Should a man go to jail if he's caught with child porn in his house?

[Rawisbetter!]

"Oh!!! *slaps forhead* SIlly me. I thought you were discussing child porn!"



Oh!!! *slaps forhead* SIlly me. I thought you knew what I was getting at.


"You know, you posted a thread on eating meat, and why it was wrong, and then never stuck around long enough to argue what we had to say."



I stuck around long enough and then got bored. It's hard to debate with people when all they say is "we're superior to them, so who cares? They're animals."

 

[Ariadne]

Raw, are you trying to get people to say it's okay for you to have child porn on your comp?

The simplest answer is that it is immoral to profit from the pain, suffering, or death of another human. Possessing child porn has no purpose other than sexual reasons, and thus is 'profit', from the exploitation of children. By keeping the consumers of child pornography from getting their hands on it, the theory is that you will then shut down the market for it, ending the exploitation. This is impossible so long as people keep downloading it. Demand means people will find a way to supply it.

Having child pornography means you are supplying a market for it, thus creating a need for children to be exploited, plain and simple.

If I was working for a department that tracked child pornography, I would probably have a look at what is posted on internet forums, specifically topics defending child pornography users and their "innocent" justification for the acquisition of child pornography; something like: "They're not making the kiddie porn so what's wrong with having it on their computer? Couldn't they just have a slap on the wrist and a warning ... they haven't done anything wrong. Maybe it was dropped/embedded on their computer when they were reading the CNN headlines."

20 years ago, there were arguments to have pornography moved out of sight for children and behind the counter. Prior to that it was on the rack in front of the cashier; pre-schooler's eye-level. One of the arguments for removing pornography was that the publication of derogatory depictions of women would lead to more people taking the fantasy to a real level ... in essence, that the availability of pornography; like Hustler and worse (not Playboy), would increase the rate of rape and victimization of women. The counter argument was that prostitution has always been around ... meaning the degradation of women has always been around ... and maybe putting the same thing in a magazine will not make any difference.

Regarding child pornography, it is not all around and it is not acceptable on the rack in front of the cashier at the corner store. Everyone knows this. Anyone that makes, promotes, intentionally views or profits from child pornography is participating in the child porn community, a community that exploits children and is not okay with parents.

 

[Ariadne]

I stuck around long enough and then got bored. It's hard to debate with people when all they say is "we're superior to them, so who cares? They're animals."

Do you think there is a difference between eating a baby human and eating a baby cow or a four legged duck? BTW, I hear their heads are a Chinese delicacy ... maybe for New Years.

Happy Year of the Pig and long live the Duck.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"Do you think there is a difference between eating a baby human and eating a baby cow or a four legged duck? BTW, I hear their heads are a Chinese delicacy ... maybe for New Years."



All of those are wrong. It's not right for us to take another life and eat it for our own satisfaction.

 

[Ariadne]

All of those are wrong. It's not right for us to take another life and eat it for our own satisfaction.

It is the Year of the Pig New Year's Eve. Maybe it was the baby chicken heads that were a delicacy ... don't remember which ... but it was crunchier than biting into a grasshopper.

Are chocolate ants okay or is that a problem too?

 

[Rawisbetter!]

Were those actual ants?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Now it's just some pictures he downloaded off of the internet. There's no evidence at all that he molested a child. Just a picture. Should he go to jail?

Children are abused to produce child pornography, anyone who posesses that porn should go to jail.

 

[Ariadne]

Were those actual ants?

Yah. Chocolate covered ants, grasshoppers, deep fried oysters, sardines, anchovies, slugs or escargos, clams, crabs, worms, snakes and how come we don't eat more alligator or why do we cook crab live ... should we not eat them, even if we are hungry? Is it always wrong to take another life for our own personal satisfaction, like hunger?

I think not.

Is it okay to exploit a child for personal satisfaction. It is not okay to even look, even if there is opportunity and desire.

The answer is: It is sometimes okay to take another life for sustenance so long as the life is not human and it is never okay to compromise the life of a child for personal, sexual gratification.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"Is it always wrong to take another life for our own personal satisfaction, like hunger?"


If it's hunger, then I guess it's ok, but there had better be no other option.

 

[tamarin]

Ariadne, it is exploitation. The passing around of private images to embarrass the subject whose picture is shown. That was the crux of the Hamilton case. And also the crux of many others that have surfaced during the last few years. When private becomes public a crime is committed. So it was with the Kingston, Ontario case last year where a teen in the eastern Ontario city used his connections with chatroom peers and their image libraries to coerce them into even more risky online behaviour. Porn has been mainstreamed for the present younger generation, it's been democratized. And a lot of foolish, if not criminal, behaviour is going on. I'm not going to your sites. I can't think how such a visit would change anything. What we need is more awareness in homes, schools and communities of the potential for abuse when teens and kids have such open and poorly supervised access to new technology.

 

[Ariadne]

"Is it always wrong to take another life for our own personal satisfaction, like hunger?"


If it's hunger, then I guess it's ok, but there had better be no other option.

Well ... people could go hungry rather than eat the fat rat knawing on their starved friend.

Child pornography is still not okay, even to look at.

 

[AmberEyes]

Raw, if you were standing in front of me, I wouldn't hesitate to punch you in the face.

One of my main father figures as a child watched child pornography on a daily basis. He didn't take pictures, he didn't make the movies, but he provided the criminals with a market.

