Thought-Crime in America

[momentarylapseofreason]

I appear angry but I'm not really . I understand the other side of this argument well. I'm just tilting a bit more in my direction of thought that's all.

It's good to think about things, and think about everyone's angle and where they are coming from.

No black no white again-just lots of greys

[sam12six]

I mostly agree. But does anyone think here it is tasteful? Shall I blow my nose and sell and expose my hanky to the world? I think it is only tasteful to the mentally/emotionally challenged. And I think any shrink might agree.

I feel the same way you do as far as whether it's tasteful. Judging from the size of the market for these comic books, lots of people somewhere disagree with us.

Until we know the answers I think we should not encourage it.

I agree, that's why I won't be selling or buying the stuff.

Are there any standards out there?

Why is this one freedom so important?

Did you really just ask why freedom of speech/expression is important?

It's one sacrifice!!

OMG no more child pornography artwork!!! What's this world coming to?

This is purely hypothetical-if you were forced to choose- I guess I would ban it if I were forced.

Because its wrong-that's why It is useless like toxic waste

It's wrong because you think it's wrong. It's useless like toxic waste unless it is actually helping potential child molesters curb their urges, in which case it's a truly valuable tool in our arsenal of child protection strategies. (I don't personally feel that it helps, we just don't know).

It has nothing to do with standards-something many seem to lack anymore-even children are disrespected and it's ok-you can't compare them to bags of weed

The bag-of-weed comic example was to show how ridiculous the concept of treating a fictional account of a crime as if someone had committed the actual crime really is. The point here is that it's wrong to impose your standard of respect on someone else (obviously a disrespectful act that actually causes someone injury is a different issue).

Does the word wrong have no meaning anymore? Is there no such thing?

It absolutely has meaning. Here's the thing, though: It has different meanings for different people. Criminal laws aren't in existence to dictate right and wrong, they exist to keep people from harming each other. Unless and until something can be shown to harm someone, there's no excuse in a free society to criminalize that something.

[Leonardo]

You were given data that applied to an entire population, not to single individuals. You have failed to refute that data. You were unable to support your argument with anything other than individual cases, and even at that those cases came not from a general population, like Cadet's did, but from a prison population, which by definition already defines them as criminals.

This is a prime example of the illogic that I have been completed frustrated by in the arguments that lolicons are simply 'artistic freedom at work'.

Aquatus - any data about incidences of virtual pornography leading to child abuse is going to from individual cases. So what? That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

This is the sort of thoughtless argument that has me tearing my hair out (what hair I have left anyway) because you, and others here, cannot seem to grasp that the issue is about individuals going off the rails exactly as in the case I pointed out, by a person being 'triggered' into sexualising children by exposure to virtual child pornography and then acting on those fantasies. Instead you witter on about 'populations' and abstract concepts.

Child abuse is not an abstract concept. It is done by individuals and some of them at least have been encouraged into this sordid act by reading child pornography.

Now, what data was I given that 'applied to an entire population'? If you are referring to the trend cadetak posted about reported instances of child abuse going down alongside the trend of increasing exposure to virtual child pornography, then there was nothing in that which indicated the two trends are actually linked. So this 'data' is meaningless.

I can show you a graph of global warming trended against the global decrease in piracy. Does this mean that piracy and global warming are linked? No. Trends happen for many reasons and many trends can coincide without being linked in any way.

Aquatus, there has been no data posted which shows any link between child pornography and child abuse except for the instance where the Japanese man confessed that his sexual interest in young girls was triggered by watching virtual child porn.

Now, this...

Not impossible, just no direct correlation.

(post #285)

...is typical of the arguments that those who take your position have made on this thread. Cadetak made this statement after actually posting edited information from the Wiki page - the same page which carried the information I posted that this man had confessed to becoming a child abuser because he had watched child pornography.

How can that not be 'direct correlation'? Can you see why I despair of having a reasoned/adult debate when people blatantly ignore what they themselves have read and blindly try to argue their position?

For a variety of reasons. One of the main ones is because I support the freedom to speak about any topic one wishes to as long as it is done within the bounds of reason and decorum. The second is to fight against the very un-virtual abuse that the internet supplies, and to allow the very real victims the ability to stand up against those who believe that making snide remarks at others is a valid means of discussion.

