“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

infant shaking, infant beating, infant throwing caught on nanny-cams

children suffering serious injuries in accidents

children being knocked out in fighting sports like boxing and Thai boxing 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?

Examples:

Someone downloads and watches child porn, with 16 year olds, produced legally in Holland 30 years ago. The act of watching a movie in the USA somehow causes a jolt in the now 46 year old person in Holland and victimizes her!? Human-Stupidity.com verdict: Scientifically impossible . Someone downloads and watches a child porn photo from the 1950íes. The persons depicted already died 20 years ago. Would their mortal soul be victimized, be it in heaven, hell, or purgatory? Maybe their soul keeps constant watch about all copies of their photos? Human-Stupidity.com is too ignorant about religious claims of life after death. Verdict: Scientifically it is impossible for a dead person to get harmed by someone’s copying of a computer file Someone downloads and watches a copy of a legal American porn movie with Little Lupe who was 19 years old but looked under 18. This is child porn by European and Australian laws. Little Lupe will happily earn a commission from the person’s subscription fee. We fail to understand how Little Lupe would be a victim! She is a consenting adult and made a conscious carreer choice and is profiting from people downloading her films.”Apparently underage” laws were struck down by US courts for violating the civil rights of young looking adults by preventing them from participation in legal porn movies (for “apparently looking underage” though over 18. Verdict: the adult “victim” benefits and profits from downloading. No victimization

Definitional issues: Definitions of child pornography can vary considerably, both in a legal context from one jurisdiction to another, and between legal and non-legal approaches to the subject. One source of ambiguity is that the legal definition of a ‘child’ varies between and within jurisdictions for various purposes. In Australia, child pornography legislation in some jurisdictions defines ‘child’ as a person under, or who appears to be under 16 (NSW, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia), in others as a person under, or who appears to be under 18 years of age (Commonwealth, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory). [3.1.2] Child Pornography Law (Australia)

The cover of “Der Spiegel” the most prestigious news magazine of Germany. May 1977. A young adolescent girl nude. Millions of adults, adolescents, children have seen the photo at news stands in Germany. Today this constitutes child porn. Human-Stupidity added the black bars, hiding breast and genital areas, so the poor girl would not be victimized while we look at the photos. If there were no bars, the now over 50 year old, 5000 miles away, would suddenly feel victimized? Verdict: no scientifically explainable, 5000 miles away, she would even notice we are looking at her photo.

The hypothesis is actually scientifically testable. Just have people, in the US, look at her photo at random intervals, and have an observer at the girl “victim’s”verify if she feels victimized at exactly the right time when someone watches the photo. James Randi has a US$ 1.000.000 bounty offer to anyone that can prove such paranormal phenomena.

Pictures of grave violence against children are perfectly legal

There are no claims that watching TV surveillance camera videos victimizes babies. Videos of nannies mistreating babies, shaking toddlers in a way they can suffer permanent spinal cord damage can be seen on youtube.

Watching depictions of child baseball victimizes children

Baseball and softball – Nearly 117,000 children and adolescents ages five to 14 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for baseball-related injuries, and nearly 26,000 children and adolescents ages five to 14 were treated for softball-related injuries. Baseball also has the highest fatality rate among sports for children and adolescents ages five to 14, with three to four persons dying from baseball injuries each year. Sports Injury Statistics (Children’s Hospital Boston)

Most other sports are pretty dangerous too. See the Sports Injury Statistics

If you watch this video, an innocent little child gets re-victimized

Warning:

don’t watch if you don’t want to see a child hurt

don’t watch if you think the child will be vicitmized again by your mere act of watching the mishap

. An innocent child gets hurt. Like in an extreme child porn movie. So by watching this again, the child will be victimized again. Correct?

Oh, the child got hurt by accident, not on purpose? ok. So check purposeful child injury:

(warning: graphic footage of child abuse)

Warning: very graphic, child clubbed to death by gang. If you watch this the dead child will be victimized again. This is not from a pervert site, but nainstream Fox TV USA.



Story link: MyFoxCHICAGO.com Minor getting whipped by the Taliban. If you watch this, you will become a Taliban child beater: “the very act of accessing child [..] abuse videos makes [you] the offender a party to child [..] abuse. ”





The act of watching beating, lynching, and Jihad decapitation movies does not victimize?

Human-Stupidity.com fails to understand, why possession of child beating and child lynching photos is a victimless crime and not punished in any way.

Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.

Everyone probably has seen a muslim kidnapping victim beheading movie. Each time we see such movies, the beheaded gets victimized again. Is that not the same logic?

Thai Boxing 15y/o vs. 16 y/o

Thai boxing is cruel. No matter how much you train, if you block a roundhouse kick with your shin, both fighters’ shins will get bruised. Knocking out a 15 y/o or 16 y/o is child abuse. Watching this again, you will victimize the kids again.

Similar articles about wymyn’s studies, about femimist faulty thinking and logic