Exactly. How would they know? Maybe yes, maybe no. A lingering question. If it's not them it is someone else. Someone, somewhere, was abused for child porn to exist. Does it "magically" feel better if the video or pictures are of another child?
How to reduce the availability rates for child porn: a contentious debate -
- Thread starter chimpburgers
- Start date
Still irrelevant, as the mere act of viewing any video doesn't harm anyone directly.
What do you think good Samaritan laws are for, jackass? If you aren't against it, you're a passive factor. You are basically taking the moral burden (which is still on you) and shifting it to another.
If you were making the stuff, you'd just redirect and say, "Well, I wouldn't be abusing these kids if there weren't a demand." If you were the consumer (you are, obviously outing yourself here) you would simply say, "If I don't pay for it, I'm not fostering demand." The irony is, you are creating demand in the form of being a consumer; as long as you are there to consume it and not report it, there is always someone to share it to.
They often do know and are in contact with law enforcement. Are you kidding me? You are seriously a sociopathic liar. They are not actors, they are victims. They are coerced and have no ability to consent to be a part of this abuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
ahaha yeah I watched this video of kids getting fucked and didnt call the cops ahaha yeah nobody got hurt. ITS JUST A PRANK BRO
End the name-calling unless you want to get a time-out from the thread.
It's a very controversial topic, but if you can't discuss it like adults, perhaps it would be better to stick to more lighter subjects
Last edited:
Don't be silly, I'll volunteer for time-out if you block him from the thread permanently. This is no place for him to be posting, and it really shows in his unrepentant shitposting.
I called them both. Being a child actor in CP MEANS BEING A VICTIM. I wrote that above. Learn to read.
Cause nobody likes being accused of such things?
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know whether to say that child pornography will have much of any effect on the rate of child sexual abuse but I will say that I don't believe that existing laws are unjust.
I think that the best way to reduce rates of child sexual abuse will be to provide treatment for pedophiles who willingly request it and to pay them to receive treatment . For obvious reasons a treated pedophile still shouldn't be allowed to work with children but I believe that they should not be put on a sex offender list if they never commited a sex offense to begin with.
I think that the best way to reduce rates of child sexual abuse will be to provide treatment for pedophiles who willingly request it and to pay them to receive treatment . For obvious reasons a treated pedophile still shouldn't be allowed to work with children but I believe that they should not be put on a sex offender list if they never commited a sex offense to begin with.
Just make it completely illegal and punish those who make it severely (like a very long sentence in prison, or if it is really horrifying (like some child ends up dead or severely injured), give them the death penalty). Also give much harsher sentences for those who distribute or buy it because 3-5 years is not enough for such a deplorable offense (I'd say give at least 10-15 years, maybe more sounds right).
I would also say let the police or a state/federal agency allow the victim in question to report such abuse, especially if it is sexual abuse anonymously, so as to track down offenders that abuse children or produce/distribute child pornography (ie: some of our horrorcows such as Nick Bate, Sarah Nyberg, and James Terry Mitchell Jr) can get arrested and have justice served to them.
I would also say let the police or a state/federal agency allow the victim in question to report such abuse, especially if it is sexual abuse anonymously, so as to track down offenders that abuse children or produce/distribute child pornography (ie: some of our horrorcows such as Nick Bate, Sarah Nyberg, and James Terry Mitchell Jr) can get arrested and have justice served to them.
G
GS 281
Guest
kiwifarms.net
This is a pretty myopic idea. If you let them report anonymously then people would be reporting all kinds of people anonymously. Additionally, the greatest amount of evidence is gained from the victim themselves engaging in interviews that would ultimately expose who the victim is. If we allowed anon reporting, then what? How would the judicial process flow fairly. People unjustly accused of being pedophiles deserve justice, too.
Here, I will make it simple. If we had a completely anonymous system, how many time would Chris have been reported so far in the last 6 years by weentards?
Functional Animal
kiwifarms.net
The amount of rape and murder could be harnessed as an energy source and we'd never have to worry about oil again.
6th Amendment said:
Reducing the availability of CP relies on both short-term and long-term plans. The short-term plan is to institute harsh sentencing (fifteen years minimum and up) on any distributors (including torrent seeders), and consumers that don't distribute would receive court-ordered therapy (for a period of two to three years) under a GBMI verdict but would not be placed on any offender lists. So far, this seems better than the way it works as of now. But we have a couple of problems, mainly: a fifteen year cycle is created due to distributors being released, and the increased value of CP makes it much more lucrative. This where the FBI partyvan gets involved. Sooner or later, one of the distributors is going to mess up by opening a PDF laced with exploits, or slip up in another manner. They get busted, interrogated with enhanced methods, and one arrest is turned into five or more arrests. The idea is to throw all the small fries into prison, so the only ones left are the big catches. Break down any one of them, and whole networks will come crashing down.
What constitutes Child Pornography? I think that is the big issue here. We can all agree that live action child pornography is probably wrong. But where the lines blur and things become a little more gray is when you ask should "child pornography" that doesn't actual feature live children be banned?
One side says yes, it should be banned because it feeds pedophiles urges and makes them more likely to commit a crime against an actual child.
The other side (the one I am on) says it shouldn't be banned because there are no actual children being harmed and it may actually have calm a pedophile down and make them less likely to commit a crime against a child. The reason is because they are cute, funny, or they have their own charm as a kid. Sometimes kids are sexy. for example a 19 year old man having an interest in a 10 year old girl
Regarding child pornography most people fall into those two categories that I just listed. But there is a third and forth side to this.
The third side is one that believes it is both harmful and not harmful at the same time, depending on the individual who is viewing it. For some people it may make them less likely to commit a crime. For some other people it may make them more likely. It's a case by case basis, in my opinion.
The fourth side just doesn't care.
Also another misconception of the media is that if you view lolicon, you are a pedophile. Not true at all. Just because you view lolicon doesn't mean you're a pedophile. Some people are just curious, some people get off to the taboo of it, some people just like the art. There are various reasons besides pedophilia that a person would look at lolicon. I think the media needs to learn that.
One side says yes, it should be banned because it feeds pedophiles urges and makes them more likely to commit a crime against an actual child.
The other side (the one I am on) says it shouldn't be banned because there are no actual children being harmed and it may actually have calm a pedophile down and make them less likely to commit a crime against a child. The reason is because they are cute, funny, or they have their own charm as a kid. Sometimes kids are sexy. for example a 19 year old man having an interest in a 10 year old girl
Regarding child pornography most people fall into those two categories that I just listed. But there is a third and forth side to this.
The third side is one that believes it is both harmful and not harmful at the same time, depending on the individual who is viewing it. For some people it may make them less likely to commit a crime. For some other people it may make them more likely. It's a case by case basis, in my opinion.
The fourth side just doesn't care.
Also another misconception of the media is that if you view lolicon, you are a pedophile. Not true at all. Just because you view lolicon doesn't mean you're a pedophile. Some people are just curious, some people get off to the taboo of it, some people just like the art. There are various reasons besides pedophilia that a person would look at lolicon. I think the media needs to learn that.
Yes.
Press 1.
9/tryhard
Hey, I put nearly 5 minutes into that
.
Similar threads
