Re: Hm?

Great, it's 'cut up the posts' time. Okay I am game!
You can't prove this, thank you very much. Next!
Wow really? Could it be that is why I shared it as an opinion rather than an assertion through use of the word 'probably'. Not only that, considering I only said 'most' it wasn't really all-encompassing at all. Furthermore, I do not have to prove that your statement does not encompass all of kp. Considering you've probably not seen any, and even if you had there's no way you could see it all, you really have no grounds on which to contradict my statement that your description is not all-encompassing. Saying they aren't enjoying it is my opinion, I never said it as fact, therefore I don't have to prove it. Therefore, if you were aware of this, you attempted to weasel out of my observation by acting like I was trying to prove something, rather than sharing a disturbing possibility which DOES exist.

In regards to money (I don't see a need to quote everything you say, you know what you said) I obviously can't show you people who make money doing it. Considering the risks associated with money changing hands (that it does at all proves this is an incentive to people) obviously the people who are doing so successfully (and for larger amounts) are going to be the most secretive, professional, and non-publicized by their very nature. If this is going to turn into some pathetic "you can't prove it therefore it is pointless to theorize about it" argument then I don't see the point continuing to talk.

People seem to have no problem accepting and theorizing about ideas based on general ideas when it SUPPORTS minor sexuality and CP, but the opposite does not seem to hold true. This bias, cognitive distortion? Keep in mind, people exchanging for some kind of public mission are going to be the most open with it, and are more easy to catch. People exchanging for money would only want paying customers to get their hands on it, thus harder to catch. Thus, how would I be able to show you who they are? You may as well ask me to show you some mafia lord.

Premises are not to be abandoned due to unprovability. Even so, let's say I indulge your logic: why not, 'fair enough', do people not also abandon the unprovable premise that it is the majority of mindsets to do it for worship/celebration/charity and that bad reasons are a minority? Neither premise is unprovable, I am simply presenting the opposite premise, and sharing my personal feelings on it.

That I mention my feelings at all should be obvious evidence that I have no evidence pertaining to it, otherwise it would have been irrelevant to mention them. We resort to explaining our feelings when we lack information on a subject, thus we share our 'gut feeling' in deference to subconscious calculations our brains make based on a wide plethora of information and reports it uses to affect generalizations which we can rely on to drive us until we have further data.

I'm glad we agree it's a fair argument. Regardless of what your goals are, if it is 'behind' your argument, doesn't that mean it should come FIRST in priority? I know a lot of you guys seem to have all these lofty goals, but considering how so much fewer people want them, why don't you guys just cross those bridges when you come to them and levy for something conservative, more realistic, and less potentially harmful and upsetting to society?

I haven't disregarded any evidence. I just haven't ever, ever, ever seen any.
Ack! I just read what this was in reply to and wasn't even able to understand my own writing, I don't think it conveyed what I meant, I apologize. What I was saying was, "expert" testimony (not evidence) was being disregarded. Surely you have seen testimonies :) Now that said, while statements like "sex is abusive" require faith, I don't think "KP is abusive" does. In context of it being illegal, I think it IS abusive. They should attach a disclaimer though, because if it were legalized then, much like if sex were legalized, the harmfulness/abusiveness of it become more controversial since they don't involve involving others in breaking the law. Honestly, in a legal context though, involving minors in television at all is kind of abusive and exploitive, much less if you were to do it in pornography. Usually there is an interest in making money, fame, and not on teaching any real skill that is applicable outside of showbiz. It can frequently interfere with schoolwork, and unlike a lot of extracurricular activities, I doubt a lot of parents will pull a kid off filming movies if their grades are suffering.

Plus, in general, involving someone who lacks the cognitive capacity to make informed choices is exploitive and abusive. I don't think this applies to all minors, but it does apply to a lot of them, especially the younger ones, and I think it is abusive to just have sex with them for no good reason, and especially if someone if filming it I think it really shows a lack of concern for them.

The concern in that case seems to be more for 'the world' rather than for the child, since you're putting them at risk of traumatic upsetting life changes simply to make a point that "sex can be loving" all the while, not being entirely loving by being willing to put them at risk by that, see what I mean?

It's comparable to 'childlovers' who try to 'come out' by having a girlfriend or something. That girlfriend's probably going to go through a world of pain, which is why it's not caring at all to involve others in this like that. It takes a measure of disregard for the problems someone's going to go through to partner with them as an activist. I think most know, with all the shit real activists go through, even people who aren't and just get labeled one by association have to deal with serious shit. You do NOT really care about someone's overall wellbeing if you put them through that, consciously or not.

Well prove it. And you're haaaaardly the first person to whom I ask to back it up. You just can't talk out of the proverbial ass when public policy, civil liberties and the status of large sectors of the population (paeds and kids) are all involved

Prove WHAT? Prove that people are think of it positively? Not the populace obviously (at least not publically) but certainly people around here seem to be, as evidenced by your own statement I was replying to...

or do you mean prove that I believe it is a mistaken way to think of it? That's my belief. The proof is in the pudding: I said it's my belief, therefore it is. How the heck do you prove you believe something, do you just go and assume everyone's a liar? I don't question your statements that you believe certain stuff so don't question mine, it's just general politeness and trying to get somewhere in conversation, sheesh.

Do you always take the word of Police at face value, or only regarding kp???

Do you always be illiterate? (intentional grammar mistake for purposes of humourous insult) Obviously based on the other statements in my post I do NOT. This you ignored, purposefully or intentionally I don't know. In either case, it makes you an excessively spiteful person. My point was, if police pretty much consistantly uniformly are saying it is awful, and describing in detail how it shocked them, odds are that at least some of it has to have some bad stuff in it.

I'm not saying it's all bad, or that all their statements are honest, just that you can basically assess the general undertone of it. Basically, if it was all peaches and cream as your flowery generalization had implied, then some cop would've had the gonads to bring up "hey guys I can't find anything here where they look like they're having a bad time..." But obviously in some of the vids they were, and it shocked them so bad they can't even see anything as being different from it.

The quasi-unanimity of legal porn is not abusive or forced / coerced. There is no reason to suppose that illegality completely inverts the ratios of abuse / non-abuse. Illegality removes some incentives for it to be non-abusive, but it is one statement to argue that there's an increase in abuse and another to argue an increase from almost zero to a great majority

I think there is a reason to suppose that the composition ratios of legal porn may differ from that of "legal" (if it were made so) CP. I'm not sure where you got the 'invert the ratios' idea, I never stated that, seems like you're projecting there. Now, as to the reason I think the patterns would be different: it is legal for porn stars to have sex with each other.

It is also legal to coerce or abuse your relationship someone to get them to film pornography, so I'm not sure why you're staying that pornography does not involve this. I call BS on this 'almost zero' thing you have going. Pornography's a sensitive field in society for a reason: it's got its share of BS.

There are no reliable statistics on that. Honestly, we don't even know that about force too. We may know that rape isn't REPORTED for the people featured in such films but it's entirely plausible that some of these people (especially in one-shot featurettes) were raped and simply decided to make the best of it by getting in on the money from it even though they didn't want to in the first place.

It is not legal for kids to have sex. Therefore, there is already a criminal atmosphere, thus, in that scenario, it is more likely to be abusive or forced/coerced simply by nature of the lack of care and the lack of additional consequences differentiated for the nature by broadly grouping everything together.

Additionally, even if the sex itself were legal, minors are still more vulnerable to force, coercement and abuse. This is because on average they are physically weaker, less knowledgeable of law, and less knowledgeable of patterns of interpersonal manipulation. This is of course, not a general rule you can apply to people half hazardly but it is certainly a legitimate observation of the public as a whole. It is the entire reason, these trends, behind why people create ages of consent. It's not all due to hate and bias, people actually do have a point and real honest motivations behind why they outlaw sex. Honestly, I follow it, I just think it's misdirected and need more refining and a clearer view.

KP is the item of evidence that second most often "disappears" from police custody.
Oh...kay. So I guess evidence disappearing would interfere with ongoing discussion and evaluation of a video then... so you are giving something to support my idea there?