New
Your Thoughts?
Good Job on the take down!
66.7%
48
I believe they shouldn't be arrested
5.6%
4
This is just sick and wrong.
5.6%
4
i want to talk about Lolicons vs Pedophiles
12.5%
9
I love children
9.7%
7
72 votes
Jun 10, 2012 5:09 AM
#41
Gogetters said: People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal" Immahnoob said: Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old. Children cannot reproduce either. Youngest person in the United states was 9. Hmmm, I didn't know that. But... Did those kids do okay? It's a matter of how their brain took it too. You know, the child might consent, but how is he in grade of understanding what he consented to? I mean, try to explain sex to a child. He won't understand without dumbing up the words, changing them etc. Their body might be ready to reproduce, but can they take it properly? They're not mature enough for such a thing. And by normal, I mean what fits survival. It's instinct after all. Why do you like that girl over there? You see her attractive because she might be the perfect mother, thus attraction. Why don't you feel that great of going into a dark cave by yourself with only a flashlight? You might get stuck or you might find some animal there that can tear your head off, like a bear, thus you feel fear. Fascination with being "normal" is just what instincts tell us. Normal is made out of our own culture too. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, children can reproduce but scarless children surely are rare and even rarer the ones that consent and know what they consent to, so normal surely it is not. But as I said, why arrest or discriminate on such groups if they don't do harm? As long as homosexuals consent to each other and the pedophiles just don't do the act it's okay, nobody is harmed, thus everything works just fine. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Jun 10, 2012 5:32 AM
#42
Immahnoob said: But as I said, why arrest or discriminate on such groups if they don't do harm? As long as homosexuals consent to each other and the pedophiles just don't do the act it's okay, nobody is harmed, thus everything works just fine. I don't get your question. "Why arrest or discriminate if they don't do harm?" Pedophiles don't get arrested until they act upon their desires. Unless you mean them indulging themselves to things already online A.K.A. spilled milk. But harm is still being done there too. I forgot what I was saying. I would go into detail, but I want to get your question first so I don't end up making examples on the wrong point |
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Jun 10, 2012 5:38 AM
#43
Twilight-Sparkle said: Immahnoob said: But as I said, why arrest or discriminate on such groups if they don't do harm? As long as homosexuals consent to each other and the pedophiles just don't do the act it's okay, nobody is harmed, thus everything works just fine. I don't get your question. "Why arrest or discriminate if they don't do harm?" Pedophiles don't get arrested until they act upon their desires. Unless you mean them indulging themselves to things already online A.K.A. spilled milk. But harm is still being done there too. I forgot what I was saying. I would go into detail, but I want to get your question first so I don't end up making examples on the wrong point It's already there and if they did not add it it's not their fault and they did no harm by barely looking at such pornography, thus the laws are quite stupid too. Arrest the ones that uploaded OR shared such stuff, the ones that looked shouldn't even be asked why they did it. Now what... Don't let them even think about such a thing? I suppose if there will ever be such a technology it would only do us harm then. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Jun 10, 2012 5:57 AM
#44
Immahnoob said: It's already there and if they did not add it it's not their fault and they did no harm by barely looking at such pornography, thus the laws are quite stupid too. Arrest the ones that uploaded OR shared such stuff, the ones that looked shouldn't even be asked why they did it. Now what... Don't let them even think about such a thing? I suppose if there will ever be such a technology it would only do us harm then. Have you read that story about giving a mouse a cookie? People like to bend the law and see how far they can go and still get away with crimes. If they could easily access "old stuff", it would probably increase the risk of them attempting it IRL when they get tired of the same selection. Hell, some pedophiles would probably even show the children the porn in order to trick them into thinking its normal for, all I know. Not to mention that some of the pedophiles would bend the law by leaving their home and using some anonymous internet source (like a library that didn't ask for your info or some sap's unlocked wifi) to upload more porn, then destroy the computer they used for the task. If that happens, you're saying that everyone can just also look at the newly uploaded content without worrying about anything coming to them? You won't be able to tell what's already up from what's new if they don't want you to, and you wouldn't be able to tell the uploaders from the downloaders(unless they are just stupid). *Insert even more anonymous uploaders from all over the place*, and you have what's going on right now. Only difference is that the law is trying to stop it by drawing a clear line saying that no one should have/watch/distribute any. Makes sense, even though I have your opinions on the subject. I'm just posting my skepticism and thoughts. I wish that pedophiles did have some safe outlet. |
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Jun 10, 2012 6:05 AM
#45
Twilight-Sparkle said: Immahnoob said: It's already there and if they did not add it it's not their fault and they did no harm by barely looking at such pornography, thus the laws are quite stupid too. Arrest the ones that uploaded OR shared such stuff, the ones that looked shouldn't even be asked why they did it. Now what... Don't let them even think about such a thing? I suppose if there will ever be such a technology it would only do us harm then. Have you read that story about giving a mouse a cookie? People like to bend the law and see how far they can go and still get away with crimes. If they could easily access "old stuff", it would probably increase the risk of them attempting it IRL when they get tired of the same selection. Hell, some pedophiles would probably even show the children the porn in order to trick them into thinking its normal for, all I know. Not to mention that some of the pedophiles would bend the law by leaving their home and using some anonymous internet source (like a library that didn't ask for your info or some sap's unlocked wifi) to upload more porn, then destroy what computer that they used for it. If that happens, you're saying that everyone can just also look at the newly uploaded content without worrying about anything coming to them? You won't be able to tell what's already up from what's new if they don't want you to, and you wouldn't be able to tell the uploaders from the downlloaders( if they aren't stupid). *Insert even more anonymous uploaders from all over the place*, and you have what's going on right now. Only difference is that the law is trying to stop it by drawing a clear line saying that no one should have/watch/distribute any. Makes sense, even though I have your opinions on the subject. I'm just posting my skepticism and thoughts. I wish that pedophiles did have some safe outlet. Hmmm, think of it like this. Those that don't do such acts know it's wrong for others/they'll get into trouble, and those that do can't control themselves. The ones that do it in real life can't control themselves, thus if you think about it they'll do it anyways. It's okay to take such material off the internet or in general, but the viewers are not really doing harm until they do it in real life. The "we can't differentiate from viewer, uploader or downloader" stuff can't be used as an excuse by the way. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Jun 10, 2012 6:28 AM
#46
Immahnoob said: Hmmm, think of it like this. Those that don't do such acts know it's wrong for others/they'll get into trouble, and those that do can't control themselves. The ones that do it in real life can't control themselves, thus if you think about it they'll do it anyways. It's okay to take such material off the internet or in general, but the viewers are not really doing harm until they do it in real life. The "we can't differentiate from viewer, uploader or downloader" stuff can't be used as an excuse by the way. For the record though, I assume that the pedophiles who avoid such acts do so not only because its wrong, but also because they want to avoid punishment. Its the same thing, thread-wise, but I just wanted to state that, even though there is no reason to. Some people can't control themselves as you say. Everyone has some self control, short of people that are literally insane. They are just.. able to be pushed over the edge easier, especially if you give them a catalyst like allowing them to view such material. Not to mention that it would also attract others into liking that sort of thing when they didn't even know it existed. (<-- I know that from experience, but that's not on topic). It seems okay to remove the material, which is what they're trying to do. Your last point about not doing harm until its done IRL is obviously true. It's just like saying that playing shooting games is fine until you kill someone in real life.We are obviously discarding them in most examples because no one can even tell if those people are pedophiles. They just happen to be people with a fetish that's frowned upon. I call it a fetish because I think that this sort of thing is slowly developed, not a thing someone is born with. |
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Jun 10, 2012 6:32 AM
#47
Immahnoob said: Twilight-Sparkle said: Immahnoob said: It's already there and if they did not add it it's not their fault and they did no harm by barely looking at such pornography, thus the laws are quite stupid too. Arrest the ones that uploaded OR shared such stuff, the ones that looked shouldn't even be asked why they did it. Now what... Don't let them even think about such a thing? I suppose if there will ever be such a technology it would only do us harm then. Have you read that story about giving a mouse a cookie? People like to bend the law and see how far they can go and still get away with crimes. If they could easily access "old stuff", it would probably increase the risk of them attempting it IRL when they get tired of the same selection. Hell, some pedophiles would probably even show the children the porn in order to trick them into thinking its normal for, all I know. Not to mention that some of the pedophiles would bend the law by leaving their home and using some anonymous internet source (like a library that didn't ask for your info or some sap's unlocked wifi) to upload more porn, then destroy what computer that they used for it. If that happens, you're saying that everyone can just also look at the newly uploaded content without worrying about anything coming to them? You won't be able to tell what's already up from what's new if they don't want you to, and you wouldn't be able to tell the uploaders from the downlloaders( if they aren't stupid). *Insert even more anonymous uploaders from all over the place*, and you have what's going on right now. Only difference is that the law is trying to stop it by drawing a clear line saying that no one should have/watch/distribute any. Makes sense, even though I have your opinions on the subject. I'm just posting my skepticism and thoughts. I wish that pedophiles did have some safe outlet. Hmmm, think of it like this. Those that don't do such acts know it's wrong for others/they'll get into trouble, and those that do can't control themselves. The ones that do it in real life can't control themselves, thus if you think about it they'll do it anyways. It's okay to take such material off the internet or in general, but the viewers are not really doing harm until they do it in real life. The "we can't differentiate from viewer, uploader or downloader" stuff can't be used as an excuse by the way. I disagree with watching being harmless. Child pornography exists because there is a market for it, which harms children. I view it in a similar light as guilt by association. They may not upload it, but by consuming it, the market continue's and if we can accept viewing child porn as a society, then how are we not accepting sexual exploitation of children? |
|
Jun 10, 2012 6:34 AM
#48
I feel ambivalent about the viewing of child pornography. On one hand, the demand for it usually results in more children being abused to make more CP. I have little doubt that it is harmful, and I do not condone people deliberately seeking out CP. On the other hand, where do you draw the line when prosecuting people who "view" pornography? I'm sure many people don't intend to view CP at all, but accidentally come across it when some jerk uploads some pictures on a 4chan thread. By the time you see the picture, it has already been "downloaded" on your computer and will stay there until it is wiped by other data. There is potential for innocent people to be incriminated. So what are the laws on this? 2D loli isn't even an issue here. While the situation may not be completely black and white, I'm glad to see the US government taking action against something that can actually harm children rather than driving witch hunts against drawings. I continue to support 2D lolicon. |
mezzoguitarJun 10, 2012 6:38 AM
Jun 10, 2012 6:36 AM
#49
Immahnoob said: Seems like it, yes.Gogetters said: People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal" Immahnoob said: Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old. Children cannot reproduce either. Youngest person in the United states was 9. Hmmm, I didn't know that. But... Did those kids do okay? The 5 year old I have no link for the 9 year old but you can read about it here. |
Jun 10, 2012 7:38 AM
#50
Immahnoob said: But... Did those kids do okay? It's a matter of how their brain took it too. You know, the child might consent, but how is he in grade of understanding what he consented to? I mean, try to explain sex to a child. He won't understand without dumbing up the words, changing them etc. Their body might be ready to reproduce, but can they take it properly? They're not mature enough for such a thing. And by normal, I mean what fits survival. It's instinct after all. Why do you like that girl over there? You see her attractive because she might be the perfect mother, thus attraction. Why don't you feel that great of going into a dark cave by yourself with only a flashlight? You might get stuck or you might find some animal there that can tear your head off, like a bear, thus you feel fear. Fascination with being "normal" is just what instincts tell us. Normal is made out of our own culture too. I assume pedophilia exists for the reason adults that look like children - or have childish characteristics, like flat chests - exist. For instance, I know a girl - she was in college with me - who due to a disease stopped growing and still looks like a gradeschooler. In fact, I thought she was about 10, one of those child geniuses we keep hearing about, when I first saw her. Mentally she's fine it's just her body that's odd - is she supposed to be doomed to a life with no romantic attachments? Why, when people exist who would find her attractive? And even if a guy turns up who looks past her appearance, won't he be condemned by society? Her situation is incredibly fucked up, and the pedophilia scare is hurting her life a lot. Another point of contention, which somebody already mentioned, is the 'pedophiles' who are themselves children. My sister, when she was 12 or 13 made a video of herself stripping for her boyfriend (who was the same age as her). About a year later, that guy's next girlfriend found the video, flew into a jealous rage, and uploaded it to youtube. It got deleted fairly fast, but the damage was done and the police were already at the door. Thankfully Romania is more lax in this regard and my sister (or my mother) didn't get punished. Should my sister or that other 12 year old girl have gone to prison? Should the parents have gone to prison? I think not. Is my sister traumatized? No. So, such distinctions NEED to be made. It's silly saying that 12 year olds who can make a youtube accounts can't 'consent', when they themselves do the deed. Then there's the limits of what constitutes child molestation. According to the laws here, 14 is the age of consent within two years of your age, and 16 is the actual one. That is, the law says that a 14-year old can consent to sex with a 16-year old, but not with a 17-year old. Which is also ridiculous - when the 15 year old's boyfriend turns 18, should he instantly be sent to prison for statutory rape? And according to what I hear, a 16 year old can't consent in most of the world. I also heard of a case in Germany many years ago where a kid was sent to prison for helping his very young sister pee outside. A neighbor reported them. Regarding the trauma aspect for young children who actually can't consent (unlike the teenagers the laws says can't), I have some personal insight into the matter and strongly believe that the trauma when the sexual act can't traditionally be described as rape (statutory aside) is caused solely by society - more accurately, by people saying things like 'he had sex, he must be traumatized!', 'poor you, poor child', 'people having dirty thoughts will go to HELL', and so on. Children are remarkably resilient, but they are still human, and easily influenced ones at that - when you tell someone something is someway hundred times, at one point the person will start believing it is true. In my personal case, which didn't involve adults so it's different from what's presented in the OP (although they were involved in my personal fantasies), any 'trauma'-esque thoughts - recognized as such many years later - started around the time I was 12, preparing for my First Communion, when the Church classes gave us a list of things regarded as sinful. In the case of the OP, keep in mind the only ones realistically affected, as long as there was no violence involved and people won't talk about it years later, are the 4 and 5 year olds.Children younger than that can't form memories yet. I'm not saying that it's right (of course it damn well isn't), I'm saying that the way society treats the problem often causes more problems than the act itself. rekindledflame said: I disagree with watching being harmless. Child pornography exists because there is a market for it, which harms children. I view it in a similar light as guilt by association. They may not upload it, but by consuming it, the market continue's and if we can accept viewing child porn as a society, then how are we not accepting sexual exploitation of children? Yes, the market for it harms children. But unless something is left behind - a comment maybe, like a 'thank you', any sign of your presence there, whatever - the person isn't endorsing that 'market'. And I strongly agree that it's not something that should be accepted, however the FBI (or whoever is hunting these people down) is doing both themselves and the children waiting to be rescued a disfavor by going after people who just look at the stuff - the bigger the audience is, the more the criminal will post, the more likely that he'll get captured. If his audience disappears, he'll just go further underground, or disappear from the net entirely and then the potential evidence for capturing the guy disappears too. |