It is becoming increasingly evident that your definition of what is real and what is not is entirely dependent on what you see, regardless of anyone else's opinion. Because you can see a pornographic comic book, there must be a victim. Because you can't see the person typing these letters, there must not be a person on the other side of the screen.

At least you agree there are boundaries of reason and decorum. Aquatus, the reason you wish to 'protect' people on an internet forum is exactly the same reason I feel children should be protected by not allowing the publication of virtual child pornography. I realise this won't make the issue disappear - in spite of what you, and others, posting here might think, I am not stupid. It will, however, cease to be a trigger for cases of child abuse. No one is arguing that everyone who reads child pornography will go on to abuse children (although that has been the completely false inference that others have made of my, and those who have the same view as me, argument), but some will. Why should we not do all that we can to stop that?

Edited May 29, 2009 by Leonardo

[sam12six]

Leonardo, you're right that different trends can occur simultaneously while not being linked in any way. The problem is that you're arguing causality, i.e. child porn causes people to molest children. From the things that have been posted, there has been an exponential increase in the number of people exposed to child porn with no corresponding exponential increase in child molesters. This refutes the causality argument altogether.

Taking a single case to form the basis of your hypothesis requires looking at the bigger picture to determine whether your hypothesis is right. I could find an single account where someone in a car accident was strangled by a seatbelt and hypothesize that seat belts make it more likely that someone will be killed in an accident if they're wearing a seatbelt, but seeing statistics that the death rate in car accidents decreases with a corresponding increase in seatbelt usage refutes this.

You are totally correct. Child abuse is not an abstract concept. You have a real child and someone abuses that child.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong with holding an imaginary trial to pretend to convict the fictional child abusers in these comic books. I believe there is something wrong with holding a real trial and convicting a real person of committing a fictional crime.

The fact remains that the jury is out over whether virtual child porn harms or protects children. Because of this, criminalizing these comic books has not been shown to be a step toward protecting anybody.

I think you're under the impression that we're arguing that it's more important to protect the right of artistic expression over the right of children to be protected from harm. What we're arguing is that there is no proof that these comic books cause children harm (I know, I know there's the Japanese murderer who confessed that kiddy porn caused him to molest, but I've heard a lot of murderers who said the devil made them do it and that's not accepted as proof that the devil exists).

If something has not been shown to cause harm, there is no excuse to criminalize it - unless your excuse is that their freedom is unimportant when in opposition to your personal opinion.

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

This is a prime example of the illogic that I have been completed frustrated by in the arguments that lolicons are simply 'artistic freedom at work'.

It is a work of art... It's a comic book, a complete and total work of art both visually and written, 100% fictitious in every way possible.

As an artist I find it alarming that in the US I could be arrested for drawing pictures and selling them. (never made loli)

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

Aquatus - any data about incidences of virtual pornography leading to child abuse is going to from individual cases. So what? That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Your right... But it doesn't mean it does happen either.

This is the sort of thoughtless argument that has me tearing my hair out (what hair I have left anyway) because you, and others here, cannot seem to grasp that the issue is about individuals going off the rails exactly as in the case I pointed out, by a person being 'triggered' into sexualising children by exposure to virtual child pornography and then acting on those fantasies. Instead you witter on about 'populations' and abstract concepts.

If you are getting off on lolicon art,porn and what not then you already visualize children sexually...

When it comes down to it not everyone goes out and hurts people to enact fantasies they have. Not everyone who has a sexual fetish (this is what this is) will go out and do it. When it comes down to it I am sure many of the people if not most would not go out and molest a child, because I do not believe they are all psychopaths.

Child abuse is not an abstract concept. It is done by individuals and some of them at least have been encouraged into this sordid act by reading child pornography.

I wouldn't say encouraged... Even with a sexual attraction to kids a comic book is not enough to make you simply go out act on impulse and destroy a life emotionally. It takes someone really sadistic to do this.

Now, what data was I given that 'applied to an entire population'? If you are referring to the trend cadetak posted about reported instances of child abuse going down alongside the trend of increasing exposure to virtual child pornography, then there was nothing in that which indicated the two trends are actually linked. So this 'data' is meaningless.

Actually it's not meaningless and that chart(s) do show a link as they both pertain to the same group of people.

I can show you a graph of global warming trended against the global decrease in piracy. Does this mean that piracy and global warming are linked? No. Trends happen for many reasons and many trends can coincide without being linked in any way.

