UK's dangerous cartoons act

[CyberPitz]

Just like slaughtering people in video games, right?

Exactly! We should ban that too.

 

[Darkside55]

if I have a video of a child being raped and then add a clown nose to the child's face. technically it's now animated.

No it isn't. Not even technically. Video manip =/= animation. There's still an actual RAPE going on in the process anyway, so there's no possible way anyone's skirting by on the defense that it's animated because of a clown nose.

what about if I took a photo threw it photoshop, posterised it and voila I now have an near identical "drawing" based on a photo.

Then there was still the matter of you taking a photo of a real child for the purpose of sexual stimulation. Which is a crime.

what if I'm an artist who's into hyper realism. a drawing can look photo-realistic ..are these examples ok in people's books? they're somewhat victem less right?

That's not "somewhat" victimless, that's victimless. If there was no model posing for the art and it simply came out of someone's head, yet was hyper realistic, there was no victim. No living person exists.

what if I liked cutting out kids photos from sears catalogues. they're not naked and or engaged in sex but does anyone think this would negate them being a pedo?

That...that isn't even covered under this law and has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

 

[Vegeta897]

I take back what I said. This is greatly entertaining.

 

[CptStern]

But if you never found out, you might still be inviting a person who could be a pedophile over for tea. Of course nobody is going to invite a convicted/confessed pedophile over for tea. The notion of it is silly.

who cares? it's been that way before and after this law. it doesnt make it any easier to spot pedos. however I still wouldnt want to give pedo access to child porno just to satisfy their needs. I dont care one lick about their needs

Then at the point they look at real child pornography, convict them.

so the distinction is that once someone is made into a victem it's not ok. even though there's virtually no difference because either way the person is still attracted to children. also you're treading a fine line when you say there's no victem so it should be allowable. what if the child's photo was taken without the child's knowledge (say at a beach with no shirt on) and the face blacked out? it's victermless because the person is not identified. so is it ok for someone to be in possession of these photos? the problem is that you're framing this as a black and white issue. the government being much wiser have made it so that it's far more reaching JUST in case someone decides to challenge them on interpretation

Well, it was focused on performing an actual act vs. viewing a simulated act. I'm just carrying the data over.

but it doesnt carry over because simply looking at photos is child abuse. which isnt the case when viewing tradtional porn. therefore any figures would translate to the specific case of child porn as it relates to child abuse

And there's no guarantee that they will, either.

well I dont care to find out. I'd rather they had this safety net in the event they do decide to act out on their urges

See, now we come to the crux of the argument: should someone be convicted based solely on potential? And this is where your personal bias comes in, because if we applied this to other things I wonder what your answer would be.

again you're speculating because you have absolutely no idea how this law will be applied and if it applies to drawings or not

Because, as you said, you don't care if people who view something passively are affected because there's the potential for some people to be influenced and motivated to act on viewing these things in real life. Could not the same be applied to video games and violent movies?

nope because playing video games is not inherently criminal. where viewing depictions of child pornography is. kinda of appalling you'd make that ludicrous comparison

It's the same thing, just one is less abhorrent to you than the other. Anyone could have the potential to be influenced to commit a crime, but as you yourself said, there's no guarantee.

And that being said, there's nothing to suggest curtailing and criminalizing drawings will mitigate pedophilia or real life instances of child molestation.

and there's nothing to suggest curtailing and criminalising IMAGES (stop focusing on drawings because you're being disingenous when you know the wordign is IMAGE) wont curb pedos and real life instances of child molestation

The goal of the law should be to prosecute real crimes and prevent real crimes.

that is the law's purpose. you're just up in arms because the law may go ater people with drawings of children having sex. you dotn see something wrong in this? you think it's ok to look at child pornography when it's a drawing? the intent of the law is to protect the victems not the pedos. and I agree. I couldnt care less if the pedo-drawing fans are caught in this or not. I'd much rather the victems are protected

At the point where someone is viewing a non-simulated act, such as looking at real child pornography, it becomes a real crime. UP UNTIL THAT POINT it's speculative.

bullshit, no normal person would look at a "simulated act" of child pornography and think it's anything but child pornography. using your logic there's nothing to prevent anyone from getting producing photos of kids having simulated sex without showing genitalia

Oh boy, if we get into THIS argument we're going to be here all day. The "simple fact" is, it isn't a simple fact. Especially when it comes to a drawing, what might be sexually attractive might have nothing to do with actual children. It's entirely possible that what one finds attracted in something simulated is not present in actual children, or if it is might actually be a turn off "in real life." And this describes a number of fetishes or sexual leanings. You might not be inclined to believe that, but it's true.

oh ffs give me a ****ing break. are you saying just because they look like children just because they have no pubic hair and their bodies are under developed it doesnt mean they're representations of children. wtf are they then? androgounous contructs made to appear like children so that viewers wont feel guilty for looking at depictions of children having sex?

But that being said of course I can't completely say that all people who would look at representations of children engaged in sexual acts wouldn't be attracted to real children; obviously there would be some.

funny how you tip toe your way around it by saying "some" no it's not some it's ALL. they're attracted to the qualities that make them look like children. they're still attracted to those qualities regardless if they act out on them or not. by definition someone who likes depictions of children engaged in sex is a pedo. there is no way around this

It's a complete gamble, it really is. And I realize how that sounds, y'know, "How can you say that someone who looks at a representation of children doesn't like children?" Well, the brain, and human sexuality as a byproduct, are weird. So you really can't tell and can't blanket label everybody. I believe, a long time ago on this forum, I once argued about how some women have a fantasy for rape, but no one actually wants to be RAPED. That it isn't the rape, it's various bits and pieces that constitute it; the same could be applied to a drawing of children engaged in sexual activity. It might not be the CHILD part at all, but the stylization as such.

you're comparing an act to a whole subset of society numbering in the billions? how the hell is wanting to try simulated rape anywhere near beign attracted to children?

And that is a whole 'nother multipage argument. The point here still remains, no matter what, that it's an attempt at prevention by criminalizing something that is not, in and of itself, criminal.

only because you see it that way. the law is worded in such a way to make it difficult for criminals to weasal their out of a conviction. it's not aimed at anime fans. the fact that anime fans are up in arms about this sort of tells you something about their collective guilt. I mena it's not like anime will be targeted. just anime that depicts children in sexual situations ...really what's to be upset about?

 

[PvtRyan]

They can like looking at it all they want, I'm not going to say that loli is a gateway drug to the child pornography, but look at it form others views. "That guy likes to draw kids getting rammed in the asshole. I think I'll invite him over for tea."

But what the fuck though, has that to do with the legality of it?

It's perfectly legal for two people to engage in eating each other's poop, I find that disgusting and wouldn't wanna hang out with them, but I'm not gonna argue in favor of banning it.

This isn't your goddamn business. Stop trying to legislate morality.

if I have a video of a child being raped and then add a clown nose to the child's face. technically it's now animated

Seriously Stern, seriously? In that video, a real child is being harmed. That's the difference. How hard is this?

It's pretty funny you're all as irrational as the crazy righties when it comes to children.

 

[Darkside55]

who cares? it's been that way before and after this law. it doesnt make it any easier to spot pedos. however I still wouldnt want to give pedo access to child porno just to satisfy their needs. I dont care one lick about their needs

Heh, you said a lot here, but you actually didn't say anything related to what you quoted.

so the distinction is that once someone is made into a victem it's not ok.

Uh...yeah. That's pretty much how the law should work. That you think there's "virtually no difference" shows exactly how blinded you are by your own personal bias. I mean, look, I understand being a parent and wanting to keep your kids safe, and I even understand you "not wanting to invite pedos over for tea" and "wanting them in range of my fist" and all, and I share the sentiment, I really do. But at the point you start saying that people should be treated as criminals before anything has even occurred that's when you've let emotion get the best of you. Law should never be about emotion.

Maybe that's something you can't understand if you feel that someone who has created no victims or might never victimize anyone should be imprisoned on potential. That might be something you just can't grasp from where you're standing, which--if that's the case--we're pretty much done here and can stop all this multiquote rigmarole.

what if the child's photo was taken without the child's knowledge (say at a beach with no shirt on) and the face blacked out? it's victermless because the person is not identified. so is it ok for someone to be in possession of these photos? the problem is that you're framing this as a black and white issue. the government being much wiser have made it so that it's far more reaching JUST in case someone decides to challenge them on interpretation

The government, being so much wiser, DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID IN THAT PARTICULAR LAW, being that it's for the “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse.” Furthermore the law in question specifically states that the depiction must be "pornographic and grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character."

Now, in your specific instance, it can be argued that in that the photograph was taken for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, but that would have to be argued and up to the discretion of a jury. Furthermore, a photograph like that wouldn't be "victimless"; there's still a victim even if the face is blacked out and it was taken without the child's knowledge. It's like those cases of hidden cameras in bathrooms. Man, you really don't know what constitutes victim/victimless, do you?

but it doesnt carry over because simply looking at photos is child abuse. which isnt the case when viewing tradtional porn. therefore any figures would translate to the specific case of child porn as it relates to child abuse

In the case of looking at real child pornography, yes. But as I've been arguing this whole time, SIMULATED, Stern, SIM-U-LA-TED. Not real. Does not exist. So one might be able to infer that viewing something that is not real could potentially stop them from viewing, or doing, the real thing. Seems to work alright in Japan where most of that shit comes from, anyway.

well I dont care to find out. I'd rather they had this safety net in the event they do decide to act out on their urges

Again, you're so close to this issue that you've let bias take over.

again you're speculating because you have absolutely no idea how this law will be applied and if it applies to drawings or not

Hurf durf, read the explanatory notes of the article, durf hurf, hurr durr, durp de durr.

nope because playing video games is not inherently criminal. where viewing depictions of child pornography is. kinda of appalling you'd make that ludicrous comparison

Murder and assault are INHERENTLY criminal. The last time I checked, shooting somebody, tearing off their head, setting them on fire, fragging them with a grenade, bludgeoning them with an object, stabbing them, cutting their leg off, pushing them off a ledge, running them over with a car, beating them to death with your fists, on and on and so on and so forth, those things are inherently criminal.

Depictions of it are not.

Kinda of eyebrow-raising that you'd find the comparison ludicrous. It also calls into question both your reading comprehension and your ability to understand connections.

and there's nothing to suggest curtailing and criminalising IMAGES (stop focusing on drawings because you're being disingenous when you know the wordign is IMAGE) wont curb pedos and real life instances of child molestation

Please, Stern, I know you're not that stupid. Not THAT stupid. Drop the ridiculous "it has nothing to do with DRAWINGS, the wording is IMAGES" bullshit. We both know why they worded it how they worded it, so that it was deliberately vague and caught more things under its umbrella, INCLUDING drawings. I wish you'd drop the fucking retard act with talk of photos on the beach and Sears catalogues.

