction to someone with whom you can form a healthy, mutual relationship that is just as much emotional as it is sexual, is very different to a fetish that can never be acted upon legally.

What makes you think it can't be emotional for a pedophile? Once again you are saying that 1+1=2, so 2+2 must equal 132. But it's true, just like with heterosexual or homosexual attraction, it can also be a purely physical attraction.

Also you keep calling it a fetish. If it's not a fetish for homosexual attraction, then it's not a fetish for pedophilia attraction. 2+2=4, Blackthorn.

For the record, neither do I think I'm a good person due to flaws in myself, and there are very, very few people in my life that I do consider to be.

So if you think there are "very, very few people that you consider good people", then why make the distinction?

Also, probably off base here, do you think that priests are good people?

 

[Blackthorn]

Depends on the priest, I'd have to know them individually. Being a priest certainly isn't enough to make you good, just saying "I'm pure cus God said so" doesn't mean you actually are, as numerous scandals have shown. I make the distinction because good is an absolute to be aimed for, not necessarily, and most likely not possibly, attained.

As for the rest of this dispute, I'm no longer continuing, I don't think there can be any positive outcome from it.

 

[VirusType2]

OK, fair enough, but let me say that, when I was a pre-teen, I had a massive crush for my '20 something' babysitter and another young woman a few houses down. I even went so far as to walk to her house naked at about 8 years old. So you can't say that it cannot be a mutual attraction.

 

[Eejit]

Case studies of monozygotic twins have shown a positive correlation of homosexuality between them. Also, there are significant hormonal and neurological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. These physical differences show that there are biological causes to homosexuality.

Genetics and conditions during embryonic development are factors in homosexuality, but there's no data showing how big or small they are relative to environmental factors.

Also I don't believe such studies have been carried out for different types of sexual attraction, so it's baseless to assume biological factors don't also play a part in things such as paedophilia. You can say that psychologists classify it as a mental illness, but they used to do that for homosexuality too.

Child molestation is clearly wrong, but a person can't be held at fault for who they feel attracted to, just as long as they don't fulfill such urges illegally.

As for the rest of this dispute, I'm no longer continuing, I don't think there can be any positive outcome from it.

Positive outcome. from your perspective? Well considering everyone here pretty much disagrees with you I guess you're right.

 

[Blackthorn]

OK, fair enough, but let me say that, when I was a pre-teen, I had a massive crush for my '20 something' babysitter and another young woman a few houses down. I even went so far as to walk to her house naked at about 8 years old. So you can't say that it cannot be a mutual attraction.

I tried a couple of times to write an intellectual response to that but all I can say is:

lol

 

[VirusType2]

I tried a couple of times to write an intellectual response to that but all I can say is:

lol

Once, her friend came by to visit my babysitter, and they were going on about how cute I was. Her friend said to me "You want some milk?", then laughing, clearly suggesting that I suck on her breasts, although it took almost a minute to figure out what that meant.

I also remember trying to win her affections by showing off my sticker collection.

 

[15357]

Once, her friend came by to visit my babysitter, and they were going on about how cute I was. Her friend said to me "You want some milk?", then laughing, clearly suggesting that I suck on her breasts, although it took almost a minute to figure out what that meant.

I also remember trying to win her affections by showing off my sticker collection.

I don't know wether to laugh or be disturbed.

 

[<RJMC>]

Actually, pornography in itself is illegal, thereby effectively making CP illegal as well.


I think it's the government's way of telling us that we need more girlfriends.
.

pornography is illegal? but japan have such peculiar industry of it and I thought it was easily avaible there

that sounds very comunistic........................................................

 

[VirusType2]

What would happen in South Korea if you were caught with pornography that you made with your wife or girlfriend? Also illegal, I expect, but any difference in penalty? Also what is the penalty?

 

[Qonfused]

And then that brings up the question of pre-teens taking pictures of themselves.

 

[15357]

pornography is illegal? but japan have such peculiar industry of it and I thought it was easily avaible there

that sounds very comunistic........................................................

We take pride in not being as ****ed up as Japan.

What would happen in South Korea if you were caught with pornography that you made with your wife or girlfriend? Also illegal, I expect, but any difference in penalty? Also what is the penalty?

That's illegal, but I think you'd have to distribute it first, like file sharing. No difference in penalty if you're sharing it.

Probably a fine or something, jail terms for heavy uploaders. There was this guy who was called the "Master of Porn" responsible for distributing nearly 5 terabytes of pornographic videos. I think he was jailed for a few years.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't think you can reasonably make a moral judgement based on something someone cannot help. What makes a person good is how they deal with things they can't control - what their conduct is in a world where nothing can be perfect. To a certain extent a paedophile who does not act on her urges has more capacity for moral action than someone with no such urges. If I want to indulge my sexuality I don't need to harm anyone. If she wants to fully indulge hers, she probably does. So if she never crosses the line of age or consent her act of self-abnegation is powerfully ethical - and it takes a lot for me to say this, because I'm generally suspicious of the ethical value of self-denial.

So the question is whether by viewing child pornography one is crossing that line. Because it seems obvious to me that if it were possible to acquire child pornography that did not involve actual abuse in its production (eg drawn or computer rendered) then criminalising it would be a stupid move, because it would allow the harmless exercise of urges. The literature is apparently conflicted on whether porn increases or decreases the risk of abuse, so I am not sure. But logic would suggest the latter since obviously people who are likely to offend are also likely to possess pornography. Therefore the only relevant issue is whether possessing CP increases the demand for CP. Is there a causal link between allowing people to download it and allowing it to be produced?

Unfortunately the answer seems to be yes. Various articles - this one from the National Center For Missing And Exploited Children, and this one on Information Weekly - claim that there is a lot of money in child porn. This makes sense. It is by necessity a pretty underground pursuit and of course people are going to be willing to pay for it. The same technology which makes it easy to find it anonymously and trade it for free also makes it possible to charge for it and pay for it anonymously. It is a serious source of money for organised crime. This article contends that "around 50 per cent of sites showing children being abused are operated on a pay-per-view basis".

If one just does a little research instead of dancing in a circle around opaque prejudices, one finds that actually there's a pretty good case for criminalising live child pornography as long as it proceeds from an actual abuse.

 

[Absinthe]

"No, officer! That eight gigabyte stash of Russian kiddy porn isn't mine! Thehackers put it there."

 

[kupocake]

"It was the butterfly, I tell you, the butterfly!"