Should Child Porn be Re-legalized?

[Murlough]

No. Child pornography should not be legalized. No. No. No.

*Insert some argument here*

No.

 

[Sucumbio]

While I agree with your opinion let's not forget etiquette and at least put - something - of an argument in :l

 

[Murlough]

While I agree with your opinion let's not forget etiquette and at least put - something - of an argument in :l

Sorry. That was dumb on my part. Alright. Child porn, in my inner moral compass, is a disgusting thing that should never be legal. Kids should not have pictures taken of themselves in the nude for older folk.

It isn't right. That is all I really have to say. Didn't mean to spam I was just trying to throw my opinion in and be done with this conversation. It isn't something I'd ever agree to regardless of whether law says it is right or wrong. I apologize and will take my leave.

 

[FairyLip]

While I agree with your opinion let's not forget etiquette and at least put - something - of an argument in :l

Thank you for not closing this topic instantly! I know a lot of forums would have, but this is a really interesting discussion, I feel.

Sorry. That was dumb on my part. Alright. Child porn, in my inner moral compass, is a disgusting thing that should never be legal. Kids should not have pictures taken of themselves in the nude for older folk.

It isn't right. That is all I really have to say. Didn't mean to spam I was just trying to throw my opinion in and be done with this conversation. It isn't something I'd ever agree to regardless of whether law says it is right or wrong. I apologize and will take my leave.

You unflinchingly think that child porn is always wrong? What is your opinion on shotacon/lolicon? What's your opinion on minors taking pictures of themselves (nude sharing)?

 

[Murlough]

You unflinchingly think that child porn is always wrong? What is your opinion on shotacon/lolicon? What's your opinion on minors taking pictures of themselves (nude sharing)?

I don't know what shotacon is (not that I'm not interested in your argument. If you think it is something I should know about for the sake of the debate then let me know and I'll look it up.)

Coming from a guy who finds himself attracted to more petite women, I don't like the loli thing. Once again I don't really understand what a loli is. If it is just simply a more petite woman than usual then sure I've got no problems with it. If it is "grown" 4-year-old child then I am not.

I am a young male and have dealt with situations where pictures were taken and recieved by certain people. I think it is a bad idea most of the time but I think if minors can keep these things private to themselves then it is fine. I don't think it wise but legally and morally I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[FairyLip]

I don't know what shotacon is (not that I'm not interested in your argument. If you think it is something I should know about for the sake of the debate then let me know and I'll look it up.)

Coming from a guy who finds himself attracted to more "petite" women, I don't like the loli thing. Once again I don't really understand what a loli is. If it is just simply a more petite woman than usual then sure I've got no problems with it. If it is "grown" 4-year-old child then I am not.

I am a young male and have delt with situations where pictures were taken and recieved by certain people. I think it is a bad idea most of the time but I think if minors can keep these things private to themselves then it is fine. I don't think it wise but legally and morally I don't see anything wrong with it.

Shotacon is just male lolicon. Anyway, I tend to find that it's older than 4. Typically 7 at the lowest to around teenagers.

 

[Murlough]

Then yes, I am almost completely against it. Adults should not look at children that way.

 

[Vexxed]

There is no reason to legalise the production and distribution of child pornography. It encourages and directly fuels the abuse of children. By revoking the law that prevents children from being assaulted, abused, and taken advantage of, you're not accomplishing much besides making it legal to now abuse children sexually.

We have laws against murder, theft, sexual assault, and other crimes for a reason – to protect people from harm. The only thing you'd be accomplishing by revoking those laws would be directly causing the harm of people.

This is not like the abolition of the anti-gay rights laws, which was essential for equality among all peoples. No, not one bit. By abolishing those laws, equality took a huge step, opportunities have been made for gay people across the world, and the world is moving closer to full acceptance.

By removing the laws that make the distribution and production of child pornography illegal, you're not making anybody rightfully equal. You're not making life easier for people. You're not benefiting the world.

You're harming children, their families, and their communities.

I'm honestly dumbfounded that you want to legalise child abuse and aren't on the sex offender registry yet.

 

[Peedee]

and by reading this, I bet I am on a few lists by now...

 

[adumbrodeus]

There is no reason to legalise the production and distribution of child pornography. It encourages and directly fuels the abuse of children. By revoking the law that prevents children from being assaulted, abused, and taken advantage of, you're not accomplishing much besides making it legal to now abuse children sexually.

We have laws against murder, theft, sexual assault, and other crimes for a reason – to protect people from harm. The only thing you'd be accomplishing by revoking those laws would be directly causing the harm of people.

This is not like the abolition of the anti-gay rights laws, which was essential for equality among all peoples. No, not one bit. By abolishing those laws, equality took a huge step, opportunities have been made for gay people across the world, and the world is moving closer to full acceptance.

By removing the laws that make the distribution and production of child pornography illegal, you're not making anybody rightfully equal. You're not making life easier for people. You're not benefiting the world.

You're harming children, their families, and their communities.

I'm honestly dumbfounded that you want to legalise child abuse and aren't on the sex offender registry yet.

Perhaps you should respond to the actual argument he's making. It's referring to possession and redistribution and is referencing negative externalities, (elements such as that it can make prosecution of child abusers more difficult, criminalize minors who sext, and the usage as an excuse to censor. It's not an argument that sexual abuse of children should be legal.

Strawmen should not be acceptable here, yet the entire last page seems to be just that.

Not that I necessarily agree with Mac's point, but there should DEFINITELY be Romeo and Juliet provisions for minors producing sexually explicit material of themselves and possessing sexually explicit material of other minors that produced it themselves and sent it to them, similar to how we handle age of consent.

 

[_Keno_]

Then yes, I am almost completely against it. Adults should not look at children that way.

And yet some do, and always will. Simply saying such a thing is wrong and protesting it will not make it go away. Some people have used the same argument you just used, but against gay people "Yes, I am morally against it, therefore it shouldn't be. Men should not look at men that way."

Now obviously the difference is that children will never be able to consent, but other than that, it is a naturally occurring sexuality that many are cursed with.

And honestly, unless there are studies that explicitly say "looking at loli/shota helps to cause child abuse," then as much as I don't care to see it myself, it should be legal.

Obviously we'll never stop teen sexting, so we should just make better laws in regards to that. It's a bit out of hand.

 

[Murlough]

And yet some do, and always will. Simply saying such a thing is wrong and protesting it will not make it go away. Some people have used the same argument you just used, but against gay people "Yes, I am morally against it, therefore it shouldn't be. Men should not look at men that way."

Now obviously the difference is that children will never be able to consent, but other than that, it is a naturally occurring sexuality that many are cursed with.

And honestly, unless there are studies that explicitly say "looking at loli/shota helps to cause child abuse," then as much as I don't care to see it myself, it should be legal.

Obviously we'll never stop teen sexting, so we should just make better laws in regards to that. It's a bit out of hand.

I see your point but there is a difference between homosexuals and those who are attracted to children. As you said a child can't give consent while homosexuals (that are not also children obviously) can.

If a person is afflicted with a curse like that then I hope they make the right decision and not try to seduce a child.

Also, I may have not been very clear about the shotacon/lolicon thing. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist. I personally don't like it but that doesn't mean no one else should be allowed to. If it helps those afflicted with the child "curse" then by all means watch on.

Real children should not be taken advantage of in society. Child porn being legalized would eventually lead to children being taken advantage of.

I agree with the teen sexting bit. It is out of hand but it is also one of those things that are uncontrollable.

 

[SSG SAX GAMER]

Points 1 and 2 are rarely ever enforced by the law. A jury wouldn't prosecute 2 teenagers who consensually had sex.