Jun 10, 2012 7:41 AM
#51
Gogetters said: Immahnoob said: Seems like it, yes.Gogetters said: People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal" Immahnoob said: Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old. Children cannot reproduce either. Youngest person in the United states was 9. Hmmm, I didn't know that. But... Did those kids do okay? The 5 year old I have no link for the 9 year old but you can read about it here. "Rape, incest, old men" ^ Wow, they surely did okay. :yjwfr: |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Jun 10, 2012 7:49 AM
#52
Immahnoob said: Gogetters said: Immahnoob said: Seems like it, yes.Gogetters said: People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal" Immahnoob said: Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old. Children cannot reproduce either. Youngest person in the United states was 9. Hmmm, I didn't know that. But... Did those kids do okay? The 5 year old I have no link for the 9 year old but you can read about it here. "Rape, incest, old men" ^ Wow, they surely did okay. :yjwfr: The five year old is also 78 (from Africa, where life-expectancies are seriously low), and seems to have lived a long fulfilling life. Her article also didn't say 'rape, incest, old men'? |
Jun 10, 2012 8:06 AM
#53
Kiraly said: I also heard of a case in Germany many years ago where a kid was sent to prison for helping his very young sister pee outside. A neighbor reported them. What the hell? Criminalizing something as innocent as that is awful. The people who overreact to these things are the real perverts. |
Jun 10, 2012 8:14 AM
#54
mezzoguitar said: Kiraly said: I also heard of a case in Germany many years ago where a kid was sent to prison for helping his very young sister pee outside. A neighbor reported them. What the hell? Criminalizing something as innocent as that is awful. The people who overreact to these things are the real perverts. I saw it on the news, it must have been around 10 years ago. |
Jun 10, 2012 9:02 AM
#55
Kiraly said: Immahnoob said: Gogetters said: Immahnoob said: Seems like it, yes.Gogetters said: People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal" Immahnoob said: Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old. Children cannot reproduce either. Youngest person in the United states was 9. Hmmm, I didn't know that. But... Did those kids do okay? The 5 year old I have no link for the 9 year old but you can read about it here. "Rape, incest, old men" ^ Wow, they surely did okay. :yjwfr: The five year old is also 78 (from Africa, where life-expectancies are seriously low), and seems to have lived a long fulfilling life. Her article also didn't say 'rape, incest, old men'? The exception reinforces the rule much? The other 99 cases out of 100 said so. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Jun 10, 2012 9:07 AM
#56
Immahnoob said: Kiraly said: Immahnoob said: Gogetters said: Immahnoob said: Seems like it, yes.Gogetters said: People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal" Immahnoob said: Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old. Children cannot reproduce either. Youngest person in the United states was 9. Hmmm, I didn't know that. But... Did those kids do okay? The 5 year old I have no link for the 9 year old but you can read about it here. "Rape, incest, old men" ^ Wow, they surely did okay. :yjwfr: The five year old is also 78 (from Africa, where life-expectancies are seriously low), and seems to have lived a long fulfilling life. Her article also didn't say 'rape, incest, old men'? The exception reinforces the rule much? The other 99 cases out of 100 said so. Actually, the exception disproves the rule. lrn2logic |
Jun 10, 2012 11:44 AM
#57
Kiraly said: Immahnoob said: Kiraly said: Immahnoob said: Gogetters said: Immahnoob said: Seems like it, yes.Gogetters said: People sure seem to have this fascination with being "normal" Immahnoob said: Youngest person to have a kid was 5 years old. Children cannot reproduce either. Youngest person in the United states was 9. Hmmm, I didn't know that. But... Did those kids do okay? The 5 year old I have no link for the 9 year old but you can read about it here. "Rape, incest, old men" ^ Wow, they surely did okay. :yjwfr: The five year old is also 78 (from Africa, where life-expectancies are seriously low), and seems to have lived a long fulfilling life. Her article also didn't say 'rape, incest, old men'? The exception reinforces the rule much? The other 99 cases out of 100 said so. Actually, the exception disproves the rule. lrn2logic Exception that proves the rule. Learn it. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Jun 10, 2012 12:51 PM
