The Lefts Embrace Of Sexual Abuse And Other Deviancies

[R011]

One could make a case that child porn made without children should be illegal because it advocates breaking the law while distasteful porn about consenting adults does not.

[Ssnake]

One could make a case that child porn made without children should be illegal because it advocates breaking the law while distasteful porn about consenting adults does not.

 

Circular logic; "the law" isn't immutable. The question should be whether synthetic child porn should be illegal in the first place. With real child porn, the answer is a clear and unambiguous Yes because the prerequisite of its production is rape; there can be no consent from minors for rather obvious reasons, and the traumatization has long-lasting negative effects. But all of that simply doesn't apply with synthetic porn. So why should it be illegal in the first place? To me this makes little sense ... except of course that it appears sick and demented to me - in other words, because it's in poor taste. So I can empathize with people who want to see it banned, but I cannot support that motion because it sets the precedent to ban other media for no reason other than "we don't like it". Limiting free speech can only be justified if there is a greater good to be preserved, such as protecting the defenseless (children, in our case) from bodily harm and severe emotional trauma.

 

I could understand the argument by law enforcement that as synthetic porn produces ever more realistic results it would make it much more difficult to investigate such cases. This would be a case of regulation such as the reversal of the burden of proof which might be possible by registering synthetic media production with their hashes in a database, and suitable watermarking/media metadata. Or maybe it can't be done at all, I don't know. I'm just referring to the fundamental philosophical question. If we accept freedom of speech (including bad taste) as among our supreme values, and that every state-enforced limitation of our freedom requires a serious justification, the consequence must be that such porn shouldn't be outlawed unless there's a clear causal link to real crimes.

[R011]

There is certainly precedent for censoring or banning speech that call for breaking the law - advocating genocide for instance, or inciting to riot.

[Ssnake]

Yes, and those are justified cases. But still it's circular logic to say that synthetic child porn should be banned because it's against the law.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Not that I am suggesting that anyone goes out and buys it or reads it, but out of curiosity, given the generational nature of written erotic literature (recently the 'Shades of Grey' series, the Story of O of the 1950s etc) I bought the book 'The Delta of Venus' by Anais Nin a couple of years ago. It contains an unapologetic short story about a father's incest with his underage daughters. I was surprised, not that Anais Nin wrote the story, but that it was still being published.

 

But then again, what is considered literature can break all the rules about pornography.

 

I read it once, but I dont recall anything about underage daughters, or I would have put it down. I remember one lurid passage about adopted siblings, of which perhaps least said the better. There is no doubt, its great writing, and that it was written to order by a self evident pervert is some defence.

 

 

I think we need to recognise that child abuse exists in bureaucracies, and not 'just' left leaning ones. The study of the Jeremy Thorpe affair in the UK, and subsequent travesties of justice involving Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville show that its far more ranging than just one political wing. All of them play these games if revelation damages the cosy environment in which they operate.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3715496/The-sickest-Establishment-cover-great-good-let-Jeremy-Thorpe-away-sex-abuse-gave-green-light-monsters-like-Cyril-Smith-Jimmy-Savile.html

[Murph]

Not that I am suggesting that anyone goes out and buys it or reads it, but out of curiosity, given the generational nature of written erotic literature (recently the 'Shades of Grey' series, the Story of O of the 1950s etc) I bought the book 'The Delta of Venus' by Anais Nin a couple of years ago. It contains an unapologetic short story about a father's incest with his underage daughters. I was surprised, not that Anais Nin wrote the story, but that it was still being published.

 

But then again, what is considered literature can break all the rules about pornography.

And what is considered literature by elite professors is mostly crap, and pretentious crap at that.

[Rick]

Yes, and those are justified cases. But still it's circular logic to say that synthetic child porn should be banned because it's against the law.

I would say your soul leads your thoughts. Matthew 7:12, Matthew 26:41, and Mark 7:20-23.

[R011]

Yes, and those are justified cases. But still it's circular logic to say that synthetic child porn should be banned because it's against the law.

It isn't the porn itself that is the issue. It is the illegal child abuse it is allegedly promoting that is.

 

Just as the issue with saying "kill the Jews" is not that it is offensive, which it is, but that it will encourage people to kill Jews. The propaganda preceding the Rwanda genocide is an example of this kind of speech.

[DougRichards]

One could make a case that child porn made without children should be illegal because it advocates breaking the law while distasteful porn about consenting adults does not.

 

Actually in Australia a guy was convicted and gaoled for child porn offences involving cartoon images of the 'Simpsons' children in pornographic situations.

[DougRichards]

 

One could make a case that child porn made without children should be illegal because it advocates breaking the law while distasteful porn about consenting adults does not.

 

Circular logic; "the law" isn't immutable. The question should be whether synthetic child porn should be illegal in the first place. With real child porn, the answer is a clear and unambiguous Yes because the prerequisite of its production is rape; there can be no consent from minors for rather obvious reasons, and the traumatization has long-lasting negative effects. But all of that simply doesn't apply with synthetic porn. So why should it be illegal in the first place? To me this makes little sense ... except of course that it appears sick and demented to me - in other words, because it's in poor taste. So I can empathize with people who want to see it banned, but I cannot support that motion because it sets the precedent to ban other media for no reason other than "we don't like it". Limiting free speech can only be justified if there is a greater good to be preserved, such as protecting the defenseless (children, in our case) from bodily harm and severe emotional trauma.

 

I could understand the argument by law enforcement that as synthetic porn produces ever more realistic results it would make it much more difficult to investigate such cases. This would be a case of regulation such as the reversal of the burden of proof which might be possible by registering synthetic media production with their hashes in a database, and suitable watermarking/media metadata. Or maybe it can't be done at all, I don't know. I'm just referring to the fundamental philosophical question. If we accept freedom of speech (including bad taste) as among our supreme values, and that every state-enforced limitation of our freedom requires a serious justification, the consequence must be that such porn shouldn't be outlawed unless there's a clear causal link to real crimes.

 

 

It is like saying that having sex with a child model sex doll is okay because no real child is harmed. At least here in Australia, where detected at importation, child sex dolls are impounded as an illegal import, and further:

 

"

In August 2016, a Sydney man who was arrested after he was found in possession of a child sex doll challenged the court over whether the dolls were illegal.

He was later sentenced to two years imprisonment.

“There’s no defence to say you didn’t know that these were illegal at the time of importation,” Berry said.

“But Customs uses its discretion as to where we go with following up these interceptions.” "

[Ssnake]

It isn't the porn itself that is the issue. It is the illegal child abuse it is allegedly promoting that is.

 

Is any kind of porn a "promotion" of sex, or just reflecting demand? Where do you draw the line between a reflection of reality and the promotion of it. I think it's a very slippery slope to use the "promotion" argument not only because of the blurry lines, but also because it can be applied to about any opinion that is being disliked. The prime reason child porn must be forbidden (something that I support without reservation) is that its creation by necessity victimizes children. That's why we not only declare its production illegal but also the distribution and even the mere possession.

But that argument doesn't apply to synthetically generated media. By definition they do not victimize real children - unless you can make a convincing case that its consumption increases the likelihood of child abuse; I'm not terribly familiar with the subject but I suspect that there is no strong causal link, just like there is no causal link between reading H.P. Lovecraft and the practicing of ritual murder in the name of Great Cthulhu, or between first person shooters and gun violence, or that war movies have caused more invasions of other countries.

 

(Which is why I think that convicting someone of the possession of child porn when it's about cartoon characters is clearly ridiculous. Such may be the law in Australia; my conclusion would be that it simply is a bad law. Needless to say, few people will say it loudly because such statements will be quickly taken out of context to smear a person of being a pervert. I am myself very hesitant to even participate in this discussion because of this --- which, I think, says a lot about how much "free speech" is a fiction.)

[NickM]

 

 

Well Babs Streisand let the cat out of the bag. She says that the open and blatant sexual abuse of children is ok, since it fullfilled Michael Jacksons sexual needs. Maybe she needs to convert and become a Catholic, and maybe be promoted to bishop? https://pjmedia.com/faith/barbra-streisand-pedophilia-and-the-lefts-slippery-slope-of-sexual-deviancy/ https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/1109269351927111680 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6841461/Barbra-Streisand-says-Michael-Jacksons-accusers-thrilled-there.html

Murph, one of my favorite youtube shit posters, Razorfist the Rageaholic has vigorously defended MJ from the child molestation accusations--give it a look. He opines MJ was physically abused by his father & then 'passed around' to the perves in the business to ensure his 'success' for the Jackson family so he hung around kids to try to be a 'kid' again--weird but not sexual. In fact Razor craps all over the idea that MJ is a pedo

Ok, I will.

 

Thanks; I look forward to your commentary; your LEO insights would probably be most helpful, too.

[Nobu]

Hollywood, being a centroid of opposition to western civilization, tends to be attracted to perversion I think because it is perceived as undermining western civilization.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but were this to be true, the extent of the massive Japanese pornographic industry could be a painful indicator of how much it may be undermining the moral codes that are foundation pieces for eastern civilization in various ways.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Nobu

[sunday]

Hollywood, being a centroid of opposition to western civilization, tends to be attracted to perversion I think because it is perceived as undermining western civilization.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but were this to be true, the extent of the massive Japanese pornographic industry could be a painful indicator of how much it may be undermining the moral codes that are foundation pieces for eastern civilization in various ways.

Well, Japanese civilization is undermined actually. Young Japanese men prefer to sleep with anime pillows rather than marry young Japanese ladies and make Japanese babies.

Edited March 27, 2019 by sunday

[R011]

 

 

It isn't the porn itself that is the issue. It is the illegal child abuse it is allegedly promoting that is.

Is any kind of porn a "promotion" of sex, or just reflecting demand? Where do you draw the line between a reflection of reality and the promotion of it. I think it's a very slippery slope to use the "promotion" argument not only because of the blurry lines, but also because it can be applied to about any opinion that is being disliked. The prime reason child porn must be forbidden (something that I support without reservation) is that its creation by necessity victimizes children. That's why we not only declare its production illegal but also the distribution and even the mere possession.