Actually there has been a global increase in piracy... Climate change actually can be linked to some piracy especially in areas like Somalia where on top of already poor conditions and a dictatorship, Desertification caused by massive drought is gonna kill that place.

Anyway getting back on topic... This is a poor example. Again these statistics were gathered from the same group of people making both charts relevant to one another.

A better example would have been 'I can show you a graph that showed a man ate 2 apple pies last month where he gained weight, then compare it to this month where he only ate 1 because he had diet snacks, he lost 2 pounds'... By your logic there is no evidence that changing his diet helped him lose weight...

Aquatus, there has been no data posted which shows any link between child pornography and child abuse except for the instance where the Japanese man confessed that his sexual interest in young girls was triggered by watching virtual child porn.

If this is the case how come he was watching VCP then? It doesn't add up this guy clearly had an interest before hand or he would not have sought out this type of material.

How can that not be 'direct correlation'? Can you see why I despair of having a reasoned/adult debate when people blatantly ignore what they themselves have read and blindly try to argue their position?

I totally see where you are coming from Leo, I just think your wrong about limiting artwork because lots of people ind it revolting.

At least you agree there are boundaries of reason and decorum. Aquatus, the reason you wish to 'protect' people on an internet forum is exactly the same reason I feel children should be protected by not allowing the publication of virtual child pornography.

VCP does not hurt children, people do and the ones who do it would have done so w or w/o aid. It takes more then just a mere sexual attraction to bring brutal physical harm to a child.

I realise this won't make the issue disappear - in spite of what you, and others, posting here might think, I am not stupid. It will, however, cease to be a trigger for cases of child abuse. No one is arguing that everyone who reads child pornography will go on to abuse children (although that has been the completely false inference that others have made of my, and those who have the same view as me, argument), but some will. Why should we not do all that we can to stop that?

Because you can't stop it. Child sexual abuse has and always will happen, many of these guys who rape kids are psychopaths who need not VCP to go out and rape a child.

[Leonardo]

Leonardo, you're right that different trends can occur simultaneously while not being linked in any way. The problem is that you're arguing causality, i.e. child porn causes people to molest children. From the things that have been posted, there has been an exponential increase in the number of people exposed to child porn with no corresponding exponential increase in child molesters. This refutes the causality argument altogether.

Your right... But it doesn't mean it does happen either.

Okay, I'm going to resort to 'childishness' again.

Can either of you two actually read?

How is a person who has committed child abuse admitting that his sexual fascination in young girls started when he viewed child pornography NOT a link between child pornography and child abuse? How is it that a person has committed child abuse because he became sexually fascinated with young girls after viewing child pornography, yet we "cannot say it does happen"?

It happened, so there IS 'causality'.

Have you both deliberately ignored the evidence because it doesn't agree with your pov?

Taking a single case to form the basis of your hypothesis requires looking at the bigger picture to determine whether your hypothesis is right. I could find an single account where someone in a car accident was strangled by a seatbelt and hypothesize that seat belts make it more likely that someone will be killed in an accident if they're wearing a seatbelt, but seeing statistics that the death rate in car accidents decreases with a corresponding increase in seatbelt usage refutes this.

So, you are saying that an instance of something happening cannot make that something happening more likely than no instance of it happening?!?!

Have you read what you've written, or do you simply write it because it sounds logical, rather than is logical?

This is not about the number of child abuse cases from all causes, aquatus, this is about the number of child abuse cases triggered by someone reading/viewing virtual child pornography. It happens and we can prevent it happening (or at least reduce it a lot). You are building a strawman.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Leonardo

[KRS-One]

The pokemon are sentient beings in the cartoon, from what I recall - not simply animals. They can, if not speak with their carers, at least intelligently communicate and understand not only the speech of the people, but display (in many cases) a recognition of the moral/ethical atmosphere of the scenes. This cannot be compared to a 'cockfight'.

I'm going to be as up front as I can about this.

When this argument shifted from the freedom of speech allotted to artists to an argument about Pokemon, every single one of us lost.

- snip - You're arguing freedom of speech and child pornography law with - snip - pokemon examples. Be ashamed. Good god.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Saru
Profanity

[Leonardo]

Why did you choose my post to quote and highlight what you see as an issue, KRS? Why not choose the post of the person who actually introduced Pokemon into the debate?

