Talk:Child pornography - Revision history

Meco: /* Nebulous edit by Wanker on "'kinky' sex by minors" */ new section

2015-11-12T14:00:23Z

Nebulous edit by Wanker on "'kinky' sex by minors": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:00, 12 November 2015
Line 28:		Line 28:

	::See, you just don't understand. You don't understand at all. Who created the COPINE scale? Why did they create it? '''''WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN SUCH SIMPLE THINGS TO YOU?''''' Hello, Lysander, Mr Kool-Aid kid!		::See, you just don't understand. You don't understand at all. Who created the COPINE scale? Why did they create it? '''''WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN SUCH SIMPLE THINGS TO YOU?''''' Hello, Lysander, Mr Kool-Aid kid!

			== Nebulous edit by Wanker on "'kinky' sex by minors" ==

			[https://www.boywiki.org/en/index.php?title=Child_pornography&oldid=28749 This] most recent edit has added "<code>The sexual sophistication exhibited by newly-18 porn actors and actresses is documentation of "kinky" sex by minors.</code>" as one more reason why parents might endorse their children's participation in child pornography. Even if changed to "newlyborn-18" I still don't understand this argument. Could [[User:Wanker\|Wanker]] please clarify? __[[User:Meco\|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco\|talk]]) 14:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User4: /* Proposed renaming of the article */

2015-05-10T03:03:28Z

Proposed renaming of the article

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 10 May 2015
Line 26:		Line 26:
	"Child Pornography" has become a loaded term. The term "Child erotica" is not only more neutral, but more accurate. I believe the article should be renamed, and redirects created as necessary. Why should we let THEM define the topic in such a negative way -- and to stigmatize the viewing of often entirely innocent and innocuous images of children (even when done for "sexual gratification") -- as they have? We should avoid "drinking the Kool-Aid" whenever we can! This is ''our'' wiki, not theirs! [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 00:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		"Child Pornography" has become a loaded term. The term "Child erotica" is not only more neutral, but more accurate. I believe the article should be renamed, and redirects created as necessary. Why should we let THEM define the topic in such a negative way -- and to stigmatize the viewing of often entirely innocent and innocuous images of children (even when done for "sexual gratification") -- as they have? We should avoid "drinking the Kool-Aid" whenever we can! This is ''our'' wiki, not theirs! [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 00:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
	:I thought "child erotica" referred to stuff that almost, but didn't quite, cross the line into being illegal. That is, it's lower on the COPINE scale or whatever. [[User:Lysander\|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander\|talk]]) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		:I thought "child erotica" referred to stuff that almost, but didn't quite, cross the line into being illegal. That is, it's lower on the COPINE scale or whatever. [[User:Lysander\|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander\|talk]]) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

			::See, you just don't understand. You don't understand at all. Who created the COPINE scale? Why did they create it? '''''WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN SUCH SIMPLE THINGS TO YOU?''''' Hello, Lysander, Mr Kool-Aid kid!

Lysander: /* Proposed renaming of the article */ :I thought "child erotica" referred to stuff that almost, but didn't quite, cross the line into being illegal. That is, it's lower on the COPINE scale or whatever. ~~~~

2015-05-10T02:02:28Z

Proposed renaming of the article: :I thought "child erotica" referred to stuff that almost, but didn't quite, cross the line into being illegal. That is, it's lower on the COPINE scale or whatever. ~~~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:02, 10 May 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:

	"Child Pornography" has become a loaded term. The term "Child erotica" is not only more neutral, but more accurate. I believe the article should be renamed, and redirects created as necessary. Why should we let THEM define the topic in such a negative way -- and to stigmatize the viewing of often entirely innocent and innocuous images of children (even when done for "sexual gratification") -- as they have? We should avoid "drinking the Kool-Aid" whenever we can! This is ''our'' wiki, not theirs! [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 00:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		"Child Pornography" has become a loaded term. The term "Child erotica" is not only more neutral, but more accurate. I believe the article should be renamed, and redirects created as necessary. Why should we let THEM define the topic in such a negative way -- and to stigmatize the viewing of often entirely innocent and innocuous images of children (even when done for "sexual gratification") -- as they have? We should avoid "drinking the Kool-Aid" whenever we can! This is ''our'' wiki, not theirs! [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 00:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
			:I thought "child erotica" referred to stuff that almost, but didn't quite, cross the line into being illegal. That is, it's lower on the COPINE scale or whatever. [[User:Lysander\|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander\|talk]]) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User4: /* Proposed renaming of the article */ new section

2015-05-10T00:57:57Z

Proposed renaming of the article: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:57, 10 May 2015
Line 21:		Line 21:

	I wonder whether the term "child abuse imagery" will gain currency? It seems to me that the government might prefer to continue calling it "child pornography" since "pornography" carries a stigma. It emphasizes the fact that people are using to get off on. "Child abuse imagery" emphasizes that it's just images that can be used for any number of purposes. [[User:Lysander\|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander\|talk]]) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)		I wonder whether the term "child abuse imagery" will gain currency? It seems to me that the government might prefer to continue calling it "child pornography" since "pornography" carries a stigma. It emphasizes the fact that people are using to get off on. "Child abuse imagery" emphasizes that it's just images that can be used for any number of purposes. [[User:Lysander\|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander\|talk]]) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

			== Proposed renaming of the article ==

			"Child Pornography" has become a loaded term. The term "Child erotica" is not only more neutral, but more accurate. I believe the article should be renamed, and redirects created as necessary. Why should we let THEM define the topic in such a negative way -- and to stigmatize the viewing of often entirely innocent and innocuous images of children (even when done for "sexual gratification") -- as they have? We should avoid "drinking the Kool-Aid" whenever we can! This is ''our'' wiki, not theirs! [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 00:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Lysander: /* "Child pornography" vs. "child abuse imagery" */ new section

2015-04-14T00:53:48Z

"Child pornography" vs. "child abuse imagery": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:53, 14 April 2015
Line 17:		Line 17:

	really there is no common denominator for either "child" or "pornography"? They're 100% culturally determined, all we can do is look at what laws say in different countries? [[User:Wanker\|Wanker]] ([[User talk:Wanker\|talk]]) 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)		really there is no common denominator for either "child" or "pornography"? They're 100% culturally determined, all we can do is look at what laws say in different countries? [[User:Wanker\|Wanker]] ([[User talk:Wanker\|talk]]) 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

			== "Child pornography" vs. "child abuse imagery" ==

			I wonder whether the term "child abuse imagery" will gain currency? It seems to me that the government might prefer to continue calling it "child pornography" since "pornography" carries a stigma. It emphasizes the fact that people are using to get off on. "Child abuse imagery" emphasizes that it's just images that can be used for any number of purposes. [[User:Lysander\|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander\|talk]]) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wanker: /* The first sentence */ new section

2015-03-31T03:02:58Z

The first sentence: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:02, 31 March 2015
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Is there a refutation of this? [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 15:50, 13 May 2014 (CEST)		Is there a refutation of this? [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 15:50, 13 May 2014 (CEST)

			== The first sentence ==

			really there is no common denominator for either "child" or "pornography"? They're 100% culturally determined, all we can do is look at what laws say in different countries? [[User:Wanker\|Wanker]] ([[User talk:Wanker\|talk]]) 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lysander at 23:47, 15 May 2014

2014-05-15T23:47:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, 15 May 2014
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Isn't there a debunking of this argument somewhere? @User4 [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 00:44, 13 May 2014 (CEST)		Isn't there a debunking of this argument somewhere? @User4 [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 00:44, 13 May 2014 (CEST)

	== ~~Another~~ argument ~~to rebut~~ ==		== Debunking the "banning distribution decreases incentives to produce the pictures" argument ==

	"If the sale or distribution of such pictures is stringently sanctioned, and if those sanctions are equally stringently enforced, the market may decrease, and this may in turn decrease the incentive to produce those pictures."		"If the sale or distribution of such pictures is stringently sanctioned, and if those sanctions are equally stringently enforced, the market may decrease, and this may in turn decrease the incentive to produce those pictures."

	Is there a refutation of this? [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 15:50, 13 May 2014 (CEST)		Is there a refutation of this? [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 15:50, 13 May 2014 (CEST)

Lysander: /* Another argument to rebut */ new section

2014-05-13T13:50:47Z

Another argument to rebut: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:50, 13 May 2014
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Isn't there a debunking of this argument somewhere? @User4 [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 00:44, 13 May 2014 (CEST)		Isn't there a debunking of this argument somewhere? @User4 [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 00:44, 13 May 2014 (CEST)

			== Another argument to rebut ==

			"If the sale or distribution of such pictures is stringently sanctioned, and if those sanctions are equally stringently enforced, the market may decrease, and this may in turn decrease the incentive to produce those pictures."

			Is there a refutation of this? [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 15:50, 13 May 2014 (CEST)

Lysander: /* Debunking the "tools for further molestation" argument */ new section

2014-05-12T22:44:18Z

Debunking the "tools for further molestation" argument: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 12 May 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==More research==		==More research==
	Tangentially related: http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/in-defence-of-rape-porn [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 19:21, 12 May 2014 (CEST)		Tangentially related: http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/in-defence-of-rape-porn [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 19:21, 12 May 2014 (CEST)

			== Debunking the "tools for further molestation" argument ==

			"Second, there is substantial evidence that photographs of children engaged in sexual activity are used as tools for further molestation of other children. Children are shown pictures of other children engaged in sexual activity, with the aim of persuading especially a quite young child that if it is in a picture, and if other children are doing it, then it must be all right for this child to do it."

			Isn't there a debunking of this argument somewhere? @User4 [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 00:44, 13 May 2014 (CEST)

Lysander: Created page with "==More research== Tangentially related: http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/in-defence-of-rape-porn ~~~~"

2014-05-12T17:21:43Z

Created page with "==More research== Tangentially related: http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/in-defence-of-rape-porn ~~~~"

New page

==More research==
Tangentially related: http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/in-defence-of-rape-porn [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 19:21, 12 May 2014 (CEST)