Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: Flyhigh on August 15, 2012, 01:01 am
-
If the Feds are concerned about SR they have another thing to worry about other than drugs....searching through Tor. there are sites dealing with all kinds of shit. the worst is those sick fuck pedophiles.
An glad the armory is gone too...But the news reported SR was selling drugs....big fucking deal! how come they didn't profile the pedophiles...Why because the reporter needed something to fill the slot..they can kiss my ass. personally i don't care what type of drug you do.. but messing with kids is sick..
anyway, just needed to vent. The US spends more time fucking with peaceful drug users. They don't need to worry about SR, but really, Look at the big picture, there is a lot of crazy stuff in deep web. we may be an easy target but, we are the least of the Governments problem. Just be careful and say not to Kids..
I wish we could have a site just for weed and shrooms and LSD. It would make my world wonderful... ::) ;D
-
The US is too busy making money off the cartels and rebels in other countries.
-
The first time I saw cp was on Freenet, and I remember how it made me feel. My heart was pumped, my body was shaking and I felt sick. For the first time I felt real disgust towards someone else and their values. It still makes me feel that way, even here on Tor.
But it's a hard line to draw. So it's ok for us to buy drugs, but not ok to buy weapons? Or it's ok to buy weapons just not ok to use them to hurt others? Or it's ok to hurt others, just not children? Who the fuck even knows...
I would be hesitant to put a filter or a censor on Tor, even though some things really do sicken me. But those same things might seem fine to someone else, just like buying these drugs seems ok to us, and might make someone else sick... I dunno it's a fine line i guess :/
I think most can agree the sexual exploitation of children is seriously depraved and is incredibly harmful to it's victims. It is unfortunately next to impossible to stamp out due to the same anonymity and security we enjoy here. I agree the 3 Letter mafias should be concentrating their efforts on protecting children from those who would exploit them not on those of use who choose to indulge in chemical euphoria. I wonder what the budget to stamp out weed is in comparison to hunting down peds... I'm willing to bet it is a little skewed.
I'm not one to say that drug use is a victimless crime. I understand the money can sometimes fund nefarious groups. I do however blame the war on drugs for putting the money in to the hands of organized crime rather then pharmacies, head shops, bars.. whatever.
-
I agree with the thread starter. The should worry more about the poor children than us doing what we do. I always wondered how those sick fucks spread child porn on the net. Tor is a gift and a curse and those sick bastards need to be dealt with.
-
The first time I accessed deepnet I visited the hidden wiki. I suppose it's a start point for most people. I was expecting to see links to things I wouldn't approve of, but I had a surprisingly visceral reaction to seeing cp links being advertised. It genuinely upset me. I was quite shaken, felt nauseous, shut it down and didn't log on again for several weeks. I guess I found it quite shocking to see it all advertised so openly as if it was normal.
We have such a wonderful place here and a true anonymous society where freedoms and liberty are paramount, and there are people here who are doing truly wonderful things (like those lovely crypto-anarchists helping us all with security, the brilliant vendors on SR helping us subvert ridiculous laws, etc)... It's just a shame that there are people who taint it.
Whilst I'm an atheist, I've always appreciated the poetry and message behind the "Wiccan Rede", it pretty much sums up how I feel about everything. "Eight words ye Wiccan Rede fulfill – An' it harm none, Do what ye will".
I'd love to see our governments (and their budgets) targeting those sites and communities rather than wasting money on the activities of consenting adults, but I don't see it happening, ever.
-
The first time I saw cp was on Freenet, and I remember how it made me feel. My heart was pumped, my body was shaking and I felt sick. For the first time I felt real disgust towards someone else and their values. It still makes me feel that way, even here on Tor.
But it's a hard line to draw. So it's ok for us to buy drugs, but not ok to buy weapons? Or it's ok to buy weapons just not ok to use them to hurt others? Or it's ok to hurt others, just not children? Who the fuck even knows...
I would be hesitant to put a filter or a censor on Tor, even though some things really do sicken me. But those same things might seem fine to someone else, just like buying these drugs seems ok to us, and might make someone else sick... I dunno it's a fine line i guess :/
The thing to keep in mind is that by looking at CP on Freenet you committed a crime equal to that of a pedophile who looks at CP on Freenet.
-
The first time I saw cp was on Freenet, and I remember how it made me feel. My heart was pumped, my body was shaking and I felt sick. For the first time I felt real disgust towards someone else and their values. It still makes me feel that way, even here on Tor.
But it's a hard line to draw. So it's ok for us to buy drugs, but not ok to buy weapons? Or it's ok to buy weapons just not ok to use them to hurt others? Or it's ok to hurt others, just not children? Who the fuck even knows...
I would be hesitant to put a filter or a censor on Tor, even though some things really do sicken me. But those same things might seem fine to someone else, just like buying these drugs seems ok to us, and might make someone else sick... I dunno it's a fine line i guess :/
The thing to keep in mind is that by looking at CP on Freenet you committed a crime equal to that of a pedophile who looks at CP on Freenet.
As well it should be.
-
like those lovely crypto-anarchists helping us all with security
I think that you may be shocked and appalled to learn that the large majority of crypto anarchists are in favor of no censorship what-so-ever
-
The first time I saw cp was on Freenet, and I remember how it made me feel. My heart was pumped, my body was shaking and I felt sick. For the first time I felt real disgust towards someone else and their values. It still makes me feel that way, even here on Tor.
But it's a hard line to draw. So it's ok for us to buy drugs, but not ok to buy weapons? Or it's ok to buy weapons just not ok to use them to hurt others? Or it's ok to hurt others, just not children? Who the fuck even knows...
I would be hesitant to put a filter or a censor on Tor, even though some things really do sicken me. But those same things might seem fine to someone else, just like buying these drugs seems ok to us, and might make someone else sick... I dunno it's a fine line i guess :/
The thing to keep in mind is that by looking at CP on Freenet you committed a crime equal to that of a pedophile who looks at CP on Freenet.
As well it should be.
Yes of course, I think we all know that looking at how a certain software program causes the pixels on your monitor to color themselves when it is presented with a large number leads to child rape when the numbers are bad immoral numbers.
-
Why do you need to look at CP if you aren't a nonce? What need would there be for it?
-
one could stumble across it by accident like the guy earlier in the thread
he shouldn't go to prison for that, but under the laws of most countries he can be
True accidents are one thing but continual access is quite another, if you are the latter then cull the fucker.
-
one could stumble across it by accident like the guy earlier in the thread
he shouldn't go to prison for that, but under the laws of most countries he can be
btw when you say "nonce" i think of this :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack
"Sorry officer. I didn't really want to look at kiddie porn, I just 'stumbled upon' it!" (cue sly smile of derision)
-
one could stumble across it by accident like the guy earlier in the thread
he shouldn't go to prison for that, but under the laws of most countries he can be
btw when you say "nonce" i think of this :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack
"Sorry officer. I didn't really want to look at kiddie porn, I just 'stumbled upon' it!" (cue sly smile of derision)
Exactly, I find it hard to believe that that many people "stumble" across CP, I've using Tor for 5 months now and I never have and I'm extremely careful not to.
-
Why do you need to look at CP if you aren't a nonce? What need would there be for it?
What does being a number used once have to do with CP? Anyway, I don't have to look at CP, and I actually refrain from doing so as I find it to either be extremely pointless to look at even if it is not disgusting and doesn't strike me as particularly offensive, or in many cases entirely disgusting and upsetting. That said, I really couldn't give a fuck less what other people look at and I find it to be rather troubling that so many people give so much of a fuck about what others look at. There is clearly no magic re-victimization process, nobody who is victimized in the making of CP would necessarily even know that people were looking at it if the police didn't tell them every time they bust someone, if you believe the highly dubious claim that people looking at CP fuels the CP market through demand then there are PIR systems that can cryptographically hide the demand, etc. It just doesn't strike me as a big deal if someone looks at a picture of anything, I am much more worried by peoples desire to do horrible things to people who do something as completely neutral as looking at an arrangement of colored pixels. Additionally, I think that if jailbait porn was legal that a fucking lot of people who claim to be against CP would be watching it all the time.
-
one could stumble across it by accident like the guy earlier in the thread
he shouldn't go to prison for that, but under the laws of most countries he can be
btw when you say "nonce" i think of this :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack
I am amazed people stumble on CP so much on these networks, it has always seemed to be pretty well sequestered to me
-
Lol I ain't getting into this with you Kmf, we have been down this road before. You keep to your anarcho-whatever stances and I'll keep to my supporting nonce-death-squad stances and we can all get along like the happy family we are meant to be.
-
like those lovely crypto-anarchists helping us all with security
I think that you may be shocked and appalled to learn that the large majority of crypto anarchists are in favor of no censorship what-so-ever
I was commenting in reference to privacy rather than censorship, which are two different topics. I'd also argue that freedom of expression does not constitute child abuse.
I think a lot more research needs to be done into the relationship between cp and whether it does fuel people to commit crimes IRL. I read an article a while back about a woman who was petitioning to have S&M and similar fetish porn made illegal, because her daughter was murdered by a man who had a bit of an obsession with porn containing violent/non-consensual kinks. IMO, this was utterly ridiculous, there are plenty of consenting adults within various fetish communities who can happily watch "violent" porn without progressing to committing crimes. *Presumably*, there are many paedophiles are in a similar position. However, there is a massive difference between cp and other fetish porn - namely, age and consent of participants.
If cp shared in the forms of fictional literature, drawings, computer generated images or anything else created without harming children in the slightest, then I don't see a problem with it. I may not like it or approve of it, but it's not harming anyone.
-
The first time I saw cp was on Freenet, and I remember how it made me feel. My heart was pumped, my body was shaking and I felt sick. For the first time I felt real disgust towards someone else and their values. It still makes me feel that way, even here on Tor.
But it's a hard line to draw. So it's ok for us to buy drugs, but not ok to buy weapons? Or it's ok to buy weapons just not ok to use them to hurt others? Or it's ok to hurt others, just not children? Who the fuck even knows...
I would be hesitant to put a filter or a censor on Tor, even though some things really do sicken me. But those same things might seem fine to someone else, just like buying these drugs seems ok to us, and might make someone else sick... I dunno it's a fine line i guess :/
I think most can agree the sexual exploitation of children is seriously depraved and is incredibly harmful to it's victims. It is unfortunately next to impossible to stamp out due to the same anonymity and security we enjoy here. I agree the 3 Letter mafias should be concentrating their efforts on protecting children from those who would exploit them not on those of use who choose to indulge in chemical euphoria. I wonder what the budget to stamp out weed is in comparison to hunting down peds... I'm willing to bet it is a little skewed.
I'm not one to say that drug use is a victimless crime. I understand the money can sometimes fund nefarious groups. I do however blame the war on drugs for putting the money in to the hands of organized crime rather then pharmacies, head shops, bars.. whatever.
+1 karma solid post paxpax
-
But the conflict in me is that where is the line drawn of censorship drawn, how is it drawn and who has the authority to draw it? I am thankful I don't have to deal with those questions and can just go about my day, but some people (Tor admins, satoshi nakamoto) could arguably have to consider these questions.
A pussy response if I ever heard one.
-
I don't know how some people can may the argument that censorship is bad therefore cp should be allowed. There is no rational argument you can make for the distribution of such images. And the idea of allowing pornographic drawings, writings etc involving children is abhorrent in a civilized society. We don't allow these things because we don't allow the people who do such things, to live amongst us. It isn't and shouldn't be tolerated in any form.
I wonder how many who'd argue against this are parents?
-
what's your problem? I am in no way defending it, and personally I am against it. I would never support it. But the same thing which protects YOUR freedom on this network is also protecting people you disagree with. If it is so hard for you to accept the gravity of the question I posed you probably shouldn't even be here since you are just a total hypocrite. Thank god you don't have the expertise to create anonymous networks or decentralized currency because if everything was your way half of this shit would be censored and it would be no different than clearnet.
How someone on a secure, anonymous network can not understand the conundrum of the very network he is using to facilitate transactions is beyond me.
No. The question you posed was: But the conflict in me is that where is the line drawn of censorship drawn, how is it drawn and who has the authority to draw it? Where it is drawn is obvious to anyone who doesn't wish for images of cp to be distributed. How it is drawn is to continue to legislate and bring the full force of the law behind the finding, removing and prosecution of such images. And who has the authority... really?
This is really some wishy-washy leftist thinking you've got going on here...
-
I stopped fucking around on /b/ years ago because of CP.
Never know when its gonna pop up, and I don't want that shit even in my cache.
It is truly revolting.
-
Lol Superbob I really care not if you think I'm close-minded or not. No bullets are wasted when they fly through a a pedophile or child molesters skull, that's really as much wiggle room as you get from me on this subject. :)
-
Lol Superbob I really care not if you think I'm close-minded or not. No bullets are wasted when they fly through a a pedophile or child molesters skull, that's really as much wiggle room as you get from me on this subject. :)
haha fair enough, i am with you on that limetless. :)
-
I never intended to get this deep with you guys on this subject because generally i agree that it is disgusting and shouldnt be permitted however being on this board and knowing the reason for its existence is what makes me question you and limetless.
> "There is no rational argument you can make for the distribution of such images. "
There are a lot of people who would say the same thing about drug dealing and distribution.
> "We don't allow these things because we don't allow the people who do such things, to live amongst us. It isn't and shouldn't be tolerated in any form. "
There are a lot of people who feel this way about homosexuals. But we all know that doesn't make it wrong. Of course a long time ago, a lot more people would have agreed with this sentiment.
> "And who has the authority... really?"
Yes really. So you think drugs are ok but cp is bad. What about someone who thinks drugs and cp are bad? Which one of you gets to be the authority? Typically 'authority' just goes to whoever has the most guns and prisons.
I got myself into a devils advocate position and I am gonna leave this be now. But I don't think my thinking is far leftist, I think your thinking is close minded.
1 Rational argument for drugs - personal choice that doesn't directly harm anyone.
2 Homosexuals are consenting adults
3 People who want drugs banned are affecting others (who themselves are not affecting anyone) in a negative way, people who want cp banned are trying to curb the behaviour of people who are affecting (defenseless) children in a negative way.
Unless you can make a logical, rational or thought provoking argument I will not be posting again.
-
It is kind of pointless really, the people who argue that it should not be illegal to view CP present rational arguments, scientific studies and make perfect sense, and then the others come quoting debunked government propaganda that is only rightfully cited in papers on propaganda and statistics laundering, call anyone who disagrees with their misunderstanding of reality pedophiles and make complete asses of themselves to anyone with a brain. We really don't need to go through it anymore than once or twice before people can clearly see who makes sense and who has been completely brainwashed by government / media and/or thinks with their emotions instead of any rational reasoning.
-
Lol.
-
And the idea of allowing pornographic drawings, writings etc involving children is abhorrent in a civilized society. We don't allow these things because we don't allow the people who do such things, to live amongst us. It isn't and shouldn't be tolerated in any form.
It may be abhorrent to you (and me, for that matter), but being offended by it isn't a reason to make it illegal.
Using your logic, all art/literature containing depictions of murder are illegal. We don't allow fictitious murder, because we don't allow the people who do such things to live amongst us. How about depictions of rape/torture/violent attacks? (I guess there's going to be a lot less murder-mystery novels and blockbusters coming out). How about assault/kidnapping/armed robbery/theft/drug use/drunk driving/jaywalking, where do you draw the line? Freedom of expression exists for a reason. Ultimately, it's not harming anyone, so there's no reason for any government involvement.
-
And the idea of allowing pornographic drawings, writings etc involving children is abhorrent in a civilized society. We don't allow these things because we don't allow the people who do such things, to live amongst us. It isn't and shouldn't be tolerated in any form.
It may be abhorrent to you (and me, for that matter), but being offended by it isn't a reason to make it illegal.
Using your logic, all art/literature containing depictions of murder are illegal. We don't allow fictitious murder, because we don't allow the people who do such things to live amongst us. How about depictions of rape/torture/violent attacks? (I guess there's going to be a lot less murder-mystery novels and blockbusters coming out). How about assault/kidnapping/armed robbery/theft/drug use/drunk driving/jaywalking, where do you draw the line? Freedom of expression exists for a reason. Ultimately, it's not harming anyone, so there's no reason for any government involvement.
These people are firm believers in the Ostrich philosophy of burying their heads in the sand. I imagine that they must have some sort of a developmental delay considering humans are supposed to realize that not seeing things doesn't make them stop existing at a very young age.
-
It is kind of pointless really, the people who argue that it should not be illegal to view CP present rational arguments, scientific studies and make perfect sense, and then the others come quoting debunked government propaganda that is only rightfully cited in papers on propaganda and statistics laundering, call anyone who disagrees with their misunderstanding of reality pedophiles and make complete asses of themselves to anyone with a brain. We really don't need to go through it anymore than once or twice before people can clearly see who makes sense and who has been completely brainwashed by government / media and/or thinks with their emotions instead of any rational reasoning.
So in a nutshell you want carte blanche to look at kids getting messed with without fear of getting nicked. Nice....
-
And the idea of allowing pornographic drawings, writings etc involving children is abhorrent in a civilized society. We don't allow these things because we don't allow the people who do such things, to live amongst us. It isn't and shouldn't be tolerated in any form.
It may be abhorrent to you (and me, for that matter), but being offended by it isn't a reason to make it illegal.
Using your logic, all art/literature containing depictions of murder are illegal. We don't allow fictitious murder, because we don't allow the people who do such things to live amongst us. How about depictions of rape/torture/violent attacks? (I guess there's going to be a lot less murder-mystery novels and blockbusters coming out). How about assault/kidnapping/armed robbery/theft/drug use/drunk driving/jaywalking, where do you draw the line? Freedom of expression exists for a reason. Ultimately, it's not harming anyone, so there's no reason for any government involvement.
I do believe in the ideal of freedom of expression. But I don't see why you find it hard it draw the line? The line is CP. I can't think (off the top of my head) of anything else that should be censored. I would even allow depictions of (adult) rape or murder, but that entirely depends on context. Have you seen the film Reversible? Censorship (in particular film censorship) is of great interest to me. But really to make that leap from banning cp to therefore banning murder-mystery novels and blockbusters? That isn't what I am saying. Is it that hard to see that cp has nothing to add culturally or artistically or intellectually to society? And freedom of expression is a means, not an end.
-
It is kind of pointless really, the people who argue that it should not be illegal to view CP present rational arguments, scientific studies and make perfect sense, and then the others come quoting debunked government propaganda that is only rightfully cited in papers on propaganda and statistics laundering, call anyone who disagrees with their misunderstanding of reality pedophiles and make complete asses of themselves to anyone with a brain. We really don't need to go through it anymore than once or twice before people can clearly see who makes sense and who has been completely brainwashed by government / media and/or thinks with their emotions instead of any rational reasoning.
So in a nutshell you want carte blanche to look at kids getting messed with without fear of getting nicked. Nice....
In a nutshell I think that it causes absolutely no ill effect if you look at pictures of anything. I once myself was not in favor of CP possession being decriminalized, but then I woke up one day and realized that all of the arguments for keeping it illegal are fucking retarded and based on lies concocted by people who have financial reasons to keep it illegal, and all of the arguments for it being legal to look at make perfect sense and are generally not coming out of the mouthes of people who seem to be borderline psychotic and/or fucking retarded. Seriously take a step back, you are in favor of making certain very large numbers illegal. From a strictly technical point of view it is just mind boggling absurd. What if you add +1 to the decimal representation of a CP picture? What if you split it up into a bunch of tiny numbers?? What if you encode it as a book with English words, should that book consisting of words that can then be translated to the picture be made iillegal? What if I change the word encoding program to use different words??? What if I use stego and hide CP in a movie? Or analyze a movie and see which pixels correlate to those in a CP image and then release a program that slices those pixels from the movie and reconstructs them into the CP image or a rough approximation of it? Do you want all digital content to be illegal?
From a practical perspective it doesn't make any sense either. The large majority of people who view CP are not child molesters, so their crime is entirely in looking at an image. What harm does that cause? I can not see this magic that so many seem convinced of, that looking at a series of colored pixels has an effect on the world outside of the electrical patterns in the brain of the viewer and components of the electronics used to transfer and display it. What is so wrong about that? it is no different than looking at a picture of a fucking lake or the holocaust. People who say otherwise are simply making shit up to justify their own opinions, it is as if I say "What you eat carrots?! That causes children to die! What the fuck is wrong with you you child murderer!" !! It is called a non-sequitur, it is a logical fallacy and it is more suited to propaganda than any rational argument.
Even in the fantasy world where looking at CP causes a rise in demand which in turn causes more children to be molested, there are steps that can be taken to entirely mask the demand for CP while still allowing it to be viewed. Ever heard of private information retrieval ? But of course nobody would even consider this, because their issue is not really with people viewing child porn leading to an increase in molestation, their issue is simply with people viewing child porn. They are demonized by the sensationalist media, they are made to be synonymous with child molesters despite the overwhelming evidence that the majority of them are not and they are hunted down by law enforcement and private industry which makes profits of billions of dollars a year in doing so. There are several dozen cases of falsified statistics which have been exposed from these groups.
It is really pointless to even mention these things, because the people who are against CP being legal to view are entirely emotional creatures or they have been brainwashed entirely by the media/government. Their views are empirically proven as wrong and it does not stop them from parroting the same debunked bullshit and peddling the same hogwash about magic processes or ignoring that even in the fantasy world they live in where they are correct about the facts, steps could be taken to completely ameliorate the risks they present, such as PIR to cryptographically mask demand.
I wish these people would at least stop acting like they are trying to save the children and instead admit that they are interested in
A. making profit
B. Attacking people who are harmless, but different from them in ways they can not tolerate
my only hope is that they are actually brainwashed and not entirely responsible for their complete lack of reason and blind entirely reasonless hatred.
-
everytime it ends in everyone arguing with kmfkewn when cp is mentioned ,i carnt be arsed reading your reasons for it not being bad its insane
1 good thing about the yank gov they do actually track there rich pedos in cambodia etc and get them proper time not pay a bribe and of u go,the other govs dont there was a program about it and a guy worth 50 mil from florida got tracked and niked in asia noncing kids and got a proper sentance
kmf are u a reg visitor to cambodia by any chance
even if most people who view it arnt molesters they must like seeeing kids being raped which makes it wrong and them a sick fukin wierdo
-
I do not think pictures of anything should be illegal to view. I of course think it should be illegal to molest children or to murder people etc. If looking at pictures causes you bad emotions I suggest that you make the personal choice of avoiding to look at those pictures, and give others the right to make their own choices. As long as your actions do not directly hurt another person then they should not be outlawed, and the only way that looking at a picture hurts a person is through some magic process called revictimization. You may as well try to convince me that it should be illegal to pray for bad things to happen to someone as it seems about as absurd to me as making it illegal to look at pictures of bad things happening to someone. DOING bad things to people should be illegal, you are not doing anything to someone by looking at a picture...for the picture to have been taken bad things must have already BEEN DONE.
1 good thing about the yank gov they do actually track there rich pedos in cambodia etc and get them proper time not pay a bribe and of u go,the other govs dont there was a program about it and a guy worth 50 mil from florida got tracked and niked in asia noncing kids and got a proper sentance
Yes that is fine and dandy I hope that they catch them all and send them to jail! But it is absolutely fucking insane to think that looking at the pictures produced by someone who goes to Cambodia and molests children, is just as bad as going to Cambodia to molest children! Molesting anyone is bad! Looking at any picture is not bad! There are not exceptions to be made in these cases, the world is really a very black and white place.
-
Be interesting to see what you thought if your children were molested Kmf, what would you say then? Would you be happy for the videos and/or images of Kmf Jnr being violated being thrown around the web for any sick fuck to jack off to? I'm not sure you'd be dancing to the same rhythm then or then again maybe there would be other reasons for this. Who knows?
-
The only naked pics of kids that should exist are baby pics, like the cute ones when you're in the sink or in the tub not in some photo studio smiling with a watermark on the bottom, that's just sick and morally wrong and you all know it. More importantly, these pictures are taken for one purpose and one purpose only, to view them in a perverted way. I do believe in pedophiles, the real pedophiles, you know the people that actually love children but don't molest them.
-
Be interesting to see what you thought if your children were molested Kmf, what would you say then? Would you be happy for the videos and/or images of Kmf Jnr being violated being thrown around the web for any sick fuck to jack off to? I'm not sure you'd be dancing to the same rhythm then or then again maybe there would be other reasons for this. Who knows?
I would certainly be a lot more angry at the person who molested my child, than at the people who saw pictures of it afterwards. Their act of seeing pictures makes my child no more or less molested , in fact it is not possible for it to have any additional effect on the child that was not caused already by the molester taking the pictures/videos and releasing them to the internet in the first place, unless the child takes an interest in being notified every time someone downloads a picture or video of them.
-
The only naked pics of kids that should exist are baby pics, like the cute ones when you're in the sink or in the tub not in some photo studio smiling with a watermark on the bottom, that's just sick and morally wrong and you all know it. More importantly, these pictures are taken for one purpose and one purpose only, to view them in a perverted way. I do believe in pedophiles, the real pedophiles, you know the people that actually love children but don't molest them.
Sure it is sick and morally wrong to put a child in such a position. It is sick and morally wrong to exterminate the Jews as well. It is not sick and morally wrong to look at the resulting pictures anymore than it is sick or morally wrong to look at the images of the holocaust. It is a strange and magical belief to think that the morality of the person who caused a picture to exist, is passed to the people who view the pictures. If you actually really believed that you would think yourself guilty of war crimes for having seen pictures of the results. The only way you can see that as less than a perfect analogy is by shutting down the part of your brain that deals with reason.
-
Be interesting to see what you thought if your children were molested Kmf, what would you say then? Would you be happy for the videos and/or images of Kmf Jnr being violated being thrown around the web for any sick fuck to jack off to? I'm not sure you'd be dancing to the same rhythm then or then again maybe there would be other reasons for this. Who knows?
I would certainly be a lot more angry at the person who molested my child, than at the people who saw pictures of it afterwards. Their act of seeing pictures makes my child no more or less molested , in fact it is not possible for it to have any additional effect on the child that was not caused already by the molester taking the pictures/videos and releasing them to the internet in the first place, unless the child takes an interest in being notified every time someone downloads a picture or video of them.
Lol then I feel sorry for your children if you ever have any. :)
-
Be interesting to see what you thought if your children were molested Kmf, what would you say then? Would you be happy for the videos and/or images of Kmf Jnr being violated being thrown around the web for any sick fuck to jack off to? I'm not sure you'd be dancing to the same rhythm then or then again maybe there would be other reasons for this. Who knows?
I would certainly be a lot more angry at the person who molested my child, than at the people who saw pictures of it afterwards. Their act of seeing pictures makes my child no more or less molested , in fact it is not possible for it to have any additional effect on the child that was not caused already by the molester taking the pictures/videos and releasing them to the internet in the first place, unless the child takes an interest in being notified every time someone downloads a picture or video of them.
Lol then I feel sorry for your children if you ever have any. :)
I feel sorry for my hypothetical children as well, they will grow up in a world controlled by and filled with stupid people. A child would be lucky to live in a world that respects freedom so much as to allow people to look at images of molestation as long as they do not engage in molestation themselves.
-
The US is too busy making money off the cartels and rebels in other countries.
Would it be out of fashion to say 'Fucking A right'? I believe if you look at the historical data that the Taliban almost had the poppy fields eradicated before the United States invaded to establish the petroleum pipeline for Unocal in western Afghanistan and took control of the poppy production. Look at Al-CIAduh and they have been involved with every level of the narcotics trade since their inception. It's not new news that multinationals use paramilitary groups to quash dissent and murder organizers of resistance and descent working conditions. That's how the whole fucking bullshit line about labor=communism got started. I give a separate kind of fuck about political systems than I do working conditions and a wage that will help me feed my family.
-
Be interesting to see what you thought if your children were molested Kmf, what would you say then? Would you be happy for the videos and/or images of Kmf Jnr being violated being thrown around the web for any sick fuck to jack off to? I'm not sure you'd be dancing to the same rhythm then or then again maybe there would be other reasons for this. Who knows?
I would certainly be a lot more angry at the person who molested my child, than at the people who saw pictures of it afterwards. Their act of seeing pictures makes my child no more or less molested , in fact it is not possible for it to have any additional effect on the child that was not caused already by the molester taking the pictures/videos and releasing them to the internet in the first place, unless the child takes an interest in being notified every time someone downloads a picture or video of them.
Lol then I feel sorry for your children if you ever have any. :)
I feel sorry for my hypothetical children as well, they will grow up in a world controlled by and filled with stupid people. A child would be lucky to live in a world that respects freedom so much as to allow people to look at images of molestation as long as they do not engage in molestation themselves.
If you say so sunshine. :)
-
kmf, I don't really want to argue but don't you think that your argument from the technical perspective of computers is extremely pointless and pedantic? If that type of argument is valid I could argue that murder shouldn't be illegal because what's really happening is an uncountable number of atoms are moving in a way that according to quantum physics is not entirely understood by modern science and if just one of those atoms decided to do something different the entire universe might have been changed and the reality that we saw when that person was murdered could be different.
I don't really have an opinion that is set in stone on this, but your argument just seems to ignore the other posters points, they're saying that if it portrays cp then it should be banned, it's as simple as that, and the number play behind displaying images on a screen are completely irrelevant to that in the end. your argument from a technical perspective doesn't seem like an actual response, it just shows that it would be difficult to enforce such a rule.
Your assertion that all of the people that disagree with you here are simply listening to government propaganda and aren't actually interested in seeing less children raped or molested is pretty groundless as well, I think that they'd all disagree.
edit: In the end someone was probably permanently psychologically scarred in those videos, that's my problem with them, I find your other arguments more convincing as, we portray murder constantly etc even though murder is illegal, as I said I don't really have a set opinion and try to keep an open mind on things.
The technical argument just shows that you want to make numbers illegal, and that you are not even sure exactly which numbers you want to be illegal, or how much I can add or subtract to an illegal number before it becomes legal. What if I multiply two illegal numbers together, is the resulting number illegal?? In a way you are trying to enforce something that can not even be defined. I actually hope that someone encodes a CP image into a sequence of English characters and publishes it as a book ! Then they can want to burn the books and that is a more fitting image of their mentality.
-
It is sick and morally wrong to exterminate the Jews as well.
Oh NO! I know you didn't!!! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
-
Hi guys, long time lurker...
In one of the articles I wrote for an Australian newspaper, I spoke to law enforcement and one of Australia's leading sex offender experts about this topic. I've had a blog written for it for a while (I blog at allthingsvice.wordpress.com) but haven't put it up for fear of people mistaking me for some sort of apologist. That's the LAST thing I am. But I'll reproduce it here for the SR community.
When researching my story The New Underbelly, I wound up, as you do, with reams of information, the vast majority of which didn’t make it to the article due to space constraints or because it wasn’t what my editor asked for.
I briefly quoted Dr Bill Glasner (and I hope I did not misrepresent him in any way) but our exchange was significantly longer and I’d like to share some things I learned about child porn and contact child sex offenders.
Now, of course, whilst I did visit many of the sites mentioned in my article – including some of the gateways to the child porn sites – I did not download any child abuse material, i.e. I did not view any pictures or videos. I have less than zero interest in seeing such stuff for journalism purposes or otherwise.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of gigabytes of child porn images (‘Lolita City alone hosts over 100gb). However, one thing I suspect from my research is that the majority of what I would have seen, had I investigated further would not have been what we normally consider “child porn” – i.e. children being subjected to sexual acts by predators – but would more likely be pictures of kids frolicking at the beach or playing in the bath.
I have little doubt that there is some porn of the most depraved kind. I saw links that purported to be to images of children being sexually abused or otherwise harmed. But I think this is a very small minority of what child porn users access.
I did witness some discussion boards which made me feel physically ill as people discussed children in terms I’ve only ever heard from the most derogatorily misogynist men talking about what they’d like to do with certain porn stars. It is what I saw in these chatrooms that led me to contact Dr Glasner – a clinical psychiatrist who is an expert in the field of sex offenders – to ask him about the effect of the availability of online forums and filesharing sites on child sex offenders – for example, does it normalise such behaviour, given that users of child porn can now be in contact with people ‘just like them’?
The TL;DR version of his advice and that of the Australian Institute of Criminology is:
• Most child porn users are ‘normal’ people who do not go on to actually offend against children but have deviant sexual fantasies.
• Those who talk in the most frightening and offensive way as I mentioned above are more likely NOT to be actual offenders, but are fantasising (much in the same way the vast majority of those who fantasise about rape do not go on to commit/subject themselves to rape).
• Most actual offenders do NOT use child porn, but rather turn innocent pictures into porn for their gratification
• Actual contact offenders are more likely to be a male member of the victim’s family and they are getting their jollies by looking at Facebook pics of kids at the beach or at underwear catalogues.