Are you attempting to reduce my argument by association? I responded to the argument comparing Pokemon to the issue we were discussing because I wanted to draw attention to the fact it was an irrelevant argument. If I had simply dismissed the argument, then surely I would have been accused of 'childishness' there as well.

So, what is your agenda in quoting me in the context of your Pokemon argument?

[KRS-One]

So, what is your agenda in quoting me in the context of your Pokemon argument?

The fact that you used Pokemon to argue a point in any context what so ever and expect to be taken seriously.

It wasn't your point of view or theirs that I took into particular consideration.

Only that both of you were using childrens' cartoon animals as a presumptive basis of your argument.

Edited May 30, 2009 by KRS-One

[KRS-One]

Seriously.

You people allowed a truly decent debate on free speech laws and their effects on your lives to boil down to Pokemon.

Kudos to you.

[Leonardo]

The fact that you used Pokemon to argue a point in any context what so ever and expect to be taken seriously.

It wasn't your point of view or theirs that I took into particular consideration.

Only that both of you were using childrens' cartoon animals as a presumptive basis of your argument.

So, the fact that I was arguing for the irrelevancy of "the Pokemon argument" means I am a child, not to be taken seriously? Was I supposed to ignore an argument put to me? That would have been polite, wouldn't it?

You are attempting to reduce my argument by association, and in a very deceitful way. You are also side-tracking the thread and argument by doing so.

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

Edited May 30, 2009 by Leonardo

[KRS-One]

So, the fact that I was arguing for the irrelevancy of "the Pokemon argument" means I am a child, not to be taken seriously? Was I supposed to ignore an argument put to me? That would have been polite, wouldn't it?

You are attempting to reduce my argument by association, and in a very deceitful way. You are also side-tracking the thread and argument by doing so.

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

The fact that you are willing to debate and encourage someone who's arguments and your own center around Pokemon, yes. Yes I consider that not worthy of being taken seriously. Mostly because you're talking about ****ing pokemon.

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between children playing video games and violence? Now that you are familar with the actions of children who played violent games? What video game was it that triggered their preference for COLD BLOODED MURDER?!

Doesn't it make an obvious case that every and all video game and depiction of interactive murder (for what is a cartoon of young children other than an interactive rape) must be and immediately stricken from the shelves and deemed illegal.

[Leonardo]

The fact that you are willing to debate and encourage someone who's arguments and your own center around Pokemon, yes. Yes I consider that not worthy of being taken seriously. Mostly because you're talking about ****ing pokemon.

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between children playing video games and violence? Now that you are familar with the actions of children who played violent games? What video game was it that triggered their preference for COLD BLOODED MURDER?!

Doesn't it make an obvious case that every and all video game and depiction of interactive murder (for what is a cartoon of young children other than an interactive rape) must be and immediately stricken from the shelves and deemed illegal.

You didn't answer my question, but instead sought to divert the argument again.

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

[Cadetak]

Holy poo...

I brought up the Pokemon comparison, because Pokemon is a show that is about a 10 year old unsupervised kid who competes by fighting fictional animals with other fictional animals for money, prizes, and glory. Obviously if you were following the post decision and my actual words you can see that I was comparing one manga/anime that had unethical content to another.

Again, you can all bring all the individual cases you want and pretend that thats how it will be for every one...completely ignoring the fact that there is huge prevalence of Lolicon but no matter how you twist the numbers it does not match the prevalance of child abuse. If your individual cases applied to everyone then there would be a much much larger increase of child abuse.

The OP is a man who got convicted with a crime that had no victim, that is fact. For the sole basis of owning a comic book he gets condemned.

Others say he is a criminal or is doing something harmful because of speculations, possibilities, heresay, maybes, could bes, because that one guy did it, and because of their own dislikes. This is in essence prejudgment and such a thing should never be aloud in a court of law...like claiming a gun owner is a murderer because he owns a gun and whatches action movies.

::Checks the Clock"

Yeah I think it's about that time to clock out of this thread.

[Leonardo]

Again, you can all bring all the individual cases you want and pretend that thats how it will be for every one...completely ignoring the fact that there is huge prevalence of Lolicon but no matter how you twist the numbers it does not match the prevalance of child abuse.

Another argument for "oh, it's only a small problem, so we can ignore it".

Any incidence of child abuse, if preventable, should be considered a failure in our society to protect children. There is no "acceptable limit" of child abuse.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Leonardo

[KRS-One]

You didn't answer my question

Thre is no need to.

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

Do you admit that there is a correlation/link between children and the violence they are exposed to? Do they not perpetuate the violence and crimes they are exposed to in social media?

Should we not bar and make illegal all sources of media that depict violence?

How many times would you like to go around before you admit that your logic is flawed?

Yes, the exploitation of children is bad. It's very bad. No one is arguing this.

You're treading on very thin ice indeed when you push off your moral representation on the rest of us though.

[Leonardo]

Thre is no need to.

Yes, there is because the entire argument FOR these lolicon comics being 'freedom of expression' hinges on this.

Do you admit that there is a correlation/link between children and the violence they are exposed to? Do they not perpetuate the violence and crimes they are exposed to in social media?

Should we not bar and make illegal all sources of media that depict violence?

How many times would you like to go around before you admit that your logic is flawed?

Yes, the exploitation of children is bad. It's very bad. No one is arguing this.

You're treading on very thin ice indeed when you push off your moral representation on the rest of us though.

Again, with the diversion from the actual topic at hand. You berate others for digressing into off-topic comparative debate, yet produce the same tactic yourself when faced with a question you simply don't want to answer.

Now, with respect to this thread and the topic it deals with (child pornography being 'artistic freedom' and the ownership of it being a 'thought-crime'):

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

[KRS-One]

Now, with respect to this thread and the topic it deals with (child pornography being 'artistic freedom' and the ownership of it being a 'thought-crime'):

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

Yes.

I admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that I've read the testimony of a convicted child abuseer/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination of young girls.

Much like I admit there is a correlation/link between gun owners and gun crime, now that I've read the testimony of a convicted murdererer that it was rap music that triggered his criminal fascination with murder.

Ban all firearms and rap music to protect the innocent.

Edited May 30, 2009 by KRS-One

[Leonardo]

Yes.

I admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that I've read the testimony of a convicted child abuseer/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination of young girls.

Thank you for being honest, KRS - even if it was like getting blood out of a stone.

With respect to the other arguments you made, another thread would seem more appropriate for those, don't you think?

[KRS-One]

Thank you for being honest, KRS - even if it was like getting blood out of a stone.

With respect to the other arguments you made, another thread would seem more appropriate for those, don't you think?

Since you cut my argument in half and didn't address the other half of it, similar to what you accused me of?

Nope.

Not so much.

[Leonardo]

Since you cut my argument in half and didn't address the other half of it, similar to what you accused me of?

Nope.

Not so much.

Why was what you posted about rap music, etc relevant to the topic of whether child pornography (even virtual child pornogrpahy) is/should be illegal and the ownership of it a crime? This thread does not investigate the wider issue of all so-called 'thought-crime', but the single issue of child pornography and whether it has a detrimental effect on the safety of children in society.

I don't see why we should lump all issues together and make a judgement about all of them in toto. Why can we not look at each issue on it's own, deal with them individually?

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

Okay, I'm going to resort to 'childishness' again.

Can either of you two actually read?

How is a person who has committed child abuse admitting that his sexual fascination in young girls started when he viewed child pornography NOT a link between child pornography and child abuse? How is it that a person has committed child abuse because he became sexually fascinated with young girls after viewing child pornography, yet we "cannot say it does happen"?

It happened, so there IS 'causality'.

Have you both deliberately ignored the evidence because it doesn't agree with your pov?

Actually I offered an alternative view point... As for childishness and taking a crack at my ability to read well it was pretty childish to say such things.

The view on this man that I offer actually comes from reading in between the lines.

Anyway I think he's lying, in fact I would go as far to say that he would have raped a child anyway eventually. What tells me he is lying is because of how our psychology and biology work regarding physical sexual attraction... People in their teens already know what they like in a potential mate whether it be same sex, interracial, older women/men... the list is near endless.

In regards to this man he already had a clear sexual attraction to children, the evidence here being that he sought out for and watched child porn. If there was no previous sexual attraction he would have never sought out the porn knowing what it was.

