Never change, Havoc.

Springer (2010, November 30). Legalizing pornography: Lower sex crime rates? Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1130111326.htm

I only managed to get into the actual article via some workaround a friend posted on facebook, but luckily you're a academic!

It's not a perfect study by any means, but it has supporting studies and it seems rather intuitive to me.

Wow. They posit a link between the availability of child pornography and a reduction in sex crimes against children. If that is true (and I wonder how they managed to filter out the effect of the increasing sophistication of police efforts in this area), that's a real ethical quandary.

It does make sense though, I think the simulated videos that the article suggests could be a good thing if it stops real child molestation and rape. I think the way the government approaches paedophilia is all wrong though. They treat it as a crime rather than an illness, which I honestly believe it is. That's not to say I sympathise with paedophiles, I just think that locking them up for 15 years isn't the solution.

If a pedophile is a potential child molester, then a straight male is a potential rapist.

It's like what people say about violent videoganes,remember the Manhunt thing? A guy played ithen went out and killed someone. It's not because of the game, if he killed someone he was already fucked in the head. I'm pretty sure I can relate that to rapists and peadophiles but I can't remember where I was going with it.

That's because most pedophiles have the decency not to act on their urges because they actually care about the well being of children. They willingly make due with child pornography so they don't want to hurt anyone.

I have yet to see a rapist care about the well being of their victim. By definition most rapists get off on the entire idea of hurting someone.

The two can't be compared. For one group having pornography available lessens the urge. For the other it increases it.

It doesn't fucking matter, it's still disgusting. Are you actually defending child porn?

No, I'm simply saying you can't compare withholding child porn from pedophiles to withholding rape videos from rapists.

Also, when it comes to censoring something from the public as a government, something being 'disgusting' isn't a good enough reason. In fact, I can't think of any reason that would be good enough.

The question you should be asking yourself is 'Why do we care about stopping child porn?' The answer is 'Because a child gets hurt to make it.'

This is a good answer. Child porn is inexcusable, using child porn as an outlet for impulses is still a crime because you're still passively hurting children.

The problem is, and not swerving this topic off course, that people conflate this and some sacred notion that any material portraying the depiction of sex between children is Wrong and should be illegal. The most healthy thing to do would be to legalize purely fictitious child porn such as erotic literature, art and animation. Certainly these things are gross and repungant and because of that, we want to make the argument that they in some way act as a gateway drug to real child porn or even child rape, but the weight of evidence swings decidedly against that.

Of course Cameron et al don't care. They want a pristine and mentally hygienic Victorian society with strong moral values at the expense of personal responsibility and freedom.

I feel very, very sad for pedophiles. I feel nothing but disgust for child molesters. The one does not equal the other, as has been pointed out more eloquently by others.

Bronies, on the other hand, are disgraceful whether they ever fuck a cartoon pony or not.

But it's kind of hard to fuck a cartoon pony. Not many have suceeded.
At the end of the day, they don't give a shit what they're doing, they just want it to look like they're actually doing something when they're doing dick-all.

It's a simple double standard, really. Fictional games and movies where people are being slaughtered and murdered by the masses are being sold on every street corner. Yet fictional child pornography should remain illegal because it presumably encourages pedophiles to do the real thing.

Granted some people believe violent games make you violent (same idiots in the British government if memory serves) but normal thinking people know that's not the case. So then the question becomes; why is it okay to entertain yourself with one fictional crime and not the other?

When you make a video game about killing people you don't have to actually kill people. When you make pornography about children you do actually have to put children into those situations.

I think Havoc is talking about fictional depictions of child porn, i.e. illustrations.

Indeed I am.

You still fuck tigers, Havoc?

Of course.

Good answer. Wouldn't have you any other way.

But it's more responsible to supply him with a bottemless porn-pit of fictious tigers to fuck.

I learned something today.

No, I think he’d prefer they have bottoms.

I once saw this video of a girl forking her eye out with a fork and moaning. It was real, and pretty grim. It was hot, though.
Is that illegal?

A lot of places don't allow graphic depictions of real gore much less self harm but no one's dying and it's entirely consensual so I'm pretty sure that's legal.

It’s not hot though.

It really isn’t.

To be honest, I think I'd moan if I had a fork sticking out of my eye. It's no forking joke.

We are not an imageboard, we do not reply to things with reaction images.

Yes, we do. Images tell a thousand words.

What thousand words does this one tell?

That finding such a digusting thing hot makes Crash want to open a window and jump out, forever leaving OWF behind.