Life in prison for making porn?

[hefdaddy42]

I think they should most definitely be treated.

[icysk8r]

I think they should most definitely be treated.

By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?

[hefdaddy42]

I think they should most definitely be treated.

By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?

Cured if possible.  But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.

[icysk8r]

I think they should most definitely be treated.

By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?

Cured if possible.  But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.

Maybe you should do some research?

[7StringedBeast]

I liken pedophilia to having compulsive thoughts of murder.  If you are a pedophile you are having compulsive thoughts of having sex with a child.  If you are thinking compulsive thoughts about murder, you have a mental disorder.  So why isn't pedophilia a mental disorder?  Because if the pedophile isn't bothered by his way of thinking, it's not a disorder technically.  But if he's not bothered by it, that's even more messed up.

Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children.  Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.

Is beating a child as bad as murder?

I'd say its right up there with murder yep. 

[hefdaddy42]

I think they should most definitely be treated.

By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?

Cured if possible.  But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.

Maybe you should do some research?

Why?

[Adami]

I liken pedophilia to having compulsive thoughts of murder.  If you are a pedophile you are having compulsive thoughts of having sex with a child.  If you are thinking compulsive thoughts about murder, you have a mental disorder.  So why isn't pedophilia a mental disorder?  Because if the pedophile isn't bothered by his way of thinking, it's not a disorder technically.  But if he's not bothered by it, that's even more messed up.

Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children.  Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.

Is beating a child as bad as murder?

I'd say its right up there with murder yep. 

I think you over value children.

[7StringedBeast]

I liken pedophilia to having compulsive thoughts of murder.  If you are a pedophile you are having compulsive thoughts of having sex with a child.  If you are thinking compulsive thoughts about murder, you have a mental disorder.  So why isn't pedophilia a mental disorder?  Because if the pedophile isn't bothered by his way of thinking, it's not a disorder technically.  But if he's not bothered by it, that's even more messed up.

Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children.  Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.

Is beating a child as bad as murder?

I'd say its right up there with murder yep. 

I think you over value children.

Nope.

[Adami]

There is no logic behind equating child abuse or taking pictures of children naked, or jerking off to pictures of children naked to murder.

There's no logic behind it at all, there's just the irrational hatred behind it. Justice should never be based on emotion. As soon as it is, it falls apart.

[ehra]

Why do you hate children, Adami?

[Adami]

Why do you hate children, Adami?

Because I was raped by an infant.

[ehra]

Why do you hate children, Adami?

Because I was raped by an infant.

I propose a ban on pornographic images and videos featuring or depicting males in their mid twenties so this tragedy might never again occur.

[Adami]

Why do you hate children, Adami?

Because I was raped by an infant.

I propose a ban on pornographic images and videos featuring or depicting males in their mid twenties so this tragedy might never again occur.

Yes, people who take pictures of men in their mid twenties are no better than murderers.

[King Postwhore]

Why do you hate children, Adami?

Because I was raped by an infant.

I propose a ban on pornographic images and videos featuring or depicting males in their mid twenties so this tragedy might never again occur.

Yes, people who take pictures of men in their mid twenties are no better than murderers.

Are we going to find out there is a picture of you floating around the interwebs Adami?  Mabye you should strike first and post it.

[Adami]

NO!

People who look at pictures of me are just as bad as murderers and should all be put in jail for the rest of their lives!

[King Postwhore]

NO!

People who look at pictures of me are just as bad as murderers and should all be put in jail for the rest of their lives!

So where does a baby go to jail when taking an adults pic.

[Adami]

NO!

People who look at pictures of me are just as bad as murderers and should all be put in jail for the rest of their lives!

So where does a baby go to jail when taking an adults pic.

Icys house I'd assume.

[7StringedBeast]

There is no logic behind equating child abuse or taking pictures of children naked, or jerking off to pictures of children naked to murder.

There's no logic behind it at all, there's just the irrational hatred behind it. Justice should never be based on emotion. As soon as it is, it falls apart.

Irrational hatred of child abuse?  Are you out of your skull?  The hatred of child abuse is FAR from irrational.  Where do you come from?  Abusing a child takes the child's innocence.  You can't just go around beating kids.  And I'm not talking about a spanking.  I'm talking about beating up a child.  Not a little slap on the bum.

[Adami]

Oh I get it. Because I don't equate child abuse to murder, I am obviously a proponent of it.


Jesus dude, I know hitting a kid is wrong, raping a kid is wrong, having sex with someone under say 13 is wrong. But I don't equate it to murder.

It's pretty simple.

[7StringedBeast]

Oh I get it. Because I don't equate child abuse to murder, I am obviously a proponent of it.


Jesus dude, I know hitting a kid is wrong, raping a kid is wrong, having sex with someone under say 13 is wrong. But I don't equate it to murder.

It's pretty simple.

I never said it was equal.  I said it was on the same tier.  Children can't protect themselves.  If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more.  The laws are there to protect people after all.

Regardless, my offense still stands to you saying there is an irrational hatred for child abuse.

[Adami]

You can hate child abuse, and then you can have an irrational hatred of child abuse.

I have a hatred of child abuse, it seems you have an irrational hatred of child abuse.

[ehra]

If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more.  The laws are there to protect people after all.

What do these sentences even mean?

[7StringedBeast]

You can hate child abuse, and then you can have an irrational hatred of child abuse.

I have a hatred of child abuse, it seems you have an irrational hatred of child abuse.

How the hell do you come to that conclusion.  Almost everything you say is arbitrary.  I just outlined why laws should be severe with child abuse, because children need protection from somewhere.  NOT IRRATIONAL.  There is absolutely logic behind that way of thinking.  Just because you disagree does not give you any good argument against a rational idea.

[7StringedBeast]

If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more.  The laws are there to protect people after all.

What do these sentences even mean?

Well, read it.  Children need protection.  Parents can't protect children if they are the ones beating them.  So then who is left to protect them?  If the laws are severe for child abuse it would deter child abuse.  Thus offering more protection to children.  This protection coming from the law.  Is that better?  I thought I had it clear in the other statement. 

[ehra]

If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more.  The laws are there to protect people after all.

What do these sentences even mean?

Well, read it.  Children need protection.  Parents can't protect children if they are the ones beating them.  So then who is left to protect them?  If the laws are severe for child abuse it would deter child abuse.  Thus offering more protection to children.  This protection coming from the law.  Is that better?  I thought I had it clear in the other statement. 

What does the amount of people around a person to protect them have to do with how severe a punishment should be dealt out for abusing them? Should some random guy beating up a kid with loving, caring parents have less of a penalty than beating up an orphan? Should punching the president of the US in the face, with all of his body guards, be less punishable than punching some homeless guy in the face?

[7StringedBeast]

If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more.  The laws are there to protect people after all.

What do these sentences even mean?

Well, read it.  Children need protection.  Parents can't protect children if they are the ones beating them.  So then who is left to protect them?  If the laws are severe for child abuse it would deter child abuse.  Thus offering more protection to children.  This protection coming from the law.  Is that better?  I thought I had it clear in the other statement. 

What does the amount of people around a person to protect them have to do with how severe a punishment should be dealt out for abusing them? Should some random guy beating up a kid with loving, caring parents have less of a penalty than beating up an orphan? Should punching the president of the US in the face, with all of his body guards, be less punishable than punching some homeless guy in the face?

It has nothing to do with amount of people.  Children cannot defend themselves right?  Ok.  So when a parent decides to beat their children, there is no one there to protect that child.  So the only way to protect kids against that is to have severe laws against it to deter it.  Same thing goes with murder.  Severe laws will deter murder from happening more frequently (at least that is the idea behind it).  Do you see what I'm saying now?  Child abuse is child abuse, no matter who commits it.  I'm just saying severe laws are warranted in order to protect children better.

[ehra]

If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more.  The laws are there to protect people after all.

What do these sentences even mean?

Well, read it.  Children need protection.  Parents can't protect children if they are the ones beating them.  So then who is left to protect them?  If the laws are severe for child abuse it would deter child abuse.  Thus offering more protection to children.  This protection coming from the law.  Is that better?  I thought I had it clear in the other statement. 

What does the amount of people around a person to protect them have to do with how severe a punishment should be dealt out for abusing them? Should some random guy beating up a kid with loving, caring parents have less of a penalty than beating up an orphan? Should punching the president of the US in the face, with all of his body guards, be less punishable than punching some homeless guy in the face?

It has nothing to do with amount of people.  Children cannot defend themselves right?  Ok.  So when a parent decides to beat their children, there is no one there to protect that child.  So the only way to protect kids against that is to have severe laws against it to deter it.  Same thing goes with murder.  Severe laws will deter murder from happening more frequently (at least that is the idea behind it).  Do you see what I'm saying now? Child abuse is child abuse, no matter who commits it.  I'm just saying severe laws are warranted in order to protect children better.

These two comments are contradictory, though. On one hand you're saying that when a parent beats their kid there's no one to protect the kid so the punishment has to be severe enough to deter it. But then what about if it's not a parent beating the kid. There's someone to "protect" the kid, should this then have a less severe punishment? Or what about when it's one parent abusing a kid but not the other? Or if we've got an extended family living in the same house and a random relative is the abuser but not anyone else?

Obviously it doesn't make any sense to have different punishments in these cases, but that's what part of your argument suggests when you say "a kid with abusive parents has no one to protect them, so we need severe punishments to prevent this."


Which then goes back to the whole "beating a child is as bad as murder" thing. Why? Is murdering a child worse than murdering an adult?

[King Postwhore]

I think everybody is taking things to literal here.  There has to be laws to defer things like stealing, murder, abuse.  That's what 7 stringed is saying. I think erha, that you are saying how do you gauge the punishment.  Am I right or am I missing both your points.

[ehra]

Yes. Going by his comment that beating a child is "right up there with murder," I'm wondering what reasons he would have for why they should be on near the same level punishment wise. I'm also curious, since beating a child is close to murder, if murdering a child is then worse than murdering an adult. If not, then that suggests that murdering a child is only marginally (at the most) worse than beating them.

[icysk8r]

I think they should most definitely be treated.

By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?

Cured if possible.  But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.

Maybe you should do some research?

Why?

Because if you did some then it would be no question that pedophilia can't be "Cured"
I have done TONS of research on the subject...even if that research is a bit hard to find.  Pedophilia is the most interesting subject to me, and yes, I do know A LOT about it.  I'm not talking out of my ass...which is kind of how you seem to be taking my posts.

[King Postwhore]

I think we as a society want to protect children and anything remotely close to child abuse sends off major alarms.  In any conversation there is too many variables for all to agree.  

I'll use you and I as an example erha.  We both agree that pedophila is a very bad thing.  Your ok with a cartoon version of child porn because you think it will deture a person from comitting the crime. I on the other hand think that it will lead to them wanting to take the next step.

I think we are different in that because of where we are in age and in my case, an incident that has forever changed my life.  This is a hard topic to debate because of the child variable.  

[ehra]

I understand, but when it comes to laws it's something that needs to be discussed objectively. Reasons need to go beyond "because it feels right" and claims like "animated child porn does/doesn't make someone more likely to sexually abuse a child" need to be backed up.

[King Postwhore]

I think they should most definitely be treated.

By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?

Cured if possible.  But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.

Maybe you should do some research?

Why?

Because if you did some then it would be no question that pedophilia can't be "Cured"
I have done TONS of research on the subject...even if that research is a bit hard to find.  Pedophilia is the most interesting subject to me, and yes, I do know A LOT about it.  I'm not talking out of my ass...which is kind of how you seem to be taking my posts.

icy, I think to most of us older guys and gals, we want to protect children. It's our nature.  I think when you get older and have kids or someone in your family has kids, your values will change.  Not on everything because it's your age now that will mold you into becoming a man.  

From my life, I have seen my views change as I have gotten older and most old fogies will tell you the same.  Mabye we can have another conversation in about 10 to 15 years and see if there is different stances on this,on both sides.  It would be interesting to see.

[King Postwhore]

I understand, but when it comes to laws it's something that needs to be discussed objectively. Reasons need to go beyond "because it feels right" and claims like "animated child porn does/doesn't make someone more likely to sexually abuse a child" need to be backed up.

In all honesty, I don't know is animated child porn or the real thing is a lesser or no offense at all.  I just think in this one subject it's better to err on the side of caution when relating to children.  That being said. I'd rather see a person get help before the authorities step in. But if they don't want help, that's a different story to me.

[icysk8r]

I think they should most definitely be treated.

By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?

Cured if possible.  But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.

Maybe you should do some research?

Why?

Because if you did some then it would be no question that pedophilia can't be "Cured"
I have done TONS of research on the subject...even if that research is a bit hard to find.  Pedophilia is the most interesting subject to me, and yes, I do know A LOT about it.  I'm not talking out of my ass...which is kind of how you seem to be taking my posts.

icy, I think to most of us older guys and gals, we want to protect children. It's our nature.  I think when you get older and have kids or someone in your family has kids, your values will change.  Not on everything because it's your age now that will mold you into becoming a man.  

From my life, I have seen my views change as I have gotten older and most old fogies will tell you the same.  Mabye we can have another conversation in about 10 to 15 years and see if there is different stances on this,on both sides.  It would be interesting to see.

But it's obvious that I agree with a lot of older members like El Barto and (i think) Adami.  I don't agree with children (meaning under 13 or so) getting banged.  But I have a hard tome believing that drawings will lead someone on to something else, and because of that, I don't think they should be illegal.  

Take this analogy for example.  I think it's an OK one, although about a completely different subject.

The government has been telling people lies for the past 50 or so years about marijuana.  They bend statistics.  They say "Most people who used drugs such as cocaine and heroine started with marijuana.  Therefor marijuana is a gateway drug and will turn you on to heavier drugs.
What they didn't tell you is that while most heavy drug users started with marijuana, most marijuana users DID NOT move on to heavier drugs.  The statistic does not work both ways, and i suspect the same mentality is propagated about simulated child porn.

Another example:
You're a thief.  You live in a world where no matter what you steal you are getting the same punishment.  In front of you lies a candy bar and a golden bar.  You could steal either one easily.  If you get caught, youw ill get the same punishment for either.  Which are you going to take?  The golden bar, because it's the real thing.  Something that could benefit you more than a candy bar.
In front of a pedophile looking for something to get his rocks off to is a drawing and a real photo.  Both crimes are the same.  Both will get him around 5 years and on the RSO list for life.  Which will he take?

It is on these grounds that I don't believe  drawn porn hurts anyone, but rather the laws surrounding it harm children.