Demand doesn't mean shit if the suppliers are in jail or if the "demander" is pirating this shit off the web m
How to reduce the availability rates for child porn: a contentious debate -
- Thread starter chimpburgers
- Start date
Stop wanking off to dictionaries, you're not fooling anyone.
Which is irrelevant, unless you can show, how it harms the poor kids who were the actors in this.
It's simple supply and demand. The greater the demand, the more people will produce child pornography. The production of child pornography is inherently harmful to children.
Viewing child pornography doesn't hurt children directly, but does create more demand. Even in the case of piracy or other freely distributed child pornography, you're creating demand.
Viewing child pornography doesn't hurt children directly, but does create more demand. Even in the case of piracy or other freely distributed child pornography, you're creating demand.
I get that you're being deliberately contentious because 2edgy5everyone, but demand will always foster supply.
Why would any producer of this shit distribute it for free?
How? Please tell me.
Pedophiles form communities, just like MRAs and any other outcasts. Some CP sites require users to submit 'original content' in order to root out law enforcement.
Alrighty then, the entry fee and blackmail material, still doesn't make them hand out this shit for free beyond that.
Entry fee, blackmail, trading, social pressure, because you can, etc are all potential motivations.
Because it's the nature of a capitalist society - we operate in a world that is subject to the laws of supply and demand, and this is no different to that. The fact that digital media is infinitely copyable does rather muddy the issue somewhat, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is, no matter how reprehensible, a demand for this content. As such, someone somewhere will try to meet that demand with supply - in a limited pool of consumers that (for the sake of argument, we'll assume communicate with each other) has access to a finite supply of wanted material, novelty will always command a premium, thus opening up the possibility of further production.
Look at kiwifarms as an example - in the model of society that you infer, we'd be perfectly happy with the old archived antics of Chris in the clown shirt days. However, because we're human, we demand new content, new information, new things to watch and comment on. It's the same with any demand for any kind of content, regardless of the nature of it.
I'm not touching the subject of how injurious the production of CP is to the children in question, I'm talking solely with regards to supply/demand interactions. My personal views on CP are that it's horribly damaging to the child, since it skews their understanding of orthodox sexual interactions heavily, and since libido is a primary driving force in human behaviour, it's a significant warping of someone's formative worldview.
Only paying customers create demand, not some perverted clowns pirating it off some P2P network, Tor or I2P.
Us wanting stuff doesn't let magically lolcowdom appear on the net, we don't pay them for the content and provoking them to produce more content is regarded as retarded here. Morons will ALWAYS be around on the net, no matter, if the Farms are there or not.
No disagreement there, the production of this shit is very, VERY, VERY bad for the kids, since the production of this shit IS child sex abuse.
You know, I wondered about how the supply and demand thing would work without monetary reward too, but I think there's some merit to that. In a lot of online communities, you'll see people posting content for recognition and notoriety rather than pure monetary gain, even if what they're doing is morally reprehensible and/or illegal, and it doesn't make sense for them to risk their necks just to show off. That sense of community and belonging might not be their only motivation for doing it, but it can bolster them and reinforce the behavior.
That said, I feel like in order for this to apply there has to be some sort of feedback involved. If someone downloads a bunch of someone's CP, say from a third party source that doesn't keep records of the download, and the person who made it is not aware of it happening, how is this affecting demand? How is this specifically adding to that "oh, people like my stuff, I should think about kidnapping that Warner kid and making more..." feeling?
That said, I feel like in order for this to apply there has to be some sort of feedback involved. If someone downloads a bunch of someone's CP, say from a third party source that doesn't keep records of the download, and the person who made it is not aware of it happening, how is this affecting demand? How is this specifically adding to that "oh, people like my stuff, I should think about kidnapping that Warner kid and making more..." feeling?
And rating anything you disagree with "autistic" or "dumb" isn't?
What do you think had to be done for that video to get made? Do you think paedos will stop at just one video if others are egging them on?
As I understand it, with CP, there's rarely a monetary motivation. That doesn't mean that the demand doesn't influence the supply doesn't exist, it just means that the connection between the two is much weaker.
You could make a good argument that the connection is weak enough to the point that it's not worth pursuing simple possession of child pornography. It'd be like outlawing pictures of dead people because of the risk of snuff films. (Well, not exactly like that. Many pictures of dead people have journalistic value, and you can't really say that about CP. But I think you get what I'm getting at.)
The most effective way to combat child exploitation is to pursue the close knit communities.
It's probably not politically feasible to loosen laws on child pornography. And it really doesn't matter that much, because it's so easy to, y'know, NOT download child pornography.
But my honest opinion? Grinding people into dust for mere possession probably doesn't affect the production of child pornography very much. Most of the arguments claiming it significantly affects the market aren't very persuasive. It just makes the dedicated people go deeper underground where we can't touch them.
Now cue Jack Kelly talking about tasteful, artistic nudes.
You could make a good argument that the connection is weak enough to the point that it's not worth pursuing simple possession of child pornography. It'd be like outlawing pictures of dead people because of the risk of snuff films. (Well, not exactly like that. Many pictures of dead people have journalistic value, and you can't really say that about CP. But I think you get what I'm getting at.)
The most effective way to combat child exploitation is to pursue the close knit communities.
It's probably not politically feasible to loosen laws on child pornography. And it really doesn't matter that much, because it's so easy to, y'know, NOT download child pornography.
But my honest opinion? Grinding people into dust for mere possession probably doesn't affect the production of child pornography very much. Most of the arguments claiming it significantly affects the market aren't very persuasive. It just makes the dedicated people go deeper underground where we can't touch them.
Now cue Jack Kelly talking about tasteful, artistic nudes.
To simplify: if someone was raped as a child and it was photographed, even years later the victim isn't going to say, "It's okay if peophiles are still jacking off to to those pics since I don't psychically know about it every time they do." No, for completely understandable and legitimate reasons they want the spread of those images stopped. In essence their rights are still being violated.
Only if they either have telepathic feedback from people wanking off to this, searching all P2P networks and deep web servers on the whole planet for this shit or even give a fuck about it, since they most likely would care, WHAT was done to them, not why.
So you'd be fine with creepy prevs jacking off to pictures of you against your will or advisment. Got it.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Fucking Christmas, including Jews, Moslems and Jedis.
It was a simple yes or no question. There were no "ifs" or "buts" in it.