Anyone who can inflict this kind of harm onto a child already has underlying issues like a complete and total lack of empathy among other traits that make them dangerous. These men are in a lot of cases truly psychopathic, compulsive liars, cheats, killers, rapists and so on. All this being said I can't believe this guy because his claim doesn't equate to the conclusion given by you.

Sorry I just can't simply take a psychopaths word for it just because they say it's true... Especially since it doesn't make a lot of sense either.

So, you are saying that an instance of something happening cannot make that something happening more likely than no instance of it happening?!?!

Have you read what you've written, or do you simply write it because it sounds logical, rather than is logical?

This is not about the number of child abuse cases from all causes, aquatus, this is about the number of child abuse cases triggered by someone reading/viewing virtual child pornography. It happens and we can prevent it happening (or at least reduce it a lot). You are building a strawman.

Who's building a strawman?

In regards to conclusive data there isn't any to suggest that child porn is creating child molesters... In fact if anything the abundance of the stuff suggests that the general public to some degree has a pretty huge appetite since it's now a billion dollar industry.

Do you admit there is a correlation/link between child pornography and child abuse, now that you have read the testimony of a convicted child abuser/murderer that it was child pornography that triggered his sexual fascination for young girls?

No... All I read from him was: 'I never did anything I consider wrong, so I'll blame the porn because I can't control myself.'

Again the testimony from a psychopathic child murderer is certainly not evidence of anything, there is no evidence to support his claim and his pursuance of child porn first tells me that he had already had fantasies of children and was merely working his way up to the big time.

Another argument for "oh, it's only a small problem, so we can ignore it".

Any incidence of child abuse, if preventable, should be considered a failure in our society to protect children. There is no "acceptable limit" of child abuse.

I agree but let's be realistic... Most child abuse happens behind closed doors and is not preventable. Child abuse has and always will happen.

Why was what you posted about rap music, etc relevant to the topic of whether child pornography (even virtual child pornogrpahy) is/should be illegal and the ownership of it a crime? This thread does not investigate the wider issue of all so-called 'thought-crime', but the single issue of child pornography and whether it has a detrimental effect on the safety of children in society.

I don't see why we should lump all issues together and make a judgement about all of them in toto. Why can we not look at each issue on it's own, deal with them individually?

Some people miss a point even when it jabs them in an eye....

He wasn't trying to bring up other issues to derail the thread, just giving an example.

"Much like I admit there is a correlation/link between gun owners and gun crime, now that I've read the testimony of a convicted murdererer that it was rap music that triggered his criminal fascination with murder.

Ban all firearms and rap music to protect the innocent."

The above quote from KRS albeit a different discussion is what you are arguing here in regards to 'virtual' child pornography

When push comes to shove... Movies, music, games, comic and images do not make people psychopathic rapers/murderers and child molesters etc. These people have always been this way and eventually would have did what they did anyway.

Psychopaths and even other types of criminals as well always do what they can to get off easier.

[momentarylapseofreason]

Ok fine then. Let me get this straight.

Lets sum up pro virtual child abuse

Freedom of speech/expression has more value than respecting children. The chances are worth it so that people may express themselves. God forbid if they couldn't express their (....... ) fantasies!

And virtual child pornography does not reinforce indecent perceptions of children. Hmmm.........okey dokey

And animated child pornography will never allow a sense of social acceptance towards indecent images. Cough...choke

And it could never give rise to secondary victimization, since victims of child abuse could not possibly re-live their physical abuse if being exposed to such images. Right?

Edited May 30, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[Leonardo]

The view on this man that I offer actually comes from reading in between the lines.

Anyway I think he's lying,

*snip*

Sorry I just can't simply take a psychopaths word for it just because they say it's true... Especially since it doesn't make a lot of sense either.

Okay, so basically you take whatever information someone posts, and add your own bias and assumption to it because then you can dismiss the information if it rebutts your argument?

Well, I apologise for suggesting you can't read then, Mr D1amond, because your lack goes far beyond that. You are deliberately building a case of speculation based on your own prejudice, then suggesting that is a valid 'reason' for the argument you put forth.

I would ask, if you cannot put forth a case in your defence that is based only on the information we have available, then you please do not respond further. I find it extremely hypocritical that I was castigated for 'speculation', yet those who argue against me are seemingly immune to criticism for the same act and I don't want to be drawn into any further accusations of 'childishness' when I respond to such blatant hypocrisy with the disdain it deserves.