Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Opposing Views)   Man who police described as "most notorious child porn downloader they've taken into custody" looks exactly the way you think he does   (opposingviews.com) divider line 205
    More: Florida, John Shearen, child pornography, external hard drives, Florida Department  
•       •       •

24980 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2013 at 11:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 03:02:41 PM  

Paul Baumer: a presiding judge in the case provided him one, so he's already  been given legal status as qualifying for public defense


Then why is that silly other judge thinking about revoking it?  Probably because he didn't disclose his income.  And you are assuming the $1500/mo is all of his income.

Paul Baumer: Know how I know you've never hired an attorney on a payment plan?


I've worked with literally hundreds of criminal defense lawyers.

/Why am I not surprised FL allows for 200% of the poverty line.....
 
2013-04-05 03:04:13 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think three is a reasonable number because you are not sitting in jail, so you have a pretty big advantage.


3 would be no problem.  In fact, they would probably bid against each other if they could and do it for less.  It ain't the salad days in that industry.
 
2013-04-05 03:04:31 PM  

Paul Baumer: The Muthaship: The right to an appointed attorney is contingent on the person being unable to afford an attorney, professor.  He can afford one.

Here, let me acquaint you with the actual Florida "law" - it's that stuff us regular people use (we write it down and stuff) instead of just making it up or looking into the future with magic powers

"a person who has income that is equal to or less than 200% of the current federal poverty guidelines, or who is unable to pay for the services of a private attorney without substantial hardship to his family, is indigent and qualifies for the services of the Public Defender. "

And now, lets put his income to the test - 200% of the 2013 poverty standard is $22,980. 18000 (1500x12) is "less than" this amount.

Finally, here's some prima facia evidence - a presiding judge in the case provided him one, so he's already  been given legal status as qualifying for public defense.


Well, you're not taking into account all the income he made from trading child porn. Oh, wait... :-)

But seriously, the faster this guy gets his day in court, the sooner justice will be served. Give him the PD, make sure everything is done correctly so he can't get off (huhuhuh) on a technicality, then lock him up for a long, long time.
 
2013-04-05 03:04:36 PM  

Tanukis_Parachute: someone here at work suggested a locked and sealed room. lined walls, one small observation window and a gun and a single bullet.

lock him in, give him the choice. use the bullet on himself or starve. someone else suggested putting two of them in there and give the gun to one and the bullet to the other. first one to fight and get both gets to kill themselves first. loser gets to starve with a dead body in the room.

i think i figured out that some of my coworkers aren't very nice.


I think most underage porno is made by kids with cell phones.

It may be time to clean the gene pool.
 
2013-04-05 03:08:15 PM  
I maintain a fairly decent collection of pornographic image files for personal use, very little absolutely none of which is child porn, and if I've ever exceeded even 10,000 images I'd be surprised.

A million images is a LOT of pron, although I bet he had a bunch of dupes.
 
2013-04-05 03:10:23 PM  

The Muthaship: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think three is a reasonable number because you are not sitting in jail, so you have a pretty big advantage.

3 would be no problem.  In fact, they would probably bid against each other if they could and do it for less.  It ain't the salad days in that industry.


Okay, since it's a Friday, how about by Wednesday? Three names of actual defense attorneys who would go on record as defending this guy for whatever he could afford. In a previous post, you said, "I've worked with literally hundreds of criminal defense lawyers." You'd be doing this guy a favor and helping justice get served that much faster.
 
2013-04-05 03:12:04 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Three names of actual defense attorneys who would go on record as defending this guy for whatever he could afford.


I'm sure they'd love that.
 
2013-04-05 03:14:02 PM  
It's amazing to me that there are 500,000 to 1,000,000 child pron images in existence.
 
2013-04-05 03:14:31 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: I realize that this is a good thing, its great that we caught the guy. But why don't we go after the distribution networks and sources more often?

I mean hell, Anonymous does a better job of shutting these pervs down than the FBI does


But that would be wrong.  Because rights.
 
2013-04-05 03:14:33 PM  
ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com

More how I pictured him
 
2013-04-05 03:16:31 PM  

Private_Citizen: Ok, let's get the ball rolling right:

Anyone against the Death penalty for this creep?
Anyone?


Why?

We've got the most notorious didn't-kidnap-murder-or-buttfark-any-children they've ever taken into custody.

Why was this guy even arrested?  Were the officers just passing through and one of them was like, "Hey, that's the house of that dude we have that huge file on!"  "What dude?"  "The one who downloads like gazillions of child porn!"  "Ohhhh that guy!  ... hey let's make a short stop and arrest him, huh?"  "Probably should!"  Because if not, I demand to know why they weren't spending their resources tracking down missing children instead.
 
2013-04-05 03:20:53 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Paul Baumer: The Muthaship: The right to an appointed attorney is contingent on the person being unable to afford an attorney, professor.  He can afford one.

Here, let me acquaint you with the actual Florida "law" - it's that stuff us regular people use (we write it down and stuff) instead of just making it up or looking into the future with magic powers

"a person who has income that is equal to or less than 200% of the current federal poverty guidelines, or who is unable to pay for the services of a private attorney without substantial hardship to his family, is indigent and qualifies for the services of the Public Defender. "

And now, lets put his income to the test - 200% of the 2013 poverty standard is $22,980. 18000 (1500x12) is "less than" this amount.

Finally, here's some prima facia evidence - a presiding judge in the case provided him one, so he's already  been given legal status as qualifying for public defense.

Well, you're not taking into account all the income he made from trading child porn. Oh, wait... :-)

But seriously, the faster this guy gets his day in court, the sooner justice will be served. Give him the PD, make sure everything is done correctly so he can't get off (huhuhuh) on a technicality, then lock him up for a long, long time.


I've wondered before where anyone makes money selling child porn. Like, it's one of those crimes where the risk vastly exceeds the payoff, unless kiddie fiddlers are all as rich as Michael Jackson or Gary Glitter.
 
2013-04-05 03:24:19 PM  

The Muthaship: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think three is a reasonable number because you are not sitting in jail, so you have a pretty big advantage.

3 would be no problem.  In fact, they would probably bid against each other if they could and do it for less.  It ain't the salad days in that industry.


You are insane.  The idea that someone would take a 3 year payment plan from someone whose sole income will be a $1500 a month pension if incarcerated, who is subject to recovery lawsuits from anyone he already owes money to, as well as civil suits from the children he allegedly has images of, and fines/restitution to the state as a potential consequence of conviction.

The Muthaship: I've worked with literally hundreds of criminal defense lawyers.


I don't care what they like on their tacos, a criminal defense worthy of the name in an felony IT/porn case is going to be expensive - way north of 50k,  Nobody would take a $1500 payment plan on it's face, let alone one where the ability to pay is subject to significant risk of attachment from higher ranking claimants.
 
2013-04-05 03:26:28 PM  

bluefoxicy: We've got the most notorious didn't-kidnap-murder-or-buttfark-any-children they've ever taken into custody.

Why was this guy even arrested?


2.bp.blogspot.com

Are you implying that the possession and distribution of child pornography shouldn't be a crime?
 
2013-04-05 03:26:49 PM  
Why was this poor man arrested? This is big gov't tyranny! The police state from 1984 is alredy here! THIS Is A VoLatiOn of this mans rights. It's a victimless crimE. We MUst bEE tolerant of others LiFestyles and Not reStrict there freedoms!
 
2013-04-05 03:28:46 PM  

jigger: It's amazing to me that there are 500,000 to 1,000,000 child pron images in existence.


They count each frame of a film as an image to stack the charges high enough so that you'll go quietly.
 
2013-04-05 03:32:12 PM  
www.theglobaldispatch.com

christianmartell.com
 
2013-04-05 03:35:02 PM  
Shearen has a public defender, but that could change very soon. The judge in this case is considering removing the free attorney because Shearen gets $1,500 a month from his Navy pension and has a car which he could sell to pay for a private attorney.

You know, pedofork or not, the guy DOES deserve his Miranda Rights to a public attorney if he cannot afford one (and it's obvious he can't afford one). $1500 a mo.? That's about two days work for a noob lawyer.
 
2013-04-05 03:36:03 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: I realize that this is a good thing, its great that we caught the guy. But why don't we go after the distribution networks and sources more often?

I mean hell, Anonymous does a better job of shutting these pervs down than the FBI does


A lot of republicans in Congress wouldn't like it if they started getting raided. That's why.
 
2013-04-05 03:36:37 PM  

Paul Baumer: Second most disturbing thing in the article -

Shearen has a public defender, but that could change very soon. The judge in this case is considering removing the free attorney because Shearen gets $1,500 a month from his Navy pension and has a car which he could sell to pay for a private attorney.

An 18k pension and a used car qualify for a public defender.  I like gettin' tough on criminals as much as the next guy, but show trials are where I draw the line.


That whole, "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided" line is pure bullshiat.  If someone has a job flipping burgers, they'll be deemed "able to afford an attorney".  But a drug dealer with no documented source of income gets free representation.  $1500/month and a used car wouldn't get Lionel Hutz, let alone a competent attorney.  A family lawyer charges $250.hr or more to write a will.  I don't even want to know what a good trail lawyer costs.

If they get to the end of the trial and he's found guilty, I can see confiscating his car and draining his bank account(s) to cover the cost of his defense but refusing to provide counsel for an  accused person is not justice.  I checked my county's procedures and it looks like, here, anyone can ask for a public defender but the judge has the discretion to charge up to $90/hr at the end of the trial.  Sounds like this guy's in a county that determines the financial burden in advance.  Seems backwards.
 
2013-04-05 03:38:15 PM  

Paul Baumer: jigger: It's amazing to me that there are 500,000 to 1,000,000 child pron images in existence.

They count each frame of a film as an image to stack the charges high enough so that you'll go quietly.


At that rate, the worst case scenario is that he still has over 11 and a half hours of child pornography videos.
 
2013-04-05 03:44:26 PM  
At the bottom of the page:

"Monitoring child porn websites? I kinda have mixed feelings about illegal websites being allowed to continue operation so the authorities can catch people who visit them."

/agree
 
2013-04-05 03:46:43 PM  
What he has to look forward to in prison:
 
2013-04-05 03:48:21 PM  
Ok, why can't the preview just tell you when an image is too large?

Link
 
2013-04-05 03:49:39 PM  

DeadGeek: Ok, why can't the preview just tell you when an image is too large?

Link


Blocked for "Pornography". Maybe it's best you weren't able to post it in the thread.
 
2013-04-05 03:51:10 PM  
I bet he was a Brony.
 
2013-04-05 04:09:52 PM  
Annnnnd I'm off to shave now...
 
2013-04-05 04:11:44 PM  

Treygreen13: Are you implying that the possession and distribution of child pornography shouldn't be a crime?


Well, that's one valid consideration.

The other is that maybe it should be a lesser crime.

Or maybe we should be spending our resources chasing around criminal gangs that abduct children, or investigating individuals that are suspected of such activities.

I imagine they put a fine amount of detective work into monitoring, investigating, locating, profiling, and raiding this guy.  You know, hundreds or thousands of man-hours, hundreds of thousands of dollars of police resources, etc.  I see a lot--I mean a LOT--of news articles about how we've got another no-life introvert in jail for wanking it a lot at his PC; but high-profile cases like Sandrusky's butt-farkery hit the screen once in a decade or two.  I think Sandrusky was the first in the history of Internet child pornography.

Now will somebody tell me why we've had ONE child butt-banger roped and tied, and a bunch of autistic kids downloading naked 12 year olds?  Why haven't we had one or two non-news stories of some idiot getting slapped on the wrist for downloading naked pictures, and a flood of court cases of busts of massive human trafficking schemes where small children are abducted from their homes to make child pornography?

See this is the problem.  We're not actually stopping people from banging kids; we're stopping people from being icky.
 
2013-04-05 04:11:56 PM  
looks like a 60's rock musician.  heck, kinda looks like a bearded john lennon.
 
2013-04-05 04:19:21 PM  

bluefoxicy: Treygreen13: Are you implying that the possession and distribution of child pornography shouldn't be a crime?

Well, that's one valid consideration.

The other is that maybe it should be a lesser crime.

Or maybe we should be spending our resources chasing around criminal gangs that abduct children, or investigating individuals that are suspected of such activities.

I imagine they put a fine amount of detective work into monitoring, investigating, locating, profiling, and raiding this guy.  You know, hundreds or thousands of man-hours, hundreds of thousands of dollars of police resources, etc.  I see a lot--I mean a LOT--of news articles about how we've got another no-life introvert in jail for wanking it a lot at his PC; but high-profile cases like Sandrusky's butt-farkery hit the screen once in a decade or two.  I think Sandrusky was the first in the history of Internet child pornography.

Now will somebody tell me why we've had ONE child butt-banger roped and tied, and a bunch of autistic kids downloading naked 12 year olds?  Why haven't we had one or two non-news stories of some idiot getting slapped on the wrist for downloading naked pictures, and a flood of court cases of busts of massive human trafficking schemes where small children are abducted from their homes to make child pornography?

See this is the problem.  We're not actually stopping people from banging kids; we're stopping people from being icky.


It sounds (from the article) that they were monitoring the guy's use and distribution patterns to get solid evidence against him AND (hopefully) find the people making it. Which leads to moments like in January, when the government busted an entire ring of people making and distributing child pornography. 245 people, to be exact. Also, they freed or identified 123 children who were abused by those people.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-arrests-245-suspects-in-child-porn og raphy-ring/1577387.html
(source)

So just because they didn't arrest a kiddy-diddler this time doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And frankly I'm happy he's off the street. The people who consume this sort of media are the people who will be committing the actual crimes. Nobody is casually interested in child pornography.

Making child pornography possession legal (god why would you even do that) or a "lesser crime" doesn't accomplish anything.
 
2013-04-05 04:26:47 PM  

The Muthaship: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Three names of actual defense attorneys who would go on record as defending this guy for whatever he could afford.

I'm sure they'd love that.


Okay then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NDGaxVV0h4
 
2013-04-05 04:29:38 PM  
blogs.westword.com

/ always thought he looked pedo-ish
 
2013-04-05 04:35:27 PM  

Private_Citizen: Ok, let's get the ball rolling right:

Anyone against the Death penalty for this creep?
Anyone?


I'm for removing your right to vote.
 
2013-04-05 04:38:48 PM  

Treygreen13: It sounds (from the article) that they were monitoring the guy's use and distribution patterns to get solid evidence against him AND (hopefully) find the people making it. Which leads to moments like in January, when the government busted an entire ring of people making and distributing child pornography. 245 people, to be exact. Also, they freed or identified 123 children who were abused by those people.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-arrests-245-suspects-in-child-porn og raphy-ring/1577387.html
(source)


Well good.

So just because they didn't arrest a kiddy-diddler this time doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And frankly I'm happy he's off the street. The people who consume this sort of media are the people who will be committing the actual crimes

You don't know that.  This is the Internet, open your farking eyes.  Between IRC, 4chan, and a number of other random chat services, I've gotten it in my head that 10%-25% of the people I meet on the street are likely casual pedophiles.  Most of them don't consume child pornography or bang kids.  A lot of people seem interested in 12-13 year olds though.

Thoughtcrime, how does it work?

I'm more interested in realcrime.  Consumption of certain media, maybe bad, maybe we don't want that stuff spread around society, I can see that.  Implying that these people are going to become those people?  Uh, no, so many flaws and so many terrible, terrible slippery slopes.
 
2013-04-05 04:40:22 PM  

Treygreen13: Making child pornography possession legal (god why would you even do that) or a "lesser crime" doesn't accomplish anything.


That's not the point.  Asking those questions and returning that, no, we think this would be a bad thing... that's a good thing to do once in a while.

I mean, what the hell, why would you ever ask if we should make DRUUUUUGS legal?  Marijuana should get you shot in the head, we know this, it's a gateway drug to get 11 year olds smoking meth!
 
2013-04-05 04:48:35 PM  

bluefoxicy: You don't know that.  This is the Internet, open your farking eyes.  Between IRC, 4chan, and a number of other random chat services, I've gotten it in my head that 10%-25% of the people I meet on the street are likely casual pedophiles.  Most of them don't consume child pornography or bang kids.  A lot of people seem interested in 12-13 year olds though.

Thoughtcrime, how does it work?

I'm more interested in realcrime.  Consumption of certain media, maybe bad, maybe we don't want that stuff spread around society, I can see that.  Implying that these people are going to become those people?  Uh, no, so many flaws and so many terrible, terrible slippery slopes.


Thoughtcrime? Try "Crimecrime". The possession and distribution of child pornography is illegal. This guy got caught and is going to jail. I am not upset by it, and the world is a better place without this creepy dude and his library of videos of children being molested.

Your cries for the legalization of the possession of child pornography are falling on deaf ears. I don't care about your motivation for it. I'm willing to entertain a lot of ideas and concepts but this is one I won't spend another second thinking about.
 
2013-04-05 04:50:17 PM  

bluefoxicy: That's not the point.  Asking those questions and returning that, no, we think this would be a bad thing... that's a good thing to do once in a while.


Ok, here, I'll think about it for you. Should people be allowed to have a million images of children being molested?
*thinks*
No.

bluefoxicy: I mean, what the hell, why would you ever ask if we should make DRUUUUUGS legal?  Marijuana should get you shot in the head, we know this, it's a gateway drug to get 11 year olds smoking meth!


Fark this. I'm out.
i291.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-05 05:10:00 PM  

Paul Baumer: The Muthaship: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think three is a reasonable number because you are not sitting in jail, so you have a pretty big advantage.

3 would be no problem.  In fact, they would probably bid against each other if they could and do it for less.  It ain't the salad days in that industry.

You are insane.  The idea that someone would take a 3 year payment plan from someone whose sole income will be a $1500 a month pension if incarcerated, who is subject to recovery lawsuits from anyone he already owes money to, as well as civil suits from the children he allegedly has images of, and fines/restitution to the state as a potential consequence of conviction.

The Muthaship: I've worked with literally hundreds of criminal defense lawyers.

I don't care what they like on their tacos, a criminal defense worthy of the name in an felony IT/porn case is going to be expensive - way north of 50k,  Nobody would take a $1500 payment plan on it's face, let alone one where the ability to pay is subject to significant risk of attachment from higher ranking claimants.


Most people have only heard about this from the news or when it occasionally happens to a farked up friend or family member of theirs.  By the time they come knocking on someone's door for this kind of thing, it isn't because they accidentally clicked a link and ended up at a shady website.  It isn't because they got tricked into downloading something mislabeled.  It isn't because they frequent those
porn sites where the girls are all 30 but say they're 18.  99.999% of the time, when they're at your door, the case is already more or less complete.  Even if you burned your house down and hadn't a single shred of evidence on you or around you, chances are you're still going to jail.  They don't have your average street beat cop saying 'hey this girl looks a little young lets go rough him up and question him.'  They've got people who are specially trained in just this sort of thing, who are good with computers, who know the internet pretty well, and who already have some kind of setup going with various shady websites.  Even if you took out the 'that guy looks creepy, of course he did it!' that the jury will no doubt be thinking the whole time, there's going to be a damn near airtight chain of evidence, probable cause, warrant, search, and subsequent arrest.

Source: A guy used to live beside me who was borderline mentally retarded.  He was like 35, lived with his parents, etc.  He got into some pretty shady shiat apparently and the Feds came to haul him away.  That was back in the day where people still almost exclusively bought/sold the stuff, and he spent a lot of money on it.  Of course all the neighbors got questioned to see if we had any additional info.  Evidence at his trial was pretty much everything he had sent/received regarding it.  They had it all.
 
2013-04-05 05:30:45 PM  
There was an 11 year old kid missing from school here in Albuquerque, later found ok. He was caught at school smoking pot. 11 Years old!
Lst night on the news here, there was a youth minister caught with a load of kiddie porn. Thought since he was a youth miniister, that was a prerequisite. Move along...
 
2013-04-05 05:57:56 PM  
Before you read this post please be advised that I will discuss a topic which cannot be discussed without a certain amount of foul language and fouler imagery.

Mr. Florida from the news story is not exactly the perfect example for a discussion I had with some friends, but pretty close. It was one of those rare occasions everyone in the local gang of academics were kinda in agreement, and all slightly horrified. The discussion was about victimless crimes (spurred on by a local change in laws regarding prostitution), and one dude studying ethics shoot in an argument that seemed sound and disturbing.

The douchebag in the news story opts out of being the perfect example for the discussion because he distributed child pornography, which we all agreed should be illegal.
 But what if he hadn't? What if he'd just dl'd 500.000 of the most disturbing imagry you could imagine and sat at home wanking away. Should this be illegal?
I mean, yes, it's disgusting as fark, but then again the idea that someone sits down and listens to Soulja Boy or Lil'Wayne because they want to listen to music makes me vomit a little into my mouth.

I don't think anything should be illegal until you can point to a victim and say "There. His/her life was ruined/made worse because of this."

And yes, I'm a father and the idea that someone should molest my kids fills me with rage. "Thinking about murdering somone" rage. But this guy didn't do that.
The idea that someone should profit by such an act, either directly or indirectly is obscene and is one of those things that makes me wonder if Sharia is the way to go (no, not really. It really really isn't). And helping someone profit from it by giving them money is pretty much just as bad.
That someone should distribute in any way depictions of children getting molested is horrific, and is and should be illegal pretty much everywhere. It makes available a theft of a childhood for the enjoyment of others, bringing it into the public sphere, increasing the chance that not only has the kids life been ruined but the complete heinousness becomes public knowledge.

So far I'm guessing everyone is agreeing with me. We're talking disturbing shiat here.

But then it's the fourth step removed from the original crime. The fat perv sitting at home wanking to pics dl'd frome some near sightet bearded dude in Florida. Imagine that he doesn't distribute anything that is downloaded. Imagine that he is not paying for the material in question, which would allow someone else to profit from it.
I mean, yes it's disgusting, but people do disgusting things all the time. If someone is just sitting at home, wanking away, not making the material public to anyone else, not partaking in any molestation, not protecting anyone who does (imagine that all faces are removed or smthn), not giving anyone money for making available this material, not partaing in online foras where pedophilia is encouraged where he could normalize this for others, simply being a dead end on the chain of distribution, a black hole that gives nothing out, neither material nor money: Should this be illegal and why?
Not furthering, promoting or causing damage to those abused in the material. "gaining" in the sense that he's getting satisfaction from it, sure. But people also seem to get satisfaction from other gruesome crimes every day without it being illegal to do so. You see someone get shot in the head, but it's great because it was a democrat governor, or someone accidentally shoots himself but it's just funny because its a republican gun-toating redneck. Douchebaggery of the first degree, sure. Illegal: no.

I would very much like for someone to make an argument for keeping the procurement or storage of these vids and pics illegal, because it feels so wrong to say "no, that should probably be legal." But that's what discussing stuff with philosophers can do with you. Three years after having a discussion you can look at a thread at FARK and just feel dirty, with a perfect understanding of why. Which makes me feel dirtier.

So, please, I beg you. Refute me :(
 
2013-04-05 06:18:05 PM  
I have to go with this is a disease, they cannot help it. I go onto amazon look at iphone cases, I don't buy anything. I turn my computer off. I turn it back on and go to fark, and Presto! there's the case I was looking at on the right hand side of the screen! don't get me wrong, I know you can still mask your ip address if you know what your doing. but these people are like politicians who cheat on their wives, or clown who runs a Ponzi scheme. how could you not know at some point you will be caught? most likely by your own greediness. my name is bob and I am an alcoholic.
 
2013-04-05 06:18:12 PM  

wickedragon: So, please, I beg you. Refute me :(


Think less like a philosopher and more like an economist. Consuming media of this type tells the person creating it that it is in demand. The more perceived demand for it, the more of it will be produced.
 
2013-04-05 06:36:08 PM  

Treygreen13: wickedragon: So, please, I beg you. Refute me :(

Think less like a philosopher and more like an economist. Consuming media of this type tells the person creating it that it is in demand. The more perceived demand for it, the more of it will be produced.


But that's only if the producer gets feedback of some sort stating that there is demand. What if it's fourth or fifth chain sharers that feeds our pedo troll?
 
2013-04-05 06:36:45 PM  

Treygreen13: wickedragon: So, please, I beg you. Refute me :(

Think less like a philosopher and more like an economist. Consuming media of this type tells the person creating it that it is in demand. The more perceived demand for it, the more of it will be produced.


Does a kiddy-farker do it for some OTHER reason other than farking kiddies? It's like Jon Stewart and the GOP goat-farkers. I didn't know it's the only thing keeping them from farking goats.
 
2013-04-05 07:21:36 PM  

wickedragon: But that's only if the producer gets feedback of some sort stating that there is demand. What if it's fourth or fifth chain sharers that feeds our pedo troll?


He could easily look at the websites that carry and trade that sort of thing, and notice the popularity of such a video or image.

vygramul: Does a kiddy-farker do it for some OTHER reason other than farking kiddies? It's like Jon Stewart and the GOP goat-farkers. I didn't know it's the only thing keeping them from farking goats.


