The majority of neuroscientists agree that by the age of 13-14 the mental and cognitive potential of a kind is the same of that of whatever adult. Since I know more immature adults than immature kids it is clear to me that our experiences and decisions shape our mind and personality.

Piaget who believed children go through fixed cognitive development stages has been scientifically disproved many times. He believed that someone younger than 12 can’t have the cognitive ability of abstraction but abstract thinking has been observed in children as young as 4. Debunking his studies showed that cognitive development is not a fixed biological process but you’re as mature as your experience allow you to mature. It’s only a matter of context.
The person who appears to be the smartest in his natural context will look like an clueless ignorant in a foreign context. This tautology was used with black slaves as well.

They weren’t “mature” enough because they were not given a chance to freely interact with the world and make personal choices. Why they weren’t given such chance? Because they weren’t ready to make good choice. The very thing you need to prove you can do something is the something you’re not allowed to do.

There’s a neurologist who invented a test to determine how adult are you. Fortunately “adult” is not used here as a misnomer for a certain orthodox expected behavior which denies all which is beautiful and real in human spontaneity, creativity and interactions with other humans. No, it means possessing that kind of knowledge which empowers you in such a complex fake society. Certain people believe wrongly and because their brain manipulate their memories even for things that happened one year ago in order to fit their memories to their current orthodox brainwashed thinking, that if you’re young you don’t possess the knowledge to make important decision because you won’t understand the ramifications and the consequences. But usually such “important knowledge” is really very trivial stuff and it’s pretty easy to determine whether a person have such knowledge with a couple of fool questions. So it’s also easy not only to understand that many kids have such knowledge but also that many adults don’t have such knowledge, since such kind of maturity (which has nothing to do with cognition, growth, brain size but only with how well you know the world you live in, as would be for an infant) has nothing to do with age past the point where a kid is not anymore a dependent infant.

I would say that a young kid who simply claims not to know certain things is way more mature than someone still believing that few cherry picked studies (missing the forest for the trees) can make a compelling scientific theory.
I see maturity and immaturity in people of every kind and age but “adults” (as people who conformed to a certain herd philosophy, behavior, culture) are in my opinion individuals who mostly pretend to be mature, defending their right to superiority with violence and aggressivity, even if empirically they usually know nothing about the concepts they love to promote as a proof of their superior knowledge and intelligence and rarely posses the rationality to make good arguments and defense about the topic they’re discussing. It’s disturbing how the people who love to claim how someone or some particular socially constructed fake group is less mature usually show no sign of maturity in their arguments.

http://www.kpdq.com/11551480/print/

So the german legislator has opend the full arbitrariness of justice terror as it is usual in the USA. Some, very some people in Germany have given warning of conclude the new law – most of the experts were part of them, but the new law was concluded nearly without public interest.

Consequently, every normal boy – who possesses a photo of his erigated penis – will become criminel in cause of possession of youth porn at the day of his 18th birthday – the only way to avoid this danger is: He makes it as a gift to his younger sister (who took the photo one year ago).

(non)Josh said: “And 131 children have been saved by Ceop so bobby I think those kids would disagree with you who has been saved from Ceop.”

Saved from what? I have been intrigued by this figure for a long time, and I have tried to find out more. Undoubtedly there are a few children who have been in situations where someone is taking photos of them, and this has been stopped when police (acting on CEOP’s advice) arrested the photographer. But when this happens, it is a BIG news story. It supports everything they say. Why don’t they make more of a fanfare about it?

I suspect that the majority of the children “saved” by CEOP were children of people who were suspected of downloading child porn. Children who were taken away from their parents, or otherwise separated (by the father being taken away).

PORNOGRAPHY
First, it depends what you mean when you say “pornography”. A lot of the figures bandied about come from the USA and the UK (the non-Josh himself quotes FBI and CEOP!).

In the US, for an image to be child porn, it has to be lascivious. I believe that this can include focussing on the sexual organs (in particualr the genital region, but in girls also the breast) and the anus. It appears that this can encompass clothed children. I don’t know much about how the law is applied in borderline cases in the US, so I will say no more.

In the UK, an image that counts as child porn is an “indecent” photgraph OR PSEUDO-PHOTOGRAPH of a child (a person under 18). Indecent means something that would “offend against recognised standards of propriety”. Given this, I strongly suspect that the image (real)Josh has chosen to illustrate this article could count as child porn in the UK.
The boy in the photograph appears to be under 18, and he appears to be doing something a little indecent (or what some people would find indecent).

The problems arising from how the concept of indecency is applied in English courts is worthy of an essay of its own, but as a simple example I will steer you towards the image from the Armani advert that appeared in Sunday Times Magazine for an example of what some people can consider to be indecent.

If Mr Paedo downloads an indecent photograph of a child, he commits an offence.
If Mr Cop (as a cop, not as a filthy perv doing it in secret in his own home) downloads the same image, he does not commit an offence.
Why the disparity? What harm is caused by Mr Paedo downloading the image that is not caused when Mr Cop downloads the image?
If there is no harm when the cop downloads, there is no harm in either case. So, what the child protection people say is “there is harm in both cases, but in the second case it is necessary to suffer the harm.”

I haven’t had time to read all the posts here, but this is an issue I have been thinking about for a long time. The child porn laws are justified on the grounds that they “protect” “children”, but this crackdown on child self-porn perverts is the perfect demonstration that they do not. I don’t know when It links in with the concept of the “adolescent sex offender”, who MAY be a child who has been sexually abused and thus becomes sexually active precosiously (i.e. with his/her 8 year old peers), but if you read the “literature”, it can be one of two children of roughly the same age who have sex but where one has more influence, or is smarter, or is stronger, or more intelligent… i.e. more “powerful”. This whole idea of “power” as introduced by Foucault has proved very slippery.

But self-made child-porn… The European Union has decreed that all EU nations adopt a treaty which defines a child in child porn as a person who is under 18. This must apply, even in Germany. I cannot speak for other countries, but it is a principle of English law that a member of a group intended to be protected by a law cannot be prosecuted under that law (I think the precedent was Tyrrell, but have no way of checking at the moment). So a child who takes photos of him/herself cannot be prosecuted for that act. It is thus also arguable that any child receiving those images similarly cannot be prosecuted, but any “adult” can be.

They authorities say that child porn ALWAYS causes harm. Therefore, in their conception of the world, sel-made child porn ALWAYS causes harm. If they believe their own propaganda, they MUST act on self-made child porn as well as other-made child porn. And they do believe their own propaganda, because it gives them a very powerful tool in the normalisation of sexuality. Is sexuality natural or is it learned? i.e. is it genetic or is it constructed? The “social” “”sciences” like to believe that it is constructed, which must mean that sexuality is distributed amongst a population somehow. If they get to define what is good and bad sexuality, they can intervene on the grounds of protecting “public morals”.

Thus get a perfect reason to tinker with a child’s “sexual health”. A child victim is offererd “counselling and support”, which will amount to nothing more than going over and over what happened while implying that the child will be affected for life and needs “professional” care even to be able to cope…. and a “perpetrator” will be punished and treated by such things as sex offender treatement programmes, which are much the same. The perp gets to listen to his peers confess their crimes AND their secret desires AND then their guilt and remorse over and over, and he will also confess and repent over and over.

Unfortunately, government policy isn’t driven by knowledge or sense. Today, the British government upgraded the classification of cannabis as a Class B drug – against the advice of their own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This move will undoubtedly be popular with (adult) voters, which is why the government has done it; it can do no conceivable good.

This change will have a far greater impact on young people than the laws on CP – many hundreds of thousands of them will be criminalized, rather than the mere handful who get done for porn. This illustrates how this discussion seems to be barking up the wrong tree: the CP laws are very old, and were clearly intended for the persecution of dirty old men, and that is still what they are largely used for.

While there certainly is a ‘war on childhood sexuality’, this is only part of a more generalized and frightening war against the young (see the survey link in my earlier post). I despair for any society which can think of nothing better to do with its future than to demonize it.

Making anything illegal simply means that there are zero controls over production, content and risk. Only legalised industries can be regulated and controls enforced. The “war on drugs” is a dismal failure and always will be. The “war on childhood sexuality” is similarly doomed to failure, but the consequences are far greater. A drug addict can get clean and go on to live a useful and productive life, but a person convicted of a child porn offence has their life irrevocably and permanently destroyed.

In the meantime, the more success law enforcement has in curtailing the availability of CP, the greater value it has and therefore the more incentive to force kids into unsavoury and intensely harmful activities by those who have the mentality of the drug dealer. The solution to preventing kids being abused in the production of CP is to permit those kids who want to make and distribute such material to do so freely. If the “market” is flooded with such material voluntarily produced and distributed, there is no profit in its production for the nasty types.

It’s pretty simple:

Someone abused a child or tricked it somehow into making pictures or videos = We should care

They have taken photos or videos of themselves unsolicited = we shouldn’t care

The kids are also sending vids of themselves from their phones showing them whacking off with and without cum shots. If this is not cp, then I do not know what is.