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.

(The Sun)   Garbage men track down pedophile and turn him in to the police. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 188
    More: Spiffy, recycling bins, pedophiles, documents  
•       •       •

13834 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2012 at 10:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-02 07:55:22 PM
Paedophile, subs.

/W-Nnnnnnnn-B-C... W-Nnnnnnnn-B-C...   
 
2012-11-02 08:45:25 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-02 08:46:00 PM
Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.
 
2012-11-02 08:53:09 PM

BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.


i47.tinypic.com

Awwwwwwww.... Looks like somebody threw away a perfectly good white boy!
 
2012-11-02 09:10:26 PM
This is why we have the hero tag, subs.
 
2012-11-02 10:05:35 PM
♪Garbage man
Garbage man
Does whatever a
garbage man can♫
 
2012-11-02 10:52:44 PM
www.spirit-of-metal.com
 
2012-11-02 10:54:00 PM

BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.


Noooo... You know he had pictures of them. Looking and touching two different things.
Just pointing out your jump to conclusion is probable, but there is no evidence for that.
 
2012-11-02 10:55:47 PM
They should be used to taking out the trash.
 
2012-11-02 10:56:28 PM

ShadowWolf: BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.

Noooo... You know he had pictures of them. Looking and touching two different things.
Just pointing out your jump to conclusion is probable, but there is no evidence for that.


So, he doesn't diddle kids himself (yet), he just creates a market for the professional kiddie diddlers, and continues the victimization of those children long after the act is finished?

I stand by my statement.
 
2012-11-02 10:57:00 PM
 
2012-11-02 10:57:34 PM
To trash.
 
2012-11-02 10:58:04 PM
We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.
 
2012-11-02 11:01:38 PM
Im assuming there is a "that's not my garbage" defense.
 
2012-11-02 11:02:01 PM

CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.


I don't believe pedophiles are sick, especially since there are degrees of it and most people don't know that. I think there's something wrong with finding younger-than-pubescent humans attractive, but only wrong in a scientific sense. I won't pass judgement on them.

I think you question regarding digitization is an interesting one. Sometimes you just want to kill some people, cause explosions, see people pay for their crimes (as uncivilized as that is), but instead of going out and committing these crimes, you go home, kick back, cook up some popcorn, and play some video games or watch DieHard. I think it may both make the problem worse for some, and bearable/forgettable for others. When i'm feeling randy, I find some porn on the pc and some minutes later relieves the bug, and i'm able to refocus on my work. YMMV.
 
2012-11-02 11:03:57 PM

CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.


Pedophilia is not a static sexual orientation where someone simply is attracted sexually to prepubescent children. It's a progressive escalation of behaviors. While not all pedophiles are predatory in nature, child pornography is a way for them to escalate their fantasies. The really freaky thing about their pathology, though, is that they don't see it as harming a child - but loving them the way the child wants to be loved, in only a way they can understand.

Besides that, child pornography continues the victimization of the child long after even the initial perpetrator is captured and justice is done.
 
2012-11-02 11:05:06 PM

BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.


Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?
 
2012-11-02 11:06:18 PM

BronyMedic: Besides that, child pornography continues the victimization of the child long after even the initial perpetrator is captured and justice is done.


What if it is completely computer generated?
 
2012-11-02 11:07:36 PM
The comments section on that page is a dazzling example of why we have representatives make decisions and don't put everything up to a public vote. If everyone had their way, the death penalty would account for punishment for like the 20% worst crimes, life in prison for the next 30%, and we'd round off the 50% of least serious crimes by only giving people a decade or two. I think everyone should actually be subjected to their own brand of what they consider justice for one week, and after that week the world would be a much more humane and rational place.
 
2012-11-02 11:07:52 PM

Carlip: Im assuming there is a "that's not my garbage" defense.


With the exception that they found "hundreds of pictures of naked boys and girls on his computer", that would be a laugh, wouldn't it? Paedo next door was throwing out his trash in this guy's bin? Heh.

/note to self: dispose of incriminating documents in neighbors trash
 
2012-11-02 11:08:13 PM
What's the pedo's Fark handle
 
2012-11-02 11:08:44 PM

NewportBarGuy: i46.tinypic.com


leaving satisfied
 
2012-11-02 11:09:01 PM
They care a lot!
 
2012-11-02 11:09:32 PM
FTFA: "Eaton, from Tiverton, Devon, admitted 18 counts of making or possessing indecent images of children."

"Exeter Crown Court gave him an eight-month suspended sentence and ordered him to go on a sex offenders programme as part of a two-year supervision order."

...He imposed £300 costs.

The judge told Eaton... "Your barrister has described your behaviour as foolish but I regard it as very serious. They could have been found by anyone including young children"


So lemme get this straight... he admitted to 18 counts of possesing child porn, got no jail time (suspended sentence), a £300 fine... all because the "serious" part of this crime was that kids could have found the pictures in his trash?

Wow, the UK has to be the absolute worse place in the world to get caught if you're a pedo. I mean, 300 pounds and 2 years supervision... what is this, Auschwitz?

Also, why the fark would anybody print this shiat out? That high-def flat panel he used to view the pics before printing them wasn't good enough?
 
2012-11-02 11:10:40 PM
In before Mike Rowe
 
2012-11-02 11:11:20 PM
www.mikeroweworks.com

I'm Mike Rowe, and this is my job.
 
2012-11-02 11:11:23 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?


Oh, you really assume I care at this point. Yes, I know, I'm a horrible, heartless person for wishing ill things on pedophiles

ArcadianRefugee: What if it is completely computer generated?


Since when does a real-life child get victimized by the production of shota-ai or lolicon? And in what jurisdiction is that illegal, again?
 
2012-11-02 11:11:53 PM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: Besides that, child pornography continues the victimization of the child long after even the initial perpetrator is captured and justice is done.

What if it is completely computer generated?


computer generated animations have no victims, therefore it should be completely legal in my opinion. For Brony, i'd like to see specifics on this; not that I doubt there can be some serious consequences with *specific* CP, but I think in a society where active sub-18 and adult sexual relations take place, if it was accepted and not thought of as wrong, there would be very little in the way of negative consequences.
 
2012-11-02 11:13:35 PM

kriegfusion: computer generated animations have no victims, therefore it should be completely legal in my opinion. For Brony, i'd like to see specifics on this; not that I doubt there can be some serious consequences with *specific* CP, but I think in a society where active sub-18 and adult sexual relations take place, if it was accepted and not thought of as wrong, there would be very little in the way of negative consequences.


Please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by attempting to equate predatory pedophilia and ephebophilia with a 17 year old having sex with a 25 year old consensually.
 
2012-11-02 11:13:59 PM

CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.


Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.
 
2012-11-02 11:15:55 PM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: FTFA: "Eaton, from Tiverton, Devon, admitted 18 counts of making or possessing indecent images of children."

"Exeter Crown Court gave him an eight-month suspended sentence and ordered him to go on a sex offenders programme as part of a two-year supervision order."

...He imposed £300 costs.

The judge told Eaton... "Your barrister has described your behaviour as foolish but I regard it as very serious. They could have been found by anyone including young children"

So lemme get this straight... he admitted to 18 counts of possesing child porn, got no jail time (suspended sentence), a £300 fine... all because the "serious" part of this crime was that kids could have found the pictures in his trash?

Wow, the UK has to be the absolute worse place in the world to get caught if you're a pedo. I mean, 300 pounds and 2 years supervision... what is this, Auschwitz?

Also, why the fark would anybody print this shiat out? That high-def flat panel he used to view the pics before printing them wasn't good enough?


well, at least he didn't say anything mean.
 
2012-11-02 11:16:16 PM
Really? An eight month suspended sentence, with a 300 buck fine? And you have to register? Really? That's all? For making child porn and victimizing underage children? Wow....I don't even know what to say.
 
2012-11-02 11:17:18 PM
If they've hurt anyone, you could give them some brain surgery.

It'll be a delicate operation though. You'll need the right tools.

www.kingofswords.com
 
2012-11-02 11:18:17 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?

Oh, you really assume I care at this point. Yes, I know, I'm a horrible, heartless person for wishing ill things on pedophiles

ArcadianRefugee: What if it is completely computer generated?

Since when does a real-life child get victimized by the production of shota-ai or lolicon? And in what jurisdiction is that illegal, again?


Texas I believe ruled that comics and drawn depictions are the same thing as actual photographs.
 
2012-11-02 11:18:41 PM

BronyMedic: kriegfusion: computer generated animations have no victims, therefore it should be completely legal in my opinion. For Brony, i'd like to see specifics on this; not that I doubt there can be some serious consequences with *specific* CP, but I think in a society where active sub-18 and adult sexual relations take place, if it was accepted and not thought of as wrong, there would be very little in the way of negative consequences.

Please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by attempting to equate predatory pedophilia and ephebophilia with a 17 year old having sex with a 25 year old consensually.


The questions were talking about, from what I was gathering, pedophilia in general, and not predatory, which we can all agree predatory sexual actions in any form are bad. No one is insulting intelligence, or attempting to; perhaps you are, in automatically assuming being attracted to people under 18 is automatically predatory, and therefore creating a strawman argument right off the bad for the villagers to set afire.
 
2012-11-02 11:20:43 PM

BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.



mobile.freewallpaper4.me



concurs.
 
2012-11-02 11:22:34 PM

doglover: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.

Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.


Very well put, doglover. I think firstly society in an impartial way (who knows how we'd achieve that) could decide what a sensible cut off age would be acceptable. I personally go with mother nature and let her draw the line, although for relations at a younger age, damage done would have to be proven. With some kind of limit in place, the answer to fixing this *problem* if thats what we see it as, would lie in scientific study. Putting people behind bars does nothing to solve the problem in the long run. I'd much rather figure out what makes people sexually attracted to people of such a young age, and somehow maybe 'snip' that gene and take care of the problem in the bud.
 
2012-11-02 11:22:38 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?

Oh, you really assume I care at this point. Yes, I know, I'm a horrible, heartless person for wishing ill things on pedophiles


Actually, I just asked a question. But if you just lump the two together because hey, why not, ok then.

ArcadianRefugee: What if it is completely computer generated?

Since when does a real-life child get victimized by the production of shota-ai or lolicon? And in what jurisdiction is that illegal, again?


The US.

"The Supreme Court today [Monday, May 19, 2008] upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn't actually child pornography. Or involve actual children."

Link
 
2012-11-02 11:25:28 PM

ArcadianRefugee: The US.

"The Supreme Court today [Monday, May 19, 2008] upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn't actually child pornography. Or involve actual children."


Bolded the important part of that statement. It doesn't say what you think it says.
 
2012-11-02 11:26:52 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: The US.

"The Supreme Court today [Monday, May 19, 2008] upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn't actually child pornography. Or involve actual children."

Bolded the important part of that statement. It doesn't say what you think it says.


Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.
 
2012-11-02 11:28:55 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.


If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.
 
2012-11-02 11:31:43 PM

kriegfusion: doglover: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.

Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.

Very well put, doglover. I think firstly society in an impartial way (who knows how we'd achieve that) could decide what a sensible cut off age would be acceptable. I personally go with mother nature and let her draw the line, although for relations at a younger age, damage done would have to be proven. With some kind of limit in place, the answer to fixing this *problem* if thats what we see it as, would lie in scientific study. Putting people behind bars does nothing to solve the problem in the long run. I'd much rather figure out what makes people sexually attracted to people of such a young age, and somehow maybe 'snip' that gene and take care of the problem in the bud.


I don't think it's right to alter people like that just to fit current social mores. But it's also not right to harm other creatures just so you can orgasm.

I guess the only real solution is difficult. So here's a really bad solution that doesn't help anyone but I really like:

www.murphsplace.com

You wanna fark kids and animals? Well that's gonna happen. But if you control your farking libido, eat your veggies, and train well we can wrangle up some adult fans of the type you're into. Difficulty: you have to be prepared to take it like a man when and if the time comes.
 
2012-11-02 11:32:30 PM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: The US.

"The Supreme Court today [Monday, May 19, 2008] upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn't actually child pornography. Or involve actual children."

Bolded the important part of that statement. It doesn't say what you think it says.

Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.


Yeah, that is stupid. Computer-generated images don't hurt anyone.
 
2012-11-02 11:32:33 PM

doglover: kriegfusion: doglover: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.

Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.

Very well put, doglover. I think firstly society in an impartial way (who knows how we'd achieve that) could decide what a sensible cut off age would be acceptable. I personally go with mother nature and let her draw the line, although for relations at a younger age, damage done would have to be proven. With some kind of limit in place, the answer to fixing this *problem* if thats what we see it as, would lie in scientific study. Putting people behind bars does nothing to solve the problem in the long run. I'd much rather figure out what makes people sexually attracted to people of such a young age, and somehow maybe 'snip' that gene and take care of the problem in the bud.

I don't think it's right to alter people like that just to fit current social mores. But it's also not right to harm other creatures just so you can orgasm.

I guess the only real solution is difficult. So here's a really bad solution that doesn't help anyone but I really like:

[www.murphsplace.com image 504x352]

You wanna fark kids and animals? Well that's gonna hap ...


That's NOT gonna happen, rather.

Too busy checkin' the hotlink to proofread.
 
2012-11-02 11:33:27 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.


You might also want to read more on the actual case.

Wiki Link to the US v. Williams (2008) entry. The whole issue at hand was could the person be charged and convicted for trafficking in child pornography because he was passing around pictures of women which he tried to promote and distribute as child pornography, not drawings or hentai. The photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model, and was promoted as actual child pornography.
 
2012-11-02 11:33:44 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.


So? Promotion? So, if I 'promote' something as an actual murder, despite no one having been murdered, it should be prosecutable as such? That's ridiculous.

Last I checked, promoting something as something it was not was fraud, not (CP, murder, whatever).
 
2012-11-02 11:35:51 PM

ArcadianRefugee: So? Promotion? So, if I 'promote' something as an actual murder, despite no one having been murdered, it should be prosecutable as such? That's ridiculous.

Last I checked, promoting something as something it was not was fraud, not (CP, murder, whatever).


If you take an 18 year old model who has the body of a 12 year old, and digitally alter the photograph to resemble child pornography, then yes. Semantics matter. Your fraud turns into a federal sex crime charge the moment you try to spread it around to all the other pedos on the Tor.
 
2012-11-02 11:36:37 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

You might also want to read more on the actual case.

Wiki Link to the US v. Williams (2008) entry. The whole issue at hand was could the person be charged and convicted for trafficking in child pornography because he was passing around pictures of women which he tried to promote and distribute as child pornography, not drawings or hentai. The photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model, and was promoted as actual child pornography.


So if the same was done -- photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model -- and was promoted as "adult entertainment", then it should be entirely legal, despite the fact that the end result (the image) is exactly the farking same. Right?

"Sorry, your honor, that's not child pornography, that's merely 'adult entertainment'."

Right, and it's not 'child molestation', it's 'man-boy love'.
 
2012-11-02 11:39:04 PM

kriegfusion: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.

I don't believe pedophiles are sick, especially since there are degrees of it and most people don't know that. I think there's something wrong with finding younger-than-pubescent humans attractive, but only wrong in a scientific sense. I won't pass judgement on them.

I think you question regarding digitization is an interesting one. Sometimes you just want to kill some people, cause explosions, see people pay for their crimes (as uncivilized as that is), but instead of going out and committing these crimes, you go home, kick back, cook up some popcorn, and play some video games or watch DieHard. I think it may both make the problem worse for some, and bearable/forgettable for others. When i'm feeling randy, I find some porn on the pc and some minutes later relieves the bug, and i'm able to refocus on my work. YMMV.


Unfortunately the concept of scientifically wrong doesn't exist.
 
2012-11-02 11:40:28 PM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.

So? Promotion? So, if I 'promote' something as an actual murder, despite no one having been murdered, it should be prosecutable as such? That's ridiculous.

Last I checked, promoting something as something it was not was fraud, not (CP, murder, whatever).


The FBI nabs would be hitmen customers all the time. The people they contact are LEOs and would never follow through on anything, so no one is in danger, but the perps want a murder, so conspiracy to commit murder is the charge, even though arguably the would be victim is safer with their enemy in the FBIs cross hairs than they ever were in their life.
 
2012-11-02 11:44:32 PM

doglover: The FBI nabs would be hitmen customers all the time. The people they contact are LEOs and would never follow through on anything, so no one is in danger, but the perps want a murder, so conspiracy to commit murder is the charge, even though arguably the would be victim is safer with their enemy in the FBIs cross hairs than they ever were in their life.


"Conspiracy to commit" is not quite the same (as what I was saying) though, is it?
 
2012-11-02 11:44:40 PM

ArcadianRefugee: So if the same was done -- photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model -- and was promoted as "adult entertainment", then it should be entirely legal, despite the fact that the end result (the image) is exactly the farking same. Right?

"Sorry, your honor, that's not child pornography, that's merely 'adult entertainment'."

Right, and it's not 'child molestation', it's 'man-boy love'.


Wow. You just went full retard.

So I've gone from pointing out your understanding of the law is false and you trying to point out the law is broken because someone might get arrested for reading a hentai novel, to being a champion of child molesters?

images.wikia.com

people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
 
2012-11-02 11:45:12 PM
So the garbage men turned the pedo over to these guys?

i773.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 11:45:22 PM

andyfromfl: kriegfusion: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.

I don't believe pedophiles are sick, especially since there are degrees of it and most people don't know that. I think there's something wrong with finding younger-than-pubescent humans attractive, but only wrong in a scientific sense. I won't pass judgement on them.

I think you question regarding digitization is an interesting one. Sometimes you just want to kill some people, cause explosions, see people pay for their crimes (as uncivilized as that is), but instead of going out and committing these crimes, you go home, kick back, cook up some popcorn, and play some video games or watch DieHard. I think it may both make the problem worse for some, and bearable/forgettable for others. When i'm feeling randy, I find some porn on the pc and some minutes later relieves the bug, and i'm able to refocus on my work. YMMV.

Unfortunately the concept of scientifically wrong doesn't exist.


I do agree science does not claim anything to be right or wrong, which is why we need to create the right and wrongs ourselves. I simply think the current witch hunt with pedophiles is no different than the hunt against homosexuals and blacks of the past. In time, society will I hope become more tolerant (of healthy, consenting relations) between those of large differences in ages.
 
2012-11-02 11:46:35 PM
I guess they...

*puts on glasses*

... Took out the trash
 
2012-11-02 11:47:28 PM

CygnusDarius: I guess they...

*puts on glasses*

... Took out the trash


Sigh. Guess I have to do it, then.

miniganb.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-02 11:47:28 PM
I know you are, but what am I?
 
2012-11-02 11:51:45 PM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

You might also want to read more on the actual case.

Wiki Link to the US v. Williams (2008) entry. The whole issue at hand was could the person be charged and convicted for trafficking in child pornography because he was passing around pictures of women which he tried to promote and distribute as child pornography, not drawings or hentai. The photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model, and was promoted as actual child pornography.

So if the same was done -- photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model -- and was promoted as "adult entertainment", then it should be entirely legal, despite the fact that the end result (the image) is exactly the farking same. Right?

"Sorry, your honor, that's not child pornography, that's merely 'adult entertainment'."

Right, and it's not 'child molestation', it's 'man-boy love'.


Pretty much, yes
 
2012-11-02 11:53:11 PM
BronyMedic:

Why you continue to claim that my understanding of the law is faulty is bizarre to me, despite the fact that I repeatedly point out exactly what aspect of the law I am questioning, and wondering about your vantage point.

But if you want to post trite little 'argumentum' images,

Wow. You just went full retard.

how about 'ad hominum'? When you can't answer a question, attack the questioner.

Also, I don't think you grasp what a 'strawman fallacy' is.

I am questioning you directly (as I did earlier). Do you feel that your same 'image-regression' should be legal simply because it was "promoted" differently?

Me? I say no. The two should be treated exactly the same: neither should be criminal -- well, not a felony, anyway -- as neither has a victim. Now, if you want to claim "society is the victim!" (like "Drunk in Public" laws do) then fine, but that's a wimpy low-level misdemeanor.
 
2012-11-02 11:56:09 PM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.

So? Promotion? So, if I 'promote' something as an actual murder, despite no one having been murdered, it should be prosecutable as such? That's ridiculous.

Last I checked, promoting something as something it was not was fraud, not (CP, murder, whatever).


You really should read up on that case. Or at least just the link BronyMedic so helpfully provided. The statute at the center of the issue was pandering child porn. Further, the person distributing the digitally altered image was the cop. Finally, the court said that its ruling doesn't impact "virtual" child porn.
 
2012-11-02 11:58:05 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Why you continue to claim that my understanding of the law is faulty is bizarre to me, despite the fact that I repeatedly point out exactly what aspect of the law I am questioning, and wondering about your vantage point.


My vantage point is that while I find things like Shota-Ai and Lolicon distasteful, there is no victimization of children done by drawing them. Creating digitally altered child pornography, on the other hand, fuels the demand for child pornography, and leads to further victimization of children. The two aren't even comparable.

ArcadianRefugee: how about 'ad hominum'? When you can't answer a question, attack the questioner.


Ad Hominem would assume that I am arguing you're wrong because you're "full retard". I'm not. But, to add to that:

people.virginia.edu

ArcadianRefugee: Me? I say no. The two should be treated exactly the same: neither should be criminal -- well, not a felony, anyway -- as neither has a victim. Now, if you want to claim "society is the victim!" (like "Drunk in Public" laws do) then fine, but that's a wimpy low-level misdemeanor.


Society is not the only victim. Creation of fraudulant, but digitally altered child pornography that is not able to be differentiated from actual child pornography continued to further a market that fuels the victimization of children by predatory pedophiles, human trafficing rings, and organized child sex groups both in the United States and abroad.
 
2012-11-03 12:03:50 AM

JWideman:
You really should read up on that case. Or at least just the link BronyMedic so helpfully provided. The statute at the center of the issue was pandering child porn. Further, the person distributing the digitally altered image was the cop. Finally, the court said that its ruling doesn't impact "virtual" child porn.


To be completely honest, I am not interested in the specifics of the case. I'm more curious why Brony automatically lumps pedophiles and child molestors together as equals and wherein he draws the line.
 
2012-11-03 12:05:30 AM

BronyMedic: Creating digitally altered child pornography, on the other hand, fuels the demand for child pornography,


Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?
 
2012-11-03 12:08:08 AM

BronyMedic: Creation of fraudulant, but digitally altered child pornography that is not able to be differentiated from actual child pornography continued to further a market that fuels the victimization of children by predatory pedophiles, human trafficing rings, and organized child sex groups both in the United States and abroad.


Bullshiat.

I would counter that it takes advantage of and even detracts from the above by creating a substitute outlet.

But keep posting cutesy little ready-made retort images. I'm getting a kick, etc.
 
2012-11-03 12:08:11 AM

ArcadianRefugee: To be completely honest, I am not interested in the specifics of the case. I'm more curious why Brony automatically lumps pedophiles and child molestors together as equals and wherein he draws the line


Why do I lump them together? Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet. They both destroy the lives of their victims, and the majority of their crimes go unreported. For every Sandusky, you have thousands of others who will never be caught until decades after their crimes.

Where do I draw the line?

When they can be isolated away from children, or successfully treated to not have a third sexual orientation which leads them to get hard-ons every time they see a toddler on the playground is when I'll be happy..
 
2012-11-03 12:08:59 AM

BronyMedic: Why do I lump them together? Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet.


AH! okay.

Curious.
 
2012-11-03 12:11:39 AM

12349876: BronyMedic: Creating digitally altered child pornography, on the other hand, fuels the demand for child pornography,

Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?


Because a fueled market for violent video games doesn't require actual violence to feed. You can kill BILLIONS of virtual enemies across 1000s of titles without harming anyone or anything.

Child pornography REQUIRES the victimization of children to create. Allowing the market to exist in the first place makes it likely children will be victimized. Virtual images only fuel the fire.
 
2012-11-03 12:12:45 AM

12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?


Because we have research that shows that "violent movies and video games" aren't primary escalatory impetus for violent crimes, but rather a moral panic based on poor understanding of the pathology behind violent offenders, especially those who - for lack of a better word - snap under years of peer abuse at school or work.

ArcadianRefugee: I would counter that it takes advantage of and even detracts from the above by creating a substitute outlet.


Except that in reality it enables an escalation of their fantasies, which is why in the last 20 years, with the wide availability of cheap high speed internet access and easily used anonymous browsing and darknet software, it has seen new prominance since international law enforcement cracked down on IRC and Usenet rings in the 90s..
 
2012-11-03 12:13:40 AM

BronyMedic: Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet.


So you're claiming it's impossible to stay celibate for a lifetime? Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?
 
2012-11-03 12:13:55 AM

12349876: BronyMedic: Creating digitally altered child pornography, on the other hand, fuels the demand for child pornography,

Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?


Yeah, that's not a comparable analogy. You're assuming child porn is as popular and widespread as video games. Sorry, child porn doesn't have mainstream appeal. If you're into it, you've got a serious problem.
 
2012-11-03 12:16:36 AM
I'm pretty drunk and just skimming the thread. Are people really defending pedophiles? WTF.
 
2012-11-03 12:18:36 AM

12349876: So you're claiming it's impossible to stay celibate for a lifetime?


If you want to falsely assume Pedophilic Sexual Orientations are the same as Adult Sexual Orientations, yes, I am. The only ways a pedophile is going to stay celibate in terms of pediatric sexual abuse is either 1) Isolating him//herself completely from the age group they are attracted to, or 2) the development of an effective pharmacological treatment which can treat the neurological features of pedophilia, or therapy which can treat the third sexual orientation.

Pedophilia does not replace sexual orientation like heterosexuality/homosexuality, it either develops in lieu of it, or develops separately from it. It's the way people like Sandusky can bone their wives one night, and then rape a boy in the shower the next night.

12349876: Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?


Of course I do. Because we know for a fact that's the case. In addition, the Catholic church has been rocked by numerous sex scandals regarding the cover-up of predatory pedophiles.
 
OKO
2012-11-03 12:18:55 AM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: To be completely honest, I am not interested in the specifics of the case. I'm more curious why Brony automatically lumps pedophiles and child molestors together as equals and wherein he draws the line

Why do I lump them together? Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet. .


Oh, fork fark's sake. You know, s/he actually may not have molested or broken the law. However, sweeping generalisations tarring people with the same brush works as an internet argument.
 
2012-11-03 12:19:10 AM

BronyMedic: Except that in reality it enables an escalation of their fantasies, which is why in the last 20 years, with the wide availability of cheap high speed internet access and easily used anonymous browsing and darknet software, it has seen new prominance since international law enforcement cracked down on IRC and Usenet rings in the 90s..


Yes, yes. But the same argument could be used against anything. "Violent video games enable an escalation of their fantasies" is, no doubt, one of the more common ones. I don't really like to dabble in "omg something is possible". I prefer to deal with more concrete stuff.

Anyway, you've asked the question I actually wanted answered (the same question I hedged around at the very beginning. Forgive me for that; I'll be more direct in the future).
 
OKO
2012-11-03 12:19:40 AM

BronyMedic: Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet. They both destroy the lives of their victims, and the majority of their crimes go unreported.


[citation required].
 
2012-11-03 12:21:58 AM

BronyMedic: Of course I do. Because we know for a fact that's the case. In addition, the Catholic church has been rocked by numerous sex scandals regarding the cover-up of predatory pedophiles.


I'm well aware of the pedophile problem in the Priesthood. That's why I said 100%. Are you seriously saying EVERY SINGLE Priest or Nun that has ever existed has had sex. Show me a citation or STFU.
 
2012-11-03 12:24:38 AM
Eventually personal computers are going to get to the point where anyone can make photorealistic kiddie porn movies, featuring anything they can imagine. I'm sort of curious as to what will happen then. Will all movies be preceded by a disclaimer like "The actress in this film is CG and was 18 when she was imagined?" Not to mention the freedom of speech issues.
 
2012-11-03 12:26:32 AM

OKO: BronyMedic: Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet. They both destroy the lives of their victims, and the majority of their crimes go unreported.

[citation required].


Time Magazine: Most Child Abuse goes Unreported
Why does so much child abuse go unreported?

The fact of the matter is that most sexual abuse between an adult and a child is done within their family or sphere of close adults, and that the majority of it goes unreported or unrecognized. In addition, female offenders are far more likely to get away with their crimes than male offenders.
 
2012-11-03 12:29:21 AM
I'm curious how a picture of a naked boy would do harm, if a boy found it? I mean, all the finder
would have to do is look down and see the (roughly) same thing..Provided they were simply JUST
nudie pics. But that same logic doesn't hold true when mom and dad buy the kid the latest splaterfest
game or movie..I'm just a little dubious to the idea of harm of that..Especially if it's the same gender.

/just askin the questions...
 
2012-11-03 12:31:41 AM

12349876: I'm well aware of the pedophile problem in the Priesthood. That's why I said 100%. Are you seriously saying EVERY SINGLE Priest or Nun that has ever existed has had sex. Show me a citation or STFU.


Let's play a game. Troll or Deliberately Disinginous? I'm leaning towards the second, but you've got the dial kind of twitching both ways.

I don't have to say every single one, nor did I claim to. I just have to point out that we know your statement to be false by the astounding number of clergy sex abuse cases, as well as the laws of averages. In addition, most denominations that are non-catholic do not place the same celibacy standards on their priests, and many are married. As well, the Catholic Church states one not be a virgin, but rather simply take a vow.

12349876: Show me a citation or STFU.


You're the one making an appeal to authority on the virtue of someone claiming to be a priest or a nun means that they could not possibly be lying when they say they are celibate. Go do your own research to prove Strawmen like that.

If you don't like what I have to say, you can either leave the thread or ignore me. It's really that simple.
 
2012-11-03 12:33:40 AM

BronyMedic: Let's play a game. Troll or Deliberately Disinginous?


My money's on troll.
 
2012-11-03 12:35:21 AM

BronyMedic: You're the one making an appeal to authority on the virtue of someone claiming to be a priest or a nun means that they could not possibly be lying when they say they are celibate


I'm not saying none of them are lying. I'm just saying at least a few are telling the truth. You're saying that 100% of them are lying.
 
2012-11-03 12:35:58 AM
I'd like to point out that anyone with the name "brony" in their user name is guaranteed to be an expert on children and bizarre sexual fantasies, so you should all listen to them.
 
2012-11-03 12:36:10 AM

RealAmericanHero: The comments section on that page is a dazzling example of why we have representatives make decisions and don't put everything up to a public vote. If everyone had their way, the death penalty would account for punishment for like the 20% worst crimes, life in prison for the next 30%, and we'd round off the 50% of least serious crimes by only giving people a decade or two. I think everyone should actually be subjected to their own brand of what they consider justice for one week, and after that week the world would be a much more humane and rational place.


Ack now I hate enforced therapy.
 
OKO
2012-11-03 12:36:43 AM

BronyMedic: OKO: BronyMedic: Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet. They both destroy the lives of their victims, and the majority of their crimes go unreported.

[citation required].

Time Magazine: Most Child Abuse goes Unreported
Why does so much child abuse go unreported?

The fact of the matter is that most sexual abuse between an adult and a child is done within their family or sphere of close adults, and that the majority of it goes unreported or unrecognized. In addition, female offenders are far more likely to get away with their crimes than male offenders.

Neither link proves your point. One deals with abuse, focusing on mental and physical abuse/neglect.
The other deals with neglect again, and a rape.

A "review of research" came up with a claim of under reporting. Well, that is absolutely conclusive. Conclusive of what I am unsure. The best example point of speculating from unseen data I have seen since the last birther discussion.
 
2012-11-03 12:37:07 AM

BronyMedic: 12349876: I'm well aware of the pedophile problem in the Priesthood. That's why I said 100%. Are you seriously saying EVERY SINGLE Priest or Nun that has ever existed has had sex. Show me a citation or STFU.

Let's play a game. Troll or Deliberately Disinginous? I'm leaning towards the second, but you've got the dial kind of twitching both ways.

I don't have to say every single one, nor did I claim to. I just have to point out that we know your statement to be false by the astounding number of clergy sex abuse cases, as well as the laws of averages. In addition, most denominations that are non-catholic do not place the same celibacy standards on their priests, and many are married. As well, the Catholic Church states one not be a virgin, but rather simply take a vow.

12349876: Show me a citation or STFU.

You're the one making an appeal to authority on the virtue of someone claiming to be a priest or a nun means that they could not possibly be lying when they say they are celibate. Go do your own research to prove Strawmen like that.

If you don't like what I have to say, you can either leave the thread or ignore me. It's really that simple.


You have gone completely off the deep end lately in nearly every thread you've been in. I think it's time you take a vacation - I think your job stress is bleeding over into your home life.
 
2012-11-03 12:39:37 AM

12349876: You're saying that 100% of them are lying.


I am? Really? Where? Because I'm pretty sure what I said was the fact that they are a priest or nun does not mean they are being truthful on the virtue of it's own. When it comes to celebacy, 100% of Nuns and Priests are NOT celibate as they claim. While a large majority might be, it is fallacious to claim that is the case because we know it not to be.

BronyMedic: 12349876: Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?

Of course I do. Because we know for a fact that's the case. In addition, the Catholic church has been rocked by numerous sex scandals regarding the cover-up of predatory pedophiles.


It's not my fault you asked a deliberately loaded question, and then tried to muddy the argument when I didn't fall into your trap of answering in the manner you hoped. So, when are you going to stop beating your wife, and when are you going to confess to the girl you raped and murdered in 1990, sir?

cdn.churchm.ag
 
2012-11-03 12:43:27 AM

BronyMedic: I am? Really? Where? Because I'm pretty sure what I said was the fact that they are a priest or nun does not mean they are being truthful on the virtue of it's own. When it comes to celebacy, 100% of Nuns and Priests are NOT celibate as they claim. While a large majority might be, it is fallacious to claim that is the case because we know it not to be.


From your 12:18:36 posting

Me: Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?

You: Of course I do.

My point is that if even a few priests and nuns can stay celibate, then so can a few pedophiles.

And from that pdf you cited earlier, it cites a study that says viewing child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing contact offenses (2nd full paragraph page 12) and concludes that online and offline behavior can be very different (last full paragraph page 13)
 
2012-11-03 12:46:33 AM

12349876: BronyMedic: I am? Really? Where? Because I'm pretty sure what I said was the fact that they are a priest or nun does not mean they are being truthful on the virtue of it's own. When it comes to celebacy, 100% of Nuns and Priests are NOT celibate as they claim. While a large majority might be, it is fallacious to claim that is the case because we know it not to be.

From your 12:18:36 posting

Me: Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?

You: Of course I do.

My point is that if even a few priests and nuns can stay celibate, then so can a few pedophiles.

And from that pdf you cited earlier, it cites a study that says viewing child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing contact offenses (2nd full paragraph page 12) and concludes that online and offline behavior can be very different (last full paragraph page 13)


Well that's great that you aren't raping the kids you jerk off too. Keep it up.
 
2012-11-03 12:50:17 AM

OKO: BronyMedic: OKO: BronyMedic: Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet. They both destroy the lives of their victims, and the majority of their crimes go unreported.

[citation required].

Time Magazine: Most Child Abuse goes Unreported
Why does so much child abuse go unreported?

The fact of the matter is that most sexual abuse between an adult and a child is done within their family or sphere of close adults, and that the majority of it goes unreported or unrecognized. In addition, female offenders are far more likely to get away with their crimes than male offenders.
Neither link proves your point. One deals with abuse, focusing on mental and physical abuse/neglect.
The other deals with neglect again, and a rape.

A "review of research" came up with a claim of under reporting. Well, that is absolutely conclusive. Conclusive of what I am unsure. The best example point of speculating from unseen data I have seen since the last birther discussion.


Maybe the Department Of Justice would be a reliable source for you, then?

60% of Child Sexual Abuse cases go unreported, and 25% of Adults do not report recognized child sexual abuse.
 
2012-11-03 12:52:01 AM

farkingismybusiness: 12349876: BronyMedic: I am? Really? Where? Because I'm pretty sure what I said was the fact that they are a priest or nun does not mean they are being truthful on the virtue of it's own. When it comes to celebacy, 100% of Nuns and Priests are NOT celibate as they claim. While a large majority might be, it is fallacious to claim that is the case because we know it not to be.

From your 12:18:36 posting

Me: Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?

You: Of course I do.

My point is that if even a few priests and nuns can stay celibate, then so can a few pedophiles.

And from that pdf you cited earlier, it cites a study that says viewing child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing contact offenses (2nd full paragraph page 12) and concludes that online and offline behavior can be very different (last full paragraph page 13)

Well that's great that you aren't raping the kids you jerk off too. Keep it up.


How did you get that idea? Probably from what you were doing before getting on this thread.
 
2012-11-03 12:56:40 AM

12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: BronyMedic: I am? Really? Where? Because I'm pretty sure what I said was the fact that they are a priest or nun does not mean they are being truthful on the virtue of it's own. When it comes to celebacy, 100% of Nuns and Priests are NOT celibate as they claim. While a large majority might be, it is fallacious to claim that is the case because we know it not to be.

From your 12:18:36 posting

Me: Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?

You: Of course I do.

My point is that if even a few priests and nuns can stay celibate, then so can a few pedophiles.

And from that pdf you cited earlier, it cites a study that says viewing child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing contact offenses (2nd full paragraph page 12) and concludes that online and offline behavior can be very different (last full paragraph page 13)

Well that's great that you aren't raping the kids you jerk off too. Keep it up.

How did you get that idea? Probably from what you were doing before getting on this thread.


You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.
 
2012-11-03 12:57:42 AM

farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.


Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?
 
2012-11-03 12:57:55 AM
I always avoided Sun links based on the fact they seem to be considered a huge, worthless joke here on Fark. Read a couple stories, the tone is all retarded and everything is full of suppositions, weasel words and seeming half truths. Googled to see who owned it and IMAGINE MY TOTAL LACK OF SURPRISE

When I become president I am going to war with Australia.
 
2012-11-03 12:58:36 AM
As someone who hasn't gotten lucky since 1989, when my last girlfriend dumped me, I certainly believe it's possible to live a lifetime without sex. Though I don't know why you'd want to.

The trouble I have with the claim that even computer generated images of pedo fantasies leads to children being victimized is that there is a subset of feminists who argue that plain vanilla porn leads to rape. And they will trot out all sorts of studies to back up their position. As a longtime consumer of plain vanilla porn, I've never even considered raping a woman (if a woman isn't attracted to me, it makes me sad, not rapey). Anecdotal, I know, but it makes me very doubtful of feminist claims of the causal link between nude images of adult women leading to the rape of adult women. But child molesters aren't people whose mindset I can comprehend, so maybe it would lead to pedophiles escalating into child molesters. If that's true, then it justifies a crackdown on images of that sort.
 
2012-11-03 01:01:01 AM

12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?


Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.
 
2012-11-03 01:02:11 AM

farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.


And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.
 
2012-11-03 01:02:50 AM
Two things this article taught me.

1) throwing away an illegal item is distribution of said item
2) Putting pictures of child porn in someones garbage is a great way to make them look bad.
 
2012-11-03 01:02:57 AM

12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.

And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.


Whatever you got to tell yourself. Seek professional help.
 
2012-11-03 01:03:16 AM

Carousel Beast: You have gone completely off the deep end lately in nearly every thread you've been in. I think it's time you take a vacation - I think your job stress is bleeding over into your home life.


This topic has nothing to do with job stress. I hold a special hatred in my heart for pedophiles and their white knights. And I sure as heck wouldn't share the details on FARK with a group of people well known for calling sexual abuse victims attention whores and making fun of them.

But I appreciate the concern, even if it is in jest. I have a vacation next week, actually. :)

12349876: Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?


You're not being intellectual. You're asking loaded questions and trying to trap people in misleading statements.
 
2012-11-03 01:04:28 AM

farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.

And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.

Whatever you got to tell yourself. Seek professional help.


Keep on not answering my question.
 
2012-11-03 01:05:35 AM

12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.

And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.

Whatever you got to tell yourself. Seek professional help.

Keep on not answering my question.


You really can't tell the difference? You sound like a pedophile.
 
2012-11-03 01:05:46 AM

BronyMedic: You're not being intellectual. You're asking loaded questions and trying to trap people in misleading statements.


You walked yourself into saying 100% of Priests and Nuns are lying about not having sex. Go read your 12:18:36 post.
 
2012-11-03 01:07:55 AM

farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.

And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.

Whatever you got to tell yourself. Seek professional help.

Keep on not answering my question.

You really can't tell the difference? You sound like a pedophile.


You really can't answer the question can you? You want to agree with the branch of feminists who say the sexualization of women cause men to become rapists?
 
2012-11-03 01:08:46 AM
This thread is bad, so I'm going to improve it with a Mitch Hedberg joke.

"I saw this commercial on late night TV, it was for this thing you attach to a garden hose, it was like "You can water your hard-to-reach plants with this product." Who the fark would make their plants hard to reach? That seems so very mean. "I know you need water, but I'm gonna make you hard to reach! I will throw water at you. Hopefully they will invent a product before you shrivel and die! Think like a cactus!" So it said, "You can have this product for four easy payments of 19.95." I would like to have a product that was available for three easy payments, and one farkin' complicated payment! We ain't gonna tell you which payment it is, but one of these payments is gonna be a biatch. The mailman will get shot to death, the envelope will not seal, and the stamp will be in the wrong denomination; good luck, farker! The last payment must be made in wampum!"
 
2012-11-03 01:11:26 AM

BronyMedic: a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet


By the way, which ready-made 'argumentum' image is designed for that? Is there one for Generalization?
 
2012-11-03 01:11:39 AM

doglover: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.

Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.



You HAVE heard of Gowan's 'Criminal Mind' on Youtube, have you not???
 
2012-11-03 01:12:01 AM

12349876: BronyMedic: You're not being intellectual. You're asking loaded questions and trying to trap people in misleading statements.

You walked yourself into saying 100% of Priests and Nuns are lying about not having sex. Go read your 12:18:36 post.


So you're admitting that you asked a purposefully misleading question with the intention of attempting to portray me as saying something I didn't, and are now arguing from the straw-man you created? Because the only other option would be that you're trying to claim that 100% of priests and nuns are completely truthful when they say they are chaste. You're trying to pretend that because 100% of Priests and Nuns are not truthful, that all of them are lying, and then demanding proof based on that strawman.

That's not intellectual consistancy. That's trying to play checkmate from the position of the fool.

You are attempting to argue a bifurcation where none exists.
 
2012-11-03 01:12:48 AM

ShadowWolf: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?

Oh, you really assume I care at this point. Yes, I know, I'm a horrible, heartless person for wishing ill things on pedophiles

ArcadianRefugee: What if it is completely computer generated?

Since when does a real-life child get victimized by the production of shota-ai or lolicon? And in what jurisdiction is that illegal, again?

Texas I believe ruled that comics and drawn depictions are the same thing as actual photographs.



Japan, however, did not.
 
2012-11-03 01:13:25 AM

12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.

And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.

Whatever you got to tell yourself. Seek professional help.

Keep on not answering my question.

You really can't tell the difference? You sound like a pedophile.

You really can't answer the question can you? You want to agree with the branch of feminists who say the sexualization of women cause men to become rapists?


The freaks come out at night.

Try to contain your boner for Jermaine Dupri as a kid.
 
2012-11-03 01:15:15 AM

ArcadianRefugee: By the way, which ready-made 'argumentum' image is designed for that? Is there one for Generalization?


Here. These might help you.

people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
 
2012-11-03 01:16:16 AM

BronyMedic: OKO: BronyMedic: OKO: BronyMedic: Because a pedophile who claims he's never molested a child or broke the law is just one who hasn't been caught yet. They both destroy the lives of their victims, and the majority of their crimes go unreported.

[citation required].

Time Magazine: Most Child Abuse goes Unreported
Why does so much child abuse go unreported?

The fact of the matter is that most sexual abuse between an adult and a child is done within their family or sphere of close adults, and that the majority of it goes unreported or unrecognized. In addition, female offenders are far more likely to get away with their crimes than male offenders.
Neither link proves your point. One deals with abuse, focusing on mental and physical abuse/neglect.
The other deals with neglect again, and a rape.

A "review of research" came up with a claim of under reporting. Well, that is absolutely conclusive. Conclusive of what I am unsure. The best example point of speculating from unseen data I have seen since the last birther discussion.

Maybe the Department Of Justice would be a reliable source for you, then?

60% of Child Sexual Abuse cases go unreported, and 25% of Adults do not report recognized child sexual abuse.


None of which has anything to do with the subject at hand.

Has a pattern even been established? Are the people who have lots of computer generated kiddie porn actually more likely to abuse children than people who have never seen it? I'm reasonably certain that there's lots of kiddie diddlers out there who don't collect child porn of any type.

Has anybody established this pattern in anything yet? Are people who play violent video games more likely to kill people? Are people who watch rape porn more likely to rape somebody? Does being a furry make it more likely that you'll commit bestiality? Are people who collect kiddie porn more likely to actually rape kids?

I think that "anyone who collects kiddie porn rapes kids" idea is bullshiat. And when you accept that premise, then the same argument applies to other legal escapes that would be illegal if you actually did them.
 
2012-11-03 01:16:16 AM

BronyMedic: So you're admitting that you asked a purposefully misleading question


So you're admitting that you suck at reading comprehension. Please tell me what's misleading about that question.

Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?

Yes means you think 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate
No means you think there's at least one Priest or Nun who is celibate
 
2012-11-03 01:16:58 AM

farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.

And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.

Whatever you got to tell yourself. Seek professional help.

Keep on not answering my question.

You really can't tell the difference? You sound like a pedophile.

You really can't answer the question can you? You want to agree with the branch of feminists who say the sexualization of women cause men to become rapists?

The freaks come out at night.

Try to contain your boner for Jermaine Dupri as a kid.


When you can't argue, attack.
 
2012-11-03 01:18:03 AM
420.thrashbarg.net

/ I don't play GTA for precisely this reason.
 
2012-11-03 01:20:09 AM

12349876: So you're admitting that you suck at reading comprehension. Please tell me what's misleading about that question.

Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?

Yes means you think 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate
No means you think there's at least one Priest or Nun who is celibate


Except that's not what the question is asking at all, and is a textbook example of a loaded question, as well as an attempt to take a contextual quote and use it to say something that was never intended.. When will you stop beating your wife, Sir. Answer the question?
 
2012-11-03 01:21:41 AM

12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.

And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.

Whatever you got to tell yourself. Seek professional help.

Keep on not answering my question.

You really can't tell the difference? You sound like a pedophile.

You really can't answer the question can you? You want to agree with the branch of feminists who say the sexualization of women cause men to become rapists?

The freaks come out at night.

Try to contain your boner for Jermaine Dupri as a kid.

When you can't argue, attack.


What exactly are you arguing against? I have no idea what feminism has to do with this.
 
2012-11-03 01:22:04 AM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: By the way, which ready-made 'argumentum' image is designed for that? Is there one for Generalization?

Here. These might help you.

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]
[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]
[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]


Nope, no.... None of those. Something more along the lines of "x is icky, so they probably y as well" or "since some x do y, all x must do y". Something like that.
 
2012-11-03 01:22:04 AM

BronyMedic: 12349876: So you're admitting that you suck at reading comprehension. Please tell me what's misleading about that question.

Do you wish to claim that 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate?

Yes means you think 100% of Priests and Nuns aren't celibate
No means you think there's at least one Priest or Nun who is celibate

Except that's not what the question is asking at all, and is a textbook example of a loaded question, as well as an attempt to take a contextual quote and use it to say something that was never intended.. When will you stop beating your wife, Sir. Answer the question?


Then what is the question asking?
 
2012-11-03 01:23:47 AM

farkingismybusiness: What exactly are you arguing against? I have no idea what feminism has to do with this.


He doesn't like the fact that you ignored his attempt to portray you as part of the Femnazi Elite.
 
2012-11-03 01:25:32 AM

12349876: Then what is the question asking?


Please ignore my intellectually dishonest trolling wherein I pass off loaded questions as legitimate inquiry into a position?
 
2012-11-03 01:26:01 AM

BronyMedic: farkingismybusiness: What exactly are you arguing against? I have no idea what feminism has to do with this.

He doesn't like the fact that you ignored his attempt to portray you as part of the Femnazi Elite.


It's pretty bad when someone as drunk as me makes the most sense.

/but then again, I'm not a pedophile.
 
2012-11-03 01:27:56 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Nope, no.... None of those. Something more along the lines of "x is icky, so they probably y as well" or "since some x do y, all x must do y". Something like that.


Would you feel better if I just said my personal position on the matter is that they can all go eat a bullet, and I don't have to justify why to anyone?
 
2012-11-03 01:28:41 AM

12349876: farkingismybusiness: 12349876: farkingismybusiness: You're the one comparing cgi child porn to violence in video games. You're coming off extremely creepy.

Since when is intellectual consistency creepy?

Since you compare violence in video games to cgi child porn.

And why shouldn't I? What's the difference? Both have simulated images of illegal acts.


I agree - somehow a teen in Oz got put on the predator registry for sharing around everyone doing everyone Simpson pics (he was lucky homosexual pics were no longer illegal) - I cannot bring myself to think that simulated is the same as real (I am picturing in my head the violent death of a national leader - this is not the same as performing said act).

If one simulated is going to be a crime (a victimless one) then surely mass indiscriminate slaughter (pretty much our number one crime) is more worthy of appearing on some life time list.

(the whole thing reeks of 'Thought Crime' - just thinking off punching your wife in the face isn't domestic violence, nor is drawing a picture of your wife being slaughtered - thought crimes limit the horror of the real ones.)
 
2012-11-03 01:29:11 AM

farkingismybusiness: What exactly are you arguing against? I have no idea what feminism has to do with this.


Here's the questions I'm trying to get answers to.

What makes a simulated image of one type of crime different from another type? Why should we be inconsistent?

Why does a simulated image of one act encourage someone to do that act but not a simulated image of another act?

The feminism relation here is that some of the fringe elements believe sexualized images of women cause men to become rapists, the same argument some are using here for banning CGI porn.
 
2012-11-03 01:29:40 AM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Nope, no.... None of those. Something more along the lines of "x is icky, so they probably y as well" or "since some x do y, all x must do y". Something like that.

Would you feel better if I just said my personal position on the matter is that they can all go eat a bullet, and I don't have to justify why to anyone?


Considering your job is to save lives, this would imply a conflict of interest.
 
2012-11-03 01:31:03 AM

BronyMedic: 12349876: Then what is the question asking?

Please ignore my intellectually dishonest trolling wherein I pass off loaded questions as legitimate inquiry into a position?


Just keep on saying that it's a loaded question without giving a reason and maybe it will come true.
 
2012-11-03 01:31:44 AM

CrispFlows: Considering your job is to save lives, this would imply a conflict of interest.


Not really. Did you know that hundreds of people die in America each day waiting for an organ transplant?
 
2012-11-03 01:32:29 AM

Honkey Magoo: I always avoided Sun links based on the fact they seem to be considered a huge, worthless joke here on Fark. Read a couple stories, the tone is all retarded and everything is full of suppositions, weasel words and seeming half truths. Googled to see who owned it and IMAGINE MY TOTAL LACK OF SURPRISE

When I become president I am going to war with Australia.


Hey he is one of your's now - he gave out our luvly citizenship for more money :p
 
2012-11-03 01:32:33 AM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Nope, no.... None of those. Something more along the lines of "x is icky, so they probably y as well" or "since some x do y, all x must do y". Something like that.

Would you feel better if I just said my personal position on the matter is that they can all go eat a bullet, and I don't have to justify why to anyone?


In a way, yes. But it just strikes me as ... un-you? I'll admit to not knowing you personally, but from what I've seen of you on Fark (most recently in the 'Sandy' threads) you have always seemed to be rather intelligent and balanced (for Fark anyway). To see you so emotional slash irrational (if you don't mind my using the term) just caught me off-guard.

If it truly is a 'personal' thing, forgive me; I'll shut up now (and don't really want to know any more). Like I said: just surprised me.
 
2012-11-03 01:34:03 AM

ArcadianRefugee: If it truly is a 'personal' thing, forgive me; I'll shut up now (and don't really want to know any more). Like I said: just surprised me.


Yeah, it is a personal thing. I'll admit I have bias in this arena of debate. Especially when I say that the majority of CSA goes unreported until later in life.
 
2012-11-03 01:34:08 AM

CrispFlows: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Nope, no.... None of those. Something more along the lines of "x is icky, so they probably y as well" or "since some x do y, all x must do y". Something like that.

Would you feel better if I just said my personal position on the matter is that they can all go eat a bullet, and I don't have to justify why to anyone?

Considering your job is to save lives, this would imply a conflict of interest.


I wouldn't go there. I can personally find a person detestable and yet work to save their life because it's my job.

Hell, I worked as a secretary for a number of years; the job is to smile at people you'd really rather just punch. It can work. Perhaps not ideal, but that's another topic.
 
2012-11-03 01:34:53 AM

12349876: farkingismybusiness: What exactly are you arguing against? I have no idea what feminism has to do with this.

Here's the questions I'm trying to get answers to.

What makes a simulated image of one type of crime different from another type? Why should we be inconsistent?

Why does a simulated image of one act encourage someone to do that act but not a simulated image of another act?

The feminism relation here is that some of the fringe elements believe sexualized images of women cause men to become rapists, the same argument some are using here for banning CGI porn.


If you're watching cgi child porn you ARE a sick fark. I don't care what the difference is. I hate you for it and I would feel safer if you were dead or in prison, preferably dead.

/Feminism has nothing to do with it.
 
2012-11-03 01:36:27 AM

12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?


Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games.

Possession of child pornography therefore...
 
2012-11-03 01:36:49 AM

ArcadianRefugee: CrispFlows: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Nope, no.... None of those. Something more along the lines of "x is icky, so they probably y as well" or "since some x do y, all x must do y". Something like that.

Would you feel better if I just said my personal position on the matter is that they can all go eat a bullet, and I don't have to justify why to anyone?

Considering your job is to save lives, this would imply a conflict of interest.

I wouldn't go there. I can personally find a person detestable and yet work to save their life because it's my job.

Hell, I worked as a secretary for a number of years; the job is to smile at people you'd really rather just punch. It can work. Perhaps not ideal, but that's another topic.


No. He has a valid point in stating that. It's why I answered with a semi-snarky statement. Yes, it is my job to treat people impartially, and I do that. I can put aside my emotions during a time of emergency, and have done so multiple times. It's the same way a lawyer can defend the most vile of clients, and go home to sleep at night.
 
2012-11-03 01:39:38 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?

Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games.

Possession of child pornography therefore...


This guy gets it. I don't understand any argument to the contrary. WTF is wrong with people.
 
2012-11-03 01:40:35 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?

Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games but not necessarily committing that violence in real life.

Possession of child pornography therefore...

 
2012-11-03 01:42:07 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?

Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games.

Possession of child pornography therefore...


But would fake child porn increase or reduce child rape? It's a legitimate question, at least if you're interested in preventing kids from being victimized. Yes, it's still icky, but I'm not aware of any good evidence either way. This is a question that ought to be decided with solid facts and evidence, not emotion.
 
2012-11-03 01:42:45 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?

Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games.

Possession of child pornography therefore...


Nope not falling for it - we have mistaken somehow sex being worse than violence, where as VIOLENCE is always worse than sex ALWAYS - now violent sex is bad not because of the sex, but because of the violence!

To be honest we seem to prefer violence over sex - and it is probably an indictment on us all.
 
2012-11-03 01:43:05 AM

12349876: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?

Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games but not necessarily committing that violence in real life.

Possession of child pornography therefore...


So you think jerking off to your private child porn stash is ok. Please get help before you hurt someone's child.

/actually just kill yourself
 
2012-11-03 01:46:19 AM

12349876: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?

Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games but not necessarily committing that violence in real life.

Possession of child pornography therefore...


Of all the things to white knight, of all the social injustices to champion, you choose to white knight Kiddie Porn?

Damn, man.
 
2012-11-03 01:46:21 AM

12349876: Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games but not necessarily committing that violence in real life.

Possession of child pornography therefore...


Also amazingly enough, centuries of human sexual behavior have also taught us that your preference in pornography runs a straight line to what turns you on sexually. Therefore, if you're in possession of significant quantities of child pornography, well, there's a reason your parole officer wants to know why you went past that elementary school yesterday.
 
2012-11-03 01:48:21 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games but not necessarily committing that violence in real life.

Possession of child pornography therefore...

Also amazingly enough, centuries of human sexual behavior have also taught us that your preference in pornography runs a straight line to what turns you on sexually. Therefore, if you're in possession of significant quantities of child pornography, well, there's a reason your parole officer wants to know why you went past that elementary school yesterday.


www.thedailyrock.com
 
2012-11-03 01:52:47 AM
I hate to think there are real pedo's on Fark. Sadly...

/get help
 
2012-11-03 01:59:14 AM

BronyMedic: Of all the things to white knight, of all the social injustices to champion, you choose to white knight Kiddie Porn?


Where do you get the idea that I'm white knighting it? Nowhere have I condoned the abuse of children. Those people should be locked up, and those who support them by looking at it should be too. All I'm saying in this thread is that your absolute 100% assertion about the connection between orientation and porn usage to crime is not 100%
 
2012-11-03 02:00:38 AM

12349876: Where do you get the idea that I'm white knighting it? Nowhere have I condoned the abuse of children. Those people should be locked up, and those who support them by looking at it should be too. All I'm saying in this thread is that your absolute 100% assertion about the connection between orientation and porn usage to crime is not 100%


I've stated it's my personal feeling on the matter, and YMMV. I just feel that after saying the things you have said in here, you really need to make it clear that is the stance you have.
 
2012-11-03 02:03:55 AM

BronyMedic: 12349876: Where do you get the idea that I'm white knighting it? Nowhere have I condoned the abuse of children. Those people should be locked up, and those who support them by looking at it should be too. All I'm saying in this thread is that your absolute 100% assertion about the connection between orientation and porn usage to crime is not 100%

I've stated it's my personal feeling on the matter, and YMMV. I just feel that after saying the things you have said in here, you really need to make it clear that is the stance you have.


Yep. He sounds like a pedo. If you're playing devil's advocate you picked the wrong cause, scumbag.
 
2012-11-03 02:06:21 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games but not necessarily committing that violence in real life.

Possession of child pornography therefore...

Also amazingly enough, centuries of human sexual behavior have also taught us that your preference in pornography runs a straight line to what turns you on sexually. Therefore, if you're in possession of significant quantities of child pornography, well, there's a reason your parole officer wants to know why you went past that elementary school yesterday.


Completely agree here. If you're into any kind of real child porn, there should be someone monitoring you and making sure you aren't getting into trouble or hanging out with kids. All I'm saying is that's it's not 100% inevitable that someone who watches ends up acting. It's a statement of reality, not an argument for or against any laws.
 
2012-11-03 02:07:48 AM

12349876: BronyMedic: Of all the things to white knight, of all the social injustices to champion, you choose to white knight Kiddie Porn?

Where do you get the idea that I'm white knighting it? Nowhere have I condoned the abuse of children. Those people should be locked up, and those who support them by looking at it should be too. All I'm saying in this thread is that your absolute 100% assertion about the connection between orientation and porn usage to crime is not 100%


You never know what you're going to get on Fark. Sometime ago, there was a video featured here that was a Pepsi commercial from years ago. It was from south America, and featured a lovely Sofia Vergara in a bikini. She was only seventeen when it was made. Of course, lots of guys were saying they would hit it (I mean, she looked fantastic). But there was one guy freaking out, calling guys pedos for lusting after her. I'm guessing it was a guy who has/had a teenaged daughter.
 
2012-11-03 02:09:43 AM
Oh yeah, here it is!
 
2012-11-03 02:10:52 AM

12349876: All I'm saying is that's it's not 100% inevitable that someone who watches ends up acting.


Those that are that highly repressed are gonna come out sooner or later.

Or possibly FBI agents looking for evidence, that's true too.
 
2012-11-03 02:12:27 AM

BronyMedic: 12349876: Where do you get the idea that I'm white knighting it? Nowhere have I condoned the abuse of children. Those people should be locked up, and those who support them by looking at it should be too. All I'm saying in this thread is that your absolute 100% assertion about the connection between orientation and porn usage to crime is not 100%

I've stated it's my personal feeling on the matter, and YMMV. I just feel that after saying the things you have said in here, you really need to make it clear that is the stance you have.


That's my clear stance and I'm sorry if I gave out a different impression. I just worry about the potential consequences of thinking about the world in black and white even for the worst amongst us. It's gotten us into a lot of trouble in the past.
 
2012-11-03 02:14:10 AM
Death to all pedophiles. fark em.
 
2012-11-03 02:39:42 AM
I am completely shocked that people print out porn.
 
2012-11-03 02:53:15 AM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: FTFA: "Eaton, from Tiverton, Devon, admitted 18 counts of making or possessing indecent images of children."

"Exeter Crown Court gave him an eight-month suspended sentence and ordered him to go on a sex offenders programme as part of a two-year supervision order."

...He imposed £300 costs.

The judge told Eaton... "Your barrister has described your behaviour as foolish but I regard it as very serious. They could have been found by anyone including young children"

So lemme get this straight... he admitted to 18 counts of possesing child porn, got no jail time (suspended sentence), a £300 fine... all because the "serious" part of this crime was that kids could have found the pictures in his trash?

Wow, the UK has to be the absolute worse place in the world to get caught if you're a pedo. I mean, 300 pounds and 2 years supervision... what is this, Auschwitz?

Also, why the fark would anybody print this shiat out? That high-def flat panel he used to view the pics before printing them wasn't good enough?


See, that was my question. Say, just say he accidentally ran accross the child porn. Fine. Although a normal person would probably report it to authorities he may have just gone "holy shiat" and shut it down. To actually print it out (many different pics) enough that he tired of them and tossed, is troubling to say the least.
 
2012-11-03 03:04:22 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?

Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games.

Possession of child pornography therefore...


Brilliant sir.
 
2012-11-03 03:36:32 AM
I've always enjoyed the Internet's adoption of Fallacies given that most folks who use them know so little about them.

/multiple schools of thought regarding Fallacies
//You only hear about one
 
2012-11-03 04:06:18 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 12349876: Why draw the line there? If images promote the action the images depict, why should we have violent movies and video games?

Amazingly, possession of violent movies and video games implies you enjoy violent movies and video games.

Possession of child pornography therefore...


No, this does not follow, at all. No one is actually harmed in the production of violent movie or game. The equivalent for your analogy would be something like loli hentai, where the depicted act does not actually occur in any real manner... and that is indeed legal almost everywhere AFAIK.

Having actual CP would be akin to having snuff films. Merely owning a snuff film doesn't make you guilty of murder, but you are most definitely supporting murderers, and it is thus very much a crime, just a less severe one.

/9/10 if trolling, I honestly can't tell.
 
2012-11-03 04:14:31 AM

trerro: Merely owning a snuff film doesn't make you guilty of murder


Given the fact that snuff film more than likely relates to a murder that some prosecutor is really wanting to close, I'm sure they can make you look very guilty of that murder, or at least a willing accomplice to it.
 
2012-11-03 04:16:15 AM
Question: If there was a technology that could detect whether you were thinking of naked children or kids in sex acts, would you like this technology to be used publicly so as to weed out those who happen to be thinking of naked or sexually active kids?
 
2012-11-03 04:31:18 AM

GreenSun: Question: If there was a technology that could detect whether you were thinking of naked children or kids in sex acts, would you like this technology to be used publicly so as to weed out those who happen to be thinking of naked or sexually active kids?


That's a rather silly statement. Maybe we should throw a physician in jail with that technology because he was thinking about a skin lesion on a nude pedatric patient, along that logic. Or we could throw a grandmother in jail for thinking how cute it would be to take a picture of their 18 month old in the bath.

Also, kids ARE sexually exploratory with peers in their own age group as a natural part of growth and development. Along the lines of this argument, a researcher who's area of expertese is child development could be thrown into jail.

Pedophilia is not "thinking of a naked child" or "thinking of child sexuality". It's an overwhelming sexual attraction to children, clothed or not, combined with a dellusional world view which makes you think that some behavior the child is exhibiting means they want you to rape them.
 
2012-11-03 05:03:41 AM
Bad: Some guy looking at nude pics of children
Worse: The guy is your gay uncle who rapes you.
Worster: Your mom okayed it because according to her reckoning, sex with boys is ok as long as her gay brother beats Jesus into them.
Completely perverted Mother sexually molests molested son's daugher 20 years later.
Stuff out of a Stephen King novel: When reported to Montgomery County Maryland police, police initially suspect molesteed guy until daughter passes psychiatric exams and simply drop the case with a reason that women don't sexually abuse kids because they are women.
 
2012-11-03 05:05:34 AM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.

So? Promotion? So, if I 'promote' something as an actual murder, despite no one having been murdered, it should be prosecutable as such? That's ridiculous.

Last I checked, promoting something as something it was not was fraud, not (CP, murder, whatever).


Yeah? Try selling a narc a bag of cornstarch under the premise that it's cocaine.
 
2012-11-03 05:26:52 AM

CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.


No, we don't. We don't even agree on what pedophilia is. Some of us may not even be clear in their heads what exactly they mean by it. Some people have a horrible vision of evil victimization of children, and everything that falls under the head of "pedo" gets generalized that way -- the same way popular culture has formed a stereotypical image of the evil, child-corrupting "dope pusher", and then we end up imposing draconic sentences on harmless people for selling cannabis, and people approve it because you don't approve of dope pushers, do you? Why even defend dope pushers? I bet you're a dope pusher too. I hope you die painfully before you get a chance to hurt more children.

Everybody needs somebody to hate. The perfect person to hate is some extreme malevolent figure with no redeeming virtues, even if you have to imagine him. It's much more satisfying to pretend the object of your scorn is this imaginary punching-bag than a real person with nuanced views and yada-yada. This is why a political thread commented by liberals, feminists, libertarians, and conservatives consists mostly of shiat-flinging at "libtards", "feminazis", "teabaggers" and "neocons" who do not exist.

But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.

Well, the digital porn has been criminalized, so you could say that the law has accomplished the opposite. Alcohol prohibition didn't prevent crime, after all. It multiplied it. If the narrow question is, "Will people be less likely to fark kids if we let them wank to CP instead?" my common sense tells me that it wouldn't really matter. Speaking for myself (YMMV) what I wack to is very different from what I even attempt when I get the opportunity. Take anal, for example, which looks hot on video but is an awkward, messy, smelly ordeal in practice. Anal video might motivate you to try to persuade someone to do it (and good luck with that) though if there is someone in your life you're yearning to bugger, it's certainly going to be no substitute for the real thing. Contrariwise, if you've been pestering the object of your affection for buttsex, deleting your anal porn will not call off the dogs. Either you're going to engage in a certain kind of sex, or not. The porn in your archive might reflect what you want to do, but it doesn't determine it.
 
2012-11-03 07:02:40 AM
You'd think somebody sick enough to print out pictures of this nature would at least be smart enough to invest in a cross cut shredder. But apparently not.
 
2012-11-03 08:10:33 AM
Since when are mere naked photos of kids pornography? Around here, beaches are full of naked kids. Of course, only a sicko would get aroused.
 
2012-11-03 08:37:42 AM
www.advancedanime.com
"Oh, Hai! What are you guys looking at?"
 
2012-11-03 09:09:30 AM
FTA: Jobless Eaton, from Tiverton, Devon, admitted 18 counts of making or possessing indecent images of children.
Exeter Crown Court gave him an eight-month suspended sentence and ordered him to go on a sex offenders programme as part of a two-year supervision order.


Yeah that seems a-ok to me, years in jail for drug addicts who harmed no one but themselves with their crime and let the pedo off with an 8 month suspended sentence.

Also, did he make it or possess it? It seems to me there is a huge difference between the two....

My two cents; These people should be locked away in an asylum and studied. What triggers these types of behaviors and inclinations in people? What treatments could be perfected to eliminate these behaviors? Surgical castration would be a must if they are to ever be released back to the public. There are ways to remove most or all sexual urges completely, although I suspect they would just move to less sexual and more physically harming behaviors. I honestly believe it is more of a "dominance over the weak and helpless" that turns these sickos on, not the pre-pubescent nude form.

/I may be wrong.... 
//the more reptilian part of my brain just wants to blood eagle the lot of them
 
2012-11-03 09:20:50 AM

zamboni: They care a lot!


Came for it...leaving satisfied
 
2012-11-03 09:59:54 AM
If people had any clue as to what the MILITARY has to go through to catch these pedophiles...

marriage wrecking, parent destroying asshats.

Sorry, not enough coffee to respond without an AK-47.
 
2012-11-03 10:01:20 AM

BronyMedic: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.

Pedophilia is not a static sexual orientation where someone simply is attracted sexually to prepubescent children. It's a progressive escalation of behaviors. While not all pedophiles are predatory in nature, child pornography is a way for them to escalate their fantasies. The really freaky thing about their pathology, though, is that they don't see it as harming a child - but loving them the way the child wants to be loved, in only a way they can understand.

Besides that, child pornography continues the victimization of the child long after even the initial perpetrator is captured and justice is done.


Exactly.
 
2012-11-03 10:43:13 AM
Still- are these pornographic images? Or nudes?
 
2012-11-03 10:51:09 AM

filter: Still- are these pornographic images? Or nudes?


Wouldn't you like to know?
 
2012-11-03 10:52:51 AM
legalize prostitution. and pedophilia will all but disappear, but there will be FAR less of it.

see most of these guys are socially awkward, and hence turn towards children.
 
2012-11-03 11:09:14 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: legalize prostitution. and pedophilia will all but disappear, but there will be FAR less of it.

see most of these guys are socially awkward, and hence turn towards children.


Socially awkward?

They must star on The Big Bang Theory?
 
2012-11-03 12:34:13 PM

SnyderCat: filter: Still- are these pornographic images? Or nudes?

Wouldn't you like to know?


Gimmeabreak... we live in world where home bathtub photos are illegal.... meanwhile on reality TV we have kid beauty contest monsters.
 
2012-11-03 01:06:04 PM

filter: SnyderCat: filter: Still- are these pornographic images? Or nudes?

Wouldn't you like to know?

Gimmeabreak... we live in world where home bathtub photos are illegal.... meanwhile on reality TV we have kid beauty contest monsters.


Honey Boo Boo....future beauty queen and reality star of America?
 
2012-11-03 01:07:12 PM

SnyderCat: filter: SnyderCat: filter: Still- are these pornographic images? Or nudes?

Wouldn't you like to know?

Gimmeabreak... we live in world where home bathtub photos are illegal.... meanwhile on reality TV we have kid beauty contest monsters.

Honey Boo Boo....future beauty queen and reality star of America?


At least I didn't say future porn star...

in the previous post

*giggity*
 
2012-11-03 01:11:30 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.


For what it's worth:

Link

People get prosecuted for possessing underage hentai, which is prohibited by the PROTECT Act as long as it is obscene or has no merit. US v. Williams doesn't contradict the PROTECT Act.

Those are the laws on the books, and that's how they're being prosecuted.
 
2012-11-03 01:23:12 PM
Apparently, in the Netherlands at least, it's possible to have a reasoned discussion about this subject.

What if you could give paedophiles drawings of child pornography to steer their impulses in a safe direction? This controversial proposal has garnered support from the Dutch anti-child pornography lobby: "We're for everything that helps combat abuse".

People become paedophiles during their earliest periods of development. The sexual orientation cannot be cured or changed, but it can be managed. This is the opinion of leading brain researcher Dick Swaab at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN). It underpins his call for electronic child pornography, for example in comic strip form.

"By making child pornography available, we can steer paedophiles' impulses in the right direction and that should reduce child abuse," Professor Swaab argues. But for many people, the idea will take some getting used to.

"The common view is that pornography exacerbates the problem. But the well-known United States sexologist, Professor Milton Diamond, has shown in Eastern Europe that pornography reduces the problem. People are able to give vent to their impulses without harming victims. This is something that should be tested."

Unexpected support
Professor Swaab's plan can count on support from an unexpected source: the Dutch anti-paedophile group, Stopkinderpornonu (Stop-child-pornography-now). The group's position is clear: possession of child pornography and the abuse of children should be combated in every way possible. However, it is willing to consider this proposal because real children would not be harmed. Spokesman Chris Hölsken goes as far as to describe it as a really good idea.

"... because we're fighting to stop child pornography and child abuse. That means that every form and every method should be studied carefully. If fake pornographic images, such as in cartoons, can lead to stopping child abuse, we support that."


I bolded what I consider to be the important part.

Radio Netherlands Worldwide
 
2012-11-03 02:27:31 PM

SnyderCat: Jon iz teh kewl: legalize prostitution. and pedophilia will all but disappear, but there will be FAR less of it.

see most of these guys are socially awkward, and hence turn towards children.

Socially awkward?

They must star on The Big Bang Theory?


pedophile
media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-03 03:15:37 PM
Little Known Powers of Garbage Men

10. They can make all the noise they want in the performance of their duties.
09. Anything they find in your garbage, they can keep.
08. They can refuse to pick up your garbage unless it is gift-wrapped.
07. They can force you to sort your recyclables.
06. They can take their pick of garbage university degrees, including MBAs, Ph.Ds in useless specialities and Honorary Degrees from Podunk Universities.
05. They know where all the wormhole shortcuts across space-time are.
04. In an emergency, they can dump their load on your lawn or anywhere it does not block traffic.
03. They can stake out a house where they suspect a crime has been committed on the basis of the contents of its garbage cans as long as the neighbors don't complain about the smell or the truck blocking their drive-ways.
02. They can park anywhere they like in a garbage emergency.
01. They can perform marriages on their garbage trucks--but you have to be on their garbage truck--you can't just stand by it or get into the cab.
 
2012-11-03 04:38:02 PM
A few years back we found out one of the old drunk assholes a couple blocks up had a lewd and lascivious act with a minor charge, and was hanging Halloween decorations, a couple neighbors asked me to come along and we ended up paying him a little visit. He didn't attempt to deny the charge and seemed almost defiant when we asked him if he thought it was a bit inappropriate for a pedophile to have so many kids on his doorstep. One of my neighbors is around 5'1" or 5'2" tops, little guy with a jolly demeanor, only time I ever saw him mad in almost 2 decades, but he has 2 little girls. My neighbor walked up real slow, the pedo threw a useless punch that was way too slow, my little neighbor ducked, placed his leg behind the pedo and tripped him realllly hard. His back thudded and all his air was gone, he was laying there groaning, and my neighbor gave a super stomp like he was trying to demolish the pedos skull. Then, he whipped out his dick and pissed all over the old man. We stood around and looked at each other for a minute, and I checked him for a pulse before we left. On odd impulse, I took his wallet just to spite his old ass. He had $46.

He didnt have any halloween decorations the next day, and he was gone sometime early in the next year. I dont know if it was right or wrong, but when a defiant child diddler is clobbered and done wrong, its a dose of wonderful scadenfreude that I feel almost guilty for enjoying. This is what we all feel about pedos, and pedo sympathizers, even if we are otherwise decent people. You are all a bunch of seriously sick fuhks.

/Dunno why I started this post, but damn arent pedophiles some worthless disgusting pieces of shiat?
 
2012-11-03 04:46:18 PM
/fwiw, the story above is false, I figure it will piss off some of the Fark pedos though
 
2012-11-03 05:38:14 PM

D_Evans45: /fwiw, the story above is false, I figure it will piss off some of the Fark pedos though


And I thought you were spentmiles' sock puppet
 
2012-11-03 06:00:15 PM
There seems to be a lot of people who don't know what the hell they're talking about, here. For anyone wanting to know the truth for just about any aspect of this subject, go to this website: Vachss
Poke around some, see what you find. It can be quite enlightening.
 
2012-11-03 09:29:44 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: SnyderCat: Jon iz teh kewl: legalize prostitution. and pedophilia will all but disappear, but there will be FAR less of it.

see most of these guys are socially awkward, and hence turn towards children.

Socially awkward?

They must star on The Big Bang Theory?

pedophile
[media.tumblr.com image 412x232]


ROFL

window seat or aisle seat?
 
2012-11-05 07:18:09 PM
Child sex offender, especially the violent ones?

I recommend chemical castration, community rehabilitation, and careful recivilization for these folks.

If they cannot play nice, we feed them to the lions...

*)
 
Displayed 188 of 188 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report