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  
•       •       •

13833 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report