I'm also no expert on the case, but think of it like basically any other porn; It's typically made to make a profit. So if clips are out there for free, it gets a ton of views, and a lot of the viewers are going to want more and will be willing to pay for it. Simply gaining a significant number of views is an indication to the "producer" [see: sick fuck making child pornography] that a significant number of people are interested in seeing more.
See, I really don't think this is correct on it's face. You have to be able to sell ad-space or a pay-per-click kinda revenue system to make money. Unless there is a business underbelly that funds such ppc onto child-porn sites, it would have to take direct pay-wall revenue. While I am certain that exists, those individuals who pay are outside my consideration, as I would 100% agree with you that the action literally funds child pornography.
Again, if there is such a revenue system for this stuff that I'm unaware of, then I'd concede my initial argument is flawed and therefore likely false.
Well of course there are reasons for the demand. But the demand shows itself in views and especially in buys. Maybe I didn't word myself correctly. People who are viewing the material are doing it for various reasons, but the amount of views or buys indicates to the "producer" that there is a demand.
I think you could make an argument that viewership would spur the actor to continue acting for purely perverse purposes. I'd at least be able to entertain that concept. However, unless there is a way to define payment is taking place directly from viewership, it does not seem to hold any value, because the sites are almost certainly on the Deep Web, and to my knowledge they do not have direct PPC capability. So it would then take direct purchasing, which is again outside the purview of my argument.
How? If you pay to watch certain content, and the producer is using those funds to create similar content, that's exactly what is happening. Even if you're just viewing [and therefore showing interest in the content], you're adding to the "demand".
The conflation was that watching = purchasing. I do not believe a case was made for this direct connection. I do agree that viewing can be seen as "adding demand", but it is not funding it, and if you are not funding it (even passively) in a monetary fashion I do believe an argument can be made that the crime is not equivalent.
How did I contradict myself?
Because you said the viewing/purchase wasn't equal after implying it was. I'm not knocking you, because I think there is an argument you are making inside this misstep that is a fair debate. I think you are merely conflating to types of crime (perhaps without noticing).
I'm not worried about "wasting money". By the time your attraction escalates to watching or [maybe even especially] purchasing child porn, you are, however indirectly, harming children.
I'm definitely not arguing that these are innocent actions. I'm more looking at the knee-jerk reaction of "Anyone who has any contact with CP should be shot in the head". And for those who can already concede that, I'm always interested in the approaches to dealing with the problem. Again, because it is such a difficult issue to not become emotional about.
I've never seen Scarlett Johansson nude, and I know I want to fuck her.
A person can know it of his/herself, sure. But you cannot know it of others. It's the Community Meme joke "I hope this doesn't awaken something in me".
To be less of a dick: I imagine pedophile attraction works like anyone else's, but with children. So, if I see an attractive woman, my brain goes "want to fuck her". I imagine a pedophile sees an 8 year old and their brain has the same reaction. I doubt that it's necessary to be around kids (and by that, I meant in any number of ways that are inherently more closed in than something like being in a public space) or view child porn to unlock those urges. Those acts may nurture the sexuality, but they likely don't create it.
Well we have stumbled on the supremely difficult question, and it is a good debate to have sometime (perhaps not in here, but maybe so). Because we tend not to study the.... let's say either affliction or deviancy (or both, or neither, I don't know how to define it) we can't really grab those answers. From what I studied in University, most taboos tend to reside in compulsory section of the mind. It is not a conscious action of interest. However, there is an argument to be made that fostering that impulse is something that can be punished. I can see both sides of that argument and then the goal becomes "how do we approach trying to fix it, or at minimum attempting to mitigate the negative results?" And again I would side ardently with "Study it in order to understand it".
As you can see I'm moving away from child pornography in my argument and more towards how criminal thought works in general. It's rich for debate but I'll try to steer back to the direct topic.
That's where I think non-offending pedophiles can be a great help, honestly. Maybe pedophiles in prison? I don't know how you'd go about it. But as far as I'm concerned, if you fuck a kid or watch people fucking kids, you don't really deserve to be here anymore, and prison is too good for you.
Agreed, and I do think there is some studying done. However, due to the shame, anger, and violence that comes with the answers a pedophile can receive, it is hard to get true answers.
My flame statement was more for the WR in general, who likes to jump on anyone who is willing to take the undesirable side of this discussion (which, frankly I understand. It's a tough one).
This is right but it’s easier than that.
People are incentivized to post content by the potential for viewership.
If no one wanted to watch this stuff if would not get created. The demand for content creation fuels content creation and abuse.
I am simply not sure that is the case. We are moving away from the passive viewer here, but let's use serial killers as an example. BTK, Gacy, etc.. etc... kept materials from the victims. SKs sometimes create media, and it is media that nobody ever sees. Even if they place it in a situation where it can be seen, the goal is not for profit or notice. It is the excitement of the item being created. It is the process and product thereafter.
I would wager that these particular pederasts operate in the same manner. Meaning, we can be sure there are plenty of pedophiles that cover their tracks 24/7, but those who show off their deviant behavior may not be doing so for profit at all. Not even in a tertiary fashion. They may simply be exercising that demon within their respective personalities.
But again, studying them would be key and it's gonna be kinda hard to get them to come outta the woodworks. What with all the "shoot them on sight" talk.
But I appreciate the thoughtful replies. I live in a non-english speaking country and higher, more complicated, debate is quite difficult given the language barrier. Let alone sexual ethics and criminology. Gotta hit that Rosetta Stone so I can be given a cross look in more languages. LOL
Did you happen to see to Zuckerberg congressional hearing? It's shocking at how little top law makers know about the internet, let alone some average Joe who might not be technologically sound.
I just wanted to take a moment and appreciate the one time Heretic and I are 100% on the same page.
