Site/Off-Topic Discussion Thread
I believe that as long as there is consent...[child porn] shouldn´t be labeled as a crime.
[5/18/2017 11:08:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Text formatting help
I'm not a spambot
Agreed. And of course, since children can't consent, we both agree that child porn should be a crime. That's what you were getting at, right?
5/18/2017 11:33:15 PM
There cannot be consent from a child. End of story.
5/19/2017 12:37:40 AM
@Happy Atheist: Took the words right out of my mouth.
5/19/2017 12:37:42 AM
As children can't give informed consent, you will never manage that; child porn is definitely a crime. One of the lowest there is. You won't be popular in prison, either...
Children have a hard enough time to understand the consequences of a single sex act. The many extra consequences of a picture existing of it on the Net is impossible for a child to grasp.
5/19/2017 12:42:01 AM
A child cannot give informed consent.
5/19/2017 2:30:43 AM
Does that include babies? How do you know they are consenting? When they do a number 2? When they sign a release?
5/19/2017 6:36:27 AM
Just food for thought here, as any adult taking such pictures of children is clearly a piece of shit who needs to be removed from society...
But the thing about children is that they grow up, into adults who can consent to the continued existence of pictures of themselves. And what of minors who take such pictures of themselves, who then retain those pictures as adults?
I can see the reasoning behind blanket bans, as it is difficult to differentiate between a picture that fits the above situation, and a picture taken of someone as a child who does not wish it to continue existing, but there are probably better ways to handle the situation, such as releasing the images to a database if and only if the grown adult in the pictures consents to it, and then requiring users who want to view them to register. Not registered, but have the pictures? Crime. Have pictures that aren't in the database? Crime.
Such registration would serve many purposes: allowing pedophiles an outlet that doesn't require them to create new victims, and providing a mechanism to track pedophiles and which would provide a social reason to report those who skirt the system are just a couple off the top of my head.
And what do we do when technology advances to the point where we can decide the shapes of our bodies? What will we do when someone decides to be child-sized and child-shaped, and to start making weird porn? Or when someone decides to depict that in highly realistic art, today? If we don't have these discussions now, before it happens, we won't be ready as a society when it suddenly IS happening, and we'll probably make some tragic mistakes.
There are clearly problems with the 'children can't consent' argument, and they are only going to get worse as time goes on. I would far rather we have a social mechanism that doesn't drive people who AREN'T molesting or taking pictures of children to have to associate with and shelter those who DO abuse children because that's the only way they can satisfy the needs that a fucked up existence forced on them.
5/19/2017 8:02:12 AM
And as long as there are Statutory Rape laws,
the likes of GUILTY(IQ)8.32 will be labelled as criminals.
Also, 2009 Coroners & Justice Act.
5/19/2017 8:09:01 AM
consent - and that can only come from an adult, so...FAIL.
5/19/2017 8:35:16 AM
That's just it, you fucking idiot... children can't give consent.
5/19/2017 10:44:05 AM
Demon Duck of Doom
What Happy Atheist said.
5/19/2017 11:07:01 AM
The Angry Dybbuk
(Happy Atheist gets in first.)
Oh, good! Me too!
Since children can't consent, all porn involving minors must remain illegal. Works for me.
5/19/2017 12:59:35 PM
Guess what GUILTY(IQ)8.32
has favourited on Derpibooru
does human Fluttershy look there, does she not...?
So please explain again
why you should be so
about Statutory Rape, considering the above...?!
Oh, I'm afraid that it is
5/21/2017 11:47:14 AM