“However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography
We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt.
“merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image.” This is some mystical religious thinking. Like in Voodoo. And note, this was said by a respectable lawyer to appease a judge. And this logic is used over and over, for example by Australian Government web sites.
Vodoo logic |
Child porn Voodoo logic |
 You stick a needle into a Vodoo doll’s arm. The person you curse will be hurt on the arm.The vodoo doll symbolizes a person, and that person’s will get injured in the same place where you stuck the needle. |
Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0’s and 1’s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt. |
Voodoo logic applied to murder and terrorism |
|
 |
While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail. ” Dude” commenting at Examining the Effects of Child Pornography |
Dude, you are hilarious. Having people look at photos of themselves in jail to re-victimize them with their jail term. Priceless!
Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. […] It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered:
Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?
So far so good. Open minded article, wants to seriously analyze child porn issues. But wait: now he falls under the voodo spell, too:
Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film. Examining the Effects of Child Pornography
We were seriously doubting our sanity. Maybe we at Human-Stupidity, like Mr Smith who had one single CP photo, really need our misguided brain repaired. Even if we don’t consume child porn, maybe for purely educational purposes, to remedy our human-stupitiy, we should join Smith’s “probationary term that will require Smith to take part in the province’s sexual offender assessment and treatment program” (Senior gets jail time for single image of CP)
Maybe we, at Human-Stupidity.com are the only dumb insane people in this world who don’t understand this infallible logic: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.
But the spell was broken, and our trust into our sanity was re-instated, when we ran across this irreverant and refreshing comment
“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.”
Are you mad?
Looking at ‘indecent’ images of children is no more a ‘Sex Crime’ than looking at an image of a dead person is ‘Homicide’. (“Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield “commenting on Examining the Effects of Child Pornography)
Hence
one could just legalise ownership [of child porn] and solve the problem in one fell swoop
Certainly our mind gets victimized by repeated exposure to insane voodo logic
“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.
This repeated exposure almost destroyed our trust into our own intelligence. Somehow constant repetition of voodoo logic brainwashes the average person into believing such NONSENSE: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.
Unfortunately, the belief in this nonesense guides entire nations’ and the United Nation’s policy towards the world wide child porn witch hunt.
Australian Law Makers’ logic |
Analogy #1 |
Analogy #2 |
| Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child pornography or child abuse images on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child pornography makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child pornography is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5] Child Pornography Law (New South Wales, Australia) | Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child abuse images on the internet
raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child abuse videos above makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child abuse videos as above is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. |
Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual terrorism, mayhem and murder off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder makes the offender a party to terrorism, mayhem and murder. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5] |
Human-Stupidity.com Analysis
We understand your rage
We understand that some readers will be fuming with anger, reading our “defense of pedophiles, child abuse, and child abusers”. We almost fell prey to the world wide child porn hysteria voodoo logic brainwashing. It is based on 2 fallacies
- confusing the crime with depiction of a crime:
You watch a movie of a plane flying into the World Trade Center. Therefore you are a terrrorist and revictimizing 3000 people who died - Confusing child pornography and “child pornography”. Confusing “child porn” as defined in the old days (involving a “real child under 12” and “real porn with real penetrative sex” and “modern child porn” which might be as harmless as a 22 year old (that looks “apparently underage” like she might be only 17 years old) non-nude in leotards dancing while gyrating her hips provocatively). Can you understand now we insist that lots of modern so called “child porn” has no victim at all and is not offensive to sex positive people.
Can watching a photo or video cause harm to a far away “victim” that is unaware of the watcher?