Do you think a goat farker would do it more if people were clamoring to see him fark goats? Or less?
 
2013-04-05 07:29:08 PM  
Although I do have to admit that the child porn trade networks actually indirectly have a benefit. It allows the government to find and locate large numbers of pedophiles at once, and provides them all the evidence they could ever need. Some of those pedophiles might be out abusing children privately for years before they're caught. But the second one of those guys uploads his first picture up, his name, location, and evidence of his crime are right there for everyone to see.
 
2013-04-05 07:31:15 PM  

Treygreen13: wickedragon: But that's only if the producer gets feedback of some sort stating that there is demand. What if it's fourth or fifth chain sharers that feeds our pedo troll?

He could easily look at the websites that carry and trade that sort of thing, and notice the popularity of such a video or image.


I must admit I dont know much about the exact nature of the transactions. In my mind it's just something like DC++ or torrents or smthn. I mean, yes, if it is something like youtube and you can clearly see how popular a video is that would be a strong social incentive to continue making such videos, and then I'll agree that it is wrong. And thank you :)

PS! Does it help you to use detached language describing this, like "that sort of thing", "such a video or image"? Because it helps me. I don't know how police who has to go through all the evidence stay detached, analytic and professional. :/
 
2013-04-05 07:37:08 PM  

wickedragon: Treygreen13: wickedragon: But that's only if the producer gets feedback of some sort stating that there is demand. What if it's fourth or fifth chain sharers that feeds our pedo troll?

He could easily look at the websites that carry and trade that sort of thing, and notice the popularity of such a video or image.

I must admit I dont know much about the exact nature of the transactions. In my mind it's just something like DC++ or torrents or smthn. I mean, yes, if it is something like youtube and you can clearly see how popular a video is that would be a strong social incentive to continue making such videos, and then I'll agree that it is wrong. And thank you :)

PS! Does it help you to use detached language describing this, like "that sort of thing", "such a video or image"? Because it helps me. I don't know how police who has to go through all the evidence stay detached, analytic and professional. :/


I imagine there's one guy sitting at a computer, and just hitting "next" and highlighting anything that isn't child pornography and dragging it to a different folder.

When he gets to the end of the collection of horrific images, he sighs, opens the tray, and puts in the next DVD. And he crosses his fingers and hopes it's vacation pictures or something. And one of them actually is, like, a shot of this guy in board shorts on a beach and he goes, "Whew, it's actually vacation pictures!" and then he notices the guy is in Thailand and he sighs in defeat.
 
2013-04-05 07:38:16 PM  

Treygreen13: wickedragon: But that's only if the producer gets feedback of some sort stating that there is demand. What if it's fourth or fifth chain sharers that feeds our pedo troll?

He could easily look at the websites that carry and trade that sort of thing, and notice the popularity of such a video or image.

vygramul: Does a kiddy-farker do it for some OTHER reason other than farking kiddies? It's like Jon Stewart and the GOP goat-farkers. I didn't know it's the only thing keeping them from farking goats.

Do you think a goat farker would do it more if people were clamoring to see him fark goats? Or less?


I suspect a kiddy farker will fark the kids as often as he can get a boner to begin with. No opportunity wasted once you commit.
 
2013-04-05 07:42:06 PM  

vygramul: Treygreen13: wickedragon: But that's only if the producer gets feedback of some sort stating that there is demand. What if it's fourth or fifth chain sharers that feeds our pedo troll?

He could easily look at the websites that carry and trade that sort of thing, and notice the popularity of such a video or image.

vygramul: Does a kiddy-farker do it for some OTHER reason other than farking kiddies? It's like Jon Stewart and the GOP goat-farkers. I didn't know it's the only thing keeping them from farking goats.

Do you think a goat farker would do it more if people were clamoring to see him fark goats? Or less?

I suspect a kiddy farker will fark the kids as often as he can get a boner to begin with. No opportunity wasted once you commit.


I try not to think too hard about the thought process of child pornographers, but I would think that someone producing pornography for distribution would increase their number of "co-stars" and begin expanding their sexual conquests in order to satisfy both their voyeuristic needs and the desires of their viewers. Much like a regular pornographer.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report