Child Pornography: An Absolute Evil... ?

Demands creates an increased supply. If there is little demand and there is high risk for supplying, supplies will diminish. In other words, by targeting the ones buying child porn and decreasing the demand, you can decrease the supply. Decreasing supply in this matter is vital, because you are decreasing child exploitation. I mean, do you seriously think parents consent to their child being used in this manner? If you advocate child porn you are advocating a host of crimes, including rape, kidnapping and torture. There is no excuse in a civilized society to permit such things to be done to innocent children, regardless of the "relief" it might cause for a sketchy 40 year old who will jack off to the child porn.

I don't think you understand how or why child porn is created. People don't go "oh hey if I rape a child I could sell it and make moneys". They're pedophiles who get off on that idea. These folks will molest/rape children regardless of if they get a video or photo of it or not. They don't create child porn to create child porn, they molest/rape children then create child porn to feed their sexual desires for the future. They may also see it as a duty on themselves, in that most pedophiles likely won't even abuse a child (whether it be only because it is even more illegal or whether it be because their morals won't allow it, even if it does allow them to view child porn), so if they're going to actually do it, they should help their "brothers" who can't.

But again, this isn't a market situation. People don't go down to the local child porn outlet and buy a bunch of movies and pictures. They get them on p2p and torrents; these shared files on p2p and torrents will exist on the originating pedophile's computer whether or not anyone downloads the files from them or not. These pedophiles who abuse children will abuse children whether or not it is recorded; they do it for the abuse, to get off on it, not to fill a demand in the "market".

The reason the war on drugs is failing is because 1. drug use is (not always but mostly) a victimless crime and 2. because sizeable segments of the public approve of it. Neither can be said about this. Other than NAMBLA, to the best of my knowledge there is no public organization advocating pedophilia, and if you make such arguments in public you will almost certainly get the pumpernickel kicked out of you.

I know where you're going with this, but this goes right back into the concept of owning a picture being immoral or not. Child porn being legal to own but not create is counterproductive, because as soon as its legal to own, you DO create a market, a market wherein supply needs to meet demand and you WOULD find people making child porn just for the money and not because they themselves are pedophiles. By looking at these pictures or videos illegally, you're not directly hurting these kids, but if it was legal and you were supporting the "industry", you would be.

Wow. That's a strange conclusion I just got to. In the two choices of to look at child porn illegally or to legalize child porn, the better choice is to look at it illegally. In one case, the viewer risks their freedom, in the other, additional children are hurt.

I guess this is a case where a "victimless crime" is better than the alternative. Remove the "victimless crime" here, and you can guarantee more children would be hurt. Wow. I'm actually surprised at myself here. Up until now, I've never thought I would reason myself into a situation where I would be in favor of this sort of preventative law system, but it seems to be the only morally fair thing.

There was a man on there that developed some sort of program to track the people that sent child porn from one computer to another.

That sounds like entrapment. Slippery slope there, guys. It's one thing to want to catch these people, but law enforcement baiting may actually encourage the behavior they're trying to deter.

Five year old children in a civilized society are not supposed to fuuck. Fuucking five year old children in a civilized society against their will is considered to be unnatural because five year old children are not supposed to fuuck.

Actually, there's an interesting topic relating to this idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality

But if you're stating that it is unnatural for a child to be involved with an adult, I would say that you're right.

And I think what Stereo might be trying to get at is the idea of a CHILD compared to a "child". Notice that post pubescent persons who are still minors still fall under the title of "child" (at least as far as child porn is concerned). You may not appreciate the idea of a young adult having a sexual relationship with a post pubescent minor, but that is certainly far from unnatural. I'm sure you've heard of Romeo and Juliet, right? You know, Romeo was 19 and Juliet was 14. Does that offend you? Do you think that's unnatural?

it's what's in front of it, and that's a child being abused and raped.

And what if it's the child themself doing the "abusing"? What if they're the ones doing the recording? What is your stance on the matter then?

ps I'm sure 4chan only bans it because it is illegal and they don't want their servers confiscated and face jail time. If cp wasn't illegal (morality aside in this theoretical case), they would most certainly allow it on /b/ (mods might still ban for it thanks to the simple "there are no rules for mods either" bit), as well as potentially creating a channel especially for it (assuming the general population of the site has an interest in it and isn't stigmatized, like, for example, furry porn). These other things you mention and compare to child porn, it's a faulty analogy. Those things are allowed because they are legal, child porn isn't allowed because it is not legal. You may find both offensive, and in fact, most persons would I expect, but only one of them is actually illegal to own and/or distribute.