Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
You notice how I mentioned "clinical" definitions? Well, that might be a hint as to how I define pedophilia.6th And Silver said:
Just saying. Instead of complaining that I'm not discussing something actually WORTH something, you might want to stop ignoring the things already stated.
Mutually agreed upon, in this case by actors.GTwander said:
This part:6th And Silver said:
Because if he had child porn on his computer, that means he was sexually attracted to children. This goes beyond a weird fetish, it means that there is something very seriously, objectively wrong with him, and it would be best for everyone, including himself, he is "cured"...I'm not exactly sure how effective therapy is with this stuff, but it's better then just letting him be.
I have Mario fucking Peach on my computer but I assure you, I am not interested in rape nor fucking Peach.
Back in the 80's Guns N Roses had a "rape scene" on the inside cover of their first album. It was censored but the first print had it and I had a copy of that print. I even had a poster of it on my wall. Did that make me a rapist? Do writers of horror flicks become serial murderers.
You've never been in a situation where you checked out a chick, and then at second glance, questioned if she might not even be 18? Does that make you a pedo?6th And Silver said:
Well, by law, 17 = a child. Is that where you wanna draw your line in the sand?
~and if you did find out she was a minor - are you the type that would attempt to be revulsed by your prior attraction in order to convince yourself that you're not sick?
Good point and to add:GTwander said:
When sick is defined by culture and not by nature, it should have no meaning to thinking people.
It wasn't so long ago that any girl past puberty was marriage and pregnancy material, that is how society grew to what we have today. Are we really going to say our ancestors were pedophiles or are we going to realize that this form of "sickness" is imposed by society. What if one day society decided to raise the age to 21. Would everyone all of a sudden be repulsed that they had sex with a 20 year old?
I think that normal men look at teenagers on the beach but they can't admit it because then they would need a psychiatrist to cure them of this sickness.
OK, the fact that the porn is animated does NOT matter to this argument. At all. I'm not accusing him of hurting any children. There is no difference between being sexually attracted to children, and being sexually attracted to the IDEA of children. Maybe he'll never act on his urges. Great. But that doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have them in the first place.Zachary Amaranth said:
Anyway, about your use of the word "clinical"...Wikipedia defines the "clinical" definition of pedophilia as "Adults being sexually interested in children" (paraphrasing) and the next three links on a quick Google search[footnote]"Clinical definition of a pedophile", in case you were wondering[/footnote] agree. So I'm not sure which clinic you're referring to, but I'm going to guess that you only consider someone a pedophile when they've actually sexually assaulted a minor. I don't. We disagree about the exact definition of a pedophile, but that's just semantics. My POINT in calling him a pedophile (which you're skillfully ignoring) is that he was sexually attracted to children.
Why is it a fact that he shouldn't have them in the first place?6th And Silver said:
There is alot of questionable things in the Holy Bible, you would never say that about the Bible though, would you?
People who have a "gut" reaction should be trusted the least to think clearly and be objective.Mygaffer said:
Uh yes, actually. I would. That was a joke, right? Anyway, it's not even the same thing. Nobody should be sexually attracted to children, whether they act on their urges or not.Crono1973 said:
Often the police (at least in Canada) in cases like this end up charging the accused with a fairly minor sexual crime, and if the accused refuses to cooperate or admit to it they'll threaten to charge them with something more serious. Last year we had a case like that in Ontario, a guy was accused of having oral sex with a minor and was charged with 'buggery' (3-5 years). When the court date came around, it was discovered that the head detective in the investigation had threaten to charge him with aggreviated sexual assault (+10 years) if he didn't admit he was guilty to the initial charge. So now that case is in the federal court system due to that detective's manipulative tactics. With sex crimes related to children it's always a case of 'guilty until proven innocent' and that usually results in many accused individuals just accepting a lower sentence rather then attempting any kind of fight.Crono1973 said:
Some people may feel guilty about defending someone like this. They would rack their heads because the drawings are art and what if it was a drawing of a real child, but there's a simple litmus test: Was a child exploited? It puts things in perspective.
Pornographic art of children, fictional in nature: Was there featured in the collection any example of a real child that had been exploited for the sake of the artwork? No. Maximum sentence should be a discreet psychological evaluation to protect someones character if they are found of healthy mind.
Pornographic pictures of children: There is actual exploitation of children portrayed in the picture. Maximum sentence for the crime.
Pornographic artwork of children, non-fictional: It is artwork like the first example but shows either exploitation of a child or the obvious intent/desire to exploit said child since artwork is subject to someone's imagination and can be drawn without direct visual guidance. Still carries a sentence for pedophilia.
In all cases I of course stand by the principles of innocent until proven guilty and afterwards, only proven if beyond a reasonable doubt. With that in mind it seems pretty clear cut. This case involves thought-crime and a crime against purity which, when justified, can be used to argue against all pornography.
Pornographic art of children, fictional in nature: Was there featured in the collection any example of a real child that had been exploited for the sake of the artwork? No. Maximum sentence should be a discreet psychological evaluation to protect someones character if they are found of healthy mind.
Pornographic pictures of children: There is actual exploitation of children portrayed in the picture. Maximum sentence for the crime.
Pornographic artwork of children, non-fictional: It is artwork like the first example but shows either exploitation of a child or the obvious intent/desire to exploit said child since artwork is subject to someone's imagination and can be drawn without direct visual guidance. Still carries a sentence for pedophilia.
In all cases I of course stand by the principles of innocent until proven guilty and afterwards, only proven if beyond a reasonable doubt. With that in mind it seems pretty clear cut. This case involves thought-crime and a crime against purity which, when justified, can be used to argue against all pornography.