And no, there isn't anything to suggest that it won't stop pedos, which is why it makes the whole thing moot. There is no evidence for or against. Therefore it simply becomes, as this has always been about, an act that allows the government to act on speculation, but more to the point, act on moral bias.

that is the law's purpose. you're just up in arms because the law may go ater people with drawings of children having sex. you dotn see something wrong in this? you think it's ok to look at child pornography when it's a drawing? the intent of the law is to protect the victems not the pedos. and I agree. I couldnt care less if the pedo-drawing fans are caught in this or not. I'd much rather the victems are protected

WHAT VICTIMS?! They're drawings. Jesus christ rotating on a stick, there are no actual victims. Do I see something wrong with people looking at drawings of children having sex? Not particularly, no, because they're drawings. I'm not getting up in arms because somebody drew some friggin' line art of a 6 year old getting railed, because no children were harmed in its making. I've got a real big fucking problem with actual pedophiles who would harm children or look at real child pornography because in those instances there was an actual, living, real live human child who was involved in that. And hell fucking yeah I want to see those victims protected and the perpetrators prosectuted. Hell I've sat in on court cases where those kinds of people have been arraigned and sentenced while I was taking law classes in college and talked to some of the officers involved in said cases afterward, and I was damn glad those people got what they had coming.

But to prosecute someone over like, what, some lines done on paper or a tablet and then colored in photoshop? Come on. There's no VICTIM in that. You're trying to prosecute someone based on thoughts and fantasies with lines on paper. It is absolutely ridiculous and the only reason you even agree to it is because of what those depictions are of. But they aren't real. There's no real victim involved. Like I can't stop saying this enough and it doesn't seem to get through your thick head.

oh ffs give me a ****ing break. are you saying just because they look like children just because they have no pubic hair and their bodies are under developed it doesnt mean they're representations of children. wtf are they then? androgounous contructs made to appear like children so that viewers wont feel guilty for looking at depictions of children having sex?

funny how you tip toe your way around it by saying "some" no it's not some it's ALL. they're attracted to the qualities that make them look like children. they're still attracted to those qualities regardless if they act out on them or not. by definition someone who likes depictions of children engaged in sex is a pedo. there is no way around this

No no, that's not what I said. See, this is why I'm calling your reading comprehension into question, Stern. You've gotta read, man. And then after you read you've gotta think about what's being said, that's the comprehension part of it. It's two steps. They're pretty easy.

See, what I said was, the stylized features present in the drawing might be the trigger and not the actual "children" factor. Stop and read that. And then I went on to say, "the stylizations present in those drawings might not even be present in actual children." Stop and read that and COMPREHEND it.

And even so much as you would think it's "all," as I knew you would, it is entirely possible for someone to look at something stylized without having any desire towards the real. I mean, not speaking of drawings of children in particular, but just of drawn women of any age, there's a phrase that goes, "3D pig disgusting." Which means what it means.


As for what I was saying about rape, again, I call into question your ability to tie two concepts together. What I was saying was that some people are attracted to ASPECTS of, but perhaps not the full act of. Aspects of. I did not even say, as you seem to think I did, "wanting to try simulated rape," I said attracted to particular aspects of rape. The point I was trying to illustrate, which seemed to elude you, was that while someone might be attracted to something or have a fantasy about something they might not only never act on it, but even be repulsed by certain aspects of it. You see the tie-in, there? It means that it's entirely possible for someone who looks at a depiction of something to be repulsed by the real thing. That's the rub.

I mena it's not like anime will be targeted. just anime that depicts children in sexual situations ...really what's to be upset about?

You just answered your own question. What's to be upset about? The fact it it's just "anime." An animated or static representation of someone who doesn't actually exist being grounds for imprisonment. There is no crime, yet it is criminalized. That's what there is to be upset about.

But of course, you can't see that.

I think we're pretty much done arguing this, you and I, because from here we've begun to go in circles. We're just going to end up saying the same things to each other over and over using different words and giant paragraphs.

 

[PvtRyan]

My apologies by the way Darkside, I was being passive agressive again when I said "you're all irrational". I of course mean Stern, Pitz and Ennui.

 

[Darkside55]

You ain't gotta apologize to me bro I know who you were talking about. ^5

 

[CptStern]

Heh, you said a lot here, but you actually didn't say anything related to what you quoted.

what do you want me to say? that I wouldnt know if a person were a pedo or not if they were over for tea? of course not. unless they're behaving that way I wouldnt be able to tell if the person just killed their mother. why does that need to be acknowledged when it's so painfully obvious

Uh...yeah. That's pretty much how the law should work.

the interpretation of what exactly is a "depiction" is up to lawyers to decide. they dont even have to charge someone beforehand. the prosecution simply has to build a case that wont get thrown out of court and issue a warrent. but it's based on evidence that the images in question violate some point of the law

That you think there's "virtually no difference" shows exactly how blinded you are by your own personal bias.

these are your words not mine. not once have I said or sugested they're the same. All I've said is that I wont shed a tear if someone's right to see drawings of child pornography is respected or not

I mean, look, I understand being a parent and wanting to keep your kids safe, and I even understand you "not wanting to invite pedos over for tea" and "wanting them in range of my fist" and all, and I share the sentiment, I really do. But at the point you start saying that people should be treated as criminals before anything has even occurred that's when you've let emotion get the best of you. Law should never be about emotion.

point out exactly where I said people who are in possession of anime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. or for loli-porn or even for child pornography drawings. from the very beginning I've said I couldnt give a shit if these people were targeted. it doesnt mean I support the bill. I just dont give a shit enough to defend their pov

Maybe that's something you can't understand if you feel that someone who has created no victims or might never victimize anyone should be imprisoned on potential.

you cannot stand there and say this has never happened. that a fan of this stuff didnt act out on their urges. nor can you say that there's no cross over from drawings to the real thing. I'm willing to bet it's much more common then you would have us believe



The government, being so much wiser, DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID IN THAT PARTICULAR LAW, being that it's for the �¢??non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse.�¢?� Furthermore the law in question specifically states that the depiction must be "pornographic and grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character."

that's from the government consoltation with the public. the wording doesnt clearly target drawings:

Meaning of Ã?¢??imageÃ?¢?Ã?Â

(1) The following apply for the purposes of sections 62 to 64.

(2) �¢??Image�¢?� includes�¢??

(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means), or

(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph

"drawing" is implicit in this law however so is animation or collage. it's nebulous because a drawing can be a stickperson or it can be a detailed life drawing. the tone of the law seems to suggest the latter rather than the former because of the discriptors that make it illegal "close up of genitalia etc)


from the consultation:

It is not our intention to criminalise possession of material which it would be lawful to publish in the UK (material which would not fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act).

in other words they're not going after material that is already allowable but rather images that fall within the criteria posted earlier. they've even added a caveat to cover some of your concrns:

We have considered the concerns expressed by broadcasters and those in the internet industry to ensure that that there are adequate defences to cover those who need to have contact with the material in the course of their legitimate work, those who stumble across the material accidentally or are sent it unsolicited. These are likely to mirror the defences provided for the possession of indecent photographs of children in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 S160 (2): if the defendant can prove he had a legitimate reason for having the image; or he had not seen it and did not know or suspect it to be illegal; or it was sent to him unsolicited and he did not keep it for an unreasonable time."

Now, in your specific instance, it can be argued that in that the photograph was taken for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, but that would have to be argued and up to the discretion of a jury.

the prosecution would determine if what they're seeing warrents charges. so at the point it reaches trial that's pretty much already decided

Furthermore, a photograph like that wouldn't be "victimless"; there's still a victim even if the face is blacked out and it was taken without the child's knowledge

It's like those cases of hidden cameras in bathrooms. Man, you really don't know what constitutes victim/victimless, do you?

spare me your holier than thou attitude it doesnt make your arguments any more compelling. it's not the fsame thing as a hidden camera is installed for a explicit reason. if it's in a public place it's allowable

In the case of looking at real child pornography, yes. But as I've been arguing this whole time, SIMULATED, Stern, SIM-U-LA-TED. Not real. Does not exist. So one might be able to infer that viewing something that is not real could potentially stop them from viewing, or doing, the real thing. Seems to work alright in Japan where most of that shit comes from, anyway.

from the consultation:

a number of respondents alluded to Japan as an example of a country in which the absence of prohibitions on the material was related to lower numbers of sex crimes. However, many organisations offered experience to suggest that the material is frequently found alongside images showing the sexual abuse of real children and is often possessed by offenders, whilst one organisation offered evidence to suggest that the material is commonly intercepted on the way into prison and in particular, sex offender treatment establishments. In this instance, it was suggested that the demand for the material was created by the decreased likelihood of confiscation

no effect whatsoever ...

Again, you're so close to this issue that you've let bias take over.

right back at you charlie

Hurf durf, read the explanatory notes of the article, durf hurf, hurr durr, durp de durr.

I'd rather look at the actual law:

(2) �¢??Image�¢?� includes�¢??

(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means), or

(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph

that can mean pretty much anything HOWEVER the criteria is whether or not it fits into this:

hose acts are�¢??

(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person�¢??s body or with anything else;

(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person�¢??s body or with anything else;

(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

Murder and assault are INHERENTLY criminal. The last time I checked, shooting somebody, tearing off their head, setting them on fire, fragging them with a grenade, bludgeoning them with an object, stabbing them, cutting their leg off, pushing them off a ledge, running them over with a car, beating them to death with your fists, on and on and so on and so forth, those things are inherently criminal.

but the attraction isnt for those real life things; it's for playing those things virtually. the attraction for those that like child pornography, even if they're just drawings is children

Kinda of eyebrow-raising that you'd find the comparison ludicrous. It also calls into question both your reading comprehension and your ability to understand connections.

right. you make a comparison that makes no logical sense and I'm the one who just doesnt understand your faulty logic. it was an apples and oranges comparison

Please, Stern, I know you're not that stupid. Not THAT stupid.

oh quit being an immature jackass

Drop the ridiculous "it has nothing to do with DRAWINGS, the wording is IMAGES" bullshit. We both know why they worded it how they worded it,

yes because they wanted to target anime. get over yourself. they're targeting child pornography. period

so that it was deliberately vague and caught more things under its umbrella, INCLUDING drawings. I wish you'd drop the fucking retard act

you know attempting to get around the swear filter is an infraction offense. you've done it 3 times in this reply alone. I'm just telling you think because I've been on the receiving end of infractions because of it. also Iknow what the word is despite the stars. you dont need to emphasize that you know how to swear

it's not vague it's clear. it impies all IMAGES are ok unless the above conditions are not present. none of them seem unreasonable

And no, there isn't anything to suggest that it won't stop pedos, which is why it makes the whole thing moot. There is no evidence for or against. Therefore it simply becomes, as this has always been about, an act that allows the government to act on speculation, but more to the point, act on moral bias.

the goal is not to stop pedos but to limit access to material that is deemed to be illegal

WHAT VICTIMS?! They're drawings. Jesus christ rotating on a stick, there are no actual victims. Do I see something wrong with people looking at drawings of children having sex? Not particularly, no, because they're drawings. I'm not getting up in arms because somebody drew some friggin' line art of a 6 year old getting railed, because no children were harmed in its making. I've got a real big fucking problem with actual pedophiles who would harm children or look at real child pornography because in those instances there was an actual, living, real live human child who was involved in that. And hell fucking yeah I want to see those victims protected and the perpetrators prosectuted. Hell I've sat in on court cases where those kinds of people have been arraigned and sentenced while I was taking law classes in college and talked to some of the officers involved in said cases afterward, and I was damn glad those people got what they had coming.