But so I’m not paraphrasing too much, here are Dr Glaser’s observations, in full, in his own words:
*** begin Dr Glaser ***
• Firstly, it looks like the traditional stereotype of the internet child-porn user doesn't hold up. E.g. some recent studies seem to show that many child porn users have reasonably OK relationships, are not desperate loners searching for approval/companionship and have reasonably effective non-sexual ways of dealing with "stress".
• Importantly, a substantial proportion of child-porn users (perhaps the majority) do NOT engage in contact sexual offending with children (although, of course, this finding should be interpreted with caution given the huge under-reporting of sexual assault of children)
• Just as importantly, offenders who only use child porn without going on to assault children seem to have a higher level of deviant sexual fantasies and an increased tendency to hold distorted views of children as sexual beings, compared to those offenders who actually assault kids. This finding is, of course, counter-intuitive at one level but at another level it makes sense: most males (and I apologise for my gender here) experience all sorts of bizarre and horrifying sexual fantasies at some stage but the majority do not act on them. In other words there really does seem to be a "disconnect" between sexual thoughts and sexual behaviours with no good correlation linking the two.
So, in terms of your questions:
• It might be possible that for some offenders, contact with other offenders over the internet could help to "normalise" and validate their experiences. After all, despite what I pointed out earlier, one would expect potential offenders who are not well-integrated into the community to seek out, and accept, moral approval for their The key question is: what is being normalised? Having deviant fantasies (in the same way as Star Trek characters and stories are normalised at a Star Trek convention, while everybody realises that they are still just fantasies)? Or acting on the behaviours depicted in the porn (which is, of course, much more sinister)?
• Contact with other offenders over the internet probably increases the use of internet and other child porn. Whether it increases the risk of sexual assaults on children is simply not known. My guess is that it probably does, simply because there are always going to be particularly nasty offenders who will use the internet to get ideas for their next assault and hook up with like-minded offenders. But of course, such offenders could also obtain recipes for offending just from the web-sites, without having to link up with other offenders.
• In terms of those using the internet, recent studies show (as you might expect) that offenders who stick solely to internet porn are better educated and have sometimes quite sophisticated computer skills. This raises the interesting question of how many offenders who (e.g.) assault children do NOT use internet porn. One observation that has been made repeatedly over the years is that child molesters are very good at creating porn out of seemingly harmless material e.g. underwear ads in magazines, pictures of kids in pyjamas in supermarket catalogues, and (chillingly enough) endless watching of certain children's movies ("Home Alone" seems to be a perennial favourite). The children depicted in this material are easily (in the offender's mind) made into the subject of deviant fantasy. This is why the Australia Institute condemned David Jones a few years ago for its "corporate paedophilia" for portraying subtly sexualised images of young girls in its kids' clothing catalogues. Perhaps, in this sense, we are all complicit in allowing/encouraging such images to become common-place ... my own view is that, overall, they probably do far more damage than frank child porn in terms of promoting exploitative views in our society of childhood sexuality.
*** end Dr Glaser ***
Dr Glaser’s views that stereotypes often do not hold true correspond with those of the Australian Institute of Criminology. In its paper ‘Misperceptions about child sex offenders’ the Institute states:
• not all child sex offenders are ‘paedophiles’. That is, child sex offenders are a heterogeneous group with varying offender profiles;
• children are usually abused by someone they know, although data suggest that strangers comprise nearly one in five perpetrators of child sexual abuse against males;
• not all child sex offenders have been victims of sexual abuse themselves and there are complex relationships between being a victim of child sexual abuse and becoming a perpetrator, which require further research. It is important to recognise that while many offenders report a history of being sexually abused, most victims of child sexual abuse do not become perpetrators later in life;
• while not all child sex offenders have high rates of recidivism, a specific subset—those who target extrafamilial male children—do frequently reoffend; and
• although it is difficult to accurately determine how many children a child sex offender has already offended against by the time he is detected for an offence, this number varies according to offending profiles and is unlikely to be as high as is commonly assumed. There is, however, a subset of extrafamilial male offenders who abuse high numbers of victims.
It all raises some interesting questions. Should someone who masturbates to the picture of a child in a bathtub be considered a criminal? What about the person who uploads that picture, knowing it will be used for sexual gratification? Are people still hysterical about ‘stranger danger’ when all the evidence shows that it is within their own families they should be looking for sex offenders?
-
Are people still hysterical about ‘stranger danger’ when all the evidence shows that it is within their own families they should be looking for sex offenders?
Precisely. Not enough attention is drawn to the fact that many time such behavior is the result of people acting out on latent or suppressed thoughts that develop as a result of unhealthy relationship. Or perhaps 'relationships' that get twisted by a lack of a sense of right or wrong.
-
I would certainly be a lot more angry at the person who molested my child, than at the people who saw pictures of it afterwards. Their act of seeing pictures makes my child no more or less molested , in fact it is not possible for it to have any additional effect on the child that was not caused already by the molester taking the pictures/videos and releasing them to the internet in the first place, unless the child takes an interest in being notified every time someone downloads a picture or video of them.
Lol then I feel sorry for your children if you ever have any. :)
I feel sorry for my hypothetical children as well, they will grow up in a world controlled by and filled with stupid people. A child would be lucky to live in a world that respects freedom so much as to allow people to look at images of molestation as long as they do not engage in molestation themselves.
[/quote][/quote]
Interesting, I completely understand your point of view and i can agree that the Looking at a picture does not make you guilty of what the picture is about. But, if we the majority of like minded people don't set the limits then there would be no limits. not allowing people to view something is not wrong. Its like not letting your child look at crazy shit when their minds are still developing. the same goes with sick fucks whose minds are twisted and will act on or mimic an act, based on a picture they saw. Our freedom gives us the freedom to not allow some things in this world not to be shared or freely seen. Some cant handle it, some can and will act on it. hurting those around them...developing pedo's who can easily get photos, over time will act out those images. If we could stop that we secure our freedom...
with that said, one can say that my point could be used in all bad vices man has...and this is true..but...! We as a society have developed limits, some are still way out there like looking at picture of torture, murder, beatings, doing drugs, drinking, etc etc..These may be frowned upon and perhaps you will be criticized by others and maybe even locked up but that doesn't cross the line like CP....
So i guess your ok to lift the rating system on movies, so young kids can go see rough sex porn and thinks that's fine. if we didn't sensor some things in this world our kids would grow up morally distorted
[/quote]
young kids can already see rough porn (and CP actually) online so I think rating systems are entirely pointless. That stuff is better enforced in family not by government or external society. Also there is a lot of scientific evidence that shows pedophiles with access to CP are less likely to molest children, for every paper you can cite that leans one way I can cite another going the other. I guess at that point you just need to look at the credentials of the people publishing.
-
kmf, I don't really want to argue but don't you think that your argument from the technical perspective of computers is extremely pointless and pedantic? If that type of argument is valid I could argue that murder shouldn't be illegal because what's really happening is an uncountable number of atoms are moving in a way that according to quantum physics is not entirely understood by modern science and if just one of those atoms decided to do something different the entire universe might have been changed and the reality that we saw when that person was murdered could be different.
I don't really have an opinion that is set in stone on this, but your argument just seems to ignore the other posters points, they're saying that if it portrays cp then it should be banned, it's as simple as that, and the number play behind displaying images on a screen are completely irrelevant to that in the end. your argument from a technical perspective doesn't seem like an actual response, it just shows that it would be difficult to enforce such a rule.
Your assertion that all of the people that disagree with you here are simply listening to government propaganda and aren't actually interested in seeing less children raped or molested is pretty groundless as well, I think that they'd all disagree.
edit: In the end someone was probably permanently psychologically scarred in those videos, that's my problem with them, I find your other arguments more convincing as, we portray murder constantly etc even though murder is illegal, as I said I don't really have a set opinion and try to keep an open mind on things.
The technical argument just shows that you want to make numbers illegal, and that you are not even sure exactly which numbers you want to be illegal, or how much I can add or subtract to an illegal number before it becomes legal. What if I multiply two illegal numbers together, is the resulting number illegal?? In a way you are trying to enforce something that can not even be defined. I actually hope that someone encodes a CP image into a sequence of English characters and publishes it as a book ! Then they can want to burn the books and that is a more fitting image of their mentality.
That's what I disagree about though, saying that a technical aspect of cp is what they want to illegalize is wrong, that's like saying they want to illegalize computer screens because that's what they used to show the images or if you want to go further we may as well start talking about the bad apples in the table of elements, only what those numbers are portraying matters in the end, if you multiplied those numbers together and they didn't show cp then no one would care, if you added 1 to one of the numbers and it showed a blank screen no one would care, if they continued to show cp then people would care.
edit: to ozfreelancer, I couldn't care less if they jack off to pictures of kids at the beach, it's just the psychological scarring of children involved in the videos that we're actually talking about here that I find abhorrent. In the end though it's a complex issue and I really have no idea what's right so I'll just quit posting now.
I personally agree I think everyone with /dev/urandom should be arrested if they keep getting output from it long enough ;)
-
If the Feds are concerned about SR they have another thing to worry about other than drugs....searching through Tor. there are sites dealing with all kinds of shit. the worst is those sick fuck pedophiles.
An glad the armory is gone too...But the news reported SR was selling drugs....big fucking deal! how come they didn't profile the pedophiles...Why because the reporter needed something to fill the slot..they can kiss my ass. personally i don't care what type of drug you do.. but messing with kids is sick..
The reason that reporters almost never deal with the pedos on the net is that they want to keep their asses out of jail. Any reporter who attempts to do any independent research for a story, risks going to jail. In 1999, NPR reporter Larry Matthews was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in jail for allegedly possessing child porn. Mr. Matthews was forbidden by the judge from using the fact that he was a reporter in his defence. He was forbidden by the judge from introducing into evidence that he had a long-standing track record of working on such stories. The jury never got to hear this.
anyway, just needed to vent. The US spends more time fucking with peaceful drug users. They don't need to worry about SR, but really, Look at the big picture, there is a lot of crazy stuff in deep web. we may be an easy target but, we are the least of the Governments problem. Just be careful and say not to Kids..
I wish we could have a site just for weed and shrooms and LSD. It would make my world wonderful... ::) ;D
Part of the reason that Silk Road is getting so much media attention is that it is NOT illegal for a reporter to visit this site, register and look around. It is NOT illegal for images of weed, shrooms, or other contraband goods to appear on their monitors. The same cannot be said for the child abuse images on the darknet. As soon as a child abuse image appears on a reporter's monitor, they are guilty of a criminal offence, and can be prosecuted, convicted and jailed, just as Larry Matthews was. That stuff is literally too hot to handle -- they risk going to prison -- is it any wonder they back off?
Guru
All this is true to a certain extent, but on the other had, believe me, most journalists would not want to look at CP sites, even if it was legal. And of course, an article based on hearsay doesn't carry as much weight as an article based on first-person research.
As it happens, people who have legitimate reasons to access such sites (e.g. special units of law enforcement and academics) can apply to be allowed to do so under strict guidelines. Apparently many people who have to do this research need psychological counseling for a long time afterwards.
-
If the Feds are concerned about SR they have another thing to worry about other than drugs....searching through Tor. there are sites dealing with all kinds of shit. the worst is those sick fuck pedophiles.
An glad the armory is gone too...But the news reported SR was selling drugs....big fucking deal! how come they didn't profile the pedophiles...Why because the reporter needed something to fill the slot..they can kiss my ass. personally i don't care what type of drug you do.. but messing with kids is sick..
The reason that reporters almost never deal with the pedos on the net is that they want to keep their asses out of jail. Any reporter who attempts to do any independent research for a story, risks going to jail. In 1999, NPR reporter Larry Matthews was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in jail for allegedly possessing child porn. Mr. Matthews was forbidden by the judge from using the fact that he was a reporter in his defence. He was forbidden by the judge from introducing into evidence that he had a long-standing track record of working on such stories. The jury never got to hear this.
anyway, just needed to vent. The US spends more time fucking with peaceful drug users. They don't need to worry about SR, but really, Look at the big picture, there is a lot of crazy stuff in deep web. we may be an easy target but, we are the least of the Governments problem. Just be careful and say not to Kids..
I wish we could have a site just for weed and shrooms and LSD. It would make my world wonderful... ::) ;D
Part of the reason that Silk Road is getting so much media attention is that it is NOT illegal for a reporter to visit this site, register and look around. It is NOT illegal for images of weed, shrooms, or other contraband goods to appear on their monitors. The same cannot be said for the child abuse images on the darknet. As soon as a child abuse image appears on a reporter's monitor, they are guilty of a criminal offence, and can be prosecuted, convicted and jailed, just as Larry Matthews was. That stuff is literally too hot to handle -- they risk going to prison -- is it any wonder they back off?
Guru
All this is true to a certain extent, but on the other had, believe me, most journalists would not want to look at CP sites, even if it was legal. And of course, an article based on hearsay doesn't carry as much weight as an article based on first-person research.
As it happens, people who have legitimate reasons to access such sites (e.g. special units of law enforcement and academics) can apply to be allowed to do so under strict guidelines. Apparently many people who have to do this research need psychological counseling for a long time afterwards.
I hope that anyone who needs psychological counseling after seeing pictures of naked kids gets it.....
but seriously some CP is fucking horrible and other is barely even on my giving a fuck at all scale , of course though it doesn't make much of a difference since CP is CP. Anybody who looks at a porn site that allows image uploading is going to see CP and in many cases not even know it (and LE generally will not give a fuck) , but if someone goes to a site that has the same images and is named pedo.com then they will get raided and be fucked. Look at all these people here who have seen CP on 4chan or anywhere else, every one of them is guilty under the law for having CP in their web caches or having seen it and they still think that they are somehow special and that these laws are good?
-
Lol that's just the bullshit pussy option, once someone uses or consumes CP in a serial fashion then they should be marked for death as soon as they are caught.
-
Lol that's just the bullshit pussy option, once someone uses or consumes CP in a serial fashion then they should be marked for death as soon as they are caught.
why? In the spirit of killing ? At least when I say people should be killed I have good reason.
-
Lol that's just the bullshit pussy option, once someone uses or consumes CP in a serial fashion then they should be marked for death as soon as they are caught.
why? In the spirit of killing ? At least when I say people should be killed I have good reason.
What you mean the rants you have that make SR look shit when really your pseudo-anarchic bullshit just smacks of wanting free reign to jack off to pics of little Petey getting fisted for his 5th birthday?
-
Lol that's just the bullshit pussy option, once someone uses or consumes CP in a serial fashion then they should be marked for death as soon as they are caught.
why? In the spirit of killing ? At least when I say people should be killed I have good reason.
What you mean the rants you have that make SR look shit when really your pseudo-anarchic bullshit just smacks of wanting free reign to jack off to pics of little Petey getting fisted for his 5th birthday?
I can barely parse that, would you like to try again?
-
Lol that's just the bullshit pussy option, once someone uses or consumes CP in a serial fashion then they should be marked for death as soon as they are caught.
why? In the spirit of killing ? At least when I say people should be killed I have good reason.
What you mean the rants you have that make SR look shit when really your pseudo-anarchic bullshit just smacks of wanting free reign to jack off to pics of little Petey getting fisted for his 5th birthday?
I can barely parse that, would you like to try again?
"What, you mean the rants you have that make SR look like shit? When really, your pseudo-anarchic bullshit just smacks of wanting free reign to jack off to pics of (cp)?"
I believe that should help.
-
Lol that's just the bullshit pussy option, once someone uses or consumes CP in a serial fashion then they should be marked for death as soon as they are caught.
why? In the spirit of killing ? At least when I say people should be killed I have good reason.
What you mean the rants you have that make SR look shit when really your pseudo-anarchic bullshit just smacks of wanting free reign to jack off to pics of little Petey getting fisted for his 5th birthday?
I can barely parse that, would you like to try again?
"What, you mean the rants you have that make SR look like shit? When really, your pseudo-anarchic bullshit just smacks of wanting free reign to jack off to pics of (cp)?"
I believe that should help.
Ah that helps somewhat. I did not realize that my opinions were so synonymous with SR , or that they reflected on SR in anyway actually. In fact I am sure there are plenty of individuals here who would love to speak on behalf of the community in telling me that I am completely fucking insane , and that my opinions are radically different from the opinions in the consensuses they have taken.
That said I am not particularly interested in pictures of Petey getting fisted, but if someone else is I certainly do not see that as reason to harm them , or even as a particularly big deal all , although in an academic sense it is rather interesting I guess 0_0 . Huh I wonder why someone could get off to pictures of a 5 year old being fisted. I sure don't see the attraction there! But so fucking what as long as they are not fisting five year olds it is really none of my business I guess :/
-
I think a lot more research needs to be done into the relationship between cp and whether it does fuel people to commit crimes IRL. I read an article a while back about a woman who was petitioning to have S&M and similar fetish porn made illegal, because her daughter was murdered by a man who had a bit of an obsession with porn containing violent/non-consensual kinks. IMO, this was utterly ridiculous, there are plenty of consenting adults within various fetish communities who can happily watch "violent" porn without progressing to committing crimes. *Presumably*, there are many paedophiles are in a similar position. However, there is a massive difference between cp and other fetish porn - namely, age and consent of participants.
The type of research you're proposing is NEVER going to be conducted, believe me. In the view of the authorities, they already know the answer -- there isn't any need of research.
Hi Guru,
What do you consider the opinions of the authority to be on such research? It could be implied two ways - either they don't care for research because they're guilty of listening to their own propaganda, or they know their propaganda is flawed but refuse to consider proper research on the topic because "think of the children!" is such a good tool for keeping societies in check?
If cp shared in the forms of fictional literature, drawings, computer generated images or anything else created without harming children in the slightest, then I don't see a problem with it. I may not like it or approve of it, but it's not harming anyone.
That may be the case, but people are still being prosecuted and threatened with prison sentences, if convicted. The types of materials you have outlined are all illegal in Canada, and mere possession will earn you a mandatory two-year jail sentence. In the United States, despite the First Amendment, there is at least one case I have heard of where a Minnesota man, one Frank McCoy, was prosecuted for 'obscenity', specifically writing fictional stories which were posted to a number of Internet story sharing sites. Although he lives in Minnesota, the government was unable to get a judge to accept the case there. The Feds went both jurisdiction-shopping as well as judge-shopping, trying again in one of the most conservative regions of one of the most conservative states in the Union, Georgia. McCoy was tried in January 2010, and the verdict is still pending.
Oh yes, I agree wholeheartedly - I read about the guy who had his laptop seized going into Canada because he had anime/manga on his hdd and they considered it to be cp :rolleyes:
I am shocked about the other story you mentioned though, I hadn't heard that one.
-
Hi guys, long time lurker...
In one of the articles I wrote for an Australian newspaper, I spoke to law enforcement and one of Australia's leading sex offender experts about this topic. I've had a blog written for it for a while (I blog at allthingsvice.wordpress.com) but haven't put it up for fear of people mistaking me for some sort of apologist. That's the LAST thing I am. But I'll reproduce it here for the SR community.
When researching my story The New Underbelly, I wound up, as you do, with reams of information, the vast majority of which didn’t make it to the article due to space constraints or because it wasn’t what my editor asked for.
I briefly quoted Dr Bill Glasner (and I hope I did not misrepresent him in any way) but our exchange was significantly longer and I’d like to share some things I learned about child porn and contact child sex offenders.
Now, of course, whilst I did visit many of the sites mentioned in my article – including some of the gateways to the child porn sites – I did not download any child abuse material, i.e. I did not view any pictures or videos. I have less than zero interest in seeing such stuff for journalism purposes or otherwise.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of gigabytes of child porn images (‘Lolita City alone hosts over 100gb). However, one thing I suspect from my research is that the majority of what I would have seen, had I investigated further would not have been what we normally consider “child porn” – i.e. children being subjected to sexual acts by predators – but would more likely be pictures of kids frolicking at the beach or playing in the bath.
I have little doubt that there is some porn of the most depraved kind. I saw links that purported to be to images of children being sexually abused or otherwise harmed. But I think this is a very small minority of what child porn users access.
I did witness some discussion boards which made me feel physically ill as people discussed children in terms I’ve only ever heard from the most derogatorily misogynist men talking about what they’d like to do with certain porn stars. It is what I saw in these chatrooms that led me to contact Dr Glasner – a clinical psychiatrist who is an expert in the field of sex offenders – to ask him about the effect of the availability of online forums and filesharing sites on child sex offenders – for example, does it normalise such behaviour, given that users of child porn can now be in contact with people ‘just like them’?
The TL;DR version of his advice and that of the Australian Institute of Criminology is:
• Most child porn users are ‘normal’ people who do not go on to actually offend against children but have deviant sexual fantasies.
• Those who talk in the most frightening and offensive way as I mentioned above are more likely NOT to be actual offenders, but are fantasising (much in the same way the vast majority of those who fantasise about rape do not go on to commit/subject themselves to rape).
• Most actual offenders do NOT use child porn, but rather turn innocent pictures into porn for their gratification
• Actual contact offenders are more likely to be a male member of the victim’s family and they are getting their jollies by looking at Facebook pics of kids at the beach or at underwear catalogues.
But so I’m not paraphrasing too much, here are Dr Glaser’s observations, in full, in his own words:
*** begin Dr Glaser ***
• Firstly, it looks like the traditional stereotype of the internet child-porn user doesn't hold up. E.g. some recent studies seem to show that many child porn users have reasonably OK relationships, are not desperate loners searching for approval/companionship and have reasonably effective non-sexual ways of dealing with "stress".
• Importantly, a substantial proportion of child-porn users (perhaps the majority) do NOT engage in contact sexual offending with children (although, of course, this finding should be interpreted with caution given the huge under-reporting of sexual assault of children)
• Just as importantly, offenders who only use child porn without going on to assault children seem to have a higher level of deviant sexual fantasies and an increased tendency to hold distorted views of children as sexual beings, compared to those offenders who actually assault kids. This finding is, of course, counter-intuitive at one level but at another level it makes sense: most males (and I apologise for my gender here) experience all sorts of bizarre and horrifying sexual fantasies at some stage but the majority do not act on them. In other words there really does seem to be a "disconnect" between sexual thoughts and sexual behaviours with no good correlation linking the two.
So, in terms of your questions:
• It might be possible that for some offenders, contact with other offenders over the internet could help to "normalise" and validate their experiences. After all, despite what I pointed out earlier, one would expect potential offenders who are not well-integrated into the community to seek out, and accept, moral approval for their The key question is: what is being normalised? Having deviant fantasies (in the same way as Star Trek characters and stories are normalised at a Star Trek convention, while everybody realises that they are still just fantasies)? Or acting on the behaviours depicted in the porn (which is, of course, much more sinister)?
• Contact with other offenders over the internet probably increases the use of internet and other child porn. Whether it increases the risk of sexual assaults on children is simply not known. My guess is that it probably does, simply because there are always going to be particularly nasty offenders who will use the internet to get ideas for their next assault and hook up with like-minded offenders. But of course, such offenders could also obtain recipes for offending just from the web-sites, without having to link up with other offenders.
• In terms of those using the internet, recent studies show (as you might expect) that offenders who stick solely to internet porn are better educated and have sometimes quite sophisticated computer skills. This raises the interesting question of how many offenders who (e.g.) assault children do NOT use internet porn. One observation that has been made repeatedly over the years is that child molesters are very good at creating porn out of seemingly harmless material e.g. underwear ads in magazines, pictures of kids in pyjamas in supermarket catalogues, and (chillingly enough) endless watching of certain children's movies ("Home Alone" seems to be a perennial favourite). The children depicted in this material are easily (in the offender's mind) made into the subject of deviant fantasy. This is why the Australia Institute condemned David Jones a few years ago for its "corporate paedophilia" for portraying subtly sexualised images of young girls in its kids' clothing catalogues. Perhaps, in this sense, we are all complicit in allowing/encouraging such images to become common-place ... my own view is that, overall, they probably do far more damage than frank child porn in terms of promoting exploitative views in our society of childhood sexuality.
*** end Dr Glaser ***
Dr Glaser’s views that stereotypes often do not hold true correspond with those of the Australian Institute of Criminology. In its paper ‘Misperceptions about child sex offenders’ the Institute states:
• not all child sex offenders are ‘paedophiles’. That is, child sex offenders are a heterogeneous group with varying offender profiles;
• children are usually abused by someone they know, although data suggest that strangers comprise nearly one in five perpetrators of child sexual abuse against males;
• not all child sex offenders have been victims of sexual abuse themselves and there are complex relationships between being a victim of child sexual abuse and becoming a perpetrator, which require further research. It is important to recognise that while many offenders report a history of being sexually abused, most victims of child sexual abuse do not become perpetrators later in life;
• while not all child sex offenders have high rates of recidivism, a specific subset—those who target extrafamilial male children—do frequently reoffend; and
• although it is difficult to accurately determine how many children a child sex offender has already offended against by the time he is detected for an offence, this number varies according to offending profiles and is unlikely to be as high as is commonly assumed. There is, however, a subset of extrafamilial male offenders who abuse high numbers of victims.
It all raises some interesting questions. Should someone who masturbates to the picture of a child in a bathtub be considered a criminal? What about the person who uploads that picture, knowing it will be used for sexual gratification? Are people still hysterical about ‘stranger danger’ when all the evidence shows that it is within their own families they should be looking for sex offenders?
Just wanted to say a massive thank you for adding an independent, objective and informative post to this discussion. I would +karma you several times over if I could!
One point that stood out to me that I found very interesting, was "not all child molesters are paedophiles". I always presumed that "not all paedophiles are child molesters" in the same way that "not all furries are animal abusers", but I'd never considered it the other way around. Child molestation and paedophilia go hand-in-hand where the media and propaganda are concerned, they make it impossible to distinguish between the two.
-
only impossible for the simple creatures to distinguish ;)
-
And the idea of allowing pornographic drawings, writings etc involving children is abhorrent in a civilized society. We don't allow these things because we don't allow the people who do such things, to live amongst us. It isn't and shouldn't be tolerated in any form.
It may be abhorrent to you (and me, for that matter), but being offended by it isn't a reason to make it illegal.
Using your logic, all art/literature containing depictions of murder are illegal. We don't allow fictitious murder, because we don't allow the people who do such things to live amongst us. How about depictions of rape/torture/violent attacks? (I guess there's going to be a lot less murder-mystery novels and blockbusters coming out). How about assault/kidnapping/armed robbery/theft/drug use/drunk driving/jaywalking, where do you draw the line? Freedom of expression exists for a reason. Ultimately, it's not harming anyone, so there's no reason for any government involvement.
I do believe in the ideal of freedom of expression. But I don't see why you find it hard it draw the line? The line is CP. I can't think (off the top of my head) of anything else that should be censored. I would even allow depictions of (adult) rape or murder, but that entirely depends on context. Have you seen the film Reversible? Censorship (in particular film censorship) is of great interest to me. But really to make that leap from banning cp to therefore banning murder-mystery novels and blockbusters? That isn't what I am saying. Is it that hard to see that cp has nothing to add culturally or artistically or intellectually to society? And freedom of expression is a means, not an end.
Perhaps I find it difficult to draw the line because I'm trying to be objective and non-judgemental. I realise it's hard to do this without looking like an apologist. Ultimately, it's one of the most emotional topics that can be discussed and emotions are bound to be heightened, but unfortunately emotions cloud judgement.
The problem with "drawing the line" is that it's based entirely on your own feelings and opinions and not on "what is right/fair". Ultimately, if an action does not harm any person, then that action does not need to be made illegal. I'd consider that to be a fair, rational and logical statement.
Giving governments the power to determine what should/shouldn't be illegal is what has lead us to the slippery slope we're on today - scare tactics in the media, loss of liberties, loss of privacy, loss of personal freedoms, etc. Governments are corrupt creatures that will weasel their way into society, offering rainbows and joy to the people in one hand, while slapping on shackles and manacles with the other. When governments get involved, "making the leap" from cp to blockbusters isn't such a gigantic leap - I don't know about you, but here in the UK we've already had a few ridiculous stories of photographers being hounded by police or arrested for possessing innocent photographs of children, even photographers who have taken school photos have been subject to ridiculous measures such as blanking out the faces of certain children in copies of anyone's photos but the parents of the child in question! There are plenty of ridiculous stories like these floating around. How about children/early teens who are being investigated for "distributing cp" because they were "sexting" nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends/girlfriends?
Additionally, you say that cp has nothing to add culturally, artistically or intellectually to society - I'd wholeheartedly disagree. Bear in mind that with that statement, I am referencing fictitious drawings and literature, NOT images of real child abuse. How about the novel "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov? "Lost Girls" by Alan Moore? There are probably many others, but I'm afraid it's a topic i'm not well-versed in.
-
Why do you need to look at CP if you aren't a nonce? What need would there be for it?
Look at the case of Larry Matthews, that I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Given the current laws, it is literally impossible for a reporter (or academic researcher) to conduct direct research into topics such as child pornography. The press is supposed to be the watchdog that keeps the authorities in line. If the press are forbidden to conduct research into claims made by the authorities, what is stopping the authorities from exaggerating the prevalence of the problem?
Debbie Nathan is an author and researcher who, in the late 1980s, researched and wrote some of the first stories about people falsely convicted of child sexual abuse as part of the "Satanic panic" that convulsed daycares in both the United States and Britain at that time. People were convicted of child abuse on the basis of the flimsiest, most outrageous 'evidence' ever introduced into a courtroom. As author and researcher Debbie Nathan said in a Salon article, "Why I Need To See Child Porn":
"...That leaves law-enforcement officials and politicians free to say whatever they want about the prevalence and content of images deemed child pornography, with virtually no way for the public to test claims,”
Guru
+1 for another awesome point made. Another one of those times that I wish I could give karma :)
-
Additionally, you say that cp has nothing to add culturally, artistically or intellectually to society - I'd wholeheartedly disagree. Bear in mind that with that statement, I am referencing fictitious drawings and literature, NOT images of real child abuse. How about the novel "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov? "Lost Girls" by Alan Moore? There are probably many others, but I'm afraid it's a topic i'm not well-versed in.
Bear in mind, you're relating child pornography to works of literature and art. Actual culturally significant works of literature and art, no less. Child PORNOGRAPHY(all caps for emphasis) is not literature. It is not art. It is photographic evidence of the sexual abuse of a creature too underdeveloped to even protect itself.
What I find bothers me most about your statement is the fact that you related something innocent to something horrid, and called them the "same"(you called them all CP).
-
kmfkewm you are one sick fuck. All I get from your posts is its OK to look, not touch. There is no difference.
The simple fact people look for/at CP creates a demand, and with that $ to be made. In the process of meeting that demand for photos/videos, children are being hurt.
Or is that the view of a mere simpleton.
-
Additionally, you say that cp has nothing to add culturally, artistically or intellectually to society - I'd wholeheartedly disagree. Bear in mind that with that statement, I am referencing fictitious drawings and literature, NOT images of real child abuse. How about the novel "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov? "Lost Girls" by Alan Moore? There are probably many others, but I'm afraid it's a topic i'm not well-versed in.
Bear in mind, you're relating child pornography to works of literature and art. Actual culturally significant works of literature and art, no less. Child PORNOGRAPHY(all caps for emphasis) is not literature. It is not art. It is photographic evidence of the sexual abuse of a creature too underdeveloped to even protect itself.
What I find bothers me most about your statement is the fact that you related something innocent to something horrid, and called them the "same"(you called them all CP).
But that's the point - I know I've certainly heard the novel "Lolita" referred to as "child pornography" in the same way that I've heard Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" referred to as the same. Both depict, either through writing or drawing, fictitious examples of child abuse. How do you define what is a work of literature or art, and what is simply porn? I wouldn't consider either of my examples to be "child pornography", but there are people who do. My intention wasn't to "call them all the same", but to point out that to many people, whether it's a story, a drawing or a photo, it's all cp (even the stuff with artistic merit).
Additionally, I did mention that I was referring solely to fictitious art/literature and NOT "photographic evidence of sexual abuse". I've already stated my opinions on that earlier in the thread, but just to clarify further, I disagree with kmfkewm's carte blanche approach, I think any *ACTUAL* images of child abuse should be illegal.
-
kmfkewm you are one sick fuck. All I get from your posts is its OK to look, not touch. There is no difference.
The simple fact people look for/at CP creates a demand, and with that $ to be made. In the process of meeting that demand for photos/videos, children are being hurt.
Or is that the view of a mere simpleton.
It is clearly the view of someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and has done absolutely no research into trying to have an idea, yes
-
kmfkewm you are one sick fuck. All I get from your posts is its OK to look, not touch. There is no difference.
The simple fact people look for/at CP creates a demand, and with that $ to be made. In the process of meeting that demand for photos/videos, children are being hurt.
Or is that the view of a mere simpleton.
It is clearly the view of someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and has done absolutely no research into trying to have an idea, yes
And this is clearly the attitude of someone who never sets foot outside of his bedroom.
-
kmfkewm you are one sick fuck. All I get from your posts is its OK to look, not touch. There is no difference.
The simple fact people look for/at CP creates a demand, and with that $ to be made. In the process of meeting that demand for photos/videos, children are being hurt.
Or is that the view of a mere simpleton.
It is clearly the view of someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and has done absolutely no research into trying to have an idea, yes
And this is clearly the attitude of someone who never sets foot outside of his bedroom.
And this is clearly the attitude of someone who takes it up the ass on a regular basis?
-
kmfkewm you are one sick fuck. All I get from your posts is its OK to look, not touch. There is no difference.
The simple fact people look for/at CP creates a demand, and with that $ to be made. In the process of meeting that demand for photos/videos, children are being hurt.
Or is that the view of a mere simpleton.
It is clearly the view of someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and has done absolutely no research into trying to have an idea, yes
And this is clearly the attitude of someone who never sets foot outside of his bedroom.
And this is clearly the attitude of someone who takes it up the ass on a regular basis?
Not your usual standard Kmf, I'm disappointed. Anyway I think we shall finish here because yet again you have proved that you can dish it out but can't take it. I'll leave you to it, I'm sure you have a busy day perusing the darker side of the freeweb. :)
-
kmf - can you give a yes or no answer to the following questions, because you dance around the subject every time it crops up, yet every time it does crop up you are one of the first replies on it. your replies are more vague than a fucking shrink:
do you personally think looking at CP is wrong?
do you personally think creating CP is wrong?
-
kmfkewm you are one sick fuck. All I get from your posts is its OK to look, not touch. There is no difference.
The simple fact people look for/at CP creates a demand, and with that $ to be made. In the process of meeting that demand for photos/videos, children are being hurt.
Or is that the view of a mere simpleton.
It is clearly the view of someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and has done absolutely no research into trying to have an idea, yes
And this is clearly the attitude of someone who never sets foot outside of his bedroom.
And this is clearly the attitude of someone who takes it up the ass on a regular basis?
Not your usual standard Kmf, I'm disappointed. Anyway I think we shall finish here because yet again you have proved that you can dish it out but can't take it. I'll leave you to it, I'm sure you have a busy day perusing the darker side of the freeweb. :)
So really, it's Kmf who has the attitude of someone taking it on a regular basis?
-
kmf - can you give a yes or no answer to the following questions, because you dance around the subject every time it crops up, yet every time it does crop up you are one of the first replies on it. your replies are more vague than a fucking shrink:
do you personally think looking at CP is wrong?
do you personally think creating CP is wrong?
I am unsure if you are somehow unable to determine my views on these things despite my attempts to be very clear , or if you are putting on a sarcastic facade by demonstrating a humorous lack of awareness of my opinions as a means of emphasizing that you think I am overly persistent in making them known? But in either case, I will say now and for the record that I do not personally think looking at CP is wrong, and do think that creating (a lot of things people call) CP is wrong.
Limetless I was not dishing out or taking anything I just thought that we must be playing some game of escalation, because otherwise your ramblings made no sense to me?
-
Limetless I was not dishing out or taking anything I just thought that we must be playing some game of escalation, because otherwise your ramblings made no sense to me?
Really are you sure? It seems that you are quite happy to hit out but when anyone disagrees or hits back you revert to "Oh you can't be right because of my higher plane of intelligence" or just blunt sarcasm. It's fairly amusing really and atypical of a bedroom king. :)
Anyway we shall leave it at that, like I said I'm sure you have pictures of abused children to analyze for their anarchic integrity. :)
-
kmfkewm you are one sick fuck. All I get from your posts is its OK to look, not touch. There is no difference.
The simple fact people look for/at CP creates a demand, and with that $ to be made. In the process of meeting that demand for photos/videos, children are being hurt.
Or is that the view of a mere simpleton.
It is clearly the view of someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and has done absolutely no research into trying to have an idea, yes
Its clear to everyone that has followed your posts on this subject, that you have issues, and obviously view CP yourself. All your posts seem to scream the same thing.. its OK to look, but not touch. Making those photos for people like yourself to look at, hurts children. How is it you don't understand this?
Whatever respect you had here, is fading as you continue to post your sick opinions.
I hope you get hit by a bus :)
-
kmf - can you give a yes or no answer to the following questions, because you dance around the subject every time it crops up, yet every time it does crop up you are one of the first replies on it. your replies are more vague than a fucking shrink:
do you personally think looking at CP is wrong?
do you personally think creating CP is wrong?
But in either case, I will say now and for the record that I do not personally think looking at CP is wrong, and do think that creating (a lot of things people call) CP is wrong.
thank you. thats clear enough for me. i don't understand how you can think one is wrong but not the other, but that has cleared up any uncertain thoughts i had about you, and i will not bother you on the subject again.
-
Must have been that cogna.... cognit.... oh never mind.
How you justify one without the other is clearly beyond me.
-
kmf - can you give a yes or no answer to the following questions, because you dance around the subject every time it crops up, yet every time it does crop up you are one of the first replies on it. your replies are more vague than a fucking shrink:
do you personally think looking at CP is wrong?
do you personally think creating CP is wrong?
But in either case, I will say now and for the record that I do not personally think looking at CP is wrong, and do think that creating (a lot of things people call) CP is wrong.
thank you. thats clear enough for me. i don't understand how you can think one is wrong but not the other, but that has cleared up any uncertain thoughts i had about you, and i will not bother you on the subject again.
Likewise I do not understand how you can equate looking at a picture to doing what is in a picture, thankfully I know you do not actually think this way otherwise you would be turning yourself in to the Hague to be tried for war crimes, so really I don't understand the general inconsistency in your logic. Well actually I imagine that most of it stems from propaganda infused into your brain through sensationalist media and the think of the children screams of the police agencies and other profiteers of the slave trade.
-
Lol that sounds like Nonce speak for "You are wrong to think my sexual preference to jack off over the images of kids being abused is bad and this way I feel better about my life" if I ever heard it.
-
i said i wouldn't bother you on the subject again but seeing as your feeble twisted little brain has attempted to insult me for my views while trying to justify your own twisted views...
my logic is as consistent as it can be - the only tough stance i have on anything is hurting others - if you do not hurt others do what the fuck you like. CP is hurting others, viewing CP is hurting others - if no one wanted to see it, no one would get hurt in the making of it. no childrens lives would be ruined for some sick fucks cheap thrills. which part of that logic is your warped brain having trouble understanding?
there is no middle ground for CP - you either condone it or condemn it in its entirety, and i don't think there is anyone on this entire forum that has a different view on this. apart from you of course. and seeing as you've freely admitted you don't think there's anything wrong with looking at it, you clearly are a nonce.
i don't wish death upon you, i just hope someone rapes you and take pictures of it to upload, so other sick cunts on the internet can get their kicks from watching you getting raped.
-
Really what I prefer to jack off to is completely irrelevant to any argument I have made. That said please enjoy your witch hunts. Also I would not need to feel any worry if I were into CP, even the NSA would have trouble to locate someone who used spoofed mac random WiFi access points for short periods of time + Tor + avoided positioning attacks by not carrying phones or using a car. I could collect a trillion terabytes of CP without any of it being possible to link to me unless I was the target of a completely unprecedented operation close to what intelligence agencies would hope to do if they tried their best. However, I have no interest in collecting terabytes of CP.. but I think it pretty much goes to show that fear of being apprehended for CP is not why I think CP should be legal to view. FBI can't even trace hidden services who the fuck is worried about them (<_<)
-
i said i wouldn't bother you on the subject again but seeing as your feeble twisted little brain has attempted to insult me for my views while trying to justify your own twisted views...
my logic is as consistent as it can be - the only tough stance i have on anything is hurting others - if you do not hurt others do what the fuck you like. CP is hurting others, viewing CP is hurting others - if no one wanted to see it, no one would get hurt in the making of it. no childrens lives would be ruined for some sick fucks cheap thrills. which part of that logic is your warped brain having trouble understanding?
there is no middle ground for CP - you either condone it or condemn it in its entirety, and i don't think there is anyone on this entire forum that has a different view on this. apart from you of course. and seeing as you've freely admitted you don't think there's anything wrong with looking at it, you clearly are a nonce.
i don't wish death upon you, i just hope someone rapes you and take pictures of it to upload, so other sick cunts on the internet can get their kicks from watching you getting raped.
yes if only there was not a demand for pictures of poverty we would all be rich. It is too bad that cameras or photography were invented in the first place, I think they may just be the source of humanities problems.
-
Oh my days.....You clearly have interest in CP otherwise you wouldn't defend it would you.....You are a fucking nonse cunt. I'm not gonna start with any intellectual crap chat, it's plain for everyone here to see you are a piece of shit kmf.......I'm sure you will try to come back with some pithy, 'I'm smarter than you', sarcastic come back but we all know you're a cunt and would clearly get murked if you ever left your bedroom chattin like that! ;)
-
Oh my days.....You clearly have interest in CP otherwise you wouldn't defend it would you.....You are a fucking nonse cunt. I'm not gonna start with any intellectual crap chat, it's plain for everyone here to see you are a piece of shit kmf.......I'm sure you will try to come back with some pithy, 'I'm smarter than you', sarcastic come back but we all know you're a cunt and would clearly get murked if you ever left your bedroom chattin like that! ;)
Yes I think that it is plain to see who is right and who is wrong , it is too bad that those who can see right from wrong are in the minority. Also I highly doubt I would get murked leaving my bedroom talking like this very many random people in my general social experiences seem to have quite similar opinions as mine. Maybe we are just in different demographics
-
yeah well nonces tend to stick together don't they...
-
Your cruel device
your blood, like ice
One look, could kill
My pain, your thrill
I want to love you but I better not touch (don?t touch)
I want to hold you, but my senses tell me to stop
I want to kiss you but I want it too much (too much)
I want to taste you but your lips are venomous poison
You're poison, running through my veins
Poison
I don't want to break these chains
Your mouth, so hot
Your web, I'm caught
Your skin, so wet
Black lace, on sweat
I hear you calling and it's needles and pins (and pins)
I want to hurt you just to hear you screaming my name
Don't want to touch you but you're under my skin (deep in)
I want to taste you but your lips are venomous poison
You're poison, running through my veins
Poison
I don't want to break these chains
Poison...
(guitar solo)
One look, could kill
My pain, your thrill
I want to love you but I better not touch (don?t touch)
I want to hold you, but my senses tell me to stop
I want to kiss you but I want it too much (to much)
I want to taste you but your lips are venomous poison
You're poison, running through my veins
Poison
I don't want to break these chains
Poison (Poi-son)
I want to love you but I better not touch (don?t touch)
I want to hold you, but my senses tell me to stop
I want to kiss you but I want it too much (too much)
I want to taste you but your lips are venomous poison
Yeah
Well I don't want to break these chains
Poison
Runnin' deep inside my veins
Burnin' deep inside my brain
Poison
And I don't want to break these chains
Poison
Ok not exactly the topic but with a bit fantasy you can feel the helplessness of people that NEED to do things they just know they must not do.
What is Alice Cooper referring to? Heroin? A Girl? CP?
on topic:
I am a sick motherfucker I saw all kind of weird things and searched for them, too. But I have my reasons I never click CP or murder scenes anymore. (they make me sick, like watching the movie Precious I never will watch this movie again.) I just dont want to support them.
Everyone for his own, I have the free will to choose, maybe some others dont have the choice. I dont care.
to KMFKEWM directly:
you dont have to act this provocative on this sensible theme. The more I read your posts the more I get the feeling you just have fun provocating and try to let others feel you are better in writing, thinking and basicly in everything you do. Its a shame... and makes me sad.
I bet you dont have childs, do you? Oh I hope you have none.
-
yes, of course, a quote from a random nobody has made me see the error of my ways! now i see - OF COURSE it's perfectly acceptable to view images of innocent children be molested and fucking warped for life, so long as you don't make the images yourself you're not doing anything wrong, morally or legally. you're not supporting it in any way. in fact i might download some for my friends and i to have a good giggle at over a couple of beers.
jesus fucking christ
-
Why do you need to look at CP if you aren't a nonce? What need would there be for it?
What does being a number used once have to do with CP? Anyway, I don't have to look at CP, and I actually refrain from doing so as I find it to either be extremely pointless to look at even if it is not disgusting and doesn't strike me as particularly offensive, or in many cases entirely disgusting and upsetting. That said, I really couldn't give a fuck less what other people look at and I find it to be rather troubling that so many people give so much of a fuck about what others look at. There is clearly no magic re-victimization process, nobody who is victimized in the making of CP would necessarily even know that people were looking at it if the police didn't tell them every time they bust someone, if you believe the highly dubious claim that people looking at CP fuels the CP market through demand then there are PIR systems that can cryptographically hide the demand, etc. It just doesn't strike me as a big deal if someone looks at a picture of anything, I am much more worried by peoples desire to do horrible things to people who do something as completely neutral as looking at an arrangement of colored pixels. Additionally, I think that if jailbait porn was legal that a fucking lot of people who claim to be against CP would be watching it all the time.
Forgive me if I post this before reading the entire thread. I just had to respond to this now...
As we experience things in life, our minds get used to these things and accept them as part of us. Regardless of whether you like them or not, the things you've seen and experienced are in your mind. As with porn and violence, the more you experience things, the more you get used to them, and sometimes begin to enjoy them.
The difference in porn between the 80's and now is a perfect example. If we'd shown todays hardcore porn to our brothers in the 80's they'd either get freaked out or blow an instant load in their pants. Their stuff was story driven, and hairy. Boring to us today.
My first horror film was Poltergeist, and at 8 years old I was pretty scared of clown toys after that. By the time I was 17 though, I was watching crazy gory horror films, and actually thought they were funny because of the bad effects.
If you look at too much CP, you're going to start liking it... and then you will want to start making it, or experiencing it, because kids turns your crank. Then I'm gonna show up at your house with a blowtorch and some gummy bears, and your ass is going to be tortured.
Hell, I'd even take some engineering classes so I could make the biggest steeley dan I could find for your ass.
The victim may not be harmed by you looking at their past suffering, but you are sick fucks for looking at it repeatedly, and DO create a market where people will want to create it to show off. There are poor fuckers SELLING their kids to pedophiles just for this shit. Looking at CP intentionally, repeatedly, makes you a pedophile. Period. You are scum of the earth.
There is nothing worse than harming children. Nothing.
Kids are fucking innocent. Let them lose their innocence on their own. Don't fuck with them. Do us all a favour and shoot yourself in the face if you think it's ok to fuck with kids.
-
Looking at CP intentionally, repeatedly, makes you a pedophile. Period.
actually pedophiles are a minority of people who offend with CP, the stereotypical offender profile should be someone who has become progressively desensitized to legal pornography and requires more and more risqué material to become stimulated. Pornography addicts overwhelmingly outnumber pedophiles as far as CP possession is concerned. If you disagree with me I can dig up some offender taxonomies from law enforcement, amazingly some of them seem to have accurate understanding of the sociology of the CP market.
There is pretty ample evidence that pornography addicts very rarely cross over from fantasy to actually acting out the fantasies in porn, so although the porn they view will likely become increasingly more depraved over time (or eventually hitting a stable level somewhere), they are no more threats to society than if they never became desensitized past looking at softcore adult porn. There is actually ample evidence that pedophiles are not as likely to be involved with CP as you would think, they are more involved with actually molesting children. Certainly even the largest producers of CP were motivated out of financial desire more so than out of pedophile tendencies. I never claim that it should be okay to pay for children to be molested, simply that it should not be illegal to look at images, however even thinking that payment for CP images might be immoral is less a libertarian view than the ACLU takes on CP, and less than most anarchists would take as well, who would be more likely to say that there is a difference between paying for a child to be molested and paying for an image of a molested child. I have more trouble to see that distinction.
-
Today as I sat on the train, I thought about some of the points we've discussed here, and it's prompted me to write this, my final post on this subject.
I believe you can't stop someone thinking about children in a sexual way and lusting over images, or actual children (on a day-to-day basis, I'm not talking about therapy). People have tried. In the UK (and probably elsewhere) members of the public and even parents can no longer film their child's school play or sports day. In the mistaken belief of preventing pedos from using such images for their own private pleasure. If you follow this idea to it's ultimate conclusion, then children would have to be completely separated from all adults and raised by robots in orphanages, out of sight of prying eyes, until they reached the age of consent. Unfortunately we just have to except someone maybe looking at our children and thinking sexual thoughts.
Also, if a pedo makes his (or her) own drawings or writings for the purpose of their own sexual needs, I believe we really can't (in any productive way) stop them. But (and here's my point), what we should focus on trying to stop is the DISTRIBUTION of these pornographic items.Because the availability of such items feeds the fire of their disgusting desires and helps to build a community that supports their own beliefs and encourages their own behavior. As I've said before, these images are not tolerated in a civilized society. And to distribute them elevates it from the personal problem, to a problem for society.
I'm not saying that if a pedo draws some CP for his own gratification and keeps it to himself and doesn't distribute it, then that's OK. No. I believe this is a personal problem of the pedo's and should be addressed with therapy maybe, where he/she can be assessed for how much of a threat they are to children, and dealt with accordingly. Whereas, a pedo distributing CP either publicly or privately, can be censored (in the case of public distribution) and dealt with by criminal prosecution. With the intent of such policing efforts directed at firstly protecting children, but also with stopping any sort of pedo society from forming and maintaining the public decency.
Lastly, I'll elaborate on what I meant by "freedom of expression is a means, and not an end". Some people argue that CP and other such divisive material should be allowed because freedom of expression should be an absolute ideal, and therefore include all forms of expression, whether we approve of them or not. I find this an attractive ideal, but feel it's untenable in reality. We should aspire to the freedom of expression but not be dogmatic about it. It's a useful idea to rationalize an argument, but not an answer in off itself. I believe the CP discussion demonstrates this quiet well.
If TL;DR then I can't really condense this, sorry.
Anyway, some coke beckons me away. So, I'll shut up finally on this subject :-X. Peace to everyone who argued their point, I found this quiet thought provoking. :)
-
believe we really can't (in any productive way) stop them.
Just for the record, you can't do shit to stop the free access of people to CP images or anything else. Freedom of information has won on the internet, the police agencies of the world can not stop people who use secured darknets.
-
Haha yeah you fucking said it kmf....I think people do see wa gwan right here......and yeah you n ya mates chattin bout CP with an aire of 'oh its coooool'........yeah in my ends you would get fucking murked up real nice, cunt!
Oh n I was right....you did try to come back with some attempt at an intellectual, try to downplay me, response but you just made yourself look like even more of a cunt.....keep on it man...ya doin ya self loads of favours in this community!!
-
Who the fuck are you Shannon? I contribute to this community as much as I can, there is no place here for nonses or nonse supporters....wtf does this guy hope to really achieve here!!?? shannon, fuck off I aint talkin about you anyway prick.....some twat who didn't even know that Tor stands for TheOnionRouter is obviously fucking totally knowledgeable and a great asset to this DRUG taking community. Why stand up for CP here....You know you are gonna get flamed to fuck.....
-
oh ok shannon except the guy who told you that put you in ya place and then you started kissing his anon ass.....Fuck off cunt.
-
Out of interest Shannon what is your position on this subject? I'm not talking about your to-and-fro, I mean the subject as a whole.
-
its this thread again.....
-
its this thread again.....
Yeah, almost makes ya wish the subject of CP was banned from the forum sometimes. :-\
-
innit!!!! why the fuck do we have to deal with this shit....It really shouldn't be prevalent on a drugs forum....I guess it is the darknet but still.....
-
Out of interest Shannon what is your position on this subject? I'm not talking about your to-and-fro, I mean the subject as a whole.
imho - sexually abusing a child is obviously wrong and offenders should be killed, i don't think there's any disagreement on that (except maybe the killing part)
producing cp is also obviously wrong and should be punishable by death
viewing cp is abhorrent and i wouldn't associate myself with anybody that does, but i don't see it as wrong since there is no violence occurring towards anybody, it's simply a repugnant thing to do and probably indicative of mental illness. however as much as i'm anti-violence i'm equally pro-freedom, and if people get want to get their rocks off to something abhorrent without hurting anybody i don't think they should be the targets of violence because of it. shunning them is preferable but pedos who don't act on anything shouldn't have their lives effectively ended until they do act on their urges
and before somebody says "viewing is revictimization" i think it's better to think of victimized children as survivors who have overcome child abuse, not people who are repeatedly victimized over years and years, possibly forever, whenever someone downloads a picture somewhere, sometime
Fair enough I guess, we all have different opinions on the subject.
-
its this thread again.....
Yeah, almost makes ya wish the subject of CP was banned from the forum sometimes. :-\
Just fucking lock it. There was a thread the other day about how LE could use the classic "divide and conquer" technique to destroy a community and you all jumped in that thread like "ho ho ho we are too close-knit fuck you LE say what you want". Now look at this thread.......
-
Yeah fuck it, best if it was locked.
-
its this thread again.....
Yeah, almost makes ya wish the subject of CP was banned from the forum sometimes. :-\
Just fucking lock it. There was a thread the other day about how LE could use the classic "divide and conquer" technique to destroy a community and you all jumped in that thread like "ho ho ho we are too close-knit fuck you LE say what you want". Now look at this thread.......
I agree, censorship is always the answer
-
its this thread again.....
Yeah, almost makes ya wish the subject of CP was banned from the forum sometimes. :-\
Just fucking lock it. There was a thread the other day about how LE could use the classic "divide and conquer" technique to destroy a community and you all jumped in that thread like "ho ho ho we are too close-knit fuck you LE say what you want". Now look at this thread.......
I agree, censorship is always the answer
Yeah, so is allowing people to get their rocks off to snaps of kids having their lives destroyed. Oh wait...no it isn't. ??? ::)