But that argument doesn't apply to synthetically generated media. By definition they do not victimize real children - unless you can make a convincing case that its consumption increases the likelihood of child abuse; I'm not terribly familiar with the subject but I suspect that there is no strong causal link, just like there is no causal link between reading H.P. Lovecraft and the practicing of ritual murder in the name of Great Cthulhu, or between first person shooters and gun violence, or that war movies have caused more invasions of other countries.

 

(Which is why I think that convicting someone of the possession of child porn when it's about cartoon characters is clearly ridiculous. Such may be the law in Australia; my conclusion would be that it simply is a bad law. Needless to say, few people will say it loudly because such statements will be quickly taken out of context to smear a person of being a pervert. I am myself very hesitant to even participate in this discussion because of this --- which, I think, says a lot about how much "free speech" is a fiction.)

It doesnt matter if depicting legal activity promotes it or not. It is like comparing a call to peacefully protest, such protest being legal, to inciting a riot. Edited March 28, 2019 by R011

[rmgill]

There is certainly precedent for censoring or banning speech that call for breaking the law - advocating genocide for instance, or inciting to riot.

Imagry that portrays a murder but which does not actually involve a real murder is not advocacy for murder.

[R011]

 

There is certainly precedent for censoring or banning speech that call for breaking the law - advocating genocide for instance, or inciting to riot.

Imagry that portrays a murder but which does not actually involve a real murder is not advocacy for murder.

True, but murder is not usually depicted as something positive even in fiction.

 

I must admit, my inclination is toward free speech. I wouldnt advocate for a ban of material that does not require child abuse to happen to make it. I'm willing, though, to accept the consequences of child abuse are appalling enough that laws against "victimless" child porn may be justifiable because of possible though not proven linkages.

[Ssnake]

I might accept somewhat lowered standards to "err on the side of caution" in this case ... but there should at least be stronger hints than "we, the majority, find it repulsive and don't like it". To be clear: I suppose we all agree on the goal to reduce the number of child rape cases. All rape is wrong, obviously, but it's even more heinous against the defenseless. So the question is, what's the best path towards that goal.

 

As far as I understand European police statistics the crime rates for rape nicely correlate with the liberalization of pornography ... inversely, that is.

Quite a few people made the case back in the 60s that the free availability of porn would lead to an increase in sex crimes. I won't go so far as to say that a direct analogy is justified. But I think there is enough historical evidence to at least seriously consider the possibility that the availability of synthetic child porn might help to reduce real child rape. If that were the case, the conclusion about what to do would be rather obvious (if counterintuitive).

[sunday]

Still swastikas and other Nazi paraphernalia are banned in Germany, even in video games or plastic models, if I am not wrong.

[MiloMorai]

Still swastikas and other Nazi paraphernalia are banned in Germany, even in video games or plastic models, if I am not wrong.

Basically yes, tho there has been some changes.

[DKTanker]

 

There is certainly precedent for censoring or banning speech that call for breaking the law - advocating genocide for instance, or inciting to riot.

Imagry that portrays a murder but which does not actually involve a real murder is not advocacy for murder.

 

If it were, Hollyweird would be out of business.

[rmgill]

True, but murder is not usually depicted as something positive even in fiction.

How many instances of a cop shooting someone down is portrayed as good? Then there's instances in fiction like the Expanse and Game of Thrones.

 

I should probably also tweak the above to note homicide rather than just murder.

 

I must admit, my inclination is toward free speech. I wouldnt advocate for a ban of material that does not require child abuse to happen to make it. I'm willing, though, to accept the consequences of child abuse are appalling enough that laws against "victimless" child porn may be justifiable because of possible though not proven linkages.

 

If there's solid data to indicate say that animated child porn increases predilections and instances of victimization, then yes, ban it. But, if there's not and the people with the broken wiring can still get their rocks off without actually affecting real people....it's a no harm no foul thing.

Edited March 28, 2019 by rmgill

[Nobu]

Well, Japanese civilization is undermined actually. Young Japanese men prefer to sleep with anime pillows rather than marry young Japanese ladies and make Japanese babies.

 

Whether the massive Japanese pornography industry is a symptom or a contributing cause is probably not up for debate, as it likely is both.

 

What is just as alarming is the dehumanization of Japanese women the mainstreaming of the Japanese porn industry contributes to in various ways.

 

Razorfist the Rageaholic has vigorously defended MJ from the child molestation accusations--give it a look.

 

I won't call it convincing, but his defense made interesting points.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Nobu

[Murph]

Just look at all the Leftists and Hollywierd types who have been caught as deviants. Polanski needs prison, not awards, but Hollywierd supports him. Look at the rapes of the boys associated with the Goonies, and such to see how the perverts and deviants have gotten control.

[Nobu]

There is discomfort in the process of following the money that enables the deviancy in the case of Hollywood, and the perversion in the case of Japan's pornography industry. Both have been mainstreamed to differing extents, to the point where those funding both have become anesthetized to the cultural damage caused by them.