But to prosecute someone over like, what, some lines done on paper or a tablet and then colored in photoshop? Come on. There's no VICTIM in that. You're trying to prosecute someone based on thoughts and fantasies with lines on paper. It is absolutely ridiculous and the only reason you even agree to it is because of what those depictions are of. But they aren't real. There's no real victim involved. Like I can't stop saying this enough and it doesn't seem to get through your thick head.

no co-relation with the real thing. none whatsoever:

the material is frequently found alongside images showing the sexual abuse of real children and is often possessed by offenders, whilst one organisation offered evidence to suggest that the material is commonly intercepted on the way into prison and in particular, sex offender treatment establishments. In this instance, it was suggested that the demand for the material was created by the decreased likelihood of confiscation.

in other words real world pedos attracted to drawings of child porn which was made so that it wouldnt get confiscated like a photo would

No no, that's not what I said. See, this is why I'm calling your reading comprehension into question, Stern. You've gotta read, man. And then after you read you've gotta think about what's being said, that's the comprehension part of it. It's two steps. They're pretty easy.

immature jackass thing again

See, what I said was, the stylized features present in the drawing might be the trigger and not the actual "children" factor. Stop and read that. And then I went on to say, "the stylizations present in those drawings might not even be present in actual children." Stop and read that and COMPREHEND it.

but they're obviously children. no humans have a black outline around them nor are they of a single shade of #76PH83. drawings are stylised representations of real life things by their very nature

And even so much as you would think it's "all," as I knew you would, it is entirely possible for someone to look at something stylized without having any desire towards the real. I mean, not speaking of drawings of children in particular, but just of drawn women of any age, there's a phrase that goes, "3D pig disgusting." Which means what it means.

I'm sure there is. doesnt mean everyone will have the exact same reaction; there might be people who would find it arousing ..I mean I cant see why else someone would view drawings of children that involve any one of the following criteria if niot for arousal:



(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person�¢??s body or with anything else;

(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person�¢??s body or with anything else;

(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.




continued ...

 

[CptStern]

As for what I was saying about rape, again, I call into question your ability to tie two concepts together. What I was saying was that some people are attracted to ASPECTS of, but perhaps not the full act of. Aspects of. I did not even say, as you seem to think I did, "wanting to try simulated rape," I said attracted to particular aspects of rape. The point I was trying to illustrate, which seemed to elude you, was that while someone might be attracted to something or have a fantasy about something they might not only never act on it, but even be repulsed by certain aspects of it. You see the tie-in, there? It means that it's entirely possible for someone who looks at a depiction of something to be repulsed by the real thing. That's the rub.

I'm sure it's possible but is it typical? you'd have a hard time proving that:

Professor Clare McGlynn of the Department of Law at Durham University expressed doubts about the entire concept, premise and plausibility of research in this area and â??an assumption that such research could ever be conducted and would produce reliable results, which is extremely unlikelyâ?¦.such research could not, and should not, be conducted as it would be unethical and potentially dangerous since it would mean exposing individuals to potentially harmful material with a risk of harm to childrenâ?¦â?? In addition, the concept of â??direct linksâ?? was queried, since human behaviour is seen as not reducible to only once influence, but is a result of many different factors

You just answered your own question. What's to be upset about? The fact it it's just "anime." An animated or static representation of someone who doesn't actually exist being grounds for imprisonment. There is no crime, yet it is criminalized. That's what there is to be upset about.

no, it's not just anime but rather:

any image that:

(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a personâ??s body or with anything else;

(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a personâ??s body or with anything else;

(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

I think we're pretty much done arguing this, you and I, because from here we've begun to go in circles. We're just going to end up saying the same things to each other over and over using different words and giant paragraphs.

you do this every single time we discuss anything. you get all emotionally involved to the point of outrage and then threaten to quit the discussion. suit yourself.

Seriously Stern, seriously? In that video, a real child is being harmed. That's the difference. How hard is this?

It's pretty funny you're all as irrational as the crazy righties when it comes to children.

that's the point of this bill, before that manipulated images werent covered. and I'm not being irrational when I say I couldnt care less if people who view child pornography in whatever form are presecuted because of this or not. dont really have the stomach/will/desire to defend that subset of society. call me irrational if you will, I really dont care

oh and I posted this in another forum a few days ago and surprisingly enough most right wingers were against any form of perceived censorship

 

[VirusType2]

it doesnt matter. the person is still attracted to children. there's no gurantee they wont act out on their urges.

So here we are. Let's round them all up and lock them in a cage, because they could potentially harm someone? Anyone anywhere could potentially harm someone.

So if someone draws pictures of people shooting each other with guns, or stabbing people with knives, they are obviously going to shoot people or stab people?

You don't make any sense, you're thinking irrationally.

If he is looking at a Sears catalog or A DRAWING, then he is not looking at anyone he could ever touch. And I consider that a win.

Looking at 'porn' [or other images used for masturbation], does not fuel aggression any more than eating fuels hunger. This is the oldest play in the witch-hunt playbook, and it's completely ridiculous.

If you do a ton of searching on news articles, you may find one or two instances where the criminal blamed it on drawings, but the bottom line is, there are people who would harm people, and there are people who wouldn't.

 

[CptStern]

So here we are. Let's round them all up and lock them in a cage

because that's exactly what I've been advocating all along. ffs people try to pay attention. I said I couldnt give two shits if they are rounded up. there's a big difference. I'm not going to shed a tear ISNT the same as saying lock them up and throw away the key

 

[PvtRyan]

these are your words not mine. not once have I said or sugested they're the same. All I've said is that I wont shed a tear if someone's right to see drawings of child pornography is respected or not

You should. You really should care when a fundamental right is being messed with, even if it's something you oppose. Can't you see how easily this could translate to censorship on violent video games?

Fuckin' a kid illegal? Check.
Shooting a guy illegal? Check.

Drawing of fuckin' a kid legal? Should be.
A game where you shoot people legal? Should be.

And why? Because no one gets hurt. How. Hard. Is. That.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Pretty much the post that I was going to make, with this added: someone could get hot at the thought of killing. They could get hot at the thought of rape. They could get hot at the thought of vandalising a bus shelter and then masturbating into a nearby gutter. All of these things are illegal, but faked depictions of them are not, even though you could argue they 'encourage' people just as legitimately as you could with animated child porn. Hell, in a videogame, you're explicitly rewarded for killing, which is more than you can say for a non-interactive drawing.

The idea that some abstract imaginary far-away future person might potentially be a victim of drawn CP just does not stand up. There's no precedent and not enough causal link between the drawing and the victim. And criminalising a victimless act is a violation of the public's rights - especially if the law creates its own victims.

 

[kupocake]

Re: Page 6 of Topic
Welcome to PAEDOGEDDON

 

[morgs]

I could not believe in what seems to be an intellectual argument, someone said this:

Spoiler

if I have a video of a child being raped and then add a clown nose to the child's face. technically it's now animated. under laws that onlty cover "photos" this would be allowable or at least enough a grey area that I might have a chance to walk away without being convicted.. what about if I took a photo threw it photoshop, posterised it and voila I now have an near identical "drawing" based on a photo. what if I'm an artist who's into hyper realism. a drawing can look photo-realistic ..are these examples ok in people's books? they're somewhat victem less right? what if I liked cutting out kids photos from sears catalogues. they're not naked and or engaged in sex but does anyone think this would negate them being a pedo?

Seriously? You think if someone possesses child pornography in video format, they can insure themselves by adding a CLOWN NOSE?

I get the feeling some people are arguing against others in this thread not just to prove a point, but to best said others.

I think Darkside and Virus make lots of good points, but this there is not going to be a clear result from this argument because in this case there is no clear line between right and wrong when it comes to the smaller details. We can go on arguing our opinions if we want to but at the end of the day you either back your own argument, or you back the law.

Personally I think if someone gets off on drawings of children involved in sexual acts then that is something to be worried about, but I don't think that it would be the cause of them physically harming a real child. I agree with Virus in saying that someone either has it in them or not, I doubt it could be brought on simply by looking at pictures. If this was the case like people have already said, every gamer would be a mass murderer by now.

 

[Darkside55]

Damn, Stern, you needed TWO posts. That's wild. Well, I was gonna stop, but since I saw you say THIS:

what do you want me to say? that I wouldnt know if a person were a pedo or not if they were over for tea? of course not.

Then you probably shouldn't have said anything at all while quoting that part.

these are your words not mine. not once have I said or sugested they're the same.

See, this is why we should've stopped, 'cause you don't even remember what you said two posts ago on the same damn page.

so the distinction is that once someone is made into a victem it's not ok. even though there's virtually no difference

those are your words not mine

See man I tried to give you the out. Your senility is gonna doom you in these protracted arguments. Like in five posts from now I'm not even sure you're gonna remember what the issue at hand is. You're probably just gonna be multiquoting things yelling "SEARS CATALOGUES! SEARS CATALOGUES!"

point out exactly where I said people who are in possession of anime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. or for loli-porn or even for child pornography drawings.

TWO POSTS AGO, MAN.

well I dont care to find out. I'd rather they had this safety net in the event they do decide to act out on their urges

That quote was in direct response to me saying there's no guarantee that someone who views simulated material would act on their urges, TO WHICH YOU REPLIED you would rather the government have their safety net--this law--just in case, which can be taken to mean that you are in favor of the criminalization of drawings. And if that isn't the case, you need to word your posts better, because anybody can look at what you just said only two posts ago and think, "Hmm, 'I'd rather they had this safety net.' The safety net being criminalization of drawings. He would rather they have that."

you cannot stand there and say this has never happened. that a fan of this stuff didnt act out on their urges. nor can you say that there's no cross over from drawings to the real thing. I'm willing to bet it's much more common then you would have us believe

Did you seriously just inject speculative cases into this argument? Did you SERIOUSLY, TRULY, REALLY just go "You can't say it's never happened! I bet it's common!"

Man. Like, it's funny, 'cause you thought I was trying to stop arguing 'cause I was ragequitting or somethin'. I could not be further from rage. Right now I'm just laughing, man. I feel like I just entered the Fallacious Zone and I'm having the time of my life.

the wording doesnt clearly target drawings:

(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means)

"drawing" is implicit in this law

Damn, Stern, I ain't even gotta argue my point anymore, do I? Like you'll just do it for me. Thank you, man. Naw seriously, thank you, Stern. You save me time and energy. That's nice of you.

in other words they're not going after material that is already allowable but rather images that fall within the criteria posted earlier.

Yes, criteria that includes detailed, explicit depictions of sexual acts between underage DRAWINGS.

spare me your holier than thou attitude it doesnt make your arguments any more compelling.

Naw man, my arguments are compelling all on their own, they don't even need my attitude to help them along. I can't even see where I was being "holier than thou" in what I said; do you even know what that means or are you just throwing out insults?

it's not the fsame thing as a hidden camera is installed for a explicit reason. if it's in a public place it's allowable

It is the same thing if someone takes a photograph solely for the purpose of going home and spanking their dick to it later. How is that not the same thing? Taking a secret photo of a girl on the loo and whacking to it is the same thing as taking a picture of a topless child at the beach and whacking to it.

Man, I swear dude, problems with concepts. I said that last post, too, but damn. Come on. Problems with concepts.

no effect whatsoever

These decreases in sex crimes involving children are particularly noteworthy since in Japan, as in Denmark, for the time under review, there were no laws against the personal non-commercial possession or use of depictions of children involved in sexual activities; so-called "childporn" (Kutchinsky, 1985a; pp. 5). Considering the seriousness in how sex crimes against children are viewed in both cultures, this drop in cases reported represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed rather than a reduced readiness to report such offenses.

BAM!

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/a...9-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html#data

right back at you charlie

*double finger pistols*

that can mean pretty much anything HOWEVER the criteria is whether or not it fits into this

THAT IS THE PROBLEM. IT COVERS ANYTHING THAT FITS THAT CRITERIA. INCLUDING DRAWINGS. THAT IS THE ARGUMENT AT HAND. WELCOME TO FIRST PAGE, FIRST POST.

but the attraction isnt for those real life things; it's for playing those things virtually. the attraction for those that like child pornography, even if they're just drawings is children

Man. That's just...hey, look, it's been me and Stern arguing all this time, someone wanna come in here and just handle this one for me please? I mean do I really have to try and explain this to him? 'Cause like I don't know what I can say to get him to get it. I'm gonna try anyway just in case; if someone wants to chime in here, please be my guest.

Firstly, you don't know if the attraction for someone to play a violent video game isn't for the attraction of simulating real life murder. Secondly, you can't state that the attraction for those who'd look at depictions of lines on paper with childlike features is children. You're playing the inductive fallacy game. Like I was saying earlier, we have entered a dimension of statistical syllogisms. We have entered...THE FALLACIOUS ZONE.

right. you make a comparison that makes no logical sense and I'm the one who just doesnt understand your faulty logic. it was an apples and oranges comparison

Naw dude you're just bad at logic. Like, you like to argue a lot, but you're actually pretty bad at it. I'm giving you the finger wag behind this monitor, Stern. I hope you can sense it.

oh quit being an immature jackass

Yeah man, I gotta quit being a Kathaksung and having a personal stake in child pornography, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

yes because they wanted to target anime. get over yourself. they're targeting child pornography. period

Stern. I don't think you are getting what I have been arguing this entire time. Because you keep talking about criteria, and quoting the consultation about legitimate uses, etc. The point isn't that they want to target anime. The point is that they CAN target depictions of child pornography, that aren't actually child pornography because they involve NO CHILDREN.

it's not vague it's clear. it impies all IMAGES are ok unless the above conditions are not present. none of them seem unreasonable

Criteria and conditions again. And by "vague," I meant that it did not specifically label how the images would be created so that it would encompass all types of images.

the goal is not to stop pedos but to limit access to material that is deemed to be illegal

And therein is the problem which I have been arguing about omg seven standard pages to get here thank you for catching up.

The goal should be to stop pedos

yet instead what it does is outlaw that which is objectionable on moral grounds

which might not even stop pedos

which is what laws should be in place for

but instead it is deeming illegal that which has no victim

no co-relation with the real thing. none whatsoever:

Statisticaaaaaaaaal syllogieeeeeeeeeeeeees

Also nice dodge on everything I said in that big paragraph! It is a sidestep worthy of recognition. :thumbs:

in other words real world pedos attracted to drawings of child porn which was made so that it wouldnt get confiscated like a photo would

...buh-WHA?

immature jackass thing again

You bring out the best in me.

but they're obviously children. no humans have a black outline around them nor are they of a single shade of #76PH83. drawings are stylised representations of real life things by their very nature

But again, it doesn't mean that someone viewing said drawing, or even the artist, would be attracted to real life children. See, that's that gray area. That's why I said a post or two back that it's a gamble.





*Pepsi break before addressing post #2*

Ahh, refreshing. That certainly was a long post, wasn't it? Well, let's move on, shall we?

I'm sure it's possible but is it typical? you'd have a hard time proving that:

Professor Clare McGlynn of the Department of Law at Durham University expressed doubts about the entire concept, premise and plausibility of research in this area and an assumption that such research could ever be conducted and would produce reliable results, which is extremely unlikely.such research could not, and should not, be conducted as it would be unethical and potentially dangerous since it would mean exposing individuals to potentially harmful material with a risk of harm to children. In addition, the concept of direct links was queried, since human behaviour is seen as not reducible to only once influence, but is a result of many different factors

Hey kids! There are things in that quote that support my argument too! Can you spot them all? If you can, send them to Darkside55 c/o Halflife2.net and win an autographed picture of Slylock Fox!

no, it's not just anime but rather:

Omigawd please stop quoting the bill I know what it says






OH HEY WE REACHED THE END! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I could not believe in what seems to be an intellectual argument, someone said this:

Mostly WOT. Actually a good example of how people react to fear. IMO, overreact.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Jesus christ look at that wall of text. It brings a tear to my eye.

 

[Danimal]

 

[Higlac]

This is less of an argument as a contest to see who could get the single longest post. I am astounded.

deecolon

 

[Absinthe]

It's pretty funny you're all as irrational as the crazy righties when it comes to children.

Truth.

It's amazing how some people on this board would be up in arms over attempted moralizing legislation for anything else, god forbid something religious. We make big ****ing deals over personal privacy, innocence until proven guilt, and take a stand against having to police one's thoughts. But suddenly the children get involved (fictional made-up ones at that) and everybody's ready make an about-face and invoke slippery slopes, or making dumb**** comments on how they don't care about "pedo rights" or some shit.

Stern in particular has been the most ridiculous of offenders in this topic.

 

[Shyam]

What Higlac said, last time I saw darkside and stern go at it was what ? something about Care bears or something ? can't remember.

 

[Laivasse]

I would contribute but I am quadraspazzed on a lifeglug.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I always read your name as "la-vwa-zi-ei" but I just read it as "Lie-vass," I will stick with the former however.

 

[Laivasse]

Lourvoisier? It's the latter pronunciation, damn you!

 

[Vegeta897]

I always read it as luh-VAH-see-ay. No idea why.

 

[Eejit]

Lay-vass.

 

[Laivasse]

My name is a 'child' of my imagination and you are all dicking its mouth and feeling its tatas with your paedo pronunciation-cocks.

 

[CptStern]

Darkside

you keep accusing me of wanting to criminalise drawings when that's not true. I dont care if this type of legislation passes because the type of images it targets is already deemed child pornography. nothing that is currently allowed in the UK would fall under this new law so it's business as usually in the UK for everybody except those that collect images online that would have been banned had it been printed and distributed. you are up in arms for nothing because those types of images ARE ALREADY BANNED IN THE UK in print and broadcast form

I am however in favour of this legislation becuase ALL it does is add further provisions that wasnt covered under a similiar law

 

[Dodo]

tl;dr
...sooo, If you draw it yourself... can you get busted for that aswell?

 

[Darkside55]

I haven't "kept accusing" you. I've been trying to get you to see the point at hand which you've managed to keep sidestepping by posting parts of the bill and repeatedly denying that it targets drawings, even when you've gone on yourself to say that the far-reaching construction of the bill's speech can target drawings.

It was YOU who asked ME to point out where you had said you're for the criminalization of drawings, in your last post. Up until that point I hadn't said anything along the lines of, "You want people to be imprisoned for drawings, Stern! You, personally! That's what you want!" Hell I've been too busy trying to get you to recognize the Coroners and Justice act can now lawfully go after people with drawings of depicted child abuse.

Also:

you keep accusing me of wanting to criminalise drawings when that's not true

I am however in favour of this legislation

 

[CptStern]

darkside, you see everything as an absolute. black and white with zero shades of grey. they're NOT criminalising drawings. they're criminalising a certain type of drawing that's ALREADY CRIMINALISED. there is absolutely no difference between what's already banned in print and broadcast media and this porposed bill. the only real difference is that one covered print and broadcast and this covers the interwebs. you just dont seem to get that. if anything you should have been up in arms in 1959 when that goddam piece of legislation was put into place. why the hell have you been silent up untiil now? you've had 50 years to bitch and complain that the governemnmt stole your right to see drawings of children having sex

 

[Willsmith.fan]

Wait what? why would you want pedo drawings anyway? is this really the kind of cause you want to champion?

 

[Absinthe]

Maybe because Darkside didn't possess the ability to impose his will onto the law back in 1959.

Also, there's a difference between not being able to broadcast certain imagery and not being able to possess it at all.

 

[Willsmith.fan]

"there's a difference between not being able to broadcast certain imagery and not being able to possess it at all."
im sorry but that ^ really didnt make any sense to me..also it still doesnt answer my question, who cares..who collects semi sexual images of children nyway

 

[CptStern]

Maybe because Darkside didn't possess the ability to impose his will onto the law back in 1959.

Also, there's a difference between not being able to broadcast certain imagery and not being able to possess it at all.

you mean like buying/owning a magazine full of drawings of naked kids? because he hasnt been able to do that since 1959 either


and he doesnt have the ability to impose his will on this bill either; it's in the UK

 

[Absinthe]

I wasn't trying to answer your question because it didn't matter.

Who collects drawings like these? I don't care. I'm not going to assume the character of people who may draw or collect this kind of artwork, which is what this act basically does.

I may not be able to play a reel of futa on Fox, but I'm perfectly entitled to look it up or draw it on my own time.

 

[Absinthe]

you mean like buying/owning a magazine full of drawings of naked kids? because he hasnt been able to do that since 1959 either

Okay... Just a guess here but I'm assuming he was probably against that as well...?

and he doesnt have the ability to impose his will on this bill either; it's in the UK

Right. So why phrase your posts in a way that would indicate otherwise?

 

[Willsmith.fan]

i think anyone can tell the difference between art and child porn...likewise the difference between someone who appreciates the work of artists who do use children (lewis carroll used to do photography of children this way but not sexual) or someone who is looking up smut