Want to know what happened? After 5 years of trusting this man with my life, he invited me into his bedroom one night (I was little) and began to touch me. I've never been able to trust another man since.

Still think it's harmless? I believe that the more a person views these disgusting acts the more comfortable they become with the ideas, and it makes it easier for them to act on their desires. I'm not saying that child porn made him do it, but I do think it had an influence on the way he was thinking.

 

[Ariadne]

Ariadne, it is exploitation. The passing around of private images to embarrass the subject whose picture is shown. That was the crux of the Hamilton case. And also the crux of many others that have surfaced during the last few years. When private becomes public a crime is committed. So it was with the Kingston, Ontario case last year where a teen in the eastern Ontario city used his connections with chatroom peers and their image libraries to coerce them into even more risky online behaviour. Porn has been mainstreamed for the present younger generation, it's been democratized. And a lot of foolish, if not criminal, behaviour is going on. I'm not going to your sites. I can't think how such a visit would change anything. What we need is more awareness in homes, schools and communities of the potential for abuse when teens and kids have such open and poorly supervised access to new technology.

Exploitation of land, countries, women, children ... all different topics. Child pornography is a subset of exploitation, they are not equal. Exploitation of teenagers that willingly pose for photos ... well ... that sucks, shows poor judgment and probably won't happen again. Child pornography refers to children that are not willing participants at any level.

Oh, now we're into online porn ... I saw that show with the British youth and now some guy in Ontario that ... blah and so on ... took it all off and became an online teenage porn star without really knowing it. Accidentally.

Err, or are we discussing whether parents are aware of how their children are using technology.

I can't imagine why seeing photography as art or reading 18th C. philosophical and religious beliefs on philosophy in the bedroom wouldn't make a difference ... I suppose ... maybe ... not.

 

[Ariadne]

Raw, if you were standing in front of me, I wouldn't hesitate to punch you in the face.

One of my main father figures as a child watched child pornography on a daily basis. He didn't take pictures, he didn't make the movies, but he provided the criminals with a market.

Want to know what happened? After 5 years of trusting this man with my life, he invited me into his bedroom one night (I was little) and began to touch me. I've never been able to trust another man since.

Still think it's harmless? I believe that the more a person views these disgusting acts the more comfortable they become with the ideas, and it makes it easier for them to act on their desires. I'm not saying that child porn made him do it, but I do think it had an influence on the way he was thinking.

I think you're right ... that repeated, habitual or addictive viewing of child pornography desensitizes men, reducing their awareness of empathy for the child victim and enabling some men to take their fantasies to reality - providing there is opportunity and desire.

As for not trusting men, there are few men that live to a ripe old age and can claim that women trust them. A trust worthy man is almost as much of an oxymoron as an intelligent woman ... kidding.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"Raw, if you were standing in front of me, I wouldn't hesitate to punch you in the face."



For what? Aruging from the other side. How dare I!!!!!!!!! And that father figure you're takling about doesn't speak for everyone. Not all the perverts would ever dream of harming a child. And that's who I'm talking about. With the way you're acting, we should put people in jail that watch horror movies with grizzly murders, because one day they MAY end up murdering someone.

 

[groovy]

"Raw, if you were standing in front of me, I wouldn't hesitate to punch you in the face."



For what? Aruging from the other side. How dare I!!!!!!!!! And that father figure you're takling about doesn't speak for everyone. Not all the perverts would ever dream of harming a child. And that's who I'm talking about. With the way you're acting, we should put people in jail that watch horror movies with grizzly murders, because one day they MAY end up murdering someone.

My friend, there is no "other side". The bottom line here is children. It is just not on to deal with, look at or engage in anything to do of a sexual nature with a child. To do so perpetuates the evil. To do so indicates you are of the mindset that would presume to have, or desire to have, sex with children. that is a not a side, that is perversion.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"My friend, there is no "other side"."


I disagree. There's "You think he should go to jail for JUST having a picture" and there's "You think he shouldn't go to jail for JUST having a picture"

 

[DurkaDurka]

"Raw, if you were standing in front of me, I wouldn't hesitate to punch you in the face."



For what? Aruging from the other side. How dare I!!!!!!!!! And that father figure you're takling about doesn't speak for everyone. Not all the perverts would ever dream of harming a child. And that's who I'm talking about. With the way you're acting, we should put people in jail that watch horror movies with grizzly murders, because one day they MAY end up murdering someone.

Arguing from the other side? You are advocating the legitimacy of child porn.

Comparing horror movies and child porn is completely moronic. Just so you understand now. In a horror movie, the people are ACTING, unlike child porn where they are raped and abused.

 

[DurkaDurka]

"My friend, there is no "other side"."


I disagree. There's "You think he should go to jail for JUST having a picture" and there's "You think he shouldn't go to jail for JUST having a picture"

I imagine you would go to jail if the cops had a look on your pc. :wave:

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"Comparing horror movies and child porn is completely moronic. Just so you understand now. In a horror movie, the people are ACTING, unlike child porn where they are raped and abused."



So what if they're acting? The person who may end up murdering someone, by watching this, obviously wouldn't care if it was an act. And hey, what about that new movie that everyone's talking about, where that girl gets r@ped? That's just ACTING. So you don't think someone might get the idea or pleasure of abusing a child from that clip? And thanks for calling me a moron. It just makes you look that much more mature.



"I imagine you would go to jail if the cops had a look on your pc."



And I imagine the cops would give you a long lecture about falsely accusing people of things and wasting their time.