You got it. There is a difference between a human being and other members of the animal world. If you're having trouble understanding this, feel free to repeat grade 8.
Should a man go to jail if he's caught with child porn in his house?
- Thread starter Rawisbetter!
- Start date
You got it. There is a difference between a human being and other members of the animal world. If you're having trouble understanding this, feel free to repeat grade 8.
Oh dear. S&M is sadism and masochism. Marquis de Sade ... sadist. His willing victims ... masochist. Not all those in the masochists chair are willing, but some are. Some men like to be spanked ... it's a mild version of S&M. Real torture is where S&M originated. Don't tell anyone you learned it from me, but read Justine, followed by Julliette, by Marquis de Sade and you'll know everything you ever wanted to know about the issue. Julliette is about 1400 pages, so it'll take a while, eh.
As for child pornography, I guess the law sees it differently than some people. Propagating child pornography is as big a problem as making it ... because it all exploits children for profit.
It's a no-brainer for me that the bulk of child porn being sent over the net today is both produced by and distributed by kids. Technically savvy, time rich and hormonally explosive, they must be by their early teens deeply involved in many aspects of the unsavoury business. I'd hate to see a kid sent to detention for possession of what his peers have likely sent him. As for an adult, I think a good talking to should be sufficient on a first charge. To publicize the charge and prosecute it in the kangaroo atmosphere explicit over child abuse issues in Canada today is wrong. To ruin an individual, break up his family, implode his job is asinine - over a picture or pictures on a first charge. And I'm surprised too at how many of these charges arise - the local repair shop "discovers" illegal images on some customer's hard drive. Huh? Are these shops breaking privacy laws and searching that same customer's picture files for illegal material? Looks like it to me. Otherwise what's the chance of such a find being made accidentally while fixing a computer? Zero to none.
I disagree. The child porn that hits the news media usually involves 6 year olds or younger. It's unlikely that hormonally active teens are raping 5 year old kids. On the other hand, if they are, they deserve prison, not a talking to. And any adult with this crap deserves prison at the least, quite possibly execution.
Child porn is child abuse.
As for repair shops, I believe, but stand to be corrected, that repair shops are obliged to report any child porn they find, much like doctors must report child abuse, etc.
When tech shops repair computers, they usually have to do something with the harddrive. There are two options: wipe the drive or transfer the data to a temp server, depending on what the customer agrees to. In transferring the data to a temp server, the shop is storing the data on their machine and are entitled to scan for smut. That's life.
As for a little slap on the wrist for possessing or propagating child porn, it's great in theory. Unfortunately, even jail terms do not deter people from enjoying child porn so a slap on the wrist would be nothing more than a joke and encouragement to be more sneeky.
Men that like child pornography should lose their families and jobs if they have any contact with children. I get the impression that you are not fully aware of the permanent, psychological damage that occurs in children subjected to adults with abnormal sexual interests. The exploitation of a child for profit is no different than rape, home invasion, or any other violent crime.
If children are propagating child pornography, it is even more important to have those children identified, removed from mainstream society and educated on appropriate social interaction. Do you really think they'll stop when they turn 18? ... especially if they're making easy money pimping other children?
I don't know where you two have been for the last ten years but we've had an explosion in technology and the kids have eaten it up. I should think the majority of boys by age 18 have taken pornographic pictures of themselves or their peers. Given how brazen girls are, ditto. If the law wanted to jail 12 to 17 year olds for this material they could build detention centres from here to North Bay and still be looking for space.
The abuse of kids - those under 12 - is another ball game and I hope those 12 to 17 aren't involved. But child porn is broad in its sweep and 12 to 17 year olds fit the definition and are involved. They couldn't not be. It goes with the territory. Why do you think there's such an uproar about video-cellphones in schools today? It's not all about wasted time and cheating!
The abuse of kids - those under 12 - is another ball game and I hope those 12 to 17 aren't involved. But child porn is broad in its sweep and 12 to 17 year olds fit the definition and are involved. They couldn't not be. It goes with the territory. Why do you think there's such an uproar about video-cellphones in schools today? It's not all about wasted time and cheating!
So you've categorized child porn as involving 12 to 17 year olds, and you've decided it's mostly teenagers willingly doing it.
I don't know where YOU'VE been the last 10 years, but I think you need to get out more.
I don't know where YOU'VE been the last 10 years, but I think you need to get out more.
I get out plenty and you have no idea of my background because I don't discuss it much. But I will allow I've had strong connections to the educational community at various levels. And I know the issue of porn and cellphones and all the related nonsense has been an issue broached at some time at every single school I've known through my work.
And I know through my community contacts that many a kid has lost webcam privileges over the porn issue. I think many a parent is stunned and embarrassed over what she's discovered her pride and joy was doing.
Thanks be to the media and all its warped potentates for having more of an influence in your kid's life than you do.
And I know through my community contacts that many a kid has lost webcam privileges over the porn issue. I think many a parent is stunned and embarrassed over what she's discovered her pride and joy was doing.
Thanks be to the media and all its warped potentates for having more of an influence in your kid's life than you do.
Here's one for you. I get my coffee at the same coffee shop pretty much every day and have become friendly with the staff. One day some young girl forgot her pretty pink cellphone on the counter. For fun, the staff decided to have a look at the nice pictures the sweet young thang had stored on her phone. We all had a very long chuckle about the guy that posed his penis for a snapshot ... and all the rest of the rather (as it turned out) uninteresting skin photos. Is that child pornography according to your definition? Those are the photos that teenagers are passing around and you know perfectly well that it does not constitute child pornography. There is a big difference between teenagers proudly passing snapshots of their changing bodies around the net and sexually exploiting a child - but you already know that. Nice try though.
You're right in that the majority of what they will be sharing and posting is soft core. But I doubt the police would see it that way. If a 12 to 17 year old is into sexual display "for a sexual purpose" I'm sure the police would be interested. And I'm sure too that many of the soft core addicts are also willing to push this same line. Nice try at circumvention.
Children use cellphones in schools for text messaging, talking, sharing info and taking pictures. Therefore, cellphones are typically banned in schools except for specific times and reasons, such as lunch time or emergency. Phones have been used for cheating, and taking photos in locker rooms. This does not constitute child pornography ... comes under different laws ... like the laws that say guys can't have a webcam on their shoe and look up women's skirts on escalators or laws that say you can't use camera's and secret mirrors in clothing shop change rooms. Something along the lines of exploitation ... but don't know.
Indeed, South Park probably influences children ... and their sense of humour ... thankfully.
"You got it. There is a difference between a human being and other members of the animal world. If you're having trouble understanding this, feel free to repeat grade 8"
You mean there's a difference between humans and cows? Wow. I didn't know that. Who would have thought? So just because we are superior to them means we can do whatever we want to them? What are they going to do? Nothing so why not kill them and eat them, when we don't even need it to survive. But hey, we're better than them so who cares? Screw every other creature but us. If that's your attitude and if you're having trouble understanding what I'm getting at, then you don't know what being a good human being is. So don't sit there and tell me that the guy who didn't do anything wrong, should go to jail, because he basically supports abusing children by just having a picture, without me calling you out on basically supporting the deaths of millions of innocent creatures.
You mean there's a difference between humans and cows? Wow. I didn't know that. Who would have thought? So just because we are superior to them means we can do whatever we want to them? What are they going to do? Nothing so why not kill them and eat them, when we don't even need it to survive. But hey, we're better than them so who cares? Screw every other creature but us. If that's your attitude and if you're having trouble understanding what I'm getting at, then you don't know what being a good human being is. So don't sit there and tell me that the guy who didn't do anything wrong, should go to jail, because he basically supports abusing children by just having a picture, without me calling you out on basically supporting the deaths of millions of innocent creatures.
It's very soft core and does not involve anyone exploiting anyone. Those types of photos are clearly voluntary and are not new to this generation - cameras have been around for about 100 years, after all. Let's assume that the police, school employees and the general public are aware of the fact that some teenagers are proud to share photos of their breasts and penis's ... new toy for most of them, I guess. I don't think anyone is going to waste their time arresting anyone for posing for or taking those photos. It's not child exploitation, child pornography or anything more than children in awe of becoming adults ... whoop tee do. Nice try at diluting the issue.
"What if it was a naked picture of your son or daughter? Would it still be ok?"
I would probably hunt down the guy who abused my children and beat him to death. But as for the guy who just has a picture of it, I would make sure the police did a full investigation on him and get a restraining order on the guy. I might even just move my family away from him if that's what it takes.
I would probably hunt down the guy who abused my children and beat him to death. But as for the guy who just has a picture of it, I would make sure the police did a full investigation on him and get a restraining order on the guy. I might even just move my family away from him if that's what it takes.
You're creating your own definitions to suit your own purposes. And where did you get the idea that young people have been using the camera to do the same thing for eons. Certainly some would have with the invention of the polaroid camera but very few would have been brave enough to submit such material to a regular lab. And if they did I'm sure they would have been duly apprised of their position. New technology has emboldened the young. It's never been as easy as it is now. Nor abuse of said devices even remotely as pervasive. Parents and schools need to back each other up on this one. It is exploitation when the sharing of images and videos (like the case of the Hamllton teens' Safe Sex Club last year) becomes a tool to harass. Bully and intimidate.
Why would I think that teenagers have been taking pictures of each other with and without clothes for generations ... tough question. What if I was born before the invention of cellphones and after the invention of cameras? Would that answer your question? What if my father was interested in photography way back in the 1930s and I've seen his photographs? You have heard of the dirty thirties, right? What if ... human sexuality existed before the invention of the modern day cell phone toting teenager?
Check out this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge to start and look at photography as an art form ... or maybe just look at art. Then there's that famous park in Oslo (Vigeland Park) ... http://verhalen.reisblog.com/archives/5-Vigeland-Park-Oslo-Noorwegen.html and for contrast read Juliette (came across it looking for a photo history book just now and turns out it's only 1204 pages) because Marquis de Sade gives a very good explanation of the exploitation of children for the pleasure of adults, including the philosophical and religious interpretations.
Bullying is an entirely separate issue from sexual exploitation of children ... just trying to keep my eye on the ball here - even if I did get sidetracked with photography as art.
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.
"Raw, are you trying to get people to say it's okay for you to have child porn on your comp?"
I would never have that crap on my computer, but if someone does have it, they shouldn't go to prison if they didn't actually do anything. And if no one ever downloaded it, then people would still do it anyway.
I would never have that crap on my computer, but if someone does have it, they shouldn't go to prison if they didn't actually do anything. And if no one ever downloaded it, then people would still do it anyway.
If you eat meat, then that means you are supplying a market for it. Thus creating a need for innocent creatures to be killed. Plain and simple.
Oh!!! *slaps forhead* SIlly me. I thought you were discussing child porn!
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. Feel free to bump it back up and I'll discuss with you the differing morality between humans and animals there. As for THIS thread, the law, and most of the people on here disagree adamantly. I'm one of them. I know my opinion won't change anytime soon, so I suppose there's not much more to discuss.