#58
Why do people get arrested for having pictures and videos? |
Jun 10, 2012 1:30 PM
#60
i personally know 3 people who were molested as a child and 1 lost their virginity. it is a disgusting traumatizing thing. |
NEETs (No Employment Education Training) are the least desirable people anybody would want to hire and yet they are the first choice to become moderators/admins around the internet. They have yet to have established a sense of responsibility or role in society and many are plain leeches (with minor exceptions). They are given "authority" to police sections of the internet with the powers of The Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Isn't that weird? -Migrating to another site- Update 11/9/2016 - Inactive Over a Year. Logged in to laugh at elections. |
Jun 10, 2012 2:02 PM
#61
MadScientist said: i personally know 3 people who were molested as a child and 1 lost their virginity. it is a disgusting traumatizing thing. Know a woman who was raped by her father, I don't think she's ever had a normal sexual life. Glad the motherfucker is dead. |
Jun 10, 2012 6:14 PM
#62
mezzoguitar said: Does that even happen, ever?On the other hand, where do you draw the line when prosecuting people who "view" pornography? I'm sure many people don't intend to view CP at all, but accidentally come across it when some jerk uploads some pictures on a 4chan thread. By the time you see the picture, it has already been "downloaded" on your computer and will stay there until it is wiped by other data. There is potential for innocent people to be incriminated. So what are the laws on this? The big paedophile busts we keep hearing about are usually international networks of people trading and keeping substantial amounts of child pornography, that have been under surveillance for extended periods of time. I can't imagine the authorities would act on someone inadvertently watching something through /b. After all, in any civilised society, the authorities would need to have a court warrant in order to go to the length of making a case against someone, and that's a long and expensive road that is best walked when there is no doubt. The real problem when it comes to abuse and molestation cases is where retarded technicalities like the one we hear about from the US from time to time in which teenagers possessing pornographic images of each other gets charged with a offence. |
Jun 10, 2012 11:47 PM
#63
Baman said: The real problem when it comes to abuse and molestation cases is where retarded technicalities like the one we hear about from the US from time to time in which teenagers possessing pornographic images of each other gets charged with a offence. Does that happen ever? It's beyond retardation if it really happens. But anything can happen in USA... |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Jun 11, 2012 12:01 AM
#65
Immahnoob said: Baman said: The real problem when it comes to abuse and molestation cases is where retarded technicalities like the one we hear about from the US from time to time in which teenagers possessing pornographic images of each other gets charged with a offence. Does that happen ever? It's beyond retardation if it really happens. But anything can happen in USA... http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/high-schoolers-accused-of-sending-naked-pictures-t/nGXff/#- One instance of it happening, there are quite a few cases out there, but some states are moving towards different laws regarding sexting, that are more leniant/justifiable. It's rather ridiculous to charge them for child pornography though and put them on a sex offender list which is something they will never escape from. |
|
Jun 11, 2012 1:10 AM
#66
rekindledflame said: Immahnoob said: Baman said: The real problem when it comes to abuse and molestation cases is where retarded technicalities like the one we hear about from the US from time to time in which teenagers possessing pornographic images of each other gets charged with a offence. Does that happen ever? It's beyond retardation if it really happens. But anything can happen in USA... http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/high-schoolers-accused-of-sending-naked-pictures-t/nGXff/#- One instance of it happening, there are quite a few cases out there, but some states are moving towards different laws regarding sexting, that are more leniant/justifiable. It's rather ridiculous to charge them for child pornography though and put them on a sex offender list which is something they will never escape from. Wow... Gotta tell my kids not to do that until they're 18 I suppose or until they find somebody trustful (when I'll have them). Fucked up laws... And I thought the laws on piracy (which nobody cares of) are exaggerated shit. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
274 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |