if prevention is defined on terms of intensity (i.e. shota/loli < CP < engaging in sexual activities with children < killing them afterward < eating their bodies afterward) then the activity (in this case watching animated child porn)is no lesser than what it represents via association
anyone can rape a woman and say "hey, at least it prevented me from raping her daughter" but is that rape really impeding said person from doing so or is it just a false sense of justification
maybe you should see a doctor, they have pills for everything now-a-days
I think raping someone isn't a very good thing to compare it to.. It's more like if someone enjoys watching rape-fetish porn and maybe enjoys a bit of roleplaying with their consenting partner. But never actually rapes someone, because they realize that that would be wrong.
Scarring someone who is not mentally ready for something that will most likely negatively affect them as they mature. That, or picturing raping someone in their mind. I was leaning more towards the former.
Can you really have an emotional connection with them? Or are they just cold-blooded eating machines? I got two big clawed frogs. They're pretty cute, but they don't really have much of a personality..
It doesn't prevent anything, and these images can serve as triggers for people victimized by said monsters. I don't want it in my country and I'm going to continue freaking out about it If it upsets a pedophile, oh well I guess.
That is how this guy did research too, and he went to prison for twenty years. Do a google search, don't just assume. Simulated pornography involving minors is illegal in the united states. A person could and would be arrested if caught, and yes it has happened.
That's terrible.. I find it appalling that he went to jail for such a long time for committing a victimless "crime".. I'm not aware of the laws in each specific country. I rarely visit the US, so I never felt the need to research the laws of your country. I know it's illegal in Canada. I don't think any specific laws regarding the subject exist in the Netherlands and I haven't been able to find any cases. So I think I'm pretty much safe here, for now..
I don´t really know how to check.. Besides trying to find something on google. (Were I mainly found a bunch of Dutch people that were wondering about the same thing.) There was one case I found, where the court decided that it was only child porn if it was so realistic that it's difficult for the average viewer to tell it apart from actual photo of video material. But I'm not sure if their decision can change per case or not..
I don't upload any hardcore material. I don't think that anything in my gallery is enough to get someone arrested..
Let us analyse three theories on ethics, shall we? I'll go into Utilitarianism (a branch of consequentialism), Deontology (particularly Emmanuel Kant's moral theory) and Virtue theory, paying close attention to Aristotle's construction of 'Eudaimonia'.
First of all, J.S Mill's Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, if you are unaware, is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or if they benefit the majority, or if they add to the happiness of the majority. Mill defined happiness as "pleasure and the absence of pain". Why are we talking about this, you may ask? Well, whilst puberty usually occurs around the ages of 11 to 13, adolescence, the mental transition between childhood and adulthood (The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, C.T. Onions ed. Oxford University Press 1996 p. 720.), occurs later than this, around the age of 16 in the vast majority of people. This is the reason for age-of-consent laws, as they serve the majority and thus serve towards the majority's happiness. Whilst some individuals experience Precocious Puberty, i.e., early onset sexual maturity, this is only found in 2.5% of the population and does not include the mental maturity that adolescence brings, and neither does it effect that onset of mental maturity. It is for these reasons that the sexual consent laws exist, as to alter them would bring harm (i.e, a lack of pleasure or the presence of pain) towards 99.75% of the current pre-consent population, therefore disrupting the happiness of the majority and causing societal instability, out of line with the utilitarian society we operate within.
The first alternative ethical theory I mentioned was deontology; the belief that it is our actions and not the consequences of our actions create a system of right and wrong. The most quoted and supported theory of these is that of Emmanuel Kant. Kant believed that in order for a morally correct society, we should always make choices which are considered morally correct, regardless of the circumstances. In short; the Kantian theory of morality does not support any action which would require a 'case-by-case' evaluation to be deemed correct. Sex with a minor, regardless of sexual and mental maturity, is covered by this theory and is not allowed beneath this system either.
Finally; Virtue Theory - The theory that it is not our actions, nor their consequences, but the QUALITY of our actions that defines whether or not we are morally reprehensible. Aristotle claims that for an individual's life to be truly happy, they must attain Eudaimonia, which roughly translated means invested happiness, and for an individual to be considered morally correct, they must support the approachment of Eudaimonia in all mediums. Lust itself is not considered a virtue by Aristotle's theory, and even though this may not conform to modern views upon morality, the removal of another's freedom or the deliberate obstacle to an individual's Eudaimonia can be considered a morally reprehensible action; sex with a minor (i.e, someone who has yet to reach both mental and physical maturity) can be considered an obstacle to Eudaimonia, as it places a stain and an anchor on their path to happiness. They are not fully in control of the situation, and this often leads to deep psychological trauma.
There is only one moral theory that supports the actions of self; Egoism. Egoism would consider 'morality' to be an unnecessary obstacle in the way of your core happiness, and promotes that you act only for yourself, regardless of others. It is remarkable, as it is the only system adopted by the LeVayan Satanists as correct, and is not considered a moral system by any other group or academic board; nor by a society.
The intentions you have displayed throughout this thread are, frankly, disgusting. Whilst you cannot be judged for thoughts or urges; your actions or your intent to act upon those urges is something which you can and will be judged for. Now you are aware of the structure and argument against your beliefs, I hope you strongly reconsider them, if not for your own sake but for the sake of others.
As a final note, I might say that this response was not to the original question posed in the thread, but towards your consistent reply to many of the individuals wherein, claiming you supported sexual acts with a minor.
Thank you, that was very informative. And I guess that also explains why Satanism was so appealing to me when I was younger..
I don't know much about morals. I was mainly never interested in it because most of it seems like opinions, and seemed based on Judaic values. But the Utilitarianism part seems logical and makes a lot of sense to me. I wouldn´t want to cause harm to a large part of the young population..