|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
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? |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| riverboy wrote: |
| Quote: |
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? |
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: |
| 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. |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
