Topic: Why I Believe Child Pornography should be legal
l started this discussion 13 years ago #31,285
Now, it seems almost obvious to me that child pornography is immoral, the idea of someone profiting from the molestation of children is abhorent to me, but what is moral, and what should be legal isn't always the same thing.
First, let's discuss why child pornography should not be illegal. Child molestation/rape/abuse is illegal, as it should be, so legalizing child pornography would not create very much profit, or create some kind of booming out in the open "CP Industry", it would simply make showing the crime legal, as of now it is completely legal to show a murder, or even a rape of an adult. There is no booming murder or rape industry making snuff films for profit, nobody is taking the risk of murdering people just to make some money online.
Second, the posting of CP can ruin a business. Most people who see CP online see it involuntarily. Sure, there are people who go on .onion sites to look at it, but for the most part people see it browsing a site like retardchan or whatever else. If not properly handled those sites can be shut down, leaving the owner of the site without profit, therefore creating fear in any site owner that would like to promote free speech on their site, making heavy moderation, ironically, especially important on sites that are supposed to be about showcasing whatever you want.
To recap, the reasons why CP should not be illegal are because you can view all other crimes, and it makes no sense that child molestation is the only exception, and it is bad for profit because sites need to moderate like crazy just to make sure no one posts it.
Okay, now, believe it or not, I have reasons it should be legal.
First, again child cruelty should be illegal, and the punishment should be severe. However, there's no reason we can't have a silver lining, or a green lining. Although murders are seldom (if ever) carried out to be filmed for profit, shock sites do stimulate our economy. Taking that same logic, and it applying that to molestation. There would likely be no booming CP industry, however sites wishing to host CP might be able to at least make some profit from the tragedy, making the suffering of the children perhaps not a complete waste.
Second, it would help victims. Child Pornography makes it so that if you have a film of some kid being molested you are breaking the law, the majority of CP will never be seen by anyone other than those with the internet know how, and the willingness to seek it out. This hides the victims, it hides the criminals. If it were able to be out in the open, abusers would have less hiding places, maybe someone would recognize the victim and be able to help, you never know, but forcing the abusers and their victims into the dark does not seem like the right solution.
Okay, that's about it. I'm not recapping the last section because I'm sleepy now.
First, let's discuss why child pornography should not be illegal. Child molestation/rape/abuse is illegal, as it should be, so legalizing child pornography would not create very much profit, or create some kind of booming out in the open "CP Industry", it would simply make showing the crime legal, as of now it is completely legal to show a murder, or even a rape of an adult. There is no booming murder or rape industry making snuff films for profit, nobody is taking the risk of murdering people just to make some money online.
Second, the posting of CP can ruin a business. Most people who see CP online see it involuntarily. Sure, there are people who go on .onion sites to look at it, but for the most part people see it browsing a site like retardchan or whatever else. If not properly handled those sites can be shut down, leaving the owner of the site without profit, therefore creating fear in any site owner that would like to promote free speech on their site, making heavy moderation, ironically, especially important on sites that are supposed to be about showcasing whatever you want.
To recap, the reasons why CP should not be illegal are because you can view all other crimes, and it makes no sense that child molestation is the only exception, and it is bad for profit because sites need to moderate like crazy just to make sure no one posts it.
Okay, now, believe it or not, I have reasons it should be legal.
First, again child cruelty should be illegal, and the punishment should be severe. However, there's no reason we can't have a silver lining, or a green lining. Although murders are seldom (if ever) carried out to be filmed for profit, shock sites do stimulate our economy. Taking that same logic, and it applying that to molestation. There would likely be no booming CP industry, however sites wishing to host CP might be able to at least make some profit from the tragedy, making the suffering of the children perhaps not a complete waste.
Second, it would help victims. Child Pornography makes it so that if you have a film of some kid being molested you are breaking the law, the majority of CP will never be seen by anyone other than those with the internet know how, and the willingness to seek it out. This hides the victims, it hides the criminals. If it were able to be out in the open, abusers would have less hiding places, maybe someone would recognize the victim and be able to help, you never know, but forcing the abusers and their victims into the dark does not seem like the right solution.
Okay, that's about it. I'm not recapping the last section because I'm sleepy now.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 39 minutes later[^] [v] #443,894
tl;dr
fuck off
fuck off
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #443,895
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #443,904
> browsing a site like retardchan
What's that? I tried retardchan.org, retardchan.com and so on and nothing worked, AnTs!
Could an AnT please link to it? I hope Sysop doesn't mind.
What's that? I tried retardchan.org, retardchan.com and so on and nothing worked, AnTs!
Could an AnT please link to it? I hope Sysop doesn't mind.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #443,939
tl;dr
OP wants to fap to CP.
OP wants to fap to CP.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 29 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #443,940
Chapter one of The Mountainman Prophecy
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,090
op if cp were legal it would be harder for cops to find pedophiles because finding it through exposure on the internet would be impossible because you can't exactly go spying on people for doing something legal. Also how the hell
would it work? it would certainly break your human right, the human right of a child, a child should be able to forbid any porn of being spread around. uh hello police? Some asshole is spreading videos of my little girl being tortured, can you help me remove them?
> police: fuck no (SLAM)
society cant function like that.
would it work? it would certainly break your human right, the human right of a child, a child should be able to forbid any porn of being spread around. uh hello police? Some asshole is spreading videos of my little girl being tortured, can you help me remove them?
> police: fuck no (SLAM)
society cant function like that.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,096
@previous (G)
They're supposed to track down the people molesting children, not the people looking at the photos. If it was legal it would be easier to find pedophiles because they wouldn't hide it, and pictures would be in the open so they could track the source faster. If it was legal police would have to go after the people making the photos instead of pretending they're doing their job.
They're supposed to track down the people molesting children, not the people looking at the photos. If it was legal it would be easier to find pedophiles because they wouldn't hide it, and pictures would be in the open so they could track the source faster. If it was legal police would have to go after the people making the photos instead of pretending they're doing their job.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,107
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,122
@previous (doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ)
probably more so, really. the people who make it probably just do it for the money.
he probably wouldn't do it if there wasn't a demand for it.
he'd just stick to like probably teenage rape porn.
probably.
probably more so, really. the people who make it probably just do it for the money.
he probably wouldn't do it if there wasn't a demand for it.
he'd just stick to like probably teenage rape porn.
probably.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,130
@444,096 (D)
> easier to find pedophiles because they wouldn't hide it.
I don't see how you think this is the case. The police finds some cp, and track down the ring and often in return find the rapists but this way they could not go tracking down people as easily because the people with the porn
would not be under arrest and interrogated, in other words a person might have cp from the source of the rapist and the police might know about it but not be able to do anything just based on him having cp
> easier to find pedophiles because they wouldn't hide it.
I don't see how you think this is the case. The police finds some cp, and track down the ring and often in return find the rapists but this way they could not go tracking down people as easily because the people with the porn
would not be under arrest and interrogated, in other words a person might have cp from the source of the rapist and the police might know about it but not be able to do anything just based on him having cp
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,134
@444,090 (G)
We already having people spied on, all the time, furthermore child pornography at least has to start somewhere in the public domain, so that wouldn't really be spying, would it? Even now the market is saturared enough to where someone having isn't going to lead to the actual child molesters the majority of the time.
Also, child molestation, and therefore making CP would be illegal, so you could call the cops about that. If I make a video of me murdering your wife, and you see it then you can call the cops and have pretty good evidence. However, if Bob from down the road happens to also see the video, then he is not committing a crime simply by viewing the contents of the film.
@444,107 (doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ)
@444,122 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
First of all, no, viewing child pornography, an act which harm no children directly, even on the "they're creating a demand for child rape" front considering most CP is gotten for free through proxies, is not worse than actually molesting a child. Do you honestly think raping children to make money is on a higher moral ground than just viewing the contents of the video? Furthermore, I suppose you are making an argument that there would be an increased demand to make the videos because there's now a legal market for them. This is also, false. There is a myriad of already distribituble content available, the people creating the content will do it regardless of the legality, because they always have. And the people who weren't raping children for profit aren't going to start doing it just because the videos themselves are legal. Criminals will stay criminals, non-criminals will stay non-criminals, people will stick to their previous patterns of behavior.
We already having people spied on, all the time, furthermore child pornography at least has to start somewhere in the public domain, so that wouldn't really be spying, would it? Even now the market is saturared enough to where someone having isn't going to lead to the actual child molesters the majority of the time.
Also, child molestation, and therefore making CP would be illegal, so you could call the cops about that. If I make a video of me murdering your wife, and you see it then you can call the cops and have pretty good evidence. However, if Bob from down the road happens to also see the video, then he is not committing a crime simply by viewing the contents of the film.
@444,107 (doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ)
@444,122 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
First of all, no, viewing child pornography, an act which harm no children directly, even on the "they're creating a demand for child rape" front considering most CP is gotten for free through proxies, is not worse than actually molesting a child. Do you honestly think raping children to make money is on a higher moral ground than just viewing the contents of the video? Furthermore, I suppose you are making an argument that there would be an increased demand to make the videos because there's now a legal market for them. This is also, false. There is a myriad of already distribituble content available, the people creating the content will do it regardless of the legality, because they always have. And the people who weren't raping children for profit aren't going to start doing it just because the videos themselves are legal. Criminals will stay criminals, non-criminals will stay non-criminals, people will stick to their previous patterns of behavior.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,136
@444,130 (J)
Also, not actually true, it isn't illegal for your car to smell like marijuana, but it warrants the police to search your car for the drug.
If the police have enough evidence to search your computer, they likely have enough evidence to interrogate you. Even if they don't, the same can be said about the murder video, or you happening to own a lot of knives and disposable gloves, or several other legal things that would make for evidence in a case.
Also, not actually true, it isn't illegal for your car to smell like marijuana, but it warrants the police to search your car for the drug.
If the police have enough evidence to search your computer, they likely have enough evidence to interrogate you. Even if they don't, the same can be said about the murder video, or you happening to own a lot of knives and disposable gloves, or several other legal things that would make for evidence in a case.
doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,139
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,141
@previous (doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ)
I was more referring to squeegee's "probably more so..." more than your comment. And I agree the consumption of such materials is arguably immoral, however "moral", and "legal" are sometimes, and should sometimes be different things. I find adultery highly immoral, but I don't think cheaters should be sent to prison, for example.
I was more referring to squeegee's "probably more so..." more than your comment. And I agree the consumption of such materials is arguably immoral, however "moral", and "legal" are sometimes, and should sometimes be different things. I find adultery highly immoral, but I don't think cheaters should be sent to prison, for example.
doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,153
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,155
@previous (doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ)
I beg to differ. Watching CP pretty much harms no one, or at least makes an insignificant dent. Infidelity ruins lives.
I beg to differ. Watching CP pretty much harms no one, or at least makes an insignificant dent. Infidelity ruins lives.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,174
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,175
!KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,211
> people can watch murders and rapes legally even though they're crimes therefore watching cp should be legal as well
No mention of making it illegal to watch video of murders and rapes though, that's probably too out there
No mention of making it illegal to watch video of murders and rapes though, that's probably too out there
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,231
OP desperately wants his CP free and legal, and he's going to convince the world one chan at a time.
hearts and minds, dude. hearts and minds.
God speed, and die in a fire.
hearts and minds, dude. hearts and minds.
God speed, and die in a fire.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,235
@444,211 (!KThEOwLwbU)
That's actually a more reasonable stance, at least from a moral standpoint.
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I thought you were more intelligent than this. Why don't you try to actually have a debate, and think about this rather than just having a knee jerk reaction because you'd rather just regurgitate the values hoisted upon you by your upbringing? I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but at least have something worthwhile to contribute.
That's actually a more reasonable stance, at least from a moral standpoint.
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I thought you were more intelligent than this. Why don't you try to actually have a debate, and think about this rather than just having a knee jerk reaction because you'd rather just regurgitate the values hoisted upon you by your upbringing? I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but at least have something worthwhile to contribute.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #444,236
@previous (A)> I thought you were more intelligent than this.
i see you've underestimated me
> Why don't you try to actually have a debate, and think about this rather than just having a knee jerk reaction because you'd rather just regurgitate the values hoisted upon you by your upbringing?
i'm sorry, it's my weak stomach and tendency to feel nauseated whenever people talk about watching videos of child rape, not my upbringing, that that causes me to regurgitate my values. i have decided, on my own, that jerking off to images of children being raped is depraved and at the furthest end of the spectrum of "what's acceptable."
> I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but at least have something worthwhile to contribute.
I say chop off the head or the body will not die. happy?
edit: r04r, edit in the cat picture for me. the half picture, or the one of the cat squinting.
re-edit: or becky, or somebody. anyone. also then delete these edit, they make me look foolish. thanks.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,244
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,247
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,307
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,337
@444,236 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
You were brought up in the United States where pedophilia is demonized more than any other crime. To us, fondling a kid is worse than murder. If you were brought up a couple hundred years ago, or even just in some parts of the world your reaction would likely be different.
That being said, your stance on the matter is reasonable, it's your justification, a blind appeal to ethos, that I do not appreciate. Maybe there are some topics which you can not handle, this seems to be one of them.
You were brought up in the United States where pedophilia is demonized more than any other crime. To us, fondling a kid is worse than murder. If you were brought up a couple hundred years ago, or even just in some parts of the world your reaction would likely be different.
That being said, your stance on the matter is reasonable, it's your justification, a blind appeal to ethos, that I do not appreciate. Maybe there are some topics which you can not handle, this seems to be one of them.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 20 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,511
@previous (A)
Oh man I always get a laugh out of these "if this were a hundred years ago" arguments. Mainly because if this really were a hundred years ago most of the sorry asses making these arguments couldn't even survive that state of society.
Oh man I always get a laugh out of these "if this were a hundred years ago" arguments. Mainly because if this really were a hundred years ago most of the sorry asses making these arguments couldn't even survive that state of society.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,548
OP if cp was legal it would be harder to stop child molesters. Imagine the police finds out a teacher has a huge collection of cp at his/her home they raid the teacher's house but somehow are unable to determine who has been molesting all the foreign children in the cp because the molester managed to hide his/her identity so well. So the teacher goes back to school and teaching and nobody gives a fuck. Does this scenario make any sense to you at all?
It also just doesn't work to legalize cp because to do that you must make it so that the children can have legal authority to allow those pictures of them being spread otherwise they would be illegal by different laws. Does that seem like a possible scenario to you?
It also just doesn't work to legalize cp because to do that you must make it so that the children can have legal authority to allow those pictures of them being spread otherwise they would be illegal by different laws. Does that seem like a possible scenario to you?
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,549
@previous (M)
Your assuming the viewers of CP and the perpetrators of child rape are one in the same. That's a leap of faith. Most child rapists are busted for rape, not CP. And most people who are busted for CP have never been busted for child rape. The correlation you assume to be obvious is actually weak, just so you know.
Your assuming the viewers of CP and the perpetrators of child rape are one in the same. That's a leap of faith. Most child rapists are busted for rape, not CP. And most people who are busted for CP have never been busted for child rape. The correlation you assume to be obvious is actually weak, just so you know.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,551
@previous (E)
i just made an scenario that is obviously not going to work in the real world. Its not a leap of faith to not want children around cp collectors, its called being careful its something people do to prevent things. No leap of faith
involved but it would be if i would take your words for the truth because you are apparently a cp and child rape expert. You at least agree with my second point don't you?
i just made an scenario that is obviously not going to work in the real world. Its not a leap of faith to not want children around cp collectors, its called being careful its something people do to prevent things. No leap of faith
involved but it would be if i would take your words for the truth because you are apparently a cp and child rape expert. You at least agree with my second point don't you?
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,553
@previous (N)
It's not about being an expert. It's about being able to interpret statistics which are readily available to anyone intelligent enough to look for them.
Most people busted for CP have never been busted for child rape and most people busted for child rape have never been busted for CP. These are facts, whether or not they conflict with your expectations.
It's not about being an expert. It's about being able to interpret statistics which are readily available to anyone intelligent enough to look for them.
Most people busted for CP have never been busted for child rape and most people busted for child rape have never been busted for CP. These are facts, whether or not they conflict with your expectations.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,556
@previous (E)
what does most exactly mean? because i have looked it up and apparently ''In 2006, 41% of all arrested CP possessors
were dual offenders versus 55% in 2000''
So there seem to be conflicting statistics if you even have them. You seem to be avoiding the point though, does my scenario look like something that would work in the real world? No, and even if your statistics are real and are more true then mine, then it still can be said that to make cp legal would make it harder to catch those child rapists that do have CP because they would only be able to interrogate him to a certain point but not actually stop him/her.
and again you at least agree with my last point in that other post right?
what does most exactly mean? because i have looked it up and apparently ''In 2006, 41% of all arrested CP possessors
were dual offenders versus 55% in 2000''
So there seem to be conflicting statistics if you even have them. You seem to be avoiding the point though, does my scenario look like something that would work in the real world? No, and even if your statistics are real and are more true then mine, then it still can be said that to make cp legal would make it harder to catch those child rapists that do have CP because they would only be able to interrogate him to a certain point but not actually stop him/her.
and again you at least agree with my last point in that other post right?
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,560
Most means greater than 50%, retard.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,567
@previous (E)
yeah but you worded it as if it was not a big number like, 41%. I find it hard to believe that you would go through telling me how i should not make a connection between cp and child molestation when the statistics show that there is a 41% connection. That would be retarded.
yeah but you worded it as if it was not a big number like, 41%. I find it hard to believe that you would go through telling me how i should not make a connection between cp and child molestation when the statistics show that there is a 41% connection. That would be retarded.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,625
@previous (P)
Correlation alone is insufficient to infer causality, so I'm not the one being retarded.
Correlation alone is insufficient to infer causality, so I'm not the one being retarded.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,629
@previous (E)
oh so now this is suddenly about how i was trying to say that cp makes people rape children? I never said that dumbass. Here is you:
> The correlation you assume to be obvious is actually weak, just so you know.
So this was about correlation and apparently there is one so accept it and accept cp won't be legal.
oh so now this is suddenly about how i was trying to say that cp makes people rape children? I never said that dumbass. Here is you:
> The correlation you assume to be obvious is actually weak, just so you know.
So this was about correlation and apparently there is one so accept it and accept cp won't be legal.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,631
@previous (Q)
I never said CP should be legal. I'm only saying that making CP illegal does little to protect children from predators.
I never said CP should be legal. I'm only saying that making CP illegal does little to protect children from predators.
Anonymous Q replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #444,632
@previous (E)
which is just simply wrong. It would mean cp possessors of the worst kind could go around and work and/or be in child filled places for example which could have been prevented.
It would make it harder to catch them also because if they manage to hide their identity for example in the images, then they are basically safe from any repercussions.
It also protects them from being further exploited from those predators by not having images of them around the internet.
which is just simply wrong. It would mean cp possessors of the worst kind could go around and work and/or be in child filled places for example which could have been prevented.
It would make it harder to catch them also because if they manage to hide their identity for example in the images, then they are basically safe from any repercussions.
It also protects them from being further exploited from those predators by not having images of them around the internet.