If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Busted for child porn after taking computer in for repairs will get you an ass whipping in jail. W/pic that will haunt you soul   (whmi.com) divider line 286
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

47958 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2008 at 9:58 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



286 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-10-10 01:01:21 AM
http://www.livingstondaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080824/NEWS01/808240 317/-1/LIFESTYLE02

if you read this article you see that it was children in various sex acts, not simply nude pics. your arguments are cute but hold no water in this case
 
2008-10-10 01:01:51 AM
nhdjoseywales: again, the sound you hear is the point soaring above your head

Actually, the sound I hear is you backpedaling like a bear on a unicycle. Sounds like "Saber Dance", in fact. You hinge your whole argument on homosexuality not being illegal, and then when shown how recently in human history it was considered illegal, it's disgusting and dishonest for me to do so?

the comparison to homosexuality was invalid because homosexuality does not inherently involve a victim.

Now, it is not considered to have a victim. 50 years ago, it was considered to have a victim. Homosexuality was illegal! It was immoral! It led to the degradation of otherwise moral, upstanding people! Homosexual sex was considered to have the effect on 'normal' ostensibly consenting adults that pre-pubescent sex would have on children!

Statements that, now, would be considered earmarks of completely unenlighted times.

whether there is a genetic disposition to the action is not relevant as the action has a victim

CGI renderings, hand-drawn sketches and paintings, digital photo manipulations and written stories do not have 'victims'. They are just as illegal in Canada and the US. Does this not suggest to you that the 'has victim' nature is not necessary?
 
2008-10-10 01:07:01 AM
nhdjoseywales:
im really starting to wonder just what we might find on YOUR hard drive


Among other things, after tonight, you'd find cached web forum postings of me blowing holes in the paper-thin arguments of internet tough guys.
 
2008-10-10 01:08:46 AM
I bet someone here has a NAMBLA card in their wallet!

/Ain't talkin' bout the guy in TFA.
 
2008-10-10 01:09:21 AM
Emcee_Squared,

> Who will be the Alan Turing of the next generation?

By the next generation, we'll have all of these "genetic malfunctions" corrected...so, no worries.
 
2008-10-10 01:10:38 AM
nhdjoseywales: if you read this article you see that it was children in various sex acts, not simply nude pics

Legitimate question (I personally don't know why anyone would be into seeing two young guys farking...but I like tits and hips)...would it matter if these were 16 and 17-year old "children" who CONSENTED to be in the pictures? Or do you believe that people under 18 have no moral right to consent?

I have issues with many of these laws because they are mis-enforced (e.g., charging a 16-year-old for farking his 15-year-old girlfriend; charging two 14-year-olds for farking each other). Because of that, I'm really skeptical about these types of crimes, especially with the ease of framing someone, etc.

Obviously this kid is a creep, but I think we should really think past black and white here. After all, it's not a presidential election.
 
2008-10-10 01:10:42 AM
TailsAndy: Ripburger! I hadn't thought about Full Throttle in probably 12 years.
/Great game. -I Liked throwing the toy bunnies into the engine at the end.
 
2008-10-10 01:13:22 AM
nhdjoseywales: Emcee_Squared: Corn_Fed: I agree entirely. How does that change what I'm saying? I'm suggesting that this guy tried to contain his impulses by limiting himself to photos. I would say that's a LOT better than preying on an actual child.

To carry this one step further, suppose he had no actual photos, but rather, a collection of detailed CGI graphics. If we can depict illegal acts of animal cruelty in movies and avoid prosecution by ensuring (and stating) that no animals were harmed in the making of this movie, would we still try and imprison people who 'got their jollies' watching it but did not harm a single animal?

If one is sexually aroused by violent sexual imagery, and one possesses pornography of that kind which (again) featured no actual harm done to any person, they will either be, or not be, a felon -- depending entirely on whether they are in Great Britain past 2009. How can we claim any moral strength in making images (where none were ever harmed) illegal? Can something as absolute as righteous morality really and truly be two exact opposites at once, depending solely on whether you live on a specific few percent of the earth's land mass?


im really starting to wonder just what we might find on YOUR hard drive


Damn right. If you defend an idea, or even simply pose questions to make someone think about the issue, you obviously must subscribe to the idea yourself. Obviously.
 
2008-10-10 01:14:09 AM
Emcee_Squared: nhdjoseywales: again, the sound you hear is the point soaring above your head

Actually, the sound I hear is you backpedaling like a bear on a unicycle. Sounds like "Saber Dance", in fact. You hinge your whole argument on homosexuality not being illegal, and then when shown how recently in human history it was considered illegal, it's disgusting and dishonest for me to do so?

what was legal 50 years ago isnt relevant, he was arrested in may. and i still think comparing homosexuality to pedophila is disgusting, i have many gay and lesbian friends and im pretty sure to a person they would agree

the comparison to homosexuality was invalid because homosexuality does not inherently involve a victim.

Now, it is not considered to have a victim. 50 years ago, it was considered to have a victim. Homosexuality was illegal! It was immoral! It led to the degradation of otherwise moral, upstanding people! Homosexual sex was considered to have the effect on 'normal' ostensibly consenting adults that pre-pubescent sex would have on children!

Statements that, now, would be considered earmarks of completely unenlighted times.

so please explain who is the victim, the pitcher or the catcher, i can see the pros and cons of both sides. i am however perplexed by who would be the victim in a lesbian affair so please enlighten me if possible. again, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is just disgusting so stop.

whether there is a genetic disposition to the action is not relevant as the action has a victim

CGI renderings, hand-drawn sketches and paintings, digital photo manipulations and written stories do not have 'victims'. They are just as illegal in Canada and the US. Does this not suggest to you that the 'has victim' nature is not necessary?


again, thats not what he had so its well, its as relevant as your other points
 
2008-10-10 01:15:28 AM
Gyrfalcon: miciomau: highwayrun:

Now he understands the terror that exploited and abused children suffer, so to me this is poetic justice.

Mm. I'm guessing without knowing for sure, that he was also an exploited and abused child. He's only 20, so he's not much of a "man" at this point. Take off three years, and I've no doubt he was a 17 year old pervert getting off on naked pix of the same 12-14 year olds.

He didn't get that way by himself, probably the local priest or boy scout leader got him going by telling him that it was okay while groping him in the locker room. Not that I'm excusing him, but this is why pedophiles are so hard to treat: By the time we get them, they're already destroyed by whatever freak broke them in in the first place.

This kid is young, so maybe he'll be amenable to heavy-duty counseling; but don't count on it. At best, he'll stick to pictures and not rape some other vulnerable young boy to pass along the perversion. It's actually very sad because by the time these guys are caught and jailed, there's almost no hope. The only real cure is death, because they're so badly damaged.


You make some good points, but he must be held responsible for his role in perpetuating abuse. If he was abused as a child, what was done to him was wrong. What he did, however, was wrong. He did have to choice either to become an abuser, or tell himself that at the very least, he'll have no part of it.* He chose the former; he has to pay the price for it.

*Before someone hits back with "that's all he's known," consider this: There are scores of adults who were themselves victims of child abuse who have decided that they would not pass that legacy on to any more children, and would do what they could to keep other children from going through what they did. Life doesn't just happen to people.

/am not a shrink, what do I know?
 
2008-10-10 01:15:38 AM
Nobody'sPerfekt: Emcee_Squared,

> Who will be the Alan Turing of the next generation?

By the next generation, we'll have all of these "genetic malfunctions" corrected...so, no worries.


If by "corrected" you mean gassed, then, yes.
Yes we will.
 
2008-10-10 01:17:17 AM
Celebrityhitlist: Nobody'sPerfekt: Emcee_Squared,

> Who will be the Alan Turing of the next generation?

By the next generation, we'll have all of these "genetic malfunctions" corrected...so, no worries.

If by "corrected" you mean gassed, then, yes.
Yes we will.


That's close enough to a Godwin. Goodnight thinkers of the children and NAMBLA members (not that those are mutually exclusive).
 
2008-10-10 01:19:05 AM
miciomau You make some good points, but he must be held responsible for his role in perpetuating abuse. If he was abused as a child, what was done to him was wrong. What he did, however, was wrong. He did have to choice either to become an abuser, or tell himself that at the very least, he'll have no part of it.* He chose the former; he has to pay the price for it.

I'm not sure I can entirely buy into the idea that this guy is "an abuser," given that all he did was jack off to some photos. You could make a case that the unknown person who took the photos in the first place is an abuser. But this guy is just trying to mollify his urges in the most innocuous way he can. Sorry, but not an "abuser" in my book.
 
2008-10-10 01:19:15 AM
TrentSteel68: TailsAndy: Ripburger! I hadn't thought about Full Throttle in probably 12 years.
/Great game. -I Liked throwing the toy bunnies into the engine at the end.


kruddman.com

'Cool!'
 
2008-10-10 01:19:24 AM
Emcee_Squared: To carry this one step further, suppose he had no actual photos, but rather, a collection of detailed CGI graphics.

That would not be per se illegal.

However, if such "virtual child pron" material was held obscene, then it would be illegal. And as you parse that sentence, remember that SCOTUS has held that pornography is protected, but obscenity is not.

SCOTUS decided some time ago not to criminalize those virtual depictions, on the basis that there is no actual victim, so the purpose of the law is defeated.
 
2008-10-10 01:28:46 AM
Rubberband Girl: Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what it means to be a "pencil neck geek."


Grit eating freak. Scum-suckin pea head with a lousy physique.
 
2008-10-10 01:29:03 AM
tonesskin: nhdjoseywales: if you read this article you see that it was children in various sex acts, not simply nude pics

Legitimate question (I personally don't know why anyone would be into seeing two young guys farking...but I like tits and hips)...would it matter if these were 16 and 17-year old "children" who CONSENTED to be in the pictures? Or do you believe that people under 18 have no moral right to consent?

I have issues with many of these laws because they are mis-enforced (e.g., charging a 16-year-old for farking his 15-year-old girlfriend; charging two 14-year-olds for farking each other). Because of that, I'm really skeptical about these types of crimes, especially with the ease of framing someone, etc.

Obviously this kid is a creep, but I think we should really think past black and white here. After all, it's not a presidential election.


whatever law applies in the location of the event applies, whether i agree with them or not.

for my personal beliefs i think 2 teens under 18 can have consensual sex and it shouldnt be a crime. i think an 18 year old can have consensual sex with a 16 year old and it shouldnt be a crime. consensual teenage sex is a grey area, i will never contest that. but i do think there is something inherently wrong with fapping off to pics of 12 and 14 year old kids who maybe didnt consent to have the pics taken or were coerced. since you cant show me 300 consent forms signed by the models in the pics i cant support the argument that noone waws harmed

i suppose i should note that a guy i hung out with as a teen raped the 3 year old daughter of my buddies sister so i have strong feelings on the matter

this is him, she was 3 man

http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/InmateDetails.asp?PassedId=73708
 
2008-10-10 01:29:11 AM
Dude! He didn't hurt anyone. He had photos on his computer. Yes, it's illegal in the US to have photos on your computer, the taking of which would've harmed someone. But it shouldn't be.

The criminals here are the people who took the pictures. It shouldn't be a crime to own *any* data or information: whether it's an instruction manual on making bombs, or pictures of heads getting chopped off, or pictures of kids getting harmed, or propaganda for the KKK, or propaganda for the Communist Party, or propaganda for the Green Party, or propaganda for whichever party's not in power, or pictures of your elected officials in compromising positions with farm animals....

Do you see where I'm going with this? Any criminialization of *any* information amounts to fascism. And more to the point, it is a violation of free speech. This creepy freaky disgusting kid hasn't hurt anybody. People who hurt people should be in jail; people who haven't hurt people should be free.

Oh, and by the way? If he got raped while in prison, then the prison guard who allowed that to happen, and that person's supervisor, and *that* person's supervisor, should be tried for first-degree aggravated rape. And convicted. And placed in general population.
 
2008-10-10 01:33:39 AM
I think we have the poster child for 'Nerd' here.


The article made me think about something, though.

With many forms of mental illnesses, there are degrees of severity. Such as schizophrenia, where some patients can lead fairly normal lives, while others must be institutionalized. Some are harmless, while some are deadly.

Perusing through the Internet porn community, I've come across all sorts of porn, including cartoon depictions showing characters from programs like Pokimon having sex with each other. Even though, technically, such depictions are not real, they could be considered child pornography.

I've also come across versions of porn that I find not only repulsive but disgusting and some which has made me seriously wonder about the stability of the minds that not only created it, but those who like it.

At one time, possessing any porn could get you in trouble. It was sneaked through the mail or bought on the sly from the back of magazine stores in seedy parts of town. Postal Inspectors could confiscate anything resembling pornography being mailed to you and you could face stiff fines and possibly jail time.

