Goooooogle blocks 100,000 search terms for kiddyporn!

Last edited:
FoxEye said:
Possessing an image (drawing, naturally) of an underage minotaur is an offense which can get you on the sex offenders register.

All that has to happen is a group of people have to conclude that the minotaur looks underage (or that the artist is suggesting this). This could be something as simple as the minotaur holding a teddy bear whilst .... erm, you know.

That's not a joke! This is real legislation that already exists.

My point is, who the hell cares what you get off to, if no real children are involved? Well, apparently the people making/enforcing our laws care a whole bunch.

Judges already ruled that the target of abuse does not have to be *real* for the abuse to have occurred. I kid you not - that's an actual legal precedent.
Click to expand...

I'm quite aware of this, and the fact that drawing or even copying or downloading is termed as "making" an image.

But no AOC exists for minotaurs. Wouldn't we have to put an AOC in for them first? I mean adults can hold teddies too. Is what your saying that it's illegal, "if the minotaur is made to resemble an underage human"? I mean, you get that with furries.
 
Lysander said:
I'm quite aware of this, and the fact that drawing or even copying or downloading is termed as "making" an image.

But no AOC exists for minotaurs. Wouldn't we have to put an AOC in for them first? I mean adults can hold teddies too. Is what your saying that it's illegal, "if the minotaur is made to resemble an underage human"? I mean, you get that with furries.
Click to expand...

According to The Reg (the first non-wiki link I could find!), the AOC for a cartoon is *always* 18.

"Cartoon" includes 3D models, drawings, hand puppets...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/06/cartoon_law_live/

To convict you would need to have a panel average people decent the cartoon was under 18.
 
@FoxEye. I think that's far too liberal way to think about the matter.

"who cares if no real children are involved".

So your suggesting that we shouldn't be bothered (as a society) if some people find it OK to watch cartoons of minors being sexually abused? What about if a teacher was watching cartoons of children being abused and then going to school the next day to teach a class of children? Is that ok?

It's about setting clear and firm line down in the sand saying "we as a society do not tolerate any form of abuse of minors". Be it a cartoon, a picture or a video. That's what the legislation is there for.
 
Qitarah said:
@Foxeye. I think that's far too liberal way to think about the matter.

"who cares if no real children are involved".

So your suggesting that we shouldn't be bothered (as a society) if some people find it OK to watch cartoons of minors being sexually abused? What about if a teacher was watching cartoons of children being abused and then going to school the next day to teach a class of children? Is that ok?

It's about setting clear and firm line down in the sand saying "we as a society do not tolerate any form of abuse of minors". Be it a cartoon, a picture or a video. That's what the legislation is there for.
Click to expand...

Thought-police? You can't prosecute someone until they break the law.
 
Qitarah said:
Last time I checked planning to break the law is prosecutable.
Click to expand...

Because that is the law, yes. Which is what I said. In your post you give the example of a teacher watching cartoons, and it not being okay he then teaches. Well he could have all kinds of sick thoughts in his head without watching cartoons. Until he actually enacts anything nothing can be done. Or should.

Anyone got the statistic about how many sex offenders/paedophiles have previous criminal records?
 
Last edited:
Qitarah said:
@Foxeye. I think that's far too liberal way to think about the matter.

"who cares if no real children are involved".

So your suggesting that we shouldn't be bothered (as a society) if some people find it OK to watch cartoons of minors being sexually abused? What about if a teacher was watching cartoons of children being abused and then going to school the next day to teach a class of children? Is that ok?

It's about setting clear and firm line down in the sand saying "we as a society do not tolerate any form of abuse of minors". Be it a cartoon, a picture or a video. That's what the legislation is there for.
Click to expand...

There *is* no abuse if there is no real child, surely? Who is the victim? The piece of paper? The PC monitor?

Can you not separate reality from fantasy? If not, you're not alone, many people have difficulty.

Moving on, what about thought crime? If it is illegal to watch cartoon depictions of children (not necessarily human!), should it be illegal to think about imaginary children in sexual contexts?

What if (by technology) we could prove which people had such thoughts in their imaginations? Should we consider them criminals?
 
Qitarah said:
@Foxeye. I think that's far too liberal way to think about the matter.

"who cares if no real children are involved".

So your suggesting that we shouldn't be bothered (as a society) if some people find it OK to watch cartoons of minors being sexually abused? What about if a teacher was watching cartoons of children being abused and then going to school the next day to teach a class of children? Is that ok?

It's about setting clear and firm line down in the sand saying "we as a society do not tolerate any form of abuse of minors". Be it a cartoon, a picture or a video. That's what the legislation is there for.
Click to expand...

So should games like GTA be banned using the same logic then? What about Super Mario Brothers which encourages animal cruelty on turtles?

There's plenty of stuff we don't deem acceptable in real life but are able to understand depicting it in a film or game are contextually different.
 
Criminal profiling is used by police forces and security services to determine who should be monitored. It's quite interesting and perhaps concerning.

Imagine if you were perhaps a bit odd, one day you go on a walk and perhaps walk past a local school, nothing sinister of course. But because of the profiling you get a swat team descend to harass you and find out if you've got ulterior motives.

It's better that 10 guilty men go free, than to punish one innocent man.
 
Last edited:
As mentioned, the law is there to provide ground work to punish people who fail to adhere to what is socially acceptable and what isn't. Viewing depictions of children being abused isn't socially acceptable thus its punishable by law.

In my eyes having a fantasy about a child in a sexual context is disgusting and abnormal. Regardless if that fantasy is dressed up in a cartoon, a puppet show or what ever. I'd classify it as a mental illness actually.

Although your last two questions dont really have a baring on the matter at hand (I'm talking about something that is illegal and is a reality, you are talking about something that isnt illegal and isnt a reality) I'll answer your questions anyways;

I don't think it should be illegal to think something of course not. You're right there is a difference between thinking something and actually doing something.
 
Last edited:
@estebanrey

We aren't talking about depicting animal cruelty in a film, a game or violence in a game/film.

We are talking about sexual content such as videoed rape, cartoons depicting the abused of minors and other such things. Why would my argument automatically translate to things that have nothing to do with the subject matter?
 
Qitarah said:
@estebanrey

We aren't talking about depicting animal cruelty in a film, a game or violence in a game/film.

We are talking about sexual content such as videoed rape, cartoons depicting the abused of minors and other such things. Why would my argument automatically translate to things that have nothing to do with the subject matter?
Click to expand...

Because your argument is....

"It's about setting clear and firm line down in the sand saying 'we as a society do not tolerate any form of abuse of minors'"

And that same principle could be applied to the theft of a motor car or animal cruelty using your logic could it not? To put it another way, why should sexual crimes be subject to different rules than those of other things society doesn't deem acceptable?
 
So does this mean everyone who has watched A Serbian Film now has to go to jail for 3 years? Even the censored version would be cutting the line mighty close. Same with Hostel, Hostel 2, The SAW movies, etc.
 
"that same principle could be applied to the theft of a motor car or animal cruelty using your logic could it not?"

It could be applied sure, but it would be stupid to do it.

Why does it automatically apply? You're talking about a subject matter that is totally different, thus the logic would be totally different. Thats just a nonsensical argument to suggest that because I think X about Y then I must think X about B.
 
Last edited:
Qitarah said:
"that same principle could be applied to the theft of a motor car or animal cruelty using your logic could it not?"

It could be applied sure, but it would be stupid to do it.

Why does it automatically apply? You're talking about a subject matter that is totally different, thus the logic would be totally different. That just a nonsensical argument to suggest that because I think X about Y then I must think X about B.
Click to expand...

Tell me which of the following should be illegal, so that your logic does not contradict?

a drawing of an imaginary child being abused is a real crime
a drwaing of an imaginary child being murdered is OK (no crime)
a drawing of an imaginary animal being abused then murdered is OK
a drawing of Dave Cameron's imaginary twin brother being abused, murdered, then abused some more, is OK because he's not a child

Seems a bit weird that imaginary children are afforded such protection...
 
We have not spoken about images of animal abuse, images of children being murdered or anything else. We are speaking about images, videos or cartoons of children being portrayed in a sexual context.

Why do you and estebanrey seem to keep trying to take the focus away from the topic at hand.

My logic is not contradicting it self at all. You both wrongly assume that the logic is fixed in place even if the subject matter is of totally different thing?
 
Qitarah said:
"that same principle could be applied to the theft of a motor car or animal cruelty using your logic could it not?"

It could be applied sure, but it would be stupid to do it.

Why does it automatically apply? You're talking about a subject matter that is totally different, thus the logic would be totally different. Thats just a nonsensical argument to suggest that because I think X about Y then I must think X about B.
Click to expand...

I was following your logic but you seem to be asking for special pleading for sexual crimes, which is fine I just want to know why?

You keep saying "it's different" but in what way?
 
Stealing a car is not the same as abuse of a minor. That's why it different. How hard is that to grasp?

Much the same as why we have different punishments for different crimes, different things are different!
 
Last edited:
Qitarah said:
Stealing a car is not the same as abuse of a minor. That's why it different. How hard is that to grasp?
Click to expand...

I know it's not the same, but WHY should murder (as featured in many games) not fall foul to your "we deem this unacceptable as a society" rule but sexual crimes should?

You can't just keep saying "it's different" as that avoids rather than answers the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom