Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Man in Court over Simpsons Porn

123468

Comments

  • #152
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    I can't stand people making comments who have not bothered their fcuking arses reading previous posts. Not even have the decency to say "I read fcuk all of this thread but..."

    Firstly look up the definition of porn, as it has been defined in numerous previous posts. I posted a definition myself ffs. Stop making up your own rules and what you think porn is, because you are wrong.

    Secondly, I have the ability to tell the differance between animated children and animated adults (in most cases). Magie is a child, no.. sorry, she is an infant and people think it's ok to put this infant in a family orgy, it's ok because it's drawn. Well I can tell you now that it's not ok, it's bollocks. Should be banned from being published.

    How I feel about animated murders has nothing to do with child porn, nor does it come anywhere close to child porn. Animated deaths depict generally normal events, having sexual intercourse with a 6 month old baby is not normal by any means.

    It matters not if the characters are fictitious or not. They are depicted as being children, the artist knows damn well what he is doing, it's a loophole which I hope they will close. No literature, pictures or any other medium should normalise child porn. "it's ok because they are not real children" I can tell you now that this statement is wrong. It's not ok, not one bit, and people want to start thinking that way too. It's fcuking sick.

    I can't stand people who don't bother reading my post properly and then get grumpy about me not reading the previous 138 posts (I read most up to post 80 and skimmed the rest).

    I didn't say it was alright to have cartoon depictions of children in sexual situations, nor was I defending it. I was just stating what I personally think is an important distinction between real child porn (with real children) and pseudo child porn (with completely fictional characters who can't be hurt).

    In short, I'd disagree with your definition of child porn. And I despise fictional cartoons depicting child characters engaged in sexual activity just as much as you.

    BTW, I can make up whatever definition of child porn I like. There are massively different definitions written in law all over the world. Just because you posted a specific definition doesn't make the 'right one'. It's just your opinion and the opinion perhaps of many others.

    What confuses me is that you state "Magie is a child". Maggie is not a child or a 'she'. IT is a bunch of lines and colours on a page etc. I don't see the difference between cartoon murders and cartoon sex abuse. Both despicable crimes being imagined through a medium of drawings. You state:
    "Animated deaths depict generally normal events". I would hardly call murder a 'normal event' as it is just as, if not more horrendous that child sex abuse.

    I don't see how you can accept a cartoon depicting one crime and not accept another cartoon depicting different crime that is at least equally as bad.

    P.S. Maybe you should take a deep breadth before posting to calm yourself.


  • #153
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    MaybeLogic wrote: »
    Thought crimes suck.

    Thought crime does suck.


  • #154
    MaybeLogic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭MaybeLogic


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Suck what?

    What are you thinking about?

    Have you got naked animations in your mind??

    I'm calling the Guards.

    I swear I was thinking of Marge,your honour.


  • #155
    MaybeLogic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭MaybeLogic


    syklops wrote: »
    Thought crime does suck.

    Sure it does, but as long as they keep it in their pants and don't click that link ,they can look at all the cartoon porn they want, as far as I'm concerned.


  • #156
    Also Starring LeVar Burton
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,503 ✭✭✭✭Also Starring LeVar Burton


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    They most certainly do look like people. What kind of people do you know...?

    5 fingered people who get older, change their clothes and aren't yellow and fictional...


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    How do feel about animated murders in video games or acted murders in movies? What about written stories involving murder? Are you ok with them so long as they don't feature fictitious child characters?
    They are no different that cartoon 'porn'.

    Whilst cartoons featuring sexual acts involving fictitious child characters would be considered disturbing and perverted, it doesn't make it child porn. Child porn features actual real children. And that is the difference.
    OK, lets consider this.

    Film showing man tortured and murdered.
    Film showing child tortured and murdered.
    Cartoon showing man tortured and murdered.
    Cartoon showing child tortured and murdered.

    Which of the above are acceptable as "entertainment"?


  • #158
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Victor wrote: »
    OK, lets consider this.

    Film showing man tortured and murdered.
    Film showing child tortured and murdered.
    Cartoon showing man tortured and murdered.
    Cartoon showing child tortured and murdered.

    Which of the above are acceptable as "entertainment"?

    All of them.

    Films if they are fictitious, movies and anime depict such things regularly.

    Reality =/= fiction.


  • #159
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    Iamxavier, you ever seen Taxi Driver?

    I don't think so. Why?
    MaybeLogic wrote: »
    Because there's no children involved maybe?
    Thought crimes suck.

    There sure is, maggie is depicted as being an infant.
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    I couldn't care less what the correct spelling of Maggie is.



    What does that matter?? What a scary question.

    It matters because you are talking about child pornography and Maggie is not a child. She is an animated character.

    A character of what though, a child? Oh yes, she is a child ;)
    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    I can't stand people who don't bother reading my post properly and then get grumpy about me not reading the previous 138 posts (I read most up to post 80 and skimmed the rest).

    You asked me a question to which I already answered in a previous post.
    I didn't say it was alright to have cartoon depictions of children in sexual situations, nor was I defending it. I was just stating what I personally think is an important distinction between real child porn (with real children) and pseudo child porn (with completely fictional characters who can't be hurt).

    There is of course a differance, sentencing should define them. I don't think it's fair for somebody to be jailed for having pictures of simpsons porn, nor do I think those people should have those pictures.
    In short, I'd disagree with your definition of child porn. And I despise fictional cartoons depicting child characters engaged in sexual activity just as much as you.

    It's not my definition. It's a commonly used definition and a widely accepted one at that. There are differant levels of child porn, take a look at the copine scale. As for child porn, it is what it is. It doesn't differ from country to country. The laws surrounding it may though.
    BTW, I can make up whatever definition of child porn I like.

    I don't think that would work in court.
    There are massively different definitions written in law all over the world.

    Mind posting a few of them?
    Just because you posted a specific definition doesn't make the 'right one'. It's just your opinion and the opinion perhaps of many others.

    It's not my opinion at all. It's solid fact. Please don't try to disbute otherwise.
    What confuses me is that you state "Magie is a child". Maggie is not a child or a 'she'. IT is a bunch of lines and colours on a page etc.

    Maggie represents a child, a female infant. She may not be real, but you and everybody else know when they look at her, that she is infact a character of a female child.
    I don't see the difference between cartoon murders and cartoon sex abuse. Both despicable crimes being imagined through a medium of drawings.

    There's sex abuse and there's child sex abuse. While both are very serious, can you see how child sex abuse is a more serious crime?

    I do see the differance between cartoon murders and cartoon sex. One is extremely explicit while the other is not so much, murder is not nearly as shocking as child porn. They are differant crimes involving differant types of criminals, reasons and victims, carrying differant sentences.

    You state:
    "Animated deaths depict generally normal events". I would hardly call murder a 'normal event' as it is just as, if not more horrendous that child sex abuse.

    I don't see how you can accept a cartoon depicting one crime and another cartoon depicting another crime that is at least equally as bad.

    First part is your opinion, I would disagree and argue that child porn is more serious than murder. I guess normal is not the best word to describe murder, I mean that it is less shocking than child sex abuse. Murder is more human nature than sexual intercourse with a child. [/quote]
    P.S. Maybe you should take a deep breadth before posting to calm yourself.

    Cheers ;)


  • #160
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    You know what's really sickening?

    Yes, that there are people who think like you holding important positions in the legal system and making laws that I would class as being illogical and insane.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    A character of what though, a child? Oh yes, she is a child ?

    Maggie is NOT a child. She is animated character of a child.

    Any person that I have come across that has seen Paedogeddon the Brass Eye documentary, has thought it superb.

    I have always wondered what someone who it satirizes, would actualy make of it.

    Here's a link:

    Brass Eye


  • #161
    TPD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,813 ✭✭✭TPD


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Brass Eye

    Goddamn I love that show.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 225 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    I don't think so. Why?



    There sure is, maggie is depicted as being an infant.



    A character of what though, a child? Oh yes, she is a child ;)



    You asked me a question to which I already answered in a previous post.



    There is of course a differance, sentencing should define them. I don't think it's fair for somebody to be jailed for having pictures of simpsons porn, nor do I think those people should have those pictures.



    It's not my definition. It's a commonly used definition and a widely accepted one at that. There are differant levels of child porn, take a look at the copine scale. As for child porn, it is what it is. It doesn't differ from country to country. The laws surrounding it may though.



    I don't think that would work in court.



    Mind posting a few of them?



    It's not my opinion at all. It's solid fact. Please don't try to disbute otherwise.



    Maggie represents a child, a female infant. She may not be real, but you and everybody else know when they look at her, that she is infact a character of a female child.



    There's sex abuse and there's child sex abuse. While both are very serious, can you see how child sex abuse is a more serious crime?

    I do see the differance between cartoon murders and cartoon sex. One is extremely explicit while the other is not so much, murder is not nearly as shocking as child porn. They are differant crimes involving differant types of criminals, reasons and victims, carrying differant sentences.




    First part is your opinion, I would disagree and argue that child porn is more serious than murder. I guess normal is not the best word to describe murder, I mean that it is less shocking than child sex abuse. Murder is more human nature than sexual intercourse with a child.



    Cheers ;)[/QUOTE]

    Due applause for your good reasoning. Anger and a sense of justice are good but people won't accept an arguement with just those as tools.


  • #163
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Yes, that there are people who think like you holding important positions in the legal system and making laws that I would class as being illogical and insane.



    Any person that I have come across that has seen Paedogeddon the Brass Eye documentary, has thought it superb.

    I have always wondered what someone who it satirizes, would actualy make of it.

    Here's a link:

    Brass Eye


    No need to get personal...


    I am quite happy that there are very logical people involved in creating these laws. Why do you defend a drawing of naked preteens having sex with other family members? Why do you see this being ok?

    That link is a crock of shíte. Are they trying to take the piss out of peoples genuine concern? Fcuking scum.


  • #164
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    That link is a crock of shíte. Are they trying to take the piss out of peoples genuine concern? Fcuking scum.

    Nobody insults Brass Eye on my watch! That's the twisted brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental!


  • #165
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    Nobody insults Brass Eye on my watch! That's the twisted brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental!

    Some of their stuff is good, some of their stuff is absurd.


  • #166
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Some of their stuff is good, some of their stuff is absurd.

    It's absurd that they can take the piss out of "peoples genuine concerns"? Everything is someone's concern. Satire wouldn't exist if it couldn't take the piss out of things that concern people.


  • #167
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    It's absurd that they can take the piss out of "peoples genuine concerns"? Everything is someone's concern. Satire wouldn't exist if it couldn't take the piss out of things that concern people.

    Child sexual assault is pretty serious. More controversial than a lot of the stuff on brass eye in my opinion.


  • #168
    Sofaspud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,626 ✭✭✭Sofaspud


    Warning, link contains (alledged) child porn . . .


  • #169
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Sofaspud wrote: »
    Warning, link contains (alledged) child porn . . .

    Didn't see any penis. Or any sexual acts. I wouldn't consider that to be child porn, giving the context and all that.


  • #170
    pretty-in-pink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭pretty-in-pink


    Cartoon porn is illegal?
    wtf?

    its sooooooooo funny


  • #171
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    luckyinlove wrote: »
    Cartoon porn is illegal?
    wtf?

    its sooooooooo funny

    I don't think it is illegal here, and I think it depends on the cartoon characters also. It's not legal in Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan as far as I know. Don't quote me on that though :P


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    Victor wrote: »
    OK, lets consider this.

    Film showing man tortured and murdered.
    Film showing child tortured and murdered.
    Cartoon showing man tortured and murdered.
    Cartoon showing child tortured and murdered.

    Which of the above are acceptable as "entertainment"?

    Lets consider this.

    Which of them actually hurt a person?


  • #173
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    murder is not nearly as shocking as child porn.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    I would disagree and argue that child porn is more serious than murder.

    I refuse to discuss this further with someone who believes that sexual abuse of a child is more shocking & serious than the murder of a child.

    Logic is absent it would appear.


  • #174
    MaybeLogic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭MaybeLogic


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »

    Logic is absent it would appear.
    I'm here.
    What's up?


  • #175
    toffeearmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭toffeearmy


    DOH :P


  • #176
    chupacabra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,453 ✭✭✭chupacabra


    Even tho the images he got jailed for didn't depict any real children in them you cant deny that it is still dangerous for a pedophile to have access to such content. It only serves to further their sick fantasies and in a worse case scenario might even incite them to carry out their fantasies in real life. Prison sentences etc. for it shouldn't be on the same level as having actual child porn but it should still be severe.

    Its probably a grey area tho because there are certain considerations for "artistic merit" as these are fictional works by artists afterall. Im sure as time goes on the law will make it very clear what is right and what is wrong.


  • #177
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    There's sex abuse and there's child sex abuse. While both are very serious, can you see how child sex abuse is a more serious crime?
    Wait... why?

    To suggest that child sex abuse is more serious than adult sex abuse just doesn't make sense. Can you elaborate on why you think this is?

    Innocence is innocence. If a woman gets raped walking home from work or from a nightclub she is just as innocent as a kid being picked up on his or her way home from school.
    Neither is more serious than the other.
    murder is not nearly as shocking as child porn
    :confused:
    This defies all logic.


  • #178
    chupacabra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,453 ✭✭✭chupacabra


    Red_Marauder wrote: »
    To suggest that child sex abuse is more serious than adult sex abuse just doesn't make sense. Can you elaborate on why you think this is?

    You cant be serious? Child sex abuse is on a whole other planet to adult sex abuse. At least adults know and understand what is happening and in some cases are big enough to get out of it and put up a fight. Children in most cases are TOTALLY helpless in those situations, they are at the mercy of their attacker and arent mentally mature enough to even understand what is going on. It leaves profound mental scars that can change their lives forever, at least an adult has the mental capacity to make sense of the ordeal, get therapy and put it behind them. For a child its something that hangs over them for the rest of their lives. Its a form of torture and torture is worse than murder.


  • #179
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    At least adults know and understand what is happening
    How does knowing how incredibly bad and soul destroying something is, while you are enduring it, make it better?
    chupacabra wrote: »
    Children in most cases are TOTALLY helpless in those situations
    If you do really feel the neetd to capitalise, I might remind you that female rape victims in particular are TOTALLY helpless.
    It leaves profound mental scars that can change their lives forever
    Same for adult rape victims. What are you not getting here?
    For a child its something that hangs over them for the rest of their lives.
    FFS, it is something that hangs over an adult for the rest of their lives as well. You aren't making any good case here to suggest why rape is less serious for an adult.
    torture is worse than murder.
    Bizarre.


  • #180
    chupacabra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,453 ✭✭✭chupacabra


    I'm not saying rape is less serious for an adult i'm just saying its much worse for a child. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    chupacabra wrote: »
    I'm not saying rape is less serious for an adult i'm just saying its much worse for a child.
    That makes no sense. How can it be one without the other.

    If it's worse for a child, then by definition, it's 'not as bad' it it's an innocent adult - complete rubbish.

    To be honest I don't know if you know what you think yourself.


Advertisement
Advertisement