Yet, a lot of good, solid folks had the films and Swedish magazines and Mexican 2-reelers. (Communist Russia had not yet gotten into the booming porn market.) Filming porn was against the law and got you a jail sentence and your name smeared all over the local news.

Today, for free on the Internet, are versions of pornography that I previously never knew existed and some that I'd probably be happier not having found out about.

Now, a lot of these 'perversions' have been around forever, but those who like them rarely act with unwilling partners, with the exception of certain types. Couples played rape. They played dress up, with the woman dressed as a little girl. They performed S&M. There was master and slave. The Milkman delivering the 'goods' was a favorite scenario. They played domination and submissive. There are cutters and biters.

Unless you happen to be very, very close to folks who do this, you mostly wouldn't know and it is not uncommon for folks to get all steamed up over some illegal porn, but know enough to never act on it in real life.

The reasons are due to the laws and punishment, but also because many do not actually want to hurt an unwilling partner. (That's one reason why play rape is still so popular.)

So the question is, how many of you would feel the same about someone who has child porn on their computer or has obtained through the mail, photographs, but never has acted on it and never will?

I've seen porn where blood coming from the vagina is in evidence. I've seen porn where people eat human shiat. I found out that, in real life, the better porn producers make their male actors clean off their schlongs after doing anal before shoving it in the chicks mouth. (The finished film doesn't show that because most viewers want to believe it's real and degrading.)

There's a booming business in painful porn, using restraints, whips, slaps and so on. (The mild and most common depiction is the guy spanking his girl over his knee. I never grasped the joy in that and my girl friends would have flattened me if I had tried it with them.)

Computer guys ignore -- or secretly copy -- all other types of porn from your computers without judgement. The Japanese 'school girl' type is very popular -- though the girls are not under 21.

With all of the Gay-Rage still going on, I've also noticed an increase in Gay porn, especially in cartoons and anime. However, having that on your system will not get you in trouble.

(Actually, it's getting annoying having to fight through links that take you to 'dick girls' and tranvestites and girl-boys.)

So, do you consider it as bad to have kiddy porn in possession but never acting on it as being just as bad as an active pedo?

This fellow doesn't look like he'd be active. His age leads me to believe that his situation is more gay than pedo since he doesn't appear to have more maturity than a 15 or 16 year old.

Apparently, even the authorities felt sorry for him.

If you'll note, his interests did not stray to the very young.

BTW. 40 years ago, a whole lot of you with normal porn on your computers -- if we had them back then -- would be breaking the law and risking arrest.
 
2008-10-10 01:35:26 AM
Corn_Fed: miciomau You make some good points, but he must be held responsible for his role in perpetuating abuse. If he was abused as a child, what was done to him was wrong. What he did, however, was wrong. He did have to choice either to become an abuser, or tell himself that at the very least, he'll have no part of it.* He chose the former; he has to pay the price for it.

I'm not sure I can entirely buy into the idea that this guy is "an abuser," given that all he did was jack off to some photos. You could make a case that the unknown person who took the photos in the first place is an abuser. But this guy is just trying to mollify his urges in the most innocuous way he can. Sorry, but not an "abuser" in my book.


Not in an active sense, no. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that he might not have taken the pictures himself, but he was providing a market for it; he was part of a supply chain that in the end resulted in the harming of a human being. That is why I think that he is as much of an abuser as the person who took the pictures.
 
2008-10-10 01:37:38 AM
Awlferd: I think he's got treacher collins syndrome.

I'd suggest Noonan's Syndrome.

That means there's a fair chance he's mildly retarded.
 
2008-10-10 01:38:26 AM
tonesskin: what was legal 50 years ago isnt relevant, he was arrested in may.

.. and the parallels between the past generation's legislation against an "abominable" sexual proclivity and how this generation does the same means nothing to you?

How about the fact that the same country is on the verge of treating those aroused by violent sexual behavior identically to those aroused by child molestation. Do those parallels not even open your eyes?

Since they apparently don't, I'll spell it out for you:

In theory, these laws are in place to protect victims.

In practice, these laws are in place to punish those whose sexual proclivities are seen as immoral.

Does the fact that the media uses 'paedophile' to be synonymous with 'child molester' not illustrate my point?

and i still think comparing homosexuality to pedophila is disgusting, i have many gay and lesbian friends and im pretty sure to a person they would agree.

And they would be completely unbiased, of course, so they would miss the fact that paedophilia and homosexuality are both sexual proclivities, nothing more. Nevertheless, is there not a chance that your gay and lesbian friends might be old enough to remember being told they were a worthless person because of sexual attractions they were born having?

the comparison to homosexuality was invalid because homosexuality does not inherently involve a victim.

Neither does paedophilia.

Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to members of the same sex. It is a sexual proclivity.

Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. It is a sexual proclivity.

Child molestation, on the other hand, inherently does involve a victim, and is wrong. It is disgusting, damaging and completely reprehensible. Even if only paedophiles were child molesters, that does not mean that the two are synonymous. All Oregonians live in America. Do all Americans live in Oregon?

... so please enlighten me if possible.

Apparently, it's not.

whether there is a genetic disposition to the action is not relevant as the action has a victim

How does a 'sexual proclivity', in and of itself have a victim? I'll say it again -- paedophile does not equal child molester, child exploiter, or the like.

CGI renderings, hand-drawn sketches and paintings, digital photo manipulations and written stories do not have 'victims'. They are just as illegal in Canada and the US. Does this not suggest to you that the 'has victim' nature is not necessary?

again, thats not what he had so its well, its as relevant as your other points

.. all of which are relevant, because my points and yours are governed under the exact same laws and societal notions.

If laws against child pornography are truly designed to protect children, then none of the things I listed would be illegal.

However, they, and the anti-homosexuality laws of the past generation, and the anti-violent-sex laws of this generation, are not designed to protect a victim, they were/are designed to punish 'sexual deviants' in the name of protecting a victim. Is that distinction completely lost?
 
2008-10-10 01:39:36 AM
jonathanjo:
"Dude! He didn't hurt anyone. He had photos on his computer. Yes, it's illegal in the US to have photos on your computer, the taking of which would've harmed someone. But it shouldn't be. The criminals here are the people who took the pictures."

Umm, sorry to reveal my free-market economics side and all, but if there ain't no consumers, then there ain't no producers. If freaks like Gollum here weren't buying the kiddy pr0n, then there would be little incentive to make it.

My .02
 
2008-10-10 01:39:56 AM
its probably also worthy of note that 2 of my other friends were convicted of statutory rape. they got caught with a 14 year old girl who looked older and who i personally saw trying to make out with a marine buddy of mine who was pased out at my girlfriends parents who was the older sister of the 14 year olds best friend. her exact words were "im going get something from him even if its just a kiss". anyway they were over 18 so they got popped and the girl cried victim to avoid getting in any trouble. in that case i am sure it was fully consensual if not initiated by the girl. sorry if that was complicated :)

anyway, i do see both sides of the issue and in this case i dont have sympathy sorry
 
2008-10-10 01:40:58 AM
miciomau
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that he might not have taken the pictures himself, but he was providing a market for it; he was part of a supply chain that in the end resulted in the harming of a human being. That is why I think that he is as much of an abuser as the person who took the pictures.

Y'know what? I wouldn't mind a law against paying money for kiddie porn. That enriches the people who create it, and encourages people to harm children, without a doubt. But referencing my above post, laws against simply owning images are unconscionable.
 
2008-10-10 01:43:16 AM
tekmo: Emcee_Squared: To carry this one step further, suppose he had no actual photos, but rather, a collection of detailed CGI graphics.

That would not be per se illegal.

However, if such "virtual child pron" material was held obscene, then it would be illegal. And as you parse that sentence, remember that SCOTUS has held that pornography is protected, but obscenity is not.

SCOTUS decided some time ago not to criminalize those virtual depictions, on the basis that there is no actual victim, so the purpose of the law is defeated.


What do you make of this parsing of the wiki entry on Child Pornography:

However, the computer-generated child pornography provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law. One section of the PROTECT act has been challenged and was upheld by Supreme Court decision in May 2008.

.. and the section:

Realistic virtual child pornography is illegal in the United States [80][81][82] and in the European Union; in Germany it is punishable by up to five years in prison.[92][93] In the Australian state of Victoria, it is illegal to publish imagery that "describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context", however the application of this law to virtual child pornography has not yet been tested in the courts.

(The wiki link)
 
2008-10-10 01:44:48 AM
Emcee_Squared: tonesskin: what was legal 50 years ago isnt relevant, he was arrested in may.

.. and the parallels between the past generation's legislation against an "abominable" sexual proclivity and how this generation does the same means nothing to you?

How about the fact that the same country is on the verge of treating those aroused by violent sexual behavior identically to those aroused by child molestation. Do those parallels not even open your eyes?

Since they apparently don't, I'll spell it out for you:

In theory, these laws are in place to protect victims.

In practice, these laws are in place to punish those whose sexual proclivities are seen as immoral.

Does the fact that the media uses 'paedophile' to be synonymous with 'child molester' not illustrate my point?

and i still think comparing homosexuality to pedophila is disgusting, i have many gay and lesbian friends and im pretty sure to a person they would agree.

And they would be completely unbiased, of course, so they would miss the fact that paedophilia and homosexuality are both sexual proclivities, nothing more. Nevertheless, is there not a chance that your gay and lesbian friends might be old enough to remember being told they were a worthless person because of sexual attractions they were born having?

the comparison to homosexuality was invalid because homosexuality does not inherently involve a victim.

Neither does paedophilia.

Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to members of the same sex. It is a sexual proclivity.

Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. It is a sexual proclivity.

Child molestation, on the other hand, inherently does involve a victim, and is wrong. It is disgusting, damaging and completely reprehensible. Even if only paedophiles were child molesters, that does not mean that the two are synonymous. All Oregonians live in America. Do all Americans live in Oregon?

... so please enlighten me if possible.

Apparently, it's not.

whether there is a genetic disposition to the action is not relevant as the action has a victim

How does a 'sexual proclivity', in and of itself have a victim? I'll say it again -- paedophile does not equal child molester, child exploiter, or the like.

CGI renderings, hand-drawn sketches and paintings, digital photo manipulations and written stories do not have 'victims'. They are just as illegal in Canada and the US. Does this not suggest to you that the 'has victim' nature is not necessary?

again, thats not what he had so its well, its as relevant as your other points

.. all of which are relevant, because my points and yours are governed under the exact same laws and societal notions.

If laws against child pornography are truly designed to protect children, then none of the things I listed would be illegal.

However, they, and the anti-homosexuality laws of the past generation, and the anti-violent-sex laws of this generation, are not designed to protect a victim, they were/are designed to punish 'sexual deviants' in the name of protecting a victim. Is that distinction completely lost?


we have a fundamental difference in thinking. i dont think its ok to look at pictures of little kids farking each other and you apparently do. no logic i can think of can fix that sorry
 
2008-10-10 01:45:30 AM
jlsmi11
Umm, sorry to reveal my free-market economics side and all, but if there ain't no consumers, then there ain't no producers. If freaks like Gollum here weren't buying the kiddy pr0n, then there would be little incentive to make it.

What I just said. Yes, buying should be illegal; owning should not. Can we agree on that?
 
2008-10-10 01:46:12 AM
Gobobo: CygnusDarius: Migaloo: Gobobo: His parents must be closely related.

Do you mean like Siamese Twins sort of close?

/not obscure

More like "Daddy says I'm the hottest piece of ass in all the county, y'all!".

Except her brother, the cyclops in the basement.


Or the siamese twins in the the barn.
 
2008-10-10 01:48:06 AM
miciomau:
Not in an active sense, no. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that he might not have taken the pictures himself, but he was providing a market for it; he was part of a supply chain that in the end resulted in the harming of a human being. That is why I think that he is as much of an abuser as the person who took the pictures.


He is part of a chain, but his sexual proclivities are his sexual proclivities. I do not think he can go a lifetime without masturbating. I cannot expect anyone to do that. And given that I believe in a world of shades of gray, rather than black and white, I would rather that he find an outlet for his sexual urges through photographs, rather than harming another child.
 
2008-10-10 01:49:28 AM
Slaxl: Why are paedophiles always so weird looking?

a.abcnews.com

Most aren't.
 
2008-10-10 01:51:59 AM
nhdjoseywales: we have a fundamental difference in thinking.

I'm doing it, you're not.

i dont think its ok to look at pictures of little kids farking each other and you apparently do. no logic i can think of can fix that sorry

You are completely incapable of using logic for anything, so it's not a surprise.

Nevertheless, please show me if you can, one post where I think it is "ok to look at pictures of little kids farking each other".
 
2008-10-10 01:54:24 AM
jonathanjo: The criminals here are the people who took the pictures. It shouldn't be a crime to own *any* data or information...

The purpose of criminalizing possession is to decrease the demand, which in turn, decreases the supply. That is why it's illegal to possess cocaine, even if you're not actively using it.

You argue that it is mere data or information. I would argue that it is not. To wit, it is illegal for you to cultivate coca, or manufacture, possess, or convey cocaine. It is not illegal for you to possess or convey data or information on how to cultivate coca, or manufacture, possess, or convey cocaine.
 
2008-10-10 01:55:15 AM
Corn_Fed: miciomau:
Not in an active sense, no. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that he might not have taken the pictures himself, but he was providing a market for it; he was part of a supply chain that in the end resulted in the harming of a human being. That is why I think that he is as much of an abuser as the person who took the pictures.

He is part of a chain, but his sexual proclivities are his sexual proclivities. I do not think he can go a lifetime without masturbating. I cannot expect anyone to do that. And given that I believe in a world of shades of gray, rather than black and white, I would rather that he find an outlet for his sexual urges through photographs, rather than harming another child.


Computer technology is at the point where he would be able to find an outlet for his urges without a single child being harmed or exploited.
 
2008-10-10 01:55:49 AM
*looks at pic*

rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk
 
2008-10-10 01:56:26 AM
Emcee_Squared: nhdjoseywales: we have a fundamental difference in thinking.

I'm doing it, you're not.

i dont think its ok to look at pictures of little kids farking each other and you apparently do. no logic i can think of can fix that sorry

You are completely incapable of using logic for anything, so it's not a surprise.

Nevertheless, please show me if you can, one post where I think it is "ok to look at pictures of little kids farking each other".


you advocate pedophilia, if pics of kids farking each other doesnt qualify as that, what does?
 
2008-10-10 01:56:58 AM
s3rv0: You beat me to it, Dellirium, but I has pictures!

O MY LORD, HE IS A FERENGI.

/ LITTLE GREEN MEN WAS REAL!!!
// I NEED TO GET OUT MORE!!!
 
2008-10-10 01:59:55 AM
CygnusDarius: rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk

Still not used to this pagination thing...but, it deserves to be said again.
 
2008-10-10 02:00:51 AM
Corn_Fed: miciomau:
Not in an active sense, no. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that he might not have taken the pictures himself, but he was providing a market for it; he was part of a supply chain that in the end resulted in the harming of a human being. That is why I think that he is as much of an abuser as the person who took the pictures.

He is part of a chain, but his sexual proclivities are his sexual proclivities. I do not think he can go a lifetime without masturbating. I cannot expect anyone to do that. And given that I believe in a world of shades of gray, rather than black and white, I would rather that he find an outlet for his sexual urges through photographs, rather than harming another child.


And so we're at an impasse. Don't think I'm sitting here staring at my monitor through a burqa or thumping a bible, but even for him to find an outlet via photographs meant that a child was harmed. I'll fully admit that this is where rational thinking hits a wall for me, if you want to see it that way. I just can't give this a pass.
 
2008-10-10 02:04:33 AM
scooterh..OMG I lol'd. Thx
 
2008-10-10 02:06:24 AM
Holy Jebus! Could there be a more FARK/photoshop-ready pic? *shudders*

/can't quite focus anymore
//pic...won't...leave...brain...
 
2008-10-10 02:09:55 AM
I was about to break out the pedobear, but RTFA first.

http://wiki.nobleme.com/images/7/74/Shota_Cat-Seal_of_Approval-OP.png
To the rescue
 
2008-10-10 02:15:25 AM
Emcee_Squared: What do you make of this parsing of the wiki entry on Child Pornography: "However, the computer-generated child pornography provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law. ...Realistic virtual child pornography is illegal...the application of this law to virtual child pornography has not yet been tested..." [emphasis added]

I think it says pretty much what I said, except for the overbroad statement that "realistic virtual child pornography is illegal." It is more accurate to say "obscene realistic virtual..." Which frankly, it a bit superfluous, since all obscene pornography is unprotected.

As my emphasized terms indicate, SCOTUS struck that element of the '96 law because it didn't require the virtual pornography to be obscene. The PROTECT Act added that obscenity element, so it presumably (but not certainly) meets SCOTUS's requirements.
 
2008-10-10 02:21:36 AM
monsieurstabby: He never raped a kid, or went beyond pictures. So what if he's got a FAS face? How does he deserve to be raped repeatedly, on top of his prison sentence, and if bubbaprog is right, given AIDS?

All we are saaaayyyiiing is
Give Darwin a chance.
 
2008-10-10 02:22:13 AM
nhdjoseywales: you advocate pedophilia, if pics of kids farking each other doesnt qualify as that, what does?

Please explain how my constantly correcting your misconceptions and your inaccuracies constitute "advocating paedophilia"?

I corrected your constant confusion of "paedophile" with "child molester". How does that make me a paedophilia advocate? The only thing I'm advocating is accuracy.

I corrected your assertion that it was illegal to be a paedophile. How does that make me a paedophilia advocate? The only thing I'm advocating is accuracy.

I corrected your assertion that all items ruled as "child pornography" involve a victim. How does that make me a paedophilia advocate? The only thing I'm advocating is accuracy.

Do you see a pattern?

i suppose i should note that a guy i hung out with as a teen raped the 3 year old daughter of my buddies sister so i have strong feelings on the matter

I lost a very dear friend to suicide three years ago. Only after her passing did I learn from her family that her depression stemmed from being sexually abused as a child. So I certainly have seen the damage first hand. I would never trivialize child molestation in the least.

However, I also have had many friends tell me how horribly depressed and worthless they felt for being told that their sexual proclivities made them worthless as human beings, when all they wanted to be judged on whether they followed the law. What they did, not what they found sexually arousing. How can the 'measure of a man' be something they literally had no choice in and have no control over?

Which is why I suppose I'll happily field all the ad-hominem attacks I've picked up tonight to advocate my oddball policy of "hate the sin, love the sinner". No, I am not advocating paedophilia. I would never wish a single person to be ever born with that sexual proclivity, ever. It torments from its first day, and can lead weak-willed people to do horrible, horrible things.

But as for the actual person born with that proclivity? I pity them. If they have a grasp of right-and-wrong that enables them to never molest a child and to never participate in a system that exploits, degrades, dehumanizes and destroys children, I only pray that they maintain that sense all their life. But would I spit on that person? Call them a worthless sub-human deviant? Want to see them incarcerated solely for their proclivity as the British homosexuals were and the British sadists/masochists are about to be? Should I?
 
2008-10-10 02:30:38 AM
And so we're at an impasse. Don't think I'm sitting here staring at my monitor through a burqa or thumping a bible, but even for him to find an outlet via photographs meant that a child was harmed. I'll fully admit that this is where rational thinking hits a wall for me, if you want to see it that way. I just can't give this a pass.

I am assuming, however, that you would be in favor of tougher punishments for the producers, and naturally tougher punishments for those who do the act themselves?
 
2008-10-10 02:33:14 AM
i have an overwhelming urge to rip the turn signals off the steering wheels of 80 percent of the drives in memphis, they dont use the damn things anyway. its an urge i was born with and a very strong one and one many can sympathize with. but its illegal so i dont do it, yes it causes me stress but thems the shakes lads

pedophiles are broken people, they are child molestors too afraid to act. i was going to give you tehre could be a difference but no there isnt. i watch porn with girls with large boobs because i like that and given the chance i will have sex with a large boobied girl (altho thats my wife onyl these days)

are you seriously going to try and make the argument that a pedophile given the chance wouldnt become a child molestor?
 
2008-10-10 02:37:28 AM
Ooshatielf: Emcee_Squared: Who will be the Alan Turing of the next generation?

Hmm...I'll admit I don't know much about Alan Turing, but I'm assuming that his partners were adults.

Not erotic pictures of 12 year olds.

It is not illegal to be a pedophile.

It's illegal to act on those desires, because they are not consenting adults.

Looking at pornography that was not made by consenting adults is illegal.


In the dust-up, I forgot to take the time and thank you for succinctly summarizing the key points.
 
2008-10-10 02:41:38 AM
i239.photobucket.com
 
2008-10-10 02:42:24 AM
tekmo
You argue that it is mere data or information. I would argue that it is not. To wit, it is illegal for you to cultivate coca, or manufacture, possess, or convey cocaine. It is not illegal for you to possess or convey data or information on how to cultivate coca, or manufacture, possess, or convey cocaine.

Cocaine is a physical substance. Pixels are data.
 
Displayed 50 of 286 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report