Nifty.org - Pedophilia Central?

[Skittles075]

You realize that the death penalty does exist, right? Many states still use the death penalty, for murderers, and it is not considered cruel or unusual punishment. Being a supporter of the death penalty does not make one as sick as a pedophile, and if you truly believe that then I would question why you feel such a camaraderie with them.

The existence of a morally corrupt law such as the death penalty does not mean it is just. Being a coward and hiding behind a morally corrupt law just because it exists does not make the argument of that coward wholesome--the argument is tainted by the corrupt law, making the person forming the argument just as corrupt as what that person is arguing against. I do not support the rape of children, but am I any better than the person who commits the crime if I support using my tax dollars to murder that person?

 

[Skittles075]

Your post is opinion, not fact. So go ahead and insult me when I have not done as much to you, it will only make your argument look weaker. The fact that you felt the need to necropost this thread back into existence just to insult people makes your credibility pretty weak. Especially considering it was one of your first posts.

I did not bring this post back into existence for that reason; I brought it back into existence to support Nifty.org and the First Amendment right of the authors that support Nifty.

 

[asu1117]

The existence of a morally corrupt law such as the death penalty does not mean it is just. Being a coward and hiding behind a morally corrupt law just because it exists does not make the argument of that coward wholesome--the argument is tainted by the corrupt law, making the person forming the argument just as corrupt as what that person is arguing against. I do not support the rape of children, but am I any better than the person who commits the crime if I support using my tax dollars to murder that person?

Again, opinion. It is your opinion that that law is morally corrupt. You don't get to decide what is and isn't moral, that's now how it works. There are those that support certain things, such as the death penalty, and there are those that do not. Attacking someone flat out because they happen to disagree with you does not make you seem more righteous, just very angry. I don't make judgments of people based on something such as supporting a law. You obviously do, so I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Skittles075]

Again, opinion. It is your opinion that that law is morally corrupt. You don't get to decide what is and isn't moral, that's now how it works. There are those that support certain things, such as the death penalty, and there are those that do not. Attacking someone flat out because they happen to disagree with you does not make you seem more righteous, just very angry. I don't make judgments of people based on something such as supporting a law. You obviously do, so I have nothing further to say to you.

There is no need to get testy, this is an argument, not a boxing match. You're right, I do make judgements of people based on the things they support. If you were a homophobe and did not support gay rights, you could not be my friend. If you were a misogynist who did not support women's rights, you would not be my friend. I do make these judgements of people for very good reasons. But please, before you go, read my first comment on this thread, my original purpose for posting here. #231

 

[Skittles075]

I think freedom of speech should not feed predators and pedophiles' evil sickness.

And some religious organizations would say the same thing about us gays.

 

[Kulindahr]

And some religious organizations would say the same thing about us gays.

Except there's a huge difference: the above is opinion, but the connection between coercion and predator porn has been shown in court and by psychologists over and over. Purveying porn where one person says "No" but the other continues anyway is inciting rape and sex abuse.

 

[Skittles075]

Except there's a huge difference: the above is opinion, but the connection between coercion and predator porn has been shown in court and by psychologists over and over. Purveying porn where one person says "No" but the other continues anyway is inciting rape and sex abuse.

Aren't we talking about fictional stories, not actual porn. These stories are protected by the First Amendment, period.

 

[Skittles075]

Except there's a huge difference: the above is opinion, but the connection between coercion and predator porn has been shown in court and by psychologists over and over. Purveying porn where one person says "No" but the other continues anyway is inciting rape and sex abuse.

And that's no opinion. Every time we try to pass a law to protect minorities on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity, the religious organizations line up to say that their first First Amendment rights will be violated, when we argue that our First Amendment rights are violated, their counter argument is similar to the argument I quoted previously.

 

[Kulindahr]

Aren't we talking about fictional stories, not actual porn. These stories are protected by the First Amendment, period.

Stories are porn.

And hiding behind the First Amendment in order to help rapists and pedophiles get their jollies is vile.

 

[Kulindahr]

And that's no opinion. Every time we try to pass a law to protect minorities on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity, the religious organizations line up to say that their first First Amendment rights will be violated, when we argue that our First Amendment rights are violated, their counter argument is similar to the argument I quoted previously.

Now you're changing the subject -- it had nothing to do with first amendment rights, it had to do with things being known to be harmful.

There isn't any evidence at all that says homosexuality is bad for society.

There's piles of evidence that shows that coercion porn is definitely bad for society.


One side is defending their silly unfounded opinion, against people who uphold individual rights.

The other side is standing on hard evidence, against people who don't care about victims of sexual assault.

 

[yummylongsword]

Now you're changing the subject -- it had nothing to do with first amendment rights, it had to do with things being known to be harmful.

There isn't any evidence at all that says homosexuality is bad for society.

There's piles of evidence that shows that coercion porn is definitely bad for society.


One side is defending their silly unfounded opinion, against people who uphold individual rights.

The other side is standing on hard evidence, against people who don't care about victims of sexual assault.

Fiction does not equal reality. There is no difference between someone who who writes erotica about little kids, and someone who writes stories about gruesome murders and genocide. I would bet you far more people than you'd like to believe have thought about having sex with kids, and pushed it out of their mind out of sheer disgust.

Yes, it's a terrible thing to DO. But it's not necessarily a terrible thing to THINK. Murder is a terrible thing to DO, but it's actually quite healthy to THINK.

There is no logical reason that erotica about children should be any worse than erotica about rape, or stories about murder, or stories about torture, or any other terrible subject. It's just a cultural taboo that makes child molestation a really big deal. Now hear me: I'm not saying child molestation is okay. I'm just saying that you're all having a cultural knee-jerk reaction to the topic of kiddie porn that doesn't occur to you with more culturally acceptable abominations, like violence and adult forced sexuality.

If you want to ban child erotica stories because you believe that they're likely to cause molestation, then that's your opinion, and that's fine. But if you're going to follow the same logic, you need to ban all stories about rape, about murder, about torture, really about any crime, because it follows that they will all cause the crime that they written about.

 

[MadisonAubie]

... If Free Speech, then why is child pornography prosecuted while other 18 and over sites are protected under the 1st Amendment?

And what constitutes pornography in an image? Does there have to be sex involved, or just the nude image of a child? I always thought it strange that the WalMarts in our area refused to carry Brokeback Mountain, but had no problems prominently displaying the Nirvana Nevermind CD with the spread eagle naked infant on the front of it. I know it's not supposedly an erotic image, but where do you draw the line? Isn't this getting more into the grey area of defining what is pornographic, and what isn't?

 

[gsdx]

maybe some people in this thread should read the Bill of Rights--Eighth Amendment to be exact.

I brought it back into existence to support Nifty.org and the First Amendment right of the authors that support Nifty.

You do realise, of course, that the Bill of Rights and the American Constitution apply only to a very small portion of the world's population. They are not universal concepts and certainly do not extend beyond your borders.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fiction does not equal reality. There is no difference between someone who who writes erotica about little kids, and someone who writes stories about gruesome murders and genocide. I would bet you far more people than you'd like to believe have thought about having sex with kids, and pushed it out of their mind out of sheer disgust.

Yes, it's a terrible thing to DO. But it's not necessarily a terrible thing to THINK. Murder is a terrible thing to DO, but it's actually quite healthy to THINK.

There is no logical reason that erotica about children should be any worse than erotica about rape, or stories about murder, or stories about torture, or any other terrible subject. It's just a cultural taboo that makes child molestation a really big deal. Now hear me: I'm not saying child molestation is okay. I'm just saying that you're all having a cultural knee-jerk reaction to the topic of kiddie porn that doesn't occur to you with more culturally acceptable abominations, like violence and adult forced sexuality.

If you want to ban child erotica stories because you believe that they're likely to cause molestation, then that's your opinion, and that's fine. But if you're going to follow the same logic, you need to ban all stories about rape, about murder, about torture, really about any crime, because it follows that they will all cause the crime that they written about.

Murder novels don't glorify murder. Coercion porn novels glorify sexual assault.

Write me some coercion porn novels where the attacker gets shot by the victim's friend, or whacked over the head by his brother, and then gets sent to jail where he's strangled to death for being a pervert, and you'll have a parallel to crime novels.

And the link to sexual assault is not my "opinion" -- it's established in courts and the literature. Stories glorifying coercion to obtain sex contribute to sexual assault. They feed pedophiles and rapists.

 

[Skittles075]

And what constitutes pornography in an image? Does there have to be sex involved, or just the nude image of a child? I always thought it strange that the WalMarts in our area refused to carry Brokeback Mountain, but had no problems prominently displaying the Nirvana Nevermind CD with the spread eagle naked infant on the front of it. I know it's not supposedly an erotic image, but where do you draw the line? Isn't this getting more into the grey area of defining what is pornographic, and what isn't?

According to the law, in the United States (I cannot speak for the rest of the world), child porn has to contain images of children in sexually suggestive, or actual sexual, poses. Sex has to be involved. Simple nudity is also protected under the First Amendment.

 

[Skittles075]

Murder novels don't glorify murder. Coercion porn novels glorify sexual assault.

Write me some coercion porn novels where the attacker gets shot by the victim's friend, or whacked over the head by his brother, and then gets sent to jail where he's strangled to death for being a pervert, and you'll have a parallel to crime novels.

And the link to sexual assault is not my "opinion" -- it's established in courts and the literature. Stories glorifying coercion to obtain sex contribute to sexual assault. They feed pedophiles and rapists.

Not all stories on Nifty.org involving children involve coercion or sexual assault. Many of the stories are of children exploring their sexuality.

 

[Kulindahr]

According to the law, in the United States (I cannot speak for the rest of the world), child porn has to contain images of children in sexually suggestive, or actual sexual, poses. Sex has to be involved. Simple nudity is also protected under the First Amendment.

If only the Supreme Court would rule that simple real-world nudity was protected by the First. <sigh>

In Oregon it's protected -- I camp nude regularly.

Not all stories on Nifty.org involving children involve coercion or sexual assault. Many of the stories are of children exploring their sexuality.

And those are fine. But if you've read through the thread, you'll have seen that we had at least one defender of rape porn. Authors of such stories should be prosecuted, regardless of the age of the characters.

 

[gsdx]

According to the law, in the United States (I cannot speak for the rest of the world), child porn has to contain images of children in sexually suggestive, or actual sexual, poses. Sex has to be involved. Simple nudity is also protected under the First Amendment.

I think you had better do some homework on that one. Sex does NOT have to be involved, and simple nudity is NOT protected. In fact, nudity isn't even a necessity here at JUB. Any posted photos of fully-clothed children in this forum can get the owners into some serious shit.

And what about the father who took pictures of his young sons sharing a bath? He took the film to a photo development place and the technician turned him in. He was arrested and charged for child porn.

Sex doesn't need to be involved. Otherwise, all solo porn in any magazine would not be considered porn.

Stop trying to defend child pornography. We 'oldies' here at JUB already know what that's all about.

 

[bambam]

A related topic...I recently was looking through tumbler.com sites and came across one that seemed to specialize in gay pornographic cartoons. But all the cartoons were about either adult males having sex with underage boys or father and son incest (where the son appeared to be underage).

How is this not considered child porn? It kind of turned my stomach when I realized what the content was.

 

[Kulindahr]

A related topic...I recently was looking through tumbler.com sites and came across one that seemed to specialize in gay pornographic cartoons. But all the cartoons were about either adult males having sex with underage boys or father and son incest (where the son appeared to be underage).

How is this not considered child porn? It kind of turned my stomach when I realized what the content was.

It should be considered child porn. Do you know where tumbler is located? I'd report them to state/province and national authorities.