Computer generated kiddie porn... wtf is going on here?

[HumanShell]

I don't support this, but if they do make it illegal, it's basically censoring art. The Gov. telling you what kind of picture you may "draw" and what you can't. What would be next, banning certain words from being spoken that create a mental picture of an illegal activity?

 

[Taps]

I don't support this, but if they do make it illegal, it's basically censoring art. The Gov. telling you what kind of picture you may "draw" and what you can't. What would be next, banning certain words from being spoken that create a mental picture of an illegal activity?

I agree.

 

[HumanShell]

Aye-aye, landlubber.

[a MOD would like for you to read the following]
Your lucky your haven't been banned yet. Posting links? WTF? YOU DICK HEAD!

 

[Lumberg]

I just heard the news about this, should it be allowed, that is, computer-generated kiddie porn? Those NAMBLA sick-o's will do anything, I swear... kill em all.

So they have a computer that draws a realistic looking picture of nude kids or something?

 

[HumanShell]

What's wrong with posting a link to a "Pirate Glossary"???

 

[WODIN]

What's wrong with posting a link to a "Pirate Glossary"???

The last link you posted had a trojan virus in it. You are skating on very thin ice.

 

[HumanShell]

If you say so, Bosun. http://www.elitefitness.com

 

[1911]

"...computer-generated porn?"

Computer generated kiddie porn or any other...

A product for those (losers) who can't get laid in the real-world.

Later,

 

[Badkins21]

In all honesty, I say 'What the fuck!'

Let any and all child pornography be legal, just allow me, and any other moral individual who works with, and loves, lil' kids (and plans on having a few in the near future...), to fatally torture any human being that legally produces, and/or likes to look at it...

Yeah, there's an idea...

**So-called "virtual" child pornography is only an attempt by some sick, fucked-up individuals, to desensitize people (us!) to actual child pornography.

Next thing you know, there'll be a fucking token "virtual porn" maker on every t.v. show, and then they'll have their own show, where on virtual porn maker used to be married to another virtual porn maker, and now they just live together, and look at different kinds of virtual porn, and have a crazy, drunk friend, and that's a little "too" into virtual porn...yeah, that's what it'll lead to alright...good thing...errr...that's never...errr...happened...errr...nevermind, you get my point.

 

[gymtime]

If pedophiles can be satisfied with computer-generated images, as opposed to the real thing, would outlawing it be worth the blow to the First Amendment?

 

[Badkins21]

A new thought...

Do criminals (pedophiles, "makers of/possesors of" child pornography, etc.)...HAVE...first amendment rights? I mean...really, in reality, is this a BLOW to the first amendment, or an example of how each and every word of the Constitution is up for interpretation?

When preventing (even if it's ONLY ONE) sick pervert from creating, selling, or enjoying ANY TYPE of pornography involving images of innocent children, I say it's worth it to take EVERY PRECAUTION NECESSARY...

 

[frorider6]

Can someone give me the link to computer generated Olsen Twins porn?

Cause that'd be great.

 

[gymtime]

Guess we better start by defining pedophile. I see it as someone who's commited a sexual act upon a child. This person would be a criminal and be exempt from free speech rights of course.

But what about the person who just gets off on the images, but is no threat to anyone? Perverted? Of course. Criminal? Depends. If they're viewing pictures of real sexual acts of minors, yes, that is criminal. But if they are viewing computer generated imagery of the same thing? No humans involved? I think that's at least open to discussion.

The internet has provided millions of people the means to view imagery that they never would have without it. My guess is that the vast majority are harmless. So do we put these people in jail?

 

[frorider6]

I heard from a kid who goes there and he told my friend that they were a little slutty . LOL.

Bless you. *headed into bathroom with Jergins bottle*

Does that make me a pedophile? Should I go to jail?

 

[Badkins21]

Bottom line: If someone is 'getting off' on looking at pictures of "virtual" child pornography, I'd assume the real thing would be (as sick as I feel even typing it...) that much "better."

And, it's a psychologically proven fact that the vast majority of those types of people end up acting on said desires...

I say: Prevent it ANY FUCKING WAY you can...

...BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

But, I'm the one that's said I'd participate in ostracizing known sex offenders in my area...thanks to Megan's Law--and believes that most sex offenders, be they offending adults or children, should have their genitalia removed in a very painful way, and then left to suffer a slow, painful death.

Yes, I'm serious. Especially child molesters/abusers...

(Just so everyone knows where I'm coming from...)

 

[saint808]

even if it is fake you are still feeding a sickness with it. pedophilia is something i cannot understand. and if someone were to molest a family member or someone's child that i was close with, there is no doubt in my mind if i had the chance i would kill them. bottom line for me... i know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but that is seriously disturbed IMO.

 

[Puc]

A new thought...

Do criminals (pedophiles, "makers of/possesors of" child pornography, etc.)...HAVE...first amendment rights? I mean...really, in reality, is this a BLOW to the first amendment, or an example of how each and every word of the Constitution is up for interpretation?

When preventing (even if it's ONLY ONE) sick pervert from creating, selling, or enjoying ANY TYPE of pornography involving images of innocent children, I say it's worth it to take EVERY PRECAUTION NECESSARY...

DAMNIT.

is that your stance on the right to own a gun? If we prevent one person from being killed would that justify restricting firearm rights?

Which is the more horrible crime? Murder or looking at kiddie porn?

 

[Puc]

I don't support this, but if they do make it illegal, it's basically censoring art. The Gov. telling you what kind of picture you may "draw" and what you can't. What would be next, banning certain words from being spoken that create a mental picture of an illegal activity?

i agree.

don't forget the sex ed books which have drawings of human development.

 

[Puc]

<sarcasm>
fuck dude i'm going to the clink now. i am really screwed. oh well i was destined to murder children and wrap their carcuses in saran wrap, anyway...
</sarcasm>

 

[huntmaster]

I am not prepared to defend the freedom of these individuals.

There comes a point where you have to use common sense.

I know there are many who are blind to any sort of 'objection of expression'

call it what you want--call it freedom of speach--but the bottom line is: Its discusting and it is leading to the demise of our country and our children, and I will not condone it. Many will however, because it takes effort to stand against it.

We have to be able to draw the line somewhere--and I believe its time to draw the line.

 

[Rockafella Skank]

Posted by huntmaster
We have to be able to draw the line somewhere--and I believe its time to draw the line.

The line HAS been drawn, as re-affirmed in this case.

 

[JohnnyO]

Not that I'm for child porn, but the law that banned virtual images also banned images implied to be children .. say like say Jenna Jamison in little catholic schoolgirl outfit giving head .. or a church production of a Nativity scene .. ( since it's generally agreed that Mary was around 14 when she gave birth to Jesus).

It just needs to be written better to bann the child porn, but allow artists who paint or photograph nudes or movie makers who produce films exploring teen-age sexuality using adult actors. Hell, "Scary Movie" would have been banned since those people were supposed to be in high school.

 

[bwood]

Pedophiles should be.........

Shit, there isn't a word for it that
truly expresses my feeling....

New Word(should be in next Webster's)

killmashsquashrendteargrindacidbathdestroy

with an IV so they dont die prematurely

 

[the nature boy]

you guys need to read news articles about this. keep in mind the courts are predominately conservative. The law presented before them wasn't written well.

read and learn if you're interested

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../20020417/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_child_porn_13

 

[Lumberg]

Ok, wait.

In my experience most people that speak out against child porn are about saving children from expoitation. Meaning you don't want kids coerced into doing sexual things for the camera. Now there is technology that allows users to view child porn without that part that exploits minors. It actually sounds like a good solution to me. No children are being exploited by the people that are viewing this ersatz child porn.

And don't tell me that looking at this stuff is going to make people actually do it. Look at all the losers that use regular porn and never get laid.

JC

 

[Pimp C2]

Ok, wait.

In my experience most people that speak out against child porn are about saving children from expoitation. Meaning you don't want kids coerced into doing sexual things for the camera. Now there is technology that allows users to view child porn without that part that exploits minors. It actually sounds like a good solution to me. No children are being exploited by the people that are viewing this ersatz child porn.

And don't tell me that looking at this stuff is going to make people actually do it. Look at all the losers that use regular porn and never get laid.

JC

I can't help but to think that looking at this stuff would certainly increase the chances of these people actually living out the fantasy. The best way to solve the problem is to kill off all these sick fucks, I would be all for it, we could even start off with the priests that have recently been indicted.

 

[Robert Jan]

Perhaps its different since i live in europe where these things have been discussed scandalled, gruelled upon and shocking more in the open than in the us, but I dont think ANY kid porn should be allowed, no matter what its source.

I remember all the details, pictures, all the stories being dug up from marc dutroux (spell check)...... this shit is like beyond horrible and i believe that kid porn feeds a pedophile sexual preference to people who look at it for arousal.

I mean sure in theory no one is harmed but do we no longer have any honour whatsoever?

perhaps like it ll be celebrity kids who are especially considered good meat amongst them sickos and some kid will have the internet swarmed with pictures of himself salad tossing some other infant.

this shit is just too sick. legal tolerance is usually really my thing (as im dutch) but this is too much.

 

[Lumberg]

Ok, right now I'm just exploring the issue from the standpoint of, child porn will happen anyway, no matter how many people we lock up. If there's a way for it to exist that doesn't directly exploit children, why not allow it.

Kind of like, no one wants their kid to run around having sex. But we know they're going to do it anyway so you provide condoms so if they do it at least it's safe sex.

Same kind of philosophy for legalizing drugs.

JC

 

[huntmaster]

Kind of like, no one wants their kid to run around having sex. But we know they're going to do it anyway so you provide condoms so if they do it at least it's safe sex.

Same kind of philosophy for legalizing drugs.

JC

IMO, this is why kids are into so many things today, that we were not into years ago. b/c the adults are not willing to stick by what they say is right-----adults instead say one thing, yet do another.

this confuses the kids and makes them think that noone is real, and thus makes them think that everyone is doing it.

When individuals of influence stop handing out condoms and start sticking by what is right instead of using the copout that they are going to do it anyway, children will know right from wrong. Until then----I fear that we will remain in decline.

 

[the nature boy]

not handing out condoms isn't going to prevent kids from having sex. before it was standard practice to hand out condoms kids were still going at it. that's just how it goes.

 

[aurelius]

Bottom line: If someone is 'getting off' on looking at pictures of "virtual" child pornography, I'd assume the real thing would be (as sick as I feel even typing it...) that much "better."

that´s a big assumption. The thought becomes the crime. I wonder where that might lead...

 

[aurelius]

No children are being exploited by the people that are viewing this ersatz child porn.

THis makes sense. some people confuse the symbol with the thing here, though. A lot of people, actually.

 

[Daeo]

I don't support this, but if they do make it illegal, it's basically censoring art. The Gov. telling you what kind of picture you may "draw" and what you can't. What would be next, banning certain words from being spoken that create a mental picture of an illegal activity?

So I guess you wouldn't mind your sons', nieces', nephews', face to be used as the faces of the simulated child...

 

[HumanShell]

Thanks Puc, now I know I'm endowed like a 12yr old.

 

[HumanShell]

So I guess you wouldn't mind your sons', nieces', nephews', face to be used as the faces of the simulated child...

Of course I wouldn't want that. If I found out it had happened, and could prove who made the picture, I'm sure that person and I would end up in court. The original post mentioned "computer-generated porn" not photo-editing.

 

[HumanShell]

True. I wouldn't like it in the least using a generated image that looks exactly like my child.

 

[Robert Jan]

"Ok, right now I'm just exploring the issue from the standpoint of, child porn will happen anyway, no matter how many people we lock up. If there's a way for it to exist that doesn't directly exploit children, why not allow it.

Kind of like, no one wants their kid to run around having sex. But we know they're going to do it anyway so you provide condoms so if they do it at least it's safe sex.

Same kind of philosophy for legalizing drugs.

JC



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

18-Apr-2002 09:14 PM



huntmaster
Pro Bodybuilder



Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Soldier Field, Chicago--watching Da Bears clinch the 2001 NFC Central Crown!
Posts: 944
Gender:
Offline

Originally posted by joncrane

Kind of like, no one wants their kid to run around having sex. But we know they're going to do it anyway so you provide condoms so if they do it at least it's safe sex.

Same kind of philosophy for legalizing drugs.

JC

**dunno, sure worked well with drugs in holland.




IMO, this is why kids are into so many things today, that we were not into years ago. b/c the adults are not willing to stick by what they say is right-----adults instead say one thing, yet do another.

this confuses the kids and makes them think that noone is real, and thus makes them think that everyone is doing it.

When individuals of influence stop handing out condoms and start sticking by what is right instead of using the copout that they are going to do it anyway, children will know right from wrong. Until then----I fear that we will remain in decline


**respect for the elder is gone for sure. but to think that kids werent fucking around in any generation is naive.

 

[Robert Jan]

sorry for the amount of bullcrap in that post it wont let me edit it.

 

[Daeo]

i agree.

don't forget the sex ed books which have drawings of human development.

I hope this was sarcastic, and that you can see the difference between a teaching aid and child pornography...

 

[huntmaster]

**respect for the elder is gone for sure. but to think that kids werent fucking around in any generation is naive.

did not say that.

I am simply saying that its getting worse and one main reason why is b/c those in authority say one thing and dont back it up. They dont believe in what they are saying. They give up hope. Therefore the kids dont believe.

The kids need some positive influences that are willing to say, "no, we are not going to hand you a condom.--we are going to encourage you to do the right thing and show you why you should and how you will benefit, and let you know that not everyone is doing it."


that is what I am saying and that is all---nothing else that anyone may want to dream up or derive.

 

[str8manwithadickinhisass]

How many movies have depicted adult actors that were playing the part of teenagers and included sex scenes? Under this vaguely worded law these films would be considered child porn. Should we arrest people and call them pedophiles for owning a copy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"?

 

[Lao Tzu]

bump

 

[Burning_Inside]

But what about the person who just gets off on the images, but is no threat to anyone? Perverted? Of course. Criminal? Depends. If they're viewing pictures of real sexual acts of minors, yes, that is criminal.

Sad ass times we live in where looking at something makes you a criminal.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Sad ass times we live in where looking at something makes you a criminal.

100 years from now, if/when we can read people's thoughts from a distance using technology, it will probably become illegal to think these things too.

 

[Burning_Inside]

What is that movie with Tom Cruise in it? the one where the goverment can arrest you for "future murders"?

MInority report..Looks like an awesome movie, and some scary theories.

"Hi, we're here to stone you to death because 5 years from now you will be surfing the net and a banner ad portaining to kiddie porn will appear on your screen and you will look at it for approximately .05 seconds. You are hereby sentenced to death you scumbag".

 

[magdelana]

YES LOOKING AT THAT KIND OF SHIT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF your are talking about 16 yo girls having concentual seks with men, thats may be oke, but watching cartoons or what the fuck of little girls having seks with grown men is wrong.

The pedophiles say pedo phile, child love, it means we love kinderen, not just want seks from them. WRONG!!!
Know what it is like to be 8 and have a grown man fucking you?? Here suck my cock little lady, o yes such fun thanks sir! Mmmm.....she is 10 now, is that old enougth to have it up the ass? O sure why not?

