Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Middle schoolers charged with kiddy porn

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Middle schoolers charged with kiddy porn
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:34 pm Post subject:

Kaypea wrote:

bacasper wrote:

maintain a pretext to keep the boogeyman alive.

Did you know that photos of kids with their clothes on can now be prosecuted as kiddy porn? Look up Knox v. US.

But it looks like there, they were targeting those really sleazy "child-model" productions which were pretty obviously sexual, but I guess didn't previously violate any particular law. I really think stuff like this fans the flames of child abuse.

You are wrong about that. Didn't you see my post from page 2 where I quoted from a study:

Quote:

child-pornography offenders with prior criminal history of contact sex offenses are, perhaps not surprisingly, the most likely to commit future contact child sex offenses, and those child-pornography offenders with no history of contact sex offenses were relatively unlikely to commit future contact child sex offenses.

Kaypea wrote:

I mean... you can have a video of a totally nude kid playing in water and it's not sexual at all, or you could have a video of a kid dressed pretty much head to toe in a leotard doing some unnatural dance moves to sexy music and it's a totally different thing. These sleazy kid abusers can't be allowed to get away with selling hot videos of clothed kids.

Anyway, you prove my earlier point that, as "legitimate" child porn disappears, the definition must keep expanding to keep the boogeyman alive.

Anyway, while I want to laud you guys for sharing your thoughts, it is not enough. One must also engage in what those in the mental health field call "reality testing." I thought I saw a snake in my dark room the other night, but when I turned on the light it was just a shoelace on the floor. Any crazy idea can enter anyone's head, but the non-psychotic person will be able to successfully test that against an external reality to decide whether it is valid. I don't tout mere ideas of mine, only those for which I can find support in the literature or other external reality.

Quote:

That being said, a real pedophile could get off to a diaper ad, so it's not like I'm looking for "secret kid porn" all over the place. Just anything that's obvious, no matter what % of the body is actually showing, that has to go.

OK, so here we have the criteria they are going for but refuse to state: something is kiddy porn according to whether or not it gets a pedophile off. The actual content of the depiction is irrelevant.

So what about the podopedophile, the guy with the fetish involving children's feet? Should he go to prison for a photo of a kid's foot?

Kaypea, what is "obvious" to you may not be obvious to someone else. Who decides? The jury, of course. But is there any way for a citizen to know what is child pornography for him to avoid it BEFORE a jury returns its decision?

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:33 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

riverboy wrote:

I'll even go as far to say Bacasper -that you seem to have such a strong opinion on the legality of kiddie porn; stating the minimal effects on victims; studies where 15 of 80 men were sexually aroused after viewing child porn- that it wouldn't at all surprise me if you had a hard drive full of that crap.

Don't misquote the study: 15 of 80 had arousal higher than that to adult porn; a much higher number experienced any level of sexual arousal after viewing child porn. I'd like you to undergo penile plethysmography. It wouldn't at all surprise me if you had a positive response. After all, we know that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal.

So, riverboy, do we have a deal? I'll submit my hard drive for forensic examination if you will undergo penile plethysmography. OK?

riverboy

Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon

Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:10 am Post subject:

Quote:

Yeah sure.

I get it, you can misquote me, and I can't misquote you. And while you're at it why don't we use the strawman argument; you are against pedophilia, so you must be homophobic. Bring up a quote of mine where I bash gays. I hate to sound cliche here, but one of my best friends is gay. No problem there pal.

Quote:

I feel when one is caught with child pornography they should have to account for the source. If they refuse to provide a source, then the law can proceed assuming they are the source (after all, it had to have come from somewhere).

Which is much the same as I feel, but I am probably less tolerant of those with an obscene amount of images.

Quote:

This is the kind of rhetoric that fuels witch hunts.

No it isn't. I often wonder if your kind of liberalism -which I generally respect a great deal- that gives an open playing field for this kind of stuff. It is the kind of rhetoric that makes one wonder why people cites studies that seem to legitmize and normalize child porn.

Look, if someone gets aroused during a study depicting children being abused, then they have two options, go out and explore this feeling by finding pedophile articles -can I just say diddler- and they can further go out and diddle kids. Or they can not diddle kids, not posess pictures of kids being diddled and go on with thier lives.

It's kind of like me and road rage. I feel the intense urge to get out of my car and kick the living $hit out of a Korean driver at least once a week. Don't do it though. And I don't actively search for literature that legitimises my feelings. Rather I go to anger managment sites which help me get a grasp on my unhealthy situation.

When I read articles of Bishops, family men and others possesing images with full blown child porn, I feel the re is a need need to prosecute them. And I'm not talking about the situation with parents taking pictures of there children. I'm certainly guilty of that.

I think you know the type of images I am talking about.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:29 am Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

Quote:

Yeah sure.

I get it, you can misquote me, and I can't misquote you.

Where did I misquote you?

Quote:

And while you're at it why don't we use the strawman argument; you are against pedophilia, so you must be homophobic. Bring up a quote of mine where I bash gays. I hate to sound cliche here, but one of my best friends is gay. No problem there pal.

I wasn't saying you were homophobic. I said

Quote:

homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal,

the implication being that pedophobia is associated with pedophilic arousal.

Quote:

This is the kind of rhetoric that fuels witch hunts.

Perhaps because one has had to treat people on both sides of this issue. Anyway, do you have a problem with citing professional literature?

Quote:

Look, if someone gets aroused during a study depicting children being abused, then they have two options, go out and explore this feeling by finding pedophile articles -can I just say diddler- and they can further go out and diddle kids. Or they can not diddle kids, not posess pictures of kids being diddled and go on with thier lives.

So you think a positive peter-meter turns its subject into an instant scholar??? Or it will convince them to go out and "diddle kids"? Talk about a false binary! You can see no other possible outcome? This is becoming bizarre.

Quote:

Rather I go to anger managment sites which help me get a grasp on my unhealthy situation.

Sorry to hear you have anger issues. Can't say I am completely surprised, however.

Quote:

When I read articles of Bishops, family men and others possesing images with full blown child porn, I feel the re is a need need to prosecute them. And I'm not talking about the situation with parents taking pictures of there children. I'm certainly guilty of that.

I think you know the type of images I am talking about.

When you can come up with the tweak to only catch the "legitimate" cases and not the others, we'd love to hear it.

riverboy

Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:16 am Post subject:

Quote:

Perhaps because one has had to treat people on both sides of this issue. Anyway, do you have a problem with citing professional literature?

No, and much of what you write, I agree with. I simply question your opinion that people should be allowed to posses and trade freely images of kids being molested. And I have a problem with the article you posted regarding victims not being that bothered by such incidents.

It makes me wonder what your real aims are.

As far as road rage in this country. It you can go a month of daily driving here without getting enraged at someone cutting you off or running a red light -especially with kids in the car- then my hats off to you.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:23 am Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps because one has had to treat people on both sides of this issue. Anyway, do you have a problem with citing professional literature?

No, and much of what you write, I agree with. I simply question your opinion that people should be allowed to posses and trade freely images of kids being molested.

I have never said any such thing.

Quote:

And I have a problem with the article you posted regarding victims not being that bothered by such incidents.

Which article would that be, and exactly what is your problem with it?

Quote:

It makes me wonder what your real aims are.

Neither my "real aims" nor I am the subject of this thread. I wonder why you are unable to discuss the issue addressed in the OP without getting personal. Are you even aware of the witchhunt tactics in which you engage?

But I am in a good mood so I am going to tell you what my "real aims" are to make people aware that:

1) our youth are becoming caught up in the very sex abuse witchhunt purported to protect them; and

2) some of these laws are counterproductive, but due to witchhunt tactics like those displayed in this thread most people are intimidated from voicing any opposition even when they feel something is seriously wrong.

riverboy

Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:05 am Post subject:

Quote:

1) our youth are becoming caught up in the very sex abuse witchhunt purported to protect them; and

2) some of these laws are counterproductive, but due to witchhunt tactics like those displayed in this thread most people are intimidated from voicing any opposition even when they feel something is seriously wrong.

I can agree with that. But, I will not accept the idea that possession and distribution of child porn does not harm people and society.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:18 pm Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

Quote:

2) some of these laws are counterproductive, but due to witchhunt tactics like those displayed in this thread most people are intimidated from voicing any opposition even when they feel something is seriously wrong.

I can agree with that.

That is ironic that you now claim to be against the very witchhunt tactics in which you have engaged on this thread, to wit:

riverboy wrote:

Now you, and groups like NAMBLA will say otherwise, but the argument is sick in my mind, and I could do without people such as you in my world.

I'll even go as far to say Bacasper -that you seem to have such a strong opinion on the legality of kiddie porn; stating the minimal effects on victims; studies where 15 of 80 men were sexually aroused after viewing child porn- that it wouldn't at all surprise me if you had a hard drive full of that crap.

and

riverboy wrote:

It makes me wonder what your real aims are.

********************************

Then,

riverboy wrote:

But, I will not accept the idea that possession and distribution of child porn does not harm people and society.

So you have stated this opinion on child porn without having given a good definition of it, while I have cited evidence that laws against child porn have caused more harm than good to people and society.

Is this a case of, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts?" Or maybe you believe if we can save just one child from being exploited in this way, it is worth the price of 10 or 100 innocent people going to prison?

riverboy

Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Code:

Minors engaging in sexual acts. Obviously a grey area and I have no experience of viewing kiddie porn, but I am sure I would know it if I saw it.

Again, it's your defense of those arrested with real kiddie porn that I dissagree with, not your attack on those who are convicted for taking nude pics of thier children. I'm "guilty" of that.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:47 pm Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

Quote:

Code:

OK, so for you then "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is OK as long as they are not engaging in sex acts, right?

riverboy

Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:21 am Post subject:

Quote:

OK, so for you then "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is OK as long as they are not engaging in sex acts, right?

And for you possesion of film of grown men doing pre-pubescent kids if perfectly fin, so long as they didn't pay for it, or produce it. Do I got that right?

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:27 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Leon wrote:

Look, it's simple if a person gets off on child pornography they are a pedophile by definition. A pedophile is more likely than an average person to abuse a child. Relatively unlikely, but far more likely than the average person. I would err on the side of chance on this every time, pedophiles have rights of course, but they also have a mental problem that needs to be taken into consideration.

OK, so then by your definition, more than one out of every four normal men are pedophiles.

From: Behavior Therapy
Volume 26, Issue 4, Autumn 1995, Pages 681-694

Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men

Gordon C. Nagayama Hall, Richard Hirschman, and Lori L. Oliver
Kent State University, USA

Quote:

Over � of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

Or is it one out of three?

Quote:

Twenty-six subjects (33%) exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

I would say that the methodology of the study is suspect. How many men would be willing to watch child pornography, even for a scientific study. If I was asked to watch it I would refuse on principle, so it makes you wonder about those who agreed to.

Also even if the results are accurate that 33% of men have pedophile like tendencies, I doubt that that many men in the general population watch child pornography, which would then tell us that those who do see nothing wrong with their behavior or have weak will power. Both of those things are bad traits for pedophiles to have.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:51 am Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

Quote:

OK, so for you then "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is OK as long as they are not engaging in sex acts, right?

And for you possesion of film of grown men doing pre-pubescent kids if perfectly fin, so long as they didn't pay for it, or produce it. Do I got that right?

I never said any such thing.

You, OTOH, just got finished defining CP as "Minors engaging in sexual acts." Since current law also proscribes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" of a minor but you stopped short of including that in your definition, one can only conclude that it is not something you want covered by the law. Maybe that was just an oversight on your part, so here is your chance to clarify: do you think that CP law ought to proscribe "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" as well as "minors engaging in sexual acts"?

riverboy wrote:

those who are convicted for taking nude pics of thier children. I'm "guilty" of that.

If you are confessing to being a child pornographer under current law on a public forum like this, that is mighty brave of you! It is, however, ironic that you are so supportive of the law.

Methinks he doth protest too much? Anyway, I hope another person so righteously indignant as yourself who knows you doesn't see this and reports you. Even though we may disagree, and you feel there is no place for me in your world, I still would not want to see that happen to you.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:03 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

The study does not purport to be representative of the general population, just that the sample was from a community of "normal" men. Yours may be a good criticism. While I have not seen the exact wording of the newspaper ad used to recruit the subjects, I highly doubt it said "Sign up here to see kiddy porn!" I am however disappointed to learn that you are unwilling to assist in the forward march of science. Sad

Quote:

Also even if the results are accurate that 33% of men have pedophile like tendencies, I doubt that that many men in the general population watch child pornography, which would then tell us that those who do see nothing wrong with their behavior or have weak will power. Both of those things are bad traits for pedophiles to have.

Is weak willpower a good trait for non-pedophiles to have?

Anyway, you appear to assume that all or most pedophiles view CP. That is highly unlikely.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:09 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Leon wrote:

Is weak willpower a good trait for non-pedophiles to have?

Anyway, you appear to assume that all or most pedophiles view CP. That is highly unlikely.

I was following the reasoning of the study. If 33% of men are pedophiles, I don't believe this to be true, but if they then unless 33% or so of men watch child pornography, which I doubt as well, then the percentage of those 33% who do watch it must have weaker will power or see nothing wrong with it. A weak will or not seeing anything wrong with seeing children as sexual is a trait that I believe is dangerous for pedophiles to have.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe