Topic: I'm hanging out with a friend who's a convicted pedophile
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 started this discussion 15 years ago #11,068
He's wearing a shirt that says
"WARNING!: Hanging out with me will damage your reputation"
I lol'ed
"WARNING!: Hanging out with me will damage your reputation"
I lol'ed
goon number 2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #198,139
Take a picture!
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #198,142
Lol
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #198,150
What did he do?
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #198,222
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #198,225
Yeah, sounds like something Matt would wear.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,315
@198,222 (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
Could have downloaded child porn. He could have downloaded any image of a child, really. He could have accidentally exposed himself in front of a child (I know of a guy who mooned some friends and almost had to register as a sex offender. Not sure how it turned out. He wasn't gonna plead guilty because he was gonna have to register).
Could have downloaded child porn. He could have downloaded any image of a child, really. He could have accidentally exposed himself in front of a child (I know of a guy who mooned some friends and almost had to register as a sex offender. Not sure how it turned out. He wasn't gonna plead guilty because he was gonna have to register).
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,321
One time my female friend mooned me. I blew my cool.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,330
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,339
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,629
He's not a convicted pedophile,he might be a convicted child molester.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,701
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,702
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,704
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,706
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Do you also hand out candy from your white windowless van to kids at local playgrounds?
Do you also hand out candy from your white windowless van to kids at local playgrounds?
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,707
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,708
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,711
@198,707 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Come on. It's just a funny shirt. He's not waving an "I heart kiddie porn" flag.
Come on. It's just a funny shirt. He's not waving an "I heart kiddie porn" flag.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,715
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
He's making light of a serious offense he *says* he regrets.
It's not really funny, anyway.
He's making light of a serious offense he *says* he regrets.
It's not really funny, anyway.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,718
@198,707 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I do to a degree, but the way society treats people like myself is way OTT that it becomes hard not to feel sorry for yourself, or lose faith in society.
I find it's better to laugh at the stupidity and pathetic-ness of others, than to get depressed about it.
This T-shirt is hilarious because it's so true and provocative. It would make people question their own behaviour, which is good. I'd wear it.
I do to a degree, but the way society treats people like myself is way OTT that it becomes hard not to feel sorry for yourself, or lose faith in society.
I find it's better to laugh at the stupidity and pathetic-ness of others, than to get depressed about it.
This T-shirt is hilarious because it's so true and provocative. It would make people question their own behaviour, which is good. I'd wear it.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,720
Wait, Homestar was just talking about the "WARNING!: Hanging out with me will damage your reputation" shirt OP mentioned, right? I don't see how that's a horrible thing.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,721
My bad.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,723
@198,715 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
It might not be funny to you, but humor is subjective. Furthermore,people often joke about traumatizing events in their lives to help themselves heal or release anxiety.
It might not be funny to you, but humor is subjective. Furthermore,people often joke about traumatizing events in their lives to help themselves heal or release anxiety.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,725
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Jesus christ, do you really think getting arrested for CP or molestation is a "traumatizing event" that someone deserves healing from?
Jesus christ, do you really think getting arrested for CP or molestation is a "traumatizing event" that someone deserves healing from?
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,728
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,729
@198,725 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I believe that the arrest for what he did and the revelation of his charges to his family and friends was probably very traumatic. That doesn't mean that it was a good thing to do.
I believe that the arrest for what he did and the revelation of his charges to his family and friends was probably very traumatic. That doesn't mean that it was a good thing to do.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,730
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,736
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I mean that I reserve sympathy for the actual victims. It's really inappropriate in this context to talk about the poor little pedo's feelings, imo.
There are some crimes so beyond the pale of normal society that I think it's quite appropriate for that person to feel deep shame and suffer long-term consequences.
I mean that I reserve sympathy for the actual victims. It's really inappropriate in this context to talk about the poor little pedo's feelings, imo.
There are some crimes so beyond the pale of normal society that I think it's quite appropriate for that person to feel deep shame and suffer long-term consequences.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,737
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I give my sympathy to people in pain. He is suffering long term consequences, isn't he?
I give my sympathy to people in pain. He is suffering long term consequences, isn't he?
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,741
@198,736 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I don't think looking at pictures on a computer is one of those crimes.
Locking up your daughter and her children in a basement and raping her repeatedly for years on end, maybe...
I don't think looking at pictures on a computer is one of those crimes.
Locking up your daughter and her children in a basement and raping her repeatedly for years on end, maybe...
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,743
@198,736 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
It's not inappropriate to talk about his feelings because it's directly related to the conversation. You asked why he would wear such a shirt and I explained to you how people use humor to deal with anxiety.
It's not inappropriate to talk about his feelings because it's directly related to the conversation. You asked why he would wear such a shirt and I explained to you how people use humor to deal with anxiety.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,747
This. Thread. Again.
RevNick joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,752
@198,736 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Why do women like you feel the need to take the "moral high ground" on the Internet? You're so thick, it's almost unbelievable.
Why do women like you feel the need to take the "moral high ground" on the Internet? You're so thick, it's almost unbelievable.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,753
@198,741 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
It's not just the crime itself and the direct impact on other people, but what it says about you as a person, your boundaries and the risk you pose. I guess I hope I'm wrong about that.
It's not just the crime itself and the direct impact on other people, but what it says about you as a person, your boundaries and the risk you pose. I guess I hope I'm wrong about that.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,755
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Don't you think that the direct impact on other people is much more important, when punishing people who do wrong?
It was this lack of direct impact / harm (of my own actions) which enabled me to do it in the first place...
@198,737 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
ILY, toto
Don't you think that the direct impact on other people is much more important, when punishing people who do wrong?
It was this lack of direct impact / harm (of my own actions) which enabled me to do it in the first place...
@198,737 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
ILY, toto
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,760
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Child porn is one of those crimes that's hard to pinpoint a specific victim, but it's easy to see the impact on society and social values in general - dehumanizing the victim, degrading people's sense of care for children, fetishizing sexual crime and perpetuating the need for ever more child porn (and I will argue that you did contribute to the market for child porn in some small way).
And actually, in the US at least, the impact on society is hugely important to the criminal code. We have a different legal system entirely for crimes that only impact one person - the civil system - which is essentially limited to making people pay money for doing a wrong. It's only when a wrong has a measurable impact on society/the public that we consider punishments like prison.
> It was this lack of direct impact / harm (of my own actions) which enabled me to do it in the first place...
That's scary, and one of the things about the way "acting" pedos think which further convinces me there's not really a place for them in any society at all because it is so fucking childlike and selfish. I mean, really? You have no moral code at all, no way to think through your actions beyond the immediate impact to you and how bad it makes you feel? If you aren't physically and immediately confronted with some serious consequences to your seriously taboo actions, it's as though they don't exist at all...?
Fucked up.
Child porn is one of those crimes that's hard to pinpoint a specific victim, but it's easy to see the impact on society and social values in general - dehumanizing the victim, degrading people's sense of care for children, fetishizing sexual crime and perpetuating the need for ever more child porn (and I will argue that you did contribute to the market for child porn in some small way).
And actually, in the US at least, the impact on society is hugely important to the criminal code. We have a different legal system entirely for crimes that only impact one person - the civil system - which is essentially limited to making people pay money for doing a wrong. It's only when a wrong has a measurable impact on society/the public that we consider punishments like prison.
> It was this lack of direct impact / harm (of my own actions) which enabled me to do it in the first place...
That's scary, and one of the things about the way "acting" pedos think which further convinces me there's not really a place for them in any society at all because it is so fucking childlike and selfish. I mean, really? You have no moral code at all, no way to think through your actions beyond the immediate impact to you and how bad it makes you feel? If you aren't physically and immediately confronted with some serious consequences to your seriously taboo actions, it's as though they don't exist at all...?
Fucked up.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w double-posted this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,766
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,767
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,768
@198,760 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I understand what you're saying, and some of it I agree with. So when I argue some points below, it doesn't mean that I disagree with you entirely.
Do you download music, torrents etc?
You wouldn't steal a CD from a music shop, or a software disc from a computer shop, but I bet you wouldn't hesitate to pirate online. I'm not saying this to argue that one crime is as bad as the other, but hopefully it might explain how distance and lack of immediate consequences can make wrong things seem not so wrong?
Also, if you became moralistic about piracy suddenly, and stopped downloading music/software illegally, would it have a positive effect on the world? Would it stop the demand for [warez] (in some small way)?
I understand what you're saying, and some of it I agree with. So when I argue some points below, it doesn't mean that I disagree with you entirely.
Do you download music, torrents etc?
You wouldn't steal a CD from a music shop, or a software disc from a computer shop, but I bet you wouldn't hesitate to pirate online. I'm not saying this to argue that one crime is as bad as the other, but hopefully it might explain how distance and lack of immediate consequences can make wrong things seem not so wrong?
Also, if you became moralistic about piracy suddenly, and stopped downloading music/software illegally, would it have a positive effect on the world? Would it stop the demand for [warez] (in some small way)?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk double-posted this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,769
@198,767 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Yeah. At the risk of sounding like Kimmo, it feels insane to have to be thankful for that.
Yeah. At the risk of sounding like Kimmo, it feels insane to have to be thankful for that.
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,771
Confession time - I have sneaking suspicions that paedophilia is an actual honest-to-god preference, like homosexuality or heterosexuaity, and that they deserve a helping hand to get over what must be a crippling issue.
But I can't dare actually say this to anybody.
But I can't dare actually say this to anybody.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,776
Inb4 over 9000 replies.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,777
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,781
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,782
@198,768 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
I don't knowingly download anything illegally, and I do think it's wrong.
I will say that the harm here is largely financial, to specific individuals an industry with not particularly fair practices in the first place, so I have a hard time putting it on the level with acts that involve gratifying oneself to images of the abuse of children. The latter being clearly a moral issue. You'll note that the vast majority of individual download cases have been civil, not criminal -- police/prosecutors simply haven't been willing to go after individuals for this because it's chickenshit stuff that doesn't really make people more sympathetic to robbery or anything, and we all rightfully laughed at the RIAA for trying to equate that stuff with stealing cars.
I think the analogy falls down a bit.
I don't knowingly download anything illegally, and I do think it's wrong.
I will say that the harm here is largely financial, to specific individuals an industry with not particularly fair practices in the first place, so I have a hard time putting it on the level with acts that involve gratifying oneself to images of the abuse of children. The latter being clearly a moral issue. You'll note that the vast majority of individual download cases have been civil, not criminal -- police/prosecutors simply haven't been willing to go after individuals for this because it's chickenshit stuff that doesn't really make people more sympathetic to robbery or anything, and we all rightfully laughed at the RIAA for trying to equate that stuff with stealing cars.
I think the analogy falls down a bit.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,783
@198,771 (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
I do not think that being hetero or homo is a preference. As for paedo, I am not sure if it is a preference or something over which they have no control.
I do not think that being hetero or homo is a preference. As for paedo, I am not sure if it is a preference or something over which they have no control.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,784
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,785
@198,783 (O)
Perhaps you're misunderstanding my useage of the word "preference". I don't mean it as in "I want this, but I'll settle for that", I mean it as in "I want this, and have no desire for that."
Perhaps you're misunderstanding my useage of the word "preference". I don't mean it as in "I want this, but I'll settle for that", I mean it as in "I want this, and have no desire for that."
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,787
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,789
@198,784 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
It makes me really uncomfortable and I don't think it's right, but certainly not as harmful as actual child porn. I think the potential harm has to be weighed against the freedom of expression issue, and probably something like a prohibition on anything particularly realistic, with obvious cartoon depictions being okay, makes sense to me. Messy in practice, though.
It makes me really uncomfortable and I don't think it's right, but certainly not as harmful as actual child porn. I think the potential harm has to be weighed against the freedom of expression issue, and probably something like a prohibition on anything particularly realistic, with obvious cartoon depictions being okay, makes sense to me. Messy in practice, though.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,794
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
How do you feel about computer simulations or graphic rape fiction?
How do you feel about computer simulations or graphic rape fiction?
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,803
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Uncomfortable but even more uncomfortable with the government getting involved.
Uncomfortable but even more uncomfortable with the government getting involved.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,813
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
That's a reasonable response. Even when I'm not attracted to something, most things don't make me uncomfortable.
That's a reasonable response. Even when I'm not attracted to something, most things don't make me uncomfortable.
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,817
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,819
> convicted pedophile
Is being a paedophile a crime now? :)
Is being a paedophile a crime now? :)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,834
@198,817 (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
Probably any intense and violent rape story. I have a good one, give me a moment.
Probably any intense and violent rape story. I have a good one, give me a moment.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,837
@OP
so you're meeting up with jump?
so you're meeting up with jump?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,839
@198,817 (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
Oh here it is. It's Power Ranger themed and I found it one tvtropes.
http://www.tuxedojack.com/godawful/aip.htm
Oh here it is. It's Power Ranger themed and I found it one tvtropes.
http://www.tuxedojack.com/godawful/aip.htm
TrollBuster3000 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,868
post pics i wanna know what convicted petafiles look like
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,869
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,871
Anonymous P replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,872
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,874
@198,839 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Someone posted that story on a Neopets forum when I was 12. I still have nightmares about needles.
Someone posted that story on a Neopets forum when I was 12. I still have nightmares about needles.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,876
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,877
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
its supaa kawaii desu~
its supaa kawaii desu~
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,879
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,880
@198,876 (TrollBuster3000)
Then quite victimizing yourself and don't buy young girls any more gifts.
Then quite victimizing yourself and don't buy young girls any more gifts.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,883
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
lol i was joking. I am only in contact with one of the girls from my old church. We hung out at the shops a couple days ago. he told me she missed me and she ran up and hugged me. So sweet...
lol i was joking. I am only in contact with one of the girls from my old church. We hung out at the shops a couple days ago. he told me she missed me and she ran up and hugged me. So sweet...
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,888
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
You talk about spending money on young girls fairly frequently, so it's probably not a joke.
You talk about spending money on young girls fairly frequently, so it's probably not a joke.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,898
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
This is the only girl I hang out with. She is the one I bought the alarm clock for. I see her less than once a month. But we talk on facebook pretty often.
This is the only girl I hang out with. She is the one I bought the alarm clock for. I see her less than once a month. But we talk on facebook pretty often.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,932
:Dswamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,942
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,952
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 48 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,027
They found child pornography on his computer. He has never molested a child and I'm pretty sure the pics (yes, there were only pics) belong to his mentally challenged brother. Some of my friends claim that he knew they belonged to his brother but he wanted to protect his handicapped brother from going to prison. He still claims he's innocent, but took a plea bargain and ended up serving 4 years in prison followed by a long house arrest and is still on probation. I'm not sure if I believe him or not, and quite frankly, it's irrelevant. It has been a traumatic experience for him and it's going to follow him for the rest of his life, and as Homestar pointed out, he uses the humor of the shirt to diffuse the situation. Sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity of society.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,030
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> looks at pictures
> 4 years in prison
> house arrest
> sex offender registration
Why am I the only one that sees a problem here?
> Sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity of society.
Fucking A!
> looks at pictures
> 4 years in prison
> house arrest
> sex offender registration
Why am I the only one that sees a problem here?
> Sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity of society.
Fucking A!
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,035
@199,027 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> he knew they belonged to his brother but he wanted to protect his handicapped brother from going to prison
So why didn't he do something about it? Get his brother help, delete the pictures, cut off his access to the internet, etc. That's just enabling his bad behavior.
> he knew they belonged to his brother but he wanted to protect his handicapped brother from going to prison
So why didn't he do something about it? Get his brother help, delete the pictures, cut off his access to the internet, etc. That's just enabling his bad behavior.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,036
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,041
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,066
@199,030 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
How has your perception of what you were looking at changed since your arrest? Did you go through therapy to learn to empathize with children?
How has your perception of what you were looking at changed since your arrest? Did you go through therapy to learn to empathize with children?
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,077
@previous (sluggy)
> How has your perception of what you were looking at changed since your arrest?
Conflicted.
If I'm not horny and not depressed, the subject matter is both morally wrong and eww.
If I'm depressed and have been looking at a lot of porn lately, it's still wrong but less eww.
To use an analogy, it's like alcohol. Starting with really hard spirits is undesirable, but if you start with tame stuff, the dangerous stuff becomes more desirable. :S
> Did you go through therapy to learn to empathize with children?
Yeah I did. It was a one-year group thing.
> How has your perception of what you were looking at changed since your arrest?
Conflicted.
If I'm not horny and not depressed, the subject matter is both morally wrong and eww.
If I'm depressed and have been looking at a lot of porn lately, it's still wrong but less eww.
To use an analogy, it's like alcohol. Starting with really hard spirits is undesirable, but if you start with tame stuff, the dangerous stuff becomes more desirable. :S
> Did you go through therapy to learn to empathize with children?
Yeah I did. It was a one-year group thing.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,149
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
If you look at regular porn do you find yourself drifting to younger looking guys? Have you tried aversion techniques? Just blowing your load to old bears?
You recognize what you were doing was very wrong and you needed stop, though right? You just feel you were treated too harshly? Most of society would think you deserved far worse, which is why the penalty is so high.
Jail time for looking at images seems outrageous. The harm done isnt measurable, either. Its a very tricky thing. Pedophiles who offend seem to have many victims too, so it's hard to not think of all pedophiles as serial rapists. There aren't really any good pedo role models (I cant think of one).
If you look at regular porn do you find yourself drifting to younger looking guys? Have you tried aversion techniques? Just blowing your load to old bears?
You recognize what you were doing was very wrong and you needed stop, though right? You just feel you were treated too harshly? Most of society would think you deserved far worse, which is why the penalty is so high.
Jail time for looking at images seems outrageous. The harm done isnt measurable, either. Its a very tricky thing. Pedophiles who offend seem to have many victims too, so it's hard to not think of all pedophiles as serial rapists. There aren't really any good pedo role models (I cant think of one).
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,151
@previous (sluggy)
> You recognize what you were doing was very wrong and you needed stop, though right?
Why? It's an utterly victimless crime. Without using any appeals to emotion (i.e. describing every horrible thing the child had to go through), logically describe whom was hurt by his looking at CP.
> Most of society would think you deserved far worse
Most of society is filled with religious idiots.
> You recognize what you were doing was very wrong and you needed stop, though right?
Why? It's an utterly victimless crime. Without using any appeals to emotion (i.e. describing every horrible thing the child had to go through), logically describe whom was hurt by his looking at CP.
> Most of society would think you deserved far worse
Most of society is filled with religious idiots.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,153
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> Why? It's an utterly victimless crime. Without using any appeals to emotion (i.e. describing every horrible thing the child had to go through), logically describe whom was hurt by his looking at CP.
Dude... And here I was thinking you were going to be cool about this shit. It should be plainly obvious that CP encourages further child abuse. To think it doesn't is absolutely silly.
> Why? It's an utterly victimless crime. Without using any appeals to emotion (i.e. describing every horrible thing the child had to go through), logically describe whom was hurt by his looking at CP.
Dude... And here I was thinking you were going to be cool about this shit. It should be plainly obvious that CP encourages further child abuse. To think it doesn't is absolutely silly.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,157
@previous (J)
Right. And playing violent video games makes you more likely to be violent in real life.
Right. And playing violent video games makes you more likely to be violent in real life.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,159
so much bs itt. my favorite bit is that im brainwashed because I am a Christian yet most people here jump on any moral bandwagon without any thought at all.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,160
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,161
@199,157 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Ugh. Are you retarded? Okay, let me use Homestar's own analogy: @199,077 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> To use an analogy, it's like alcohol. Starting with really hard spirits is undesirable, but if you start with tame stuff, the dangerous stuff becomes more desirable. :S
An alcoholic continually needs more alcohol in order to function/feed into their addiction. CP is no different; once the availability gets streamlined, the pedophiles who view this shit consistently keep searching for more of it. If there is none left, they find ulterior means to obtain it. When this no longer becomes available, the desire becomes so uncontrollable that they start victimizing children and fantasy becomes a reality; it becomes a hellbent lust, and this in turn is what leads to further spreading.
So don't pull that bullshit on me, man.
Ugh. Are you retarded? Okay, let me use Homestar's own analogy: @199,077 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> To use an analogy, it's like alcohol. Starting with really hard spirits is undesirable, but if you start with tame stuff, the dangerous stuff becomes more desirable. :S
An alcoholic continually needs more alcohol in order to function/feed into their addiction. CP is no different; once the availability gets streamlined, the pedophiles who view this shit consistently keep searching for more of it. If there is none left, they find ulterior means to obtain it. When this no longer becomes available, the desire becomes so uncontrollable that they start victimizing children and fantasy becomes a reality; it becomes a hellbent lust, and this in turn is what leads to further spreading.
So don't pull that bullshit on me, man.
Anonymous J double-posted this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,162
@199,159 (TrollBuster3000)
Morals and Christianity are mutually exclusive. People don't need to believe in Jesus to have some sort of moral structure, so fuck off with that shit.
Morals and Christianity are mutually exclusive. People don't need to believe in Jesus to have some sort of moral structure, so fuck off with that shit.
!VoCaLoNunI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,163
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,164
@199,160 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Mostly. People are stupid independent of religion, though. Their anti pedo views are societal, not religious.
Mostly. People are stupid independent of religion, though. Their anti pedo views are societal, not religious.
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,165
@199,162 (J)
I think you mean "not mutually exclusive". I also think you can't read, because I did not claim Christianity and morals to be mutually exclusive in my post.
I think you mean "not mutually exclusive". I also think you can't read, because I did not claim Christianity and morals to be mutually exclusive in my post.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,168
ITTAnonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,169
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,171
@previous (J)
It's not an ad hominem or a straw man argument. You were not using that term correctly and he was pointing it out.
To say that Christianity and morals are mutually exclusive is to say that it is impossible for Christians to have morals.
It's not an ad hominem or a straw man argument. You were not using that term correctly and he was pointing it out.
To say that Christianity and morals are mutually exclusive is to say that it is impossible for Christians to have morals.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,173
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> It's not an ad hominem or a straw man argument.
I was implying that they were going to start appearing in this thread, not that what he said was either of which.
> To say that Christianity and morals are mutually exclusive is to say that it is impossible for Christians to have morals.
Fine. Semantics, I guess. He was trying to suggest that people that aren't Christian are not capable of possessing morals. Whatever term suits that is what I was trying to say.
> It's not an ad hominem or a straw man argument.
I was implying that they were going to start appearing in this thread, not that what he said was either of which.
> To say that Christianity and morals are mutually exclusive is to say that it is impossible for Christians to have morals.
Fine. Semantics, I guess. He was trying to suggest that people that aren't Christian are not capable of possessing morals. Whatever term suits that is what I was trying to say.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,174
@199,171 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Christians get their morals from god. You could make the argument that true Christians have no morals.
Christians get their morals from god. You could make the argument that true Christians have no morals.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,175
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,180
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,181
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,182
@199,173 (J)
> He was trying to suggest that people that aren't Christian are not capable of possessing morals.
No, I wasn't: hence why I suggested YOU CAN'T READ GOOD.
> He was trying to suggest that people that aren't Christian are not capable of possessing morals.
No, I wasn't: hence why I suggested YOU CAN'T READ GOOD.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,183
@199,151 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Read cunt's posts, she lays it out pretty well.
Also, victims have said it feels like they are victimize all over again knowing people are sharing videos of the most traumatic moments of their lives. Dont you think basic human decency would require you to not look at it?
Those kids didn't ask to be filmed, or didn't know what they were asking for if they did.
Read cunt's posts, she lays it out pretty well.
Also, victims have said it feels like they are victimize all over again knowing people are sharing videos of the most traumatic moments of their lives. Dont you think basic human decency would require you to not look at it?
Those kids didn't ask to be filmed, or didn't know what they were asking for if they did.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,184
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,185
@199,181 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Doing swell, how about you? I'm currently buckling down for this hurricane.
Doing swell, how about you? I'm currently buckling down for this hurricane.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,186
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,187
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,192
@199,161 (J)
That's flawed in a number of ways and none of it seems relevant to my experience. I've described by experience/perception as it was experienced by me. The fact that you find it difficult to believe, or it doesn't align with your current view of paedophiles is not really my problem.
@199,149 (sluggy)
> If you look at regular porn do you find yourself drifting to younger looking guys?
Yeah
> Have you tried aversion techniques? Just blowing your load to old bears?
Bears don't appeal to me, but there is a large amount of legal porn that does. I have a porn blog. Maybe one day I'll show. :)
> You recognize what you were doing was very wrong and you needed stop, though right?
Yes. I felt this way even when I was doing it.
> You just feel you were treated too harshly?
My views are pretty selfless as comparatively I got off a lot easier than other people. Having said that, I do feel my own consequences (and thus the consequences of everyone else) are way too harsh.
> Most of society would think you deserved far worse, which is why the penalty is so high.
It's just not very logical. I'm one of the nicest persons I know. I wouldn't knowingly harm anyone, and have struggled for a long time to accept that I have.
> Jail time for looking at images seems outrageous.
Agreed.
> The harm done isnt measurable, either.
It was very easy to convince myself the harm was non-existent.
> Pedophiles who offend seem to have many victims too, so it's hard to not think of all pedophiles as serial rapists.
Now you're confusing paedophiles with child molesters.
> There aren't really any good pedo role models (I cant think of one).
There's too much hysteria about pedophilia. It doesn't make sense for any famous/accomplished person to come out and say they are one. There was a time when nobody would admit to being homosexual, too, and pedophilia is much worse to admit to.
That's flawed in a number of ways and none of it seems relevant to my experience. I've described by experience/perception as it was experienced by me. The fact that you find it difficult to believe, or it doesn't align with your current view of paedophiles is not really my problem.
@199,149 (sluggy)
> If you look at regular porn do you find yourself drifting to younger looking guys?
Yeah
> Have you tried aversion techniques? Just blowing your load to old bears?
Bears don't appeal to me, but there is a large amount of legal porn that does. I have a porn blog. Maybe one day I'll show. :)
> You recognize what you were doing was very wrong and you needed stop, though right?
Yes. I felt this way even when I was doing it.
> You just feel you were treated too harshly?
My views are pretty selfless as comparatively I got off a lot easier than other people. Having said that, I do feel my own consequences (and thus the consequences of everyone else) are way too harsh.
> Most of society would think you deserved far worse, which is why the penalty is so high.
It's just not very logical. I'm one of the nicest persons I know. I wouldn't knowingly harm anyone, and have struggled for a long time to accept that I have.
> Jail time for looking at images seems outrageous.
Agreed.
> The harm done isnt measurable, either.
It was very easy to convince myself the harm was non-existent.
> Pedophiles who offend seem to have many victims too, so it's hard to not think of all pedophiles as serial rapists.
Now you're confusing paedophiles with child molesters.
> There aren't really any good pedo role models (I cant think of one).
There's too much hysteria about pedophilia. It doesn't make sense for any famous/accomplished person to come out and say they are one. There was a time when nobody would admit to being homosexual, too, and pedophilia is much worse to admit to.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,195
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,196
@previous (J)
I didn't - didn't mention alcoholism whatsoever, actually.
I was referring to alcohol that is difficult to swallow at first, but not so difficult once you've had drinks that are not so strong...
Try to stop misunderstanding me.
I didn't - didn't mention alcoholism whatsoever, actually.
I was referring to alcohol that is difficult to swallow at first, but not so difficult once you've had drinks that are not so strong...
Try to stop misunderstanding me.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,197
@199,187 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Not really, no. I find it funny that people panic and buy milk, bread, bottled water, backup generators, etc, when they'll be stuck in their house for one day at most. None of those things are going to do anything to prevent your house from flooding or your roof from blowing off. Backup generators would be a good idea, but people are only buying the little gas-powered portable ones that will only give you a day of power at best, assuming you have plenty of gas on hand. In the event that power is out for several days, you're fucked, and if you try to go get more gas, gas stations won't have power to pump it.
The only thing I might go buy is dry ice, so when we lose power (and it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when and how long.) I can keep everything in my fridges/freezers from spoiling if the power is out for several days. I also have matches, lighters, candles, flashlights, batteries, dynamo-powered flashlight/radio, power invertor to use my car as a very minor generator if I absolutely need to, and tons of other things to keep me entertained. I made sure my car's gas tank is full and there is nothing laying around outside. There aren't a lot of trees or anything around my neighborhood, so I'm not worried to much about anything flying through the windows. I'm more worried about flooding, since I'm only a few miles away from the Chesapeake Bay and we have several flood ponds around my neighborhood that will back up (not a matter of if, just a matter of how bad it will be.) We are 60-70 feet above sea level, but we'll just have to wait and see. If the basement floods I just need to get my computer out of it and then I'm good.
Delmarva power was smart and has spent the past week trimming all trees around power lines to minimize the damage, but Irene is gonna one ugly motherfucker either way.
Not really, no. I find it funny that people panic and buy milk, bread, bottled water, backup generators, etc, when they'll be stuck in their house for one day at most. None of those things are going to do anything to prevent your house from flooding or your roof from blowing off. Backup generators would be a good idea, but people are only buying the little gas-powered portable ones that will only give you a day of power at best, assuming you have plenty of gas on hand. In the event that power is out for several days, you're fucked, and if you try to go get more gas, gas stations won't have power to pump it.
The only thing I might go buy is dry ice, so when we lose power (and it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when and how long.) I can keep everything in my fridges/freezers from spoiling if the power is out for several days. I also have matches, lighters, candles, flashlights, batteries, dynamo-powered flashlight/radio, power invertor to use my car as a very minor generator if I absolutely need to, and tons of other things to keep me entertained. I made sure my car's gas tank is full and there is nothing laying around outside. There aren't a lot of trees or anything around my neighborhood, so I'm not worried to much about anything flying through the windows. I'm more worried about flooding, since I'm only a few miles away from the Chesapeake Bay and we have several flood ponds around my neighborhood that will back up (not a matter of if, just a matter of how bad it will be.) We are 60-70 feet above sea level, but we'll just have to wait and see. If the basement floods I just need to get my computer out of it and then I'm good.
Delmarva power was smart and has spent the past week trimming all trees around power lines to minimize the damage, but Irene is gonna one ugly motherfucker either way.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,198
@199,192 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
I said pedos who offend, I meant offend in a physical way. The ones who do molest tend to have many victims.
I said pedos who offend, I meant offend in a physical way. The ones who do molest tend to have many victims.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,199
@199,196 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> To use an analogy, it's like alcohol. Starting with really hard spirits is undesirable, but if you start with tame stuff, the dangerous stuff becomes more desirable. :S
This is extremely ambiguous. You need to be more specific if you're going to start throwing around analogies like this. You really confuse the issue and make no sense when it matters to convey a specific idea. Not to mention the fact that you say you look at young men, then move onto boys, then would move onto CP as part of your addiction (enough for you to get charged a crime for it!) is pretty much in the same vein: addiction. The simple thrill no longer satisfies you, and that's why you kept looking for more and more explicit materials. Trying to argue apples and oranges over this is silly.
> To use an analogy, it's like alcohol. Starting with really hard spirits is undesirable, but if you start with tame stuff, the dangerous stuff becomes more desirable. :S
This is extremely ambiguous. You need to be more specific if you're going to start throwing around analogies like this. You really confuse the issue and make no sense when it matters to convey a specific idea. Not to mention the fact that you say you look at young men, then move onto boys, then would move onto CP as part of your addiction (enough for you to get charged a crime for it!) is pretty much in the same vein: addiction. The simple thrill no longer satisfies you, and that's why you kept looking for more and more explicit materials. Trying to argue apples and oranges over this is silly.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,201
@previous (J)
> Fine. Semantics, I guess. Whatever term suits that is what I was trying to say.
> This is extremely ambiguous. You need to be more specific if you're going to start throwing around analogies like this. You really confuse the issue and make no sense when it matters to convey a specific idea.
lolfaggot
> Fine. Semantics, I guess. Whatever term suits that is what I was trying to say.
> This is extremely ambiguous. You need to be more specific if you're going to start throwing around analogies like this. You really confuse the issue and make no sense when it matters to convey a specific idea.
lolfaggot
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,202
@199,199 (J)
Yes, there is an addictive element, but the analogy I used wasn't referring to this. I was referring to the desirability of it. I thought I made this clear.
Yes, there is an addictive element, but the analogy I used wasn't referring to this. I was referring to the desirability of it. I thought I made this clear.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,204
yer homostar its liek Gateway drugs one day my brother got offered a canabis cigar and he sad not but he got pressure form the big boys so he said yes but did you know what the nextvery day he got DIED of herion overdosed! the saem things will heappen to u my friend
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,206
@199,201 (TrollBuster3000)
Ad hominems. Glad to see you are self-aware to your hypocrisy.
@199,202 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Apparently not. Moving on.
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
Now you're reverting to shitposting because you have no crutch to stand on anymore. Typical.
Ad hominems. Glad to see you are self-aware to your hypocrisy.
@199,202 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Apparently not. Moving on.
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
Now you're reverting to shitposting because you have no crutch to stand on anymore. Typical.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,208
@previous (J)
> doesn't know the definition of ad hominem
> calls a variant of his own argument a shitpost
Give up. You're wrong on about everything you've posted about itt.
> doesn't know the definition of ad hominem
> calls a variant of his own argument a shitpost
Give up. You're wrong on about everything you've posted about itt.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,209
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
Nope. The fact that you try to defend your position as a moral Christian and yet are a pedophile who preys on young girls is laughable at best. You're a shitposting troll and it's obviously in plainsight to everywhere else here on this board.
Nope. The fact that you try to defend your position as a moral Christian and yet are a pedophile who preys on young girls is laughable at best. You're a shitposting troll and it's obviously in plainsight to everywhere else here on this board.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,211
@previous (J)
When do I claim to be moral? I am not a pedophile, I only like girls who have reached puberty. I don't prey on young girls, I am a virgin.
When do I claim to be moral? I am not a pedophile, I only like girls who have reached puberty. I don't prey on young girls, I am a virgin.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,212
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,215
@previous (J)
i dont precisely know the distinction between morals and ethics. in the sense that morals are mores i am amoral.
i dont precisely know the distinction between morals and ethics. in the sense that morals are mores i am amoral.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,217
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,220
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,226
I'm eating gummy bears. Your arguments are invalid. All of the arguments.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,229
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,231
@199,220 (J)
Everyone has morals. But more morality is subjective. Some people might disapprove of yours as much as you do his.
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
People in glass houses, etc.
Everyone has morals. But more morality is subjective. Some people might disapprove of yours as much as you do his.
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
People in glass houses, etc.
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,232
@199,229 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Oh man, I fucking love cinnamon. Isn't there anything it can't make awesome?
Oh man, I fucking love cinnamon. Isn't there anything it can't make awesome?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,233
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,237
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,239
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,241
I follow the moral teachings of Jesus:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,245
@199,161 (J)
> Ugh. Are you retarded?
Ad hominems, ahoy!
> An alcoholic continually needs more alcohol in order to function/feed into their addiction.
Homestar already said that this wasn't how he meant it; therefore, your argument is invalid. But just for fun:
> the pedophiles who view this shit consistently keep searching for more of it
Well, yes. Just like how you probably search for more pornography when you get bored of what you have already.
> If there is none left, they find ulterior means to obtain it.
Ulterior does not mean what you think it means. All CP is already "ulterior." Unless you actually view it over HTTP/P2P/torrents, in which case, you are an idiot.
> When this no longer becomes available, the desire becomes so uncontrollable that they start victimizing children and fantasy becomes a reality
...
...
...
No. I was going to go back to my video game analogy (in that when I get bored of the games I already have and can't afford any more, I do not resort to actually committing murder), but actually fleshing that idea out would be spending more time on this than it deserves. Since you made the claim, come up with a citation that states that. Any citation. I'll even take an unreputable one, because that is legitimately one of the most insane leaps of non-logic I've ever seen.
> Ugh. Are you retarded?
Ad hominems, ahoy!
> An alcoholic continually needs more alcohol in order to function/feed into their addiction.
Homestar already said that this wasn't how he meant it; therefore, your argument is invalid. But just for fun:
> the pedophiles who view this shit consistently keep searching for more of it
Well, yes. Just like how you probably search for more pornography when you get bored of what you have already.
> If there is none left, they find ulterior means to obtain it.
Ulterior does not mean what you think it means. All CP is already "ulterior." Unless you actually view it over HTTP/P2P/torrents, in which case, you are an idiot.
> When this no longer becomes available, the desire becomes so uncontrollable that they start victimizing children and fantasy becomes a reality
...
...
...
No. I was going to go back to my video game analogy (in that when I get bored of the games I already have and can't afford any more, I do not resort to actually committing murder), but actually fleshing that idea out would be spending more time on this than it deserves. Since you made the claim, come up with a citation that states that. Any citation. I'll even take an unreputable one, because that is legitimately one of the most insane leaps of non-logic I've ever seen.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,251
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
The most obvious answer to this post, since you keep ignoring it, is the fact that when a pedophile watches CP, they are victimizing the person being sexually abused all over again. They are taking joy in watching someone else being sexually manipulated and watching their innocence destroyed. Many of the victims also state this is how they feel being "victimized" all over again because you are observing them in their most embarassing, harrowing, and powerless moments of their entire lives. That lives with them forever. It doesn't change. When you actively participate in that viewing, you are letting it happen and it what is even sicker is that you're taking pleasure in the fact of watching someone be humiliated and psychologically damaged in that regard.
To say it doesn't have that sort of effect is extremely selfish and naive. It shows an obvious lack of empathy for fellow human suffering and is very self-centered on your own personal/sexual wants versus others' own well-being.
The most obvious answer to this post, since you keep ignoring it, is the fact that when a pedophile watches CP, they are victimizing the person being sexually abused all over again. They are taking joy in watching someone else being sexually manipulated and watching their innocence destroyed. Many of the victims also state this is how they feel being "victimized" all over again because you are observing them in their most embarassing, harrowing, and powerless moments of their entire lives. That lives with them forever. It doesn't change. When you actively participate in that viewing, you are letting it happen and it what is even sicker is that you're taking pleasure in the fact of watching someone be humiliated and psychologically damaged in that regard.
To say it doesn't have that sort of effect is extremely selfish and naive. It shows an obvious lack of empathy for fellow human suffering and is very self-centered on your own personal/sexual wants versus others' own well-being.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,252
@199,245 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> > When this no longer becomes available, the desire becomes so uncontrollable that they start victimizing children and fantasy becomes a reality
> No. I was going to go back to my video game analogy (in that when I get bored of the games I already have and can't afford any more, I do not resort to actually committing murder), but actually fleshing that idea out would be spending more time on this than it deserves.
This amused me greatly.
> > When this no longer becomes available, the desire becomes so uncontrollable that they start victimizing children and fantasy becomes a reality
> No. I was going to go back to my video game analogy (in that when I get bored of the games I already have and can't afford any more, I do not resort to actually committing murder), but actually fleshing that idea out would be spending more time on this than it deserves.
This amused me greatly.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,255
@199,251 (J)
how does that answer the post in any way? it was just a pile of illogical emotional trash
how does that answer the post in any way? it was just a pile of illogical emotional trash
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,256
@199,251 (J)
> The most obvious answer to this post, since you keep ignoring it, is the fact that when a pedophile watches CP, they are victimizing the person being sexually abused all over again. They are taking joy in watching someone else being sexually manipulated and watching their innocence destroyed. Many of the victims also state this is how they feel being "victimized" all over again
Question... if I download CP, how on earth do CP victims find out about this?
> The most obvious answer to this post, since you keep ignoring it, is the fact that when a pedophile watches CP, they are victimizing the person being sexually abused all over again. They are taking joy in watching someone else being sexually manipulated and watching their innocence destroyed. Many of the victims also state this is how they feel being "victimized" all over again
Question... if I download CP, how on earth do CP victims find out about this?
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,258
Anonymous Z-1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,302
@199,256 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Well obviously they can't know for sure, but I'm certain that with the ones who realized they were being taped, and are aware that the video depicting them being sexually abused was distributed, of course they must assume that it is still being viewed. I'm sure that thought endlessly plagues them, but I doubt it's the worst of the lot.
You do seem like you feel bad about what you did, but sometimes with the things you post, the way you react to certain posts with very valid points concerning the issue, and the terrible analogies you make, it's almost as if somewhere inside you, you think that what you did was okay. It's like you try to justify viewing CP. Perhaps I didn't quite hit the nail on the head, but it's how it looks.
Well obviously they can't know for sure, but I'm certain that with the ones who realized they were being taped, and are aware that the video depicting them being sexually abused was distributed, of course they must assume that it is still being viewed. I'm sure that thought endlessly plagues them, but I doubt it's the worst of the lot.
You do seem like you feel bad about what you did, but sometimes with the things you post, the way you react to certain posts with very valid points concerning the issue, and the terrible analogies you make, it's almost as if somewhere inside you, you think that what you did was okay. It's like you try to justify viewing CP. Perhaps I didn't quite hit the nail on the head, but it's how it looks.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,307
@previous (Z-1)
I'm not the one who's a pedophile, and I think it's okay. It's a victimless crime. Yes, the knowledge that the media is "out there" is always with them, but there's no means to track it. One more viewer is not something they will ever know about, nor is it anything that will dampen their recovery more than knowing it's "out there" to begin with.
I'm not the one who's a pedophile, and I think it's okay. It's a victimless crime. Yes, the knowledge that the media is "out there" is always with them, but there's no means to track it. One more viewer is not something they will ever know about, nor is it anything that will dampen their recovery more than knowing it's "out there" to begin with.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,308
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,312
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,322
@199,302 (Z-1)
I can understand that. I feel conflicted over it, myself. I certainly don't think it's bad enough to warrant all the consequences that those convicted have to face.
@199,308 (G)
I was thinking carrier pigeon :P
I can understand that. I feel conflicted over it, myself. I certainly don't think it's bad enough to warrant all the consequences that those convicted have to face.
@199,308 (G)
I was thinking carrier pigeon :P
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,323
So, what's everyone thoughts on the sex offender registry and the rules prohibiting living within x amount of feet to a place where children are?
It didnt cut down recidivism rates and makes it harder to track pedophiles (many end up homeless or living in tent cities with other pedos).
Im torn. I can see it wing beneficial to know if a violent offender is near you, but I don't see how making it iegal for someone like honestar to live near a park is doing anyone any good. Men will walk across the country for pussy (or cock). The to catch a predator episodes always had one guy who came by bus or something crazy.
It didnt cut down recidivism rates and makes it harder to track pedophiles (many end up homeless or living in tent cities with other pedos).
Im torn. I can see it wing beneficial to know if a violent offender is near you, but I don't see how making it iegal for someone like honestar to live near a park is doing anyone any good. Men will walk across the country for pussy (or cock). The to catch a predator episodes always had one guy who came by bus or something crazy.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,327
@previous (sluggy)
Insane. Absolutely insane in every possible way. I can't see how anyone can make any form of logical argument towards it. Maybe when you apply it to actual convicted child molesters/rapists, but as far as people in Homestar's case?
Insane. Absolutely insane in every possible way. I can't see how anyone can make any form of logical argument towards it. Maybe when you apply it to actual convicted child molesters/rapists, but as far as people in Homestar's case?
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,330
@199,323 (sluggy)
The sex offender registry system causes way more harm than good.
95% of the people on it should not be. If the public wants to feel safe, they only want to know about the most dangerous offenders.
All the system is doing now is driving hysteria.
The sex offender registry system causes way more harm than good.
95% of the people on it should not be. If the public wants to feel safe, they only want to know about the most dangerous offenders.
All the system is doing now is driving hysteria.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,333
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
You know I do.
You know I do.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,335
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I have no idea what that means.
I have no idea what that means.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,340
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> But then it doesn't affect you in any way :/
Because you need to be personally affected by every single thing you want to have an opinion on before you're allowed one.
> But then it doesn't affect you in any way :/
Because you need to be personally affected by every single thing you want to have an opinion on before you're allowed one.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,347
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
There are horror stories all over the internet. The hysteria is obvious.
And, regrettably, US policy has an unfortunate tendency to influence other countries.
People may feel more informed, but they're also overwhelmed with a ton of unnecessary information.
Does it really concern you that someone down the road once took a leak in public? Is he someone you really have to be concerned about?
People who have offended need your support not to reoffend.
Instead, your country tells these people they are the scum of society, they are not allowed in most places, they can't get jobs or accommodation... Stress and and feeling excluded from society drives offending. What part of this motivates them to stop?
There are horror stories all over the internet. The hysteria is obvious.
And, regrettably, US policy has an unfortunate tendency to influence other countries.
People may feel more informed, but they're also overwhelmed with a ton of unnecessary information.
Does it really concern you that someone down the road once took a leak in public? Is he someone you really have to be concerned about?
People who have offended need your support not to reoffend.
Instead, your country tells these people they are the scum of society, they are not allowed in most places, they can't get jobs or accommodation... Stress and and feeling excluded from society drives offending. What part of this motivates them to stop?
Anonymous Z-1 replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,358
@199,307 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
In all honesty, I don't really care to argue over semantics (may not be using the correct term here) on the internet. It annoys me. Just putting that out there. Regardless, what exactly did you mean by this:
> I'm not the one who's a pedophile, and I think it's okay.
Clarify on what you think is okay?
In all honesty, I don't really care to argue over semantics (may not be using the correct term here) on the internet. It annoys me. Just putting that out there. Regardless, what exactly did you mean by this:
> I'm not the one who's a pedophile, and I think it's okay.
Clarify on what you think is okay?
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,361
@previous (Z-1)
Homestar is. I'm not. I'm arguing alongside him in defense of victimless pedophilia.
Edit: misinterpreted the question, but answered it anyway... CP viewing harms no one.
Homestar is. I'm not. I'm arguing alongside him in defense of victimless pedophilia.
Edit: misinterpreted the question, but answered it anyway... CP viewing harms no one.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,372
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> > There are horror stories all over the internet. The hysteria is obvious.
> What? Anontalk does not count as "across the internet"
How about Time magazine?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957778,00.html
But no, really, there are a lot of well documented cases.
> > And, regrettably, US policy has an unfortunate tendency to influence other countries.
> Unfortunately true.
Even if it didn't (my country doesn't have one), I feel for those offenders in yours.
> No, but it's useful to know about the man who lives a walk away from the elementary school here who has a history of sexually abusing children.
Exactly. If there needs to be registry (which I don't support), this is the type of person you'd want on it.
> You could say the same for thieves, illegal immigrants, ect.
Huh? Thieves aren't treated a fraction as bad as anyone on a sex offender registry.
> > There are horror stories all over the internet. The hysteria is obvious.
> What? Anontalk does not count as "across the internet"
How about Time magazine?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957778,00.html
But no, really, there are a lot of well documented cases.
> > And, regrettably, US policy has an unfortunate tendency to influence other countries.
> Unfortunately true.
Even if it didn't (my country doesn't have one), I feel for those offenders in yours.
> No, but it's useful to know about the man who lives a walk away from the elementary school here who has a history of sexually abusing children.
Exactly. If there needs to be registry (which I don't support), this is the type of person you'd want on it.
> You could say the same for thieves, illegal immigrants, ect.
Huh? Thieves aren't treated a fraction as bad as anyone on a sex offender registry.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous Z-1 replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,393
@199,361 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> CP viewing harms no one.
That's quite a bold statement there. I guess if we're speaking technically, no, it doesn't physically harm anyone. On the other hand, I do think that it must cause varying degrees of harmful and negative mental effects on the both the viewer (perhaps it doesn't always negatively effect the viewer, though) and the person who is depicted in the video. It just seems logical, and to state that viewing CP causes zero harm simply sounds naive. But hey, you're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how apalling they might be to the majority of the human race.
Also, really quickly:
> Yes, the knowledge that the media is "out there" is always with them, but there's no means to track it.
Are you under the impression that this knowledge wouldn't cause emotional trauma...?
> CP viewing harms no one.
That's quite a bold statement there. I guess if we're speaking technically, no, it doesn't physically harm anyone. On the other hand, I do think that it must cause varying degrees of harmful and negative mental effects on the both the viewer (perhaps it doesn't always negatively effect the viewer, though) and the person who is depicted in the video. It just seems logical, and to state that viewing CP causes zero harm simply sounds naive. But hey, you're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how apalling they might be to the majority of the human race.
Also, really quickly:
> Yes, the knowledge that the media is "out there" is always with them, but there's no means to track it.
Are you under the impression that this knowledge wouldn't cause emotional trauma...?
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,403
@previous (Z-1)
No, I am not. What I meant was the knowledge will certainly create trauma, but, unless you are the one creating it, being a viewer can't possibly contribute toward it. You are not the ones abusing the children or the ones posting it for everyone to see; any number beyond that can hardly be accurately-tracked and find its way to the victim.
No, I am not. What I meant was the knowledge will certainly create trauma, but, unless you are the one creating it, being a viewer can't possibly contribute toward it. You are not the ones abusing the children or the ones posting it for everyone to see; any number beyond that can hardly be accurately-tracked and find its way to the victim.
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,408
@199,169 (J)
> using words you don't know on the Internet
I seriously hope you guys don't ever do this.
> using words you don't know on the Internet
I seriously hope you guys don't ever do this.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,410
@previous (!VoCaLoNunI)
I believe that the only word I have ever used incorrectly on Minichan has been mistaking "apocryphal" for "anecdotal."
I believe that the only word I have ever used incorrectly on Minichan has been mistaking "apocryphal" for "anecdotal."
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,425
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,428
@previous (sluggy)
The victims do not know the rate at which it is circulating. They only know that it was initially published. There is no inertia beyond that.
The victims do not know the rate at which it is circulating. They only know that it was initially published. There is no inertia beyond that.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,436
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,439
Is there a violent offenders registry? Is there a property crime offenders registry? Is there a bad drivers registry?
TrollBuster3000 triple-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,446
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
wow that's pretty gay.
wow that's pretty gay.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,467
@199,436 (TrollBuster3000)
What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about videos and images of children being molested or abused. Piracy has nothing to do with it.
What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about videos and images of children being molested or abused. Piracy has nothing to do with it.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,486
@previous (sluggy)
just pointing out that some people seem to reject the idea when pertaining to piracy, but not cp
just pointing out that some people seem to reject the idea when pertaining to piracy, but not cp
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,507
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,516
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,547
@199,486 (TrollBuster3000)
So $$$ is equal to a child's well-being to you?@199,507 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
It's not a good analogy. You guys aren't doing anyone any favors. You are showing how out of touch you are.
So $$$ is equal to a child's well-being to you?@199,507 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
It's not a good analogy. You guys aren't doing anyone any favors. You are showing how out of touch you are.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,549
@previous (sluggy)
we were discussing your contention that "If no one sought it out, it wouldn't circulating." (sic)
Why can't CP and illegal music downloads be compared, just because you place a greater emotional value on the former?
Why does your rule apply to CP, but not illegal music downloads? I'd like to know your logic.
we were discussing your contention that "If no one sought it out, it wouldn't circulating." (sic)
Why can't CP and illegal music downloads be compared, just because you place a greater emotional value on the former?
Why does your rule apply to CP, but not illegal music downloads? I'd like to know your logic.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,552
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
What point are you guys trying to make? It has no relevance.
You are trying to squirm around until you hit something that will justify downloading CP to the masses. It isnt going to happen.
Yes, if people didn't seek out music online for free, it wouldn't be a problem for the Music industry. I agree. What's the relevance? Why compare the two?
Do you care at all about children? I mean, fuck, I would never compare the suffering a girl to the loss of some money to the music industry.
What point are you guys trying to make? It has no relevance.
You are trying to squirm around until you hit something that will justify downloading CP to the masses. It isnt going to happen.
Yes, if people didn't seek out music online for free, it wouldn't be a problem for the Music industry. I agree. What's the relevance? Why compare the two?
Do you care at all about children? I mean, fuck, I would never compare the suffering a girl to the loss of some money to the music industry.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,555
@previous (sluggy)
I just don't really buy the "if people didn't download it, it wouldn't exist" argument.
Oh, and I'm not trying to justify it. I'd prefer it didn't exist, too.
I just don't really buy the "if people didn't download it, it wouldn't exist" argument.
Oh, and I'm not trying to justify it. I'd prefer it didn't exist, too.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,556
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
That's not the argument. I said....
> If no one sought it out, it wouldn't circulating.
People who download aren't arrested for creating but possessing.
That's not the argument. I said....
> If no one sought it out, it wouldn't circulating.
People who download aren't arrested for creating but possessing.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,559
@previous (sluggy)
Hmm, sorry, I still don't get your point.
Never mind... how about I just back out of this convo? :)
Hmm, sorry, I still don't get your point.
Never mind... how about I just back out of this convo? :)
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,569
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Oh, I meant "...it wouldn't BE circulating." Please, stay with it. You really should try to understand.
If no one downloaded child pornography, then the kids who were abused wouldn't need to worry about people sharing and enjoying their abuse. If there are no consumers, there are only producers. That means, only the people who make it, watch it. If they get caught, then no one has it. It is easier for the child to move on with their life. They no longer need to feel re-victimized.
It isn't about you. It is about the child. The child's well-being is what is important. The molester isn't the first priority, nor the pedophile masturbating at home. The first priority is the child, who is completely innocent.
The child has done nothing wrong. No one else can say the same. The molester has no defense, as he, or less-likely she, made a conscious decision to destroy the life of someone to satisfy a sexual or emotional urge. The masturbating pedophile can't deny they are getting off to someone's abuse. Victims have said they feel re-victimized knowing people are out there watching their abuse. The masturbating pedophile's right to freely express their interest in children by looking are CP is trumped by the child's life to feeling secure. Viewing child pornography is essentially attacking someone who has already been beaten down horribly.
The child's re-victimization may seem like an abstract thing, but there are real consequences for the child. Consider young Homestar is an abuse victim. Young Homestar is out and about and notices a fellow do a double take, or scrunch his eyes, or just that the fellow noticed him. Young Homestar knows there is a video of his abuse. Young Homestar now feels like that man has seen. Young Homestar now feels ashamed, victimized, and scared.
If no one was seeking out and downloading his abuse videos, then he would not have to go through this. He wouldn't think that man would have seen his videos because no one have seen them except his abuser and the police. Also, when young homestar's abuser was caught, that would have been the end of it. Now that people are seeking out the videos or pictures, the abuse is never-ending. The videos would be destroyed/deleted, or kept locked away as evidence. No one would be watching them.
Oh, I meant "...it wouldn't BE circulating." Please, stay with it. You really should try to understand.
If no one downloaded child pornography, then the kids who were abused wouldn't need to worry about people sharing and enjoying their abuse. If there are no consumers, there are only producers. That means, only the people who make it, watch it. If they get caught, then no one has it. It is easier for the child to move on with their life. They no longer need to feel re-victimized.
It isn't about you. It is about the child. The child's well-being is what is important. The molester isn't the first priority, nor the pedophile masturbating at home. The first priority is the child, who is completely innocent.
The child has done nothing wrong. No one else can say the same. The molester has no defense, as he, or less-likely she, made a conscious decision to destroy the life of someone to satisfy a sexual or emotional urge. The masturbating pedophile can't deny they are getting off to someone's abuse. Victims have said they feel re-victimized knowing people are out there watching their abuse. The masturbating pedophile's right to freely express their interest in children by looking are CP is trumped by the child's life to feeling secure. Viewing child pornography is essentially attacking someone who has already been beaten down horribly.
The child's re-victimization may seem like an abstract thing, but there are real consequences for the child. Consider young Homestar is an abuse victim. Young Homestar is out and about and notices a fellow do a double take, or scrunch his eyes, or just that the fellow noticed him. Young Homestar knows there is a video of his abuse. Young Homestar now feels like that man has seen. Young Homestar now feels ashamed, victimized, and scared.
If no one was seeking out and downloading his abuse videos, then he would not have to go through this. He wouldn't think that man would have seen his videos because no one have seen them except his abuser and the police. Also, when young homestar's abuser was caught, that would have been the end of it. Now that people are seeking out the videos or pictures, the abuse is never-ending. The videos would be destroyed/deleted, or kept locked away as evidence. No one would be watching them.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,573
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,576
RevNick replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,582
@199,569 (sluggy)
> If they get caught, then no one has it.
There is less chance of them getting caught if they don't film and distribute the abuse, though. The abuse would continue either way, so child porn does have some good. I'm not justifying child pornography by the way, but even if it is morally wrong, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Do you think people who watch "happy slapping" videos should be charged with assault? By watching it, you're simply witnessing a crime.
> If they get caught, then no one has it.
There is less chance of them getting caught if they don't film and distribute the abuse, though. The abuse would continue either way, so child porn does have some good. I'm not justifying child pornography by the way, but even if it is morally wrong, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Do you think people who watch "happy slapping" videos should be charged with assault? By watching it, you're simply witnessing a crime.
Anonymous Z-2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,587
If nobody downloaded/bought it there would be less of it, most likely. It would still happen, and still be recorded, even if it was just for their own vieuwing pleasure.
On the other hand, someone might be very interested in diddling a kid but instead seeks out some videos online and has their desires satisfied then doesn't feel like it anymore.
So yeah. Idk.
On the other hand, someone might be very interested in diddling a kid but instead seeks out some videos online and has their desires satisfied then doesn't feel like it anymore.
So yeah. Idk.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,590
@199,582 (RevNick)
Whats happy slapping? It isn't a crime to watch a crime. it is a crime to watch child pornography. What are you arguing here? You don't think it should be illegal? Ok. You advocate that all you want, but I don't think you are going to find many people willing to support you. In fact, I think you are going to find that people are downright hostile.
> There is less chance of them getting caught if they don't film and distribute the abuse, though. The abuse would continue either way, so child porn does have some good. I'm not justifying child pornography by the way, but even if it is morally wrong, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
That is an interesting way to look at it. It is true that there is abuse that could have continued or gone on longer if not for CP being reported. Still, the reality is that it isnt going away. So, its really rather pointless to debate this point. It doesn't discount what I said. Regardless of the possible unintended benefits of CP, it is true that if there were no downloaders, the CP would not be in circulation. Also, everything I have said still stands for each individual. You should personally make the decision to not join in this crime. You shouldn't want to contribute to that very real and substantial suffering.
Whats happy slapping? It isn't a crime to watch a crime. it is a crime to watch child pornography. What are you arguing here? You don't think it should be illegal? Ok. You advocate that all you want, but I don't think you are going to find many people willing to support you. In fact, I think you are going to find that people are downright hostile.
> There is less chance of them getting caught if they don't film and distribute the abuse, though. The abuse would continue either way, so child porn does have some good. I'm not justifying child pornography by the way, but even if it is morally wrong, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
That is an interesting way to look at it. It is true that there is abuse that could have continued or gone on longer if not for CP being reported. Still, the reality is that it isnt going away. So, its really rather pointless to debate this point. It doesn't discount what I said. Regardless of the possible unintended benefits of CP, it is true that if there were no downloaders, the CP would not be in circulation. Also, everything I have said still stands for each individual. You should personally make the decision to not join in this crime. You shouldn't want to contribute to that very real and substantial suffering.
sluggy double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,591
@199,587 (Z-2)
> If nobody downloaded/bought it there would be less of it, most likely. It would still happen, and still be recorded, even if it was just for their own vieuwing pleasure.
>
> On the other hand, someone might be very interested in diddling a kid but instead seeks out some videos online and has their desires satisfied then doesn't feel like it anymore.
>
> So yeah. Idk.
The outlet argument is one that has been made. Its very possible that it could prevent some abuse. However, the studies that was derived from found that countries who banned porn had much higher rates of sexual assault. That merely shows that porn does not contribute to sexual assault. It leaves the possibility open that it actually decreases instances of sexual assault, but more research still needs to be done for that conclusion to be made.
> If nobody downloaded/bought it there would be less of it, most likely. It would still happen, and still be recorded, even if it was just for their own vieuwing pleasure.
>
> On the other hand, someone might be very interested in diddling a kid but instead seeks out some videos online and has their desires satisfied then doesn't feel like it anymore.
>
> So yeah. Idk.
The outlet argument is one that has been made. Its very possible that it could prevent some abuse. However, the studies that was derived from found that countries who banned porn had much higher rates of sexual assault. That merely shows that porn does not contribute to sexual assault. It leaves the possibility open that it actually decreases instances of sexual assault, but more research still needs to be done for that conclusion to be made.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,594
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,604
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Do you think they should be? There is freedom of speech. Its not illegal to film a crime.
Child porn is illegal to prevent children from being exploited, like child labor laws. They go after people who download it like they go after drug addicts. I'm not really arguing why I think it should be illegal. Im arguing why people shouldn't look at it, and also trying to give some insight on why people support it being illegal as well as why they support the penalties.
Do you think they should be? There is freedom of speech. Its not illegal to film a crime.
Child porn is illegal to prevent children from being exploited, like child labor laws. They go after people who download it like they go after drug addicts. I'm not really arguing why I think it should be illegal. Im arguing why people shouldn't look at it, and also trying to give some insight on why people support it being illegal as well as why they support the penalties.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,605
@previous (sluggy)
No, I don't believe that viewing crimes should be illegal. Why aren't other videos illegal to prevent those crimes? It's strange.
No, I don't believe that viewing crimes should be illegal. Why aren't other videos illegal to prevent those crimes? It's strange.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,609
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Well, its weird that the candid shots of that sports reporter aren't illegal. Its not illegal to show a video of your girlfriend that was taken privately, either (though, that could lead to a civil charges -- keep that in mind Green).
Well, its weird that the candid shots of that sports reporter aren't illegal. Its not illegal to show a video of your girlfriend that was taken privately, either (though, that could lead to a civil charges -- keep that in mind Green).
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,613
@previous (sluggy)
It's a strange subject with no clear answers. I certainly disapprove of documented child sex abuse,but I'm not sure if it should be illegal.
It's a strange subject with no clear answers. I certainly disapprove of documented child sex abuse,but I'm not sure if it should be illegal.
RevNick replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,625
@199,590 (sluggy)
> Whats happy slapping?
It's a UK trend, where people hurt someone innocent while filming it.
> It isn't a crime to watch a crime.
Child pornography is illegal, so it is a crime to watch certain crimes.
> What are you arguing here? You don't think it should be illegal?
Not at all. But I think deeming someone a sex offender or locking them in prison for it is silly.
> I think you are going to find that people are downright hostile.
People are hostile towards anything the tabloid media tell them to hate. Suggesting that paedophiles shouldn't be publicly killed is considered a far-left view in most places, which is ironic considering they're so for human rights (and thus anti-CP).But I digress...
> Whats happy slapping?
It's a UK trend, where people hurt someone innocent while filming it.
> It isn't a crime to watch a crime.
Child pornography is illegal, so it is a crime to watch certain crimes.
> What are you arguing here? You don't think it should be illegal?
Not at all. But I think deeming someone a sex offender or locking them in prison for it is silly.
> I think you are going to find that people are downright hostile.
People are hostile towards anything the tabloid media tell them to hate. Suggesting that paedophiles shouldn't be publicly killed is considered a far-left view in most places, which is ironic considering they're so for human rights (and thus anti-CP).But I digress...
FatGreen joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,707
Anonymous Z-1 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,774
@199,547 (sluggy)
> It's not a good analogy. You guys aren't doing anyone any favors. You are showing how out of touch you are.
Exactly. Homestar has always been known for making terrible-fucking-analogies to do with CP. I also do agree that a few people posting ITT seem very out of touch with reality. It's a bit odd.
@199,569 (sluggy)
> Oh, I meant "...it wouldn't BE circulating." Please, stay with it. You really should try to understand.
>
> If no one downloaded child pornography, then the kids who were abused wouldn't need to worry about people sharing and enjoying their abuse. If there are no consumers, there are only producers. That means, only the people who make it, watch it. If they get caught, then no one has it. It is easier for the child to move on with their life. They no longer need to feel re-victimized.
>
> It isn't about you. It is about the child. The child's well-being is what is important. The molester isn't the first priority, nor the pedophile masturbating at home. The first priority is the child, who is completely innocent.
>
> The child has done nothing wrong. No one else can say the same. The molester has no defense, as he, or less-likely she, made a conscious decision to destroy the life of someone to satisfy a sexual or emotional urge. The masturbating pedophile can't deny they are getting off to someone's abuse. Victims have said they feel re-victimized knowing people are out there watching their abuse. The masturbating pedophile's right to freely express their interest in children by looking are CP is trumped by the child's life to feeling secure. Viewing child pornography is essentially attacking someone who has already been beaten down horribly.
>
> The child's re-victimization may seem like an abstract thing, but there are real consequences for the child. Consider young Homestar is an abuse victim. Young Homestar is out and about and notices a fellow do a double take, or scrunch his eyes, or just that the fellow noticed him. Young Homestar knows there is a video of his abuse. Young Homestar now feels like that man has seen. Young Homestar now feels ashamed, victimized, and scared.
>
> If no one was seeking out and downloading his abuse videos, then he would not have to go through this. He wouldn't think that man would have seen his videos because no one have seen them except his abuser and the police. Also, when young homestar's abuser was caught, that would have been the end of it. Now that people are seeking out the videos or pictures, the abuse is never-ending. The videos would be destroyed/deleted, or kept locked away as evidence. No one would be watching them.
I strongly agree with all of these sentiments. Thank you for posting this. You pretty much just expressed everything that I couldn't quite articulate.
+9,001, sluggy.
> It's not a good analogy. You guys aren't doing anyone any favors. You are showing how out of touch you are.
Exactly. Homestar has always been known for making terrible-fucking-analogies to do with CP. I also do agree that a few people posting ITT seem very out of touch with reality. It's a bit odd.
@199,569 (sluggy)
> Oh, I meant "...it wouldn't BE circulating." Please, stay with it. You really should try to understand.
>
> If no one downloaded child pornography, then the kids who were abused wouldn't need to worry about people sharing and enjoying their abuse. If there are no consumers, there are only producers. That means, only the people who make it, watch it. If they get caught, then no one has it. It is easier for the child to move on with their life. They no longer need to feel re-victimized.
>
> It isn't about you. It is about the child. The child's well-being is what is important. The molester isn't the first priority, nor the pedophile masturbating at home. The first priority is the child, who is completely innocent.
>
> The child has done nothing wrong. No one else can say the same. The molester has no defense, as he, or less-likely she, made a conscious decision to destroy the life of someone to satisfy a sexual or emotional urge. The masturbating pedophile can't deny they are getting off to someone's abuse. Victims have said they feel re-victimized knowing people are out there watching their abuse. The masturbating pedophile's right to freely express their interest in children by looking are CP is trumped by the child's life to feeling secure. Viewing child pornography is essentially attacking someone who has already been beaten down horribly.
>
> The child's re-victimization may seem like an abstract thing, but there are real consequences for the child. Consider young Homestar is an abuse victim. Young Homestar is out and about and notices a fellow do a double take, or scrunch his eyes, or just that the fellow noticed him. Young Homestar knows there is a video of his abuse. Young Homestar now feels like that man has seen. Young Homestar now feels ashamed, victimized, and scared.
>
> If no one was seeking out and downloading his abuse videos, then he would not have to go through this. He wouldn't think that man would have seen his videos because no one have seen them except his abuser and the police. Also, when young homestar's abuser was caught, that would have been the end of it. Now that people are seeking out the videos or pictures, the abuse is never-ending. The videos would be destroyed/deleted, or kept locked away as evidence. No one would be watching them.
I strongly agree with all of these sentiments. Thank you for posting this. You pretty much just expressed everything that I couldn't quite articulate.
+9,001, sluggy.
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Wade Wilson !IOdbnXsKDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,778
Can I get a tl;Dr?
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,783
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #200,273
@199,569 (sluggy)
Where does it end? I've seen MANY videos of crimes - was I revictimizing the the victim of theft, the victim of assault &c.
The simple truth is that western society has hang ups about sex. People, in their back of their mind, think sex is bad and evil.
Where does it end? I've seen MANY videos of crimes - was I revictimizing the the victim of theft, the victim of assault &c.
The simple truth is that western society has hang ups about sex. People, in their back of their mind, think sex is bad and evil.
StatistSocialist3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #200,276
@199,590 (sluggy)
People shouldn't download CP, but it also shouldn't be a crime.
I also dispute that the suffering is real and substantial. No one knows if a video has gotten out. If it was filmed, they will always suspect it got out. Downloading or refraining from downloading CP will do nothing to confirm or allay those suspicions.
People shouldn't download CP, but it also shouldn't be a crime.
I also dispute that the suffering is real and substantial. No one knows if a video has gotten out. If it was filmed, they will always suspect it got out. Downloading or refraining from downloading CP will do nothing to confirm or allay those suspicions.
StatistSocialist3000 triple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #200,277
@199,604 (sluggy)
But all reasonable people oppose drug laws...
no... RAPING children is illegal to prevent children from being raped. Child porn is evidence of rape. Apart from that it doesn't really do anything.
But all reasonable people oppose drug laws...
no... RAPING children is illegal to prevent children from being raped. Child porn is evidence of rape. Apart from that it doesn't really do anything.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #201,133
@199,774 (Z-1)
> > It's not a good analogy. You guys aren't doing anyone any favors. You are showing how out of touch you are.
> Exactly. Homestar has always been known for making terrible-fucking-analogies to do with CP.
I don't think that's very fair. I try to come up with examples to try and help people understand what I've thought/felt, but I've never said they are EQUAL or on the same level.
For example, the analogy of compulsive gambling to viewing child porn. They are similar in that they are both things the person doing it knows they shouldn't be doing, but often feel compelled to do anyway. I never implied that these were as bad as each other. But that feeling is similar. In my view, it's not a "terrible analogy", but a useful one.
> > It's not a good analogy. You guys aren't doing anyone any favors. You are showing how out of touch you are.
> Exactly. Homestar has always been known for making terrible-fucking-analogies to do with CP.
I don't think that's very fair. I try to come up with examples to try and help people understand what I've thought/felt, but I've never said they are EQUAL or on the same level.
For example, the analogy of compulsive gambling to viewing child porn. They are similar in that they are both things the person doing it knows they shouldn't be doing, but often feel compelled to do anyway. I never implied that these were as bad as each other. But that feeling is similar. In my view, it's not a "terrible analogy", but a useful one.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 8 years later, 8 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,667
Anonymous Z-8 joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,671
That Homestar guy was a stupid dick.
tteh !MODABUSE joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 18 minutes later, 8 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,689
ugh let's not bump this
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 50 minutes later, 8 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,054,712
@199,605 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> No, I don't believe that viewing crimes should be illegal. Why aren't other videos illegal to prevent those crimes? It's strange.
lol
so weird
> No, I don't believe that viewing crimes should be illegal. Why aren't other videos illegal to prevent those crimes? It's strange.
lol
so weird