O just drawings or computer made fotos makes it fine? No it is true that no actually childeren get fucked, but it STILL encourages the pedo to want it and OTHER childeren will have to give it to them.

 

[Burning_Inside]

YES LOOKING AT THAT KIND OF SHIT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOURE A FOOL.

IF your are talking about 16 yo girls having concentual seks with men, thats may be oke, but watching cartoons or what the fuck of little girls having seks with grown men is wrong.Oh, so it's ok to do it but not look at it..

The pedophiles say pedo phile, child love, it means we love kinderen, not just want seks from them. WRONG!!!
Know what it is like to be 8 and have a grown man fucking you?? Here suck my cock little lady, o yes such fun thanks sir! Mmmm.....she is 10 now, is that old enougth to have it up the ass? O sure why not? if ya wanna get technical, just because you love something doesn't mean you have sexual urges towards it.

O just drawings or computer made fotos makes it fine? No it is true that no actually childeren get fucked, but it STILL encourages the pedo to want it and OTHER childeren will have to give it to them.

Since when is it, or should it be illegal to want something. It's when the want becomes an action that it's a problem. It's your right as a living breathing entity to want, and to be able to see things. No one should have the right to take these things away from you as wanting something and seeing something does no harm to anyone. You start dictating where and how basic human functions can be applied, you're really blurring the lines of freedom of being a human. For example. We are all human with the want to kill arising sometimes in our lives. Do we do it? Most of the time no, we don't act upon it, cause we realize it's not worth it, and if you have respect for another human, you will realize it's wrong. Also, should it be illegal to view pictures of people smoking marijuana, or look at pictures OF marijuana, or should it be illegal for instance to even view crime scene death photos or videos?

 

[magdelana]

you start dictating where and how basic human functions can be applied, you're really blurring the lines of freedom of being a human.

I am VERY much supporting human rights. They must be protected for everyone or no one. All adults and all children.

If you did not notice i am a woman. I am speaking from expereince on this subject. I can tell you as certain that looking at fotos of nude childeren is where it begans.

IF your are talking about 16 yo girls having concentual seks with men, thats may be oke, but watching cartoons or what the fuck of little girls having seks with grown men is wrong.Oh, so it's ok to do it but not look at it..

You misunderstand this paragraph. English is not my mother tongue, i was not clear with this. I was comparing the difference in ages of the girls involved. When i said little girls i meant prepuberty, 6-11 yo girls. I didnt want seks at this age, but i got it anyway. Quite a bit of it actually. Making the choice to have seks at 16 can be quite different then age 6.


Think of this for a while before you consider your opinion on this matter again:
would you still be making the same sort of argument if you had experience what i have experenced? Do you think you could still say that adults should have the right to even LOOK at such things? or even drawings or them?

Also you mix your arument with examples that include acts where only the person making the choice may be affected, like drug use. I am from Holland where the ideas of drug use is rather dif then amerika. I think they should all be legal. Getting stoned off your ass in your home is your right. It is your body and your life. However, if you are now driving and stoned it is now a public matter and is a different thing.

Not all who see the fotos turn out fucking children, but some do. Seeing the fotos make the desire much worse, it feeds it. It inceases the number of men who actually go and do it. And the populairity of the fotos encourage the pedos to keep fucking children and making more fotos.

When i mention that pedos say they love children i did not explain that this is the reason they give that it is oke for them to fuck them also. I did not mean that they ONLY love them. No certainly i would not say that love of someone also means a seks desire.

My first post was a very big emotional response. This topic was on something very personal for me and i was angry and did not explain my opionions very well.

 

[Lao Tzu]

I am VERY much supporting human rights. They must be protected for everyone or no one. All adults and all children.

If you did not notice i am a woman. I am speaking from expereince on this subject. I can tell you as certain that looking at fotos of nude childeren is where it begans.



You misunderstand this paragraph. English is not my mother tongue, i was not clear with this. I was comparing the difference in ages of the girls involved. When i said little girls i meant prepuberty, 6-11 yo girls. I didnt want seks at this age, but i got it anyway. Quite a bit of it actually. Making the choice to have seks at 16 can be quite different then age 6.


Think of this for a while before you consider your opinion on this matter again:
would you still be making the same sort of argument if you had experience what i have experenced? Do you think you could still say that adults should have the right to even LOOK at such things? or even drawings or them?

Also you mix your arument with examples that include acts where only the person making the choice may be affected, like drug use. I am from Holland where the ideas of drug use is rather dif then amerika. I think they should all be legal. Getting stoned off your ass in your home is your right. It is your body and your life. However, if you are now driving and stoned it is now a public matter and is a different thing.

Not all who see the fotos turn out fucking children, but some do. Seeing the fotos make the desire much worse, it feeds it. It inceases the number of men who actually go and do it. And the populairity of the fotos encourage the pedos to keep fucking children and making more fotos.

When i mention that pedos say they love children i did not explain that this is the reason they give that it is oke for them to fuck them also. I did not mean that they ONLY love them. No certainly i would not say that love of someone also means a seks desire.

My first post was a very big emotional response. This topic was on something very personal for me and i was angry and did not explain my opionions very well.

If there is evidence that viewing child pornography leads to commission of molestation acts, then that may fall under a type of 'clear & present danger' law. But there really isn't. And not letting people view child porn isn't going to make them stop being pedophiles.

Really though, victims trying to deal with their pain & rage probably shouldn't dictate criminal law. That is what we do in america, and we have both the highest crime rate & the highest imprisonment rate of any industrialized nation (i think). People who want to & know how to lower crime rates should dictate criminal law.

Anyway, everyone believes in freedom of speech when people agree with them but only a minority believe in it for views that they find offensive or evil. I have no rage or pain to change my view on this subject, and i'm sure i'd see it different if i did. But overall if people want to think things and use images to help them think then people shouldn't imprison them for it.

 

[G ChildlihC G]

Bottom line is it's sick and should be illegal, moreover people who are into that sh*t should be taken to Prison and gang raped by some fat cocked inmates.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Bottom line is it's sick and should be illegal, moreover people who are into that sh*t should be taken to Prison and gang raped by some fat cocked inmates.

That will make John Walsh feel good, and help him work through his rage over his son's death, but i doubt it will lower the pedophilia rates. Research into drugs that help pedophiles overcome their urges (like anti-estrogens & SSRIs) will do much more to protect children.

 

[magdelana]

And not letting people view child porn isn't going to make them stop being pedophiles.

Nordstrom you are absoulutely correct here. The men (and a few women) i knew as a child were alrady pedos before they become involved. I say only that the fotos feed there desire and also convinced them that it was oke to do it. See, others do it too. It cant be so bad.

No never shoud victims of certain crimes be making laws by themselves. You are right of course. It needs to be a mix of the intellectually detached AND the emotionally involved. Debate and consensus

Anyway, everyone believes in freedom of speech when people agree with them but only a minority believe in it for views that they find offensive or evil.

I would never put any limits to speech or views. There is much more debate and different view shared in the dutch gov then in amerika. I think it is the better way.
I amaze myself by saying this but....i would support the right of a person to say he/she is a pedo, and that they think it is oke, because i feel so strong that we can NEVER limit speech at all.

 

[Burning_Inside]

That will make John Walsh feel good, and help him work through his rage over his son's death, but i doubt it will lower the pedophilia rates. Research into drugs that help pedophiles overcome their urges (like anti-estrogens & SSRIs) will do much more to protect children.

Well of course its so much better to toss away the problems than to try and overcome it so it doesn't happen anymore. Or learn to epacefully co exist with it