85% of child-porn viewers caught, have molested children themselves - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

partofme · #16 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

At worst, it's proof to me that this person is a danger to children. At best, it's proof to me that he supports those who would harm children.

Neither is good...

I guess but I do not think that is illegal. If the other person consents then they are a danger to him as well and I guess they are a danger to each other and themselves. My parents simply didn't allow me to be alone when I had my first girlfriends although I must admit we both tried to find some. I am a new parent and I am not sure how strict I am but I know some parents that are a little too permissive for my taste and I'm not a conservative guy. Before a argument get started I want to point out I was not using conservative by it's political meaning.

Speakeasy · #17 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

There's absolutely nothing wrong with supporting legal child porn, as far as the law goes. Reporting them to any sort of authority is pretty much a waste of everyone's time.

White Rabbit · #18 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Looks more like some spin from Fox News to me.

The study participants are federal inmates - that is to say those who have been convicted of some felony sex crime.

According to the study mentioned, 85% of the sexual criminals in a federal prison study admitted they had committed some unspecified act of sexual abuse of a minor.

This in no way shape or form can be used to support the Fox News scaremongering headline of "Men who download child porn more likely to molest kids". There is no basis for this conclusion - none whatsoever. The New York Times headline on the original story is far more reasonable and applicable. The Fox News headlines are sensational and bullshit.

Convicted felons, notably those incarcerated for unspecified sexual crimes, are NOT representative in any way of the general population, and thus, the results of the study cannot be projected upon the general population in the way Fox News is doing here.

In other words, if 85% of known and convicted murderers admitted to watching Mr.Roger's Neighborhood as children - this does not prove that watching Mr.Roger's Neighborhood encourages murder. But that's what Fox News is suggesting here.

Steve · #19 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

In other words, if 85% of known and convicted murderers admitted to watching Mr.Roger's Neighborhood as children - this does not prove that watching Mr.Roger's Neighborhood encourages murder.

Of course not. But if 85% admitted to wearing bad sweaters and talking to puppets, there would be a direct correlation, as is the case with the survey: they're related...

Crystal · #20 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

No, luckily, he managed to get himself banned. It pisses me off though that special considerations were given for his age.

Where in the world is the information on this?!?!

White Rabbit · #21 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Of course not. But if 85% admitted to wearing bad sweaters and talking to puppets, there would be a direct correlation, as is the case with the survey: they're related...

No causal or direct correlation is established in the study.

My analogy has the same validity as the one Fox News is using in their headline.

Crystal · #22 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

There's absolutely nothing wrong with supporting legal child porn, as far as the law goes. Reporting them to any sort of authority is pretty much a waste of everyone's time.

And exactly how would one about supporting legal child porn? Are you being sarcastic? Because I recognize that in some states it's not illegal to view child porn, but it is illegal to be the one taking the pictures. If someone says, "Hey, you really need to send me some new hot kiddie pics" is that supporting child porn and is that legal?

partofme · #23 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal

And exactly how would one about supporting legal child porn? Are you being sarcastic? Because I recognize that in some states it's not illegal to view child porn, but it is illegal to be the one taking the pictures. If someone says, "Hey, you really need to send me some new hot kiddie pics" is that supporting child porn and is that legal?

Isn't there federal laws about it on the book? I know that if you sent somebody something in another state that would probably fall under it.

White Rabbit · #24 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal

And exactly how would one about supporting legal child porn? Are you being sarcastic? Because I recognize that in some states it's not illegal to view child porn, but it is illegal to be the one taking the pictures. If someone says, "Hey, you really need to send me some new hot kiddie pics" is that supporting child porn and is that legal?

I think a perusal of network television, music videos, clothing catalogs and fashion magazines will show quite a bit of 'legal kid porn'.

Crystal · #25 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

I think a perusal of network television, music videos, clothing catalogs and fashion magazines will show quite a bit of 'legal kid porn'.

Reminds me of when Abercrombie really upset some folks when they sold kiddie thongs with words such as "eye candy" and "wink wink" on them.

Quote:

JS Online: Parents say kid's thong is just plain wrong

Calling it the "modern-day version of Underoos," a national clothing company is selling thong underwear in children's sizes - with the words "eye candy" and "wink wink" printed on the front.

Abercrombie & Fitch, the same retailer that enraged parents last year with a summer catalog of teenage-looking models groping each other and in the nude, now offers several varieties of thongs at its Abercrombie stores, the division of the company for children 7 to 14 years old.

"It's cute and fun and sweet," said Hampton Carney, spokesman for the company based in New Albany, Ohio.

But some parents are far from tickled. In fact, they're outraged.

"I think of myself as fairly hip, and I think it's just disgusting," said Julie McNamara, a 40-year-old mother from Whitefish Bay.

The thongs, part of Abercrombie's summer line, sell for $7.50, or 3 for $15. Some have stripes, others are solid pink or blue. The solid-colored thongs have the words "eye candy" printed in a little pink heart and "wink wink" in a small green box.

Crystal · #26 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

Isn't there federal laws about it on the book? I know that if you sent somebody something in another state that would probably fall under it.

I don't know. I was looking into it a little bit for one of the other threads and it seems like in PA it's not illegal view it and then go on about your business, but it is illegal to view and save it (intent to keep). The law has to do with possession. Btw, I would have looked into it a bit more but I felt weird googling the words "kiddie porn" and "child porn" because I didn't know what would come up and even if I put the words law and legal, you just never know what google will actually pull up for you.

Million Kiddie Porn Pic Defendant Seeks Unlimited Access to All Pics and Videos

drgoodtrips · #27 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

I think a perusal of network television, music videos, clothing catalogs and fashion magazines will show quite a bit of 'legal kid porn'.

Or, if you really want the full experience, you could attend one of those pre-teen beauty pageants.

Mrs. M · #28 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal

Where in the world is the information on this?!?!

I have a friend...

Speakeasy · #29 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal

And exactly how would one about supporting legal child porn? Are you being sarcastic? Because I recognize that in some states it's not illegal to view child porn, but it is illegal to be the one taking the pictures. If someone says, "Hey, you really need to send me some new hot kiddie pics" is that supporting child porn and is that legal?

As in, not taking part in child porn and doing illegal activity, but simply advocating the legalization of child porn.

Much like how someone can support the legalization of gay marriage, while not being a homosexual.

iamwhatiseem · #30 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal

And exactly how would one about supporting legal child porn? Are you being sarcastic? Because I recognize that in some states it's not illegal to view child porn, but it is illegal to be the one taking the pictures. If someone says, "Hey, you really need to send me some new hot kiddie pics" is that supporting child porn and is that legal?

It is illegal to posses child pornography.
It is illegal to VIEW child pornography for the purpose of self-gratification.
The law is child exploitation.

I posted the specific law in that other thread.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode