dosxuk Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I believe ANY type of naked image of a child is pornography / exploitation / a CRIME! you believe as long as the image does NOT turn the vieweer on , it is ok you Think that as long as the Image is USed for Security reasons its Fine! enuff said! any one supporting images of Naked kids should be jailed! So a photo of a relative taken on a beach just as a naked child accidentally runs through the background you would class as pornography? Plus the photographer should be jailed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 so having a naked picture of a CHILD generated on a computer screen is NOT pornography? is pornography a image ONLY recorded with the lense of a camera? What about police officers having to look at Child porn ,while doing an investigation, should they be locked up too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 So a photo of a relative taken on a beach just as a naked child accidentally runs through the background you would class as pornography? Plus the photographer should be jailed? so you are comparing the creation of thousands of children images , which show full frontal genitalia , and rear views to a family photo? I cant NOT believe you strange people have the audacity to defend this ! 1. the system is clearly open to abuse! Any parent would be upset of their children naked images were being recorded some were ( and yes each image is recorded and stored , be it on some sort of computer memory. the hard drive of the computer system used would OBVIOUSLY record and imprint the code of the image of the hard drive each time , this is simple computer hardware knowledge ) 2. the naked body scanners are admittedly not that effective hence countries like Israel which has probably the most advance airport security REFUSING to us it ( if they dont what it why is it imposed on us? 3. " a Dose of radiation ? before take off sir? ( wonder how pregnant women would feel or people with present cases of skin cancer? and Bomb security can be carried out by a Bomb Sniffing Dog many many times affective than any machine invented! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 What about police officers having to look at Child porn ,while doing an investigation, should they be locked up too? wow are you sanctioning child porn here? as from the sounds of it you are! any one creating the images of naked children is a criminal, twisting my words is a weak pathetic attempt to distract the subject being discussed! Of coarse images taken for medical work, crime scenes , family photos are not classed as porn, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 wow are you sanctioning child porn here? as from the sounds of it you are! any one creating the images of naked children is a criminal, twisting my words is a weak pathetic attempt to distract the subject being discussed! Of coarse images taken for medical work, crime scenes , family photos are not classed as porn, Airport scanner workers are exempt from child porn laws. it makes sense otherwise they couldn't operate, but I bet they get lots of applications to work there from paedophiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 so creating a naked image of a child is NOT pornography as it is being used for security reasons not pleasure? right? It's a self evident truth that not all images of naked children are porn. Otherwise you couldn't take a photo of your children in the bath! There are also plenty of photographs and other art work involving naked children in museums. You might be familiar with the band Nirvana and there popular album nevermind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind Have at look at the album cover. The definition of pornography is that it is intended to stimulate sexual desire. That's just what the word means... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 wow are you sanctioning child porn here? as from the sounds of it you are! A dirty accusation to make in a debate about security cameras. You're starting to foam at the mouth a little bit. any one creating the images of naked children is a criminal This simply isn't true is it. At all, in the slightest, it's just made up. , twisting my words is a weak pathetic attempt to distract the subject being discussed! You're doing some might fine word twisting yourself! Of coarse images taken for medical work, crime scenes , family photos are not classed as porn, And you're not being consistent, one minute it's anyone who makes photos of naked children is a criminal, the next there's a list of exceptions to what is porn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 would a parent be happy to know that a naked image of thier child would be created every time they went on Hols? yes this image gets stored in one way or another yes the person viewing the image is not supervised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snook Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 would a parent be happy to know that a naked image of thier child would be created every time they went on Hols? yes this image gets stored in one way or another yes the person viewing the image is not supervised Your child is more at risk of being abused while being bathed by you or a member of your family, but I'm sure people wouldn't argue that we should ban bathing children. It is a terrible world if we start thinking that everyone who has access to images of children is a paedophile. What exactly do you think people will do with these strange looking pictures of children in the 3 seconds they have access to them? To claim that any image of a naked child is pornography is just plain stupid, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 No, it is the reason for making them, not the use you put them to. As I said, porn has the intent of "turning you on". If you claim that the images are porn, you are claiming that they would turn you on. im sorry but your argument has been used by those that get off on looking at pictures of nudists. the funny thing is the law does not see it that way. to be pornographic the image's primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. note the word "primary" and not "exclusive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.