Poll

do you like jailbait

Author Topic: The Discussion of Child Pornography  (Read 21958 times)

Dread Pirate Roberts

  • Captain
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
  • Karma: +552/-41
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
The Discussion of Child Pornography
« on: November 04, 2013, 02:46:36 pm »
If any members wish to debate the ethics, punishment, morals or whatever else related to child pornography, please do so below as it is becoming tedious for moderators to now keep topics in line and prevent every other topic becoming the battlegrounds for this debate.

I would also like to clarify the stance of Silk Road on these matters. The discussion of child porn centered debates is allowed, you are free to debate the morals, ethics, punishment, perception and evidence of the issue. However, the sharing or distribution of actual child pornography (such as images, videos or graphic literature) is prohibited. Whilst we are open for as much freedom as our circumstances allow, we are a drugs market and as such that is what we would like to stay orientated towards.

I feel there will be some who will not like this ruling. However, consider that your right to discuss drug usage on this forum is given the same protection as ultimately, there are also people against even discussing the usage of drugs. I will not be reviewing this decision unless there are extenuating circumstances surrounding it so please use this thread for all future discussion to prevent the rest of the forums becoming littered with the debates.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 02:47:58 pm by Dread Pirate Roberts »
Quote 23: Criticism has plucked the imaginary flower from the chain not so that man may continue to bear the chain without consolation or fantasy but so that he may throw off the chain and cull the living flower.

ProEvo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1218
  • Karma: +308/-37
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2013, 03:08:23 pm »
*Queue all the trolls coming out*
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin

BigTenInch__Record

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1649
  • Karma: +225/-57
  • This is DJ Rob Ford on the decks 10-12pm EST
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2013, 03:44:22 pm »
*Queue all the trolls coming out*

With new reg's locked and the deletion of numerous troublemakers over the past few days, I'd say there aren't too many left. 

Props to Dread Pirate Roberts for being proactive and trying to keep what is sure to be an emotional topic contained in one thread and making clear as to where the line is drawn in regards to what can stay and what has to go to the cho-mo forums further down .onion lane.
2 detuned square waves + 1 low tuned sine wave and lets get this ting started, yeah??

Don't forget to modify the filter envelope for that "whomp"

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2013, 05:08:23 pm »
Props to Dread Pirate Roberts for being proactive and trying to keep what is sure to be an emotional topic contained in one thread and making clear as to where the line is drawn in regards to what can stay and what has to go to the cho-mo forums further down .onion lane.

Indeed. Thank you again, DPR.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

mary666

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2378
  • Karma: +505/-92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2013, 05:11:38 pm »
I don't feel there's a lot to debate about cp, I am not interested in the discussion of this subject so thank you DPR, I can now avoid this thread and hope it stays in here.  ;) Oh and +1 hun!
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness, I am kind to everyone but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

-Al Capone

Alfred

  • The Hub Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
  • Karma: +340/-31
  • Why do we fall sir?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2013, 05:12:28 pm »
I am also in agreement that this is a fantastic idea.  Thank you Master Roberts.
Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

The Hub - http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion/
Silk Road 1 Forum Backup - http://hubsrf3plqrbuf4i.onion/

Ziggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
  • Karma: +192/-174
  • Vaporiser and top shagger
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2013, 06:08:37 pm »
this is the first and last time I visit this thread but just wanted to say this is a good idea in principle,  I hope those with an inclination to discuss cp will toe the party line.

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2013, 07:13:13 pm »
My sentiments  entirely Mary +1

JWM...think about it mate, at least it stays here in this room. And any posts about that repugnant subject will be deleted if they are posted anywhere but here...he has done us a favor don't you think?

That's one thing you people can't say about me I might despise N****** but I never, ever troll about this repulsive subject.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 07:22:39 pm by JohnTheBaptist »
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2013, 07:23:47 pm »
My sentiment entirely Mary +1

JWM...think about it mate, at least it stays here in this room. And any posts about that repugnant subject will be deleted if they are posted anywhere but here...he has done us a favor don't you think?

That's one thing you people can't say about me I might despise N****** but I never, ever troll about this repulsive subject.
LMFAO, you don't hate niggers, you are a nigger. Sorry, but you're the most niggerish person I've ever encountered. Oh, and a faggot to boot LOL ;)

But yeah, keeping it here does the site a favor.

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2013, 07:25:55 pm »
My sentiment entirely Mary +1

JWM...think about it mate, at least it stays here in this room. And any posts about that repugnant subject will be deleted if they are posted anywhere but here...he has done us a favor don't you think?

That's one thing you people can't say about me I might despise N****** but I never, ever troll about this repulsive subject.
LMFAO, you don't hate niggers, you are a nigger. Sorry, but you're the most niggerish person I've ever encountered. Oh, and a faggot to boot LOL ;)

But yeah, keeping it here does the site a favor.
That's exactly what a stinking wog is bound to say....try again filthy ape.
Definition of insanity, these silly Niggers like you changing their forum accounts and coming at me, expecting different results.....silly coon !  I've already told you once today take your sub-normal
ape featured, welfare abusing chimpanzee mimicking, balloon lips somewhere else.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 07:34:34 pm by JohnTheBaptist »
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2013, 07:39:09 pm »
JMA great Idea, lets turn this into the ' I'd torture a nonce this way'.....maybe castration with pliers.
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2013, 08:13:49 pm »
My sentiment entirely Mary +1

JWM...think about it mate, at least it stays here in this room. And any posts about that repugnant subject will be deleted if they are posted anywhere but here...he has done us a favor don't you think?

That's one thing you people can't say about me I might despise N****** but I never, ever troll about this repulsive subject.
LMFAO, you don't hate niggers, you are a nigger. Sorry, but you're the most niggerish person I've ever encountered. Oh, and a faggot to boot LOL ;)

But yeah, keeping it here does the site a favor.
That's exactly what a stinking wog is bound to say....try again filthy ape.
Definition of insanity, these silly Niggers like you changing their forum accounts and coming at me, expecting different results.....silly coon !  I've already told you once today take your sub-normal
ape featured, welfare abusing chimpanzee mimicking, balloon lips somewhere else.
John, you'll have to do better than that to provoke me. LOL It just sounds like I've hit a nerve. You can tell me whatever you like, you're still the only nigger here.

Cherry Bites

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: +13/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2013, 08:19:54 pm »
My sentiment entirely Mary +1

JWM...think about it mate, at least it stays here in this room. And any posts about that repugnant subject will be deleted if they are posted anywhere but here...he has done us a favor don't you think?

That's one thing you people can't say about me I might despise N****** but I never, ever troll about this repulsive subject.
LMFAO, you don't hate niggers, you are a nigger. Sorry, but you're the most niggerish person I've ever encountered. Oh, and a faggot to boot LOL ;)

But yeah, keeping it here does the site a favor.

but he's our nigger. ;)


(although we may need to have a talk about this John..  I know you have a bee in your bonnet about this* but really it's irrelevant and there are far worse things in this world and on this forum - like deliberate ignorance or cruelty which need your gentle tact and charm)

eta * this being the thing about black dudes and dudettes.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 08:22:18 pm by Cherry Bites »

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2013, 08:20:13 pm »
Even the title of this thread sickens me.  I think it should be deleted entirely, there should be no room for this.  I may post nigger jokes that get some people butthurt, but I am strongly opposed to anything that hurts or abuses children, and those that make light of such a subject should be executed Chinese style (i.e. - bullet to back of head immediately after sentence, no appeals, no 20 years on death row).  I will not post here again and I hope this thread eventually dies and moves well down in the page count, but I would prefer it just be deleted entirely and anyone who keeps bringing this subject up should be silenced for good.

BlueGiraffe

  • Vendor
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +77/-10
  • ♥ Proper GHB Vendor ♥
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2013, 08:41:15 pm »
A wise decision DPR and a good frame you have created for it. The debate will come up again no doubt so best it happen here - and off the main forum boards...

BG
Apologies for downtime - have had major IRL stuff to deal with - have not left the building - back soon...  BG

SR: http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/bluegiraffe
The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion/index.php?topic=261.0

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2013, 08:45:28 pm »
Even the title of this thread sickens me.  I think it should be deleted entirely, there should be no room for this.  I may post nigger jokes that get some people butthurt, but I am strongly opposed to anything that hurts or abuses children, and those that make light of such a subject should be executed Chinese style (i.e. - bullet to back of head immediately after sentence, no appeals, no 20 years on death row).  I will not post here again and I hope this thread eventually dies and moves well down in the page count, but I would prefer it just be deleted entirely and anyone who keeps bringing this subject up should be silenced for good.
Good shout Jig...+1 mate
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2013, 08:56:18 pm »
My sentiment entirely Mary +1

JWM...think about it mate, at least it stays here in this room. And any posts about that repugnant subject will be deleted if they are posted anywhere but here...he has done us a favor don't you think?

That's one thing you people can't say about me I might despise N****** but I never, ever troll about this repulsive subject.
LMFAO, you don't hate niggers, you are a nigger. Sorry, but you're the most niggerish person I've ever encountered. Oh, and a faggot to boot LOL ;)

But yeah, keeping it here does the site a favor.

but he's our nigger. ;)


(although we may need to have a talk about this John..  I know you have a bee in your bonnet about this* but really it's irrelevant and there are far worse things in this world and on this forum - like deliberate ignorance or cruelty which need your gentle tact and charm)

eta * this being the thing about black dudes and dudettes.
My joy  how the devil are you? I agree other things prioritize when you're gracing us with your enchanting presence. I'll always act like a gent when you're about.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 09:01:32 pm by JohnTheBaptist »
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2013, 09:11:23 pm »
Even the title of this thread sickens me.  I think it should be deleted entirely, there should be no room for this.  I may post nigger jokes that get some people butthurt, but I am strongly opposed to anything that hurts or abuses children, and those that make light of such a subject should be executed Chinese style (i.e. - bullet to back of head immediately after sentence, no appeals, no 20 years on death row).  I will not post here again and I hope this thread eventually dies and moves well down in the page count, but I would prefer it just be deleted entirely and anyone who keeps bringing this subject up should be silenced for good.
Good shout Jig...+1 mate

I'm back there was a cop car out the front pulling someone over and I freaked out seeing flashing lights and hearing sirens lol.

Have you noticed something here, Jigaboo and JTB and even myself, three of the loosest cunts on SR when it comes to not giving a fuck what people think about what we say or anyone else for that matter, are three of the most ardent supporters of the eradication of this shit from our midst?

The irony...

- JWM
Well spotted my comrade in arms. True, the most vocal opponents of ours are now nowhere to be seen. Which speaks volumes about their priorities and how they condone this rather than using their anger towards something we all collectively ( most if us anyway) agree is totally and unequivocally abhorrent and has no place in our beloved community.

Mention a Nigger ( oops sorry Cherry )  and you have Zulu dawn on your hands ( all kinds of apes  and whiggers screaming) mention CP and these twats don't bat an eyelid.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 09:15:48 pm by JohnTheBaptist »
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

Cherry Bites

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: +13/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2013, 09:22:41 pm »
My sentiment entirely Mary +1

JWM...think about it mate, at least it stays here in this room. And any posts about that repugnant subject will be deleted if they are posted anywhere but here...he has done us a favor don't you think?

That's one thing you people can't say about me I might despise N****** but I never, ever troll about this repulsive subject.
LMFAO, you don't hate niggers, you are a nigger. Sorry, but you're the most niggerish person I've ever encountered. Oh, and a faggot to boot LOL ;)

But yeah, keeping it here does the site a favor.

but he's our nigger. ;)


(although we may need to have a talk about this John..  I know you have a bee in your bonnet about this* but really it's irrelevant and there are far worse things in this world and on this forum - like deliberate ignorance or cruelty which need your gentle tact and charm)

eta * this being the thing about black dudes and dudettes.
My joy  how the devil are you? I agree other things prioritize when you're gracing us with your enchanting presence. I'll always act like a gent when you're about.

I'm fine (considering it's monday and I'm already shattered from the working week :( ) .  I'm glad to see that threat of a good tickling is still making you behave..  ;)

HuckingFell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Karma: +5/-4
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2013, 09:29:11 pm »
im not a pedophile, but Ill sub this forum anyway things could get intersting in here ;-)

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2013, 09:32:28 pm »
Hopefully JWM
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

Cherry Bites

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: +13/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2013, 09:34:41 pm »
Touche' ..and it will forevermore.  ;D  I'd offer you a massage after your long day, but people will get the wrong idea.  ;)

It's ok, I'm over the age of consent, so the kiddy fiddlers aren't going to be interested.

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2013, 09:41:23 pm »
Touche' ..and it will forevermore.  ;D  I'd offer you a massage after your long day, but people will get the wrong idea.  ;)

It's ok, I'm over the age of consent, so the kiddy fiddlers aren't going to be interested.
sorry :-[  I don't know why I said that I was typing 2 reply's at same time  (.note  to self don't try and woo, or charm someone in a peado thread)  . I hope I haven't scared you off sexbomb.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 09:50:05 pm by JohnTheBaptist »
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2013, 10:04:26 pm »
He he, evidently I have scared my cherry baby  off.  you there sweetheart? cherry PM me?

JWM I'm off from this thread now buddy. Jigaboo I'll see you at the two for one special.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 10:12:53 pm by JohnTheBaptist »
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

Cherry Bites

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: +13/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2013, 10:14:39 pm »
He he, evidently I have scared my cherry baby  off.  you there sweetheart? cherry PM me?

JWM I'm off from this thread now buddy.

him?? So it was true what the gossips were saying about you??   sigh, it looks like I'd be a disappointment then. 

I'm sure there'll be someone past soon to tickle your fancy (so to speak).


++ now that was clever, somehow in the seconds between me hitting the quote button and the reply coming up your post changed!
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 10:15:22 pm by Cherry Bites »

The President

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Karma: +256/-31
  • PLEASE USE PGP WHEN MESSAGING ME!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2013, 10:18:36 pm »
As for DPR making this thread:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I hate CP but i understand the need to allow people to discuss it freely.
Checkout The President's Medicinal Cannabis Thread: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=466.0

I really am Barack Hussein Obama II. Anyone else on these forums with my name is a fraud.

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2013, 10:24:15 pm »
He he, evidently I have scared my cherry baby  off.  you there sweetheart? cherry PM me?

JWM I'm off from this thread now buddy.

him?? So it was true what the gossips were saying about you??   sigh, it looks like I'd be a disappointment then. 

I'm sure there'll be someone past soon to tickle your fancy (so to speak).


++ now that was clever, somehow in the seconds between me hitting the quote button and the reply coming up your post changed!
Ha ha that's the spirit.....No it's untrue my friends  call me foot long John, I don't want no-one else.x

JWM I think that pic is a selfie from kok. !
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

Cherry Bites

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: +13/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2013, 10:34:46 pm »
He he, evidently I have scared my cherry baby  off.  you there sweetheart? cherry PM me?

JWM I'm off from this thread now buddy.

him?? So it was true what the gossips were saying about you??   sigh, it looks like I'd be a disappointment then. 

I'm sure there'll be someone past soon to tickle your fancy (so to speak).


++ now that was clever, somehow in the seconds between me hitting the quote button and the reply coming up your post changed!

Gossips? Where?

Well at least they talk about me we just make fun of you!

lol

then you should try harder because I'd give you a fail for meeting your objective.

Strangiato

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +12/-3
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2013, 10:40:18 pm »
CP is annoying because it should be split up into two categories. There is the kind made with very young children by adults and then there is the self made CP by some junior in high school. They all get lumped into the same category. Nature didn't set some magic level that said girls could only be attractive once they turned eighteen. That said, CP should not be allowed on the road. Even having pictures of girls a week before they turn legal would just give bad press. There were no hit men on the last site and the media claimed you could buy murder for hire on it. If CP was allowed here it would be called a den of drugs murder and child porn.

Odin80

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +19/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2013, 12:03:50 am »
Thanks god there isn't any actual advocates of this subject in here yet.  Just rename this thread what would u do to a child molester if u could get away with it. Those sick fucks need to be erradicated off the face of the earth. DPR this is a horrible idea to have such a thread.  This makes me lose respect for you and this community. This is a topic that shouldn't be tolerated here in any capacity. Pick your morals and values and stick to them. You can't make everyone happy without seriously compromising yourself. If u don't stand for something then u will fall for anything.
The Code is to Protect-
Protect with savagery your blood and kin. Let no one or nothing violate your love or way. Let there always be inequity in defense. Always protect thrice as fiercely as one is attacked. Protection is the mark of a warrior spirit.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2013, 12:28:54 am »
CP is annoying because it should be split up into two categories. There is the kind made with very young children by adults and then there is the self made CP by some junior in high school. They all get lumped into the same category. Nature didn't set some magic level that said girls could only be attractive once they turned eighteen.
OK fine, if you want to split hairs, then this is somewhat true. I wanted to avoid this entire discussion, but I'm going to use your thoughts to illustrate some points. It's not illegal in every state for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old (or even every country -- would be legal in the UK). Some states limit the age difference, but not all. Obviously you have to be 18 to be featured in pornography though. I don't think people should be able to profit off of the poor choices made by teenagers, which would be why I take issue here (even if 18 is arbitrary -- and it is).

And since we're splitting hairs, not all people possessing CP are guilty of molestation (directly). Possession of CP wasn't illegal in the US until somewhere around the 1980s. The US Supreme Court in the 1960s upheld the right to possess CP under the 1st amendment. It took several court challenges before the law was changed, and frankly, I'm glad it was.

That doesn't mean I think it was OK at all. I'm just saying that none of these rules are etched in stone (just like you admit), which is why outright banning the discussion of CP in the forums is a slippery slope (i.e. if you want to argue that there should be a universal freedom of expression). I don't agree with your distinction about different kinds of CP because I don't believe that a 13-17 year old is capable of making rational choices about something that could potentially affect them for the rest of their lives. I wouldn't go so far as to say that you aren't entitled to express that opinion though.

That said, CP should not be allowed on the road. Even having pictures of girls a week before they turn legal would just give bad press. There were no hit men on the last site and the media claimed you could buy murder for hire on it. If CP was allowed here it would be called a den of drugs murder and child porn.
What's the difference? It shouldn't be allowed because it's reprehensible and morally bankrupt; that's not going to make the government more or less vehement. They're dealing with this issue with Tor in general. What draws the government to SR is it's volume of sales, not the content. Both BMR and SM allow weapons sales for example, but they don't attract more attention than SR did (which obviously didn't allow them after they were moved to the armory and it later shut down). There's no such thing as "good press" as far as SR is concerned.

As far as your hitman example is concerned, the media is going to make that claim whether the services are advertised for sale on the site or not; they've got cause to do so now that the "alleged administrator" was charged in 2 separate murder-for-hire schemes. It's hard to distance the site from that (I know they're not directly connected)

And the same thing is true for CP. People (including the government) will claim that SR facilitates CP distribution, without so much as a shred of evidence. Since the vast majority of the US population (or even the world) have never so much as thought of checking out the site, they woouldn't know the difference. People will believe it even if it's fabricated.

Baggie

  • Married to Doctorwhat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Karma: +97/-50
  • ╔╦╦╦═╦╗╔═╦═╦══╦═╗ ║║║║╩╣╚╣═╣║║║║║╩╣ ╚══╩═╩═╩═╩═╩╩╩
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2013, 12:32:28 am »
Child pornography is fucking twisted.. Fuck pedos!
I will respond to no emails that are not encrypted. If you are a new user and are in need of assistance on making sure your anonymity is as secure as technologically possible, please send me a PM.
Marriage license: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=46839.15

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2013, 12:35:20 am »
DPR this is a horrible idea to have such a thread.  This makes me lose respect for you and this community. This is a topic that shouldn't be tolerated here in any capacity. Pick your morals and values and stick to them. You can't make everyone happy without seriously compromising yourself. If u don't stand for something then u will fall for anything.
Why do people insist on making me defend people I despise?

If your "morals and values" are the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression universally, then how do you justify censorship? You can't pick and choose what topics others are free to speak about. And you can't say you value free speech if you advocate limiting speech.

What you're suggesting is downright Orwellian. Are you saying that because people are talking about CP (which we all no very well exists), they're condoning it? I don't think that a single person on this thread does. It's just a discussion. NO ONE is advocating that it should be permitted anywhere near the marketplace. And the discussion is limited entirely to this one, specific thread. I HATE CP. It's vile. But I'm not trying to stop people from talking about it, especially when their advocating that it be banned.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 12:37:14 am by I4gotMyFuckingPassword »

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2013, 01:09:54 am »
Have you noticed something here, Jigaboo and JTB and even myself, three of the loosest cunts on SR when it comes to not giving a fuck what people think about what we say or anyone else for that matter, are three of the most ardent supporters of the eradication of this shit from our midst?

The irony...

You, one of the two most prolific trolls on these forums and a different account of the same troll.

Yes, irony indeed :)

CP is annoying because it should be split up into two categories. There is the kind made with very young children by adults and then there is the self made CP by some junior in high school. They all get lumped into the same category. Nature didn't set some magic level that said girls could only be attractive once they turned eighteen. That said, CP should not be allowed on the road. Even having pictures of girls a week before they turn legal would just give bad press. There were no hit men on the last site and the media claimed you could buy murder for hire on it. If CP was allowed here it would be called a den of drugs murder and child porn.

There are far more categories but, yes, I agree with such materials not being permitted on SR or these related forums, and for more reasons than simple PR.

… DPR this is a horrible idea to have such a thread.  This makes me lose respect for you and this community. This is a topic that shouldn't be tolerated here in any capacity. Pick your morals and values and stick to them. You can't make everyone happy without seriously compromising yourself. If u don't stand for something then u will fall for anything.

DPR is standing for something: the rights of people to discuss subjects freely no matter how offensive those subjects may be to some or even to most.

I demand the right to be offended.

PM it to him I have said it 1000 times it's a fucking joke!
It reflects so porlyon us he needs to hear our outrage! He's just being an ideological fucktard and he knows it.
Only if we PERSONALLY feed it to him enough will he change his tune. Fucking freedom of speech what a croc of shit!

Run a fucking poll DPR, let us have our vote or is that name a moniker for Dictator Pirate Roberts???

As our Captain wrote:
I will not be reviewing this decision unless there are extenuating circumstances surrounding it …

I disagree. Orwellian is forcing a thread on the community that nobody wants anything associated with us in any way.

Where does such a concept appear in anything that George Orwell wrote? Please quote me a passage.

Furthermore, you don't seem to grasp it's not about freedom of speech because these people foreited their right to personal sovereignty which is the cornerstone of freedom of speech (and why prisoners don't have a vote until they're free) when they decided to go and touch up kids. It's not a freedom of speech issue you brain dead cunt, it's an ethical and standards value thing.

If anyone who has committed a crime in their country has "foreited their right to personal sovereignty" [sic] then does that mean that almost everyone here should be denied free speech? And I thought that we were discussing the rights of people here in general to discuss these subjects, not just those who may have molested children.

As for calling I4MFP a "brain dead cunt", on what basis have you decided that he is such when he's merely been debating points with you in a calm, rational and intelligent manner?

In any society you have to have standards and we also speak on behalf of all the victims of these people to say... WHY IN THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN A SUBJECT ON A DRUG FORUM?
Do you see people selling watermelons on a General Motors website (bad analogy I know but I'm half drunk right now and you get the meaning behind it). Two totally different things!

Why discuss anything other than drugs on a drug forum (if, indeed, this is solely such a place)? Should the 'Off Topic' and 'Philosophy, Economics and Justice' subforums be immediately deleted along with any posts not directly referring to psychoactive substances?
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2013, 01:27:06 am »
DPR this is a horrible idea to have such a thread.  This makes me lose respect for you and this community. This is a topic that shouldn't be tolerated here in any capacity. Pick your morals and values and stick to them. You can't make everyone happy without seriously compromising yourself. If u don't stand for something then u will fall for anything.
Why do people insist on making me defend people I despise?

If your "morals and values" are the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression universally, then how do you justify censorship? You can't pick and choose what topics others are free to speak about. And you can't say you value free speech if you advocate limiting speech.

What you're suggesting is downright Orwellian. Are you saying that because people are talking about CP (which we all no very well exists), they're condoning it? I don't think that a single person on this thread does. It's just a discussion. NO ONE is advocating that it should be permitted anywhere near the marketplace. And the discussion is limited entirely to this one, specific thread. I HATE CP. It's vile. But I'm not trying to stop people from talking about it, especially when their advocating that it be banned.

I disagree. Orwellian is forcing a thread on the community that nobody wants anything associated with us in any way. When the media gets a hold of the fact that DPR makes a thread to discuss CP that's all they need to go to absolute town on us.
This is why I let this whole topic go the 1st time around. No one is forcing you to read this thread other than you. The media will do this anyway whether the thread is here or not. Do you think the general public is going to fact check that? I don't want to be associated with CP and I really thought several times about deleting my comments before I posted that.

Furthermore, you don't seem to grasp it's not about freedom of speech because these people foreited their right to personal sovereignty which is the cornerstone of freedom of speech (and why prisoners don't have a vote until they're free) when they decided to go and touch up kids. It's not a freedom of speech issue you brain dead cunt, it's an ethical and standards value thing.
You're misunderstanding what I mean by freedom of speech. I'm not advocating that CP be legal. I'm not advocating that CP be allowed in the SR market. I'm sorry, but dictating to people what they can and can't speak about in public is Orwellian. I chose my words very carefully for that reason. This thread was proposed as a solution to the 8 million threads that were popping up about SR on the forum. 

In any society you have to have standards and we also speak on behalf of all the victims of these people to say... WHY IN THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN A SUBJECT ON A DRUG FORUM?
OK. First of all, this is the Off-Topic section of the forum. And drugs are not the only merchandise sold by SR FWIW. Stop assuming that I support CP. I'm just as willing to speak on behalf of the victims as I am to defend the right for people to talk about whatever they like in public. The thing here is, the victims of CP don't need me to speak for them in this thread, because every single person, including me, denounced CP.

Don't assume that I think CP is a victimless crime, because I don't.

Free speech is free speech, whether you like the topic or not. We both think CP is immoral, but by the same token, my neighbor thinks drugs are immoral. We don't get to decide what's morally valid. You know, everyone could have turned there heads and looked the other way when DPR posted this. None of us had to give comments. The thread would've fallen to the bottom by now.

Do you see people selling watermelons on a General Motors website (bad analogy I know but I'm half drunk right now and you get the meaning behind it). Two totally different things!

- JWM
Look, with all due respect, maybe you should read what I wrote more carefully if you're as you say "half-drunk." You're reading something into my post that I NEVER in a million years intended to express. I was hesitant to raise the issue at all for this reason, and I shouldn't have to be, because I don't even so much as watch fucking porn with the word "teen" in the title. It was NOT fucking easy for me to write a post that easily could be misconstrued as support for CP.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 01:33:48 am by I4gotMyFuckingPassword »

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2013, 01:49:32 am »
There are far more categories but, yes, I agree with such materials not being permitted on SR or these related forums, and for more reasons than simple PR.
Do you honestly believe that there's such a thing as "good PR" for an online black market? I think obscurity is much better press personally.

DPR is standing for something: the rights of people to discuss subjects freely no matter how offensive those subjects may be to some or even to most.

I demand the right to be offended.
Thank you. +1 to you sir. That's everything that free speech is about. And I made your acquaintance through you making this very same point to me about my own objections regarding public speech. Your point then wasn't lost on me.

PM it to him I have said it 1000 times it's a fucking joke!
It reflects so porlyon us he needs to hear our outrage! He's just being an ideological fucktard and he knows it.
Only if we PERSONALLY feed it to him enough will he change his tune. Fucking freedom of speech what a croc of shit!

Run a fucking poll DPR, let us have our vote or is that name a moniker for Dictator Pirate Roberts???
I missed this post. Thanks for highlighting the mega irony here.

I disagree. Orwellian is forcing a thread on the community that nobody wants anything associated with us in any way.

Where does such a concept appear in anything that George Orwell wrote? Please quote me a passage.
Merci beaucoup, mon frere.

Furthermore, you don't seem to grasp it's not about freedom of speech because these people foreited their right to personal sovereignty which is the cornerstone of freedom of speech (and why prisoners don't have a vote until they're free) when they decided to go and touch up kids. It's not a freedom of speech issue you brain dead cunt, it's an ethical and standards value thing.

If anyone who has committed a crime in their country has "foreited their right to personal sovereignty" [sic] then does that mean that almost everyone here should be denied free speech? And I thought that we were discussing the rights of people here in general to discuss these subjects, not just those who may have molested children.

As for calling I4MFP a "brain dead cunt", on what basis have you decided that he is such when he's merely been debating points with you in a calm, rational and intelligent manner?
I've learned a lot since the old forum, no?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 02:13:08 am by I4gotMyFuckingPassword »

DextroShade

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Karma: +6/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2013, 03:21:40 am »
There should be no debate on this at all.  Drug use is a matter of personal responsibility for consenting adults; pedophilia is not.  Pedophiles should be fed feet first into a meat grinder and used as pet food or fertilizer.   There is no gray area here as there is with most things, this is black and white.  Child molesters should die in the worst ways possible and if the is a gene discovered that causes pedophilia then abortion should be mandatory.  I was not molested myself but the idea of it disgusts me, as do any who would cater to the needs of these degenerate fucks.
If you believe you deserve it, the universe will serve it!

Odin80

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +19/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2013, 03:57:43 am »
DPR this is a horrible idea to have such a thread.  This makes me lose respect for you and this community. This is a topic that shouldn't be tolerated here in any capacity. Pick your morals and values and stick to them. You can't make everyone happy without seriously compromising yourself. If u don't stand for something then u will fall for anything.
Why do people insist on making me defend people I despise?

If your "morals and values" are the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression universally, then how do you justify censorship? You can't pick and choose what topics others are free to speak about. And you can't say you value free speech if you advocate limiting speech.

What you're suggesting is downright Orwellian. Are you saying that because people are talking about CP (which we all no very well exists), they're condoning it? I don't think that a single person on this thread does. It's just a discussion. NO ONE is advocating that it should be permitted anywhere near the marketplace. And the discussion is limited entirely to this one, specific thread. I HATE CP. It's vile. But I'm not trying to stop people from talking about it, especially when their advocating that it be banned.

I never said I was a huge advocate of free speech. This forum and SR was a way to make the drug trade safe and easier in access. I am for freedoms that don't include victims. Drug use is victimless. Drug dealing can be violent therefore needs to be revamped like SR gave us. I see that u r playing devil's advocate,  but u get no love from me when it comes to that topic.  I never said I was fair.  I want what I want when I want it. I am a selfish asshole and that is ok with me cause I know I'm no piece of shit child abuser.
The Code is to Protect-
Protect with savagery your blood and kin. Let no one or nothing violate your love or way. Let there always be inequity in defense. Always protect thrice as fiercely as one is attacked. Protection is the mark of a warrior spirit.

Sir William Wonka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Karma: +227/-81
  • shitty titty jelly belly
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2013, 04:02:18 am »
uhh why is this topic here.  If u like diddling toddlers walk into oncoming traffic please.
. . . it is a corrupting thing to live one's real life in secret. One should live with the stream of life, not against it.
-Orwell

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2013, 04:08:12 am »
I know DPR can't be a stupid mother f'er, right?  Why the fk would he create a thread title like this right before supposedly launching the "New SR".  I honestly cannot think of a better way to get the Feds even more motivated to hunt us and shut us down.

Not only is a thread title like this utterly disgusting and despicable, from a practical matter it makes absolutely no sense re: SR re-launch.  And this is coming from a poster who doesn't mind nigger jokes, what adults do with adults is fine with me, but ffs leave children out of this.

Despite what happened to Ross, there may in fact be some factions of LE that are "ok" with SR as long as it's non-violent and just supplying end-user's "stuff".  The Feds see a thread title like this and the ONLY outcome is to have more heat come down.

Just. Plain. Fucking. Stupid.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2013, 04:14:58 am »
There are far more categories but, yes, I agree with such materials not being permitted on SR or these related forums, and for more reasons than simple PR.
Do you honestly believe that there's such a thing as "good PR" for an online black market? I think obscurity is much better press personally.

SR ceased to be obscure long ago :)

DPR is standing for something: the rights of people to discuss subjects freely no matter how offensive those subjects may be to some or even to most.
I demand the right to be offended.
Thank you. +1 to you sir. That's everything that free speech is about. And I made your acquaintance through you making this very same point to me about my own objections regarding public speech. Your point then wasn't lost on me.

So I've been witnessing :) As it happens, you also swayed my own views by prompting me to question the impression I had that a particular epithet was commonly used in your country without attachment to its etymology. I've since become far less tolerant of its use (while I would still, of course, protest any attempt to censor it).

I've learned a lot since the old forum, no?

You have, indeed, as I hope all of us have. Life without learning, about ourselves especially, is stasis, and stasis is pretty much no life at all ;)

There should be no debate on this at all.  Drug use is a matter of personal responsibility for consenting adults; pedophilia is not.  Pedophiles should be fed feet first into a meat grinder and used as pet food or fertilizer.   There is no gray area here as there is with most things, this is black and white.  Child molesters should die in the worst ways possible …

Would you say the same of, say, military personnel who kill innocent, non-consenting children in warfare?

I never said I was a huge advocate of free speech. This forum and SR was a way to make the drug trade safe and easier in access. I am for freedoms that don't include victims. Drug use is victimless. Drug dealing can be violent therefore needs to be revamped like SR gave us. I see that u r playing devil's advocate,  but u get no love from me when it comes to that topic.  I never said I was fair.  I want what I want when I want it. I am a selfish asshole and that is ok with me cause I know I'm no piece of shit child abuser.

Whatever the original reason for the creation of these forums, they now host a community of people who are largely here primarily to communicate and socialise with each other within the freedoms that the SR principles allow. The largest subforum by far is 'Off Topic' and on the old forums it was second only to 'Rumor Mill' (if one discounts the 'Newbie discussion'). I am also for harm-free freedoms but I do not consider discussion to be harmful.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #41 on: November 05, 2013, 04:16:26 am »
There should be no debate on this at all.  Drug use is a matter of personal responsibility for consenting adults; pedophilia is not.  Pedophiles should be fed feet first into a meat grinder and used as pet food or fertilizer.   There is no gray area here as there is with most things, this is black and white.  Child molesters should die in the worst ways possible and if the is a gene discovered that causes pedophilia then abortion should be mandatory.  I was not molested myself but the idea of it disgusts me, as do any who would cater to the needs of these degenerate fucks.
I think what you're missing is that no one's debating whether CP should be tolerated. It's only the discussion of it. It's not a graphic discussion, nor are any of us suggesting places to get CP.

It's become a pissing match as to who hates CP more than whom, which has nothing to do with anything. I think it was clear that everyone on the thread was against CP.

I do think we all have the right to have that discussion. And given that no one has disagreed with anything other than that. I could say a lot more on this topic without violating anything that I've said above, but I'm not getting dragged in to an argument over something that no one here wants.

If you'll notice, it's actually DPR who the irrational folks want to censor.

Odin80

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +19/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #42 on: November 05, 2013, 04:17:50 am »
uhh why is this topic here.  If like diddling toddlers walk into oncoming traffic please.

Exactly!!!! This shit needs to be removed. I don't see a single person on the thread who advocates cp and most want it taken down. SO....DPR REMOVE THIS THREAD AND QUIT BEING AN IDEALIST. If this site is that loose with its ethics then fuck this place. I respect your taking on a massive undertaking but starting this thread was retarded and makes you look weak. Just like the USA doesnt negotiate with terrorists, you shouldn't tolerate cp and those who do. Your setting nasty precedents in here.
The Code is to Protect-
Protect with savagery your blood and kin. Let no one or nothing violate your love or way. Let there always be inequity in defense. Always protect thrice as fiercely as one is attacked. Protection is the mark of a warrior spirit.

Peter Ube

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #43 on: November 05, 2013, 04:24:00 am »
I know DPR can't be a stupid mother f'er, right?  Why the fk would he create a thread title like this right before supposedly launching the "New SR".  I honestly cannot think of a better way to get the Feds even more motivated to hunt us and shut us down.

Not only is a thread title like this utterly disgusting and despicable, from a practical matter it makes absolutely no sense re: SR re-launch.  And this is coming from a poster who doesn't mind nigger jokes, what adults do with adults is fine with me, but ffs leave children out of this.

Despite what happened to Ross, there may in fact be some factions of LE that are "ok" with SR as long as it's non-violent and just supplying end-user's "stuff".  The Feds see a thread title like this and the ONLY outcome is to have more heat come down.

Just. Plain. Fucking. Stupid.

It's clear all that hating has had an impact on your logic.  Limiting it to one thread stops the river of shit coming from many sources and it's plain to see that the majority of people posting here don't want to see CP anyway. So LE, if they even give a shit about this topic on a drug forum, will see it as a positive thing.

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #44 on: November 05, 2013, 04:33:23 am »
It's clear all that hating has had an impact on your logic.  Limiting it to one thread stops the river of shit coming from many sources and it's plain to see that the majority of people posting here don't want to see CP anyway. So LE, if they even give a shit about this topic on a drug forum, will see it as a positive thing.

+1 for being a reasonable human being
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Odin80

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +19/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2013, 04:39:19 am »
What most of you imbeciles are willfully ignoring is that no one, ever, has even come close to advocating CP let alone it's presence on these forums. But your small minds can't comprehend that.

I'm fairly sure JezuzWazzaMushroom, JohnTheBaptist, and Jigaboo are trolling. Besides Cornelius, myself, and I4gotMyFuckingPassword everyone is too stupid to understand this discussion isn't about supporting or not supporting CP. It's about defending the RIGHT to even DISCUSS it. They willfuly misenterpret our words at every turn. How can they not be trolling?

LET ME SAY IT LOUD AND CLEAR, NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING THE DISTRIBUTION, CREATION, OR ADVOCACY OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Look bro. You want to play devils advocate and that is fine. Calling me a troll or others who are passionate about this is your way of not letting me express my freedom of speech. Fuck this thread I'm outta here. I understand that people aren't advocating CP, but why defend such a nasty topic in the first place? Trust me when I say I get what u are saying. I just voice my hatred for the topic so grant me the respect I deserve for my freedom of speech. Small mind indeed.
The Code is to Protect-
Protect with savagery your blood and kin. Let no one or nothing violate your love or way. Let there always be inequity in defense. Always protect thrice as fiercely as one is attacked. Protection is the mark of a warrior spirit.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2013, 04:43:34 am »
DPR this is a horrible idea to have such a thread.  This makes me lose respect for you and this community. This is a topic that shouldn't be tolerated here in any capacity. Pick your morals and values and stick to them. You can't make everyone happy without seriously compromising yourself. If u don't stand for something then u will fall for anything.
Why do people insist on making me defend people I despise?

If your "morals and values" are the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression universally, then how do you justify censorship? You can't pick and choose what topics others are free to speak about. And you can't say you value free speech if you advocate limiting speech.

What you're suggesting is downright Orwellian. Are you saying that because people are talking about CP (which we all no very well exists), they're condoning it? I don't think that a single person on this thread does. It's just a discussion. NO ONE is advocating that it should be permitted anywhere near the marketplace. And the discussion is limited entirely to this one, specific thread. I HATE CP. It's vile. But I'm not trying to stop people from talking about it, especially when their advocating that it be banned.

I never said I was a huge advocate of free speech.
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about DPR, the mods, myself, and the one or two people who've agreed with me. I'm trying to explain to you the rationale behind allowing this thread. DO you think banning it would stop CP? That's how you're opening an Orwellian/Chinese/Soviet can of worms.

This forum and SR was a way to make the drug trade safe and easier in access. I am for freedoms that don't include victims. Drug use is victimless. Drug dealing can be violent therefore needs to be revamped like SR gave us. I see that u r playing devil's advocate,  but u get no love from me when it comes to that topic.
I'm not playing Devil's advocate. That's why I brought up the fact the even the US Supreme Court even agreed that CP possession was covered under the first amendment until the 1980s. That's not my opinion, but it's fact (I also said I was glad the law changed).

What's at issue here is much less sinister than all of that. I'm sorry, but DPR and Cornelius both said it more elequently than i have, and their right. If you don't like DPRs opinion, you, and everyone else complaining, are free to not revisit this thread (frankly, I wish y'all'd let it die already). But as far as I know, he calls the shots here, not me.

I never said I was fair.  I want what I want when I want it. I am a selfish asshole and that is ok with me ...

I'm going to cut you off their, because that's the only thing in what you've said that matters.

You want your freedoms, but you don't want others to have there's. And I'm not suggesting that people have the right to molest children. They don't. I did not read a single, solitary post in this entire thread that has suggested that anyone is engaging in the activities that you speak about. You do realize that the entire issue taken by some with this thread is that it exists, yet no one has expressed anything but contempt for CP. Come on.

Oh, and one last thing, have you ever had fantasies about raping a girl (or vice versa for the straight ladies)? Did you act on it? Should you be able to speak about having rape fantasies in public? I'm not talking about people you've met or plan to date, I'm talking about random girls you've never seen before, don't know, and don't plan on meeting, I believe so, especially if your not getting into particualrs and are not planning to rape everyone.

It's so frustrating because everyone wants all these freedoms, but at the same time they want to "police thoughts," which is exactly what's being called for here.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 05:16:59 pm by I4gotMyFuckingPassword »

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2013, 04:48:26 am »
uhh why is this topic here.  If u like diddling toddlers walk into oncoming traffic please.
Has anyone actually read the thread? It's frustrating because I can't figure out why everyone wants to argue if we all agree. DPR put it here as a solution to a problem. All these people need to address it with DPR.

I'm just pissy about the limiting of any speech that doesn't violate the rules.

In 4 pages, I've seen no one lending support to CP. It's just a pissing match of who's more anti-CP at this point.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 05:17:56 pm by I4gotMyFuckingPassword »

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2013, 04:58:06 am »
I know DPR can't be a stupid mother f'er, right?  Why the fk would he create a thread title like this right before supposedly launching the "New SR".  I honestly cannot think of a better way to get the Feds even more motivated to hunt us and shut us down.

Not only is a thread title like this utterly disgusting and despicable, from a practical matter it makes absolutely no sense re: SR re-launch.  And this is coming from a poster who doesn't mind nigger jokes, what adults do with adults is fine with me, but ffs leave children out of this.

Despite what happened to Ross, there may in fact be some factions of LE that are "ok" with SR as long as it's non-violent and just supplying end-user's "stuff".  The Feds see a thread title like this and the ONLY outcome is to have more heat come down.

Just. Plain. Fucking. Stupid.
Hmm, very logical, rational, and well thought out. Absolutely no double standards whatsoever. We should definitely take into consideration your vitally important insight. You are clearly an asset to this community. If only everyone could think with your clarity and potency.
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2013, 05:26:37 am »
… I understand that people aren't advocating CP, but why defend such a nasty topic in the first place? Trust me when I say I get what u are saying. I just voice my hatred for the topic so grant me the respect I deserve for my freedom of speech. Small mind indeed.

Why defend, to the death or otherwise, anyone's right to discuss any topic?

You are as free as any of us to write what you think and feel, and anyone is equally free to tell you what they think or feel about what you write.

George Orwell was mentioned earlier. As he once wrote, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

… It's just a pissing match of who's more ant-CP at this point.

I do sense that people are arguing against the thread's existence just to demonstrate to everyone how immensely they hate nonces.

BTW, I (mostly) manage to keep my quotes (and spelling, and grammar, and general prose construction) in check by habitually using the 'Preview' button. You might find it helpful to do likewise ;)

[Words]
Hmm, very logical, rational, and well thought out. Absolutely no double standards whatsoever. We should definitely take into consideration your vitally important insight. You are clearly an asset to this community. If only everyone could think with your clarity and potency.

:))

They're different mental disorders. And the painful point that arises is the sliding scale, upon which everyone sits.

I don't think that, for the most part, people are even thinking of those disorders. The overwhelming majority of child molestation takes place, like adult rape, not because of primary attraction but because of opportunity and imposition of power (which is why so much takes place within families or institutions). Much of the rest I would expect to be due to monetary reward within the porn industry.

The scale is a vital point for discussion of what qualifies as a 'child', especially as a very large proportion of those who profess to hate child abusers are actually likely to experience the same attractions as ephebophiles.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2013, 05:52:49 am »
The scale is a vital point for discussion of what qualifies as a 'child', especially as a very large proportion of those who profess to hate child abusers are actually likely to experience the same attractions as ephebophiles.

I would go so far as to claim that the people who shout and scream the loudest in professing their utter hatred regarding abusers, are in fact trying to overcome they're own discomfort over these basic facts of life (that it is normal to be attracted to someone between the ages of 14/15 - 18 *this does not permit you to act on your attraction*). That is to say, there is an internal struggle.

In the same way religious fundamentalists argue loudly about peoples sins, those that are the most vehement are likely to be the ones experiencing the most inner turmoil regarding sin. These kinds of people often try to impose a black and white order over what is, and everyone can agree on this, essentially a difficult to deal with grey scale. They are, in short, simple minds. There is nothing wrong with having a simple mind. But it is for this reason we have institutionalized ideas like freedom of speech. Because simple minded bigots have a way of mounting witchhunts in order to preserve their peace of mind.

Obviously this is merely my speculation and opinion.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 12:34:04 pm by Trevor »
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2013, 06:53:25 am »
The scale is a vital point for discussion of what qualifies as a 'child', especially as a very large proportion of those who profess to hate child abusers are actually likely to experience the same attractions as ephebophiles.
I would go so far as to claim that the people who shout and scream the loudest in professing their utter hatred regarding abusers, are in fact trying to overcome they're own discomfort over these basic facts of life (that it is normal to be attracted to someone between the ages of 14/15 - 18 *this does not permit you to act on your attraction*). That is to say, there is an internal struggle. There is an excellent Australian film that deals with similar themes, it's called Snowtown and you should definitely watch it. Very ominous.

In the same way religious fundamentalists argue loudly about peoples sins, those that are the most vehement are likely to be the ones experiencing the most inner turmoil regarding sin. These kinds of people often try to impose a black and white order over what is, and everyone can agree on this, essentially a difficult to deal with grey scale. They are, in short, simple minds. There is nothing wrong with having a simple mind. But it is for this reason we have institutionalized ideas like freedom of speech. Because simple minded bigots have a way of mounting witchhunts in order to preserve their peace of mind.

Obviously this is merely my speculation and opinion.

Interesting. I'm grabbing a copy of Snowtown now. A similar theory has been proposed regarding male homophobia which has been demonstrated in some clinical experiments. Perhaps a mostly unconscious form of protesting too much, as the Dane said.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2013, 10:17:31 am »
Idiot! I didn't even get passed your first comment. Go on my Bodybuilding thread and watch me argue with myself then you goon about keeping shit civil.

You're a fuckstick and like JTB said... FUCK OFF AND GET A LIFE!

Behaviour like this makes you look bad son. I mean, you're probably about 33> years of age, you have children of your own bla bla bla, people assume age brings wisdom. But your ability to formulate arguments is very limited. And on top of this you behave like this, having tantrums when people prove you wrong. Not a good look.

You have pretensions of being a learned individual, but behaviour like this is not becoming of your philosophical pretension, you are just a small minded bigot.

I'm sorry bro, I'm just speakin truth.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 10:20:05 am by Trevor »
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2013, 10:26:48 am »
I dwarf you intellectually, physically and financially.

This is an anonymous forum. So this claim is not only unknowable and unverifiable, but also a bit silly.
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2013, 10:33:44 am »
No, no it isn't. You are a dumb motherfucker I've debated you!

Whatever you reckon big guy.
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2013, 10:45:18 am »
They're different mental disorders. And the painful point that arises is the sliding scale, upon which everyone sits.

***CLEARNET***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation

Downe syndrome is a mental disorder, Alzheimer's is a mental disorder. These fuckers are just cretins and you ARE kok this proves it beyond a reasonable doubt IMO!

Die in a fire motherfucker!!!

Ye ok, me differing from him on libertarianism elsewhere has no influence on your tiny brain. I thought you believed in some ridiculous 'non-aggression principle'? I see that your virtues are as flimsy as your intellect.
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2013, 11:04:14 am »
JezuzWazzaMushroom cannot even understand the contradictions between the views he states in his posts and those expressed in his sig and Personal Text. He also seems to be retreating further into infancy with each successive post.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #57 on: November 05, 2013, 11:06:24 am »
They're different mental disorders. And the painful point that arises is the sliding scale, upon which everyone sits.

***CLEARNET***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation

Downe syndrome is a mental disorder, Alzheimer's is a mental disorder. These fuckers are just cretins and you ARE kok this proves it beyond a reasonable doubt IMO!

Die in a fire motherfucker!!!

Ye ok, me differing from him on libertarianism elsewhere has no influence on your tiny brain. I thought you believed in some ridiculous 'non-aggression principle'? I see that your virtues are as flimsy as your intellect.

Non aggression against those who haven't wronged me or pissed me off or harmed people I care about, I do MMA/boxing every day and love a good fight.

I would enjoy watching your death in a gladiatorial arena TBH... leave these forums troll!

Do you know what the definition of a troll is? It is not someone who tries to argue rationally with idiots, and it is not someone who tries to defend themselves from irrational and hurtful claims. Your warmongering, claiming I'm kok and a slue of other random users, is pretty ridiculous my man.
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #58 on: November 05, 2013, 11:18:22 am »
Actually I HATE most people, other creatures great and small I LOVE and that is more what my statement is meant to imply.

In that case, may I suggest that you make your sig a little more clear by stating that you only look at all non-human beings with the eyes of compassion and alter your PT to indicate that it's directed only toward any fluffy animals that might happen to be reading?

Now go away kok aka Trevor aka Cuntelius!

:))

;D

So we're all supposed to be the same person? ::)

Delightful :D

It's pretty astounding. Having someone else voice support is invaluable, ty.

Oh, no need for thanks. I'm finding this hilarious ;D
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2013, 11:53:03 am »
Then check this total garbage out:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=1990.msg28192#msg28192
This guy is a total imbecile.

Oh dear. He struck me as quite a reasonable chap at first but all that sustenance of negative emotions seems to have drained most of the blood from his prefrontal cortex.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

mary666

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2378
  • Karma: +505/-92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #60 on: November 05, 2013, 12:16:59 pm »
What most of you imbeciles are willfully ignoring is that no one, ever, has even come close to advocating CP let alone it's presence on these forums. But your small minds can't comprehend that.

I'm fairly sure JezuzWazzaMushroom, JohnTheBaptist, and Jigaboo are trolling. Besides Cornelius, myself, and I4gotMyFuckingPassword everyone is too stupid to understand this discussion isn't about supporting or not supporting CP. It's about defending the RIGHT to even DISCUSS it. They willfuly misenterpret our words at every turn. How can they not be trolling?

LET ME SAY IT LOUD AND CLEAR, NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING THE DISTRIBUTION, CREATION, OR ADVOCACY OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
"small minds" "too stupid"  :o Really! I think I simply stated my opinion as did others, doesn't make any of us stupid! I think most people just feel this is a drug forum and ofcourse people can discuss what they like but why discuss it on this forum. They must have their own places to discuss stuff!?!
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness, I am kind to everyone but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

-Al Capone

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2013, 12:18:07 pm »
Then check this total garbage out:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=1990.msg28192#msg28192
This guy is a total imbecile.

Oh dear. He struck me as quite a reasonable chap at first but all that sustenance of negative emotions seems to have drained most of the blood from his prefrontal cortex.

Yeah. I've had enough of trying to convince him he's a moron.
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2013, 12:19:26 pm »
What most of you imbeciles are willfully ignoring is that no one, ever, has even come close to advocating CP let alone it's presence on these forums. But your small minds can't comprehend that.

I'm fairly sure JezuzWazzaMushroom, JohnTheBaptist, and Jigaboo are trolling. Besides Cornelius, myself, and I4gotMyFuckingPassword everyone is too stupid to understand this discussion isn't about supporting or not supporting CP. It's about defending the RIGHT to even DISCUSS it. They willfuly misenterpret our words at every turn. How can they not be trolling?

LET ME SAY IT LOUD AND CLEAR, NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING THE DISTRIBUTION, CREATION, OR ADVOCACY OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
"small minds" "too stupid"  :o Really! I think I simply stated my opinion as did others, doesn't make any of us stupid! I think most people just feel this is a drug forum and ofcourse people can discuss what they like but why discuss it on this forum. They must have their own places to discuss stuff!?!

Sorry mary666, I hadn't read the entire thing when I said that. I had also had enough of a certain clique of users who had been persistently misenterpreting my arguments. I meant no offence to you whatsoever.

OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

mary666

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2378
  • Karma: +505/-92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2013, 12:20:47 pm »
No probs Trevor and I thank you all for taking this thread completely off topic, please continue, lol  :) I'll hit you all with +1 when the rule's up (got you all yesterday)  :)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 12:22:42 pm by mary666 »
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness, I am kind to everyone but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

-Al Capone

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #64 on: November 05, 2013, 12:39:14 pm »
He he, evidently I have scared him off.

Cherry Bites, as if that wasn't a troll from hell or a beacon to other pedo's to recognise their name when they thought they might have a place here.

It was probably kok, man looking back on that thread he used all these terms for different pedo's that I can't even remember or could even pronounce and as my mate who was over last night looking at it with me said unless you've done a PhD and work with those sort of fuckers or some shit there is no way outside of being involved in that shit you could know so much about it. He'd looked into and imediately had links for people advocating it upon request and legal jurisdictions of certain regions. He is suspect as they come!

Fuck that picture has me in tears too BTW!

You are a classic JTB

Don't you think it is odd that your primary argument against mine is that I know too much about the subject being discussed?

CP is annoying because it should be split up into two categories. There is the kind made with very young children by adults and then there is the self made CP by some junior in high school. They all get lumped into the same category. Nature didn't set some magic level that said girls could only be attractive once they turned eighteen. That said, CP should not be allowed on the road. Even having pictures of girls a week before they turn legal would just give bad press. There were no hit men on the last site and the media claimed you could buy murder for hire on it. If CP was allowed here it would be called a den of drugs murder and child porn.

I agree with you, but I think you should ask yourself why you are against people viewing CP even if it features very young children. I personally am open about the fact that I find underage teenagers to be sexually attractive, I don't like CP featuring very young children and actually find it to be disgusting in the majority of cases. Some countries have historically made legal distinctions between child porn and jailbait, up until very recently Germany allowed the possession, distribution and even production of pornography featuring those 14 and older. They called porn featuring teenagers youth pornography, and had no laws against it. Now they have laws against it, but just as in the USA they are not enforced laws. In the USA child porn consists of any pornography featuring those under the age of 18, but as far as enforcement goes it is very rare for the police to go after anybody who only has images of those 15 years old and older. The only cases where they really care about ephebophile porn (15+) are cases that involve distribution, often only when the depicted minor files a complaint (because their ex boyfriend decided to share old pictures on facebook for example), or cases where they are investigating something else and stumble upon somebody with such images. Actually, the people arrested for possession and production of ephebophile pornography tend to be the minors who take naked pictures of themselves and the peers that they share it with, not the adults who collect the leaked images and share them on clearnet sites that are essentially never investigated by the police. In some other cases the police may end up busting some ephebophiles when they get their porn from general CP sites that have jailbait mixed with CP, like many of the darknet sites. In these cases they are not targeted but rather incidentally get caught in the net that was cast to catch pedophiles. I am not even sure why these countries feel the need to have laws against the possession of pornography featuring those 15 plus considering they don't actively investigate it. I suppose they want to make sure that they can prosecute some 19 year old after he has a fight with his girlfriend and posts the nude pictures she sent him three years prior. I think such a person is being a jackass for sure, but I am not sure that I would personally deem this behavior worthy of a criminal charge. I certainly wouldn't lump said boyfriend in with a pedophile who molests a child, but thanks to the sex offender registries this person will be considered the same as them in the eyes of society. A lot of countries still don't have laws against jailbait porn, many put the cut off for child porn at anything below the age of 15. Ephebophilia is actually totally legal in large parts of the world, as many countries have ages of consent at 15 and have no laws against pornography featuring those 15 and above.   

I don't think that CP or JB should be allowed on silk road, but there is nothing wrong with discussing it or debating about it. Even the police don't give a shit if people debate about CP. Wanting to silence those who disagree with you is just a sign of not having any solid arguments against them, and a sign of being an emotional rather than a rational person. It is particularly funny when you boast about your lack of knowledge on the subject, I don't think there is any other sort of debate where you can win favor by saying you have no idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, even though I personally don't enjoy CP featuring very young children, I don't really care if other people do. The arguments against CP being legal to possess are not numerous.

1. Every single time an image of child porn is viewed it is like the depicted child is molested all over again, or the depicted child is victimized all over again

This argument is obviously absurd when taken to the mystical extreme of viewing an image causing a molestation in the past to happen again. There is really not much you can say to argue against this, it is like telling people that there isn't really a magical wizard who lives in the sky. Photographs are not magical items, pictures of child molestation are the modern version of voodoo dolls to these people. I don't know how to argue against the existence of voodoo magic, but I imagine that any rational person recognizes that this is not real. When more intelligent people make this argument they don't take it to such a mystical extreme, rather than claiming that a child is molested again in the past every time an image of their molestation is viewed they instead simply argue that the child is victimized all over again.

I guess before we can argue about revictimization that we will need to define victimization.

vic·tim  (vktm)
n.
1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

We can all agree that when a child is used in child pornography that the child is victimized. The people who argue that it should be illegal to view child pornography claim that whenever somebody views child porn featuring a certain child that the child is revictimized. If we go with the first definition of victim then these people argue that when child pornography is viewed the depicted child is harmed. The people who make this argument will claim that the child is harmed when their CP is viewed, it is probably true that a child is likely to suffer additional stress by knowing that their image is being traded by pedophiles. However, we can isolate this harm away from any given act of a pedophile viewing CP featuring a particular child. Imagine that there are two children who are molested on camera, both of them have their photographs uploaded to different servers on the internet. These servers utilize a Private Information Retrieval algorithm, which is a cryptographic system that allows people to download files without any second or third party knowing the files downloaded. Both of the children are rescued, and they become aware of the fact that their images are available through these servers. The first child has her picture downloaded multiple times, but due to the PIR algorithm only the people who downloaded the file are aware of the fact that the file has been downloaded. The second child never has his picture downloaded, but due to the PIR algorithm nobody is aware of the fact that nobody ever downloaded the picture. I would argue that both of these children will experience the same level of stress, because rather than experiencing increased stress from the act of people downloading their images they are rather experiencing increased stress due to the possibility of people downloading their images. Of course this possibility was created by the person who took the photographs and uploaded them to the internet, it is not created by the people who download the files. In fact it is obvious that this is the case, the child who had her picture downloaded from the PIR server cannot be experiencing stress due to the downloading of her picture because it is impossible for her to know that her picture has been downloaded. Likewise, the child who had a picture that nobody downloaded cannot feel less stress than the first child due to the fact that he is equally unable to determine the fact that nobody has downloaded his image.

The second definition of victim is not pertinent to the argument at hand. The third definition of victim has the same counterargument as above, the circumstance the child is suffering from is the potential for her image to be viewed by pedophiles, this is a circumstance that was created by the person who took the photograph and uploaded it to the internet. The actual act of downloading and viewing the image does not create a circumstance that causes the child to suffer, and to think otherwise is actually to believe in magic that is just as absurd as the voodoo interpretation of revictimization. Suffering is an emotional state that can be measured with brain scans and various other techniques, such as the measurement of stress hormones. It is very easy to carry out a scientific experiment that definitively proves that there isn't a casual relationship between a pedophile viewing child pornography featuring a particular child and that child suffering. We can have a pedophile with a computer in one room and a child who was previously molested in another room. The pedophile has on the computer images of the molestation of the child, the child is having his brainwaves and hormone levels monitored in real time. At some random time, the pedophile views the image of the child's molestation. If there is a casual relationship between the viewing of child pornography and the suffering of the depicted children then it stands to reason that the depicted child will have physiological and neurological signs of suffering manifest at the moment in time that the pedophile views the image of her molestation. Obviously no such thing is going to happen, because there is no link between the pedophile and the child. The pedophile viewing the child pornography will not cause the depicted child to suffer, if this phenomenon were to take place then it would be exploited by intelligence agencies to transmit secret information in such a way that it couldn't be intercepted. Trust me, there is high demand for systems that can transmit information from point A to point B without a link between the two points, child pornography and previously victimized children are not quantum entangled.

The fourth definition of victim is not pertinent to the argument as it assumes that the victim is self created. We can modify the wording to make it so that it is a secondary party that voluntarily undertakes an action that causes injury, loss, or death to the victim. I believe I have already shown that viewing child pornography does not cause injury to the depicted child, and I imagine that everybody realizes it doesn't cause death. Loss is something that we can discuss though, and this will be trickier for me to argue against as we are leaving the realm  of magic and entering the realm of reality. Certainly when a pedophile views an image of child pornography the depicted child suffers a loss of privacy. This is essentially the only good argument against legalizing child pornography, but even this is a weak argument. Imagine that an adult has shared a sexual photograph with her boyfriend, at a later point in time the boyfriend shares the picture on the internet. When people view this picture on the internet the depicted adult has suffered a loss of privacy that is equal to the loss of privacy suffered by a child who has an image of CP featuring her viewed by a pedophile. If we are to be consistent, we must then say that it should be an equal crime to view images of adult pornography where the featured subject has not consented to the release of the image. I imagine we all think that it is absurd to think that it should be illegal to view a naked picture of a 30 year old when the 30 year old has not consented to you viewing the photograph. The reason we think this is absurd is because the loss of privacy is not the fault of the viewer of the image. If you view an image of a naked 30 year old where the 30 year old has not consented to the image being released, you are not responsible for the resulting loss of privacy suffered by the 30 year old, rather the person who originally uploaded the picture is responsible for this loss of privacy.

As for the fifth definition of victim, when you look at an image of a naked 30 year old who has not consented to your viewing of the image you are perhaps in a way taking advantage of the fact that somebody else exploited the trust of the depicted person. I do not think that you are taking advantage of the depicted person though, rather the person who initially shared the image is taking advantage of the depicted person. You are taking advantage of the result of the other person taking advantage of a person, this is not the same thing as taking advantage of a person. If you and another person compete for a job but then the other person is murdered (which means they are victimized as they suffer a loss of their life), you will in the same sense be taking advantage of the victimization of the deceased when you receive the job that you competed for. But you are taking advantage of a situation that arose through the victimization of the deceased, you are not taking advantage of the deceased! I don't think anybody can really argue that you have victimized the deceased by taking the job the two of you competed for, the person who murdered them is the one who victimized them! But you are taking advantage of a situation that arose from the victimization of the deceased, in the same way a pedophile who views child pornography is taking advantage of a situation that arose from the molestation of the child, and in the same way the pedophile is not taking advantage of the child and therefore they are not victimizing the child!

So I think that I have debunked the notion of revictimization now, both the mystical interpretations and the interpretations that have some connection to reality.

2. By viewing child pornography pedophiles create a market for molestation and therefore they lead to more children being molested

This is the argument made by those with slightly more intelligence, people who are at least smart enough to not base their arguments on mystical properties of photographs. However, these people are just as incorrect as the previously mentioned. The first counterargument I will give involves a thought experiment. Imagine that all child pornography is traded over Private Information Retrieval servers. As previously explained, PIR protocols allow people to download files without anybody else being made aware of the fact that specific files have been downloaded. If there is a single CPIR server which hosts child pornography and various other items, nobody will be able to tell the demand for child pornography apart from the demand for the other items. It is possible that everybody is downloading child pornography and nobody is downloading other items, it is possible that everybody is downloading other items and nobody is downloading child pornography, and any point between these two extremes is also possible. In such a scenario it is clear that the demand for child pornography cannot possibly lead to child molestation, because the demand for child pornography is totally unknown. There could be millions of pedophiles downloading CP or there could be no pedophiles downloading CP! When I ask people who make this argument how they feel about pedophiles downloading CP from PIR servers they always say that they are against it. I think this shows that they are not really concerned with the demand for child pornography leading to the molestation of children. After all, there are technical solutions that can hide the demand for child pornography while still allowing pedophiles to view it! One would imagine that the people making this argument would very much want to get various government agencies to configure PIR networks for pedophiles to get their CP from, as by their own logic allowing pedophiles to download CP from PIR networks would massively reduce the number of molested children as well as allowing pedophiles to have access to child porn (which some studies show will further reduce molestation rates!)

The second thing I will point out is that these people are simply incorrect, at least in general. It is true that in the past there have been some instances where the demand for child pornography has led to the molestation of children. LS and BD studios are the best examples of this, both of these studios produced child pornography and then sold it to pedophiles for a profit. Of course it wasn't really the demand for child pornography that led to these studios molesting children, rather it was the willingness for many pedophiles to pay for child pornography. Both of these studios suffered from enormous rates of piracy. The only reason the produced child pornography was because they were making money from doing so. Had nobody paid for the images and everybody pirated the images, these studios would not have continued to produce child pornography. This makes it clear that it should be illegal to pay for the molestation of children, but of course I have never claimed otherwise. It also makes it clear that at least in circumstances similar to this that the demand for CP is not what leads to production but rather the willingness for people to pay for CP production.

There are other instances where the demand for CP leads to production, and in these instances there is not even financial involvement! CP trafficking groups like the now defunct Dreamboard had organizational structures that certainly encouraged and possibly led to the production of child pornography. In groups such as this membership can only be maintained by contributing child pornography that is not already present in the collective database. Over time these groups amass such massive collections that nobody will be able to maintain their membership if they don't produce new content, due to the fact that nearly all existing content is already part of the database. This structuring certainly encourages pedophiles to start molesting children and documenting the abuse so that they can maintain their membership. This leads to a good argument for the criminalization of running CP websites where access or membership is dependent on uploading content, it is not a good general purpose argument against the legalizing of the viewing of child pornography. Also, legalizing child pornography could help to prevent groups with structures like this arising. Although it is possible some groups are structured in such a way simply in an effort to increase the shared cache of child pornography, others are structured in such a way to prevent the infiltration of law enforcement. Many CP trafficking groups require members to share certain amounts of child pornography to gain membership, a lot of the less sophisticated groups do this because they mistakenly think that it will prevent law enforcement from infiltrating them (as they think law enforcement would never share thousands of images of child pornography). If it wasn't illegal to view and trade child pornography these groups wouldn't need to try to prevent police infiltration and therefore it is likely that they would abandon such membership criteria, and without such membership criteria people would not be under pressure to molest children and document the abuse to increase the number of files in their collection to the point that they can gain access.

The last point I will make is that the vast majority of child pornography is traded freely and openly on public P2P networks. There are no membership requirements and there are no requirements to share CP. There is not even a community at all to speak of, these people are not organized into groups they just find CP by searching for certain keywords on P2P networks. They certainly don't pay for any of the CP that they download! These people are in no conceivable way creating a market for the molestation of children, the only thing a person who molests children can gain from these people is the knowledge that somebody viewed pornography they produced. And this leads to two more sub points. The first sub point is that in the majority of cases nobody will even be aware that a pedophile has downloaded CP from such a network, it isn't like the people hosting CP are keeping track of how often it is downloaded. If some random person searches for CP on such a network and downloads an image and nobody knows about it, it isn't like you can argue they have contributed to a market for CP. The second sub point is that the impossibility of totally wiping out child pornography makes this a totally hopeless and pointless war, even if you incorrectly assume that children are molested entirely because of the fact that people will view images of the molestation. If there are 100 people who actively seek out CP or 1,000,000 people who actively seek it out, there is no difference in the mind of a hypothetical person who molests children simply to visually document the crime for others to see. If there is any demand whatsoever this producer will have motivation to molest children and document the abuse. Busting any single individual who views CP, or even 90% of the individuals who view CP, will not have any effect on the production of CP due to the fact that there is still a demand for CP. And it is totally impossible to entirely wipe out the demand for CP! Tens of millions of people have been identified viewing CP by IP address, every year about 1% of these people are arrested with the enormous amount of money and man power poured into the war on CP viewers. At the current rate, assuming no growth in the numbers of CP viewers (there is significant growth), it will take 100 years to arrest all of the people who have already been identified! Keep in mind this is just counting the people who have been identified by IP address, it isn't counting the people using darknets or the people who have otherwise managed to not be identified. Once you factor those people in, it will obviously take over 100 years to arrest all of them, assuming there is absolutely no growth. Also you need to keep in mind that in many countries across the world it is not illegal to view CP, countries such as Japan and Russia to name just two. The people viewing CP in these countries where it is legal will never be arrested, so the demand for CP will remain and arresting every single person who demands CP in countries where it is illegal to do so will make no difference at all. This is why the people who make this argument are making a poetic, ideological argument when they say that we must have a war on CP viewers because if there is demand for CP there will be production. It is poetic because they must know full well that they will never get rid of the demand for CP, it would take trillions and trillions of dollars and major changes in the laws of dozens of countries to even have a chance to significantly reduce the demand for CP after 100 years! And there would still be demand for CP! And if there is any demand for CP, then hypothetical people who produce CP because others will look at it will continue to produce CP! So obviously even if the people who make this argument are correct (they are not), they really need to find a better strategy for reducing child abuse rates, because the strategy of completely eradicating all demand for CP is doomed to fail and to be completely ineffective since it relies on literally entirely wiping out the demand for CP.

3. Looking at child pornography increases a pedophiles probability of molesting children, if somebody looks at child porn it is a clear sign that they are at high risk of molesting children and therefore they should be preemptively arrested

This argument is based on false and sketchy statistics. In honesty we don't know exactly the percentage of people who view child pornography who also molest children. From government agencies you are likely to hear very large percentages such as 65% or 80%. This is very unlikely to be true, and in fact flaws have been documented in several of the studies that resulted in such high numbers, essentially debunking them. The government and other agencies that benefit from the war on CP viewing lie just as much about CP offenders and CP as they lie about drug offenders and drugs. For example, one of their studies that arrived at a large percentage took into account any sexual contact with a minor over the entire life of the person who was arrested with CP. This means that their figure for how many people arrested with CP had had sex with a minor encompassed offenders who had sex with their 15 year old girlfriends when they were 15. Another example is when they arrested people who attempted to procure the services of underage prostitutes, from this group of men they analyzed the ones who also were identified as having child pornography in their possession, and they found that a large percentage of these people who had CP had also had sexual intercourse with those under the age of 18. Clearly both of these studies have enormous methodological flaws, and the flaws were very probably intentional as the people performing these studies had an interest in inflating the numbers. In one study that has not been debunked the figure was put at 16% of those arrested with child pornography were also found to have molested at least one child. You need to take into account that this figure is itself likely slightly inflated, as some of the arrested people may have had consensual sex with say 15 year old girls when they were themselves 19 or so. Regardless, it is apparent that the large majority of those arrested with child pornography have not molested children.

That said, it really makes no difference from an ideological point of view. Do we really want to be a society that has laws against precrime? Something like 5% of males have raped a female, is that a large enough percentage to justify group punishment against males? Should all males be sent to prison to reduce the rate of rape?

The argument that looking at CP increases a pedophiles probability of molesting children is controversial. There are numerous studies that point in both directions, some say that child pornography consumption increases pedophiles risk of molesting children whereas others say that it decreases the risk. There is no conclusive evidence so no legitimate argument can be based on this claim. After having read several of these studies my person opinion is that for a small minority of pedophiles child pornography consumption increases their risk of offending with a child, whereas for a larger percentage of pedophiles child pornography consumption reduces their risk of offending with a child and can be used as an alternative sexual outlet to child molestation. I think that my opinion is supported by the evidence, however there are numerous studies pointing in all kinds of directions and therefore I suppose we must conclude that the evidence pointing in any particular direction is inconclusive.

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #65 on: November 05, 2013, 01:25:58 pm »
Thanks god there isn't any actual advocates of this subject in here yet.  Just rename this thread what would u do to a child molester if u could get away with it. Those sick fucks need to be erradicated off the face of the earth. DPR this is a horrible idea to have such a thread.  This makes me lose respect for you and this community. This is a topic that shouldn't be tolerated here in any capacity. Pick your morals and values and stick to them. You can't make everyone happy without seriously compromising yourself. If u don't stand for something then u will fall for anything.
PM it to him I have said it 1000 times it's a fucking joke!
It reflects so porlyon us he needs to hear our outrage! He's just being an ideological fucktard and he knows it.
Like I said, don't let ism's cloud your perception of what is right and wrong.
Only if we PERSONALLY feed it to him enough will he change his tune. Fucking freedom of speech what a croc of shit!
Him and I have had some massive disputes about it, me trying to protect our image and the community as whole, and him trying to protect his ideological bullshit. When the people cry out for change, and he acts like a fascist dictator about it, he will see the mistake is his and his alone and he will get crucified in the media.
Like I said, everyone automatically equates SR with CP before drugs or guns, nobody cares THAT much about those things, and they will come after us with everything they've got if we are supportive of allowing them a voice.
Well, what the fuck happened to OUR voice? OUR voices should matter more than any fucking pedo's right to express themselves and their grievances in OUR forum. But thats just the point isn't it? This NeoDPR says it's all HIS site. No longer OURS folks!
We aren't on our turf anymore, we are visiting someone else who's tyrannical and undemocratic... the antithesis of how a pirate ship is run!

That is the great thing about Agorism! Under other ideologies the people complain about the oppression of themselves, only under Agorism do the people complain about the freedom of others.

Quote
OK fine, if you want to split hairs, then this is somewhat true. I wanted to avoid this entire discussion, but I'm going to use your thoughts to illustrate some points. It's not illegal in every state for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old (or even every country -- would be legal in the UK). Some states limit the age difference, but not all. Obviously you have to be 18 to be featured in pornography though. I don't think people should be able to profit off of the poor choices made by teenagers, which would be why I take issue here (even if 18 is arbitrary -- and it is).

And since we're splitting hairs, not all people possessing CP are guilty of molestation (directly). Possession of CP wasn't illegal in the US until somewhere around the 1980s. The US Supreme Court in the 1960s upheld the right to possess CP under the 1st amendment. It took several court challenges before the law was changed, and frankly, I'm glad it was.

That doesn't mean I think it was OK at all. I'm just saying that none of these rules are etched in stone (just like you admit), which is why outright banning the discussion of CP in the forums is a slippery slope (i.e. if you want to argue that there should be a universal freedom of expression). I don't agree with your distinction about different kinds of CP because I don't believe that a 13-17 year old is capable of making rational choices about something that could potentially affect them for the rest of their lives. I wouldn't go so far as to say that you aren't entitled to express that opinion though.

Do you think that a magic fairy comes down from the sky on a persons 18th birthday and smacks them with a magic wand or something? I do agree though, it is a bit odd that in many states you could for example ass fuck a 16 year old all day, but then go to prison for the rest of your life for taking a picture of the same 16 year old without her top on. Seems fucking insane right? Anybody who thinks it should be illegal to produce or own pornography of teenagers is fucking scum. And you should grow a pair of balls and say what you really think instead of toe the bullshit line of society. You know just as well as the rest of us that it total bullshit you don't need to pretend to believe their artificial reality and there is never going to be any change until people stop going along with the bullshit and start saying what they really believe.

Quote
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.


Quote
Furthermore, you don't seem to grasp it's not about freedom of speech because these people foreited their right to personal sovereignty which is the cornerstone of freedom of speech (and why prisoners don't have a vote until they're free) when they decided to go and touch up kids. It's not a freedom of speech issue you brain dead cunt, it's an ethical and standards value thing.

It obviously is a freedom of speech issue you fucking retard. Seriously just because you say something doesn't make it so. I hate trying to talk to emotional idiots because they don't even have any foundation in reality, they just spout off and think anything they say must be the case. Also nobody is talking about actually molesting kids, if you were able to differentiate between somewhat related things you would realize that looking at pictures isn't engaging in the actions depicted in the pictures. Just like when you look at pictures of the holocaust it isn't the same as committing genocide. It really is a pretty simple concept to grasp, maybe you should take five seconds away from having an emotional tantrum and actually think about it.

Quote
There should be no debate on this at all.  Drug use is a matter of personal responsibility for consenting adults; pedophilia is not.  Pedophiles should be fed feet first into a meat grinder and used as pet food or fertilizer.   There is no gray area here as there is with most things, this is black and white.  Child molesters should die in the worst ways possible and if the is a gene discovered that causes pedophilia then abortion should be mandatory.  I was not molested myself but the idea of it disgusts me, as do any who would cater to the needs of these degenerate fucks.

First of all not all pedophiles molest children, most of them actually don't. Hell, most people who view CP don't molest children. Blaming "pedophiles" for child molestation is just as fucking stupid as blaming "men" for rape. Also, nobody is defending child molesters (depending on your definition of child, I certainly would defend somebody who had sex with say a 14 year old), we are discussing the viewing of CP, which is not the same thing as the molesting of children.

Quote
They're different mental disorders. And the painful point that arises is the sliding scale, upon which everyone sits.

***CLEARNET***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation

Ephebophilia is not recognized as a mental disorder by any criteria standards committee. Sexual attraction to and interaction with anybody 15+ is not considered a mental illness by anybody. And it makes perfectly good sense, since full sexual maturity is reached at 14 years old. Saying you are attracted to an 18 year old but not a 15 year old is pretty much certainly a lie. It is very probable that ephebophilia isn't even a real thing separate from teliophilia (attraction to 17+), and that only exclusive ephebophilia could even be differentiated from teliophilia. Hebephilia is contested as a mental disorder, the majority of mental health professionals currently believe that sexual attraction to 14+ is not a mental disorder but attraction to 13 or below is the mental disorder pedophilia. Minority opinions are that attraction to 14 is a mental disorder but not to 15, or that attraction to as low as 11 is not a mental disorder but 10 is. So essentially, attraction to 0-10 is certainly a mental disorder, 11-13 might be a mental disorder, 14+ is not a mental disorder. That is the current opinion of the mental health community. Infantophilia encompasses attraction to 0-2, it is certainly a mental disorder. Pedophilia encompasses attraction to 3-13, it is certainly a mental disorder however the age 13 is a recent addition in the past it was 11 and 12. Hebephilia is attraction to 11-14, the majority of mental health professionals do not think attraction to 14 is a mental disorder but attraction to 11-13 overlaps with pedophilia which is a mental disorder. The tactic of one of the minority groups was to merge hebephilia with pedophilia and replace them both with hebepedophilia, which would encompass attraction to 3-14. This attempt was rejected as the majority did not see attraction to 14 as a mental illness, and the sneaky tactic to once again raise the upper bound of pedophilia by a year was rejected by the majority. Ephebophilia is attraction to 15+, it is not considered to be a mental disorder by anybody in the mental health community. Attraction to 17+ is teliophilia, it is not considered to be a mental disorder by anyone in the medical community, unlike hebepedophilia there probably really should be a merging of teliophilia with ephebophilia to create a new category called telioephebophilia, since a 15 year old and a 17 year old are both at the same level of sexual maturity you can't really claim that attraction to one is separate from attraction to the other. All of these scales are actually only rough approximations and I think that they could be made more accurate by going off of the tanner scale instead of age numbers. If a 1 year old had the body of a hot 20 year old it wouldn't be a mental illness to be attracted to her, and people develop at different ages. So saying attraction to any particular age is a mental illness is difficult once you get to about 11 years old. In practice it is never normal to be attracted to a 1 year old, but it is normal to be attracted to a well developed 11 or 12 year old. But it is not normal to be attracted to a late blooming 11 or 12 year old. Avoiding ages and going off the tanner scale will be more accurate, and I believe that it is normal to have no attraction to stages one or two, minor attraction to stage three and strong attraction to stages four and five.

Quote

I would go so far as to claim that the people who shout and scream the loudest in professing their utter hatred regarding abusers, are in fact trying to overcome they're own discomfort over these basic facts of life (that it is normal to be attracted to someone between the ages of 14/15 - 18 *this does not permit you to act on your attraction*). That is to say, there is an internal struggle. There is an excellent Australian film that deals with similar themes, it's called Snowtown and you should definitely watch it. Very ominous.

In the same way religious fundamentalists argue loudly about peoples sins, those that are the most vehement are likely to be the ones experiencing the most inner turmoil regarding sin. These kinds of people often try to impose a black and white order over what is, and everyone can agree on this, essentially a difficult to deal with grey scale. They are, in short, simple minds. There is nothing wrong with having a simple mind. But it is for this reason we have institutionalized ideas like freedom of speech. Because simple minded bigots have a way of mounting witchhunts in order to preserve their peace of mind.

Obviously this is merely my speculation and opinion.

This is likely to have some truth to it. Certainly it is highly probable that many of the people screaming about how much they hate "pedophiles" are attracted to 14 year old people, since it is totally normal for them to be and would be kind of odd if they were not. I don't really care that I am attracted to young teenagers, I don't have any turmoil. I don't feel like it is sinful at all, even if I had sex with a 14 year old I wouldn't feel bad about it. I know not to hurt other people and how to keep myself under control, I have no reason to feel bad about something that isn't. I like how one of the previous posters mentioned that child porn viewing is sinful, I wonder how many of the loudest screamers have been brainwashed by religion.

Quote

I know other former vendors and even mods who aren't going to vend here which says a bit in and of itself.

It doesn't inspire confidence in his leadership, and he will be seen a soft on CP when you have to have a line drawn in the sand and it's the ONLY topic that should be outright banned.

The previous DPR let us have discussion regarding CP too you fucking idiot, absolutely nothing has changed.

Quote

Downe syndrome is a mental disorder, Alzheimer's is a mental disorder. These fuckers are just cretins and you ARE kok this proves it beyond a reasonable doubt IMO!

Die in a fire motherfucker!!!

Yep those are both mental disorders, so is pedophilia. Hebephilia might be, it is debated, at least partially it isn't though ( attraction to 14). Ephebophilia is certainly not a mental disorder though, it isn't even debated at all in the professional community.




Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2013, 01:30:54 pm »
Ok, PIR servers hide the demand for CP. But that is only CP that is currently in existance. Are you saying PIR servers would seperate CP from the producers? That suddenly anyone who made or wanted CP would no longer be able to communicate and share these pictures? I understand your argument, technically it's possible. But I honestly believe that, as a mental health issue, it may be treatable. Maybe treatable in unison with controlled viewing of virtual CP. I don't think there should be the creation of any government sanctioned CP databases. Technically, you say it's possible. I don't know if it is. But surely virtual CP, and a more reasonable view in the law of the sliding scale upon which all humans exist in regards to sexuality, is better than this extreme undertaking.

Of course it wasn't really the demand for child pornography that led to these studios molesting children, rather it was the willingness for many pedophiles to pay for child pornography.

This is a total contradiction. The willingness of pedophiles to pay for pedophiles is exactly that - the demand for CP!

But in general your argument is quite persuasive. The overall gist I get, is that current laws make criminals of a large percentage of people who haven't really done anything. It simply comes down to an emotional response to the thought of someone finding a child (someone below the age of 14) sexually attractive. I feel that emotion. But my logic tells me, that if they aren't actually sadistically patrolling around trying to enforce their desires on children, nor is their consumption of CP knowable to any victims of past crimes, that the law should be changed.

I now differentiate my disgust for child molestors from pedophiles.
Not all child molestors are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are child molestors.

That being said, I still find it sick.
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2013, 02:36:05 pm »
It obviously is a freedom of speech issue you fucking retard. Seriously just because you say something doesn't make it so. I hate trying to talk to emotional idiots because they don't even have any foundation in reality, they just spout off and think anything they say must be the case. Also nobody is talking about actually molesting kids, if you were able to differentiate between somewhat related things you would realize that looking at pictures isn't engaging in the actions depicted in the pictures. Just like when you look at pictures of the holocaust it isn't the same as committing genocide. It really is a pretty simple concept to grasp, maybe you should take five seconds away from having an emotional tantrum and actually think about it.

Your point is simple to grasp. But that doesn't mean it's a valid point.

In order to establish whether you make a valid comparison or not, we firstly need to ask ourselves what the similarities and differences are between an image of a child being raped, and an image of a mass grave of malnourished jewish corpses are.

Secondly, we need to ask ourselves whether there are parallels between peoples reactions to those images are.

Thirdly, we need to determine whether someones reaction (and subsequent actions) towards viewing these images is morally reprehensable or not.

Ok,

(1)
- Both are images of victims.
- Regarding both images I think it's a safe assumption that the victim wasn't aware that their suffering was being documented.
- I also think it's safe to assume the victims depicted in either kind of image would feel emotional pain if they were to be told the documentation of their suffering was being enjoyed by others (more pain if they were told the images were the source of pleasure to other people).
- The image of slaughtered jewish people may have been taken by a soldier to boast of his exploits, or it may have been taken by a third party in order to document the atrocities commited. In both circumstances it is evidence of a crime. But in the first example, it's intended use was to either increase social standing, or boast. Both of which are roughly analogous to the intentions of scum who molest children in order to document their exploits.
 - Images of the holocaust are stuck in time. While the creation of images of innocent children being raped is an ongoing problem, the creation of images of the holocaust (disregarding virtual images) is impossible. This excludes the possibility that there will ever be a demand for the ongoing production of holocaust death imagery.

(2)
- Viewers of both kinds of images can be broken into two groups, those who enjoy the image and those who don't. For an image of an innocent child being raped - it is someone whose sexual orientation is directed exclusively toward someone of the age of consent who finds the image to cause no sexual reaction. Someone who is aroused by the image would be called a pederphile or a hebephile (I will steer clear of ephebophiles). For the image of holocaust victims there is the possibility that a Neo-Nazi might glory in the images of slaughtered innocent jews. Otherwise everyone finds them repulsive, emblematic of deep issues of the human condition.
- While someone viewing child rape documentation may seek sexual gratification from them, I think it is unlikely that someone viewing images of the holocaust could derive sexual pleasure from doing so. This is another contributing factor to why holocaust images are not a problem and child rape images are: the fact that it is possible for there to exist a demand for the ongoing production of child rape imagery.
- With both images it is true that mainstream society despises anyone who derives enjoyment or pleasure from viewing them.

(3)
- While it is impossible that anyone simply viewing either kind of image could cause the depicted victims to relive their pain, it is possible that knowledge of someone enjoying the image could cause them additional pain. But the fact that no new images of the holocaust can be made, and that it is unlikely that a significant portion of the population will ever want to view these images in order to achieve sexual gratification, means that they are incapable of comparison. Images of children being raped are far more insidious because, as you yourself said, many people consume them, regardless of whether they create these images. This means there is a demand for images of children being raped.
- People who experiance any positive emotions towards images of dead jews are highly likely to belong to an extremist ideological strain of thought, and is the reason they derive any pleasure at all. Meanwhile people who derive pleasure from images of child rape may be (A) mentally ill, or (B) the unfortunate members of one polar extreme of a natural scale of human sexual attraction. Both possibilities ought to exempt them from moral outrage, because they do not choose to be sexually attracted in the way they are. Meanwhile Neo-Nazi's and other antisemites are morally reprehensable because their pleasure or enjoyment of the depiction of jewish suffering is ideological in nature. This means that Neo-Nazis and other antisemites have some measure of choice governing their enjoyment of holocaust imagery.
- The fact that there can be no demand for holocaust death images is significant. Because there will always be a worldwide demand for images of children being raped, it therefore must effect negatively on those who require gratification from viewing these images. Because those who give in to their, (A) mentally disturbed, (B) natural but frowned upon, urges have to be held accountable for all of the extenuating circumstances surrounding their consumption of child rape imagery. If it were an ideal world and we had kok's proposed PIR servers and instead of real child rape images they had virtual child rape images on them, then it would be possible to classify those who enjoyed the child rape imagery as morally sound. But we do not live in that world. We live in a world in which it may be the case that current laws put these (A) mentally ill or (B) ordinary but rare people in the position where, in order to achieve sexual gratification they must do evil things.

I may amend all this in order to add more. For now, I can think of no more. I apologize in advance for using the emotive term rape but I see it in no other light. Children cannot make these decisions for themselves. I count it as rape.

The enjoyment of images of dead holocaust victims is objectively morally reprehensible.

The enjoyment alone (notwithstanding any extenuating circumstances, like whether the victims are aware of the enjoyment or not) of images of child rape is not morally reprehensable in and of itself.

In no means does this end the argument, because we haven't established whether someone who derives pleasure from images of children being raped actively seeks these images or not thus committing potentially reprehensable acts. For example, the current legal status of images of child rape may encourage secretive and counterproductive behaviour that makes criminals and perverts of otherwise normal people.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 03:14:04 pm by Trevor »
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #68 on: November 05, 2013, 02:47:57 pm »
Ok, PIR servers hide the demand for CP. But that is only CP that is currently in existance. Are you saying PIR servers would seperate CP from the producers? That suddenly anyone who made or wanted CP would no longer be able to communicate and share these pictures? I understand your argument, technically it's possible. But I honestly believe that, as a mental health issue, it may be treatable. Maybe treatable in unison with controlled viewing of virtual CP. I don't think there should be the creation of any government sanctioned CP databases. Technically, you say it's possible. I don't know if it is. But surely virtual CP, and a more reasonable view in the law of the sliding scale upon which all humans exist in regards to sexuality, is better than this extreme undertaking.

My argument with PIR is merely a thought experiment that demonstrates that it is possible for pedophiles to view CP without any identifiable demand being created. If demand for child pornography is what causes child pornography to be produced, then perfectly hiding the demand for child pornography should result in no new child pornography being produced. We can hide the demand for child pornography with PIR, therefore we can allow pedophiles to view existing child pornography without their actions having the possibility of leading to child molestation. But of course I don't really believe that the demand for child pornography is what leads to child molestation, or even the production of child porn. Put another way, even if the demand for child pornography is totally hidden I believe that people will still produce child porn. Even if they don't know that people are viewing the CP they produce, a producer who produces CP because others will view it is actually producing CP because others might view it. Even without PIR, if Joe Blow downloads some CP off a P2P network and nobody notices that he did, which is a common occurrence, then it can't be argued that the demand expressed by Joe Blow contributed to the molestation of children. His actions took place in an informational black hole, they couldn't have had an effect on anything outside of the black hole. And even if you do eliminate the demand for child pornography, an impossible feat, the producer who produces so others will look at the production will still produce because others MIGHT still look at the production. The example with PIR demonstrates that we can have a scenario where nobody is aware of the demand for CP, the people who argue against me claim that this will prevent the production of all CP, I argue that people will still produce CP and upload it to the PIR servers even though they can't tell that anybody downloaded the CP from the PIR servers, which demonstrates that they don't produce CP because others download the CP but rather produce CP because others might download the CP. You are never going to be able to prove that nobody in the world will download CP, so there is always going to be the possibility that somebody might download CP, so the entire logic of those who argue against me falls apart.

It wasn't something I actually suggested to be implemented but rather was a thought experiment to argue against those who argue against me. And no, I still think all CP should be legal to view, virtual or not it doesn't matter, for exactly the reasons I said. Do you actually have an argument against anything I said?

Quote
Of course it wasn't really the demand for child pornography that led to these studios molesting children, rather it was the willingness for many pedophiles to pay for child pornography.

This is a total contradiction. The willingness of pedophiles to pay for pedophiles is exactly that - the demand for CP!

It is only a contradiction if you have a limited ability to differentiate. There is a difference between the demand for CP and the willingness to pay for the production of CP. The willingness to pay for the production of CP is a subcategory of the demand for CP, just like green apples are apples. It is not a contradiction to say that nobody likes green apples but some people like apples, not all apples are green apples.

Quote
But in general your argument is quite persuasive. The overall gist I get, is that current laws make criminals of a large percentage of people who haven't really done anything. It simply comes down to an emotional response to the thought of someone finding a child (someone below the age of 14) sexually attractive. I feel that emotion. But my logic tells me, that if they aren't actually sadistically patrolling around trying to enforce their desires on children, nor is their consumption of CP knowable to any victims of past crimes, that the law should be changed.

I agree.

Quote
I now differentiate my disgust for child molestors from pedophiles.
Not all child molestors are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are child molestors.

There are three distinct groups here, pedophiles, child molesters, and child porn consumers. There is overlap between these groups, but it isn't a total overlap. Most child molesters are pedophiles, but not all of them are considered to be. I don't know how many pedophiles view CP, but not all of them do. Also, not all of the people who view CP are pedophiles, believe it or not. A lot of people assume that anybody who enjoys looking at images of sexualized children must be a pedophile, but research indicates that there are multiple paths that lead people to consume child pornography, and pedophilia is only one of those paths. An example of another would be general pornography addiction, for these people it is not the age of the people in the content that they find attractive but rather the taboo of the product. Another example would be sadists, for these people it is not the age of the people in the content that they find attractive but rather depictions of abuse in general. Large percentages of child pornography consumers are not pedophiles, but I don't have any hard numbers for you. Probably around 16% of child porn consumers are child molesters. So to reiterate, we have three distinct groups with varying degrees of overlap between them. 

Quote
That being said, I still find it sick.

Yeah I find child porn to be sick as well, I just don't think it matters if people look at it.

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #69 on: November 05, 2013, 03:16:14 pm »
Quote
- Images of the holocaust are stuck in time. While the creation of images of innocent children being raped is an ongoing problem, the creation of images of the holocaust (disregarding virtual images) is impossible. This excludes the possibility that there will ever be a demand for the ongoing production of holocaust death imagery.

This is invalid, again you are having trouble with categorization. The holocaust is a subset of war crimes, the documented molestation of a specific child is a subset of child pornography. The holocaust is over but war crimes are still committed, the molestation of children that took place 18 years ago is over but children are still molested. Also, I believe I already demonstrated that demand for child pornography does not all inclusively lead to the production of child pornography, only in certain instances such as the financial demand for child pornography.

Quote
(2)
- Viewers of both kinds of images can be broken into two groups, those who enjoy the image and those who don't. For an image of an innocent child being raped - it is someone whose sexual orientation is directed exclusively toward someone of the age of consent who finds the image to cause no sexual reaction. Someone who is aroused by the image would be called a pederphile or a hebephile (I will steer clear of ephebophiles). For the image of holocaust victims there is the possibility that a Neo-Nazi might glory in the images of slaughtered innocent jews. Otherwise everyone finds them repulsive, emblematic of deep issues of the human condition.

It is actually inaccurate to claim that only hebephilies or pedophiles view child pornography. As previously stated, there are several paths to child pornography consumption, pathological chronophilia is only one of many. But yes, in general I agree.

Quote
- While someone viewing child rape documentation may seek sexual gratification from them, I think it is unlikely that someone viewing images of the holocaust could derive sexual pleasure from doing so.

I don't see the relevance of the sort of pleasure caused by the viewing of the image. Also, it is extremely likely that some people are sexually aroused by images of the holocaust, there are people who jack off to images of gore and death and suffering. Someone who obtains sexual pleasure from a torture snuff film would quite possibly obtain sexual pleasure from images of Jews being tortured and murdered.

Quote
- With both images it is true that mainstream society despises anyone who derives enjoyment or pleasure from viewing them. This is another contributing factor to why holocaust images are not a problem and child rape images are: the fact that it is possible for there to exist a demand for the ongoing production of child rape imagery.

This isn't accurate because as previously explained the holocaust is a subset of war crimes just as the graphically documented molestation of a particular child is a subset of child pornography production. There are still war crimes and there are still children molested, it is impossible for ongoing production of holocaust images and it is impossible for ongoing production of child porn featuring children who have reached adulthood. You could argue that images of the holocaust were not produced to fill demand, however I have already demonstrated that it is inaccurate to attribute child molestation or child porn production to all forms of demand for child pornography, only to certain manifestations of demand for child pornography such as financial demand. And I agree, financial demand for child pornography needs to be stemmed by making it illegal, it should not be legal to pay for a child to be molested.

Quote
(3)
- While it is impossible that anyone simply viewing either kind of image could cause the depicted victims to relive their pain, it is possible that knowledge of someone enjoying the image could cause them additional pain. But the fact that no new images of the holocaust can be made, and that it is unlikely that a significant portion of the population will ever want to view these images in order to achieve sexual gratification, means that they are incapable of comparison. Images of children being raped are far more insidious because, as you yourself said, many people consume them, regardless of whether they create these images. This means there is a demand for images of children being raped.

As previously mentioned, the holocaust is a subset of war crimes and more images of war crimes can be produced. As previously mentioned, there are pathologies where people are sexually excited by images of gore, death, torture, and these people would quite likely find sexual pleasure in pictures of war crimes. In a similar vein, people don't produce pictures of war crimes because some pathological people want to jack off to them, people don't produce images of child pornography because some pathological people want to jack off to them, at least not in all cases. In the cases where they do there is often really a financial incentive and we cannot attribute the production to the demand for child pornography in a general sense but rather the willingness to pay for child pornography. In other instances people may produce child pornography because they need to in order to gain membership at a trading site, in these instances it isn't the demand for child pornography that causes them to molest children and document the abuse but rather it is the membership criteria of the trading site they are trying to gain access to. We can make it illegal to pay for children to be molested and we can make it illegal to operate a trading site that requires uploaded child pornography in order to gain access, doing these things does not make it illegal to view child pornography in a general fashion.

Quote
- People who experiance any positive emotions towards images of dead jews are highly likely to belong to an extremist ideological strain of thought, and is the reason they derive any pleasure at all. Meanwhile people who derive pleasure from images of child rape may be (A) mentally ill, or (B) the unfortunate members of one polar extreme of a natural scale of human sexual attraction. Both possibilities ought to exempt them from moral outrage, because they do not choose to be sexually attracted in the way they are. Meanwhile Neo-Nazi's and other antisemites are morally reprehensable because their pleasure or enjoyment of the depiction of jewish suffering is ideological in nature. This means that Neo-Nazis and other antisemites have some measure of choice governing their enjoyment of holocaust imagery.

Just as there are many paths that lead to child pornography consumption there will likely be many paths to a person enjoying images of the holocaust. Some people in neo-nazi organizations may derive pleasure from images of the holocaust, people with various forms of sadism and other psychosexual disorders may derive a different sort of pleasure for different reasons.

Quote
- The fact that there can be no demand for holocaust death images is significant. Because there will always be a worldwide demand for images of children being raped, it therefore must effect negatively on those who require gratification from viewing these images. Because those who give in to their, (A) mentally disturbed, (B) natural but frowned upon, urges have to be held accountable for all of the extenuating circumstances surrounding their consumption of child rape imagery. If it were an ideal world and we had kok's proposed PIR servers and instead of real child rape images they had virtual child rape images on them, then it would be possible to classify those who enjoyed the child rape imagery as morally sound. But we do not live in that world. We live in a world in which it may be the case that current laws put these (A) mentally ill or (B) ordinary but rare people in the position where, in order to achieve sexual gratification they must do evil things.

Your inability to categorize is leading to many confused points. Once again, the holocaust is an instance of a war crime, images of child molestation are instances of child molestation. There can't be further instances of war crimes that are the holocaust just as there cannot be further instances of child molestation that involve a child who has reached adulthood. You also seem to be coming from the position that it is immoral to view child pornography, which I find to be strange considering I just demonstrated that viewing child pornography is an inherently victimless crime. There are several somewhat related behaviors that are victim causing crimes, however if you have ability to differentiate then you will recognize that they are not the same thing. One example is paying for the production of child pornography (this is the victim causing crime, not the viewing of the produced child pornography).

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #70 on: November 05, 2013, 04:04:50 pm »
I should also point out that even assuming that people only molest children and document the abuse because of the general demand for CP, it says nothing about the morality of demanding CP or viewing CP. People only rob banks because banks have money, do we then place the blame for bank robberies partially on the banks? There is an important thing to keep in mind about cause and effect as it applies to crime, it is a concept that people seem to understand for all crimes other than child pornography. Unless you are in the Taliban you are unlikely to claim that a woman wearing a sexy outfit leading to a rapist targeting her for rape means that the woman is the one who is immoral for causing a rape to happen. You would put the blame on the rapist. If a bank is robbed because it has money you would not claim that we should prevent banks from having money to prevent bank robberies, you would say that it is the robber who was immoral and who must be punished. Even if people only produce child porn because people look at child porn it doesn't say anything about the morality of viewing child porn, just as if people only rob banks because they have money it doesn't say anything about the morality of the banks. It is not the cause that is immoral but rather the effect that the cause may have. It is not immoral for a woman to wear sexy outfits and be flirtatious with guys, even if it might cause some guy to rape her. It is not immoral for a bank to have money even if this has the effect of people robbing banks. It is not immoral for people to look at child pornography even if this causes people to produce child pornography.

Firstly, you make a fuck load of ambiguous analogies. I will extend my previous argument and repost it in a better form - taking into account your protestations that holocaust images are a part of a larger whole. But I might add that you did not make that distinction in your analogy.

Please make it clearer to me how culpability for bank robbery is analogous to culpability for deriving sexual gratification for child rape images that clearly come from insidious sources. I say that if it is the case that deriving sexual gratification from child rape imagery has any correlation to the production of child rape images, it is morally reprehensable. It is not analogous to the other two examples. The direction of culpability may go in the other direction. If the child rape image was virtual then there would be no culpability. But it is possible that the viewer of child rape imagery is morally reprehensable because of the source of the material.

You cannot just say as a blanket rule, under all circumstances there is nothing morally reprehensable in deriving sexual gratification from images of children being raped.
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #71 on: November 05, 2013, 04:30:11 pm »
Speaking strictly from a security standpoint, online pedophiles serve as canaries in the coal mine.

They are very frequently early adopters of new technology. Given that they are so universally reviled, they are prime targets for law enforcement efforts -- in fact, it is not at all unheard of now for international cooperation between disparate governments and police agencies that, under normal circumstances, would not cooperate on anything else.

Accordingly, there is much to learn from the authorities' success and failure when an online pedophile ring is taken down. Such a ring was taken down several years ago, and from it we learned that:

*  PGP is highly effective;

*  Tor and remailers were enough to prevent apprehension of the majority of the ring's members.

* VPNs are, for the most part, totally ineffective. Those members of the ring that relied on VPNs for their protection were apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

Sir William Wonka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Karma: +227/-81
  • shitty titty jelly belly
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #72 on: November 05, 2013, 05:04:58 pm »
Demand cannot be hidden u fuckin idiot.  Even if it is on the darknet demand is exactly that and is intangible.
. . . it is a corrupting thing to live one's real life in secret. One should live with the stream of life, not against it.
-Orwell

horse

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +26/-8
  • -smack.junk.skag.tar.horse-
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #73 on: November 05, 2013, 05:24:17 pm »
ugh. as much as I can't stand the poorly written and spelled posts calling for the deletion of this thread, I still believe these members should have the right to post them. which is the entire point of this thread.

do you really believe that your contributions here are worth more than any post advocating CP? I think they're both worth exactly the same just as any other post, and they both should have the equal opportunity to be heard. just because you don't like what someone says should we ban that topic from ever being discussed?

you (JWM and generally anyone here calling for DPR to delete this) may say you're for free speech but if you limit these thoughts from being shared then you aren't. just as if I said I was for free speech and called for your posts to be deleted on the basis that you are advocating hurting other people.

personally I despise CP but I also despise blood for blood punishment. you really aren't making yourselves look any better by detailing the ways in which you would torture and murder pedophiles. if your hatred for pedophiles is based on the fact that they hurt others, how much better are you for hurting them? IMO, and this is getting a bit off topic, no one should be tortured or sentenced to death for any crime, period. the death penalty in America is a disgusting, barbaric, outdated system that should be done away with altogether, for all crimes. anyways, life imprisonment sounds far worse to me than dying. I'd much rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.

DPR held up his beliefs when he made this thread, knowing that he would be scrutinized and I applaud him for it. it also has a second function as a list of forum members who say they believe in the ideals and politics of SR but don't. thanks DPR
another quality post brought to you by the (probably drug-induced) ramblings of your friendly, neighborhood horse!

horse, it's what's for breakfast! ...and lunch, and dinner...
never forget to shoot your three square "meals" a day, boys and girls!

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #74 on: November 05, 2013, 05:36:00 pm »
Quote
Please make it clearer to me how culpability for bank robbery is analogous to culpability for deriving sexual gratification for child rape images that clearly come from insidious sources.

If some child pornographer decides that every time a certain football team wins a game that he will molest a kid on camera, is it then the fault of the football team when a child is molested after they win the game? Of course not, it is the fault of the child molester. Just because a cause has an immoral effect doesn't mean that that cause is itself immoral. Even if we assume that there is a strong causative correlation between people viewing child porn and children being molested it says absolutely nothing about the morality of viewing child pornography. There could be a child pornographer who literally only produces CP when a certain football team wins a game. That is a direct causative relationship between the football team winning a game and the production of child pornography. Does that mean that the football team needs to make sure to never win any games now, because if they win then they will cause a child molester to molest kids on camera? Even if it were true that viewing CP leads to children being molested it doesn't prove the immorality of viewing CP. People having kids is the root cause of child molestation, if everybody just stopped having kids for 18 years there wouldn't be any child molestation and no new child porn would be produced. Does that mean that people having kids is immoral, because it leads to every single instance of child molestation? What is happening is that you are judging viewing child pornography to be immoral based on nothing, and then you are fabricating reasons for why it is immoral after you have already passed your judgement. Your initial position isn't neutrality but rather is that child pornography is immoral to view. Why is it immoral to view child porn? Because people viewing child porn causes child molesters to molest children! Why isn't it immoral to have kids then? Having kids causes child molesters to molest children! If there were no children had there would be none to molest! But that sounds absurd right? It sounds absurd because you are coming from a position that it isn't immoral to have children. But it has the same effect as viewing child porn. You can't use that argument for the immorality of child porn anymore than you can argue that it is immoral for women to be flirtatious because it leads to rape. Viewing child porn isn't paying someone to molest a child, it isn't instructing someone to molest a child, if someone produces child porn because people will view it or because a football team won a game it is in either case entirely the fault of the person who molested the child and you can't put blame on anyone else, and if you do put blame on anyone else you need to put blame on someone else in both instances, it is the fault of the viewers of child porn and the fault of the football team, and now you just made it immoral to do anything that will cause some sick person to do some immoral shit. If some child pornographer says he will molest a kid if you don't give him a thousand bucks you are immoral for not paying him then, if he says he will molest a kid if you don't quit your job you are then immoral for keeping your job. You need to find something that is internally immoral to viewing child pornography, not some external immoral effect that viewing child pornography causes, because you are saying that it is immoral to view child porn but the substance of your entire argument says nothing about the morality of viewing child porn it talks about the morality of child molestation which is a totally different subject.

Quote
I say that if it is the case that deriving sexual gratification from child rape imagery has any correlation to the production of child rape images, it is morally reprehensable. It is not analogous to the other two examples. The direction of culpability may go in the other direction. If the child rape image was virtual then there would be no culpability. But it is possible that the viewer of child rape imagery is morally reprehensable because of the source of the material.

So is it morally reprehensible for a football team to win a game if a child molester decides every time that they win he will molest a child?

Quote
You cannot just say as a blanket rule, under all circumstances there is nothing morally reprehensable in deriving sexual gratification from images of children being raped.

As a blanket rule, under all circumstances, there is nothing morally reprehensible in deriving sexual gratification from images of children being raped.

Demand cannot be hidden u fuckin idiot.  Even if it is on the darknet demand is exactly that and is intangible.

First of all I suggest that you read about PIR because it is entirely focused on hiding the demand for files and some of the PIR systems are mathematically proven as impossible to break, so yeah you are the idiot after all. Second of all, are you really claiming that a demand that can't be quantified to any extent (including its very existence) can have a market effect? Even if a child porn producer doesn't know there is any demand for child porn the demand that there is for child porn will lead him to molest kids and produce child porn? That seems pretty fucking weird. If there is no demand for child porn and the producer doesn't think there is demand for child porn, he will not produce child porn. If there is demand for child porn and the producer doesn't know it, it is almost the same scenario as there being no demand for child porn and the producer knowing it, just worded differently, with only a very very subtle difference. But in the second case you think that the producer will produce child porn simply because there is demand for child porn, even though the producer is unaware that there is demand for child porn, which is almost exactly the same thing as the producer thinking there is not demand for child porn.

Oops, I accidentally removed a post of mine. It was quoted before, but I will add it again.

I should also point out that even assuming that people only molest children and document the abuse because of the general demand for CP, it says nothing about the morality of demanding CP or viewing CP. People only rob banks because banks have money, do we then place the blame for bank robberies partially on the banks? There is an important thing to keep in mind about cause and effect as it applies to crime, it is a concept that people seem to understand for all crimes other than child pornography. Unless you are in the Taliban you are unlikely to claim that a woman wearing a sexy outfit leading to a rapist targeting her for rape means that the woman is the one who is immoral for causing a rape to happen. You would put the blame on the rapist. If a bank is robbed because it has money you would not claim that we should prevent banks from having money to prevent bank robberies, you would say that it is the robber who was immoral and who must be punished. Even if people only produce child porn because people look at child porn it doesn't say anything about the morality of viewing child porn, just as if people only rob banks because they have money it doesn't say anything about the morality of the banks. It is not the cause that is immoral but rather the effect that the cause may have. It is not immoral for a woman to wear sexy outfits and be flirtatious with guys, even if it might cause some guy to rape her. It is not immoral for a bank to have money even if this has the effect of people robbing banks. It is not immoral for people to look at child pornography even if this causes people to produce child pornography.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #75 on: November 05, 2013, 05:37:28 pm »
… It's just a pissing match of who's more anti-CP at this point.

I do sense that people are arguing against the thread's existence just to demonstrate to everyone how immensely they hate nonces.

BTW, I (mostly) manage to keep my quotes (and spelling, and grammar, and general prose construction) in check by habitually using the 'Preview' button. You might find it helpful to do likewise ;)
You know, I'm cracking up right now because I was mortified at my posts as I looked back today. I was busy correcting them before I'd got(ten) here. I'm hopeless; I need to hire an editor. I never can catch my mistakes before they're published ;)

And that's just for grammar LOL. I'm hopeless with those god damn fucking quote tags. It took me a half an hour today to figure out I'd used a backslash instead of a slash, which is why I usually don't bother with previews. But point taken.

[Words]
Hmm, very logical, rational, and well thought out. Absolutely no double standards whatsoever. We should definitely take into consideration your vitally important insight. You are clearly an asset to this community. If only everyone could think with your clarity and potency.
They're different mental disorders. And the painful point that arises is the sliding scale, upon which everyone sits.

I don't think that, for the most part, people are even thinking of those disorders. The overwhelming majority of child molestation takes place, like adult rape, not because of primary attraction but because of opportunity and imposition of power (which is why so much takes place within families or institutions). Much of the rest I would expect to be due to monetary reward within the porn industry.

The scale is a vital point for discussion of what qualifies as a 'child', especially as a very large proportion of those who profess to hate child abusers are actually likely to experience the same attractions as ephebophiles.
Ephebophia/hebephilia are way beyond the scope of this discussion. Only one person really got into that, and s/he didn't even really know the terms. But you are absolutely right about sexual assault being about power. The victims of sexual assualt, whether child or adult, overwhelmingly know their assailants. It's sad honestly. Those who don't are in the minority.

There's still a larger distinction between pedophilia and CP that is lost on just about everyone (or like me, those who know this would rather not speak about it, lest we be accused of pedophilia).

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #76 on: November 05, 2013, 05:39:52 pm »
....it also has a second function as a list of forum members who say they believe in the ideals and politics of SR but don't. thanks DPR

Ideals and Politics of SR??  What the fk are you talking about?  What the hell does a forum and marketplace built largely around consenting adults engaging in the commerce of drugs have to do with CP for fks sake??  This shit has no place here whatsoever.  "Ideals and politics of SR" he says.....give me a fn break, please go drink a pint of bleach and die you sick CP mother f'er.

If this decision by DPR is any indication of how the supposedly "new SR" is going to be run, I think I will want no part of it.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 05:45:36 pm by Jigaboo »

horse

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +26/-8
  • -smack.junk.skag.tar.horse-
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #77 on: November 05, 2013, 05:41:33 pm »

You're a fucking idiot! Why don't you and kok here get a private room and fuck each other in the ass you degenerate piece of horseshit!

You clearly are pedo number two...

FUCK OFF AND DIE PAINFULLY.

Freedom of speech ends when personal sovereignty ends and that is pedo's and their lifestyle.

I hope you go to prison one day and spout off about how the pedo's deserve a voice and chance to be heard because after all they're not so bad, they are just misunderstood blah blah blah.

You will be first raped, tortured and then killed in that order, and rightly so!

This isn't even an issue for me, they all deserve death and there are certain creatures who deserve to die... painfully and these are one of those.

Don't worry though my equestrian nemesis, I would be like your masters on the farm and work you to death and only once you could serve no more purpose or broke a leg or something I would shoot you.

Idiot!

like I just said... I don't agree with what I've quoted you as saying, but I will defend your right to say it on these forums (even if it is libel and slander against myself). Just as I'll defend the right for anyone to debate the ethics and morality of child pornography.

have a good day though, seriously. sounds like you could use it.
another quality post brought to you by the (probably drug-induced) ramblings of your friendly, neighborhood horse!

horse, it's what's for breakfast! ...and lunch, and dinner...
never forget to shoot your three square "meals" a day, boys and girls!

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #78 on: November 05, 2013, 05:46:17 pm »
The scale is a vital point for discussion of what qualifies as a 'child', especially as a very large proportion of those who profess to hate child abusers are actually likely to experience the same attractions as ephebophiles.

I would go so far as to claim that the people who shout and scream the loudest in professing their utter hatred regarding abusers, are in fact trying to overcome they're own discomfort over these basic facts of life (that it is normal to be attracted to someone between the ages of 14/15 - 18 *this does not permit you to act on your attraction*).
Well said. It's that and fear of retribution or of being ostracized. I myself was hesistant to comment on this, and while I regret that I have, I'm proud to stand for individual liberty. My biggest gripe with libertarianism is that libertarians seem to pick and choose where individual liberty does and doesn't apply. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, whether you like said speech or not. Period. I'm a leftist and even I don't advocate censorship.


horse

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +26/-8
  • -smack.junk.skag.tar.horse-
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #79 on: November 05, 2013, 05:48:59 pm »
Horse see previous comment and fuck off!

This is an e-commerce site... a place of BUSINESS not a fuckin PEDO SITE YOU FUCKTARD!!!

Like what Jigaboo said, this has nothing to do with consenting adults voluntarily engaging in commerce it's about the exploitation and abuse of children.

Maybe when you grow up and have kids of your own you will get it you fucking faggot cunt bitch.

Go drink some KoolAid you fuckstain laced with cyanide!!!

I don't need a cunt like you to defend my rights to anything, I would rather die.

I'd advise you to take your own signature to heart.

I guess I was dreaming when I thought I might be able to strike up an intelligent debate with anyone who thought this thread should be deleted. that's too bad.
another quality post brought to you by the (probably drug-induced) ramblings of your friendly, neighborhood horse!

horse, it's what's for breakfast! ...and lunch, and dinner...
never forget to shoot your three square "meals" a day, boys and girls!

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #80 on: November 05, 2013, 05:57:50 pm »
I love how invariably the people who argue against it being legal to view child pornography appear to have the intellects of children. I mean, there are some really horrible arguments from actual pedophiles as to why child pornography should be legal, and these arguments are very easy to counter. But it is just as easy to counter the arguments from the normal people who argue against child porn, and when they are faced with well thought out arguments against their position they still degenerate into tantrum throwing fuckwits. I might as well argue that child porn should be legal to view because kids love having sex on camera, the people who argue against me would have the same response. Of course I don't actually believe that kids love having sex on camera, and even if they did due to brainwashing it wouldn't be a sound argument.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #81 on: November 05, 2013, 06:10:58 pm »
I know DPR can't be a stupid mother f'er, right?  Why the fk would he create a thread title like this right before supposedly launching the "New SR".  I honestly cannot think of a better way to get the Feds even more motivated to hunt us and shut us down.

Not only is a thread title like this utterly disgusting and despicable, from a practical matter it makes absolutely no sense re: SR re-launch.  And this is coming from a poster who doesn't mind nigger jokes, what adults do with adults is fine with me, but ffs leave children out of this.

Despite what happened to Ross, there may in fact be some factions of LE that are "ok" with SR as long as it's non-violent and just supplying end-user's "stuff".  The Feds see a thread title like this and the ONLY outcome is to have more heat come down.

Just. Plain. Fucking. Stupid.

Not only that, but wait until the media gets a hold of the fact that it was him that started the thread mate!
You can't seriously believe that the media is going to find this one thread in the Off-Topic section and sensationalize it. If you do believe that, you should stop commenting altogether and let the thread fall to the bottom. Every time you chime in you're just bumping it, giving it more attention than it deserves.

Way to get rogue Anon's and the NSA to g to work on him like they did The Hidden wiki, Freedom Hosting and that Lolita City thing.
Except that those sites actually hosted CP. Anon's aren't retarded, they are savvy enough to check that out.

Saying you are even ok with it's discussion has no place in an e-commerce site and reflects very poorly on SR, DPR and us too.
You don't have to use the site or the forums. DPR is the OP, so let him worry about his own reputation. Again, this is the anything-goes Off-Topic section, so it doesn't have to be site related. When people actually start posting CP here or linking to it, then I be as vehemently opposed to it as you. Even if it's just people arguing that it should be allowed in the market, I'll still staunchly oppose that.

It's beyond my ability to comprehend, but then, this NeoDPR has never run a company like this and is thinking like some sort of bizarre 'freedom of speech' ideologue instead of the CEO of a multinational company.
As someone who has run a business, I'll tell you that this one thread is not only not going to be bad for business, but making this obscure corner of the site the only place for this discussion was a smart business move.

When you run a site like this, it's every bit as bad for business to call in the thought police (i.e. Orwellian) to start censoring "bad thoughts."

I know other former vendors and even mods who aren't going to vend here which says a bit in and of itself.
That's an entirely different discussion. And it's not solely related to this thread. You and I and everyone else on this thread are free to join them. It's his company, and he hasn't accepted any outside investments (openly), so there are no shareholders. You therefore don't have the power to force him to change course, so you should let it go (especially if you want to see this thread buried).

It doesn't inspire confidence in his leadership, and he will be seen a soft on CP when you have to have a line drawn in the sand and it's the ONLY topic that should be outright banned.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But to me, if he were to change course now, that would be a move that undermined confidence. I think it's ridiculous since no one here is soft on CP. Good, confidence inspiring leaders aren't wishy-washy

At least Atlantis had a great moderator (Cicero) and great setup for the forums and site.
Seriously? Atlantis? They were around for all of 30 seconds. Of the 6 online markets that I've heard of, Atlantis is the least relevant. It lasted for all of a minute before folding to external security pressure. This site should strive to be nothing like Atlantis.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
I'm sorr
« Reply #82 on: November 05, 2013, 06:19:21 pm »
They're different mental disorders. And the painful point that arises is the sliding scale, upon which everyone sits.

***CLEARNET***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation

Downe syndrome is a mental disorder, Alzheimer's is a mental disorder. These fuckers are just cretins and you ARE kok this proves it beyond a reasonable doubt IMO!

Die in a fire motherfucker!!!
I'm sorry, but you can't deny this is a mental health issue. That doesn't mean that acting on it shouldn't be criminalized, nor does it mean that it's comparable to other mental illnesses.

Anti-social personality disorder (aka sociopath) is a mental illness, even though the people who suffer from it do reprehensible things and evoke little sympathy.

To say it's not mental illness is to say it's normal, which is something I'm not comfortable with.

And FWIW if Trevor is kok, then he's not very obvious about it, because I've commented on a thread that they both have posted to, and they've expressed completely different opinions and used vastly different writing styles. I don't know who's who, but I know that if they're the same person, they're not obvious about it.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #83 on: November 05, 2013, 06:40:50 pm »
Recognising an attractive young woman, and wanting to fuck them, are two different things you dipshit fuckwits!

It's about mentality and furthermore, I would rather fuck a smart attractive 23-33yr old than some teenager who's only conversational capacity is the latest song on iTunes or how fucked up they got on the weekend when they were out clubbing and spewing on themselves in the cab ride home.
Yeah, Amen. I feel the same way, but so what? Who the fuck are we? Nobody gives a fuck what you or I like.

Oh and Horse, I use correct English spelling not your bastardized American spelling so hopefully someone hauls your ARSE to GAOL and rapes it till you love it faggot!!!
Sorry, but since you brought it up, we use proper Latin spellings, not the bastardized French versions.

horse

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +26/-8
  • -smack.junk.skag.tar.horse-
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #84 on: November 05, 2013, 06:42:40 pm »
my advice is not to feed the trolls, it seems like the majority of the SR community supports this thread for the reasons DPR stated in OP and the JWM/John the Baptist/Jiggaboo whatevers are a minority that won't be persuaded or debated with in any halfway intelligent manner.

jesus, I've been up for days and I'm still more coherent than this guy. I wish that this thread could have initiated thoughtful debate but it seems like that isn't going to happen. unless I see otherwise unfortunately I guess I'll abandon it, I really wish that members against the creation of this thread would make some interesting points other than "you must be a pedo, you should die, etc etc etc". sadly this has contributed to my ever growing belief that the debates on this SR are far less stimulating than those on the old forums... hoping someone will step up to prove me wrong.
another quality post brought to you by the (probably drug-induced) ramblings of your friendly, neighborhood horse!

horse, it's what's for breakfast! ...and lunch, and dinner...
never forget to shoot your three square "meals" a day, boys and girls!

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #85 on: November 05, 2013, 06:45:29 pm »
I know DPR can't be a stupid mother f'er, right?  Why the fk would he create a thread title like this right before supposedly launching the "New SR".  I honestly cannot think of a better way to get the Feds even more motivated to hunt us and shut us down.

Not only is a thread title like this utterly disgusting and despicable, from a practical matter it makes absolutely no sense re: SR re-launch.  And this is coming from a poster who doesn't mind nigger jokes, what adults do with adults is fine with me, but ffs leave children out of this.

Despite what happened to Ross, there may in fact be some factions of LE that are "ok" with SR as long as it's non-violent and just supplying end-user's "stuff".  The Feds see a thread title like this and the ONLY outcome is to have more heat come down.

Just. Plain. Fucking. Stupid.

Not only that, but wait until the media gets a hold of the fact that it was him that started the thread mate!
You can't seriously believe that the media is going to find this one thread in the Off-Topic section and sensationalize it. If you do believe that, you should stop commenting altogether and let the thread fall to the bottom. Every time you chime in you're just bumping it, giving it more attention than it deserves.

Way to get rogue Anon's and the NSA to g to work on him like they did The Hidden wiki, Freedom Hosting and that Lolita City thing.
Except that those sites actually hosted CP. Anon's aren't retarded, they are savvy enough to check that out.

Saying you are even ok with it's discussion has no place in an e-commerce site and reflects very poorly on SR, DPR and us too.
You don't have to use the site or the forums. DPR is the OP, so let him worry about his own reputation. Again, this is the anything-goes Off-Topic section, so it doesn't have to be site related. When people actually start posting CP here or linking to it, then I be as vehemently opposed to it as you. Even if it's just people arguing that it should be allowed in the market, I'll still staunchly oppose that.

It's beyond my ability to comprehend, but then, this NeoDPR has never run a company like this and is thinking like some sort of bizarre 'freedom of speech' ideologue instead of the CEO of a multinational company.
As someone who has run a business, I'll tell you that this one thread is not only not going to be bad for business, but making this obscure corner of the site the only place for this discussion was a smart business move.

When you run a site like this, it's every bit as bad for business to call in the thought police (i.e. Orwellian) to start censoring "bad thoughts."

I know other former vendors and even mods who aren't going to vend here which says a bit in and of itself.
That's an entirely different discussion. And it's not solely related to this thread. You and I and everyone else on this thread are free to join them. It's his company, and he hasn't accepted any outside investments (openly), so there are no shareholders. You therefore don't have the power to force him to change course, so you should let it go (especially if you want to see this thread buried).

It doesn't inspire confidence in his leadership, and he will be seen a soft on CP when you have to have a line drawn in the sand and it's the ONLY topic that should be outright banned.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But to me, if he were to change course now, that would be a move that undermined confidence. I think it's ridiculous since no one here is soft on CP. Good, confidence inspiring leaders aren't wishy-washy

At least Atlantis had a great moderator (Cicero) and great setup for the forums and site.
Seriously? Atlantis? They were around for all of 30 seconds. Of the 6 online markets that I've heard of, Atlantis is the least relevant. It lasted for all of a minute before folding to external security pressure. This site should strive to be nothing like Atlantis.

Get a life you sad motherfucker! Atlantis was around a lot longer than this site that hasn't even launched yet and seriously you pedo fuck just choke on a kok's pedo dick you fairy princess.
Oh OK. You just keep reciting the same words over and over again, hoping to be intimidating, while actually intimidating no one. You're the one staked out on the CP thread. You've got more posts on this thread than anyone.

Just because it looks the same, has a neoDPR and the same title does NOT make it the original Silk Road, it could be called anything you brain dead cunt!
Did I say it was the same? Where did I say that?  You called me a "brain dead cunt" yesterday; is that all you've got? I've been called much worse.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: I'm sorr
« Reply #86 on: November 05, 2013, 06:49:23 pm »
They're different mental disorders. And the painful point that arises is the sliding scale, upon which everyone sits.

***CLEARNET***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation

Downe syndrome is a mental disorder, Alzheimer's is a mental disorder. These fuckers are just cretins and you ARE kok this proves it beyond a reasonable doubt IMO!

Die in a fire motherfucker!!!
I'm sorry, but you can't deny this is a mental health issue. That doesn't mean that acting on it shouldn't be criminalized, nor does it mean that it's comparable to other mental illnesses.

Anti-social personality disorder (aka sociopath) is a mental illness, even though the people who suffer from it do reprehensible things and evoke little sympathy.

To say it's not mental illness is to say it's normal, which is something I'm not comfortable with.

And FWIW if Trevor is kok, then he's not very obvious about it, because I've commented on a thread that they both have posted to, and they've expressed completely different opinions and used vastly different writing styles. I don't know who's who, but I know that if they're the same person, they're not obvious about it.

You don't know what led me to say that but it has been established he is not and has refuted this kokhead's bullshit claims.

You on the other hand, are a fuckwit I'm wasting no more time on.

I'm not a sociopath, I just hate you and pussy ass bitches like you!

Welcome to the internet, it seems you are new here.
<sigh> It's your reading comprehension that I most take issue with. I didn't call you a sociopath. I also didn't say that those weren't the same 2 people.

And I don't care what you call me. You clearly haven't had an original thought in decades. By all means, stop wasting your time on me. I couldn't care less either way.

Odin80

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +19/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #87 on: November 05, 2013, 06:53:42 pm »
ugh. as much as I can't stand the poorly written and spelled posts calling for the deletion of this thread, I still believe these members should have the right to post them. which is the entire point of this thread.

do you really believe that your contributions here are worth more than any post advocating CP? I think they're both worth exactly the same just as any other post, and they both should have the equal opportunity to be heard. just because you don't like what someone says should we ban that topic from ever being discussed?

you (JWM and generally anyone here calling for DPR to delete this) may say you're for free speech but if you limit these thoughts from being shared then you aren't. just as if I said I was for free speech and called for your posts to be deleted on the basis that you are advocating hurting other people.

personally I despise CP but I also despise blood for blood punishment. you really aren't making yourselves look any better by detailing the ways in which you would torture and murder pedophiles. if your hatred for pedophiles is based on the fact that they hurt others, how much better are you for hurting them? IMO, and this is getting a bit off topic, no one should be tortured or sentenced to death for any crime, period. the death penalty in America is a disgusting, barbaric, outdated system that should be done away with altogether, for all crimes. anyways, life imprisonment sounds far worse to me than dying. I'd much rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.

DPR held up his beliefs when he made this thread, knowing that he would be scrutinized and I applaud him for it. it also has a second function as a list of forum members who say they believe in the ideals and politics of SR but don't. thanks DPR

We are not talking about free speech only when we talk about CP. We are talking about the act, viewing, distribution, ect... of CP which is not just merely discussing this topic. Sick fucks who try to advocate or mitigate the negative effects of just viewing are deluding themselves into believing this is harmless. In fact, there is a REAL victim they are masturbating to and getting off on. That was an innocent child who was maliciously abused and then video taped or photos taken of which exponentially embarrass and re-victimize them forever with each view. This is such an explosive subject for me that this will be my last post here. It is my hope that those who share my view on this quit posting here so that the thread moves on down and eventually dies. Freedom of speech is important, but this topic is the worst way to advocate it. There are plenty of other forums that allow people to talk freely about the subject that the forum stands for and keeps its threads on topic. I don't know of other forums that would harbor such a discussion. We aren't talking about a slippery slope here because I believe that 99% of us here are against this, so it would be a democratic thing to ban this subject and most wouldn't feel like their freedom of speech was oppressed. This is my .02 and I am sure there will be advocates of free speech that will demoralize my point of view to protect this thread, and I just can't bring myself to do it. I am an Odinist by faith and there is no room for this behavior at all. That makes me biased and therefore I won't keep participating in this topic. Here are my values:
The Æsirian Code of Nine

 1.The Code is to Honor
 Honor yourself with truth and fairness. Your word is your bond, give your word power by adhering to it. Honor your family and friends with reverence and respect. Honor your love and the Way above all else. Honor is the mark of strength and nobility.


2.The Code is to Protect
 Protect with savagery your blood and kin. Let no one or no thing violate your love or way. Let there always be inequity in defense. Always protect thrice as fiercely as one is attacked. Protection is the mark of a warrior spirit.


3.The Code is to Flourish
 Prosperity and growth are key to the survival of the way. Such is the mark of intelligence.


4.The Code is Knowledge
 Knowledge is power. Seek ever to expand the mind. Never stagnate, for knowledge is a gift from the Gods.


5.The Code is Change
 Adapting and changing are important for growth and survival. That which cannot adapt or change is doomed to perish. Change is the mark of insight.


6.The Code is Fairness
 Pay all debts, pull your own weight, always hear and consider all sides. Treat all others with equity and fairness. Expect the same.


7.The Code is Balance
 Remember the Law of balance; All that which you do or wish for, good or ill, shall return to you one day. Strive for the good.


8.The Code is Control
 Never loose control to anger or be baited by hostility. Never strike a woman unless your life hangs in the balance. Never violate the weak or innocent.

 Never tolerate those who do. Control is the mark of a disciplined mind, a sign of the greatest of warriors.


9.The Code is Conflict

 Those who follow the way must know the art of combat, weapons and vengeance. War is part of the path. Always be prepared for hostility. It is a destiny woven into the fibers of our people. Keep body, mind and training up at all times. Have no remorse in the savagery of conflict. Win, prevail and survive.
The Code is to Protect-
Protect with savagery your blood and kin. Let no one or nothing violate your love or way. Let there always be inequity in defense. Always protect thrice as fiercely as one is attacked. Protection is the mark of a warrior spirit.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #88 on: November 05, 2013, 07:01:24 pm »
my advice is not to feed the trolls, it seems like the majority of the SR community supports this thread for the reasons DPR stated in OP and the JWM/John the Baptist/Jiggaboo whatevers are a minority that won't be persuaded or debated with in any halfway intelligent manner.

jesus, I've been up for days and I'm still more coherent than this guy. I wish that this thread could have initiated thoughtful debate but it seems like that isn't going to happen. unless I see otherwise unfortunately I guess I'll abandon it, I really wish that members against the creation of this thread would make some interesting points other than "you must be a pedo, you should die, etc etc etc". sadly this has contributed to my ever growing belief that the debates on this SR are far less stimulating than those on the old forums... hoping someone will step up to prove me wrong.
These 3 posters, who are so obviously the same person (more so than anyone else here), seem to believe that their tongue(s) are the sharpest of sharp, and that they can intimidate anyone they like by hurling poorly constructed strings of expletives at those who have the nerve to disagree. Otherwise I'd agree with you completely.

At this point, I'm not trying to convince him of anything, because it's clear from the replies that he's not even reading them. All this "Oh I'm big and bad IRL and I'd kick your ass, but I can't prove it" shit is laughable. Like we're all supposed to run away with our tales between our legs because they said some bad words.

What kills me is that no one is forcing them to come here or to use the new market; they don't have any time or money invested in it; and they keep fucking bumping a thread that they supposedly want buried or deleted. Meth is a hell of a drug.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #89 on: November 05, 2013, 07:05:16 pm »
ugh. as much as I can't stand the poorly written and spelled posts calling for the deletion of this thread, I still believe these members should have the right to post them. which is the entire point of this thread.

do you really believe that your contributions here are worth more than any post advocating CP? I think they're both worth exactly the same just as any other post, and they both should have the equal opportunity to be heard. just because you don't like what someone says should we ban that topic from ever being discussed?

you (JWM and generally anyone here calling for DPR to delete this) may say you're for free speech but if you limit these thoughts from being shared then you aren't. just as if I said I was for free speech and called for your posts to be deleted on the basis that you are advocating hurting other people.

personally I despise CP but I also despise blood for blood punishment. you really aren't making yourselves look any better by detailing the ways in which you would torture and murder pedophiles. if your hatred for pedophiles is based on the fact that they hurt others, how much better are you for hurting them? IMO, and this is getting a bit off topic, no one should be tortured or sentenced to death for any crime, period. the death penalty in America is a disgusting, barbaric, outdated system that should be done away with altogether, for all crimes. anyways, life imprisonment sounds far worse to me than dying. I'd much rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.

DPR held up his beliefs when he made this thread, knowing that he would be scrutinized and I applaud him for it. it also has a second function as a list of forum members who say they believe in the ideals and politics of SR but don't. thanks DPR

We are not talking about free speech only when we talk about CP. We are talking about the act, viewing, distribution, ect... of CP
NO WE'RE NOT! Show me where some one is talking about that, let alone advocating for it.

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #90 on: November 05, 2013, 07:10:05 pm »
my advice is not to feed the trolls, it seems like the majority of the SR community supports this thread for the reasons DPR stated in OP and the JWM/John the Baptist/Jiggaboo whatevers are a minority that won't be persuaded or debated with in any halfway intelligent manner.

jesus, I've been up for days and I'm still more coherent than this guy. I wish that this thread could have initiated thoughtful debate but it seems like that isn't going to happen. unless I see otherwise unfortunately I guess I'll abandon it, I really wish that members against the creation of this thread would make some interesting points other than "you must be a pedo, you should die, etc etc etc". sadly this has contributed to my ever growing belief that the debates on this SR are far less stimulating than those on the old forums... hoping someone will step up to prove me wrong.

Fucktard, I just wish you, kok, and every other sick psychotic fuck who is getting a raging hard-on just talking about CP would take this shit back to your normal pedo forum, which you no doubt are a senior member if not moderator.  Sick twisted fucks like you are what will cause any "new SR" to implode before it even gets off the ground.  And DPR is a spineless douche for not having a ballsack to say that CP will NOT be a topic of SR forums.  If I am not seen again, it's because DPR deleted my account for the previous statement.

I would say that you will never understand how wrong this is until you have kids of your own, but that would imply you actually have the social skills to meet a woman, much less get laid.  Perhaps this is Natural Selection at work, hideous vile pyschopaths feeding their desires by creating CP topics on a drug forum board might be the trade-off for knowing that, thank God, your familiy's gene pool ends with you!

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #91 on: November 05, 2013, 07:12:29 pm »
my advice is not to feed the trolls, it seems like the majority of the SR community supports this thread for the reasons DPR stated in OP and the JWM/John the Baptist/Jiggaboo whatevers are a minority that won't be persuaded or debated with in any halfway intelligent manner.

jesus, I've been up for days and I'm still more coherent than this guy. I wish that this thread could have initiated thoughtful debate but it seems like that isn't going to happen. unless I see otherwise unfortunately I guess I'll abandon it, I really wish that members against the creation of this thread would make some interesting points other than "you must be a pedo, you should die, etc etc etc". sadly this has contributed to my ever growing belief that the debates on this SR are far less stimulating than those on the old forums... hoping someone will step up to prove me wrong.

Last time I'll acknowledge you mustang wannabe goofball...
Is that a promise? I ask because on page one you said you weren't coming back, not that I don't enjoy your company ;)

ifuckedupmyassturd
Gee whiz, that was clever. I thought you weren't wasting any more time on me?

are the cause of people like me and Jigs/JTB whatever's staying staunch on this issue.
No, you're all here because you're the same person. All three of you keep coming back, despite promises to do the contrary, because you're an attention seeking brat.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and FREEDOM ISN'T FREE, NO THERE'S A HEFTY FUCKIN FEE, AND IF WE DON'T ALL PITCH IN WE'LL NEVER PAY THAT BILL!
Huh?

And if we don't all pitch in our buck o'five who will???

I speak for the Fraulein Fritzl's and the Jeanne Bennett Ramsay's of the world, cunts like you speak for the Josef Fritzl's and Dennis Fergusson's... FUCKER!
The only thing you speak in support of is abortion.

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2013, 07:15:44 pm »
my advice is not to feed the trolls, it seems like the majority of the SR community supports this thread for the reasons DPR stated in OP and the JWM/John the Baptist/Jiggaboo whatevers are a minority that won't be persuaded or debated with in any halfway intelligent manner.

jesus, I've been up for days and I'm still more coherent than this guy. I wish that this thread could have initiated thoughtful debate but it seems like that isn't going to happen. unless I see otherwise unfortunately I guess I'll abandon it, I really wish that members against the creation of this thread would make some interesting points other than "you must be a pedo, you should die, etc etc etc". sadly this has contributed to my ever growing belief that the debates on this SR are far less stimulating than those on the old forums... hoping someone will step up to prove me wrong.

Fucktard, I just wish you, kok, and every other sick psychotic fuck who is getting a raging hard-on just talking about CP would take this shit back to your normal pedo forum, which you no doubt are a senior member if not moderator.  Sick twisted fucks like you are what will cause any "new SR" to implode before it even gets off the ground.  And DPR is a spineless douche for not having a ballsack to say that CP will NOT be a topic of SR forums.  If I am not seen again, it's because DPR deleted my account for the previous statement.

I would say that you will never understand how wrong this is until you have kids of your own, but that would imply you actually have the social skills to meet a woman, much less get laid.  Perhaps this is Natural Selection at work, hideous vile pyschopaths feeding their desires by creating CP topics on a drug forum board might be the trade-off for knowing that, thank God, your familiy's gene pool ends with you!
You should learn to vary your diction.

BigTenInch__Record

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1649
  • Karma: +225/-57
  • This is DJ Rob Ford on the decks 10-12pm EST
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #93 on: November 05, 2013, 07:26:44 pm »
It looks like mushroom boy and his friend John are getting a little emotional and it's clouding their judgement.  We, as grown-ups should be able to discuss hot-button topics without getting all emotional.

When someone posts a link to CP in here, then get emotional.  Blindly pointing fingers and calling people paedos because they don't believe whacking skinners is a good idea is hardly having a rational discussion.


Besides, the main reason anyone brings this up is to get a rise out of other people.  When does entertaining this sort of nonsense get tiring?

You know what is tiring?  This cloanzepam tablet I took an hour ago.

Good night folks.
2 detuned square waves + 1 low tuned sine wave and lets get this ting started, yeah??

Don't forget to modify the filter envelope for that "whomp"

BigTenInch__Record

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1649
  • Karma: +225/-57
  • This is DJ Rob Ford on the decks 10-12pm EST
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2013, 07:51:13 pm »
Thanks for making my post that much more concrete.

2 detuned square waves + 1 low tuned sine wave and lets get this ting started, yeah??

Don't forget to modify the filter envelope for that "whomp"

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2013, 08:10:46 pm »
my advice is not to feed the trolls, it seems like the majority of the SR community supports this thread for the reasons DPR stated in OP and the JWM/John the Baptist/Jiggaboo whatevers are a minority that won't be persuaded or debated with in any halfway intelligent manner.

jesus, I've been up for days and I'm still more coherent than this guy. I wish that this thread could have initiated thoughtful debate but it seems like that isn't going to happen. unless I see otherwise unfortunately I guess I'll abandon it, I really wish that members against the creation of this thread would make some interesting points other than "you must be a pedo, you should die, etc etc etc". sadly this has contributed to my ever growing belief that the debates on this SR are far less stimulating than those on the old forums... hoping someone will step up to prove me wrong.

Fucktard, I just wish you, kok, and every other sick psychotic fuck who is getting a raging hard-on just talking about CP would take this shit back to your normal pedo forum, which you no doubt are a senior member if not moderator.  Sick twisted fucks like you are what will cause any "new SR" to implode before it even gets off the ground.  And DPR is a spineless douche for not having a ballsack to say that CP will NOT be a topic of SR forums.  If I am not seen again, it's because DPR deleted my account for the previous statement.

I would say that you will never understand how wrong this is until you have kids of your own, but that would imply you actually have the social skills to meet a woman, much less get laid.  Perhaps this is Natural Selection at work, hideous vile pyschopaths feeding their desires by creating CP topics on a drug forum board might be the trade-off for knowing that, thank God, your familiy's gene pool ends with you!

That's what I said to DPR more or less and why good people like us will leave and cunts like on this board will linger here
Or so you keep promising, you brain-dead cunt-tard.

I won't be using the site... no fucking way!
So then go away. No one fucking cares whether you use the site or not, which is why you've gotten no reply from DPR or the mods, despite using 3 accounts to get all this attention. You can't possibly be trolling, because you're failing miserably, yet still keep trying. Why are you still here? All you're doing is bumping the thread.

Quote from: BigTenInch__Record
Thanks for making my post that much more concrete.
I don't think s/he's capable of understanding that.

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #96 on: November 05, 2013, 09:05:10 pm »
Quote
We are not talking about free speech only when we talk about CP. We are talking about the act, viewing, distribution, ect... of CP which is not just merely discussing this topic. Sick fucks who try to advocate or mitigate the negative effects of just viewing are deluding themselves into believing this is harmless.

Nobody has been able to show that it isn't harmless. Mostly they just swear and call everybody pedophiles. I think they have mental illnesses of their own.

Quote
In fact, there is a REAL victim they are masturbating to and getting off on.

So? There are REAL victims in images of the holocaust. If somebody jacks off to one of those pictures did they just regenocide the Jews all over again?

Quote
That was an innocent child who was maliciously abused and then video taped or photos taken of which exponentially embarrass and re-victimize them forever with each view.

Sure, abusing a child and video taping the abuse are both bad. Nobody said otherwise. But simply viewing the resulting images doesn't exponentially embarrass or revictimize the child forever with each view. That is retarded. You do know that Harry Potter isn't real right? People don't live in photographs. When pedophiles look at CP they are not looking at a conscious entity. The child in the picture doesn't try to cover themselves and beg the pedophile to stop looking. Because there isn't really a child in the picture. Because pictures are just colored pixels. Colored pixels that taken together have the appearance of a 2D child due to the way the brain processes the visual data. It is no different than looking at pictures of anything else. No magic takes place. In the vast majority of cases the child doesn't even realize that any particular person has looked at their image. There is no information transfer between the pedophile or the CP and the depicted child. Without a transfer of information there can not be an effect. Looking at CP causes absolutely zero effect on the depicted child. Just like if I look at a picture of the holocaust it causes no effect on those depicted in the picture. It is exactly the same thing. It is so obvious that it is just plain fucking stupid to not think so.

Quote
There are plenty of other forums that allow people to talk freely about the subject that the forum stands for and keeps its threads on topic. I don't know of other forums that would harbor such a discussion.

I have seen people debate CP laws all over the place. In many spots they actually get much less emotional than the people here do.

Quote
We aren't talking about a slippery slope here because I believe that 99% of us here are against this, so it would be a democratic thing to ban this subject and most wouldn't feel like their freedom of speech was oppressed. This is my .02 and I am sure there will be advocates of free speech that will demoralize my point of view to protect this thread, and I just can't bring myself to do it.

Democracy is so great! Under democracy drugs are illegal in almost every single country that practices it. Democracy is shit, we need totalitarian libertarianism and that is exactly what DPR is doing by telling the majority to fuck off and saying that this forum will have free speech.

Quote
I am an Odinist by faith and there is no room for this behavior at all.

Are you a white supremacist or separatist?

Quote
Pay all debts, pull your own weight, always hear and consider all sides. Treat all others with equity and fairness. Expect the same.
Quote

Are you considering all sides here? Are you hearing all sides?

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #97 on: November 05, 2013, 09:26:51 pm »
Democracy is so great! Under democracy drugs are illegal in almost every single country that practices it. Democracy is shit, we need totalitarian libertarianism and that is exactly what DPR is doing by telling the majority to fuck off and saying that this forum will have free speech.

Are you considering all sides here? Are you hearing all sides?
Sorry, I couldn't let this go. Aren't totalitarianism and libertarianism completely incompatible? And doesn't totalitarianism rule out considering and listening to all sides?

Anyway, I remember there being something about the tyranny of the majority involved in pure democracy.

Odin80

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +19/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #98 on: November 05, 2013, 10:08:18 pm »
This is what puzzles me. How is it that doxxing and/or compromising the security of the members here isnt tolerated, yet this thread can exist. Either be 100% free speech or suck my dick and shut the fuck up. They both cause harm IRL to those involved. Doxxing is allowed cause it protects us keyboard warriors. Lets protect the innocent as well as opposed to just saving your own skin. What pussies troll this place. There are weird lines drawn in the sand in here.
The Code is to Protect-
Protect with savagery your blood and kin. Let no one or nothing violate your love or way. Let there always be inequity in defense. Always protect thrice as fiercely as one is attacked. Protection is the mark of a warrior spirit.

EyeManIFest

  • Vendor
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85
  • Karma: +3/-5
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #99 on: November 05, 2013, 10:19:22 pm »
One thing i know for sure.. Being around that, as a female -can introduce very bad demons into that females spirit.  A GF of mine was a victim, the vampires who inflicted this upon her fully exposed her to the world for their own selfish intentions.  Realize, a lot of 'child porn stars' are as slaves, they can't get out of their situation, and it does hurt them as they grow older. 

EyeMan.
EyeManIFest. Supreme Grower Of Shrooms.

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/eyemanifest

alt market and contact:

http://e26rc2tpqcfipmob.onion/index.php?topic=140.0

X

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • Karma: +74/-13
  • Death by Diamonds and Death by Diamonds and Pearls
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #100 on: November 06, 2013, 04:11:41 am »
I have basically no moral code, but the exploitation of children is a serious no go to me.
The Poorest Drug Lord In The World

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #101 on: November 06, 2013, 05:04:33 am »
For all of you who are vehemently responding to JMW:


More like a school yard with different clicks and groups who like each other.

A family... no, nothing like it, at least not mine!

Let me guess, your family all conforms to your ideas because you're a totalitarian patriarchal fool.

My family conforms to my rules because they're MY family... emphasize the MY... bitch!

Which is why my kids are well disciplined, educated and polite. Not little crack smoking pedo raped nigglets like yours you swine!

Lol, a number of things.

(1) You don't know whether or not I have children, so, whatever.
(2) You've just inadvertently confirmed what I said. That you are a narrow minded idiot who doesn't even conform to his own principles. I might emphasize here that I made a claim about your family and you basically agreed with me. i.e. totalitarian, patriarchal
(3) You don't own your family dickhead.
(4) It's pretty funny how you keep conflating me with other people. i.e calling my (possibly nonexistant) children raped, in reference to your dispute with kok (a whole other deranged story)
(5) You are a reformed drug user, yet you disparage and belittle other drug users. Drawing attention to the shame of being trapped in a vicious cycle of addiction.
(6) You use racism and bigotry, you may well be a racist and a bigot.
(7) In a recent post you said you disliked humans, but had love for animals, but here you use the word swine as an insult.

Actually I HATE most people, other creatures great and small I LOVE and that is more what my statement is meant to imply.
Humans are a putrid species because it's full of scum like you!

Be excellent to each other... and... PARTY ON DUDE
*DISCLAIMER: This sentence is taken from his sig*

What exactly is your statement meant to imply exactly? Be excellent to animals, continue partying with animals?
Hmmm, can you help me out here?

You don't know which way is up and which is down.

JMW you need to take a chill pill. You can be alright when you're not crusading around insulting people.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 05:31:23 am by Trevor »
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #102 on: November 06, 2013, 05:30:25 am »
This is what puzzles me. How is it that doxxing and/or compromising the security of the members here isnt tolerated, yet this thread can exist. Either be 100% free speech or suck my dick and shut the fuck up. They both cause harm IRL to those involved. Doxxing is allowed cause it protects us keyboard warriors. Lets protect the innocent as well as opposed to just saving your own skin. What pussies troll this place. There are weird lines drawn in the sand in here.

if you really think talking about if cp should be legal to view or not hurts the victims of cp then you are an idiot.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #103 on: November 06, 2013, 01:35:34 pm »
Oh dear. He struck me as quite a reasonable chap at first but all that sustenance of negative emotions seems to have drained most of the blood from his prefrontal cortex.
No kok, I have multiple computers I could run multiple accounts through too all at once and act differently just like you.

I'll assume that you were calling me 'kok' there. I do wonder why you seem to think multiple computers would be necessary for multiple accounts. I also wonder when you think Trevor, kok and I sleep or leave our homes if we're all supposed to be the same person. kok, in particular, seems to have very different hours to my own.

No probs Trevor and I thank you all for taking this thread completely off topic, please continue, lol  :) I'll hit you all with +1 when the rule's up (got you all yesterday)  :)

*hugs Mary

The rule's preventing me from giving you another +1 ATM :)

It doesn't prevent me from giving a +1 to horse, though ;)

Quote
I now differentiate my disgust for child molestors from pedophiles.
Not all child molestors are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are child molestors.
… Most child molesters are pedophiles, but not all of them are considered to be.…

I gather that that is not the case. As I stated earlier, most sexual child molestation seems to take place, like adult rape, not because of primary attraction but because of opportunity and the desire to impose power. Hence so much of it taking place within families or institutions.

Speaking strictly from a security standpoint, online pedophiles serve as canaries in the coal mine.
They are very frequently early adopters of new technology. Given that they are so universally reviled, they are prime targets for law enforcement efforts -- in fact, it is not at all unheard of now for international cooperation between disparate governments and police agencies that, under normal circumstances, would not cooperate on anything else.
Accordingly, there is much to learn from the authorities' success and failure when an online pedophile ring is taken down.…

An interesting point. Thank you (although you seem to be conflating consumers of CP with paedophiles). There is the question, of course, of whether anyone would want to carry canaries if they needed to be fed a diet of young humans.

… I'm hopeless with those god damn fucking quote tags. It took me a half an hour today to figure out I'd used a backslash instead of a slash, which is why I usually don't bother with previews. But point taken.

Just be thankful you're not a programmer ;)

… It's that and fear of retribution or of being ostracized. I myself was hesistant to comment on this, and while I regret that I have, I'm proud to stand for individual liberty. …

Oh, I know that fear very well but I usually manage to overcome it. There's also an odd pleasure I feel at the prospect of being taken for something I'm not, like being assumed homophobic when commenting on LGBT(add additional letters to choice) sites :)

Oh and Horse, I use correct English spelling not your bastardized American spelling so hopefully someone hauls your ARSE to GAOL and rapes it till you love it faggot!!!

Oh dear, it would appear that JWM is as British as JtB. I almost feel as if I should apologise for the attitudes of some of my countrymen :(

… I wish that this thread could have initiated thoughtful debate but it seems like that isn't going to happen. …

Oh, there has been some between kok and Trevor, although many of the posts have been far too long for me to read in their entirety.

… sadly this has contributed to my ever growing belief that the debates on this SR are far less stimulating than those on the old forums... hoping someone will step up to prove me wrong.

The forum is still young and the related market hasn't even opened yet. There is still hope :D
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #104 on: November 06, 2013, 05:46:35 pm »
*hugs Mary

The rule's preventing me from giving you another +1 ATM :)
To stay off topic, I just wanted to say that I did a fucking triple take when I read this!

Indeed my friend, there are rules concerning giving ATM! ;)

What a peculiar abbreviation to use in a thread discussing pornography (and before anyone says anything, I'm strictly referencing adults).





Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #105 on: November 06, 2013, 05:53:54 pm »
*hugs Mary
The rule's preventing me from giving you another +1 ATM :)
To stay off topic, I just wanted to say that I did a fucking triple take when I read this!
Indeed my friend, there are rules concerning giving ATM! ;)
What a peculiar abbreviation to use in a thread discussing pornography (and before anyone says anything, I'm strictly referencing adults).

*sniggers

True, one should never go AtM ;)
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #106 on: November 06, 2013, 05:58:12 pm »
*hugs Mary

The rule's preventing me from giving you another +1 ATM :)
To stay off topic, I just wanted to say that I did a fucking triple take when I read this!

Indeed my friend, there are rules concerning giving ATM! ;)

What a peculiar abbreviation to use in a thread discussing pornography (and before anyone says anything, I'm strictly referencing adults).

Translation:  Look how f'n clever I am everybody that I know about porn/sexual acronyms, you see I learned this by masturbating all day to free porn on the internet.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #107 on: November 06, 2013, 06:23:03 pm »
… Look how f'n clever I am everybody that I know about porn/sexual acronyms, you see I learned this by masturbating all day to free porn on the internet.

Yes, I'm sure that's very nice for you, dear. No need to boast about it, though.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

I4gotMyFuckingPassword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #108 on: November 06, 2013, 09:08:22 pm »
*hugs Mary

The rule's preventing me from giving you another +1 ATM :)
To stay off topic, I just wanted to say that I did a fucking triple take when I read this!

Indeed my friend, there are rules concerning giving ATM! ;)

What a peculiar abbreviation to use in a thread discussing pornography (and before anyone says anything, I'm strictly referencing adults).

Translation:  Look how f'n clever I am everybody that I know about porn/sexual acronyms, you see I learned this by masturbating all day to free porn on the internet.
Actually, that's partially true. I also learned it from practice. What's your point?

Hiniguel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Karma: +683/-153
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #109 on: November 12, 2013, 06:00:12 pm »
Anyone watching or doing this shit is a fucking animal, it's disgusting.
NO LONGER LISTING - STILL ONLINE IF YOU NEED ME PM ME I WILL GET BACK TO YOU.

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #110 on: November 12, 2013, 06:04:55 pm »
Anyone watching or doing this shit is a fucking animal, it's disgusting.

And yet you decide to bump a thread that was already well down in the thread pages and almost forgotten, nicely done Paedo!

Hiniguel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Karma: +683/-153
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #111 on: November 12, 2013, 06:13:06 pm »
Anyone watching or doing this shit is a fucking animal, it's disgusting.

And yet you decide to bump a thread that was already well down in the thread pages and almost forgotten, nicely done Paedo!

It's always going to come back with the amount of trolls on this place.

Watch the way you talk to vendors, that's an easy way to get yourself black listed on the vendor section.
NO LONGER LISTING - STILL ONLINE IF YOU NEED ME PM ME I WILL GET BACK TO YOU.

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #112 on: November 12, 2013, 06:17:16 pm »
Anyone watching or doing this shit is a fucking animal, it's disgusting.

And yet you decide to bump a thread that was already well down in the thread pages and almost forgotten, nicely done Paedo!

It's always going to come back with the amount of trolls on this place.

Watch the way you talk to vendors, that's an easy way to get yourself black listed on the vendor section.

ROFL....quaking in my boots, "black listed" LOL....run off silly nigger!

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #113 on: November 12, 2013, 06:39:32 pm »
Anyone watching or doing this shit is a fucking animal, it's disgusting.


This.

Nearly all agree 100%, but nearly all wanted this thread removed entirely, it finally fell to pages down in the thread list and out of sight, thank God.  Wondering why Paedo Hiniguel would give it a bump just to say he is against it, wolf in sheep's clothing perhaps?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 09:13:59 pm by Jigaboo »

Hiniguel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Karma: +683/-153
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #114 on: November 12, 2013, 07:58:07 pm »
Anyone watching or doing this shit is a fucking animal, it's disgusting.


This.

Nearly all agree 100%, but nearly all wanted this thread removed entirely, it finally fell to pages down in the thread list and out of sight, thank God.  Wondering why someone would give it a bump just to say they are against it, wolf in sheep's clothing perhaps?

Like I've warned you if you start disrespecting vendors then you will be blacklisted by us.
NO LONGER LISTING - STILL ONLINE IF YOU NEED ME PM ME I WILL GET BACK TO YOU.

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #115 on: November 12, 2013, 08:10:16 pm »
Anyone watching or doing this shit is a fucking animal, it's disgusting.


This.

Nearly all agree 100%, but nearly all wanted this thread removed entirely, it finally fell to pages down in the thread list and out of sight, thank God.  Wondering why someone would give it a bump just to say they are against it, wolf in sheep's clothing perhaps?


Nice try asshole. You trolling skills are weak. Keep trying though. Maybe someday you'll be good enough to play with the big boys.

Why your panties all in a wad Chevelle? I was agreeing with you, my comment was directed Hiniguel.  Liked your post in the Nigger thread!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 08:16:03 pm by Jigaboo »

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #116 on: November 12, 2013, 08:11:37 pm »
Anyone watching or doing this shit is a fucking animal, it's disgusting.


This.

Nearly all agree 100%, but nearly all wanted this thread removed entirely, it finally fell to pages down in the thread list and out of sight, thank God.  Wondering why someone would give it a bump just to say they are against it, wolf in sheep's clothing perhaps?

Like I've warned you if you start disrespecting vendors then you will be blacklisted by us.

Like I've already said to you STFU and run along you silly nigger!

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #117 on: November 12, 2013, 08:45:04 pm »
Bullshit chief. You quoted me , and called me "a wolf in sheep's...."....meaning you were inferring that I'm a pedofile. Fuck that and fuck you.

Ok, I guess you're also a retarded nigger who can't read a thread correctly to see that my comment was directed at that silly ape Hiniguel, who bumps a dead thread about CP that virtually 100% wanted removed anyway.  Thread is long dead, thank God, pages down in the thread list, and Paedo Hiniguel revives it, hence, wolf in sheep's clothing.  Then Paedo Hiniguel threatens to blacklist me (LMAO) for calling his Paedo ass out...ROFL!!  Try reading up several posts in a thread to see thread progression next time.

I wouldn't think you're a "pedofile" chevelle because you're too stupid to even spell it correctly,  but in any case, fuck you too.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 08:57:09 pm by Jigaboo »

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #118 on: November 12, 2013, 09:15:45 pm »
You obviously know a lot being a "pedofile"...and please, do tell me how you didn't reference me.....when the last thing in your quote was written by me...genius?

I could see how you would think that, and yet I explained it and your vagina still aches, nevertheless I fixed my post that you're so butthurt about.

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #119 on: November 12, 2013, 09:24:20 pm »
No asshole...you fucked me. Period. And your reply was that I don't know how to read forums. Fuck you.

Yea okay, I fucked you, move on......

BlueBox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • Karma: +54/-5
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #120 on: November 13, 2013, 01:08:52 am »
If I enjoy recalling a memory of when I was a preteen making out with my similarly-aged girlfriend, does that make me a pedophile?
I cannot be trusted. Darknet rule #0.

Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #121 on: November 13, 2013, 02:19:02 am »
If I enjoy recalling a memory of when I was a preteen making out with my similarly-aged girlfriend, does that make me a pedophile?

Most likely not, however I would avoid discussing this with anyone in future. There is no statute of limitations on child sex offenses, and if someone were to get it in their head to prosecute you based on your remarks...

I have heard of cases that were prosecuted over acts that took place 40-50 years ago. The single wisest thing you could do would be to STFU about it.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=174.msg633090#msg633090
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

BlueBox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • Karma: +54/-5
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #122 on: November 13, 2013, 04:41:28 am »
If I enjoy recalling a memory of when I was a preteen making out with my similarly-aged girlfriend, does that make me a pedophile?

Most likely not, however I would avoid discussing this with anyone in future. There is no statute of limitations on child sex offenses, and if someone were to get it in their head to prosecute you based on your remarks...

I have heard of cases that were prosecuted over acts that took place 40-50 years ago. The single wisest thing you could do would be to STFU about it.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=174.msg633090#msg633090
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

You're either making a bad joke or you misread my post.
I cannot be trusted. Darknet rule #0.

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #123 on: November 13, 2013, 05:19:50 am »
If I enjoy recalling a memory of when I was a preteen making out with my similarly-aged girlfriend, does that make me a pedophile?

Most likely not, however I would avoid discussing this with anyone in future. There is no statute of limitations on child sex offenses, and if someone were to get it in their head to prosecute you based on your remarks...

I have heard of cases that were prosecuted over acts that took place 40-50 years ago. The single wisest thing you could do would be to STFU about it.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=174.msg633090#msg633090
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

You're either making a bad joke or you misread my post.

No he's right. There are people who are on the child sex offendors list based on things that happened while the accused was the same age as the victim - albeit the claims were inflated because the accused had actually molested at a later date. Still best to keep those cherished memories to yourself. Nightcrawler's just trying to help, as always.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2013, 05:23:56 am by Trevor »
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #124 on: November 13, 2013, 05:29:08 am »
If I enjoy recalling a memory of when I was a preteen making out with my similarly-aged girlfriend, does that make me a pedophile?

Well, if she was at least 11 you might just be a hebephile.

BlueBox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • Karma: +54/-5
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #125 on: November 13, 2013, 05:35:45 am »
If I enjoy recalling a memory of when I was a preteen making out with my similarly-aged girlfriend, does that make me a pedophile?

Most likely not, however I would avoid discussing this with anyone in future. There is no statute of limitations on child sex offenses, and if someone were to get it in their head to prosecute you based on your remarks...

I have heard of cases that were prosecuted over acts that took place 40-50 years ago. The single wisest thing you could do would be to STFU about it.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=174.msg633090#msg633090
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

You're either making a bad joke or you misread my post.

No he's right. There are people who are on the child sex offendors list based on things that happened while the accused was the same age as the victim - albeit the claims were inflated because the accused had actually molested at a later date. Still best to keep those cherished memories to yourself. Nightcrawler's just trying to help, as always.

Whoah. Damnit, I knew my preteen self was a pedo.
Hebephile? This thread has instantly corrupted me.
I cannot be trusted. Darknet rule #0.

Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #126 on: November 19, 2013, 12:03:53 am »
If I enjoy recalling a memory of when I was a preteen making out with my similarly-aged girlfriend, does that make me a pedophile?

Most likely not, however I would avoid discussing this with anyone in future. There is no statute of limitations on child sex offenses, and if someone were to get it in their head to prosecute you based on your remarks...

I have heard of cases that were prosecuted over acts that took place 40-50 years ago. The single wisest thing you could do would be to STFU about it.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=174.msg633090#msg633090
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

You're either making a bad joke or you misread my post.

I guess I misread your post, then. In some jurisdictions, like the one where I live, even fictional stories can land one in jail on child porn charges.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=174.msg633090#msg633090
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

The President

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Karma: +256/-31
  • PLEASE USE PGP WHEN MESSAGING ME!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #127 on: November 19, 2013, 12:20:06 am »
WHY WON'T THIS THREAD DIE?!?!?!?!
Checkout The President's Medicinal Cannabis Thread: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=466.0

I really am Barack Hussein Obama II. Anyone else on these forums with my name is a fraud.

holyroller

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: +1/-7
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #128 on: November 19, 2013, 02:29:32 am »
It's as simple as this: is the person in a position to give consent with a fully developed brain (read: children cannot do this)? No children cannot do this so no, child pornography is vastly immoral.

Look up the concept of doli incapax for example.

End of debate.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #129 on: November 19, 2013, 02:36:24 am »
It's as simple as this: is the person in a position to give consent with a fully developed brain (read: children cannot do this)? No children cannot do this so no, child pornography is vastly immoral.

At what age does a brain become "fully developed"? Different parts develop at different rates. IIRC, the areas of the brain governing social responsibility, for example, only reach full maturity around the age of twenty-four in the human male.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 02:36:59 am by Cornelius23 »
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

John Gotti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: +30/-26
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #130 on: November 19, 2013, 05:16:47 am »
you rape a child, you die. end of story. where i come from, you die if you dare debate that.

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #131 on: November 20, 2013, 03:23:42 am »
It's as simple as this: is the person in a position to give consent with a fully developed brain (read: children cannot do this)? No children cannot do this so no, child pornography is vastly immoral.

Look up the concept of doli incapax for example.

End of debate.

If you actually thought about what you said maybe you would realize how nonsensical it actually is. Did the Jews consent to be gassed during the holocaust? No. Does that mean that images of the holocaust are vastly immoral? No. Your argument is not well thought out and is literally trivial to dismiss, the only response you will have is something that is essentially certain to be just as ill thought out which will try to explain how my clear and obvious analogy doesn't actually hold. It is like saying that you shouldn't murder people so looking at pictures of dead bodies of murdered people should be illegal. This is seriously called a Non sequitur and it is a widely recognized logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

Quote
At what age does a brain become "fully developed"? Different parts develop at different rates. IIRC, the areas of the brain governing social responsibility, for example, only reach full maturity around the age of twenty-four in the human male.

There are various metrics that could be used. Most of the conservative ones would indeed put the age of consent significantly above what it is now, in the mid twenties. The conservative estimates of appropriate age for consent are based on psychological development models. A more liberal approach would put the age closer to 14.5 by going off of a physical development model. A very liberal approach would put it at about 12 years old, going off of physical development model with emphasis on puberty and ability to bear children (which is reached at about 12) rather than peak sexual maturity (which is reached at about 14.5). The age of 18 doesn't really map to anything that I am aware of.

Quote
you rape a child, you die. end of story. where i come from, you die if you dare debate that.

Sure, for some definitions of "rape" and "child" it isn't bad to severely punish those who rape children. But your definition of rape and child are likely different from mine. I also don't think it is really bad to look at pictures of children being raped, even by my own definition of rape and children. As previously mentioned many times, pictures of people are not people. Looking at pictures of children being raped doesn't equal raping children. The two acts are totally incomparable.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 03:35:03 am by kok »

Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #132 on: November 20, 2013, 05:00:35 am »

Quote
you rape a child, you die. end of story. where i come from, you die if you dare debate that.

Sure, for some definitions of "rape" and "child" it isn't bad to severely punish those who rape children. But your definition of rape and child are likely different from mine. I also don't think it is really bad to look at pictures of children being raped, even by my own definition of rape and children. As previously mentioned many times, pictures of people are not people. Looking at pictures of children being raped doesn't equal raping children. The two acts are totally incomparable.

In certain jurisdictions, like the one where I live, even text-only stories depicting underage sex can be classified as child pornography, and punishable with jail terms, the same as if one had actually molested a child.  The laws have been changed so that artists and writers can no longer use a defence of 'artistic merit' -- now they have only resort to a very much weaker 'public good' defence. Naturally, the onus is upon the accused to show how their writings or artwork served the 'public good.'

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=174.msg633090#msg633090
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

Hiniguel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Karma: +683/-153
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #133 on: November 20, 2013, 04:48:57 pm »


Sure, for some definitions of "rape" and "child" it isn't bad to severely punish those who rape children. But your definition of rape and child are likely different from mine. I also don't think it is really bad to look at pictures of children being raped, even by my own definition of rape and children. As previously mentioned many times, pictures of people are not people. Looking at pictures of children being raped doesn't equal raping children. The two acts are totally incomparable.

Then you are supporting what these sick fuckers do. Giving them a reason to rape children and take photos. I'm not saying they wouldn't rape regardless.

How the fuck can you even argue against this. Pictures of people are PEOPLE. At one moment in time that little girl or little boy was being raped and a photo was taken.  That little girl or boy are in a photo, a still image of a moment in time. Evidence of something happening.

Even your view point makes me feel sick to my stomach.
NO LONGER LISTING - STILL ONLINE IF YOU NEED ME PM ME I WILL GET BACK TO YOU.

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #134 on: November 21, 2013, 12:55:43 am »


Sure, for some definitions of "rape" and "child" it isn't bad to severely punish those who rape children. But your definition of rape and child are likely different from mine. I also don't think it is really bad to look at pictures of children being raped, even by my own definition of rape and children. As previously mentioned many times, pictures of people are not people. Looking at pictures of children being raped doesn't equal raping children. The two acts are totally incomparable.

Then you are supporting what these sick fuckers do. Giving them a reason to rape children and take photos. I'm not saying they wouldn't rape regardless.

How the fuck can you even argue against this. Pictures of people are PEOPLE. At one moment in time that little girl or little boy was being raped and a photo was taken.  That little girl or boy are in a photo, a still image of a moment in time. Evidence of something happening.

Even your view point makes me feel sick to my stomach.

Your view point makes me feel sick to my stomach because it is retarded and inconsistent beyond fucking belief. Pictures of people ARE NOT PEOPLE. We do not live in a god damn Harry Potter book, fuck. When is the last time you looked at a picture and the "people" in the picture talked to you? It is just colored fucking dots, nothing more and nothing less. The only reason you perceive a human is because the colored dots are arranged such that they trick your fucking brain into perceiving a person. There is essentially no proven link between viewing child porn and production of child porn, the only links are between paying for child porn and having membership requirements that require the production of child porn. Nobody is going to run out and rape a bunch of kids if you go to some hidden service CP site and browse around. Thinking that someone is monitoring those sites just waiting for you to click on a link so they can run out and rape some kids is god damn delusional and retarded to the same extent as pedophiles who say that three year old kids love taking it up the ass and that it is just great for them. Seriously I don't know who is sicker in the head people who can't distinguish perception from action or people who can't perceive the harm that rape causes to children. You are both very very mentally ill people you just have a different type of sickness, both of your sicknesses lead to needless harm and destruction and ruined lives too. Evidence of something happening, a still image of a moment in time, just like holocaust photographs just like pictures of murdered bodies just like pictures of little kids in Vietnam running naked while napalm melts their fucking skin off. There is no difference at all, but you only argue against people viewing CP not people viewing images of the holocaust or the other pictures of victims. Because you have a compartmentalized insanity that reminds me of Christians and other religious people who can appear to be normal and intelligent despite having compartmentalized insanity leading them to believe that a two thousand year old book of fairy tales is real. You have compartmentalized insanity and inability to differentiate between perception and action in cases of child porn but nothing else since you don't say that perception of the holocaust war crimes makes you a war criminal. This is a compartmentalized state of development that has not grown past that of a very very young child for you, the children who watch movies and can't tell that they are not actually in them. It makes me horribly sad and sickened that people have been brainwashed to the point that they can't even differentiate between perception and action, it is like seriously what the fuck is wrong with you.

JLEE420

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #135 on: November 21, 2013, 01:07:03 am »


Sure, for some definitions of "rape" and "child" it isn't bad to severely punish those who rape children. But your definition of rape and child are likely different from mine. I also don't think it is really bad to look at pictures of children being raped, even by my own definition of rape and children. As previously mentioned many times, pictures of people are not people. Looking at pictures of children being raped doesn't equal raping children. The two acts are totally incomparable.

Then you are supporting what these sick fuckers do. Giving them a reason to rape children and take photos. I'm not saying they wouldn't rape regardless.

How the fuck can you even argue against this. Pictures of people are PEOPLE. At one moment in time that little girl or little boy was being raped and a photo was taken.  That little girl or boy are in a photo, a still image of a moment in time. Evidence of something happening.

Even your view point makes me feel sick to my stomach.

Your view point makes me feel sick to my stomach because it is retarded and inconsistent beyond fucking belief. Pictures of people ARE NOT PEOPLE. We do not live in a god damn Harry Potter book, fuck. When is the last time you looked at a picture and the "people" in the picture talked to you? It is just colored fucking dots, nothing more and nothing less. The only reason you perceive a human is because the colored dots are arranged such that they trick your fucking brain into perceiving a person. There is essentially no proven link between viewing child porn and production of child porn, the only links are between paying for child porn and having membership requirements that require the production of child porn. Nobody is going to run out and rape a bunch of kids if you go to some hidden service CP site and browse around. Thinking that someone is monitoring those sites just waiting for you to click on a link so they can run out and rape some kids is god damn delusional and retarded to the same extent as pedophiles who say that three year old kids love taking it up the ass and that it is just great for them. Seriously I don't know who is sicker in the head people who can't distinguish perception from action or people who can't perceive the harm that rape causes to children. You are both very very mentally ill people you just have a different type of sickness, both of your sicknesses lead to needless harm and destruction and ruined lives too. Evidence of something happening, a still image of a moment in time, just like holocaust photographs just like pictures of murdered bodies just like pictures of little kids in Vietnam running naked while napalm melts their fucking skin off. There is no difference at all, but you only argue against people viewing CP not people viewing images of the holocaust or the other pictures of victims. Because you have a compartmentalized insanity that reminds me of Christians and other religious people who can appear to be normal and intelligent despite having compartmentalized insanity leading them to believe that a two thousand year old book of fairy tales is real. You have compartmentalized insanity and inability to differentiate between perception and action in cases of child porn but nothing else since you don't say that perception of the holocaust war crimes makes you a war criminal. This is a compartmentalized state of development that has not grown past that of a very very young child for you, the children who watch movies and can't tell that they are not actually in them. It makes me horribly sad and sickened that people have been brainwashed to the point that they can't even differentiate between perception and action, it is like seriously what the fuck is wrong with you.

Heres a question tho . What if it were pictures of your child daughter being raped ? Would u condone in ppl being allowed to view them? or support the cause of distribution and sharing of the photo ? what if this picture causes someone pain and harm when ppl view it? soo u condone in the pain of others soo "goofed out creepers" can watch children get raped....sure, its not the ''same thing'' but if pain is being brought on to others because of your actions...you midwell be doing the raping , its causing the same shit inside.

vram

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #136 on: November 21, 2013, 01:11:28 am »
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Quote
you rape a child, you die. end of story. where i come from, you die if you dare debate that.

Sure, for some definitions of "rape" and "child" it isn't bad to severely punish those who rape children. But your definition of rape and child are likely different from mine. I also don't think it is really bad to look at pictures of children being raped, even by my own definition of rape and children. As previously mentioned many times, pictures of people are not people. Looking at pictures of children being raped doesn't equal raping children. The two acts are totally incomparable.

Just sick, you are just as sick as the people in the horrid vids n pics. Why the fuck would u watch that, I jerk off to regular porn when my main bitch aint around. I don't think I could even beat it to an of age women getting raped, id sit there staring n think the whole time omg omg omg wtf am I watching, as my meat goes limb in my PC chair
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: BCPG v1.47
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=6jYd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #137 on: November 21, 2013, 01:59:53 am »
Quote
At what age does a brain become "fully developed"? Different parts develop at different rates. IIRC, the areas of the brain governing social responsibility, for example, only reach full maturity around the age of twenty-four in the human male.
There are various metrics that could be used. Most of the conservative ones would indeed put the age of consent significantly above what it is now, in the mid twenties. The conservative estimates of appropriate age for consent are based on psychological development models. A more liberal approach would put the age closer to 14.5 by going off of a physical development model.…

The ages of early- to mid- twenties are derived from physical studies of prefrontal cortex development. Some information on this can be read at (clearnet) http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm. The paper mentioned there at (clearnet) http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/30/10937.full seems particulary interesting.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #138 on: November 21, 2013, 02:08:09 am »


Sure, for some definitions of "rape" and "child" it isn't bad to severely punish those who rape children. But your definition of rape and child are likely different from mine. I also don't think it is really bad to look at pictures of children being raped, even by my own definition of rape and children. As previously mentioned many times, pictures of people are not people. Looking at pictures of children being raped doesn't equal raping children. The two acts are totally incomparable.

Then you are supporting what these sick fuckers do. Giving them a reason to rape children and take photos. I'm not saying they wouldn't rape regardless.

How the fuck can you even argue against this. Pictures of people are PEOPLE. At one moment in time that little girl or little boy was being raped and a photo was taken.  That little girl or boy are in a photo, a still image of a moment in time. Evidence of something happening.

Even your view point makes me feel sick to my stomach.

Your view point makes me feel sick to my stomach because it is retarded and inconsistent beyond fucking belief. Pictures of people ARE NOT PEOPLE. We do not live in a god damn Harry Potter book, fuck. When is the last time you looked at a picture and the "people" in the picture talked to you? It is just colored fucking dots, nothing more and nothing less. The only reason you perceive a human is because the colored dots are arranged such that they trick your fucking brain into perceiving a person. There is essentially no proven link between viewing child porn and production of child porn, the only links are between paying for child porn and having membership requirements that require the production of child porn. Nobody is going to run out and rape a bunch of kids if you go to some hidden service CP site and browse around. Thinking that someone is monitoring those sites just waiting for you to click on a link so they can run out and rape some kids is god damn delusional and retarded to the same extent as pedophiles who say that three year old kids love taking it up the ass and that it is just great for them. Seriously I don't know who is sicker in the head people who can't distinguish perception from action or people who can't perceive the harm that rape causes to children. You are both very very mentally ill people you just have a different type of sickness, both of your sicknesses lead to needless harm and destruction and ruined lives too. Evidence of something happening, a still image of a moment in time, just like holocaust photographs just like pictures of murdered bodies just like pictures of little kids in Vietnam running naked while napalm melts their fucking skin off. There is no difference at all, but you only argue against people viewing CP not people viewing images of the holocaust or the other pictures of victims. Because you have a compartmentalized insanity that reminds me of Christians and other religious people who can appear to be normal and intelligent despite having compartmentalized insanity leading them to believe that a two thousand year old book of fairy tales is real. You have compartmentalized insanity and inability to differentiate between perception and action in cases of child porn but nothing else since you don't say that perception of the holocaust war crimes makes you a war criminal. This is a compartmentalized state of development that has not grown past that of a very very young child for you, the children who watch movies and can't tell that they are not actually in them. It makes me horribly sad and sickened that people have been brainwashed to the point that they can't even differentiate between perception and action, it is like seriously what the fuck is wrong with you.

Heres a question tho . What if it were pictures of your child daughter being raped ? Would u condone in ppl being allowed to view them? or support the cause of distribution and sharing of the photo ? what if this picture causes someone pain and harm when ppl view it? soo u condone in the pain of others soo "goofed out creepers" can watch children get raped....sure, its not the ''same thing'' but if pain is being brought on to others because of your actions...you midwell be doing the raping , its causing the same shit inside.

Do you really think that via some magic unknown to science the act of viewing a picture can cause pain and harm to anyone? We can seriously do a controlled scientifically valid experiment to disprove this crazy notion of yours. All we need to do is have a pedophile in one room and a child who claims that they feel pain when people look at CP featuring them in another room. The child is hooked up to systems that monitor their brainwaves, pulse rate, and the levels of stress related hormones in their bloodstream. Now at a random time the pedophile looks at the image. If your theory of magic picture viewing voodoo is true, there should be an indication of pain observed in the child that correlates with the time the pedophile viewed the image. Of course nobody would ever actually do this experiment because the result is obvious as fuck. Looking at pictures doesn't cause pain to others. It is a primitive and absurd notion and it belongs with some fucking voodoo witchdoctors in Africa not in the minds of anyone who has received any significant level of modern education. If the pictures are of my daughter being raped it makes no difference at all. It is so retarded to think that someone viewing pictures is doing anything that causes any harm to anyone, seriously think about your opinion doesn't it just seem fucking retarded? How can you even have that opinion with a straight face. If I said looking at pictures can cause harm to the people depicted in the pictures I would probably start laughing, I just couldn't do it with any degree of seriousness because it is patently fucking absurd.

Quote
Just sick, you are just as sick as the people in the horrid vids n pics. Why the fuck would u watch that, I jerk off to regular porn when my main bitch aint around. I don't think I could even beat it to an of age women getting raped, id sit there staring n think the whole time omg omg omg wtf am I watching, as my meat goes limb in my PC chair

Most of the people who masturbate to of age females being raped are actually of age females, it is a super common female fantasy and they are huge consumers of rape pornography. Although in most cases adult rape porn is just simulated rape. But regardless I don't really give a fuck what people watch or jerk off to because I know that perception is not action. Trust me when someone decides to masturbate to the 9/11 terrorist attack I am not going to consider them a threat to national security lol.

Quote
The ages of early- to mid- twenties are derived from physical studies of prefrontal cortex development. Some information on this can be read at (clearnet) http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm. The paper mentioned there at (clearnet) http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/30/10937.full seems particulary interesting.

Yeah psychological development is closely linked to the anatomical development of the brain. Pretty much there are three positions you can reasonably take. The age of consent should be ~11-12 because that is when puberty is reached. The age of consent should be ~14 because that is when full sexual maturity is reached. The age of consent should be ~24 because that is when full cognitive capacity is reached. There are other studies of emotional development that would put it in the early twenties, this probably has some underlying neurological development that correlates with it but I am not certain. The age of 18 was just pulled out of some feminists asses 150 years ago so it is kind of surprising that everybody just blindly accepts it. Obviously nature 'intended' for humans to become sexually active in their early teenage years, I think an age of consent of 14 is fine personally. People who advocate for 18 because of cognitive or emotional development are just deluding themselves if that is really the basis for what they think the age of consent should be they would want it to really be more like 20-24 years old. But I don't think anyone advocates throwing people in prison for having sex with willing 23 year old people, at least not yet anyway.

MatthewLesko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +4/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #139 on: November 21, 2013, 03:32:25 am »
Kok....you're a sick person.  You're in need of help and some therapy if you enjoy cp.

Pedophiles are deserving of some 20's Soviet style purification.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 03:33:00 am by MatthewLesko »

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #140 on: November 21, 2013, 04:00:27 am »
Kok....you're a sick person.  You're in need of help and some therapy if you enjoy cp.

Pedophiles are deserving of some 20's Soviet style purification.

The only thing kok needs is a double-barrel shotgun on the roof of his mouth so I could happily pull the trigger and rid the world of this filthy nigger child rapist molester.

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #141 on: November 21, 2013, 04:30:49 am »
Kok....you're a sick person.  You're in need of help and some therapy if you enjoy cp.

Quote
Sexual Preference for 14-Year-Olds as a Mental Disorder:
You Can’t Be Serious!!

Richard Green
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
This letter addresses two papers by the DSM-V Sexual and
Gender Identity Disorders Workgroup member Ray Blan-
chard published in this Journal (Blanchard, 2009; Blanchard
et al., 2009).
Having been active in the 1970s struggle to remove homo-
sexuality from the DSM (Green, 1972), a success that cured
millions of their mental disorder, I am appalled that the ranks
of the disordered may swell, once more in consequence of
sexual orientation.
As a psychiatry professor and graduate of Yale Law
School, I hope I understand the domain of both disciplines.
The DSM proposal trespasses their boundary.
Concern is expressed that ‘‘the current definition of pedo-
philia is excluding from specific diagnosis a considerable pro-
portion of men who have a persistent preference for humans
at an incomplete stage of physical development’’(Blanchard
et al., 2009). Whence the 11th commandment, Thou shalt not
have sex with those not fully mature? The Commandment
could have been carved: Thou shalt not have sex with those
before reproductive capacity. This would permit sex with
some 13-year-olds.
In several European countries, the age of legal consent to
have sex falls within the range proposed for the DSM as
signifying mental disorder for the older participant. The age
of consent is 14 in Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, and Serbia and
13 in Spain (www.avert.org). If the general culture is accept-
ing of participation by the younger party, but psychiatry
pathologizes participation by the older party, then the mental
health profession pronounces a moralistic standard and, if
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is an orga-
nization representing a profession still striving for scientific
respectability. The parody of science masquerading as democ-
racy made a laughing stock of psychiatry and the APA when it
held a popular vote by its membership on whether homo-
sexuality should remain a mental disorder (Bayer, 1981).
Decreeing in a few years time that 19-year-olds who prefer
sex with 14-year-olds (5 years their junior) have a mental
disorder, as proposed for DSM-V (Blanchard, 2009), will not
enhance psychiatry’s scientific credibility.
A series of biased terms or logically frail arguments are
provided for including hebephilia as a mental disorder. First, the
terminology stamped on younger participants in sexual inter-
actions loads the dice in favor of criminalizing (though not
pathologizing) sex with early teens.‘‘The modal age of victims
of sexual offences in the United States is 14 years; therefore, the
modal age of victims falls within the time frame of puberty’’
(Blanchard, 2009). What constitutes victimhood? Is a victim a
person who experienced trauma consequent to a sexual inter-
action or a willing participant who did not experience an unto-
ward reaction but could not consent legally?
Logical slippage is demonstrated: ‘‘In anonymous surveys
of social organizations of persons who acknowledge having an
erotic interest in children, attraction to children of pubescent
ages is more frequently reported than is attraction to those of
prepubescent ages’’(Blanchard, 2009) So? This does not show
that the attraction is a mental disorder. Further,‘‘In samples of
sexual offenders recruited from clinics and correctional facili-
ties, men whose offense histories or assessment results suggest
erotic interests in pubescents sometimes outnumber those
whose data suggest erotic interest in prepubertal children’’
(Blanchard, 2009). So? This, too, does not show that the attrac-
tions or interactions reflect mental disorder, though contact is a
crime. And, ‘‘...large scale surveys that sampled individuals
from the general population included questions regarding sex-
ual experiences with older persons when the respondent was
underage...a substantial proportion...reported ages of occur-
rence... within the normal time frame of puberty. The data
therefore indicate that hebephilia may be as great a clinical
problem as pedophilia’’ (Blanchard, 2009). Why must it be a
clinical problem?
Another argument proposed for DSM inclusion of hebe-
philia engages sexual predator law:‘‘...practitioners evaluating
patients for civil commitment under sexually violent predator
statutes typically diagnose such patients with‘‘Paraphilia NOS
(Hebephilia)’’’’(Blanchard, 2009). Again, a law/psychiatry blur.
Thankfully, not every hebephile is a sexually violent predator.
Those who are could be chained indefinitely by the penal sys-
tem. Thwarted suicide bombers who continue to pose a public
threat can be caged without terrorism entering the DSM.
A cornerstone of the argument for bundling hebephilia
with pedophilia is the overlap between interest in prepuber-
tals and pubertals. What of the overlap between hebephiles
and teleiophiles (adultophiles)? What of the 50% hebephile/
50% teleiophile?
The proposed diagnosis may not attach short of sexual
contact with a pubescent person, even when there is intense
attraction. If diagnosis requires action (Blanchard, 2009),
then psychiatry, the scientific/medical discipline of the
emotions and thought, is turned on its head. No matter how
mad the thought, it is not a disorder unless acted upon.
Protecting people from unwanted, unwilling, or uncom-
prehended sexual interaction is commendable. So legislatures
enact rape laws to protect older persons and age of consent
laws to protect the younger. But categorizing rape as a mental
disorder should not be necessary for further protection.
I agree that it is of theoretical and research interest if there
is a population of humans attracted equally or primarily to
humans in mid-stage puberty to be compared to those attracted
to 5-year-olds or 80-year-olds, or those of a similar adult age
as themselves. But their study does not require inclusion in
the DSM.
The international social and political significance of
decisions by the APA and its DSM work group on sexual and
gender identity disorders are easily underestimated. In three
countries in Europe, there has already been delisting of some
paraphilias from that country’s version of the WHO’s list of
sexual disorders (ICD-10) because of stigma attaching to
diagnosis (www.revisef65.org). In consequence of its impact
in controversial areas of sexual expression, APA/DSM must
avoid both the rock and the hard place: 19th century com-
pulsive listing of nearly every pattern of sexual expression as
psychopathic sexuality (Krafft-Ebing, 1886) and the con-
demnation of nearly all patterns with a modern repackaging
of 4th century sin (Augustine, 398).
References
Augustine. (398). Confessions (A. Outler, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI:
Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Bayer, R. (1981). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics
of diagnosis. New York: Basic Books.
Blanchard, R. (2009). The DSM diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.
Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9536-0.
Blanchard, R., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M.,
Blak, T., Klassen, P. E. (2009). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the
DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 335–350.
Green, R. (1972). Homosexuality as a mental illness. International
Journal of Psychiatry, 10, 77–98.
Krafft-Ebing, R. (1886). Psychopathia sexualis. Stuttgart: Verlag von
Ferdinand Enke.
Moser, C., & Kleinplatz, P. (2005). Does heterosexuality belong in the
DSM? Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 3, 261–267.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/hebephilia-crime-not-mental-disorder

Quote
The DSM-5 Sexual Disorders Work Group has originated 3 poorly conceived proposals. Fortunately, 2 have already been rejected—rape will not be a mental disorder and there will not be a diagnosis for hypersexuality (aka, sex addiction). But the Work Group has not yet given up on “Hebephilia.” The term was invented to describe men with persistent sexual urges for pubescent youngsters—in contrast to Pedophilia, which is restricted to urges for prepubescent children.

The concept of “Hebephilia” has been widely and vigorously opposed—both by the experts in sexual disorders (aware of how weak is the supporting science) and by the forensic experts (aware of how it would be misused in Sexually Violent Predator court hearings). The Work Group first proposed an omnibus diagnosis, “Pedohebephilia,” nesting “Hebephilia” within the already authorized “Pedophilia” category. The DSM-5 Web site has recently been revised—the term “Pedohebephilia” disappears altogether, but the concept of “Hebephilia” lives on—the definition of “Pedophilia” has been expanded to include pubescent children. The rationale section of the Web site doesn’t bother to mention the change or discuss the highly controversial issues involved and their enormous forensic consequences.

“Hebephilia” is a simply terrible idea. The basic issue is that sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters is not the slightest bit abnormal or unusual. Until recently, the age of consent was age 13 years in most parts of the world (including the United Statse) and it remains 14 in many places. Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters—our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction.

For hundreds of thousands of years, sex followed closely behind puberty. Only recently has society chosen to protect the moratorium of adolescence and to declare as inappropriate and illegal a sexual interest in the pubescent. This is a wonderful idea, but you can’t change human nature by fiat. Surveys show that sexual interest in pubescent youngsters remains very common and anyone who doubts the numbers should do a study of Calvin Klein ads.

It is natural and no sign of mental illness to feel sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters. But to act on such impulses is, in our society, a reprehensible crime that deserves severe punishment. The proper disposition for those who break the law and selfishly violate the innocence of the vulnerable is prison—not a mental hospital.

And the scientific literature offered in support of “Hebephilia” contains very few and very poorly conducted studies—not coincidentally mostly done by the people associated with the DSM-5 Work Group. There are no data on how best to define “Hebephilia,” whether it can be diagnosed reliably, or its predictive validity. “Hebephilia” is being dropped into the definition of Pedophilia with no scientific support and no consideration of risks.

This is not a good way to create a diagnostic manual that has such a huge impact in the legal system. The potential consequences to forensic psychiatry are terribly unsettling. “Hebephilia” is already being misused in SVP hearings as an excuse to justify lifelong involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. This constitutes an abuse of psychiatry and a questionably constitutional form of preventive detention—a slippery slope that should definitely be avoided.

How did we get here? The problem started with the composition of the Sexual Disorders Work Group, unduly dominated by individuals with ties to one institution who were given too much freedom to pursue their own idiosyncratic proposals and to overvalue their own very incomplete research. And this tightly sealed in-group has been remarkably insensitive to universal opposition coming from the field.

Time is short—final decisions on DSM-5 will be made soon. It is frightening that “Hebephilia” is so close to being made official—but there is reasonable hope that good sense will eventually prevail. This in-group has been twice forced to back down (on rape and sex addiction) and can probably be forced now to back down again on Hebephilia. But it will doubtless take continued, concerted, and organized opposition from the field.

I would include a link to the DSM where it lists hebe or ephebophilia but oh shit there isn't any link because neither are sicknesses, big surprise. And even if I was a pedophile I don't see why it matters if I am sick. PS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/dsm-pedophilia-mental-disorder-paraphilia_n_4184878.html

Quote
In a move toward destigmatizing pedophilia, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), distinguishes between pedophiles who desire sex with children, and those who act on those desires.

The former group -- those who want to have sex with children but whose desires are not distressing or harmful to themselves or others -- is no longer classified as having a psychiatric condition in the updated DSM.

"The difference [from the last edition of the DSM] is, you're not automatically saying that as soon as someone has a marked, unusual erotic interest that they have a mental disorder," said Ray Blanchard, who cowrote the chapter on sexual disorders in the new DSM.

The change in the DSM, a kind of Bible among medical professionals, lawmakers, and drug and insurance companies, doesn't just apply to pedophilia, but to several other deviant sexual desires listed in the manual. It represents "a subtle but crucial difference that makes it possible for an individual to engage in consensual atypical sexual behavior without inappropriately being labeled with a mental disorder," explains the APA in its DSM-5 Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.

The new manual specifies that in order for an atypical sexual behavior to be classified as a mental condition, a person must:

    1. Feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society's disapproval; or

    2. have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person's psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent.

It's important to note that the actual diagnostic criteria for pedophilia have not changed since the last version of the DSM, but what was once known as pedophilia is now called "pedophilia disorder," the APA pointed out in an emailed statement to The Huffington Post.

The DSM has consistently evolved in its views on sexuality. As Jillian Keenan points out at Slate, the first version of the DSM called any kind of homosexuality a mental disorder, but in the 1960s it was changed to say that people who were comfortable being gay didn't have a psychiatric condition.

Blanchard questioned the need to label non-criminal behavior as mental illness:

"If you take [an] individual who has a very strong erotic attraction for children, but who has never acted on it, who never would act on it, who agrees that society's prohibition of adult child sexual interactions should be in place, do you want to say this individual has a mental disorder?"

maybe you should catch up to the future of tolerance and logic instead of staying trapped in your brainless bigoted nonsensical matrix world that the fucking government plugged you into.

And LOL to the middle article talking about oh it isn't a sickness but is a reprehensible crime to act on in our society. LOL. But not in tons of European countries. Hebephilia is bad because the government said hebephilia is bad. Period. When the government doesn't say it is bad in an area nobody gives a shit about it. You have been brainwashed. The government stuck its much wiser and older dick into your naive fucking head and mind fucked you, if anyone should go to prison for a sex crime it is them.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 04:49:04 am by kok »

Bad Karma

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Karma: +11/-24
  • DEATH TO THE +KARMA THREAD!!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #142 on: November 21, 2013, 04:45:58 am »
i posted a story about me having sex with my step daughter and my son caught us and now blackmailing me. it gets deleted and I'm called a pedophile. thread locked so i can't defend myself. that's tyrannical! Practice what you preach.
Stop Phoney Karma points! Go to the +Karma thread and give everyone who posts in that thread -1 Karma.
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=151.0

I <3 Bad Karma :)

rezapci

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +7/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #143 on: November 21, 2013, 07:06:20 am »
I am against the Child Pornography. that's my RED LINE and Don't SUPPORTED PERIOD. ITS FOR SICK MINDED AND IF I COUGH THEM I WILL EAT THERE THROAT

Jigaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +34/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #144 on: November 21, 2013, 08:16:41 am »
i posted a story about me having sex with my step daughter.......and then i put a shotgun in my mouth and blew my head off.

If only your story ended that way, God willing.

ProEvo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1218
  • Karma: +308/-37
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #145 on: November 21, 2013, 02:20:39 pm »
i posted a story about me having sex with my step daughter.......and then i put a shotgun in my mouth and blew my head off.

If only your story ended that way, God willing.

Couldn't agree more.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #146 on: November 21, 2013, 03:25:45 pm »
Most of the people who masturbate to of age females being raped are actually of age females, it is a super common female fantasy and they are huge consumers of rape pornography. Although in most cases adult rape porn is just simulated rape.

Do you have any sources for this claim?

Do you really think that via some magic unknown to science the act of viewing a picture can cause pain and harm to anyone?
It is just colored fucking dots, nothing more and nothing less.

This is wrong, these colored dots are information and information can be harmful. If I knew your real name and address and posted it here it could potentially cause you harm because those letters I wrote aren't just colored dots, they are information about you.

Pornographic pictures of someone might be pictures of this person in a very vulnerable situation especially if this person didn't agree wholeheartedly to make these pictures. And if you can get the pictures the person in the picture might as well, and this knowledge might cause a lot of harm to the person in the picture. Especially if friends and/or family discovers the pictures.

While you might just look at these pictures and not create them, you are not nearly doing as much harm as people who produce and distribute these pictures. But as you are looking for these kinds of pictures you are directly or indirectly creating a demand for pictures such as this, and when these is a demand you will also have some suppliers so you are causing harm indirectly. Like in this thread you are indirectly creating a demand by implying you would like to watch some sort of sexualized pictures of underage (~14 yo) teens. And some people might use this to justify their creation of this kinds of pictures or to justify that they distribute the nudes their ~14 yo girlfriend sent them.

JLEE420

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #147 on: November 21, 2013, 06:30:14 pm »
Most of the people who masturbate to of age females being raped are actually of age females, it is a super common female fantasy and they are huge consumers of rape pornography. Although in most cases adult rape porn is just simulated rape.

Do you have any sources for this claim?

Do you really think that via some magic unknown to science the act of viewing a picture can cause pain and harm to anyone?
It is just colored fucking dots, nothing more and nothing less.

This is wrong, these colored dots are information and information can be harmful. If I knew your real name and address and posted it here it could potentially cause you harm because those letters I wrote aren't just colored dots, they are information about you.

Pornographic pictures of someone might be pictures of this person in a very vulnerable situation especially if this person didn't agree wholeheartedly to make these pictures. And if you can get the pictures the person in the picture might as well, and this knowledge might cause a lot of harm to the person in the picture. Especially if friends and/or family discovers the pictures.

While you might just look at these pictures and not create them, you are not nearly doing as much harm as people who produce and distribute these pictures. But as you are looking for these kinds of pictures you are directly or indirectly creating a demand for pictures such as this, and when these is a demand you will also have some suppliers so you are causing harm indirectly. Like in this thread you are indirectly creating a demand by implying you would like to watch some sort of sexualized pictures of underage (~14 yo) teens. And some people might use this to justify their creation of this kinds of pictures or to justify that they distribute the nudes their ~14 yo girlfriend sent them.

Thankyou SS ....i was going to go off about how viewing a picture CAN harm someone and others ....in fact theres LED's that can make one puke ( way off topic but showing that viewing something CAN cause a negative physical reaction just as a positive one )  ...lol... this child creeper here wants to get all scientific to justify his actions when really viewing , supporting or just helping the cause of CP IS WRONG. Plain and simple.

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #148 on: November 21, 2013, 08:56:31 pm »
Most of the people who masturbate to of age females being raped are actually of age females, it is a super common female fantasy and they are huge consumers of rape pornography. Although in most cases adult rape porn is just simulated rape.

Do you have any sources for this claim?

http://www.care2.com/causes/rape-ranked-as-third-most-popular-sexual-fantasy-for-women.html

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/more-women-have-rape-fantasies-than-previously-thought/

I can't immediately find a statistic showing that females are the largest consumers of rape pornography but I am sure if I look long enough I can find at least statistics showing they are one of the largest consumer groups. Females are biologically programmed to have desire for rape, the biological goal of humans is to spread their genetic material. If there is a genetic component that causes males to be at increased risk of raping a woman, if a woman is raped by such a male and becomes pregnant with a male child the male child will be more likely to rape other females and spread the genetic material of his mother. Also since rapists are selective in regards to mates they are more likely to impregnate females with higher quality genes. Being raped actually has evolutionary benefits for women and this is probably why the majority of them fantasize about it and why a large percentage of the ones who are enjoy the experience (although they often have mixed thoughts on it actually, which leads to a lot of the stress associated with rape. At least non-sadomasochistic rape.) http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/study-reveals-female-rape-victims-enjoyed-the-experience/

Of course I am not saying that it is okay to rape females, just saying that males are programmed to desire raping and females are programmed to desire being raped. It is kind of contradictory to say a person can desire being raped though, since inherently rape is sex that is forced on someone who doesn't desire it. It is kind of a paradox really and there are a few ways I could interpret the available evidence. The first thing I could do is point out that if you believe females don't actually desire to be forced to engage in sex that you need to admit that fantasy desires are clearly separate from desires in reality. It is proven that the majority of women fantasize about being raped, if we view rape as something that can never actually be desired (due to its very nature) then we must admit that people have sexual fantasies about things they don't actually desire to do in reality. This could be used to draw parallels to pedophiles who may masturbate to fantasies of child rape and images of child rape but who do not wish to actually rape children in reality. The possibility for a disconnect between desire in reality and desire in fantasy is established if we say that females don't actually want to be forced to engage in sex. Another way to interpret it is that females actually do want to be forced to engage in sex, almost certainly because it increases the probability that their genes will prosper if their sons have a genetic predisposition to force choice mates to engage in sex. Of course the willingness to be forced to engage in sex would need to be made non-apparent or else the evolutionary benefit of being forced to engage in sex would be lost. It is a pretty sad way to think about females, and certain to be controversial, but it does make sense from an evolutionary perspective. 

Quote
This is wrong, these colored dots are information and information can be harmful. If I knew your real name and address and posted it here it could potentially cause you harm because those letters I wrote aren't just colored dots, they are information about you.

Your act of posting my real information here wouldn't be inherently harmful to me, the harm to me would come from the police kicking my door down. Information is inherently neutral. Nobody has been able to demonstrate how looking at CP inherently causes harm to the depicted children. It is actually pretty obvious that in many cases it causes no harm to them at all, in the vast majority of cases. If someone looks at a picture and nobody knows about it how can you even think that it has the potential to cause harm to someone in and of itself? It is thinking that a picture is a voodoo doll and that magic is real. 

Quote
Pornographic pictures of someone might be pictures of this person in a very vulnerable situation especially if this person didn't agree wholeheartedly to make these pictures. And if you can get the pictures the person in the picture might as well, and this knowledge might cause a lot of harm to the person in the picture. Especially if friends and/or family discovers the pictures.

If someone doesn't want to see pictures of themselves in a vulnerable situation my suggestion is that they don't look for them. Nobody said that we need to force children who were molested to look at the pictures of the molestation. I am glad that you actually break down to the basis of your argument though, your argument being that information must be restricted because free speech is bad when people say things you don't agree with. It really shines light on the fact that CP being illegal to view is illegal under the constitution of the USA. And once again you talk about images of naked children like they are magic but don't seem to care about the children in Vietnam who had bombs dropped on their villages. Why don't you campaign to ban all images of sad things or things that make you or anyone else unhappy. Maybe you should move to China, you actually are using the same exact logic that the brainwashed people there use when they talk about Tienanmen Square photographs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Internet_censorship

Quote
"For reason which everyone knows, and to suppress our extremely unharmonious thoughts, this site is voluntarily closed for technical maintenance between 3 and 6 June 2009..." Dusanben.com

Maybe you should try to make a real difference in stopping new bad things from happening instead of fighting a war against pictures of bad things that have happened. Because honestly I am not going to think you are a hero who prevented the extermination of the Jews when you burn the last photo of the holocaust. You belong in a fucking science fiction book or something, there shouldn't be a war on pictures of bad things in the real world.

Quote
While you might just look at these pictures and not create them, you are not nearly doing as much harm as people who produce and distribute these pictures. But as you are looking for these kinds of pictures you are directly or indirectly creating a demand for pictures such as this, and when these is a demand you will also have some suppliers so you are causing harm indirectly.

This cliche is so old and worn out that I honestly don't even have much more motivation to respond to it. It is just a generic canned response that you had put into your brain by LE and CO so you could open it whenever anyone questioned your silly war on pictures of bad things. There is no proven or demonstrated link between demand for CP and child molestation or child porn production when the demand for CP isn't connected to financial payment or membership requirements. The only way your argument makes sense is if you mean to say that as long as there are pedophiles some of them will molest kids on film, but then your argument is for the extermination of pedophiles. You might as well call for the extermination of men to prevent rape, it is just as stupid. I could also point out that there are cryptographic solutions such as PIR that perfectly mask the demand for digital content, but nobody who argues from the demand position seems to care that it is a solved problem. If you people really thought it was the demand that led to supply you would be lobbying the governments to setup legal PIR networks for CP viewers to get their material from so that we could cryptographically mask the demand for CP which would by your logic lead to reduced child molestation rates. But your concept of supply and demand is magical much like all of the rest of your thinking, in that you think a demand that nobody has any information on can still lead to a supply to meet the demand. Which is more indication that your argument is just a euphemistic way of saying that while there are pedophiles children will be molested so being a pedophile should be illegal. Which is again just as stupid as saying while there are men women will be raped so being a man should be illegal.

Quote
Like in this thread you are indirectly creating a demand by implying you would like to watch some sort of sexualized pictures of underage (~14 yo) teens. And some people might use this to justify their creation of this kinds of pictures or to justify that they distribute the nudes their ~14 yo girlfriend sent them.

The majority of men would like to watch some sexualized pictures of 14 year olds! I don't give the slightest fuck if people distribute or produce porn of 14 year olds lol. It shouldn't even be a crime to produce porn with 14 year olds in it. In Germany it was legal up to a few years ago to produce and distribute jailbait porn featuring 14 year olds, they only recently made it illegal probably after a bunch of Christians in the USA got their panties in a fucking wad and cried at them until they changed their law. Just like they cried at Canada until they raised their age of consent from 14. Just like they cry at Japan to make it illegal to possess CP and to raise their age of consent from 13. They are the biggest fucking self righteous cry baby tantrum throwing mind fucked people in the god damn universe and it sucks that more sane societies give in to their childish demands. But really your logic of shifting the blame from the perpetrators of actions is sickening and pathetic, if some serial killer threatens to kill people only if a certain football team wins games should that football team then stop winning? Somebody might use their winning to justify murdering people! Clearly it is the fault of the football team winning and not the fault of some sociopathic mentally ill serial killer. That is pretty much what you are saying.

Quote
Thankyou SS ....i was going to go off about how viewing a picture CAN harm someone and others ....in fact theres LED's that can make one puke ( way off topic but showing that viewing something CAN cause a negative physical reaction just as a positive one )  ...lol... this child creeper here wants to get all scientific to justify his actions when really viewing , supporting or just helping the cause of CP IS WRONG. Plain and simple.

Viewing LED's that make you puke causes a reaction in you not in others. See the massive fucking difference? I didn't say looking at colored dots can't cause a reaction in the person who looks at them, I said looking at colored dots can't cause a reaction in the person who has something that looks sort of like them formed by the whole of the colored dots when they are taken in together by a human brain. See the massive difference? It is pretty big probably hard for you to miss it. Yeah I love when you fucking literally retards talk shit on me for using science and backing up my claims with citations. LOL UR SO DUMB USING SCIENCE FUCK UR SCIENCE UR JUST WRONG CUZ UR WRONG LOLOLOL. Seriously you people are stupider than fucking cows.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #149 on: November 22, 2013, 12:08:13 am »
Quote
This is wrong, these colored dots are information and information can be harmful. If I knew your real name and address and posted it here it could potentially cause you harm because those letters I wrote aren't just colored dots, they are information about you.
Your act of posting my real information here wouldn't be inherently harmful to me, the harm to me would come from the police kicking my door down. Information is inherently neutral.
On the bold part we agree, but I would say that it is a good practice to not be allowed to post that kind of information because we know how the chain of events will unfold. First the bold(a), then the underlined(b). Since we can't disallow b then we instead disallow a to prevent b.

Nobody has been able to demonstrate how looking at CP inherently causes harm to the depicted children. It is actually pretty obvious that in many cases it causes no harm to them at all, in the vast majority of cases. If someone looks at a picture and nobody knows about it how can you even think that it has the potential to cause harm to someone in and of itself? It is thinking that a picture is a voodoo doll and that magic is real.
I never said looking at CP cause harm to the children in the pictures, I said it didn't cause as much harm as making that CP. But you have the possibility to influence other people, so you defending child porn probably does more harm than actually watching child porn. I am however happy you have the ability to express your opinion because I'm an avid supporter of freedom of speech.

Quote
Pornographic pictures of someone might be pictures of this person in a very vulnerable situation especially if this person didn't agree wholeheartedly to make these pictures. And if you can get the pictures the person in the picture might as well, and this knowledge might cause a lot of harm to the person in the picture. Especially if friends and/or family discovers the pictures.
If someone doesn't want to see pictures of themselves in a vulnerable situation my suggestion is that they don't look for them. Nobody said that we need to force children who were molested to look at the pictures of the molestation.
Its more that they usually don't want other people to see them, and that is something they don't have control over if the videos/pictures are on the internet or distributed by other means that is out of their control.

I am glad that you actually break down to the basis of your argument though, your argument being that information must be restricted because free speech is bad when people say things you don't agree with.
Never said that. You're putting words in my mouth, please stop doing that!

It really shines light on the fact that CP being illegal to view is illegal under the constitution of the USA. And once again you talk about images of naked children like they are magic but don't seem to care about the children in Vietnam who had bombs dropped on their villages.
Please show me where I expressed something that might imply that I don't care about the children who were victims of the Vietnam War! Or is that something you just pulled out of your ass?


Quote
Like in this thread you are indirectly creating a demand by implying you would like to watch some sort of sexualized pictures of underage (~14 yo) teens. And some people might use this to justify their creation of this kinds of pictures or to justify that they distribute the nudes their ~14 yo girlfriend sent them.
The majority of men would like to watch some sexualized pictures of 14 year olds! I don't give the slightest fuck if people distribute or produce porn of 14 year olds lol. It shouldn't even be a crime to produce porn with 14 year olds in it. In Germany it was legal up to a few years ago to produce and distribute jailbait porn featuring 14 year olds, they only recently made it illegal probably after a bunch of Christians in the USA got their panties in a fucking wad and cried at them until they changed their law. Just like they cried at Canada until they raised their age of consent from 14. Just like they cry at Japan to make it illegal to possess CP and to raise their age of consent from 13. They are the biggest fucking self righteous cry baby tantrum throwing mind fucked people in the god damn universe and it sucks that more sane societies give in to their childish demands.
Age of consent and old enough for porn is two different things. I live in a country where the age of consent is in the area of 15/16 years old and I think this is about the right place for it to be. And imo if a person 1-2 years over have sex with a person 1-2 years younger I see nothing wrong with that. Its an entirely different issue when it comes to porn, because its like a tattoo that you will have to deal with for the rest of your life.

But really your logic of shifting the blame from the perpetrators of actions is sickening and pathetic
I did not shift the blame from the perpetrators, I said they did the most harm.

if some serial killer threatens to kill people only if a certain football team wins games should that football team then stop winning? Somebody might use their winning to justify murdering people! Clearly it is the fault of the football team winning and not the fault of some sociopathic mentally ill serial killer. That is pretty much what you are saying.
Putting words in my mouth again, are we?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 12:19:24 am by SandStorm »

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #150 on: November 22, 2013, 06:18:11 am »
Kok I have seen your ramblings and yearnings for child porn before. The only person who quotes that much is *drumroll* kfmkw  and you fecking well know you are him. Now the only reason DPR tolerates you is your knowledge in security matters, don't get it twisted if you weren't an asset in that regard ( and you have had to be to stay ahead of the peado police) your stinking feet wouldn't touch the ground and we would have your guts for garters.
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #151 on: November 22, 2013, 06:27:58 am »
johnthebaptist you are a stupid fucktard who has repeatedly linked to illegal jailbait websites full of pictures of naked underage teenagers.

jezuzwazzamushroom blah blah blah fuck you too.

honestly I don't even have the patience for this repetitive nonsense anymore trying to get you to use logic is about as successful as teaching a wall to talk. You can't counter anything I say and instead just call me names and spew out canned cliches and propaganda from the government. Seriously when your biggest argument against the person you are "debating" with is that he uses too many citations from scientific journals I think you pretty much have de facto lost, especially when your second biggest argument is "Durhhhhhhhhh pictures be magic yo, durrrhrhhrhrhhrhhrhrh, think of teh childrunzzzz, durhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh fucking pedos ahhh I will kill them alll RAHJUSAJIOWAJIOPASW{RFJRF)WE(FTRJrt3e4]0t4=32r"

seriously though do you guys have diapers and shit in your pants and have a caretaker that cleans you up? I am just trying to judge your level of retardation. I know it is profound but I just am not sure if it is shit in your pants profound.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 06:31:23 am by kok »

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #152 on: November 22, 2013, 06:38:29 am »
Go back to your pedo forums that you are/were obviously a mod on you kid raping piece of rat shit and recognize that except your fellow pedo Cornelius no one wants you here and we would all happily attend your public execution like they used to in the good ol'days!

"Pedo"? I'll have you know that I like properly matured bodies on my men along with the well-developed equipment and sweatiness that comes with them :) Even people in their early twenties are unappealing to me these days.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #153 on: November 22, 2013, 06:41:28 am »
Quote
Please show me where I expressed something that might imply that I don't care about the children who were victims of the Vietnam War! Or is that something you just pulled out of your ass?

Oh, do you want to ban all the pictures of the victims in Vietnam as well? I didn't realize that you took your campaign to save the world from pictures of bad things so seriously. I am glad we have courageous people like you who are going to make sure nothing bad has ever happened by destroying all evidence of it ever happening.

Quote
Age of consent and old enough for porn is two different things. I live in a country where the age of consent is in the area of 15/16 years old and I think this is about the right place for it to be. And imo if a person 1-2 years over have sex with a person 1-2 years younger I see nothing wrong with that. Its an entirely different issue when it comes to porn, because its like a tattoo that you will have to deal with for the rest of your life.

First of all the vast majority of underage teenage porn is produced and distributed by underage teenagers. Second of all, there is no difference between the ability to consent to sex and the ability to consent to sex on a camera. Your logic is so stupid, it is people like you who lead to laws where it is legal to fuck the shit out of 16 year olds but heaven fucking forbid you look at a picture of the same 16 year old flashing a mirror for her camera phone because if you do that you totally just irreparably fucking ruined her life with your magic photography voodoo.

Quote
Putting words in my mouth again, are we?

You think CP should be illegal to view because you think people viewing CP causes other people to produce it. That logical construct is "A should be illegal if A causes B and B should be illegal". That means if a serial killer kills people because a football team wins a game that you think it should be illegal for the football team to win the game. I don't know what logical fallacy that is but I will coin it as 'argumentum fucktardium" which is pseudo-latin for argument from a fucktard.

Non-phixion

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +12/-3
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #154 on: November 22, 2013, 06:53:49 am »
Kok needs to kill himself

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #155 on: November 23, 2013, 01:52:19 pm »
Kok, discussing with you reminds me of discussing with fundamentalist Christians (nothing inherently wrong with being a fundie, I just don't bother discussing your convictions with you).

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #156 on: November 24, 2013, 07:10:22 am »
lol it is hilarious that you compare me to a fundamentalist Christian. The people arguing against me are the ones who are rejecting science (and bashing on me for making reference to it), the people who are arguing against me are the ones who believe in magic (such as the ability of viewing an image to cause a scientifically unexplainable harm to the person depicted in the image, which is literally a modern interpretation of Voodoo), the people who are arguing against me are the ones who are going off of emotion instead of logic, and the people who are arguing against me are the ones who have been brainwashed into their beliefs via intense indoctrination from birth (evidenced by the fact that people always blindly think the age of consent where they live is the one and only true correct age of consent, just like people think the God of the their culture is the one and only true God). Seriously it is hilarious to have you say that I remind you of a fundamentalist Christian, it is almost too surreal to even believe!

Let us also not forget that it is the fundamentalist Christians who want to persecute people not for their actions causing harm to others but for their actions being disgusting in the perception of the persecutors. It is fundamentalist Christians who are opposed to gay marriage, hell a lot of them would love for gay people to get the death penalty. Not because gay people cause harm to others but because the Christians believe that what they do is disgusting and an affront to God. Just in the same way that a pedophile who doesn't molest children or support child molestation in any way (including the viewing of CP without paying for it, which is totally not proven to lead to child molestation) is persecuted by you. Hell, a lot of you even want to persecute the pedophiles who don't even look at CP because you are not only disgusted by the actions that some of them take (just as some people attracted to those 18+ will rape people in that age range some pedophiles will rape children), but you are disgusted by their very existence and have no tolerance for them not because of what they do but because of what they are. And that makes you the same in my eyes as a fundamentalist Christian who wants to round up the gays and stone them to death, the only difference is that right now at this point in time the majority of society agrees with you, but as uneducated people continue to get educated things will continue to change in the direction of tolerance, and already the medical community is headed in this direction as evidenced by their separation between pedophiles who molest and pedophiles who do not. And already the medical community knows that attraction to those who are not prepubescent is not a mental disorder, and the information and understanding will go down from them to the general public, someday, it is not a question of if it is a question of when. And they will look back at you today and they will see you as the misinformed bigoted intolerant fucktard that you are, just as today the society looks back at the oppression of homosexuals and recognizes it for what it is. 

And let us also not forget that it is the fundamentalist Christians who blindly take the word of those in positions of perceived authority even when the people in these positions are just brainwashed or liars. That is what you do when you repeat the nonsense claims of the federal government and anti child porn industries. They have made a market out of the slavery of a hated minority group and to justify this slavery they must add fuel to the fire that burns in the minds of the bigots, so you find studies that say 85% of people who view child porn molest children but then you find independent studies that put the figure at 1% to 16% maximum! So why is there such a discrepancy between what your preachers and pastors and priests are telling you and what independent scientists are telling you? Who are you going to believe, the people who have demonstrated a clear willingness to lie and mislead the public for their own interests or the people who have a dedication to legitimate academia? Yeah you will trust your preachers and your priests and your pastors and they will scare you with the threat of a hell that doesn't exist and this false fear that they instill into you will lead to the oppression of millions. But you will go to bed feeling safer at night that your holy leaders are protecting you from their unreal hell, and they will count the money every night that you put into their collection pans.

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #157 on: November 24, 2013, 04:24:47 pm »
So fucking transparent kmfkw....why do you insist on discussing this filthy practice. YOU were the only person who made threads about it. Now you're back as this kok cock.

Do you honestly believe altering your posts will confuse people and make them think it's some other peado?? NO now do us a favour and take your abhorrent fantasies and sling your fucking hook. That ship has already sailed. You are a fucking nonce.

I have your messages saved as....start lying and I'll post them you piece of shit..........you're fucking deeply disturbed, you ugly fat turd. Everybody from old SR knows it's you kmfkw... all your denials are proving is you're more eroded mentally than last time......I will literally strangle your repugnant neck...I hope to god  you get nicked some time soon you animal because you will get your comeuppance trying to justify this revolting behaviour with semantics and going of on tangents......be warned I wouldn't mind if you desired 16-19 year olds like primeassteens is I could at least get my head round that, but when you're sharing disturbing pics of 9 month old babies getting sponked on and raped ( I remember your babyrapist account) . Just like Jimmy Saville said " what harm is it doing these kids for me to look for my own gratification? I'll tell you what harm it does you mentally ill animal.....they HAVE BEEN ABUSED  you fucking despicable deplorable lower than a snakes belly cunt. I sincerely hope your kids don't suffer any abuse the kind you are aroused over, you know baby's being tortured and raped.....you fucking maggott.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 04:40:07 pm by JohnTheBaptist »
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #158 on: November 24, 2013, 04:54:20 pm »
Often people will ask, "Why does the Nigger do this?" or "Why did the Nigger do that?" It is pretty much akin to asking why dogs bark, why cats climb trees, or why birds fly. They just do -- their primitive brains are hard-wired in a manner that is incompatible with Human logic.

God only knows what really goes on inside the chimp's brain-pan, but we can identify certain behaviors that seem to be consistent among the species:

1) "LOOK-A-ME!" This is the basic 24-hour a day / 7 days a week behavior that the Nigger employs to get attention. This is basically why Niggers wear the most idiotic outfits, have 10 pounds of fake "bling" around their necks, blare their stereos, talk at the top of their voice at all times, etc., etc. It is all a ploy to get noticed and stand out from the other members of the Chimp Pack in an attempt to get food, money, or sex.

2) "GIBS-MUH!" Now that the Nigger has your attention, it will attempt to extort spare change, get free Government Cheese, FEMA checks, or even the rims off of your car. The Nigger, suffering from an inferiority complex by nature, is also perpetually lazy and stupid, and therefore blames all of its problems on Whitey -- seeking free handouts as a never-ending form of compensation for imagined wrongdoings.

3) "MUH-DIK" This is the primary driver of Nigger behavior. Everything to a Nigger revolves around sex -- whether it's with an unwilling victim, farm animals, patio furniture, a Brother on the "Down-Low", or a female member of it's own species. Niggers have an unusually strong sex drive because basically the species would have died out 10's of thousands of years ago if they weren't genetically programmed to screw even the ugliest, most disgusting member of the opposite sex in response to Nature's demand to perpetuate the species.

4) "BLING-BLING": Birds and Rodents are inexplicably drawn to shiny metal objects, and so it is with the Nigger. Just as a Pack Rat will stuff its nest with all manner of useless bits of shiny metal, the Nigger similarly adorns itself and its "crib" with the cheapest, gaudiest glittery metallic crap. Niggers in the Congo are literally walking around on top of raw diamonds and couldn't care less, yet they will sacrifice themselves like Lemmings in an attempt to steal that sweet, and oh so seductive, shiny copper from High Voltage power lines. You could chrome plate a dog turd and somewhere a Nigger would absolutely think it was the greatest thing on earth.

5) "DAT-ASS": The bigger the butt, the better -- even to circus proportions, at least according to the Nigger. Interestingly this is a universal trait among Negroids scattered worldwide. I am at a loss to explain this, other than perhaps, just perhaps, that barely repressed Cannibalistic portion of their disgusting Simian cerebral cortex views their mates as potential sources of food in the even of some type of calamity. When they say, "Damn, Dat ass sho' looks fine" it may have a ulterior, and sinister, motive behind it!

6) "SCALDING HOT WATER": What the hell is it with Niggers and boiling water? It seems to be their weapon of choice when disputes erupt in their domicile, but think about it.... how often do you "just happen" to have boiling water just laying around your kitchen all day long and at all hours of the night??? Don't be fooled -- if you see a Nigger boiling water, trouble will follow. Someone or Something is going to get its ass scalded! As superstitious as these apes are, I think that they really believe that there's an evil Jumbi in the water that they're unleashing onto their victims. "I didn't do nuffin' - deys an evils Jumbi in dey watah dat jus' flew out and burned muh husband while we wuz argueing an' sheet!"

7) "40's and a BLUNT": The Nigger's mutated chimp brain can make quite an internal racket, and they only way that the Negroid can shut the troublesome Inner Chattering Monkey off for awhile is to drown its ass in alcohol and subdue it with drugs. Not a bad plan, as the troublesome "thinking" part of their brains is the one that houses such bothersome emotions such
as "Guilt", "Consequences", "Remorse", "Responsibility", "Planning", "Honesty", "Intellect", "Charity", and a zillion other painfully excrutiating thoughts that can interfere with the normal criminal (i.e., jungle) mental process that the Upright Chimp feels quite at home with.

8) "FRUIT JUICE": Niggers absolutely go ape over any fruit-flavored drink such as Tiki Punch or Kool-Aid. This is hard wired into their chimp brain pan, and like the appendix, appears to be a vestigial remnant from earlier times. The Nigger in the distant past was a lazy, useless scrounger -- finding ripe and rotting fruit on the ground was a major component of their diet being that they were too stupid and lethargic to actually go hunt something. Niggers today survive on free Government Cheese, Welfare, FEMA Checks, and hand-outs from YT, but the Inner Chimp still gets all excited when brightly colored fruit drinks are served and will consume them in gluttonous amounts.

9) "WHITE WIMMINZ": Often people will ask, "Why don't they just stick to their own kind?" The answer is simple -- have you SEEN the females of their species?!! The typical Negroid Sow is commonly a disgusting fat-assed disease ridden baboon which will indiscriminately mate with anything. Even good-looking "Women of Color" such as Halle Barry, Beyonce, and Mariah Carey have been enhanced by copious amounts of Human DNA in their lineage and are more distantly removed from their Negroid roots than they'd care to admit -- but still a lot of make-up and plastic surgery has been used to make them look more Human.

10) "PUBLIC HUGGING": Males of the Negroid species will commonly make a great scene of hugging each other in public places where White Wimminz congregate. This is to draw attention to themselves (typical "Look-A-Me" behaviour) and to make unsuspecting White Females think that Negroes are fun to be around, and that it is OK to touch them. It is not! Girls, don't fall for this trap, Niggers are just Niggers even if bleach them white and send them to Oxford for an education. The Inner Chimp still awaits the right moment, and you will ultimately be raped, murdered, tortured, robbed, burned alive, hacked to death, or any number of other bad endings. Just say No to the Nigger!

11) "UNINTELLIGIBLE GREETINGS": Two Niggers passing each other on a street or sidewalk will loudly utter unintelligible garbage back and forth and walk away smugly as if something important had just happened. It didn't. The Nigger engages in a 24 hour a day effort to set itself apart from the rest of the Chimp Pack in order to be noticed by females, or by pretending it knows something that the others don't in order to give its fragile ego a boost. Typically, in a scenario like described above, Nigger #1 will bellow out something like, "Hey Brutha -- Foobity Hoo, Fu Man Chu, Who Be You, CanYaDigIt?"

The second Nigger, not wanting to admit that it doesn't know what the first Nigger is even remotely talking about will reply in an even louder voice (to draw more attention to itself) "Summuh Fummuh, Shamma Lamma, Sweet Home Alabama, and a SideOrderO'FrenchFries"

The first Nigger, unable to understand a damn thing the second Nigger said, will pretend that it understands perfectly well as to not to appear stupid. It will respond in an even louder voice (again, typical "Look-A-Me" behavior) and utter some more idiotic garbage. Pretty soon, they are both talking at the same time and trying to drown one another out as they continue on their separate ways -- each content that it was the victor in a verbal display of dominance and showmanship, much like two Roosters puffing and strutting around the same yard to impress the females. Stupid Niggers....

12) "EXAGGERATED SENSE OF SELF-IMPORTANCE": Even the scrawniest, most butt-ugly, Lice-infested Nigger with a cold sore on its lip thinks that it is Wesley Snipes, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King all rolled into one. This exaggerated sense of self-importance is a defensive mechanism that the Negroid adopts at an early age in order to protect itself from having to deal with the truth -- that it is in reality the stupidest, ugliest, lowest form of life on earth.

13) "LARGE SNEAKERS": The Nigger shoe size seems to correspond directly to its age on a "one to one" basis (i.e., an 10 year old Nigger wears a size 10 basketball shoe, an 11 year old Nigger wears a size 11, and so on) which is based partially on physiology and partly on fantasy. Niggers do tend to have large feet, but also try to attract attention to themselves and hope to get some "Muh Dik" by wearing the largest and gaudiest footwear available -- whether they shoplift it, or rob it from another Negroid at gunpoint.

14) "GHETTO LIMP": Inner City Niggers walks with around with a limp in order to give onlookers the impression that they have sustained bullet injuries out there in the mean, cold streets. In fact, many do get shot and die while engaging in TNB. The ones that live are often partially paralyzed and confined to wheelchairs -- the ones limping around either got hurt running from the Police, or trying to break into someone's second story apartment window. The rest are just faking it.

15) "PACK of KOOL MILDS": Contrary to popular opinion, Niggers don't actually buy packs of cigarettes -- they either wait until someone else does and will bum one off of them, or will buy just one single cigarette at a time in order to avoid being "Chumped" by the rest of the local Chimp Pack. The preference for Menthol cigarettes is a universal Negroid trait, perhaps best explained by the fact that when they still had tails they used to swing from Eucalyptus tree to Eucalyptus tree, enjoying those succulent leaves that Menthol comes from -- before Australia finally broke away from the African continent and drifted away.

16) "UNABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE FANTASY FROM FACT": Niggers have an extremely hard time separating what is real from what is not real, which is why they cannot simply sit quietly and watch a movie like everyone else does. The chimp brain lacks sufficient candlepower to understand that the actors on the movie screen or TV set cannot actually hear or see them. This behavior is also commonly seen in many other domestic animals that will suddenly go into "Fight or Flight" type behavior when a National Geographic special comes on, or when a Dog Food commercial is shown.

17) "SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION": For the Nigger, have a car suddenly catch fire and go up in flames while driving is no big deal, in fact it seems to be a fairly common occurance. Similarly too, their living quarters seem to burst into flames alot. Some of it can be blamed on smoking while in bed, other incidents can usually be attributed to the shoddy means by which they repair things -- also known as "Nigger-Rigging" which invariably leads to catastrophic failure.

18) "DISCONNECTED UTILITIES": Yes, this sometimes happens to Humans, but standing in line to get "Da Lectric" or "Da Heat" restored after not paying the utility bills for months on end is a full-time occupation for the Negro. To the Chimpus Americanus it is a downright violation of their rights to actually have to PAY for something, as they have become so accustomed to hand-outs and entitlements they actually think YT owes them everything!

19) "CHIMP PACK": The Chimp Pack denotes a random collection of Negroids that usually assembles for an immediate purpose -- such as Gang Rape, Looting, Intimidation, or 10 against 1 attacks on unsuspecting Humans. Niggers are solely absorbed in their own selfish interests, but will band together as a temporary measure against outsiders. Once the immediate threat has passed, the Chimp Pack will desintegrate once again into a collection of individual Niggers that will try to rob, rape, or kill each other.

20) "RAP MUSIC": Rap music is an expression of the noise that the Inner Chattering Monkey is constantly making inside the Nigger's skull, much like the marble that rolls around inside a can of spray paint. In reponse, the Nigger will attempt to drown the Inner Chattering Monkey in cheap booze, Malt Liquor, or drugs -- often freeing the dangerous "Inner Chimp" which still operates under the Law of the Jungle.

21) "MENTAL ILLNESS": Mental illness is rampant amoungst Niggers, largely because they do not have the brain power to cope with the Higher Brain fucntions that are needed to adapt to Human Society. Laws, Rules, Customs, and Courtesies all take a great deal of brain power to process, and for the Nigger it is all too much. Eventually the chimp brain overheats, and the veneer of civilization that the Nigger wears as a disguise gets stripped off and the true nature of the beast is revealed!2

22) "BREAKFAST AT DENNYS": The ultimate status symbol for a young Negroid is to be seen having breakfast at Denny's Restaurant (Regional variations can include Elias Brothers Big Boy, Shoeney's, and Waffle House) in the company of an attractive young white female whom it presumably spent the night with. When the check arrives the Nigger will recoil in absolute terror, and the naive white girl invariably picks up the bill and leaves the tip. As they drive away, the Nigger will be sprawled out in the passenger side of the girl's vehicle with the seat fully reclined while young Ms. "Too Stupid to Know Any Better" has to pay for gas and drive the worthless Nig around all day. The final insult to Humanity is that the end result is usually an unwanted pregnancy, another mouth for the Taxpayer to feed, and the "Daddy Mack" Nigger nowhere to be found!

23) "LACK OF PARENTING SKILLS": Niggers posses absolutely NO parenting skills, and quite frequently even kill some of their own young. Unfortunately, they usually produce somewhere close to a dozen offspring, with a typical sow producing generally 6 to 10 Niglets from an almost equal number of "Baby Daddys" that refuse to accept any responsibility or provide financial support. While Human couples tend to produce only a small number of children and devote their energies and resources to seeing that they are raised properly, Niggers are biologically programmed to spit out as many bastard miniature shitskins as possible with little regard for who donates the DNA.

24) "POOR ELOCUTION": Simply put -- Niggers can't speak properly. Vocalizing even the simplest of sounds presents a major challenge to the modern day Yard Ape due to its lack of brain power. Speech is a High Level skill that requires the superb mental and physical coordination that is found in Humans and requires a well developed frontal brain lobes. The Nigger is nothing more than a weird Morph Ape with a Beta 2.0 version Chimp Brain upgrade, which is kind of like trying to play Halo II using an old outdated Commodor 64 computer.

25) "SLEEPY NIGGERS": Niggers are by nature night time creatures, and much like cats, will try to sleep at least 18 hours a day. In the wild, the major activities of the Nigger were more or less confined to eating, sleeping, and trying to reproduce. The domesticated Nigger has somewhat of a more complex existence largely due to it's preoccupation with liquor and drugs -- and as a result spends a good deal of time committing crimes to support its habit, and avoiding getting caught by the Police.

26) "SLOW MOTION": Niggers in any public place will move at a snail's pace, particularly if it can delay a Human somehow. The whole purpose of the Nigger's existence (besides crime, drugs, and Muh-Dik) is to get in the White Man's way. Niggers will stop their cars in the middle of the "skreet" just to jabber back and forth like apes because they know someone else will be inconvenienced by it. Fat-assed Sheboons will block an entire Supermarket aisle while smacking their lips on handfulls of free stuff just to slow down a Human shopper. Proverbially, Niggers are pebble in the shoe of Human Progress.

27) "HAND ON MUH DIK": Niggers just can't seem to walk around in public without holding on to their penises. It doesn't matter where - school, church, the Mall - they'd hold onto their jimmy-john in Court, except they're usually wearing handcuffs there. They harbor some deep, dark fear that the Ju-Ju Man will cast a spell on them and steal it - then what the hell would they do with themselves all day?!! There have been numerous news articles about riots and deaths occurring in Nigeria because local citizens feared that their "privates" had been stolen by Witch Doctors. Christ, Niggers are stupid!

28) "COLOR OF MY SKIN": A common refrain for Niggers is that they are hated for the color of their skin, and if they were simply born white, everything would be OK.... No, Niggers - you are hated for everything EXCEPT the color of your skin! You are useless, stupid, stinking pieces of animal filth that should not be allowed to co-exist with Humans. We would still hate you if you were green or purple. Deep inside you're still Niggers - your actions and behaviours confirm this fact everyday!

29) "DEVOLUTION": Unlike the rest of the Human Race, Niggers are slipping backwards on the Evolutionary Scale. During the days of Segregation they sought to emulate some of the finer points of White Society (as best they could) in order to attain better lives for themselves. But in the last several decades they have been given their freedom and have been encouraged to celebrate "diversity" and their non-existent "culture". As a result, Negroes have rapidly begun to devolve into the useless violent apes they were before they were taken out of the jungle 400 years ago. Just like the Goldfish that adapts to the size of the fishbowl it lives in, Niggers will fall to the lowest, most primitive standards of behaviour that society allows them to - and in this case, we've removed all the stops by allowing them to act just like the Niggers they truly are!
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #159 on: November 24, 2013, 04:58:46 pm »
I'm KMFKW I'm a filthy chicken hawk
































I'm kfkmw and I'm a filthy rickspider














I'm kmfkw and I'm a repugnant slimeball who pervs of your children
























I'm kmfkw and I love snigffing nappies because I'm an animal




























My sexual appetite is deplorable. I'm kfmkw and \I'm a slimy little peado who stalks nursery children kindergarden is my sanctuary




























I'm a stinking nonce
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #160 on: November 24, 2013, 05:02:10 pm »
Why peadophiles are complete scumballs.............27) "HAND ON MUH DIK": Niggers just can't seem to walk around in public without holding on to their penises. It doesn't matter where - school, church, the Mall - they'd hold onto their jimmy-john in Court, except they're usually wearing handcuffs there. They harbor some deep, dark fear that the Ju-Ju Man will cast a spell on them and steal it - then what the hell would they do with themselves all day?!! There have been numerous news articles about riots and deaths occurring in Nigeria because local citizens feared that their "privates" had been stolen by Witch Doctors. Christ, Niggers are stupid!

28) "COLOR OF MY SKIN": A common refrain for Niggers is that they are hated for the color of their skin, and if they were simply born white, everything would be OK.... No, Niggers - you are hated for everything EXCEPT the color of your skin! You are useless, stupid, stinking pieces of animal filth that should not be allowed to co-exist with Humans. We would still hate you if you were green or purple. Deep inside you're still Niggers - your actions and behaviours confirm this fact everyday!

29) "DEVOLUTION": Unlike the rest of the Human Race, Niggers are slipping backwards on the Evolutionary Scale. During the days of Segregation they sought to emulate some of the finer points of White Society (as best they could) in order to attain better lives for themselves. But in the last several decades they have been given their freedom and have been encouraged to celebrate "diversity" and their non-existent "culture". As a result, Negroes have rapidly begun to devolve into the useless violent apes they were before they were taken out of the jungle 400 years ago. Just like the Goldfish that adapts to the size of the fishbowl it lives in, Niggers will fall to the lowest, most primitive standards of behaviour that society allows them to - and in this case, we've removed all the stops by allowing them to act just like the Niggers they truly are!




















30) "LAWZY JEEBUS" - Niggers pray in public only to get attention. The magical figure they pray to is known as "Lawzy Jeebus" and, like the figure from the movie "Beetlejuice", will appear to grant the Nigger a wish if his name is said 3 times. Niggers have no concept of the Holy Trinity, Crucifixion, or Eternal Salvation - explaining such things to them is like lecturing about Quantum Mechanics to a bunch of squirrels. When Niggers talk to Lawzy Jeebus they usually request White Wimmenz, free money, or to be miraculously rescued from some self-induced trauma (like robbing a bank) that they are going to prison for. Niggers don't go to Heaven, by the way. Cats and dogs do, but Niggers don't. Ha-ha, Niggers! Even God hates you....

31) "Huh? Wuh?" - The Nigger cranium is such an under-developed relic from the Pleioscene Era that it can barely keep them awake, let alone generate enough electrical activity to accomplish higher-order tasks (how many Niggers have accomplished great feats of engineering, or wrote a symphony, or painted any great works of art? Answer - none. And those shoes Michael Jackson patented don't count!) In response to a sudden unexpected event like getting questioned by the police, the Nigger's Simian brain simply locks up when queried for a response. For Example - when seeing a Nigger fleeing from the scene of a crime, the police will usually apprehend it and ask questions like: "I'll need to see some ID. Where are you coming from?" Nigger: "Huh? Wuh?" In this instance, the Nigger is stalling for time in order to formulate a credible answer that will magically get it off the hook. However, since the hybrid chimpanzee brain is severely over-stressed under pressure - the Nigger will simply continue to answer "Huh? Wuh?" until it sees a chance to try and run away. Stupid Niggers....

32) "MUH AUNTY" (alt: "MUH CUZZIN") - These imaginary relatives are people that the Nigger makes up in order to evade questioning from Law Enforcement personnel. This is a variation of the "Huh? Wuh?" ploy. When asked where a Nigger got such-and-such stolen item (like the car they're riding in), or how that bag of weed somehow ended up in it's pocket - the Nigger claims that it belongs to "MUH AUNTY" or "MUH CUZZIN" over there on Fayette Street, and they will take the soonest opportunity to try and flee from the Authorities. Their brain power is so limited, it's like trying to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool with a garden hose when they try to come up with an explantion for anything. Niggers suck!































I hate filthy nonces like kmfkw






















I hate filthy nonces like kmfkw





“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #161 on: November 24, 2013, 05:06:34 pm »
Stinking nonces need hanging by their balls and sat on a metal pole so it slides down their asshole and slowly kills then what about that kmfkw













like Vlad the impaler he would have dealt with your filthy ass properly.

































I DESPISE NONCES


























I DESPISE NONCES




























I DESPISE NONCES


































I DESPISE NONCES LIKE KMFKW






























































DID I MENTION I HATE PEADOPHILES?
























































I MENT TO SAY I HATE PEADOPHILES
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #162 on: November 24, 2013, 05:09:45 pm »
So fucking transparent kmfkw....why do you insist on discussing this filthy practice. YOU were the only person who made threads about it. Now you're back as this kok cock.

Do you honestly believe altering your posts will confuse people and make them think it's some other peado?? NO now do us a favour and take your abhorrent fantasies and sling your fucking hook. That ship has already sailed. You are a fucking nonce.

I have your messages saved as....start lying and I'll post them you piece of shit..........you're fucking deeply disturbed, you ugly fat turd. Everybody from old SR knows it's you kmfkw... all your denials are proving is you're more eroded mentally than last time......I will literally strangle your repugnant neck...I hope to god  you get nicked some time soon you animal because you will get your comeuppance trying to justify this revolting behaviour with semantics and going of on tangents......be warned I wouldn't mind if you desired 16-19 year olds like primeassteens is I could at least get my head round that, but when you're sharing disturbing pics of 9 month old babies getting sponked on and raped ( I remember your babyrapist account) . Just like Jimmy Saville said " what harm is it doing these kids for me to look for my own gratification? I'll tell you what harm it does you mentally ill animal.....they HAVE BEEN ABUSED  you fucking despicable deplorable lower than a snakes belly cunt. I sincerely hope your kids don't suffer any abuse the kind you are aroused over, you know baby's being tortured and raped.....you fucking maggott.
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #163 on: November 24, 2013, 05:12:42 pm »
DID


























I





















MENTION





















I























HATE























PEADOPHILES?
































DID


























I




































MENTION
































I































DESPISE





























PEADOPHILES?
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

kok

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +12/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #164 on: November 25, 2013, 11:49:48 pm »
can a mod please delete johnthebaptists off topic spam? Also lol at primeassteens girls being 16+ some of them are probably as young as 14.

Reason

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #165 on: November 26, 2013, 01:45:25 am »
I generally stay out of these debates, and I don't intend to get involved in the moral argument. I will, however comment on the legality argument. Porn laws fall under federal statutes due to their ease of traveling across state lines. In the US, there are states with an age of consent of 18. There is no absolute way of anyone knowing where any particular video is produced. If the pornography laws were inline with state laws and a video was made in Nevada and moved across the boarder to any state that touches it, then the material would be evidence of a crime if it could be assumed that it were made in the bordering state. To make sure that no content could be considered evidence of a crime, the safe bet is to set the threshold age at the maximum age of consent in the jurisdiction. If the half of the country with consenting ages over 16 were to lower their statutes to match the lower threshold, then legally I could support lowering the age of pornography production to match age of consent.  The laws are a bit different when it comes to simulated pornography and it is most times protected under the first amendment. So it is legal to make a fully computer generated image of a young child being abused even if the image looks like an actual child. I think there is some ambiguity in whether it would still be protected if the computer simulated images were a depiction of an actual event. In that situation, there is precedent that criminalized the simulated abuse after the original abuse is discovered. I don't know that those cases have been prosecuted that way due to the additional non protected pornography that was also included in them.

That is the only part of the moral debate that I would be interested in even remotely. What is the difference between computer simulated child abuse and digital photographs of actual child abuse. I think I can guess where several people stand on this issue, and I am not sure where I fall in that particular debate.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #166 on: November 26, 2013, 02:13:14 am »
People who think that there is a moral difference between an image of child abuse that was created with a camera and an identical image of child abuse that was generated with a computer are morons.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #167 on: November 26, 2013, 02:15:27 am »
In Britain, at least, it can be illegal to possess even static cartoon drawings portraying sexual acts involving 'underage' characters.

A demonstration of the absurdity of judging images beyond live reality was featured in Paedogeddon! (Clearnet: http://youtu.be/RcU7FaEEzNU?t=16m54s).

Indeed, I would recommend that all those in this thread zealously treating these topics as simple black and white, hate or accept issues watch the complete Paedogeddon! episode of Brass Eye (Clearnet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU).

People who think that there is a moral difference between an image of child abuse that was created with a camera and an identical image of child abuse that was generated with a computer are morons.

So you don't care if a real child was harmed to produce the image?
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #168 on: November 26, 2013, 02:33:26 am »
I don't think we should destroy the information learned from the Nazi medical experiments even though real people were harmed to produce the information. I don't think there is a moral difference between the information produced by the Nazi medical experiments and identical information that may be produced from computer simulations.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #169 on: November 26, 2013, 02:43:41 am »
I don't think we should destroy the information learned from the Nazi medical experiments even though real people were harmed to produce the information. I don't think there is a moral difference between the information produced by the Nazi medical experiments and identical information that may be produced from computer simulations.

Interesting. Your argument seems very similar to one of kok's. Do you not think there is a moral difference, however, between people being harmed solely for the purpose of making images to distribute and similar images being produced without involving real subjects?
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Reason

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #170 on: November 26, 2013, 02:45:24 am »
People who think that there is a moral difference between an image of child abuse that was created with a camera and an identical image of child abuse that was generated with a computer are morons.

Do you think there is a difference between murdering a prostitute on the streets of Los Angeles and murdering a hooker on Grand Theft Auto? If they are different, what makes them different?

Reason

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #171 on: November 26, 2013, 02:55:55 am »
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were pushing the pro-cp agenda.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #172 on: November 26, 2013, 03:04:24 am »
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were pushing the pro-cp agenda.

I, on the other hand, did realize that it was you who had an inability to differentiate between what is a real person and what is not a real person. Also, pro-cp sounds so bad. It is like calling liberals pro-death instead of pro-choice. I prefer to call myself pro-freedom.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #173 on: November 26, 2013, 03:08:39 am »
I accidentally deleted one of my posts when trying to quote. I don't remember the exact wording, but it went something like this.

Quote
Interesting. Your argument seems very similar to one of kok's. Do you not think there is a moral difference, however, between people being harmed solely for the purpose of making images to distribute and similar images being produced without involving real subjects?

Of course I think that there is a difference between subjecting nonconsenting Jews to horrible medical experiments, and simulating horrible medical experiments. I don't think that there is any difference between the identical information gained by either of these activities.

Quote
Do you think there is a difference between murdering a prostitute on the streets of Los Angeles and murdering a hooker on Grand Theft Auto? If they are different, what makes them different?

I do not think that there is any difference between looking at an image of a murdered prostitute that was taken with a camera and looking at a picture of a murdered prostitute that was generated with a computer. I do think there is a difference between murdering a prostitute in reality and murdering a prostitute in GTA. The difference is that the prostitute in reality is a real person whereas the prostitute in GTA is not. The reason there is no difference between looking at a picture of a real murdered prostitute and looking at a picture of a computer generated murdered prostitute is partially due to the fact that in either case the picture is not a real person.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #174 on: November 26, 2013, 02:59:44 pm »
Oh, I can agree that there is no moral difference in the information itself, in isolation. The history of the creation of the information in that form, however, adds deeper aspects, particularly if people were harmed for the purpose of one being able to consume it. I strongly disagree that someone must be a "moron" because they consider wider contexts to be aspects of things beyond their existence in pure hypothetical detachment from the rest of their universe.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #175 on: November 26, 2013, 10:56:07 pm »
Oh, I can agree that there is no moral difference in the information itself, in isolation. The history of the creation of the information in that form, however, adds deeper aspects, particularly if people were harmed for the purpose of one being able to consume it. I strongly disagree that someone must be a "moron" because they consider wider contexts to be aspects of things beyond their existence in pure hypothetical detachment from the rest of their universe.

They are morons if they analyze two identical things and come to different conclusions about each of them. Come to a different conclusion on the independent things that came to the formation of the analyzed things, sure that is fine. But when you start your argument with A != A it means that you are a fucking moron. There is no difference between two identical images, even if one was created by someone with a camera and the other was created by someone with the 3D modeling software of the future. You can not differentiate between two exactly identical items. The fact that I am correct is proven mathematically for fucks sake, X = X , there is no difference between X and X. 1 = 1 , it doesn't matter if you arrive at 1 with 0 + 1 or 2 - 1, 1 = 1. Digital pictures are just really big numbers. Two really big numbers that are identical are inherently the same. One cannot have different morality than another because there is nothing at all different between the two. They are the same exact thing! Your argument is so flawed that it goes against basic mathematical laws for fucks sake. 

CaptainWhiteBeard

  • Certified Thief
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
  • Karma: +260/-290
  • The Notorious Dark Net Pirate
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #176 on: November 26, 2013, 11:24:14 pm »
The Lost Prophets. Now with 100% less pedo


CaptainWhiteBeard
Prepare to be robbed.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #177 on: November 27, 2013, 03:36:48 am »
Mathematics is a self-consistent and self-contained symbolic system which can only be applied, in part and retrospectively, to physical processes. I would more respect an equivalence of formal logic to physical reality although that, despite having very different rules to mathematics, suffers from the same restrictions of misapplication.

We are here dealing with the philosophical discipline of ethics as it applies to actual human perception and we do not experience things, whether as objects, people or data, purely as isolated numbers, equations or even logical variables entirely separate from the universe of which they are a part.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #178 on: November 27, 2013, 04:42:23 am »
So I take it that you want to destroy all of the medical information that was obtained from the Nazi experiments on the Jews?

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #179 on: November 27, 2013, 05:03:42 am »
So I take it that you want to destroy all of the medical information that was obtained from the Nazi experiments on the Jews?

I do not, and I have expressed earlier in this thread that I see little problem with viewing images beyond the possibility of encouraging the production of further images entailing harm (which, along with my defence of this thread's existence, appears to be why so many people labelled me a 'pedo' on the earlier pages). If the market for such experimental data were such that similar experiments were being carried out to satisfy the demand my attitude to the information might be somewhat different. The point of my recent posts here is merely to counter your statement that considering wider contexts is moronic.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 05:09:02 am by Cornelius23 »
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #180 on: November 27, 2013, 06:25:19 am »
So I take it that you want to destroy all of the medical information that was obtained from the Nazi experiments on the Jews?

I do not, and I have expressed earlier in this thread that I see little problem with viewing images beyond the possibility of encouraging the production of further images entailing harm (which, along with my defence of this thread's existence, appears to be why so many people labelled me a 'pedo' on the earlier pages). If the market for such experimental data were such that similar experiments were being carried out to satisfy the demand my attitude to the information might be somewhat different. The point of my recent posts here is merely to counter your statement that considering wider contexts is moronic.

I can understand the argument about real images of children being abused.  What I have trouble with is the criminalization of art and literature featuring underage characters. In the jurisdiction where I live, if one were to create a piece of art depicting sexual activity involving a person under the age of 18, this is classified as child pornography.  The same is true of fictional stories.  To top it all off, the artistic merit defense was removed from the law some years ago, so the mere fact that the work is judged to have artistic or literary merit is no longer a defense to child pornography charges -- meaning that, if charged, you will likely be convicted, go to jail, and have your name and other details entered on a sex offender registry for daring to broach certain subject matters.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=174.msg633090#msg633090
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.



thrasher

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #181 on: November 27, 2013, 06:33:17 am »
Thanks for bumping this and deleting my post (no sarcasm)! Had too much gin tonight and didn't see the big thread.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #182 on: November 27, 2013, 07:33:59 am »
I can understand the argument about real images of children being abused.  What I have trouble with is the criminalization of art and literature featuring underage characters. In the jurisdiction where I live, if one were to create a piece of art depicting sexual activity involving a person under the age of 18, this is classified as child pornography.  The same is true of fictional stories.  To top it all off, the artistic merit defense was removed from the law some years ago, so the mere fact that the work is judged to have artistic or literary merit is no longer a defense to child pornography charges -- meaning that, if charged, you will likely be convicted, go to jail, and have your name and other details entered on a sex offender registry for daring to broach certain subject matters.

Oh, I agree that criminalising anything done by or to fictional characters is absurd; witnessing or reading about fictional events even more so.

Seriously, what the fuck has this shit got to do with Silk Road?

This subforum is specifically for topics that have nothing to do with Silk Road.

How can anyone justify for any reason the violation of the non-aggression principle and the destruction of the innocence and childhood's of little kids?

If anybody in this thread had done so I might be able to tell you.

At least you sick fucks are segregated from the rest of us!

Please leave our forum you surely must have a forum of your own you convene at, are you hanging around here to make Silk Road look bad or something? What is your purpose here when it is clear this is not a place where you are welcome if you aren't deliberately sabotaging Silk Road's already battered reputation?

Are you directing that any of the thread's contributors in particular?

The argument that you are looking at digital information doesn't harm anyone is redundant because the demand for this material drives the market it serves and unlike prison camps or gulags you are using this for sexual pleasure and not for research on the atrocities that created it in the first place.
Do you think WW2 criminals at Nuremberg should have been given access to pictures of the prison camps because they got pleasure out of looking at them?

I cannot think why motives such as "research" or "sexual pleasure" should affect the moral weight of harm inflicted upon anyone. As I suggested in my previous post, though, I agree that where there is a market for images of people being harmed, people shall probably be harmed to serve it.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #183 on: November 27, 2013, 07:46:34 am »
Can you find a single empirical study that shows that the non financial non membership based demand for CP by non-producers leads to people molesting children to produce CP? I mean a real study, not your generic canned quote coming out of the mouth of some pig. I can find citations that there is no empirical evidence that links the non-financial non-membership-criteria demand for CP from non-producers of CP to the production of CP, so I am super interested in the research you can dig up on the matter. Or are you just talking out of your ass? Because the overwhelming majority of CP consumers don't contribute financially, don't participate in groups that require sharing material and don't produce CP themselves (including enticing minors to self produce).  Once you get rid of the edge cases that might translate demand into production you are left with a massive amount of demand that hasn't been shown to have a casual relationship with production. But this argument is not even required. I would rather use the football argument. If a pedophile says he will molest children every time a football team wins a game, is it then the fault of the football team for winning the game if a child is molested? Of course not. And anyone can see this. But most people would say that if a person pays someone to kill a person then the person is responsible for murder if the person they pay carries through. So we have two instances of a casual relationship, one where the majority of people would not blame the cause for the effect and one where they would blame the cause for the effect. So how can we differentiate between the football team winning the game leading to a child molester to molest a child, and the person who hires a hitman to murder a person? The only difference I can spot is intention. The football team doesn't intend for their actions to result in child molestation, so they cannot be held responsible for child molestation if a child molester molests children when they win a game. The person who hires a hitman does intend for the hitman to kill an innocent person, so they can be held accountable for the murder that they indirectly caused to happen. This would mean that the child porn consumers who don't intend for their consumption to lead to the molestation of children would be best compared to the football team, in order to counter any future arguments that try to show a differentiation between the football team and the person hiring the assassin.

Really though it is even harder than this. Because what if someone on the football team is a pedophile who actually wants kids to be molested, and he tries to win the game knowing that his teams winning of the game will lead to a child molestation? Then we have intent and a casual relationship, but it still seems absurd to hold the football player accountable for winning the game. One interpretation seems strange at first but I am becoming more and more convinced of it, and it is the idea that neither the football players nor the person who hires the hitman should be held accountable for the effects of their actions. Rather, the pedophile and the actual assassin are the ones who are accountable for molestation and murder.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #184 on: November 27, 2013, 07:52:09 am »
merge: You appear to be repeating the same arguments, including exactly the same analogies, as kok posted earlier in the thread.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #185 on: November 27, 2013, 08:13:16 am »
merge: You appear to be repeating the same arguments, including exactly the same analogies, as kok posted earlier in the thread.

Everybody else seems to be repeating the same arguments, including exactly the same words, as the police say every single time they bust anyone with CP. I figured if everyone wants to be redundant I might as well join the crowd.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #186 on: November 27, 2013, 05:03:37 pm »
We fuck you you pedophile fucking pigs a neg karma from fuckheads who rape kids …

I got another neg karma from the pedophiles. its obvious why you sick cunts like to fuck kids …

I ask again whether you're directing that at any of the thread's contributors in particular? I don't recall anyone here stating any personal paedophilic interest.

… looking at kids and faping your little 1inch micropenis schlongs and fantasizing that it was you causing that child harm.

What an imagination! That's quite a fantasy you have there yourself.

Personally, BTW, I gave you a +1 quite recently (and have tried to do so again). Not for your contributions to this thread, however, which appear to be disruptive emotive responses lacking any evidence of rational thought or even reading effort.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 05:06:29 pm by Cornelius23 »
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #187 on: November 28, 2013, 12:08:57 am »
I post one statement in this sick thread and get a neg karma.
Well, what do you expect? When discussing topics that are pushing peoples buttons its quite normal for people who get carried away with their emotions to use every possible means to get the ones with different opinions. So no matter which side your on in this debate, if you create a post with good arguments you are likely to get negative karma from those who disagrees with you. I'm proud to say I haven't given out any negative karmas here, and considering what kind of thread this is I am very certain I never will.

I'm quite sure I got 2 of my 3 neg karmas here, but I don't care to much because its the typical way for a fundie to address their opponents arguments in a discussion. Not make a reasonable argument them selfs, but find other ways at getting at their. Attacking strawmen arguments, downvoting disagreeing arguments and so on.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #188 on: November 28, 2013, 12:11:16 am »
Well fuck you you fucking fucks fucking against fucking freedom to fucking view motherfucking picture fucks you stupid fucking sick fuck magic picture believing dumb fuck fuckers! It so obvious you fucking fuckers fucking love fucking fascism fucking stupid fucks I hope you get sent to fucking China and live under the censorship you love so much you butt fucking bigoted butt fuckers!! Fucking fascist pig science hating delusional fuck fucks! It so obvious you stupid cunt butt fuckers love to hate pedophiles because you have pack mentality and been fucking brainwashed, fuckity fuck fuckers! Pig slime butt fucking fuckers! Obvious you no more developed than a infant can't tell a fucking picture is not a fucking child you fucking dumb cunt fuck fucks! 

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #189 on: November 28, 2013, 12:39:12 am »
I'm quite sure I got 2 of my 3 neg karmas here, but I don't care to much because its the typical way for a fundie to address their opponents arguments in a discussion. Not make a reasonable argument them selfs, but find other ways at getting at their. Attacking strawmen arguments, downvoting disagreeing arguments and so on.

I think I get at least one or two -1s every day I post in this thread.

Here, have the opposite of one of those :)

… you stupid cunt butt fuckers …

* tries to imagine a cunt butt and how someone might fuck it
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 12:40:15 am by Cornelius23 »
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #190 on: November 28, 2013, 06:28:58 am »
I'm gonna out myself here. I am a survivor of extreme childhood sexual abuse. Two of my children are products of that abuse. I endure the 9th grade pregnant, and the 11th grade. Unless you have been under your perpetrator's sweaty, grunting, raping body, you have no clue what this topic does to survivors like me.

The "idea" of looking at pics of naked children, those self same children being violated sexually makes me ill. I actually do have a violent, physical aversion to children being abused. I take that violence out on the perpetrators.

Children CAN'T consent to being violated. They can't consent to cleaning their fucking rooms, much less having their pics taken while they are violated.

It will NEVER be acceptable to me, or fellow survivors that child pornography is common place on foreign shores. Cultural differences aside, if there is no demand, there is NO SUPPLY. Its simple economics. Once all the sick fucks who get off on hurting children are exterminated, there goes the demand. Then there won't be a supply. I advocate for children all across the planet.

Those that defend child pornography in their egalitarian, psuedo scientific terms have never counseled a child, a teenager, a young adult who lives with the nightmares of their abuse. When I have been woken up from my night terrors by my wife, screaming, shaking, terrified, ask her what she would like to do to my perpetrators. Guess.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

someonewho

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +8/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #191 on: November 28, 2013, 07:24:16 am »
its sick and fuck I will kill that person do that type of shits

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #192 on: November 28, 2013, 11:25:59 am »
Quote
The "idea" of looking at pics of naked children, those self same children being violated sexually makes me ill.

Nobody said you had to do it.

Quote
I actually do have a violent, physical aversion to children being abused. I take that violence out on the perpetrators.

Sure children shouldn't be abused. Fuck the perpetrators. Your problem is that you are confusing the perpetrators of child sex abuse with people who look at pictures.

Quote
Children CAN'T consent to being violated. They can't consent to cleaning their fucking rooms, much less having their pics taken while they are violated.

Did anybody say anything to the contrary? I don't know anything about the specifics of your abuse, but I do think that someone in 9th grade and certainly someone in 11th grade can consent to sex. But of course they still shouldn't be raped. People in 11th grade are 16-17 years old, that is the age of consent in most of the world. But actual children of course they can't consent.

Quote
It will NEVER be acceptable to me, or fellow survivors that child pornography is common place on foreign shores.

It will never be acceptable to me that people are prevented from looking at pictures.

Quote
Cultural differences aside, if there is no demand, there is NO SUPPLY. Its simple economics. Once all the sick fucks who get off on hurting children are exterminated, there goes the demand. Then there won't be a supply. I advocate for children all across the planet.

You start your argument by saying that without demand there wont be supply, and end it by saying without the people who make the supply there wont be a supply. There is a big difference between people who get off on hurting children and people who get off to children being hurt. Even if your false idea was correct you should really think of a better strategy for stopping child abuse. You are never going to quash the demand for CP, it just isn't going to happen. Did you know that some studies actually show that when pedophiles have access to CP they are less likely to molest children? Wouldn't it suck if you were fighting a pointless war and ruining peoples lives for what amounts to no reason, and actually in doing so you were being counterproductive to your own goal as well as spitting in the face of freedom and being a censorship supporting fascist? Because I really strongly suspect that this might be the case.

Quote
Those that defend child pornography in their egalitarian, psuedo scientific terms have never counseled a child, a teenager, a young adult who lives with the nightmares of their abuse. When I have been woken up from my night terrors by my wife, screaming, shaking, terrified, ask her what she would like to do to my perpetrators. Guess.

What about any of the terms either I or kok or anybody else have used has struck you as pseudo scientific? Essentially everything was backed up with quotations from scientific journals, various professors in high ranking positions and with impressive resumes in the scientific community. Not to mention to the consensus of the mental health community. You really have a horrible time with being able to tell apart people who abuse children from people who look at pictures. The vast majority of people who look at CP don't actually molest children. Stop letting your hatred for child molesters bubble over to them.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #193 on: November 28, 2013, 11:37:48 am »
I'm quite sure I got 2 of my 3 neg karmas here, but I don't care to much because its the typical way for a fundie to address their opponents arguments in a discussion. Not make a reasonable argument them selfs, but find other ways at getting at their. Attacking strawmen arguments, downvoting disagreeing arguments and so on.

I think I get at least one or two -1s every day I post in this thread.

Here, have the opposite of one of those :)

… you stupid cunt butt fuckers …

* tries to imagine a cunt butt and how someone might fuck it

hopefully the cunt butt you imagined was at least 18 years old, otherwise we need to seize your brain for having CP in it.

AliceInWonderland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Karma: +54/-12
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #194 on: November 28, 2013, 02:29:52 pm »
After looking at this thread it is fairly obvious you are the same troll kok, probably Cornelius and merge. Obviously you didn't get the general consensus of the people here that you are a twisted sick fuck who needs to kill yourself before you get caught and end up raped and shanked in prison by some AB members.

You are the lowest form of life in this Universe and you need to keep looking over your shoulder you rapist swine because there will come a day when you pay for what you have done.

It is far from fascist to protect the innocent, it is fascist to force your will on others and exploit people you fucking Nazi scum!


- The Sock Puppet

Like so many others you fail to debate the subject matter, and because you are not able to to come up with good counter arguments, you immediately jump to personal attacks without any logical substance!

None of the people you are bashing have ever argued that raping or hurting children is okay. You are not only putting words in their mouths, you are actually acusing them of oppinions that they have expressely stated that they are also against!

But because you do not have any valid arguments, against censurship (which is in fact what they are debating against), you have to try to convince yourself and others that they are rapists and abusers!

I honestly can't believe why people are so quick to resort to personal attacks, and mud slinging just because they cannot argue against another mans rational arguments!

The moment you draw the debate to that level, you automatically loose, and you arguments immediately loses value!

An individual that is not capable of debating rationally, no matter the subject, is not worthy of voicing their oppinions (IMO)!



If you want to engage in a debate, please keep it sober, if you want to be taken seriously!
Remember to look in the knowledgebase before asking questions:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?action=kb

The Ten Commandments - http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=15762.0

Why you should never talk to the police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #195 on: November 28, 2013, 04:33:14 pm »
Quote
I actually do have a violent, physical aversion to children being abused. I take that violence out on the perpetrators.

Sure children shouldn't be abused. Fuck the perpetrators. Your problem is that you are confusing the perpetrators of child sex abuse with people who look at pictures.
Let me draw an analogy to this. Think of the typical school-bullies and victims. The participants usually consists of the bully(s) the audience and the victim(s).

The bully usually justify what they do in some sort of way, maybe arguing the victim deserves it or maybe saying it is teasing and fun which goes both ways. He/she feels the audience is playing on his team because they seems entertained in some way.

The audience are not doing any of the bullying, but they find it entertaining to watch whats going on and are indirectly involved. In their mind they aren't doing anything wrong.

The victim however also feels the audience is on the team of the bully. Even though they don't participate in the way the bully does, they are his audience and are a big motivation for the bully to continue.

In CP the bully is the perpetrator, the audience is the ones who watch CP and the victims are the victims.

Quote
Those that defend child pornography in their egalitarian, psuedo scientific terms have never counseled a child, a teenager, a young adult who lives with the nightmares of their abuse. When I have been woken up from my night terrors by my wife, screaming, shaking, terrified, ask her what she would like to do to my perpetrators. Guess.

What about any of the terms either I or kok or anybody else have used has struck you as pseudo scientific? Essentially everything was backed up with quotations from scientific journals, various professors in high ranking positions and with impressive resumes in the scientific community. Not to mention to the consensus of the mental health community. You really have a horrible time with being able to tell apart people who abuse children from people who look at pictures. The vast majority of people who look at CP don't actually molest children. Stop letting your hatred for child molesters bubble over to them.

The debate if CP should be legal or not isn't a scientific, but an ethical debate. But we can use science to make an informed decision. And the scientific articles I've seen here isn't helping to much. We have one that concludes that hebephilia isn't a mental disorder and an other shows that its not uncommon for women to have sexual fantasies about rape (by a man they would love to fuck anyway, done in a study which the participants were 355 female undergraduates, so not to big and not to diverse).

lol it is hilarious that you compare me to a fundamentalist Christian.

Yea I know!!! Thats why I did it ;)
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 04:55:03 pm by SandStorm »

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #196 on: November 28, 2013, 04:40:17 pm »
I'm gonna out myself here. I am a survivor of extreme childhood sexual abuse. Two of my children are products of that abuse. I endure the 9th grade pregnant, and the 11th grade. Unless you have been under your perpetrator's sweaty, grunting, raping body, you have no clue what this topic does to survivors like me.

The "idea" of looking at pics of naked children, those self same children being violated sexually makes me ill. I actually do have a violent, physical aversion to children being abused. I take that violence out on the perpetrators.

Children CAN'T consent to being violated. They can't consent to cleaning their fucking rooms, much less having their pics taken while they are violated.

Those that defend child pornography in their egalitarian, psuedo scientific terms have never counseled a child, a teenager, a young adult who lives with the nightmares of their abuse. When I have been woken up from my night terrors by my wife, screaming, shaking, terrified, ask her what she would like to do to my perpetrators. Guess.

I can understand your feelings but I attempt to approach this subject from a rational standpoint while taking the impact of abuse into account. Personally, I also sometimes feel physically ill when I see prepubescent children portrayed in a sexual manner, even if they are clothed.

As for consent, I would ask what you define as a 'child'. In my own case, I was rather desperate for sexual experience before the age of eleven. I had reached puberty early, though, and I recognise that most people in their early or pre-teens do not consent to sexual activity with adults and, in most societies at least, are often traumatised by such experiences (if not immediately then later in life).

After looking at this thread it is fairly obvious you are the same troll kok, probably Cornelius and merge.

Me? Why me? You may have finally looked at the thread sometime after making your first outbursts in it but you still appear not to have actually read it.

You stupid fuck they are arguing it is ok!

Please indicate any comment in this thread where any contributor has argued that abusing children is okay.

I like you, Sock Puppet, but please try to understand the conversation before allowing your hindbrain to control your fingers, especially when commenting on serious and emotive subjects.

Oh, and +1s to Alice and SandStorm (once I'm able to again) for sensible contributions.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

AliceInWonderland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Karma: +54/-12
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #197 on: November 28, 2013, 05:26:14 pm »
You stupid fuck they are arguing it is ok!

From what I read, they are only arguing it is okay to watch the picture, not to commit the act (the oppinions are a little divided here, towards at which age the act is okay if it is consentual).
Furthermore I fail to see how the point I am making, makes me stupid.!

You too can join them in the pedo yard for all I care you stupid fuck.

So because I make a comment about the manner of the debate, without ever commenting the subject, I am apparently a pedo all of a sudden.?
This makes no sense, and actually, I think you just proved my point!

I honestly can't believe why people are so quick to resort to personal attacks, and mud slinging just because they cannot argue against another mans rational arguments!


I don't wish to debate anything with pedophiles or you either you twisted little bitch!

Then I don't understand why you are posting in this thread!
The thread is titled "The Discussion of Child Pornography", and therefore should contain just that, Discussion

Again, I did not state any kind of oppinion either for, or against the subject. I was merely commenting on the manner of the discussion, But apparently anyone who does not expressely agree with you, or pad your back, on this subject is a pedo?

As earlier said, this brings the debate to the level of a neanderthal, and only serves to devaluate your points whether they are valid or not.

I am not going to argue this with you further, simply because of a quote I often feel guided by:

"Never argue with an idiot. He will end up pulling you down to his level, and beat you with experience"
Remember to look in the knowledgebase before asking questions:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?action=kb

The Ten Commandments - http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=15762.0

Why you should never talk to the police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #198 on: November 28, 2013, 09:58:10 pm »
I am not going to respond to more than a few of your choice points, circuitous logical fallacies. Then, fuck you by a perpetrator who started out as an innocent, was violated by the adults in their life, and now looks at CP because their sexualization before sexual maturity fucked them up.

"The vast majority of people who look at CP don't actually molest children." I call bullshit, and fuck you. You have obviously NEVER counseled perpetrators. 1 out of every 4 people on average have been sexually abused as children. Sexualization before sexual maturity changes the brain chemistry of the abused. Many perpetrators were abused. In fact, every perpetrator I have ever had to counsel has been abused themselves. CP is NOT a victimless crime. FUCK YOU SOME MORE. Pedantic overblown bullshit prose to justify an unjustifiable position. No, you are not willing to say pics are bad, m'kay. FUCK YOU.

"There is a big difference between people who get off on hurting children and people who get off to children being hurt." Mmmn, no. Not so much actually. FUCK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THAT IT IS EVER OK TO LOOK AT CP. Oh, I am not wrong in my analysis about supply and demand. FUCK YOU.

"I don't know anything about the specifics of your abuse, but I do think (NOT THINGKING, fucknuts.)that someone in 9th grade and certainly someone in 11th grade can consent to sex. But of course they still shouldn't be raped. People in 11th grade are 16-17 years old, that is the age of consent in most of the world. But actual children of course they can't consent." Actually, I was skipped a coupla grades, and so your ASSUMPTION is incorrect. FUCK YOU.

I call bullshit, and fuck you. May you be FUCKED BY A PERPETRATOR who started out looking at CP. Do you honestly believe that a  teenager attracted to her or his 50+yr old step father has the capacity to make life changing decisions, such as "hey dad, uncle, stranger, my body is changing, my immature brain is being flooded with chemicals, lets fuck"? THEY CAN'T CONSENT. THEIR BRAINS AND SEXUALITY ARE NOT ADULT. THEY CAN'T CONSENT. YOU ARE USING LOGICAL FALLACIES. FUCK YOU SOME MORE.

That is all I am going to contribute to this thread. We each have our sacred cows we will protect. I will protect innocents, animals, children. You protect perpetrators. FUCK YOU.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #199 on: November 29, 2013, 09:43:38 am »
Quote
"The vast majority of people who look at CP don't actually molest children." I call bullshit, and fuck you.

Exact numbers vary depending on the study methodology (as well as the group publishing the study, of course). One study tracked people who had been arrested for child pornography possession and found that only 1% of them had molested a child over a six year period after being released. 4% of them were arrested for child pornography offenses again over the same 6 year period. CP offenders have a very low recidivism rate, and no link between CP consumers and child molesters has been established outside of law enforcement and special interest group studies. I am more inclined to believe the objective researchers.

http://phys.org/news166769376.html

Quote
For people without a prior conviction for a hands-on sex offense, the consumption of child pornography alone does not, in itself, seem to represent a risk factor for committing such an offense. Researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry studied 231 men convicted of consuming child pornography in 2002 and found that only 1% had gone on to commit a hands-on sex offense in the following six years.

Frank Urbaniok from the Canton of Zurich Department of Justice, Switzerland, worked with a team of researchers to investigate these consumers. He said: "When investigating the prevalence of internet child pornography consumption, an important practical question is whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Our results support the assumption that these consumers, in fact, form a distinct group of sex offenders. Probably, the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of 1% for hands-on and 4% for hands-off sex offenses were quite low."

As has been found in other studies, Urbaniok and colleagues were able to corroborate that the offenders were well educated and that most consumed other types of illegal pornography as well, such as pornography depicting sexual acts with animals, excrement, or involving brutality.

Commenting on the findings, Urbaniok said: "Due to the widespread use of the internet, child pornography consumers today may differ from our sample in some socio-economic aspects, such as in the level of education or level of income. Nevertheless, there are two relevant and practical findings that seem to be robust: For consumers of child pornography without a criminal history, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses and for recidivism with child pornography is favourable."


Another study puts the figure higher, at 16%. Here is a citation for 16% that also debunks a bullshit number from a special interest group. This page actually debunks a lot of CP myths but I am only going to quote the pertinent information.

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html#ncm40

Quote
40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children"

According to an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise (ECPAT in Australia), published in the The Australian on 8 January 2008: "In 2005 the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that 40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children."[77]

The 40% number was in a report distributed by the NCMEC in 2005 and the percentage concerned research findings in relation to a total of 429 cases during the 12 months beginning 1 July 2000. However, insofar as the phrasing of the assertion quoted above appears to imply that 40% of persons arrested for possession of child pornography were found to have sexually abused children, it does not accurately reflect the research findings.

The research found that "one out of six", i.e. 16% of "cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so".
Findings of the N-JOV Study

The source of the 40% figure is the second report on the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study ("N-JOV Study")[78] conducted by researchers (Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitchell) at the Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire (in north-western U.S.A.). The research report was "funded by the U.S. Congress Through a Grant to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children".

(Note: Although NCMEC's media release of 18 August 2005 cites the above research report as the source of numerous NCMEC claims about 'growing', 'increasing', etc, the research report did not find, or claim, that anything is increasing, growing, etc. The research concerned a one year period beginning 1 July 2000 and did not compare findings from that period with any other period.)

According to the research report:

    The goals of the National Juvenile Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study were to survey law-enforcement agencies within the United States (U.S.) to count arrests for Internet-related sex crimes committed against minors and describe the characteristics of the offenders, the crimes they committed, and their victims.

The above report was the second report on the N-JOV Study and it was focussed on a 'representative national sample' of persons arrested for Internet-related sex crimes who possessed child pornography, i.e. a sub-set of the cases identified in the N-JOV survey.

The researchers found that "[U.S.] Law-enforcement agencies nationally made an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography during the 12 months beginning July 1, 2000". The estimate of 1,713 was projected from 429 actual cases identified.

The researchers also stated "[T]o give some perspective on this estimate of 1,713 arrests for Internet-related CP possession, we estimate there were approximately 65,000 arrests in 2000 for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors".

In the sub-set comprising persons who possessed child pornography (429 actual cases), 47% of the cases arose in the criminal-justice system as cases of child sexual victimization or attempted child sexual victimization (solicitations to undercover investigators) and 53% of the cases arose as cases involving child pornography possession.

The 40% number is a further sub-set which comprises cases/persons whom the researchers termed 'dual offenders' because "They sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the course of the same investigation":

    We found 40% of the cases involving CP possession in the N-JOV Study involved dual offenses of CP possession and child sexual victimization detected in the course of the same investigation. All of these offenders had identified child victims. An additional 15% both possessed CP and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors. When these cases of attempted child sexual victimization are counted, 55% of the CP possessors were dual offenders (unweighted n = 241, weighted n = 936).

(Note that the actual number of dual offender cases identified was 241).

84% of the dual offenders were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child sexual victimization which subsequently turned up child pornography possession (55% child sexual victimization plus 29% solicitations to undercover investigators). 16% were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child pornography which subsequently detected a sexually victimized child or an attempt to do so (solicitation to an undercover investigator).

The researchers stated:

    When we looked at all of the cases originating as allegations or investigations of CP possession and examined how many resulted in the arrests of dual offenders, we found

        In 14% of cases investigators found dual offenders who both possessed child pornography and sexually victimized children
        In 2% of cases investigators found offenders who possessed child pornography and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors
        84% of cases involved CP possession but investigators did not detect concurrent child sexual victimization or attempts at child victimization

    This means one out of six cases [i.e. 16%] originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.

The research report also states:

    Limitations
    The N-JOV Study is the first research gathering information about a national sample of arrested CP possessors. Data from a national sample is a strength of the N-JOV Study, but like every scientific survey, the study also has limitations. Readers should keep some of these important things in mind when considering the findings and conclusions of this study.
    First, ...
    Second, ...
    Third, there is an additional caution to our findings about dual offenders. Knowing a considerable number of dual offenders were discovered during investigations of Internet-related, child-sexual-victimization and CP possession cases does not explain how possessing child pornography is related to child sexual victimization or whether it causes or encourages such victimization. We did not have the data to determine this. In particular we had no information about the sequencing of the crimes committed by dual offenders or about undetected crimes they may have committed and little information about their criminal histories and how they used the child pornography they possessed.
    [emphasis added]

In summary, the U.S. case research from which the NCMEC's 40% figure originates, found in a one year period beginning 1 July 2000, an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography (of which 55% also involved sexual victimization of children, or attempts to do so), and an estimated 65,000 arrests in the U.S. for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors. Of the Internet-related cases, one out of six [i.e. 16% of] the cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.

All of the studies that back up your point of view have been found to have methodological errors, or to have been quoted out of context. A lot of people have a very strong interest in misleading the public perception of CP consumers, it is really disgusting. Thankfully all of their bullshit is debunked, just like all of the drug propaganda. The only conclusion we can really reach by taking the totality of research is that:

A. We don't know how many CP consumers molest children (because the numbers in research papers range from 1% to 80%+, but I tend to think the lower estimates are true since the people giving higher estimates are not independent researchers and many of them have been busted for falsifying statistics in the past).

B. There is no scientifically established link between CP consumers and child molesters, despite the best efforts of people trying to prove that there is a link.

That is the most objective way to interpret the available information.

Quote
You have obviously NEVER counseled perpetrators. 1 out of every 4 people on average have been sexually abused as children. Sexualization before sexual maturity changes the brain chemistry of the abused.

This is irrelevant if it is true. Is it true? I don't know. Maybe. 

Quote
Many perpetrators were abused. In fact, every perpetrator I have ever had to counsel has been abused themselves.

This is also irrelevant.

Quote
CP is NOT a victimless crime. FUCK YOU SOME MORE. Pedantic overblown bullshit prose to justify an unjustifiable position. No, you are not willing to say pics are bad, m'kay. FUCK YOU.

This statement came out of nowhere and is not supported by anything that you said previously.

Quote
"There is a big difference between people who get off on hurting children and people who get off to children being hurt." Mmmn, no. Not so much actually. FUCK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THAT IT IS EVER OK TO LOOK AT CP. Oh, I am not wrong in my analysis about supply and demand. FUCK YOU.

The previous studies that I linked to actually already covered that child porn consumers and child molesters fall into distinct groups with minor overlap, so I will not bother to quote them again. Although your "I am right and you are wrong, and FUCK YOU" argument is quite persuasive, I will show some examples that indicate that your "analysis" is incorrect.

One set of studies has shown that in every country studied the legalization of child porn consumption coincided with a decrease in child sex abuse rates.

https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0

Quote
Study carried out in Czech Republic confirms similar results in Japan and Denmark
10508
Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country’s transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.
The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records – rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular – for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.
Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes – murder, assault, and robbery – rose significantly.
Reference
Diamond M et al (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y

As far as the "market theory" of child pornography goes, there hasn't been any research that I am aware of that proves it. I can quote a billion people claiming it to be the case, from judges to police officers, but there is a startling lack of research papers. I once had a set of notes from a lawyer who was also a psychiatrist, she claimed that there has been no empirical evidence demonstrating that there is a market effect in regard to child pornography. Unfortunately, I am having trouble to locate this pdf at the moment. One thing we could do is extrapolate from the P2P music culture to the CP culture. If demand for product results in production of product, separate from payment for the product, we would expect that P2P downloading of music would lead to increased production of music.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2013/03/06/tv-and-film-piracy-threatening-an-industry/
Quote
TV and Film Piracy: Threatening an Industry?
English: Rally in Stockholm, Sweden, in suppor...

Rally in Stockholm, Sweden, in support of file sharing and software piracy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The pirates have outnumbered the watchdogs. If you don’t believe that, ask the watchdogs. They’ve been toiling in vain to stem the onslaught of viewers flocking to free streaming websites in order to enjoy the latest episodes of “Game of Thrones”, “30 Rock” or “Dexter.”  The watchdogs can’t possibly keep up—they’re overrun like a hobbled survivors fleeing a horde of zombies on AMC’s “The Walking Dead.”

The TV and movie piracy issue seems to be causing many to take sides, but according to Jonathan D. Rose, intellectual property litigator with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, a law firm in Nashville, the issue may not be entirely as cut and dry as some think.

Indeed, there are real dollars being lost to piracy. An 11-employee Independent U.S. film distributor, Wolfe Video, has had its profits halved due to piracy and costs to mitigate damages from piracy, according to The Wall Street Journal. But, according to Rose, in the larger picture, a free stream of a show or movie does not necessarily mean the viewer would have paid for the show had it not been available for free.

“Would the college student watching the pirated movie download have otherwise seen the movie in the theater, subscribed to Netflix or bought the DVD?” Rose told Forbes. “Would the person buying a pirated DVD at a Chinese market actually have bought the genuine article otherwise?  The answers to such questions are hard to determine.  But it does seem fair to assume that not every pirated copy of an audiovisual work represents lost revenue to the content producer.”

The rise of streaming video content hubs like Netflix and Amazon has, to a certain extent, recaptured some users that may have resorted to piracy because in previous years there was no other way to find an instant feed of a movie or show without resorting to piracy. Now there are legitimate streaming services that offer that content, Rose explained. Will most stream it for free anyway? Possibly, but some will do so through legitimate channels. “Of course, this phenomenon may not slow the rate of piracy through, for example, hard copy DVD distribution in overseas flea markets, but it may be a positive factor domestically,” Rose said.

 

How Will Piracy Affect the Industry?

Jonathan D. Rose, intellectual property litigator with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP in Nashville, Tenn.

Rose explained that piracy in TV and film is not new and many producers expect to experience shrinkage due to the practice. “So salaries may already be lower than they would be but for pirating, and the workforce in certain industry segments may be smaller than it would be but for pirating.”

Will it affect quality or entertainment project production? Rose thinks a more likely outcome is that marginal projects will be scrapped.

Loss of revenue is of concern to networks and film company masters because it is illegal, cutting into profits and virtually unstoppable. It may even be of concern to workers on the lower rungs of the entertainment industry who find their salaries the means of cutting overhead to make up for losses due to piracy. But for the actors and directors – those who may not be getting a considerable portion of back end money – it may not be that harsh of a reality to deal with. In a business where recognition of your work, your name and your face is paramount, free streaming is just another way of upping your visibility.

It’s a not a big deal for David Petrarcam, director of  “ Game of Thrones,” the most popular free-streamed show of 2012. The added audience causes his work to create more of a “cultural buzz.”

 

Punishment (dun dun dun)

According to Rose, since the scale of the problem is so immense, watchdogs have had to concentrate on three fronts in their efforts to slow down TV and movie piracy:

(1) Pursuing “enterprise” piracy, such as large-scale DVD production warehouses.

(2) Setting up systems to identify and have removed infringing content posted to YouTube and other mainstream audio-video sharing sites.

(3) Trying to make examples of “small-time” players by suing individual file-sharers.

Lawsuits against the casual file sharer may scare some of them straight back into the arms of legit streaming sites like Netflix, but that’s not the norm, Rose explained. “Clearly, however, the risk to a ‘small time player’ of getting caught or ending up as a defendant in lawsuit is low enough that internet file sharing persists as a major problem for the industry.  Indeed, by some accounts, the problem is growing.”

As for the nuts and bolts of what pirates and file sharers may be facing, Rose provided a quick summation of possible penalties:

One convicted of copyright infringement in the United States may be imprisoned for up to 5 years and fined up to $250,000, or both.  Repeat offenders may be sentenced up to 10 years imprisonment.  Civil penalties may be even greater, from a financial standpoint.  Statutory damages under the Copyright Act range from $200 per infringement up to $150,000 per infringement, depending upon the circumstances.

Nobody who isn't in denial thinks that increased rates of pirating movies from production studios is going to lead to the production studios producing more movies. It is pretty obvious that it will lead to them producing less movies, because they don't produce movies because there is a demand for movies but rather they produce movies because they have a financial benefit in doing so. The same thing can be demonstrated in adult entertainment:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-ct-porn10-2009aug10,0,3356050.story

Quote
On a recent Saturday night, Savannah Stern earned $300 to hang out for seven hours at a party in Santa Monica wearing nothing but a feather boa.


The veteran of more than 350 hard-core pornography productions took the job to earn extra cash and to network. But the word at the 35th anniversary party for Hustler magazine was not heartening, especially among the roughly 75 other women working there.

"At least five girls I haven't seen in a while came up to me and said, 'Savannah, are you working?' " said Stern, who started in the industry four years ago and, like most adult performers, uses a stage name. "I had to say, 'No, not really,' and they all said, 'Yeah, I'm not either.' "

The adult entertainment business, centered in the San Fernando Valley, has weathered several recessions since it took off with the advent of home video in the 1980s. But this time the industry is not dealing with just a weakened economy. A growing abundance of free content on the Internet is undercutting consumers' willingness to pay for porn, and with it the ability of many workers to earn a living in the business.

For Stern, 23, the rapid decline of job opportunities in the porn business over the last year has been dramatic. She has gone from working four or five days a week to one and now has employers pressuring her to do male-female sex scenes for $700, a 30% discount from the $1,000 fee that used to be the industry standard.

Less than two years ago, Stern earned close to $150,000 annually, sometimes turned down work and drove a Mercedes-Benz CLK 350. Now she's aggressively reaching out for jobs and making closer to $50,000 a year.

As for that Mercedes? She's replacing it with a used Chevy Trailblazer -- from her parents.

"The opportunities in this industry really are disappearing," Stern said. "It's extremely stressful."

Industry insiders estimate that since 2007, revenue for most adult production and distribution companies has declined 30% to 50% and the number of new films made has fallen sharply.

"We've gone through recessions before, but we've never been hit from every side like this," said Mark Spiegler, head of the Spiegler Girls talent agency, who has worked in porn since 1995.

"It's the free stuff that's killing us, and that's not going away," said Dion Jurasso, owner of porn production company Combat Zone, which has seen its business fall about 50% in the last three years.

Porn is hardly the only segment of the media industry struggling with these issues. But its problems appear to be more severe. Whereas online piracy has forced big changes in the music industry and is starting to affect movies and television, it has upended adult entertainment.

At least five of the 100 top websites in the U.S. are portals for free pornography, referred to in the industry as "tube sites," according to Internet traffic ranking service Alexa .com. Some of their content is amateur work uploaded by users and some is acquired from cheap back catalogs, but much of it is pirated.

Sites like Pornhub, YouPorn and RedTube attract more users than TMZ and the Huffington Post. The porn sites are even bigger than Pirate Bay, the top portal for illegal downloads of movies, TV shows and music.

Frustratingly for porn producers and distributors in the Valley, none of these sites appears to be making much money. Suzann Knudsen, a marketing director for PornoTube, said the site's parent, Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network, uses it to attract customers for paid video on demand.

"PornoTube isn't a piggy bank," she said. "Its true value is in traffic."

The adult entertainment business, which was previously in the vanguard of home video, satellite and cable television and digital distribution, now finds itself leading the rest of the entertainment industry in losses from them.

"The death of the DVD business has been more accelerated in the adult business than mainstream," said Bill Asher, co-chairman of adult industry giant Vivid Entertainment, who estimates that his company's revenue is down more than 20% this year.

"We always said that once the Internet took off, we'd be OK," he added. "It never crossed our minds that we'd be competing with people who just give it away for free."

So the demand for adult pornography separated from the willingness to financially contribute toward it has unsurprisingly reduced the supply of professionally made adult films. This is the opposite of the supply and demand effect that you anticipate and demonstrates at least that demand in and of itself doesn't lead to supply in all cases. Of course this doesn't say anything about self produced pornography which is never made for financial incentives, but it at least is a pretty strong example of how the demand for professional pornography doesn't translate into the production of commercial pornography, and that access to free pornography actually reduces the production of commercial pornography.
 
Quote
Actually, I was skipped a coupla grades, and so your ASSUMPTION is incorrect. FUCK YOU.

Well, I suppose I can only work with the available information. Saying you were in 9th grade is a strong indicator that you were at least 14 or 15 years old. Maybe you should have said a specific age.

Quote
I call bullshit, and fuck you. May you be FUCKED BY A PERPETRATOR who started out looking at CP.

Fuck it is going to be hard to find one of them considering how extremely rare they are.

Quote
Do you honestly believe that a  teenager attracted to her or his 50+yr old step father has the capacity to make life changing decisions, such as "hey dad, uncle, stranger, my body is changing, my immature brain is being flooded with chemicals, lets fuck"? THEY CAN'T CONSENT. THEIR BRAINS AND SEXUALITY ARE NOT ADULT. THEY CAN'T CONSENT. YOU ARE USING LOGICAL FALLACIES. FUCK YOU SOME MORE.

Well, not really sure what logical fallacy I am using. I mean, someone in a position of power over someone who is 14 should maybe be restricted from having sex with the 14 year old. That is how the law works in Germany. 50 year old with no relation to a 14 year old? Not a step father, teacher, police officer, etc? Fuck away, the 14 year old can consent. In a position of power? Then if you have sex with the 14 year old you break the law. Germany has a much more sensible age of consent system than the USA does. Actually, up until recently they let people legally produce porn featuring 14 year olds, and it was legal to purchase view and distribute. Of course the Christians in the USA had a problem with that and used their massive power to force Germany to change its' laws, the same way they did to Canada and how they are failing to do to Japan. 

Quote
That is all I am going to contribute to this thread. We each have our sacred cows we will protect. I will protect innocents, animals, children. You protect perpetrators. FUCK YOU.

You protect an idea that has been shown to stand on shaky ground.

StrangeTamer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Karma: +8/-11
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #200 on: November 29, 2013, 12:12:40 pm »
Heres my honest opinion on CP. First of all I am against it and disgusted by it.

Having said that, on a biological level we all have a strong desire to achieve orgasm, and society has limited what humans can achieve this from. I know marines who have been in afghanistan and witness dog fucking. Theres also apparently some sort of hierarchy among men where the youngest fellate the elders until reaching a certain age (also in Afghanistan.) In their culture this is normal, and not responsible for traumatic life effecting events, but if anything like this were to occur in America it would be an absolute outrage. Its all a matter of cultural and societal difference. I am by no means advocating this to take place, although of course Im biased because my societal and cultural upbringing has convinced me this is wrong -- which i DO believe, but Im not sure if i would, had I not grown up being taught this wa a harmful tragedy who knows how I would feel about it now?

Case and point - morale does not truly exist, it is a combination of agreements between individuals, and if you grew up in an era hundreds maybe thousands of years ago (definitely somewhere a church was not established) you would probably bang a 14 year old.

For the record I am nowhere near a pedophile, the closest i came was a 17yo girl when i was 19, and she lied for 2 months saying she was 18. I just wanted to give some insight into this thought, that goes way beyond CP and just the standards and boundaries we have set for ourself as a society

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #201 on: November 29, 2013, 12:19:18 pm »
Heres my honest opinion on CP. First of all I am against it and disgusted by it.

Having said that, on a biological level we all have a strong desire to achieve orgasm, and society has limited what humans can achieve this from. I know marines who have been in afghanistan and witness dog fucking. Theres also apparently some sort of hierarchy among men where the youngest fellate the elders until reaching a certain age (also in Afghanistan.) In their culture this is normal, and not responsible for traumatic life effecting events, but if anything like this were to occur in America it would be an absolute outrage. Its all a matter of cultural and societal difference. I am by no means advocating this to take place, although of course Im biased because my societal and cultural upbringing has convinced me this is wrong -- which i DO believe, but Im not sure if i would, had I not grown up being taught this wa a harmful tragedy who knows how I would feel about it now?

Case and point - morale does not truly exist, it is a combination of agreements between individuals, and if you grew up in an era hundreds maybe thousands of years ago (definitely somewhere a church was not established) you would probably bang a 14 year old.

For the record I am nowhere near a pedophile, the closest i came was a 17yo girl when i was 19, and she lied for 2 months saying she was 18. I just wanted to give some insight into this thought, that goes way beyond CP and just the standards and boundaries we have set for ourself as a society

Hell, if you were born 150 years ago you would probably bang a 12 year old.

StrangeTamer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Karma: +8/-11
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #202 on: November 29, 2013, 12:31:56 pm »
What I find odd is that most of us started jerking off around 12. Look at the next 12 year old you see with his mom at the grocery store, he cant wait til his mom leaves for work so he can rub his tiny little wiener on every object in his house -- speaking from experience.

And I think we can all agree as mind expanding chemical connoisseurs that from a biological stand point this is just a "biological trick" to get us to continue reproducing. But why is it so fucking awesome? I dont think about anything besides hot girls, every day, all day, its like a sickness. But its not! It happens to everyone! Which brings me to my next point --- humans are just fucking complex bacteria, think about it -- men's constant desire to squirt glue, plus women's menstrual monthly punishment for not creating a new human. We are meant to take over this mother fucker!!!!

hope this made sense, im coked out and on so much xanax i dont even know what happened today.

Quote
and yes merge youre goddamn right i would. to clarify, i dont want to do that.... at all

CaptainWhiteBeard

  • Certified Thief
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
  • Karma: +260/-290
  • The Notorious Dark Net Pirate
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #203 on: November 29, 2013, 02:16:35 pm »
What I find odd is that most of us started jerking off around 12. Look at the next 12 year old you see with his mom at the grocery store, he cant wait til his mom leaves for work so he can rub his tiny little wiener on every object in his house -- speaking from experience.

And I think we can all agree as mind expanding chemical connoisseurs that from a biological stand point this is just a "biological trick" to get us to continue reproducing. But why is it so fucking awesome? I dont think about anything besides hot girls, every day, all day, its like a sickness. But its not! It happens to everyone! Which brings me to my next point --- humans are just fucking complex bacteria, think about it -- men's constant desire to squirt glue, plus women's menstrual monthly punishment for not creating a new human. We are meant to take over this mother fucker!!!!

hope this made sense, im coked out and on so much xanax i dont even know what happened today.

Quote
and yes merge youre goddamn right i would. to clarify, i dont want to do that.... at all

This made me chuckle a bit i have to admit - ''Look at the next 12 year old you see with his mom at the grocery store, he cant wait til his mom leaves for work so he can rub his tiny little wiener on every object in his house -- speaking from experience.''

CaptainWhiteBeard
Prepare to be robbed.

Reason

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #204 on: November 29, 2013, 04:58:09 pm »
I am not going to respond to more than a few of your choice points, circuitous logical fallacies. Then, fuck you by a perpetrator who started out as an innocent, was violated by the adults in their life, and now looks at CP because their sexualization before sexual maturity fucked them up.

I want to understand this part. It sounds like you are saying that when a child is molested at a young age it changes them in such a way that predisposes them to being attracted to children also. (I assume children of a similar age as they were when they were abused) I also understand your position to be anti CP, so does that mean you feel that we should punish the victims of abuse who (according to my understanding of your point) were made that way by an act that was out of their control?

edit: I mean punished for looking at CP and not abusing an actual child


Quote
"The vast majority of people who look at CP don't actually molest children." I call bullshit, and fuck you.

I can't really speak for the "vast majority" as I only know of one actual person who looks at CP. He has long been a friend of mine and we were both abused by the same perpetrator along with my sister and his female cousin.  So I do know what it is like to be the victim. Now, of the 4 of us that I know personally were victimized, only one is attracted to children. The torch and pitchfork crowd would want him hanged if they found out about his attraction because he works closely with children in his daily job. The thing is that he absolutely will never act on his attraction directly and he has been instrumental in identifying victims he encounters. He handles his desires with CP exclusively. He doesn't blame his attraction to kids on the offender at all partly because the other three of us turned out differently. It is sad to me because he is in no way attracted to adults of either gender and will likely never experience the joys of being in an adult relationship.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2013, 04:59:44 pm by Reason »

worthystrut

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #205 on: December 01, 2013, 06:21:56 pm »
you guys are weird
“Who are you to judge the life I live?
I know I'm not perfect
-and I don't live to be-
but before you start pointing fingers...
make sure you hands are clean!”

t0x1c

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-11
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #206 on: December 03, 2013, 03:13:47 am »
dont get me wrong, i dont want to hurt anybody. i am just a fan of freedom of speech, and if porn is allowed cp should be allowed too in my honorable opinion. can someone clarify this situation? why is a sexual minority being oppressed?

Mindfun

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: +9/-14
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #207 on: December 03, 2013, 03:16:53 am »
Who the fuck wants to see that shit. I support SR not having CP and I feel more comfortable using SR without CP. If i was accessing a site that had CP offered would make me feel not right
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 03:18:53 am by Mindfun »
It's a love, but its not.
Its a dove, when its shot
how you feel when you're on top,
and yet you know you're going to drop.

DB

ASAPROTECH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #208 on: December 03, 2013, 03:17:50 am »
DPR already made a thread regarding any discussions of CP

cascas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Karma: +72/-54
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #209 on: December 03, 2013, 03:18:31 am »
Because regular porn is mutually consensual whereas child porn is exploitation of a human being who is not emotionally physically or mentally developed enough to understand the situation and what is happening.

In short, it's extremely messed up.

terabithiasquared

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #210 on: December 03, 2013, 03:18:52 am »
You are a sick person.....I suggest you get help asap..For you to ask that I dont think you belong here

bamoida2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +61/-3
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #211 on: December 03, 2013, 03:19:11 am »
because children are being abused to record this kind of material, do you think they do it on free will? Its a hell of a difference if a 16 yo girl takes self shots to send around or if some toddler is being raped by some sick human being

parisproject

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Karma: +194/-104
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #212 on: December 03, 2013, 03:19:24 am »
A child isn t able to make sexual decision,in most CP video the child does not consent,that s why to me if u watch CP then u r watching a rape.

t0x1c

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-11
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #213 on: December 03, 2013, 03:24:43 am »
you never watched any kind of this material right? that's why you think they are forced to be sexual.there are enough of videos of moaning childrin who just LOVE the pleasure of being licked or having sex (soft).

BuckshoT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Karma: +19/-17
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #214 on: December 03, 2013, 03:38:20 am »
That is a fucking stupid question. The fucks wrong with you. Disgusting piece of shit
-----------------------BuckshoT------------------------

jayblunted

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
  • Karma: +42/-24
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #215 on: December 03, 2013, 03:41:41 am »
Why do we tolerate people like this idiot in this community. You deserve to have your testicles torn off and force fed to you and filmed for an example to all other pedophiles.

t0x1c

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-11
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #216 on: December 03, 2013, 03:43:09 am »
Why do we tolerate people like this idiot in this community. You deserve to have your testicles torn off and force fed to you and filmed for an example to all other pedophiles.
i come from germany. and the only people who demand this are the nazis. are you a nazi?

5thAmendment

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Karma: +8/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #217 on: December 03, 2013, 03:44:39 am »
This sick perverted muthafucka just reading that shit makes me want to fucking vomit. It's useless, shameful pedophiles like you that should be fucking castrated and gagged with your own worthless organ!

Sir William Wonka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Karma: +227/-81
  • shitty titty jelly belly
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #218 on: December 03, 2013, 03:49:17 am »
you never watched any kind of this material right? that's why you think they are forced to be sexual.there are enough of videos of moaning childrin who just LOVE the pleasure of being licked or having sex (soft).
holy shit, find a tall building and jump off of it.  wtf
. . . it is a corrupting thing to live one's real life in secret. One should live with the stream of life, not against it.
-Orwell

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #219 on: December 03, 2013, 09:51:05 am »
A child isn t able to make sexual decision,in most CP video the child does not consent,that s why to me if u watch CP then u r watching a rape.

Well yeah if you watch some CP you are definitely watching rape. Rape is in quite a bit of CP. A lot is molestation or general sexual abuse too though. I think the primary thing is, why do you give a fuck if somebody is watching a recording of a rape? 

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #220 on: December 03, 2013, 09:52:05 am »
What in the fuck is wrong with you

Yay it looks like you guys get to see the arguments of the delusional pedophiles now, maybe you will finally realize that I am not one!

worthystrut

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #221 on: December 03, 2013, 10:51:37 am »
though i know it can only be a small number of sr users who are in to that kind of shit it saddens me. if you want cp get help or look elsewhere, the dark web is bound to have slimy disgusting holes for you to crawl in to
“Who are you to judge the life I live?
I know I'm not perfect
-and I don't live to be-
but before you start pointing fingers...
make sure you hands are clean!”

JohnTheBaptist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Karma: +112/-230
  • 16 Stone Of Steel And Sex Appeal...
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #222 on: December 03, 2013, 12:07:30 pm »
I will tell you something now I can comprehend how such an intelligent person kmfkw....would be so naive as to think we don't know it's him. Nobody else advocates or is such a vocal supporter of CP except this deplorable animal. I think it's like the age old saying academic intelligence and common sense are entirely different things eh kmf???
“Yeah, I love being famous. It's almost like being white, y'know?”
― Chris Rock

I hate the local silverbacks!

Dingo Ate My Drugs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #223 on: December 03, 2013, 01:24:28 pm »
Well I am no advocate of child porn, but as with drugs, simply criminalising people who want a certain illegal good does not help anything.
It just creates a black market for the item in demand.

I think people who want to access to child porn should be encouraged to get help. It may be beneficial to give them access to child porn that has already been produced.
I know it sounds very wrong, but if this were legal then perhaps it would deter people from creating more child pornography and affecting innocent children. If it minimises the amount of harm done to children, then it is a good idea. Users of child porn could  then be given access to child porn, counselling and monitored.

If every drug user was told drugs were legal and could get them legally, most of us would.
I think the same goes to child porn.

Just my opinion anyway. I do not support child pornography.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #224 on: December 03, 2013, 02:15:10 pm »
It's just pointless to lock people up for looking at CP in and of itself. It is only a victim causing crime in the minds of idiots. There are better ways to approach the real problem, you don't need to fuck over people who only have the crime of being into different types of porn than you are.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #225 on: December 03, 2013, 10:57:55 pm »
dont get me wrong, i dont want to hurt anybody. i am just a fan of freedom of speech, and if porn is allowed cp should be allowed too in my honorable opinion. can someone clarify this situation? why is a sexual minority being oppressed?

I disagree, partially for PR reasons and partially because I think that the existence of a market encourages the making of products to serve it. In this case, those products, at least in many instances, can cause lasting harm to their subjects. Even though I do not consider the viewing of such material to be harmful per se, I think that banning it on the SR marketplace is a wise decision by DPR and the staff,

DPR already made a thread regarding any discussions of CP

That is this thread :)

You are a sick person.....I suggest you get help asap..For you to ask that I dont think you belong here
Why do we tolerate people like this idiot in this community. You deserve to have your testicles torn off and force fed to you and filmed for an example to all other pedophiles.

To both of you, who were you directing those comments to? The OP? The people who posted immediately before you? Somebody else?

Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: Why is CP forbidden?
« Reply #226 on: December 05, 2013, 10:23:30 am »
because children are being abused to record this kind of material, do you think they do it on free will? Its a hell of a difference if a 16 yo girl takes self shots to send around or if some toddler is being raped by some sick human being

Hell of a difference?  You might be surprised to learn that in some cases, the law makes no such distinctions.

One of the sadder cases I can recall is the case of a young couple -- I believe the girl was 16, and her boyfriend 17.  They both lived in Florida, and under Florida law, both of them, being of the age of consent, were legally permitted to engage in sexual activity.  Where they went wrong was when one took photos  of themselves in the act, and sent copies via email to the other. Needless to say, these were somehow discovered, and the parents of one of them contacted the authorities.

I'm not sure what happened to the boy, but the girl was charged with a child pornography offense, tried, and convicted.  She appealed her conviction, and the Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 decision, upheld her conviction. The Chief Justice, in his judgement made ludicrous statements to the effect that she could have 'sold these images to pedophiles' and that was why he was upholding her conviction.  The lone dissenter on the Bench argued that the girl had suffered enough, and to punish her for the rest of her life was going to do absolutely nothing to protect children.  So, as a result, the girl has a criminal record, and moreover, will be on the sex offender registry for the rest of her natural life, with all that entails.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.



Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #227 on: December 05, 2013, 10:54:03 am »
Well I am no advocate of child porn, but as with drugs, simply criminalising people who want a certain illegal good does not help anything.
It just creates a black market for the item in demand.

I think people who want to access to child porn should be encouraged to get help. It may be beneficial to give them access to child porn that has already been produced.
I know it sounds very wrong, but if this were legal then perhaps it would deter people from creating more child pornography and affecting innocent children. If it minimises the amount of harm done to children, then it is a good idea. Users of child porn could  then be given access to child porn, counselling and monitored.

If every drug user was told drugs were legal and could get them legally, most of us would.
I think the same goes to child porn.

Just my opinion anyway. I do not support child pornography.

This is never going to happen, ever.  The general consensus in most of the English-speaking countries at least, is that even free discussion of the topic of child pornography needs to be suppressed.  The only acceptable opinion (at least according to most people) is that the laws need to be made even harsher, that people who view such materials should be killed, castrated, etc. Anyone who even questions the status-quo is immediately suspect of being one of 'them'.

The hysteria has become so bad in some countries, that literature and art are prosecutable as 'child pornography' just the same as if a real child were involved. People have been convicted (and jailed) for writing fictional stories; others have been prosecuted for importing (or drawing) comics. Mandatory reporting laws are in effect, so anyone who would even consider getting counseling, has to fear being placed on some type of watch-list.

I would much rather see some perv beating off to a comic, than hanging around the playground, ogling real kids.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

 

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #228 on: December 05, 2013, 10:33:23 pm »
The hysteria has become so bad in some countries, that literature and art are prosecutable as 'child pornography' just the same as if a real child were involved. People have been convicted (and jailed) for writing fictional stories; others have been prosecuted for importing (or drawing) comics. Mandatory reporting laws are in effect, so anyone who would even consider getting counseling, has to fear being placed on some type of watch-list.

As a response to the hysteria I would again direct people to (clearnet) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU and, in reference to art, specifically (clearnet) http://youtu.be/RcU7FaEEzNU?t=16m54s.

I would much rather see some perv beating off to a comic, than hanging around the playground, ogling real kids.

+1
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

DOSEO

  • Vendor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
  • Karma: +49/-27
  • Come One Come All!
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #229 on: December 05, 2013, 10:39:30 pm »
NO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE ALLOWED!!!!!

PERIOD

+DOSEO
HQ Swiss LSD - MMJ & More - FULL ESCROW!

Vendor - http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/doseo
Review - http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=1713.msg1674

DOSEO@Safe-mail.net

Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #230 on: December 06, 2013, 12:46:50 am »
NO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE ALLOWED!!!!!

PERIOD

+DOSEO

And what definition of 'child pornography' are you using, pray tell?  Should we burn all 'coming of age' novels,  stories, movies and TV shows? Should the authors, writers, producers, and actors in these be thrown in jail for making child pornography?

Should we remove artwork from the art galleries and burn them all?

Depending on the jurisdiction you live in, some (or all) of the above can be classified as 'child pornography.'

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

Ketamonster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
  • Karma: +50/-7
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #231 on: December 06, 2013, 12:58:37 am »
I personally have no interest in child pornography and find it wrong on many levels.  However the reason I feel it should continue to be prohibited is that it brings more "heat" and negative attention our way.  Same goes for weapons.

Nightcrawler

  • Guest
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #232 on: December 06, 2013, 02:17:23 am »
I personally have no interest in child pornography and find it wrong on many levels.  However the reason I feel it should continue to be prohibited is that it brings more "heat" and negative attention our way.  Same goes for weapons.

Agreed.

Nightcrawler
4096R/BBF7433B 2012-09-22 Nightcrawler <Nightcrawler@SR>
PGP Key Fingerprint = D870 C6AC CC6E 46B0 E0C7  3955 B8F1 D88E BBF7 433B

Security is a bit like religion... some things have to be taken on faith.
Where security differs from religion is that security is NOT retroactive.
Unlike Christianity, where you can come to Jesus, be 'saved' and have all
your sins washed away, with security you can adopt Tails or PGP, and be
secure from that point forward, but rest assured that your previous sins
(security failings) WILL come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass.
The original DPR is the poster child for that, right now.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #233 on: December 06, 2013, 03:07:28 am »
if you bothered actually reading the thread you would know it wasn't a thread arguing that SR should allow trading of CP. Not that it matters anyway since nobody is going to bother paying for CP anyway lol.

Trotsky

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #234 on: December 10, 2013, 12:17:16 am »
Why does the Silk Road have any Erotica on here? The deep web is a candy shop of every single porn, legal or otherwise for free. Why would anyone come on here and buy it?

Though i am of the support that CP does seem to be a real hot button in attracting heat and attention which just fucks us all over, regardless of the ethics of CP.
There is no I comrade only we

Sir William Wonka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Karma: +227/-81
  • shitty titty jelly belly
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #235 on: December 10, 2013, 12:22:54 am »
Why does the Silk Road have any Erotica on here? The deep web is a candy shop of every single porn, legal or otherwise for free. Why would anyone come on here and buy it?

Though i am of the support that CP does seem to be a real hot button in attracting heat and attention which just fucks us all over, regardless of the ethics of CP.

Lol I didn't realise porn costs money.  Can someone please explain this to me?
. . . it is a corrupting thing to live one's real life in secret. One should live with the stream of life, not against it.
-Orwell

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #236 on: December 10, 2013, 01:07:55 am »
fun facts, by some estimates it is more likely that a random male has raped a female than it is that a random CP consumer has raped a child:

http://amptoons.com/blog/2004/05/05/how-many-men-are-rapists/

one study comes to 4.5% of college men in the USA are rapists. I can't find a statistic for men in general in the USA, but if 4.5% of college men are rapists it seems pretty likely that the number of males who are rapists in the USA is significantly above 4.5%.

Quote
Mary Koss’ much-discussed 1987 study of rape prevalence is famous mostly for its fidning that 1 in 8 college women have been victims of rape at some point in their lives. What’s not as well known is that the same study also surveyed thousands of college men, asking them about if they had ever forced a woman to have sex against her will. About 4.5% reported that they had.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24713110

in parts of Asia the probability of a male being a rapist is much higher, 25% of Asian men in one study have admitted to rape.

Quote
"One in four men across Asia admit to having committed rape." This statistic was widely reported around the world, following the publication of a UN study. Could that possibly be the case?

The numbers look shocking. A quarter of men in Asia admitting to having raped? It seems a huge proportion.

But returning to the original study, it is soon apparent that the stark headlines are not supported by the evidence. The reality is more complicated.

The researchers from the UN Cross-sectional Study on Men and Violence surveyed about 10,000 men in a handful of urban and rural areas in six countries in Asia and the Pacific - half were from Bangladesh and Indonesia, the others from China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka.

So, contrary to many news reports, conclusions cannot be drawn about the behaviour of half a billion men across the continent of Asia.

Nor can conclusions even be drawn about the entire male population of the individual countries surveyed. The authors of the study state clearly that only one sample, in Cambodia, could be described as "nationally representative". The other samples do not represent a full cross-section of the population.

The press release issued to publicise the study was far more cautious than the media reports, saying only that: "Nearly a quarter of men interviewed reported perpetrating rape against a woman or girl."

But putting aside those reports about "Asian men" to one side, it's still alarming that a quarter of men interviewed admit to rape.

It is significant that two of the areas included in the survey have relatively recently suffered periods of conflict - the island of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea and Jayapura in Indonesia.

The numbers reporting rape here are much higher than in the other areas under study and have pulled up the average.

You can see this both in the figures for rape within relationships and rape outside relationships.

About 12% of men admitted to rape outside relationships. This number falls to 6% if you take out the post-conflict areas.

About 24% of men who have ever had a wife or girlfriend admit what's classed in this study as "sexual violence with girlfriends or wives past and present", or "partner rape", but this number falls to 18% if you take out the post-conflict areas.

Again, though, 18% is still a big number - it's nearly a fifth of men.

But another interesting detail is what questions the men were asked.

The first country to be surveyed was Bangladesh, and the numbers of men admitting rape were lower here than anywhere else. Here, the researchers talking to the men about their relations with partners or former partners asked a question about "forced sex".

In the other countries, a second question was also asked, and while a positive answer to this question was treated as an admission of rape, it doesn't explicitly mention force, violence or coercion.

It was phrased like this: "Have you ever had sex with your current or previous wife or girlfriend when you knew she didn't want it but you believed she should agree because she was your wife/partner?"

The number answering yes to this second question was larger than the number answering yes to the first question in all areas surveyed, apart from Sri Lanka.

"The question is basically, 'Did you make your wife have sex when she didn't want to because you thought she should do so?'" says Professor Rachel Jewkes, the lead technical adviser on the study.

"If you were to stand up in a British court and say to a judge, 'I didn't rape her, I made her have sex because I'm her husband - she didn't want it, but that's why I did it,' you'd get convicted of rape, and you'd get sent to jail in Britain. Sex is rape if you don't consent to sex."

But is it clear from the question that we're talking about making someone have sex, or someone not consenting?

Jewkes told the BBC: "It's implicit in the question that that's what had happened."

Felicity Gerry, a British barrister and co-author of the Sexual Offences Handbook blog, agrees with Jewkes.

She says the question is "carefully worded" to reflect the situation where a husband knows his wife is not consenting.

"It is not dealing with reluctant consent," she says. "It is another way of expressing a situation that amounts to marital rape."

Dr Jenevieve Mannell of the LSE's Institute of Social Psychology is more doubtful.

"Let's take a scenario where a husband and wife discuss whether or not to have sex," she says.

"She doesn't want to and he does. In their discussion the man raises the argument that she is his wife and that sexual intercourse is part of her role, and in the end the wife agrees."

In this case it would be correct for the respondent to answer Yes to the question whether he had ever had sex with his wife when she didn't want to, Mannell says.

But she asks: "Is this a case of coerced sexual intercourse or oppressive gender norms?" Her answer: "I would argue the latter."

It was nonetheless an important question to ask, Mannell says. A direct question about coercion would not be answered accurately by men who saw it as the woman's obligation to have sex, whether they wanted to or not.

So this less direct question, in her view, may not exactly have assessed "evidence that coerced sexual intercourse took place". But the conclusion of the report, she says, was absolutely correct: "We need to start paying attention to the ways in which violence against women has become a social norm."

In South Africa 25% of men admit to being rapists

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/17/south-africa-rape-survey

Quote

Quarter of men in South Africa admit rape, survey finds
• Research exposes culture of sexual violence
• Government criticised for 'woeful' conviction rate

    Share
    Tweet this
    Email

    David Smith in Johannesburg
    The Guardian, Wednesday 17 June 2009 19.24 BST   

One in four men in South Africa have admitted to rape and many confess to attacking more than one victim, according to a study that exposes the country's endemic culture of sexual violence.

Three out of four rapists first attacked while still in their teens, the study found. One in 20 men said they had raped a woman or girl in the last year.

South Africa is notorious for having one of the highest levels of rape in the world. Only a fraction are reported, and only a fraction of those lead to a conviction.

The study into rape and HIV, by the country's Medical Research Council (MRC), asked men to tap their answers into a Palm Pilot device to guarantee anonymity. The method appears to have produced some unusually frank responses.

Professor Rachel Jewkes of the MRC, who carried out the research, said: "We have a very, very high prevalence of rape in South Africa. I think it is down to ideas about masculinity based on gender hierarchy and the sexual entitlement of men. It's rooted in an African ideal of manhood."

Jewkes and her colleagues interviewed a representative sample of 1,738 men in South Africa's Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces.

Of those surveyed, 28% said they had raped a woman or girl, and 3% said they had raped a man or boy. Almost half who said they had carried out a rape admitted they had done so more than once, with 73% saying they had carried out their first assault before the age of 20.

The study, which had British funding, also found that men who are physically violent towards women are twice as likely to be HIV-positive. They are also more likely to pay for sex and to not use condoms.

Any woman raped by a man over the age of 25 has a one in four chance of her attacker being HIV-positive.

One in 10 men said they had been forced to have sex with another man. Many find it difficult to report such attacks to the police in subcultures where the concept of homosexuality is taboo.

South Africa's government has been repeatedly criticised for failing to address the crisis. Only 7% of reported rapes are estimated to lead to a conviction. Jewkes said: "There's been a lot of concern about the way the criminal justice system works, because it's still woeful."

Before his election as president, Jacob Zuma stood trial for the rape of a family friend. His supporters demonstrated at the court house, verbally attacked his accuser and sang "burn the bitch, burn the bitch". Zuma was eventually acquitted.

Jewkes added: "The social space for debating these gender issues is now smaller than it was a few years ago. We need our government to show political leadership in changing attitudes. We need South African men, from the top to the grassroots, to take responsibility."

Anti-rape campaigners said the shocking figures demonstrated the need for reform. Dean Peacock, co-director of the Sonke Gender Justice project, said: "We need to make sure the criminal justice system is held to account. We have lots of discussion in this country, but not enough action is taken to ensure that perpetrators will face consequences."

Zuma, a polygamist, was criticised for emphasising his Zulu tribal identity and singing militant songs during this year's election campaign. He made comments that outraged anti-Aids and gender campaigners.

Peacock added: "We're at a complicated moment in South African history with revived traditionalism and there's a danger of gender transformation being lost.

"We hear men saying, 'If Jacob Zuma can have many wives, I can have many girlfriends.' The hyper-masculine rhetoric of the Zuma campaign is going to set back our work in challenging the old model of masculinity."

Carrie Shelver, an activist with People Opposing Women Abuse, said: "Generally there's a deficit of understanding and commitment to women's rights by the leadership of this country. It's simply not on people's agenda."

A report published by the trade union Solidarity earlier this month said that one child is raped in South Africa every three minutes, with 88% of rapes going unreported. It found that levels of child abuse in South Africa are increasing rapidly.

On the other hand, estimates for the percentage of CP consumers that molest children, at least the realistic ones that are not pure propaganda, run from as low as 1% to 16%.

http://phys.org/news166769376.html

Quote
For people without a prior conviction for a hands-on sex offense, the consumption of child pornography alone does not, in itself, seem to represent a risk factor for committing such an offense. Researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry studied 231 men convicted of consuming child pornography in 2002 and found that only 1% had gone on to commit a hands-on sex offense in the following six years.

Frank Urbaniok from the Canton of Zurich Department of Justice, Switzerland, worked with a team of researchers to investigate these consumers. He said: "When investigating the prevalence of internet child pornography consumption, an important practical question is whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Our results support the assumption that these consumers, in fact, form a distinct group of sex offenders. Probably, the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of 1% for hands-on and 4% for hands-off sex offenses were quite low."

As has been found in other studies, Urbaniok and colleagues were able to corroborate that the offenders were well educated and that most consumed other types of illegal pornography as well, such as pornography depicting sexual acts with animals, excrement, or involving brutality.

Commenting on the findings, Urbaniok said: "Due to the widespread use of the internet, child pornography consumers today may differ from our sample in some socio-economic aspects, such as in the level of education or level of income. Nevertheless, there are two relevant and practical findings that seem to be robust: For consumers of child pornography without a criminal history, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses and for recidivism with child pornography is favourable."

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html#ncm40

Quote
40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children"

According to an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise (ECPAT in Australia), published in the The Australian on 8 January 2008: "In 2005 the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that 40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children."[77]

The 40% number was in a report distributed by the NCMEC in 2005 and the percentage concerned research findings in relation to a total of 429 cases during the 12 months beginning 1 July 2000. However, insofar as the phrasing of the assertion quoted above appears to imply that 40% of persons arrested for possession of child pornography were found to have sexually abused children, it does not accurately reflect the research findings.

The research found that "one out of six", i.e. 16% of "cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so".
Findings of the N-JOV Study

The source of the 40% figure is the second report on the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study ("N-JOV Study")[78] conducted by researchers (Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitchell) at the Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire (in north-western U.S.A.). The research report was "funded by the U.S. Congress Through a Grant to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children".

(Note: Although NCMEC's media release of 18 August 2005 cites the above research report as the source of numerous NCMEC claims about 'growing', 'increasing', etc, the research report did not find, or claim, that anything is increasing, growing, etc. The research concerned a one year period beginning 1 July 2000 and did not compare findings from that period with any other period.)

According to the research report:

    The goals of the National Juvenile Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study were to survey law-enforcement agencies within the United States (U.S.) to count arrests for Internet-related sex crimes committed against minors and describe the characteristics of the offenders, the crimes they committed, and their victims.

The above report was the second report on the N-JOV Study and it was focussed on a 'representative national sample' of persons arrested for Internet-related sex crimes who possessed child pornography, i.e. a sub-set of the cases identified in the N-JOV survey.

The researchers found that "[U.S.] Law-enforcement agencies nationally made an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography during the 12 months beginning July 1, 2000". The estimate of 1,713 was projected from 429 actual cases identified.

The researchers also stated "[T]o give some perspective on this estimate of 1,713 arrests for Internet-related CP possession, we estimate there were approximately 65,000 arrests in 2000 for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors".

In the sub-set comprising persons who possessed child pornography (429 actual cases), 47% of the cases arose in the criminal-justice system as cases of child sexual victimization or attempted child sexual victimization (solicitations to undercover investigators) and 53% of the cases arose as cases involving child pornography possession.

The 40% number is a further sub-set which comprises cases/persons whom the researchers termed 'dual offenders' because "They sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the course of the same investigation":

    We found 40% of the cases involving CP possession in the N-JOV Study involved dual offenses of CP possession and child sexual victimization detected in the course of the same investigation. All of these offenders had identified child victims. An additional 15% both possessed CP and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors. When these cases of attempted child sexual victimization are counted, 55% of the CP possessors were dual offenders (unweighted n = 241, weighted n = 936).

(Note that the actual number of dual offender cases identified was 241).

84% of the dual offenders were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child sexual victimization which subsequently turned up child pornography possession (55% child sexual victimization plus 29% solicitations to undercover investigators). 16% were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child pornography which subsequently detected a sexually victimized child or an attempt to do so (solicitation to an undercover investigator).

The researchers stated:

    When we looked at all of the cases originating as allegations or investigations of CP possession and examined how many resulted in the arrests of dual offenders, we found

        In 14% of cases investigators found dual offenders who both possessed child pornography and sexually victimized children
        In 2% of cases investigators found offenders who possessed child pornography and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors
        84% of cases involved CP possession but investigators did not detect concurrent child sexual victimization or attempts at child victimization

    This means one out of six cases [i.e. 16%] originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.

The research report also states:

    Limitations
    The N-JOV Study is the first research gathering information about a national sample of arrested CP possessors. Data from a national sample is a strength of the N-JOV Study, but like every scientific survey, the study also has limitations. Readers should keep some of these important things in mind when considering the findings and conclusions of this study.
    First, ...
    Second, ...
    Third, there is an additional caution to our findings about dual offenders. Knowing a considerable number of dual offenders were discovered during investigations of Internet-related, child-sexual-victimization and CP possession cases does not explain how possessing child pornography is related to child sexual victimization or whether it causes or encourages such victimization. We did not have the data to determine this. In particular we had no information about the sequencing of the crimes committed by dual offenders or about undetected crimes they may have committed and little information about their criminal histories and how they used the child pornography they possessed.
    [emphasis added]

In summary, the U.S. case research from which the NCMEC's 40% figure originates, found in a one year period beginning 1 July 2000, an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography (of which 55% also involved sexual victimization of children, or attempts to do so), and an estimated 65,000 arrests in the U.S. for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors. Of the Internet-related cases, one out of six [i.e. 16% of] the cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.

So, if we are into using traits that are perceived as indicators of a person sexually abusing others as justification to imprison them, doesn't it make more sense to imprison every male instead of just the males who consume child pornography? Because it seems pretty clear that a randomly selected male is more likely to rape females than a randomly selected CP consumer is to molest a child.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 01:09:22 am by merge »

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #237 on: December 18, 2013, 12:31:23 pm »
check out my neat infographic: http://torimagesbp2vt3u.onion/i/C8qgM.png

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #238 on: December 18, 2013, 02:05:06 pm »
No no you totally convinced me. People who view CP are sick fucks and they need exterminated because they are at super high risk of molesting kids. And because males are at much higher risk of sexually assaulting females than CP offenders are of molesting children, as confirmed by over a dozen studies, we must eradicate all males to prevent sexual assault. Did you see my infographic? We need to take the resources currently being used to hunt down CP offenders and just hunt down males. Not only are males more likely to sexually assault females than CP offenders are, but most CP offenders are actually males anyway so we can kill two birds with one retarded stone!

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #239 on: December 18, 2013, 02:08:23 pm »
Seriously dude, almost 60% of male college students in the USA have committed sexual assault at least one time in their lives! That means a male college student is almost 60 times more likely to have sexually abused somebody than a CP consumer in Switzerland. Why are we spending so many resources hunting down and imprisoning CP offenders when we can prevent far more sexual abuse by hunting down male college students? Male college students in the USA are sick deprived fucks who need to be put down! They commit sexual assault more than any other group I am aware of! 60% of them self report as having committed sexual assault, just think of how many of them actually do when you take into account that some of them are not going to admit to it even in anonymous studies! It's just absurd how fucking rape (~5-15%) obsessed and sexual assault obsessed (25-60%)  male college students in the USA are, I think the world would clearly be a better place if we just made it illegal to be a male college student in the USA.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 02:14:30 pm by merge »

PillfirePharmacy

  • Vendor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Karma: +236/-63
  • Quality, Customer Service& Integrity are our goals
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #240 on: December 18, 2013, 02:09:40 pm »
It seems that the cp types like to stick together, so let the creepy little dirtbags stay in this thread.  At least we'll know who more of them are so we can avoid and not do any business with them.  Scumbaggy perverted little fuckers.
SR's #1 TRUSTED Suboxone Vender. Top Shelf & Fire Fishscale cocaine listings now live (levamisole, ephedrine & amphetamine FREE)!
SR2:http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/pillfirepharmacy
Agora: vendor/PillfirePharmacy#
Evolution:http://k5zq47j6wd3wdvjq.onion/store/5368

smoor.be

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +7/-5
  • No fighting in the war room!
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #241 on: December 18, 2013, 02:11:02 pm »
If you allow CP on SR you're going to attract alot more attention, same with weapons &  murder.
It was also damage the rep with the public, people will avoid this place.

VENDOR page http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/smoor-be

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #242 on: December 18, 2013, 02:18:34 pm »
It seems that the cp types like to stick together, so let the creepy little dirtbags stay in this thread.  At least we'll know who more of them are so we can avoid and not do any business with them.  Scumbaggy perverted little fuckers.

Totally, and don't forget to avoid all US college students as well. ~25% of CP offenders in US federal custody have molested a child, but ~25-60% of male college students in the USA have sexually assaulted a female! You also need to take into account the fact that only 1% of CP offenders are arrested in a given year, and that the police with their limited resources make sure to arrest primarily the CP offenders who are at a high risk of being child molesters (ie: people detected with CP that is used for grooming kids primarily rather than private fantasy, or people with manuals on how to molest kids and get away with it). They overwhelmingly target those people and still only 25% of the ones in federal custody have molested a child! So overall the percentage is obviously much lower, but on the other hand sick fuck US college students SELF REPORT at 25-60% as having sexually assaulted a female at least once in their lives, so just imagine how high that number really is when you take into account all of the ones who lied on the anonymous surveys they took! Seriously avoid the sick fuck CP possessors, but definitely avoid US college students the most they are sick beyond words. 

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #243 on: December 18, 2013, 03:31:04 pm »
Could you spot a pedophile? Here are the warning signs! http://www.news.com.au/national/could-you-spot-a-paedophile-here-are-the-warning-signs/story-fncynjr2-1226722713261

OMG!!! Everyone is an evil pedophile :O

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #244 on: December 18, 2013, 05:04:58 pm »
omg is that article really even trying to be serious? It just made me literally burst out laughing. The pictures are just pure awesomeness. God you scared people I feel so sorry for you. We really need an article on how to spot male college students though as they are way more likely to sexually assault people than CP consumers are. But seriously it is a great article and it is time that we adapt it for the scientifically proven much greater risk of sexual assault posed by US male college students.

SOME US male college students jump out of bushes and sexually assault your daughter on the way home from school.

But more likely, he is your friendly neighbour or attentive shopkeeper.

He could be a charming relative or the son of a friend who is all too willing to babysit your children.

The US male college student in your midst may be the frat bro, the nerdy computer geek, the bum who still lives with his parents or a member at your church.

The Australian Royal Commission into institutionalised  sexual assault crimes, running since April, has entered a new round of hearings and a concurrent inquiry is continuing into sexual assault offences in the university.

But Australian parents should not comfort themselves with the notion that US male college students were more common decades ago, or they are confined to likely suspects such as frat bros or people trying to get professional jobs.

Or just because the 21st century has brought american college student registries and "Working on a degree" checks for US college students in the youth, sport, education, health, welfare, disability, religion and justice fields in all states.



1. The everyman

When looking out for a US college student, don't be fooled by a person's appearance, outward respectability or importance in the community.

US college students are almost always men, less often married adult males and they work in a very wide range of occupations, from unskilled work up to slightly skilled work.

What to look out for is someone who does keg stands and smokes bud all day, and has either very few non US college student friends or whose friends might also be sexual assaulting bros.

Signs to watch for: US college students usually prefer females in one specific age group, such as young teenagers from 12-14, older teenagers from 14-17, and older girls all the way up to 30 something.

US college students can be bisexual but more commonly will prefer females of the one gender, males or females.


2. Child-related workers

While US college students can work anywhere, they do find ways to be around females as often as possible.

It may not be their principal profession, such as a lifeguard or hair stylist, but a voluntary or weekend position as a lifeguard, hair stylist, spa worker, dentist, or therapist can provide the contact with females they need.

Some well-known US college students have placed themselves as teachers or leaders of artistic bodies such as dance schools, where they have surrounded themselves with adoring and aspiring performers.

Andrew Manners was a convicted US college student who had committed offences against females in Queensland in 1998. He was on parole and prohibited from working with females when he surfaced in 2002.

Manners turned up as a fill-in teacher at his mother's Scottish dance school, where he was spotted by an observant parole officer.

Former performing arts schoolteacher, Peter Gerard Boys, was also a band leader of the musical troupe the Marching Koalas in the NSW Hunter Valley region when, aged in his 40s, he began having a sexual relationship with four of his students.

He was convicted and sentenced to eight sex offences against girls aged 14-21 years, and on his release from prison is believed to have subsequently married one of the girls who had decided she wasn't sexually assaulted after all.

Watch out for sorority girl adoration beyond the bounds of a normal crush, accompanied by "secret" phone calls and special individual attention.

3. Happy snappers

US college students are enthusiastic collectors of photographs or videos of females, even females who are fully dressed, but preferably, and behind a females back, of females half or fully nude or engaged in sexually suggestive or explicit acts. They will have vast image collections, and hidden away a collection of female erotica and degrading female pornography that simulates sexual assault

4. Close relatives and partners

The date rapist or bro assaulter is usually an adult male such as someone in a fraternity, who then sexually assaults sorority girls or random college girls.

Single mothers are easy prey for sexual predators whose real intention is to sexually assault her when she is passed out drunk, while continuing a sexual relationship with many other girls.

The sexual relationship with the passed out sorority girl is a secret, and don't expect a unconscious drunk girl to reveal it.

Unconscious drunk girls are silent for a number of reasons - they may feel "amnesia" for all the attention being paid them, and they may love the abusive adult.

Or their silence may be achieved by the abuser threatening them with  damaging their social standing if he or she reveals the sexual assault, or by making the victim feel they are dirty, naughty and to blame for what has occurred.

A person concerned about US college male sexual assault going on in a relative's home may be surprised to know that the full damn campus is aware, and complicit, for similar reasons of feeling intimidated by the US college male and not wanting the "fraternity" to split up should the situation be revealed.

5. The gift giver

Beware of drinks from an unknown source turning up in your high school or college aged females possession. US college males often like to "drug" your child with presents and often can, in a twisted manner, portray the child as the sexual consenter after the victim realises he or she can not remember a single damn thing.

6. The always available study buddy

Often a single male with no friends, this sort of US college student will place himself in a situation where he becomes the trusted study buddy, often for the several, usually single parent females.

The mothers regard him as a godsend, who will help them study in the few minutes they can get away from their child.

In many cases the single parent is unable to provide the support the attention to studies required, leaving the scene wide open for the US college male to play "tutor" and provide care, attention and "fun".

Many US college students seek out mothers of single-parent families for the purpose of sexually assaulting the shit out of them, which may have been the case with loner Michael Guider, who regularly participated in a study group of females, and drugged the girls and photographed them naked.

He was most fond of Samantha Knight, the pretty Bondi nineteen-year-old who went missing in 1986.

Guider eventually pleaded guilty to her manslaughter, claiming he had accidentally overdosed her. Samantha's body has never been found.

7. The internet groomer

While college aged females can be critical of a person's appearance and likely to suspect an ugly misfit, the internet has paved the way for weirdos to connect.

US college students can still be outcasts and loners, but the internet is their ideal social tool.

They exchange information with other like-minded people via fraternity chatrooms and message boards about which females to target, how to obtain date rape drugs, and how to set up a meeting to seduce the female with the least risk of getting caught.

8. The damaged

US male college students are often the victims of sexual assault themselves.

US male college students who were victims are able to more easily justify their repetition of history.

They may network with others like them whose beliefs and practices are that sex with drunk unconscious girls is acceptable.

9. The good-looking charmer

People tend to judges others by their superficial appearances, and US male college students can be charming, attractive men with social graces and an easy manner.

They may be respected community members.

They know how to play upon a females need for attention and affection and come across as being helpful and trustworthy.

What they are doing is grooming the female or females - they often target groups of young people, particularly sorority girls.

They will invite the girls over to get wasted, take them out to eat and drug their drinks, and offers to take them out on trips to "fun" locations where they will then sexually assault them.

They spend as much time as possible making the females like them and even craving their attention as an after school treat.

They will touch the females in playful ways (after they are unconscious), playing special "games" (like spike the drink with GHB) eventually meant to culminate in sexual contact.

This is particularly easy if there is no father figure in the females lives.

Particularly watch for adults who "bro talk" females, speaking to them in a manner that indicates they have ever been in a fraternity.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #245 on: December 19, 2013, 03:27:27 am »
I think CP is worse than drugs. The FED's need to fuck prosecuting drug users and nail these guys. When doing drugs, you choose to be a slave. CP is anti-freedom, thus against what SR is all about.
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #246 on: December 19, 2013, 03:44:54 am »
CP and drugs are two entirely different problems. And within the drug-problem we have varieties such as pot and krokodil, same goes for CP.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #247 on: December 19, 2013, 04:02:36 am »
CP and drugs are two entirely different problems. And within the drug-problem we have varieties such as pot and krokodil, same goes for CP.

Two different problems certainly but with many similarities indeed. The primary similarity being that the consumers of both are entirely misunderstood, and that this state of affairs has been brought upon us by concentrated industry efforts. The same slave traders arresting drug users are arresting CP consumers. The same propagandists poisoning the minds of people in regards to drug users are poisoning the minds of people in regards to CP consumers. In both cases they have convinced the general public to fight a war that is counterproductive to the goals they convince the general public that they have in mind. In both cases they do this for money and power. It is two instances of the same modernized version of the slave trade.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #248 on: December 19, 2013, 10:43:43 am »
You seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to say, sock puppet. Among drugs we have different kinds of drugs which leads to different kinds of problems, and the severity of the problems the drug creates varies from drug to drug. Misuse of pot leads to some problems while misuse of krokodil leads to other problems. I would say that the severity of misuse of krokodil is worse than the misuse of pot.

With CP we have different kinds of CP, the 16 yo girl who makes nudes of her self and share them with her boyfriend and the father who rapes his 6 yo girl and take pictures. These examples are both CP, but the severity is enormous. We shouldn't put the 16 yo girl in the same category as the father.

The message I was trying to convey is that the issue is complex and it doesn't have a simple solution. (I'm tried so excuse me if I'm bad at expressing my self)
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 11:10:44 am by SandStorm »

thecatisback

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1444
  • Karma: +109/-199
  • The Official Kitty Cat Of The Road! Meow!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #249 on: December 19, 2013, 02:33:25 pm »
Do you think the FBI and LE would be as after tor and the dark web if the child porn problem that currently exist didn't?
"Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed".

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #250 on: December 19, 2013, 02:50:03 pm »
Do you think the FBI and LE would be as after tor and the dark web if the child porn problem that currently exist didn't?
They would still have the 3 other horsemen to hunt. I'm sure terrorism would have taken its place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 03:00:01 pm by SandStorm »

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #251 on: December 19, 2013, 03:17:55 pm »
Sockpuppet.

I didn't find any example like the one I mentioned, even though I've heard about underage girl getting prosecuted for having sex (something which is equally weird imo, but I don't bother finding source).

But I did find this with a quick search on google:
(*clearnet*) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/child-porn-charges-laid-against-10-laval-teens-1.2426599 (*clearnet*)

Child porn charges laid against 10 Laval teens

Ten boys, aged 13 to 15, appeared in youth court in Laval, Que., today to face child pornography charges, after a school teacher caught a boy with explicit photos allegedly taken with the smartphone application Snapchat.

Laval police arrested the 10 boys who police allege were trading photos — in several cases, of each other's girlfriends — among themselves on their smartphones.

All of the teens were charged with possession and  distribution of child pornography, while two of the boys also face charges for producing child pornography.

Laval police Const. Nathalie Lorrain said police and parents were called to a Laval high school in the English-language Wilfrid Laurier School Board, after a school staff member discovered a male student was showing other boys sexually explicit photographs of a girl.

"There was a small network of 10 young men that were soliciting young girls that some of them knew very well," said Lorrain.

"They were asking these girls for sexually explicit pictures — sometimes with a lot of insistence."

She said the photos were shared among boys at three Laval schools:

    Mother Theresa Junior High School.
    Laval Liberty High School.
    Laurier Senior High School.

Late this afternoon, the school board issued a written statement, saying that the board takes incidents like these very seriously and is proactive in implementing its schools preventative educational strategies to teach students.

"The school teams have been implementing strategies to raise awareness and educate students on safe and responsible use of technology," said the board's director general Stephanie Vucko. "More importantly, intimidation of any sort is not tolerated at any schools of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board."

Vucko called on parents to be vigilant, "as these incidents occur off school premises but resurface when the students are at the school."

"Courageous conversations need to take place to discuss the [misuse] of technologies that are so readily accessible," she said.

Boys released into parents' custody

After a brief court appearance this afternoon, the boys were released into the custody of their parents.

They are due back in court on Jan. 20.

They were ordered to adhere to a number of conditions: to keep the peace, to maintain orderly conduct and to refrain from any contact with the alleged victims unless they cross their paths at school.

The boys have also been banned from using computers and any other electronic devices that would give them access to the internet, unless it is for school work and unless they are supervised by a parent or school official.

Laval police said the investigation continues. They said there could be more arrests, and there could be more victims.

Girls thought Snapchat was safe, police say

Lorrain said some of the alleged victims thought they were safe because they were using the Snapchat app, which allows users to take and send photos that disappear from a receiver's device after a few seconds.

However, she said, the young men involved would capture and save screen grabs of the photos before they disappeared.

"Once the picture is sent in cyberspace, it's completely lost," Lorrain said. "You can't recuperate that, unfortunately."

Lorrain said Laval police want to broadcast a clear message that the sharing of explicit photos can spiral into dangerous situations.

"In some cases, the girls were pretty shaken up when they found out," Lorrain said.

"What we want really is for these young people to respect themselves," she said. "The boys respect the girls. Girls, respect yourselves, and don't send pictures like that."


End of this story, article write something about an other case


So teenagers exchanging nude pictures of them self's are regarded as child porn in some jurisdictions.

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #252 on: December 20, 2013, 12:36:36 am »
It's strange to see your convoluted mishmash of tolerances and intolerances @Im A Sock Puppet.

OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #253 on: December 20, 2013, 07:36:00 am »
Quote
No one really considers a 16yr old girl sending her boyfriend naked pictures as CP or exploitation

The law does.

Quote
since at 16 you are legally able to get a drivers license it kind of takes the "child" out of the pornography I would say.

Drivers license is what makes you not a child in your imagination? Too bad it doesn't match up with the law. Nobody gives a fuck what you would say you are not the law and your imagination doesn't make it reality.

Quote
She should be told not to be such a hussie slut by her parents and disciplined and had it explained to her how doing things like that could come back to haunt her in later life, but that is not the exploitation of minors, just a young slut doing what young sluts do everyday and was done of their own volition.

Haha to the average person you now are pedophile who needs to be put to death you fucking retard.

Quote
I still think if you are a grown man who likes to look at 16yr old girls in a sexual way then you need psychiatric evaluation

Psychiatrists already determined that grown men look at girls as young as 14 in a sexual way, and that it is completely normal. So what is point of evaluation? Are they going to be diagnosed with normality? There is no disease that includes the age 16. Or 14 for that matter. There isn't even a perfect consensus that 11-13 is mental disorder.

Quote
still but I think for those people it comes from being unable to get pussy in their younger years and it's like they missed out on a repressed desire they know they can never experience like owning a Lear Jet, but like watching a Forbes documentary, they can dream. Unfortunately, these are not what is being discussed here because you can watch 18yr old's getting fucked that are for all intents and purposes more or less the same thing but there are some really young looking 16yr old's too.

Naked 14 and even some 16 year old look moderately different from naked 18 year old. You not likely to find many naked 18 year olds that can perfectly pass for naked 14 year old. 14 year old have more perky and firm looking breasts that are more likely to protrude at the end and curve upward, some older girls keep such breasts their entire lives but it is uncommon as usually they get more fatty and start to droop down. 14 year old also has more delicate frame that is also uncommon to be kept as they age, it is like a mix between 16 and 18 year old, not as filled out as a 16 year old but not as slender as an 18 year old either. And they have more radiant, smoother, more full skin that is the biggest tell tale sign of their age, uncommon for 18 year old to have such young looking skin. 14 year old also have less pubic hair, but usually older girls shave their pubic hair completely off or make it look like they are 14 anyway. Older girls more likely to have full bushy pubic hair, 14 year old more likely to have a moderately sized strip of pubic hair but less on the sides. 16 year old and 18 year old can pass as each other more commonly, but 16 year old more likely to have slightly more perky breasts, and they more likely to be a bit shorter and more rounded in the body whereas older is a bit taller and more narrow in body. Biggest difference between 16 and 18 is 16 year old has more stocky frame and 18 is more slender. Biggest difference between most 14 and most 16 is their frame and breasts, 16 is more filled out usually and breasts more likely to be fatty and rounded than solid and curving up. You could find 18 year old that passes as 14 sure, but when taken as a whole there are traits more common to group of 14, 16 and 18 year old girls, and not as many 18 year old will have all visual traits of 14 year old even if many have some subsection of the traits. At 14 there is usually enough development that forensic evaluation of appearance is not adequate to differentiate though, can't tell if an uncommon older looking 14 year old or one of the uncommon younger looking 18 year old girls.   

I personally think girls hit the peak of their sexual attractiveness at about 14 years old, then they have a bit of a small but sharp fall around 15-16, and then have a gradual decline that starts to accelerate about 10 years later. I actually prefer 17 year old body over 15/16 year old body though, 15/16 year old are too stocky, but their still somewhat perkier breasts usually make up for it. 14 year old girls are absurdly hot though, they are like caricatures of female sexual attractiveness. 

Quote
If it were someone manipulating the 16yr old against her will for their own personal gains, then that is a different story because although she is old enough to decide if she wants to do this action or not without understanding the consequences, someone preying on her can understand it. No minor should be on the sex offenders list unless it's a serious serous crime against another child to warrant it otherwise you tell me anyone who didn't play doctor when they were kids and I'll show you a liar. But kids exploring themselves and trying to understand their bodies and the difference between boys and grls is again much different to a grown man or woman raping the poor innocent things.

I don't think I ever said that it is okay to rape people. I know that there are good reasons against rape. I said there is no reason to lock people up for looking at pictures of rape. And there really are not any good reasons.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 08:29:32 am by merge »

Matey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +3/-14
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #254 on: December 20, 2013, 04:00:21 pm »
i hope this is not a pedophiles hook up thread? or hope fully interpol are lookin at this more closely than the people tryin to get high. the world is getting to be a smaller place for people that abuse children , the repulsiveness of the people that condone or participate is this behavour should exact only one punishment death by hanging i cant begin to fathom why some one would participate but to say its a sickness its a cancer and need to be killed any one one here who is a victim my condolences any one here who is a perpitrator i hope you glow in the dark

thecatisback

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1444
  • Karma: +109/-199
  • The Official Kitty Cat Of The Road! Meow!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #255 on: December 20, 2013, 04:12:36 pm »
I just want to make it clear regular porn without kids is cool right? Especially hot chick on how chick porn right?
"Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed".

Matey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +3/-14
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #256 on: December 20, 2013, 04:15:41 pm »
any thing from 17 on is fine

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #257 on: December 20, 2013, 04:34:34 pm »
what's so special about 17 ?

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #258 on: December 20, 2013, 04:38:42 pm »
jk I totally see now! Omg I just did a google image search for "14 year old girl" and I realize what a sick fuck I am now. These girls look so young an unattractive! How could anyone possibly think that these girls are sexually attractive, it just boggles the mind to me now. Any sick fuck who finds these girls attractive must be immediately castrated!

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liam0fEC0o1qd7n0lo1_500.jpg
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3413271&d=1307379379

good lord it's just fucking disgusting.

thecatisback

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1444
  • Karma: +109/-199
  • The Official Kitty Cat Of The Road! Meow!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #259 on: December 20, 2013, 05:08:40 pm »
Careful they will throw your ass in jail for that porn or not thats the first step. Googling the picture and considering it.
"Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed".

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #260 on: December 20, 2013, 05:15:11 pm »
it isn't porn it's two fully clothed 14 year old girls who already have people on a public clearnet body building forum drooling over their ridiculously sexy errrr I mean horribly disgusting totally unattractive selves, and they should all be put to death !

Seriously, I wouldn't link to any illegal porn here. I'm not a fucking retard, nor am I much of a jackass , at least not the type of jackass that puts you at risk of catching a CP charge :P.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 05:16:08 pm by merge »

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #261 on: December 20, 2013, 08:39:59 pm »
17 is still to young. 18= Adult. We need a cut off here or people will justify taking naked pics of 16, 15, and younger people.
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #262 on: December 20, 2013, 09:24:20 pm »
You are so lucky! In the same sense that a Christian is so lucky! You both just happened to be born in a country that supports The One True Belief System! They get to be saved from a Lake Of Fire, that everybody from countries that disagrees with them is going to go to since they are not from country with the One True Belief System, and you are going to be saved from all the normal males since you just happened to grow up in the country with the quite high by global standards age of consent being reached at 18. It is so awesome that both of you religious nut jobs just happened to be born under the One True System, wow you are both so lucky.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #263 on: December 20, 2013, 09:36:09 pm »
You are so lucky! In the same sense that a Christian is so lucky! You both just happened to be born in a country that supports The One True Belief System! They get to be saved from a Lake Of Fire, that everybody from countries that disagrees with them is going to go to since they are not from country with the One True Belief System, and you are going to be saved from all the normal males since you just happened to grow up in the country with the quite high by global standards age of consent being reached at 18. It is so awesome that both of you religious nut jobs just happened to be born under the One True System, wow you are both so lucky.

Go fuck yourself bitch. Our "Godly" countries have seen that the famale mind fully developes at 18. We have reasons dumbass. Not because we love Jesus. We are all druggies here too... Lake of Fire here we come. I hate peds:P
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #264 on: December 20, 2013, 09:42:50 pm »
You are so lucky! In the same sense that a Christian is so lucky! You both just happened to be born in a country that supports The One True Belief System! They get to be saved from a Lake Of Fire, that everybody from countries that disagrees with them is going to go to since they are not from country with the One True Belief System, and you are going to be saved from all the normal males since you just happened to grow up in the country with the quite high by global standards age of consent being reached at 18. It is so awesome that both of you religious nut jobs just happened to be born under the One True System, wow you are both so lucky.

Go fuck yourself bitch. Our "Godly" countries have seen that the famale mind fully developes at 18. We have reasons dumbass. Not because we love Jesus. We are all druggies here too... Lake of Fire here we come. I hate peds:P

Do your reasons consist of the cutting edge science available to people in 1850 when feminist campaigners picked the arbitrary age of 18 as the One True Age?

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #265 on: December 20, 2013, 09:44:26 pm »
Do you reason your beliefs of cave men fucking 9 year olds?
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #266 on: December 20, 2013, 10:00:01 pm »
I would lean more toward modern day Germans legally fucking 14 year olds. Or phalometric analysis of random samples of males showing that they are just as attracted to 14 year olds as they are 18 year olds. Or sexual development charts that show on average females reach full sexual development at 14.5 years old. Or the fact that the global age of consent average is 16, with many countries at 13-14. Or the fact that the consensus of the psychiatric community is that attraction to 14 year olds is normal, and that the people who think otherwise have been influenced by arbitrary cultural beliefs. Or the fact that puberty is the biological indicator that a person is ready to start having sex. Or any of numerous other things.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #267 on: December 20, 2013, 10:04:52 pm »
Who gives a fuck if a girl reaches full sexual development at 14.5 yrs!? They still can't combat being on camera nude at that age!! I thought Germany was smarter than America:P
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #268 on: December 20, 2013, 10:10:23 pm »
up to a few years ago it was legal to produce and distribute for financial gain hardcore pornography featuring 14 year olds in Germany.Too bad I was not German back then, sounds like it was fun times. Still a nice advantage to being German today though, primarily that you can bang hot high school girls and nobody gives a shit. Could always check out Japan, they let you bang high school chicks and look at porn featuring them still. Hell, porn of high school girls is as part of Japanese culture as Baseball and Moms Apple Pie is part of US culture! Guess Italy is nice too they also have not criminalized the perfectly normal behavior of banging hot high school girls. Uruguay sounds the best of all though, you can bang hot high school girls, look at porn of hot high school girls, and take as many personal use drugs as you want, and nobody gives a shit. Some day I will probably renounce my citizenship in my current country and move to Uruguay, then I can do everything I want to do and not be a criminal 0_0.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 10:18:22 pm by merge »

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #269 on: December 20, 2013, 10:14:18 pm »
Poor girls don't even know how to respond. I'm disgusted :P :'(
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #270 on: December 20, 2013, 10:34:45 pm »
I mean, I doubt I would bang hot high school girls in Uruguay anyway. I can't really envision the opportunity coming up. I'm pretty young still, but not quite young enough that I know anyone who is younger than first year college student. But if the opportunity ever came up it would be nice to know that I could take advantage of it. It isn't even worth the risk at all where I currently live. And thank God I am also attracted to older girls all the way to their 30's, so it isn't like I *need* to have sex with hot high school girls. But there is no denying it would be incredibly fun to do so. And I don't really want to live in a country where I can't, even if I probably wouldn't end up doing so anyway. The biggest attraction of living in a free country is that I could at least look at porn featuring hot high school girls. I mean, I am indeed visually attracted to older girls as previously mentioned, but yeah 14 year old girls are at the very peak of their sexual attractiveness and it would be fun to see them in sexual situations. I guess I should feel bad or like I am a sick person, but I'm just too intelligent to be able to do that. Your cultural brainwashing just didn't work on me, it's a shame really I would probably be significantly happier if I could drink the same kool aid as the rest of you, and repress my sexual desires to the point that even I myself didn't acknowledge them. I guess that's just the price you pay for not being a fucking retard.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #271 on: December 20, 2013, 10:40:55 pm »
@merge.bI guess if you really feel this way though make sure that the girl is 100% mature enough. For me though, i'm not ever going to do it.
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #272 on: December 20, 2013, 10:56:02 pm »
meh if I thought having sex with a girl would end up hurting her I wouldn't do it. True story. I've even declined having sex with drunk girls who I otherwise would have enjoyed having sex with. One told me the next day she couldn't even remember the night before at all. I'm really quite passive with girls in general and don't try to pressure them into doing anything. I try to be a good person in general. I just don't think that is mutually exclusive with having sex with 14 year olds :P. Though I don't do that either, since it really isn't worth the risk. But if I lived somewhere without the risk, and an opportunity came up where I could, and I didn't think it would cause harm to anybody, I would definitely do it.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #273 on: December 20, 2013, 10:58:26 pm »
Agreed. As long as it is their decision.
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #274 on: December 20, 2013, 11:54:45 pm »
17 is still to young. 18= Adult. We need a cut off here or people will justify taking naked pics of 16, 15, and younger people.

Pervert. Human brains don't reach full maturity prior to twenty-odd years. Being attracted to anyone younger is no better than being a rapist!

;)
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #275 on: December 21, 2013, 12:18:06 am »
I really hope this is a joke :) ...
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #276 on: December 21, 2013, 02:31:46 am »
I really hope this is a joke :) ...

It is :D

Like most of my humour, however, it has a point.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #277 on: December 21, 2013, 02:35:23 am »
I get it :)
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

Matey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +3/-14
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #278 on: December 21, 2013, 06:38:45 am »
i think the discussion went a little off track if two 12 year olds want to touch each up i dont see the problem if a 21 year old  has a 17 year old girl friend so what, what is disgusting is when a 60 year old can go to cambodia and pay off the police to molest a eight year old and ultimatly thinking and fantisising  is a long way from down loading child porn and seeking it out

Matey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +3/-14
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #279 on: December 21, 2013, 07:25:47 am »
i dont get it

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #280 on: December 21, 2013, 07:39:16 am »
i dont get it

Sorry dude, I quoted the wrong thing. I've removed what I posted though - because it makes me look awful!

Peace
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #281 on: December 21, 2013, 08:17:32 pm »
i think the discussion went a little off track if two 12 year olds want to touch each up i dont see the problem if a 21 year old  has a 17 year old girl friend so what, what is disgusting is when a 60 year old can go to cambodia and pay off the police to molest a eight year old and ultimatly thinking and fantisising  is a long way from down loading child porn and seeking it out

You downloading it will in turn cause a person to rape or molest a young person for money or sick pleasure. It's like the rest of the Black Market. If there's want for something, there's a way to get it.
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +87/-35
  • We all love drink and drugs, pal.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #282 on: December 22, 2013, 07:06:18 am »
Yes 18 is arbitrary, and maybe it is the case that 14/15 is a little less arbitrary. But the fact of the matter is that human mental develpoment probably isn't complete until after like <22 (or something?). Obviously it's ridiculous to think that the age of consent should be as high as that. People wouldn't accept that much restriction. But it's clearly meant to protect people who may not be mature enough to make good decisions > from people who are older but still not emotionally mature enough to make decisions that don't potentially harm others. And I believe that there's no way to guarantee that you're not hurting someone. Period. Even when you are 19 and sleeping with a 19 year old. Even when your 23 and sleeping with a 23 year old. And especially when your >23 and sleeping with a 14 year old.

Because in what world is someone with full adult mental development getting anything from the 14 year old except for a good time?

People under the age of what is normally considered a fully developed human usually cause each other a lot of stress with emotional relationships and what not anyway, but for the most part we learn to get over them as we get older. I think it comes down to the problem of the state enforcing 'morals'. That used to be the realm of religion, but now it's not, so what authority does the government claim to enforce these restrictions. Well, that's a tricky question.

But where do you draw the line? If not an arbitrary line in the sand? At what point do you try and balance the good and bad outcomes of any concession to peoples freedom?

I'm not 100% sure about the statistics regarding what percentage of males (and females, to a smaller degree, probably) actually took advantage of the fact that they could (if they so chose) to woo young girls into fucking. Maybe you can't ensure that people won't trust their own moral strength to realise that it's not such a fair way to treat someone.

I do know that maybe it's a bad combination to have hyper-sexualised images of females everywhere, and then cast them into situations where they need to decide whether having sex with someone is the only way to attain the social acceptance they desire. So maybe one could empower these individuals. Which would probably require overriding the freedom of companies to advertise how they want to. Which in itself is denying that humans will always do whats right if given a choice.

So Libertarianism clearly offers no answers here.

I'm just saying that it's immature to think that it's as simple as lowering the age of consent. Because that clearly doesn't deal with all of the issues that arise from the plain and simple fact that some people like to look at images of children being molested. And it is definitely no argument for why child pornography should be legal (these arguments have already been made by kok, and are quite persuasive).
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 07:48:47 am by Trevor »
OPSEC: Collection of Tutorial & Research Info:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=494.0

The OPSEC reading list:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=696.0

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #283 on: December 24, 2013, 06:40:41 am »
i think the discussion went a little off track if two 12 year olds want to touch each up i dont see the problem if a 21 year old  has a 17 year old girl friend so what, what is disgusting is when a 60 year old can go to cambodia and pay off the police to molest a eight year old and ultimatly thinking and fantisising  is a long way from down loading child porn and seeking it out

Of course there is no problem with two 12 year olds touching each other. But honestly I wouldn't be surprised if teenagers are the ones who get most of the penalties associated with teenage pornography possession/production/distribution. Because the truth is that although some adults are busted for such CP, usually LE resources are too tied up going after the people with pictures of young children being tortured and such. If they have enough resources to bust 100 people in a given time frame, they are more likely to bust 100 sadistic pedophiles than they are to bust 100 ephebophiles. But then you get kids with camera phones sharing pornographic pictures of each other with each other, and eventually a parent or a teacher discovers this and reports it to the police. Once it is brought to the attention of law enforcement they have little they can do but act on it and arrest those involved. So even if they don't have teams of investigators trying to track people down who have teenage pornography, if they get a tip from a teacher or a principal or a parent, they are pretty much bound by the law. It would make sense for this to lead to teenagers being disproportionately punished for having/producing/distributing teenage pornography. 

And honestly thinking and fantasizing isn't that far from downloading CP or seeking it out. When you think you visualize things in your mind. You synthesize a picture in your mind and then you look at it with your minds eye, or in more scientific terms with your visuospatial sketchpad. When you download CP you are doing close to the same thing, except instead of synthesizing a picture with your long term visual memory and visuospatial sketchpad you have an external picture loaded directly into your visuospatial sketchpad. The primary difference is that when you look at a picture you see something that really happened, and when you synthesize a picture in your mind you visualize something that didn't necessarily actually happen. That distinction aside, the behaviors are quite close, just one is supplemented by technology (pipe image from computer screen through eyes to visuospatial sketchpad then possibly pipe to long term visual memory storage), and the other is not (pipe image of clothed teenager from long term visual memory storage to visuospatial sketchpad, modify it with visuospatial sketchpad with visual traits of nakedness stored in long term visual memory to derive a new image that approximates a naked teenager in visuospatial sketchpad). I would say that the big difference is between living out a fantasy versus keeping it contained to your visual memory and the technologies that can supplement your visual memory.   

Quote
You downloading it will in turn cause a person to rape or molest a young person for money or sick pleasure. It's like the rest of the Black Market. If there's want for something, there's a way to get it.

This is a bit of a ridiculous claim don't you think? First of all I never have claimed that it should be legal to pay for CP, that is close to paying for a child to be molested and that should be illegal. Second of all, people who rape children don't usually do it for the sick pleasure they get from other people viewing the images. Granted, a small subsection of child pornographers do fall into this category, they are extreme exhibitionists and may not even actually qualify for pedophilia. But they are a small minority of the people who produce CP. Furthermore, what if somebody has a really bad temper and they are also pedophiles and huge football fans. Every time their football team loses a game they go into a rage and rape their daughter. There is the same cause an effect relationship here, primarily you claim that if I download CP it will cause somebody else to molest or rape a young person, but if this hypothetical pedophiles football team loses a game it will cause him just as much to rape or molest a young person. So why do you hold football teams to different standards than pornography consumers? Should you arrest the winning football team for causing a person to rape or molest a young person? Or should you hold individuals responsible for their individual actions? You are being a proponent of precrime, and not only of precrime but of precrime by proxy! Don't you think that is incredibly scary? Not only do you want to arrest people when their actions indicate to you that a crime will take place, but you want to arrest people when their actions indicate that another person will commit a crime because of their actions! Precrime by itself is fucking scary, but when you start supporting precrime by proxy it just is horrifyingly scary. You shouldn't criminalize things that are indicative of criminal activity, it is an extremely slipper slope. Thinking like this is what has led many to support the war on drugs, because after all if somebody uses heroin it means they will rob stores right? Might as well criminalize heroin use and prevent store robberies! If somebody looks at CP it means they will molest children right? Might as well criminalize the viewing of CP to prevent child molestation. But the problem is that this is horribly flawed thinking, and it totally ignores people abilities to control their own futures and actions. It is also flawed in that if we really supported precrime we would be locking up all male US college students, since they are significantly more likely to commit sexual assault than someone who views CP is, if we judge people by group characteristics. So why isn't anyone saying that we should lock up all US male college students then? It's because they are not a demonized group, they have not been selected for slavery by the prison industrial complex. If we actually used the logic that you are supporting then the only logical conclusion would be that we need to lock up US male college students. But the sad thing is that you are not even using logic of any sort yourself, you are acting more like a stereotypical autistic person in that you have merely rote memorized the "logic" snippets presented to you, and now you repeat them verbatim without any actual thought into them. If you actually thought about what you were saying you would see how absurd it is !

Yes 18 is arbitrary, and maybe it is the case that 14/15 is a little less arbitrary. But the fact of the matter is that human mental develpoment probably isn't complete until after like <22 (or something?). Obviously it's ridiculous to think that the age of consent should be as high as that. People wouldn't accept that much restriction. But it's clearly meant to protect people who may not be mature enough to make good decisions > from people who are older but still not emotionally mature enough to make decisions that don't potentially harm others. And I believe that there's no way to guarantee that you're not hurting someone. Period. Even when you are 19 and sleeping with a 19 year old. Even when your 23 and sleeping with a 23 year old. And especially when your >23 and sleeping with a 14 year old.

Why is it so ridiculous? If you guys were actually using the logic you pretend to use, instead of mindlessly repeating verbal snippets that you have rote memorized, you would actually be advocating that the age of consent be raised to mid 20's instead of 18! Because as far as I am concerned age of consent at 14 is no more absurd than age of consent at 18. In either case full mental development has not been achieved. In either case peak sexual maturity has been reached (at least usually for 14.5 year olds). In either case it is clear that people of that age are capable of thinking for themselves to an adequate degree, and of 'sexual self determination' (to steal a phrase from Germany, where the age of consent is 14 btw). The only reason you guys support 18 but not 14 is because of the culture you grew up in. Your beliefs have no foundation at all, they are just customs and rituals. And not only that, but they are newly developed customs and rituals that are not even older than ~150 years. There are people alive today (the oldest in the world) who had grandparents who grew up in a time when it was acceptable to have sex with 12 year olds. Now that by itself is of course no argument that it is acceptable to have sex with such young girls, after all traditional slavery used to be acceptable as well, but it is a big sign that maybe just because things are a certain way today it doesn't mean that is the way they ought to be. I think a lot of you are falling victim to the is-ought fallacy (amongst many other fallacies) http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/kurtis.hagen/is_ought.html , ought cannot be derived from is (which is also why just because traditional slavery used to be legal doesn't mean at the time that it ought to have been). But your entire arguments are based off of such weaknesses, your arguments are that because the age of consent is 18 where you live the age of consent ought to be 18, and much of the logic you are using is easily reduced to absurdity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum ) , for example as follows:

1. Fact, some child porn consumers are likely to molest children
2. Fact, by arresting all child porn consumers we can reduce child molestation rates
3. Therefore, we should arrest all child porn consumers to reduce child molestation rates

is analogous with

1. Fact, MORE US male college students are likely to sexually assault people than CP consumers are
2. Fact, by arresting all US male college students we can reduce sexual assault rates, and prevent MORE sexual assaults than would be prevented by arresting all CP consumers
3. Therefore, we should arrest all US male college students to reduce sexual assault rates

but you hold to the first logical construct while I assume that you reject the second! So this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the very logic that you express, and it leaves me with a very strong impression that you have not even analyzed the things you say but rather have merely rote memorized them and now parrot them mindlessly. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_memorization)

"Rote learning is a memorization technique based on repetition"

You have repeatedly been exposed to these baseless logical constructs by the slave masters of the prison industrial complex, so it isn't quite as much rote memorization as it is rote indoctrination. Your repeated exposure to these logical sound bytes and your lack of interest or ability in further analyzing the logic they are based on has led you to mindlessly parrot logical fallacies, which in turn exposes more people to the repetition of the sound bytes which in turn leads more people to express them, it is a horrible cycle of cultural brainwashing! 

Quote
Because in what world is someone with full adult mental development getting anything from the 14 year old except for a good time?

In what world is it illegal to get only a good time from a sexual partner? As far as I can tell a large percentage of sexual encounters in the modern world are for nothing more than a good time.

Quote
But where do you draw the line? If not an arbitrary line in the sand? At what point do you try and balance the good and bad outcomes of any concession to peoples freedom?

As far as pornography goes there is no line in regard to what a person should be able to view. As far as sexual relations go, the only fair system is to have a blind (to age amongst other things) licensing mechanism whereby people are certified as capable of consenting to sex. That removes the arbitrariness from the system and actually makes sense, don't you think?   

Quote
I do know that maybe it's a bad combination to have hyper-sexualised images of females everywhere, and then cast them into situations where they need to decide whether having sex with someone is the only way to attain the social acceptance they desire. So maybe one could empower these individuals. Which would probably require overriding the freedom of companies to advertise how they want to. Which in itself is denying that humans will always do whats right if given a choice.

Uhm, or maybe they can decide what is more important to them not having sex or having the benefits they could hypothetically gain from having sex? You are not better at making choices for other people than they are.

Quote
So Libertarianism clearly offers no answers here.

Not sure how you managed to derive that conclusion....

Quote
I'm just saying that it's immature to think that it's as simple as lowering the age of consent. Because that clearly doesn't deal with all of the issues that arise from the plain and simple fact that some people like to look at images of children being molested. And it is definitely no argument for why child pornography should be legal (these arguments have already been made by kok, and are quite persuasive).

There are two topics being discussed here. One is child pornography and the other is the age of consent. Lowering the age of consent, or having some blind to age licensing mechanism that certifies people as capable of sexual self determination, will be a good thing. But child pornography of children below the age of consent should still be legal, simply because there is no logically sound reason why it shouldn't be and plenty of logically sound reasons why it should be.

FriendOfTheDevil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +79/-22
  • -Our thoughts create reality-
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #284 on: December 26, 2013, 12:42:47 am »
merge, you remind me of Kmfkwem.
"The written laws of the United States of America do not supersede the natural laws of economics (supply & demand)." -[vendor]brownpurple
Proof of knowledge of the contents of a package is absolutely necessary to convict. -DrMDA http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=3509.0

NoAddedSugar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 277
  • Karma: +25/-18
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #285 on: December 30, 2013, 12:15:03 pm »
I consider myself to be a bit of an Ephebophile.
I am attracted to young girls, but not children.
More into the jail-bait sort of category.

CaptainWhiteBeard

  • Certified Thief
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
  • Karma: +260/-290
  • The Notorious Dark Net Pirate
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #286 on: December 30, 2013, 12:19:32 pm »
I consider myself to be a bit of an Ephebophile.
I am attracted to young girls, but not children.
More into the jail-bait sort of category.

Arent we all ;)
Prepare to be robbed.

NoAddedSugar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 277
  • Karma: +25/-18
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #287 on: December 30, 2013, 12:49:01 pm »
My Girlfriend swings both ways. She's a bit younger than myself, she's 24.
I have had this discussion with her plenty of times, but she isn't into the young girls, only fully grown adult women.
I can't seem to convince her otherwise, unfortunately!

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #288 on: December 30, 2013, 01:10:15 pm »
My Girlfriend swings both ways. She's a bit younger than myself, she's 24.
I have had this discussion with her plenty of times, but she isn't into the young girls, only fully grown adult women.
I can't seem to convince her otherwise, unfortunately!

Sounds like a problem forrrr..... UNCLE AGONY!!! BAAADUUUMMMM!!! ;) For real... give him a post!
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

NoAddedSugar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 277
  • Karma: +25/-18
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #289 on: December 30, 2013, 02:13:26 pm »
Is he a real person? A forum presence?

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #290 on: December 30, 2013, 05:25:00 pm »
I consider myself to be a bit of an Ephebophile.
I am attracted to young girls, but not children.
More into the jail-bait sort of category.

Arent we all ;)

Studies indicate that the majority of us are, but shhh it's a secret. Hell, one anonymized study of college males showed that 11%-13% of them had fantasized about pedophilia at least rarely, just imagine how much more common it is for males to fantasize about hebephilia or ephebophilia. 5% of the males reported pedophilic behavior, which isn't specified in the study but I assume means molested a child, and doesn't include viewing child pornography, which I would consider to be under the fantasy category. The study didn't address if they were child pornography consumers or not, but it is interesting to point out that some studies put the average molestation probability of CP offenders at 1% while other studies (two actually came to the same number) indicate that 5% of randomly sampled college males have had pedophilic behaviors. Actually, of all deviant behaviors studied there was the smallest correlation between having pedophilic fantasies and having pedophilic behaviors (.13-.28 correlation between fantasy and behavior). On the other hand, 65%-68% of the sampled males fantasized about sexual assault, and 20-25% reported having engaged in sexually assaultive behaviors (depending on the individual study), with a .34 to .38 correlation between fantasy and behavior. Oddly enough, 95% of college males had at least some deviant sexual fantasies, although not all of the fantasies listed as deviant are victimizing (for example transexualism). The study also points out that ~95% of males have had a sexual fantasy, and they take this to imply that nearly all males who have had a sexual fantasy have fantasized about one of the following at least rarely:

Object fetishism
 Transvestism
 Sadism
 Bondage
 Voyeurism
 Exhibitionism
 Frotteurism
 Pedophilia
 Sexual assault
   
with the most common deviant fantasy being Voyeurism or Frotteurism (rubbing your dick on a nonconsenting person, strangely differentiated from sexual assault), depending on the study, and the least common being Transvestism.

So the next time somebody says we need to lock CP viewers up because they are at high risk of child molestation, I am just going to be like motherfucker please

1.  McCarthy, Jennifer A., The relationship between possessing child pornography and child molestation. United State New York: UMI Dissertations Publishing (2010).
2.  The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending, Jérôme Endrass, Frank Urbaniok, Lea C Hammermeister, Christian Benz, Thomas Elbert, Arja Laubacher, Astrid Rossegger, Published: 14 July 2009 BMC Psychiatry 2009
3.  INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES, KEVIN M. WILLIAMS et al. , CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 36 No. 2, February 2009 1

Two studies that put CP users who molest children at 1%, one study (that analyzes two studies that both come to the same result) that puts randomly selected college males who engage in non-fantasy pedophilic behaviors at 5%. Go arrest all of the college males you stupid fuckers, research indicates they are 5 times more likely to molest children than child porn consumers are.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 06:08:49 pm by merge »

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #291 on: December 30, 2013, 06:18:26 pm »
And the next time someone says omg they create a market that leads to production I will just be like motherfucker please

1. According to ICE agent Matt Dunn in 2010 the number of commercial CP distribution sites were measured with single digit numbers: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/sep/23/worldwide-child-porn-ring-busted/?print=1
2. According to Liberatores forensic analysis of P2P CP distribution, nearly 800,000 CP distributors used free of charge P2P networks: Marc Liberatore, Brian Neil Levine, Clay Shields, "Strengthening Forensic Investigations of Child Pornography on P2P Networks,"

I actually made a graph comparing the number of known commercial CP distribution sites (upper bound 9 as of 2010) to the number of non-commercial CP distribution sites (~800,000 identified in a single operation in late 2009- early 2010), but the number of commercial sites doesn't even register on the fucking graph it is so few by comparison

3. Open non-commercial P2P trading is the most common method of distribution, Report to Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses Chapter 12, page 329
4. P2P piracy of pornography HURTS the for profit production and distribution industry, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/porn-industry-in-decline_n_2460799.html
5. P2P CP users, by far the majority, don't engage in social networking that could create some non-financial demand mechanism: Tony Krone, "A  Typology of Online Child Pornography Offending," Australian Institute of Criminology, July 2004
6. We have technology that can cryptographically hide the very existence of demand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_information_retrieval
7. Child pornography being illegal to possess leads to group structures that require the submission of child pornography for membership, which LEADS TO CHILDREN BEING MOLESTED: http://www.post-gazette.com/neighborhoods-city/2009/11/25/Prosecutors-here-charge-8-in-child-pornography-network/stories/200911250308
8. Legal child pornography possession has been shown in every single country studied to REDUCE CHILD MOLESTATION RATES: Milton Diamond  Eva Jozifkova  Petr Weiss, "Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic,"  30 August 2010 , http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child.pornography.linked.lower.rates.child.sex.abuse

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #292 on: December 30, 2013, 06:31:13 pm »
I'm writing a paper right now that addresses this issue, I have over 68 citations currently, many of them to academic literature. The more I research it the more I see how totally fucked up these emotional "thinking" people are and how their "intuition" and emotional response leads to the exact fucking opposite of what they want. Once you really dig into the issue and research it it just becomes super obvious that CP possession needs to be immediately legalized, not only because it being illegal ruins the lives of countless harmless men but also because it leads to significantly higher amounts of child molestation! All of the studies that say otherwise are fundamentally fucking flawed, as I point out. For example, studies of incarcerated CP consumers in the USA are totally biased because

1. according to investigator Wilton Cleveland , and former senator Joe Biden, only ~1% of identified CP consumers are followed up on due to limited police resources: http://www.wmctv.com/story/23571873/high-tech-tools-help-investigators-catch-child-porn-suspects, http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9920665-7.html

2. Of those 1% who are followed up on,  State Atty. Gen. Jim Hood mentions that they try to target people with materials such as molestation guides on how to get away with molesting kids: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/dec/10/hood-asks-police-to-help-catch-cyber-criminals/?print=1

3. The obvious conclusion is that the pool of incarcerated CP consumers in the US is going to be OVER REPRESENTATIVE of child molesters as compared to the general population of CP consumers, which is in a way a good thing, but oh shit

4. People are STILL going to prison for CP offenses in the USA for having only CARTOONS www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2013/bee.sen.html , http://comicsalliance.com/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/

5. Teenagers are still being labeled as sex offenders for life for having porn of their similarly aged peers: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/teens+charged+Laval+over+sexting/9165014/story.html

6. And even the studies that come to the highest percentages of CP offenders in US federal custody who have molested children, controversial studies that even the government has not allowed to be released due to the perception that they are not forensically sound, 15% of all arrested CP offenders in federal prison have not molested a child: Psychological and Behavioral Characteristics of Child Pornography Offenders in Treatment , Andres E. Hernandez, Psy.D. ,  April 5-7, 2009, The Injury Prevention Research Center The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

This mechanism has tainted all research into child pornography offenders, you cannot possibly extrapolate from CP offenders in US federal custody to CP offenders as a whole , clearly, because of the mechanism I have pointed out, but none of their bullshit propaganda research even mentions this fact. They are just fucking slave traders cashing in on the multi billion dollar war on CP consumers and in the process they are destroying our fundamental freedoms, they are ruining the lives of countless harmless men, and they are putting children at substantially higher risk of being molested!

And fuck the federal and state police for being such noobs that they conflate evidence with intelligence. To quote myself:

Quote
Although it is certainly a good thing that investigative resources are predominately spent on child pornography offenders who are identified with molestation training materials, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that there are still multiple child pornography offenders being arrested for having only cartoon child pornography1 2, for having sexual photographs of their similarly aged high school peers3, and similar. The current state of affairs leads to studies indicating that a disproportionate number of child pornography offenders are child molesters, but it doesn't prevent a still significant proportion of non molester child pornography offenders from being arrested and convicted of child pornography offenses. It is understandable that law enforcement would want to have the ability to follow up on individuals detected with child molestation guides, however this ability does not require the criminalization of child pornography possession. It is important to understand that there is a distinction between evidence and intelligence, primarily intelligence is information that can be used to narrow in on the location of evidence, and evidence is information that indicates that a specific action has taken place. If a person has a manual on how to molest children it is not evidence that they have molested children, however it is certainly intelligence that indicates that they may have molested children. If an investigator detects such an individual with P2P monitoring technology or similar, nothing stops them from putting the subject under surveillance, nothing stops them from interviewing any children the suspect may have come into contact with, nothing stops them from comparing children the suspect has come into contact with against a database of known child pornography. Usually, when a child pornography offender who is at risk of molesting children has been arrested, they have already molested several children4. A good investigator will not be at much of a disadvantage in having to detect one of these prior molestations prior to arresting the suspect. If the law currently prevents investigators from using gathered intelligence to further their investigations if child pornography possession is decriminalized, for example perhaps they are not allowed to obtain user registration information associated with IP addresses in such a scenario, then the law should be changed to allow investigators to gather actionable intelligence even after child pornography possession is decriminalized.

Conflating evidence with intelligence is a dangerous and disgusting practice, it is pre crime straight out of fucking minority report. To quote myself again:

Quote

The Precrime Argument for Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession

One of the primary arguments for the continued criminalization of child pornography possession is that the people who are interested in the collection of child pornography are very likely to molest children. Proponents of this logic believe that by criminalizing child pornography possession we can detect and arrest would be child molesters prior to them molesting children. We can express the logic of this argument as follows: If property A is present then probably behavior B will present itself. Behavior B is bad, therefore by arresting those who meet the criteria of property A, we can prevent bad behaviors from happening.


A philosophical, moral, and logical analysis of the precrime reasoning for child pornography possession criminalization

The logical construct used by the people who make the previously stated argument is identical to the logical construct that is the foundation of the proponents of precrime. Proponents of precrime believe that by criminalizing the manifestation of properties that are known predictors of criminal behaviors, that we can prevent the criminal behaviors from ever occuring. Certainly it stands to reason that a legal system based on the philosophy of precrime would lead to reduced rates of serious crime. Few crimes are considered more heinous than sexual assault, particularly sexual assault which is committed against children, and so superficially the precrime argument for the continued criminalization of child pornography possession appears to be valid. However, this argument falls apart and is indeed reduced to absurdity upon closer inspection.

From a moralistic perspective, anybody who is against collateral damage should be disgusted with the implementation of precrime laws. No research supports the notion that child pornography consumers will invariably molest children, the obvious conclusion from this is that the precrime argument for the continued criminalization of child pornography possession accepts collateral damage. We can clearly see that taking a precrime approach to child molestation will lead to the incarceration of people who would not have become child molesters in the future, regardless of their incarceration for behaviors indicating that they may become child molesters. The technique of punishing an entire group to target some subset of the group is a very slippery slope. What differentiates this behavior from inflicting group punishments on racial groups that are known to have an over representation of criminality? What differentiates this behavior from inflicting group punishments onto any subset of the human population that has a further subset that is known to be criminal? Allowing precrime legislation will lead to divide and conquer tactics being used against the population as a whole. It stands to reason that almost any subset of the human population will have a further subset that engages in criminal and victimizing behavior. Allowing precrime legislation makes it all too easy for malicious actors with hidden intentions to demonize the whole of a group by exposing a criminal subset of the group to the general human population.

From a logical perspective we can see that child pornography possessors are a group that has been demonized in such a way. Analysis of the available body of research demonstrates that the precrime logic for continued criminalization of child pornography possession is fundamentally flawed. It is not hard to find numerous studies that indicate that the typical male is more likely to commit sexual assault1 2 3 4 5 6 than the typical child pornography consumer is to commit sexual assault against a child7 8 9 10 11 12 13. By the precrime logic for the continued criminalization of child pornography possession, it would make sense to divert resources from apprehending child pornography consumers and put them toward apprehending human males. One would imagine that the idea of arresting all human males in order to prevent sexual assault would not sit well with most people, but if this is the case then why do such people often accept the arrest of child pornography possessors in order to prevent sexual assault against children?   

This disparity between the common perception of human males and the common perception of child pornography consumers is telling. It clearly demonstrates that those who argue for the precrime reasoning for the continued criminalization of child pornography possession are not principled (assuming they do not desire to arrest all males), as by their own presented logic we must conclude that it would be more beneficial (and more moral, as less collateral damage will be accepted) to arrest all males in order to prevent sexual assault. This disparity of perception is also indicative of mass manipulation (either intentional or unintentional), what else could explain why males are not thought of as sexual assaulters while child pornography consumers are thought of as child molesters, when in reality studies indicate that a higher percentage of males are sexual assaulters than child pornography consumers are child molesters? One of the reasons why this has happened is due to media exposure. It is widely recognized that media exposure to a limited subset of individuals with common characteristics promotes stereotyped thinking about individuals with those characteristics1 2 3 4. Mass perception of child pornography offenders is misled by the media in a number of ways, both intentionally and unintentionally. One of the most striking things to notice is how frequently child pornography consumers are referred to as child pornographers, very frequently when they have not been identified as producers5 6 7 8 9. This misuse of the word pornographer could easily mislead media consumers into thinking that many arrested child pornography consumers are indeed child pornographers, even when this is not the case or at least is not clear from the available information. Another thing to take into consideration is the sound bytes that frequently accompany child pornography cases. Very often, news articles regarding child pornography possession arrests are accompanied by one of a number of standard canned sound bytes, such as 'Every time child pornography is viewed it causes damage/revictimization to the depicted child'10 11, 'Every time child pornography is viewed it's like the child depicted is assaulted all over again'12, 'Possession of child pornography creates demand which drives supply'13, or similar. These sound bytes are repeated often verbatim in a large number of child pornography cases in the media, despite the fact that they very rarely have any substantial evidence backing them up. This effect can be summarized as follows; law enforcement agents, and other agencies with a biased interest14 15 16 in continuing the criminalization of child pornography possession, are granted speaking rights on a large number of news articles related to child pornography possession arrests. These individuals use these speaking rights to expose audiences to the 'company line' of the organization that they work for. Although you can easily find news articles with authority figures falesly stating there is a strong correlation between child pornography possession and child molestation17 18, you are likely to have a much harder time finding a news article that mentions studies showing that child pornography offenders are very rarely child molesters. 

This stereotyping is even prominent in academia. Various studies do lead to the perception that child pornography consumers are at substantial risk of molesting children. For example, in one controversial study of child pornography convicts in US federal custody, carried out by Andres E. Hernandez, it was shown that 85% of the child pornography possessors questioned had admitted to a hands on child sex offense by the time they left treatment, a substantial increase over the percentage of child pornography offenders with known histories of hands on child sex abuse at the time of their arrest19. It must be noted that, in many cases, analysis of arrested child pornography consumers will not be representative of the entire group of child pornography offenders, and that such studies will result in an over representation of hands on offenders. In calling for increased resources for a P2P monitoring software known as 'operation fairplay' it was in 2008 reported by then senator Joe Biden that investigators were only able to follow up on less than two percent of known cases of internet child pornography trafficking20. In 2013 Lt. Wilton Cleveland  of the Memphis Police Department estimated the follow up rate for child pornography investigations to be only 1% of those detected21. In discussing the 'operation fairplay' software it was  mentioned by State Atty. Gen. Jim Hood that investigators target the "worst of the worst" offenders, reportedly including those who download training manuals on how to molest children without being detected22. When these two pieces of information are taken into account, primarily the limited ability of police to follow up on detected child pornography offenders, and their propensity to spend their limited resources following up on child pornography offenders detected with materials such as child molestation training manuals, it becomes clear that any study of arrested child pornography offenders is going to have an over representation of child molesters as compared to the group of child pornography offenders as a whole. Not only will this phenomenon taint the available pool of child pornography offenders available to academic researchers, but it will also taint the perception of child pornography offenders in the media, as an over representation of child pornography offenders arrested will indeed be contact offenders. 

Why don't you police scum fuckers just start arresting poor inner city black male youths? Knowing that somebody is a poor inner city black male youth is certainly intelligence that indicates that they are a criminal, so why not prevent crime by just arresting them all based off of this intelligence? After all, intelligence is evidence right? Because you stupid fucks are too stupid to know the fucking difference.

Quote

The Market Theory Argument For Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession

One of the most common arguments in favor of the continued criminalization of child pornography possession is that if child pornography possession is decriminalized it will allow for child pornography markets to form, and that the demand portion of these markets will lead to supply, namely the molestation of children. There are two aspects that must be considered, one is the potential for the formation of financial markets and the other is the potential for non-financial molestation markets.


An Evaluation of the Contemporary Validity of the Financial Market Argument For Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession

Although child pornography has historically been largely a for profit business, this is no longer the case. In 2010, following the bust of the largest known commercial child pornography ring of the time, law enforcement officials reported that commercial child pornography websites existed only in the single digits1. Although undoubtedly commercial distribution and production of child pornography will be persistent problems, it is widely recognized today that the overwhelming majority of child pornography is distributed for free on P2P networks. Indeed, the number of commercial child pornography distribution sites is so low (upper bound 9) compared to the number of detected non-commercial child pornography distributors (799,556 detected over five months in one operation)2, that when graphed using the graphing tool of this text editor the commercial child pornography distribution sites do not even display on the graph. Indeed, it is widely recognized today that non-commercial P2P child pornography distribution is the norm3.












The available research does conclusively show that commercial child pornography distribution is almost non-existant in the modern world. Regardless, it is important to note that financing child molestation should certainly remain illegal, it is just important to realize that in the overwhelming majority of child pornography cases no financial transactions are involved. Although many are of the opinion that rising trade of child pornography on P2P networks is detrimental to the well being of children, such knee jerk emotional responses are quite likely unmerited. If we accept an analogy between the financial adult pornography production industry and the financial child pornography production industry, we can then estimate the effect of the wide availability of P2P child pornography on commercial producers/distributors by observing the effect that piracy has had on the adult pornography production/distribution industry. It is widely thought by those in the industry that piracy of adult pornography has led to a corresponding decrease in commercial adult pornography production4 5 6. Thus, it seems reasonable to think that the rise of P2P child pornography distribution will have a negative impact on those who distribute child pornography with financial motives, which is a good thing as the financial support of child pornography distributors is often synonymous with the financing of child molestation.     


An Evaluation of the Modern Phenomenon of Child Pornography Trading Markets, and Their Relevance In Regards to the Market Theory Argument For Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession

In the modern world, a more serious risk is that posed by the content based, non-financial market for child molestation. Many criminal child pornography distribution groups have existed where child pornography itself was used as a financial instrument, with group members being required to contribute new content to the group for them to gain or maintain membership 7 8 9 10. There is a valid fear that such distribution mechanisms could lead to child molestation. If a specific trading group exhausts the currently available supply of child pornography, members will be required to molest children on film to be able to contiue meeting the group membership requirements. Additionally, prospective members who have not managed to amass significant amounts of child pornography may be required to molest children on camera in order to obtain the minimum required number of images for group membership. These are both certainly worrying possibilities, and these scenarios are far more worrying in modern times than the traditionally feared financial market for child pornography. The first thing to remember is that such trading groups are relatively rare, with the majority of child pornography offenders being classified as insecure traders (those who use public P2P networks)11 12. The second thing to do is to ask why these secure trading groups have such membership requirements. At least partially, the requirement for uploading new content is done in an attempt to prevent infiltration by law enforcement agencies13. Therefore, It stands to reason that if child pornography was not illegal to openly distribute and possess, that groups which currently find it in their best interests to require the posting of new material may no longer do so. Unfortunately, there will still be groups that have such requirements not because of the perceived security benefits but because of a desire for the production of new child pornography. Additionally, there will still be producer only groups that will indeed gain security from infiltration by requiring prospective members to produce new content. This is an unfortunate reality, and it certainly seems like it would be wise to continue criminalizing the operation of child pornography trading platforms that require the posting of content for membership to be obtained, and certainly the production of child pornography should remain illegal. However, the fact that it should remain illegal to operate child pornography trading platforms that require uploading is not an argument for criminalizing the possession or distribution of child pornography in general. 


Isolating Child Pornography Possession From Market Atmospheres

Once the potential for real child pornography markets, using either traditional financial instruments or child pornography files as currency, has been addressed, several will continue to argue for the market theory of child pornography in a more mystical sense. They will argue that the demand for child pornography has an inherent causative relationship with the production of child pornography, even when separated from identifiable forms of currency. We can use the existence of Private Information Retrieval algorithms14 to construct a thought experiment that isolates the supply of child pornography from instances of the demand for child pornography to the furthest possible extent. Imagine that there exists a network of Private Information Retrieval servers that allow for any form of content to be uploaded. If child pornography is uploaded to such a network, it can be impossible for the uploader, or anyone short of the downloader, to know if anyone has ever downloaded the uploaded child pornography. If we assume that access to the network is free of charge, and that there is no requirement to upload content in order to download content, then we have created a scenario where the downloaders of child pornography have not contributed financially to child molestation, have not taken part in an organizational structure that furthers child molestation via membership requirements, and furthermore have not even resulted in possible knowledge of demand for child pornography. Private information retrieval is indeed a type of cryptography which has the goal of hiding the very existence of demand for any particular piece of digital content. If the perceived requirement to prevent a market atmosphere which promotes child pornography production is the total masking of demand, we have technology that can allow for this state to be maintained, while allowing for child pornography consumers to still consume child pornography. Note that private information retrieval goes beyond traditional anonymity networks, which mask the demander but not the demand, and actually masks both the demander and the very existence of the demand. Although it seems far feteched that a server having a person load an image hosted on it will inherently translate into the production of child pornography, this event is not something that is inherent to the possession of child pornography, thanks to private information retrieval algorithms. If people truly believe that demand of this sort translates into supply, the best strategy would not be to criminalize the possession of child pornography but rather to construct private information retrieval networks that mask the demand for child pornography. Perhaps aquiring child pornography distributed through such demand masking mechanisms could be specifically legalized, in an attempt to get child pornography consumers to use demand masking mechanisms for obtaining child pornography? Unfortunately, few of the people who argue for the market theory of child pornography are satisfied with provable technical solutions to their proposed problems, they often continue to claim that the demand for child pornography inherently leads to child molestation. I believe that at this point the burden of proof falls on these individuals, to academically demonstrate how an unknowable demand for child pornography, without any financial ties or membership criteria that require the distribution of child pornography, leads to the production of child pornography. It certainly appears that such individuals have adopted a mantra, that they will continue to mindlessly repeat, despite not being able to show any substance to their claim after it has been scrutinized.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 08:10:59 pm by merge »

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #293 on: December 30, 2013, 08:22:59 pm »

Quote


The Revictimization Argument for the Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession

Another argument in favor of criminalization of child pornography possession is that every time an image of child pornography is viewed the depicted child is victimized all over again, thus proponents of this argument claim that the act of viewing child pornography for pleasure is in itself harmful, regardless of if the viewer is a child molester or not. Several authority figures, such as district attorneys Matt Chandler, have gone as far as to claim that viewers of images of child pornography are equally culpable to child molesters who produce child pornography 1. Some proponents of this logic, such as ICE special agent Andrew M. McLees, take it to such a mystical and superstituous extreme that they claim viewing images of child pornography actually causes a scenario that is analogous to the depicted child being sexually assaulted again2.


A Logical Evaluation of the Revictimization Argument for the Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession

In order to evaluate the revictimization claim we first must have a definition of the word victimized. After the word victimized has been defined we must attribute the victimization of a child depicted in child pornography to the viewer of the child pornography.

vic·tim1 (vktm)
n.
1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

Certainly very few people would disagree that when a child is used in child pornography that the child has been victimized. Indeed, children who are molested are at significant risk of developing a large number of undesirable traits, such as increased anxiety and depression2, which demonstrates that a child is harmed and suffers when they are exploited for child pornography production. Additionally, children are very often tricked and swindled when they are coerced into being featured in child pornography. Furthermore, they are also at risk of being physically injured. There is no doubt that children are victimized when they are exploited for the production of child pornography, by several of the definitions of the word. When it comes to the viewing of child pornography, it is much harder to show that victimization is taking place.

If we go by the first definition of victimization then the proponents of the revictimization argument are claiming that when a person views child pornography for pleasure that the depicted child is harmed. They are likely to claim that this harm comes from the additional stress a child suffers through by knowing that their image is being viewed by child pornography consumers3. Although this logic makes sense at face value, it is possible to demonstrate that this continued harm is isolated away from any given act of a child pornography consumer viewing child pornography featuring a particular child. Imagine that there are two children who have been molested on camera, Alice and Bob. Both of them have had their photographs uploaded to different servers on the internet. These servers utilize a type of algorithm known as Private Information Retrieval, which is a cryptographic system that allows people to request and download files from a server without the server or any third parties being able to determine the files requested or returned4. Alice and Bob are both rescued, and they become aware of the fact that their images have been made available through these private information retrieval servers. Alice has her picture downloaded multiple times, but due to the private information retrieval algorithm only the people who downloaded the images are aware of the fact that they have been downloaded. Bob never has his picture downloaded, but due to the private information retrieval algorithm nobody is aware of the fact that nobody ever downloaded his picture. It stands to reason that both Alice and Bob will experience the same level of stress, because rather than experiencing stress from the act of people downloading and viewing the child pornography they are featured in, they experience this increased stress due to the possibility that people could download and view the images they are featured in. This possibility was created by the person who originally produced the child pornography, it is not a possibility that is created by the people who download and view the child pornography. In fact, it is obvious that this is the case; Alice cannot be experiencing increased stress from the viewing of her picture because it is impossible for her to know that her picture has ever been viewed. Likewise, Bob cannot feel less stress than Alice due to the fact that he is equally incapable of determining that his image has not been viewed.             

If we ignore the obviously unrelated second definition of victimization and go to the third definition, the counterargument is the same as previously mentioned. The circumstance that the child suffers from is the potential for her image to be viewed by child pornography consumers, this is a circumstance that was created by the person who took the photograph and uploaded it to the internet. The actual act of downloading and viewing the image does not create a circumstance that causes the child to suffer. Thinking otherwise is actually to believe in magic, and to totally disregard our grasp of science. Stress is a state that can be measured with brain scans5 and various other techniques, such as the measurement of stress related hormones6. It would be very easy to carry out a scientific experiment that definitely proves that there isn't a causal relationship between the viewing of child pornography and increased levels of stress in the depicted child. Such an experiment would involve having a child pornography consumer with a computer in one room, and a child who was previously featured in child pornography in another room. The child pornography consumer has on the computer images of the molestation of the child, the child has her brainwaves and hormone levels measured in real time. At some random time the child pornography consumer views images of the childs' molestation. If there is a causal relationship between the viewing of child pornography and the stress levels of the depicted child, then it stands to reason that the depicted child will have physiological and neurological signs of suffering manifest at the moment in time that the child pornography consumer views images of her molestation. Obviously no such thing is going to happen, because there is obviously no link between the viewing of child pornography and the stress of children depicted in the pornography. The child pornography consumer viewing the child pornography will not cause the depicted child to suffer. Indeed, if this phenomenon were to take place one would imagine that it would be exploited by intelligence agencies in order to transmit secret information in such a way that it couldn't be intercepted. A great deal of research and money has gone into the creation of systems that can transmit information from point A to point B without a tappable link running between the two points7, unsurprisingly there is no serious scientific research indicating that quantum entanglement occurs between previously victimized children and the child pornography that features them.   

If we interpret the fourth definition of victimization to require that the victim is self created then it is inapplicable to child pornography possession. If we interpret it to mean that the voluntary undertaking of any person leads to the injury, loss, or death of any other person, then it is not automatically excluded from being applicable to child pornography possession. It has already been explained that the act of viewing child pornography does not cause measurable injury to the depicted child, and clearly it does not cause death. Loss is something that can be logically argued for, as certainly when a child pornography consumer views an image of child pornography the depicted child suffers a loss of privacy. This is the only interpretation of revictimization that stands up to scrutiny, however even this is a weak argument for the criminalization of child pornography possession. Imagine that an adult has shared a sexual photograph with her boyfriend, at a later point in time the boyfriend shares the picture on the internet. When people view this picture the depicted adult has suffered a loss of privacy that is equal to the loss of privacy suffered by a child who has an image of child pornography featuring her viewed by a child pornography consumer. If we are to be consistent we must then say that it should be an equal crime to view images of adult pornography when the featured subject has not consented to the release of the image, primarily that it is at most a civil rather than criminal matter. However, it stands to reason that the loss of privacy suffered by the adult is not the fault of the viewer of the image but rather is the fault of the person who published the image without consent.   

As for the fifth definition of victimization, when a person looks at an image of a naked adult who has not consented to their image being viewed, they are perhaps in a way taking advantage of the fact that somebody else exploited the trust of the depicted person. It is harder to say that the viewer is taking advantage of the depicted person though, rather the person who initially shared the image took advantage of the depicted person. The person who views the image is taking advantage of the result of the publisher taking advantage of a person, this is a level of separation that makes it hard to say that the viewer is taking advantage of a person. Imagine that two people compete for a job, but then one of them is murdered. Certainly the fact that a person was murdered means that they have been victimized, they suffered a loss of life which was the result of a voluntary undertaking of another person. If the living person then receives the job that the two had competed for, they are in the same sense taking advantage of the victimization of the deceased. However, they are taking advantage of a situation that arose from the victimization of the deceased, they are not taking advantage of the deceased. This is analogous to a child pornography consumer taking advantage of the situation that arose from the molestation of a child, in the same way the child pornography consumer is not taking advantage of the child and therefore is not victimizing the child by the fifth definition of victimization.

I'm quite happy with what I have so far, 12 pages and 5 graphs. I think I can add a few more pages and some more graphs, maybe a few dozen more citations, and then it should be good to go.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #294 on: December 30, 2013, 10:04:45 pm »
Right a book and sell it on SR ;) I swear I would buy it!
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

Matey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +3/-14
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #295 on: December 31, 2013, 10:02:14 am »
young girls dont do any thing for me expect for the looking bit i have no desire to molest any women except my wife. took me years to teach her all the disgusting things i want her to do

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #296 on: December 31, 2013, 02:44:09 pm »
Is he a real person? A forum presence?
A real person! Look him up on the forum. Great Advice!
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #297 on: December 31, 2013, 04:19:16 pm »
Is he a real person? A forum presence?
A real person! Look him up on the forum. Great Advice!

http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=8282 ;)
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #298 on: December 31, 2013, 04:20:20 pm »
I'm writing a paper right now that addresses this issue, I have over 68 citations currently, many of them to academic literature. The more I research it the more I see how totally fucked up these emotional "thinking" people are and how their "intuition" and emotional response leads to the exact fucking opposite of what they want. Once you really dig into the issue and research it it just becomes super obvious that CP possession needs to be immediately legalized, not only because it being illegal ruins the lives of countless harmless men but also because it leads to significantly higher amounts of child molestation!

OK I'm stopping there. There was an interesting article in The New Yorker about this a while ago.

That said, you have ZERO evidence other than conjecture to back up that last sentence.

You're right to say that many pedophiles are not child molesters (directly at least), but the trade of child pornography exploits innocent children, and in some cases, leaves them in scarred.

CP does not belong on SR. Period!

But I will also agree that the DSM and current treatment/assessment models are flawed at best.

And I will agree that they are locking people up indefinitely after they serve their full sentence and that that in and of itself is unconstitutional. But judges are signing off on indefinite detention.

And there's NO WAY IN FUCKING HOLY HELL THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE LEGALIZED The demand for CP exploits innocent children and and leads them to be molested! If I had to choose whether to protect innocent pedophiles and protecting innocent children, I'M GOING SIDE WITH THE KIDS. THEY'RE INNOCENT TOO.

I wish this fucking thread would die.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #299 on: December 31, 2013, 04:56:30 pm »
I agree with your words Jesus. I think it should be combated though, so I do not wish this thread will die. I wish that everyone would side with the anti-ped approach.
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #300 on: December 31, 2013, 09:01:32 pm »
I think an anti-prepubescent-child-molester approach is more helpful, and I think just about everyone in this thread already sides with that :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 09:02:45 pm by Cornelius23 »
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #301 on: December 31, 2013, 09:19:10 pm »
I think an anti-prepubescent-child-molester approach is more helpful, and I think just about everyone in this thread already sides with that :)
TBH, I didn't get very far through the thread; it was giving me a headache. That comment was specifically directed at the person above me, specifically because the idea that making child porn legal is going to STOP?!? molestation is ludicrous and is unsupported by evidence.

I realize I'm slightly late on this. Sorry :)

And that wasn't shouting, I just didn't want the two most important points to be missed. Just emphasis.

Side note, I'm diggin these colors

EDIT: <sigh> And I'm sorry I fucking bumped it again.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 09:20:12 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #302 on: January 01, 2014, 02:01:12 am »
I think an anti-prepubescent-child-molester approach is more helpful, and I think just about everyone in this thread already sides with that :)
TBH, I didn't get very far through the thread; it was giving me a headache. That comment was specifically directed at the person above me, specifically because the idea that making child porn legal is going to STOP?!? molestation is ludicrous and is unsupported by evidence.

I realize I'm slightly late on this. Sorry :)

And that wasn't shouting, I just didn't want the two most important points to be missed. Just emphasis.

Side note, I'm diggin these colors

EDIT: <sigh> And I'm sorry I fucking bumped it again.

Okay then show me some citations. Since it isn't supported by the evidence, according to you. Did you even read what I wrote? Every claim I made is backed with citations to academic articles. I'm sorry but your intuition doesn't mean jack fucking shit. The conclusion that you reach after a knee jerk emotional response has no inherent correlation with reality. If you want to argue against me and not be discounted as an idiot by anyone who understands the importance of the scientific method, you are going to need to provide citations and studies instead of opinions and emotions.

First of all, I can show quotes from industry insiders in the adult pornography production industry that shows they believe the for profit production industry has been harmed by P2P sharing. Not a scientific study (I couldn't find one), but still it is supporting evidence that when things are available free of charge it hurts the industry that makes profit from production and distribution of said things.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/porn-industry-in-decline_n_2460799.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-ct-porn10-2009aug10,0,3356050.story
http://www.talentzoo.com/beyond-madison-ave/blog_news.php?articleID=7358

Doesn't it just make perfect sense that if we legalized the non-commercial distribution of child pornography, but criminalized the commercial distribution, that it would be a death blow to the commercial child pornography industry (although admittedly it already is borderline non-existent)? Why would people pay others to molest children on camera, breaking the law and risking being labeled rightfully as sex offenders, when they could instead legally download child pornography without financially benefiting the child molestation industry? It just makes fucking sense man, I don't know how else to explain it to you. But this is only one of several mechanisms by which legalized child pornography possession and non-commercial distribution would indeed reduce child molestation rates! 

Second of all, I can show that in at least some cases, child pornography rings require members to upload content in order to try and prevent law enforcement infiltration. It stands to reason that if child porn was not illegal to possess, that such membership requirements would carry less value for these groups. Of course, membership criteria like this risks pedophiles molesting children and taking pictures so that they have enough content to gain membership. If these groups didn't need to worry about law enforcement infiltration, some of them might not have the uploading of content as a security precaution.

http://www.post-gazette.com/neighborhoods-city/2009/11/25/Prosecutors-here-charge-8-in-child-pornography-network/stories/200911250308

Third of all, I can give citation to scientific studies showing that in every single country studied, the legalization and wide availability of child pornography correlated with a reduction in child sexual assaults. If this happened in one country we may think that it is correlation without causation, but when it has happened in every single country ever studied it makes a stronger case that there is a causative effect

Milton Diamond  Eva Jozifkova  Petr Weiss, "Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic,"  30 August 2010
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child.pornography.linked.lower.rates.child.sex.abuse

Fourth of all, I can show that it is currently thought that use of child pornography increases the risk of some pedophiles molesting children, but decreases the risk of other pedophiles molesting children.

Richard Wortley, Stephen Smallbone, "Child Pornography on the Internet," Problem-Specific Guides Series Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, page 16

This is very likely the case, and if we go further than this study and analyze what actually happens when child pornography is legal and available, the obvious conclusion is that for MORE pedophiles use of child pornography will decrease their likelihood of hands on offending against a child. If it increased the probability of more pedophiles hands on offending against a child, we would see the legalization and wide availability of child pornography having a POSITIVE rather than NEGATIVE correlation with child sex abuse rates.

Fifth of all, numerous sexologists believe that access to child pornography will indeed give many pedophiles an outlet for their sexual desires, reducing their probability of hands on offending against a child. Some disagree, but the people who disagree do not have research supporting them and they are clearly having a knee jerk emotional response, much like you.

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2013/11/should-the-government-provide-virtual-child-pornography-to-stop-paedophiles-coming-into-contact-with-real-children

Sixth of all, in studies of child sex offenders, they very often self report that they have used child pornography as a sexual outlet to help them control themselves from molesting children.

Green, R. (1992). Sexual science and the law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Seventh of all, in countries such as Germany they have trialed programs where pedophiles were reached out to via advertisements to participate in anonymous treatment programs. Results from this study show that nearly two thousand pedophiles responded to these advertisements, the pedophiles who obtained treatment were substantially less likely to molest children than the ones who had not. With the current stigma associated with pedophilia in countries like the USA, and with reporting laws for clinicians requiring them to report child sex offenses, pedophiles are much less likely to volunteer for such programs, and indeed anonymous programs of this nature are illegal in the USA.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115/2

There is a wide selection of evidence supporting the notion that legalizing child pornography will result in lower rates of child molestation. Show me some academic studies that counter this, and I mean STUDIES, or logical constructs, not opinions pulled out of equally emotionally peoples assholes.     
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 02:19:49 am by merge »

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #303 on: January 01, 2014, 02:12:37 am »
I'm writing a paper right now that addresses this issue, I have over 68 citations currently, many of them to academic literature. The more I research it the more I see how totally fucked up these emotional "thinking" people are and how their "intuition" and emotional response leads to the exact fucking opposite of what they want. Once you really dig into the issue and research it it just becomes super obvious that CP possession needs to be immediately legalized, not only because it being illegal ruins the lives of countless harmless men but also because it leads to significantly higher amounts of child molestation!


That said, you have ZERO evidence other than conjecture to back up that last sentence.

I provided numerous citations to studies in my previous post, as well as some logical constructs of my own synthesis which you are free to try to poke holes in if you know how to use logic.

Quote
You're right to say that many pedophiles are not child molesters (directly at least), but the trade of child pornography exploits innocent children, and in some cases, leaves them in scarred.

I already countered this argument, please read my post on the previous page under the titles "The Revictimization Argument for the Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession" and "An Evaluation of the Contemporary Validity of the Financial Market Argument For Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession"

Show me a non-mystical and intrinsic mechanism of action that leads children to be scarred by some random CP consumer looking at their picture. Challenge: You need to demonstrate that the individual viewing the picture is responsible for this scarring. 

Quote
CP does not belong on SR. Period!

Did I ever say otherwise?

Quote
But I will also agree that the DSM and current treatment/assessment models are flawed at best.

The biggest flaw in the DSM is that they say pedophiles are attracted to those 13 and under instead of saying pedophiles are attracted to those who have not yet reached puberty. In general the mental health community has done a good job of being rational in regards to pedophiles and even child pornography.

Quote
And I will agree that they are locking people up indefinitely after they serve their full sentence and that that in and of itself is unconstitutional. But judges are signing off on indefinite detention.

Uhm, the criminalization of visual information is clearly unconstitutional as we have a right to freedom of speech. PS: Images can be encoded as series of words, I wonder if anyone dare encode some CP as words and publish it in a book! Take the PGP approach.

Quote
And there's NO WAY IN FUCKING HOLY HELL THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE LEGALIZED The demand for CP exploits innocent children and and leads them to be molested!

I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing the points I clearly made on the previous page, but feel free to mindlessly repeat your mantra. Let me know when you have an argument instead of a statement.

Quote
If I had to choose whether to protect innocent pedophiles and protecting innocent children, I'M GOING SIDE WITH THE KIDS. THEY'RE INNOCENT TOO.

The available body of evidence suggests that by protecting innocent pedophiles we will protect more innocent children than we will protect by condemning innocent pedophiles. So it's really a win-win situation. Currently we condemn innocent pedophiles in the name of innocent children, despite the fact that the available research shows that taking this approach actually leads to more children being molested.

Quote
I wish this fucking thread would die.

I wish I wasn't blessed with such a beautiful mind, it's like I am outside of the matrix looking in :(.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #304 on: January 02, 2014, 09:47:01 pm »
TBH, I didn't get very far through the thread; it was giving me a headache. That comment was specifically directed at the person above me, specifically because the idea that making child porn legal is going to STOP?!? molestation is ludicrous and is unsupported by evidence.

EDIT: <sigh> And I'm sorry I fucking bumped it again.

Okay then show me some citations. Since it isn't supported by the evidence, according to you. Did you even read what I wrote?
No. Can you fucking read? I explicitly stated that I'd stopped reading at the sentence in your first paragraph that lacked evidentiary support. I'm not interested in your undergrad psych paper or your crackpot theories.

I'm warning you in advance, many of these links below are to US government website or are pdfs, so please exercise caution

Let me start off by identifying the logical fallacy in your argument: THE TRADE OF CP HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY REGARDLESS OF IT'S LEGAL STATUS
www.make-it-safe.net/esp/pdf/child_pornography_internet_Carr2004.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV81.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24252746

Your second fallacy is that you don't have a shred of evidence to prove that legalizing child porn would reduce molestation. These people have access to plenty of CP. It is not possible to conduct a peer reviewed study that can prove your assertion; and certainly not one that is statistically significant and that can be extrapolated to the entire population of pedophiles.

Quote
That said, you have ZERO evidence other than conjecture to back up that last sentence.

I provided numerous citations to studies in my previous post, as well as some logical constructs of my own synthesis which you are free to try to poke holes in if you know how to use logic.

Look, you can cut the fucking condescension; you are not more/better educated than me. If your level of reading comprehension were higher, you'd understand that I was specifically stating that there are no peer reviewed studies indicating that legalizing the possession of child pornography would DECREASE molestation. The first rule of statistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. is that anecdotal evidence and conjecture are not statistically significant.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.20250/abstract
http://abuse.wikia.com/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284279
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088812

And, according to a Mayo Clinic study, 76% of individuals arrested for internet child pornography possession had actually molested children.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf

Another study conducted at the Butner Correctional Facility found that 85% of those convicted for possession of child pornography had molested at least one child.
Quote from one inmate:  “Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (It's very difficult for me to cite sources that aren't in pdf format, so I'll cite NYT here)

Quote: Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.6 From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7 Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes.8 The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080111204617/http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/child_sexual_exploitation_update_volume_1_number_3_2004.html (most of the studies cited in this source disagree with you)

Quote
You're right to say that many pedophiles are not child molesters (directly at least), but the trade of child pornography exploits innocent children, and in some cases, leaves them in scarred.

I already countered this argument, please read my post on the previous page under the titles "The Revictimization Argument for the Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession" and "An Evaluation of the Contemporary Validity of the Financial Market Argument For Continued Criminalization of Child Pornography Possession"

Show me a non-mystical and intrinsic mechanism of action that leads children to be scarred by some random CP consumer looking at their picture. Challenge: You need to demonstrate that the individual viewing the picture is responsible for this scarring.
First of all, I don't have to prove shit to you; you arrogant fucking prick. But OK retard: My mom's got some pictures of me running around the house naked when I was 4 years old in her attic somewhere. I don't quite think that's what pedophiles are looking for.

I'm talking specifically about images of children engaged in sexual activity. It doesn't matter if the viewer is directly responsible for the actual molestation; their demand for the content is an indirect cause of child sexual abuse.

http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/20120215-16/Testimony_15_Cooper.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV81.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/internet-crimes/papers.html (plenty of studies for you to read)

Quote
CP does not belong on SR. Period!

Did I ever say otherwise?
I have no idea. Can you read? I said I stopped reading at the last sentence that I quoted. Once I find a logical fallacy in an argument, I stop reading.

Quote
But I will also agree that the DSM and current treatment/assessment models are flawed at best.

The biggest flaw in the DSM is that they say pedophiles are attracted to those 13 and under instead of saying pedophiles are attracted to those who have not yet reached puberty. In general the mental health community has done a good job of being rational in regards to pedophiles and even child pornography.
Well, to be honest, under 13 includes children who have not reached puberty. You mean to say that it doesn't distinguish between pedophilia and hebephilia. What the fuck does that matter though? 13 is well below the age of consent and  most people are still pubescent at age 13

The problem with the DSM is that the individual does NOT have to meet all of the criteria to be diagnosed with pedophilia, one of which is molestation; so people can be committed without ever having laid a hand on a child.

http://behavenet.com/node/21512 (note: the only change made in the DSM V was the name; it was changed from pedophilia to pedophilic disorder).
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/12/02/final-dsm-5-approved-by-american-psychiatric-association/

Who, exactly, do you think is evaluating people for indefinite detention (aka involuntary civil commitment)? (hint: prison psychologists and psychiatrists). Why? Because the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association claim explicitly state that there is no effective treatment for sex offenders and for reducing recidivism rates.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1649
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

Quote
And I will agree that they are locking people up indefinitely after they serve their full sentence and that that in and of itself is unconstitutional. But judges are signing off on indefinite detention.

Uhm, the criminalization of visual information is clearly unconstitutional as we have a right to freedom of speech. PS: Images can be encoded as series of words, I wonder if anyone dare encode some CP as words and publish it in a book! Take the PGP approach.
Oh really? You have a very poor understanding of the First Amendment. Can I yell "FIRE" in a cinema? Not all speech is protected, particularly if the government has an legitimate interest in limiting said speech.

Oh, and BTW, you just blew another hole in your delusional theory: you've just stated that pedophiles have unfettered access to unlimited CP through TOR, MIME, PGP, etc. You really are a fucking idiot.

You lack the legal knowledge required to interpret the Constitution (which, BTW, is highly subjective). You're free to disagree, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Since you don't understand the legal history of this and the application of the First Amendment, I'll help you (BTW, it took me all of 2 minutes to find these):

**All Clearnet links**
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&invol=476#491 (1957)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15 (1973)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/458/747 (1982)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A (1988)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/495/103 (1990)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A (2003)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-4th-circuit/2008/12/18/157587.html (2008)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6521.htm (this is a government site; I'll spare you and summarize it: petition for writ or certiorari DENIED in the above appellate case; conviction upheld)

Now, you show me a source that says molestation has INCREASED since CP possession was criminalized in the 1980s Are you fucking serious?

Quote
And there's NO WAY IN FUCKING HOLY HELL THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE LEGALIZED The demand for CP exploits innocent children and and leads them to be molested!

I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing the points I clearly made on the previous page, but feel free to mindlessly repeat your mantra. Let me know when you have an argument instead of a statement.
OK, I gave you the relevant history behind the legality and the time at which possession of CP was criminalized. Now you show me a source that says molestation has INCREASED since it was criminalized. Oh wait; that's right you don't fucking have one dickface.

You can't even show me that pedophiles have restricted access to CP.

Quote
If I had to choose whether to protect innocent pedophiles and protecting innocent children, I'M GOING SIDE WITH THE KIDS. THEY'RE INNOCENT TOO.

The available body of evidence suggests that by protecting innocent pedophiles we will protect more innocent children than we will protect by condemning innocent pedophiles. So it's really a win-win situation. Currently we condemn innocent pedophiles in the name of innocent children, despite the fact that the available research shows that taking this approach actually leads to more children being molested.

Quote
I wish this fucking thread would die.

I wish I wasn't blessed with such a beautiful mind, it's like I am outside of the matrix looking in :(.
LMFAO It's cute that you find yourself to be intelligent and well educated. I find you to be quite the opposite. You appear to be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, and possibly mild mental retardation (and possibly pedophilic disorder. ;)
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 09:53:38 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #305 on: January 03, 2014, 02:09:01 am »
Quote
Let me start off by identifying the logical fallacy in your argument: THE TRADE OF CP HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY REGARDLESS OF IT'S LEGAL STATUS

So? I already knew that the trade of CP has been dramatically increasing. What does that have to do with anything? How does that even relate to my argument? Actually, the rise in the trade of CP, regardless of its legal status, has correlated with a global decline in child sex abuse rates. That just gives more credibility to the theory that access to and use of child pornography reduces a pedophiles probability of molesting children. So I guess it does relate to my argument. In giving it more credibility. I guess what I should ask is how does it relate to your argument?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html

Your position is that child pornography use should correlate positively with child abuse rates. Your own admission, and some of the papers you linked to, indicate that globally child pornography use is on the rise and has been for quite a while. Your hypothesis can be tested then by looking at global child sex abuse rates, but when we do this we can see that there is actually a negative correlation between child sex abuse rates and the availability and use of child pornography, regardless of legality. Additionally, in countries that specifically legalize access to child pornography, in every single country ever studied this event of legalizing access to child pornography correlated with an immediate drop in child sex abuse rates. So your argument is proven incorrect, and my argument has more credibility given to it. How is that a logical fallacy? Indeed, everywhere in the fucking world, even where CP is not legal, the availability of CP has had a negative correlation with the amount of child abuse.

Quote
www.make-it-safe.net/esp/pdf/child_pornography_internet_Carr2004.pdf

Quote
I argue that the arrival of the internet has almost
certainly led to an increase in the volume of child
pornography in circulation and to an increase in
the overall level of sexual offending against
children and young people.

Not supported by research, not only have child sex abuse rates fallen in the USA as child porn availability has risen (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html) but in every country ever studied the availability of legal child pornography correlated with an almost immediate drop in child sex abuse rates (Milton Diamond  Eva Jozifkova  Petr Weiss, "Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic,"  30 August 2010). 

Quote
The publication or exchange of these images may
or may not be commercial in nature but, as we
shall see, the key point is that, compared with pre-
internet days, there seems little doubt that many
more people are now encountering and looking at
child abuse images. In turn, as the arrest figures
are starting to show, this seems to have led to an
increase in the number of people who have
become involved in collecting and in the
possession of these images.31

Which has had a negative correlation with the frequency of child sexual abuse! I wonder why this guy didn't think to point that out. Maybe because it goes against his hypothesis and shows the position he is arguing isn't supported by research.

Quote
This report argues that this increase in looking,
collecting and possession is leading to more
children being abused than otherwise would have
been the case, because
(i) it is very likely to cause a proportion of this
enlarged population of ‘lookers, collectors and
possessors’ to go on to abuse children32
(ii)it also creates a demand for new child abuse
images to be produced, and in order to
produce these new images more new children
will be recruited to be abused33

1. This is true, but it also will cause a proportion of users to not molest children when they otherwise would have, as it offers them an outlet for their sexual desires that isn't child molestation. Saying that it causes some users to go on to abuse children, without saying that it causes some users to not abuse children when they otherwise would have, is misleading and reeks of propaganda. (Richard Wortley, Stephen Smallbone, "Child Pornography on the Internet," Problem-Specific Guides Series Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, page 16 .... shows that for some CP offenders using CP increases their risk of molestation, for others it decreases their risk of molestation). If we additionally look at the overall trends in child sex abuse rates, we can see that it is negatively correlated with the availability of child pornography, this indicates that for MORE child porn offenders using CP reduces their probability of offending than increases it. Pedophilic fantasies and pedophilic behaviors are not strongly correlated, psychopathic personality traits and acting on deviant fantasies are correlated (INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES, KEVIN M. WILLIAMS). Pedophile use of child pornography acting as an outlet is also theoretically supported by numerous sexologists ( http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2013/11/should-the-government-provide-virtual-child-pornography-to-stop-paedophiles-coming-into-contact-with-real-children) and is self reported by sex offenders (Green, R. (1992). Sexual science and the law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Additionally, numerous studies put the percentage of CP offenders who molest children at as low as 1% (The consumption of Internet childpornography and violent and sexoffending, Jérôme Endrass, Frank Urbaniok, Lea C Hammermeister, Christian Benz, Thomas Elbert, Arja Laubacher, Astrid Rossegger, Published: 14 July 2009 BMC Psychiatry 2009) ( McCarthy, Jennifer A., The relationship between possessing child pornography and child molestation. United State New York: UMI Dissertations Publishing (2010).)

2. This is the market theory of child pornography, which I already have extensively argued against, if you wish to read the full thing check the previous page, otherwise here are some snippets

A. Commercial child pornography sites exist in single digits: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/sep/23/worldwide-child-porn-ring-busted/?print=1
B. The free trade in P2P child pornography is several orders of magnitude larger than commercial child pornography: Marc Liberatore, Brian Neil Levine, Clay Shields, "Strengthening Forensic Investigations of Child Pornography on P2P Networks,"
C. Free Open P2P is the most common method used for trading in child pornography: Report to Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses Chapter 12, page 329
D. The free trade in P2P Child pornography very likely hurts the for profit production CP industry, just as the adult equivalent has hurt adult commercial porn production: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/porn-industry-in-decline_n_2460799.html
E. P2P traders do not engage in community aspects of CP, or in much networking at all: Tony Krone, "A  Typology of Online Child Pornography Offending," Australian Institute of Criminology, July 2004
F. The demand for CP cannot be combated with the law, as you yourself admit, but it can be masked with technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_information_retrieval

I should also point out that the market theory of child pornography is not supported by economic theory. For demand to translate into supply the supplier needs to be aware of the demand. Even without private information retrieval in the majority of cases the producer of CP is simply not aware that a given individual has downloaded the produced CP. If we remove even only financial contributions you are hard pressed to make a serious argument that someone looking at a picture inherently causes some suppliers to produce more of the pictures. It is not a well established link and it really pisses me off when people just repeat these canned little propaganda snippets verbatim.

Quote
Joe Sullivan, a colleague of Findlater’s,
encapsulates many people’s views when he says
‘Men who collect child abuse images do so
because they want to have sex with children, but
some of them may not have realised it yet.’
Findlater’s clients are certain that, for many men
like them, looking at and collecting child abuse
images dramatically increases the likelihood of an
individual going on to offend against children in
the real world.

Joe Sullivan is a fucking retard and probably a propagandist with biased interest in continuing the counterproductive war on child pornography possession. It is completely invalid to claim that all people who collect child abuse images do so because they want to have sex with children. Joe Sullivan should read some of the current research (HOW TO UTILIZE FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS WITHIN INTERNET ONLINE SOLICITATION AND PORNOGRAPHY SEX CRIME CASES John Matthew Fabian, PSY.D., J.D.*)

"Many offenders who have possessed pornography on their computers and engaged in cyber-chat with underage females use the Internet to avoid negative emotional states, such as depression, anxiety, anger, boredom, and loneliness.i  This is a critical point  because these offenders may not be sexually deviant, rather they use sex as an outlet to deal with these emotional deficits."

Numerous reasons for possession of child pornography have been identified, ranging from obsessive compulsive disorder to sadism to pornography addiction, saying that all people who collect child pornography do so because they want to have sex with children goes against the current consensus belief of the psychological community. So this guy has some clients, probably ordered to him by the court and required to pretend to believe everything he says to ever dream of being released, who say that child porn dramatically increases their likelihood of offending against a child. Well, for one that is anecdotal and the empirical evidence suggests that for more child porn offenders it will REDUCE their probability of hands on offending with a child, and for two there are anecdotal reports of CP offenders saying they used CP as an alternative to molestation  (Green, R. (1992). Sexual science and the law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

also from the previous citation:

"There is little empirical evidence suggesting a direct causal link between pornography viewing and sex offending.  Pornography use can be neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of sexual offending because sexual offenses are usually committed by those offenders with little or no exposure to pornography."


So essentially I have identified numerous examples of cherry picking so far in this propaganda article. Let's continue !

Quote
There is also objective evidence from elsewhere that
seems to support this view. Police sources in
Canada and the UK, and a published study within
the US prison service,37 suggest there is a definite
link, but the probabilities seem to range widely from
between 10 per cent and 70 per cent. The biggest
single published study, carried out by the US Postal
Inspection Service, puts it around 35 per cent, ie a
little over one in three men arrested merely for
possessing child abuse images will also be child
molesters.38 As a result of the US Postal Inspection
Service’s operations 530 children were rescued from
further sexual abuse and exploitation.39

The majority of the studies of arrested CP offenders are biased and I can demonstrate the methodological issues with the studies quite easily:

A. Only about 1% of child pornography offenders who are detected are followed up on, due to limited police resources: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9920665-7.html , http://www.wmctv.com/story/23571873/high-tech-tools-help-investigators-catch-child-porn-suspects

B. Because of limited resources, the police often but of course not entirely) try to go after the detected CP offenders who have things such as child molestation manuals (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/dec/10/hood-asks-police-to-help-catch-cyber-criminals/?print=1)

C. With these two pieces of information we can see why there is an over representation of hands on offenders in the subcategory of arrested child pornography offenders. These police agencies are using a biased pool and incorrectly extrapolating from this pool to the general population of CP offenders, in support of their sickening fucking propaganda.

Here, a quote from an actual researcher and his opinion of law enforcements use of his research (Andres E. Hernandez, Psy.D., Psychological and Behavioral Characteristics of Child Pornography Offenders in Treatment):

Quote
The incidence of contact sexual crimes among CP offenders, as we reported in our
studies, is important and worthy of considerable empirical examination. However, it is
not a conclusive finding that can be generalized to all CP offenders. Notwithstanding,
some individuals in law enforcement are tempted to rely on a biased interpretation of our
study (i.e., to prove that the majority of CP offenders are child molesters).

So lovely when the actual researchers point out that law enforcement are using their studies in misleading ways! Speaking of research, guess what fuckers:

1. Maybe only 1% of CP offenders molest children? (The consumption of Internet childpornography and violent and sexoffending, Jérôme Endrass, Frank Urbaniok, Lea C Hammermeister, Christian Benz, Thomas Elbert, Arja Laubacher, Astrid Rossegger, Published: 14 July 2009 BMC Psychiatry 2009)
2. Or is it 16%? (Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitche, "Child-Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes:Findings From the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study," 2005)
3. Well, 5% of randomly selected college males have engaged in non-fantasy pedophilic behaviors (INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES, KEVIN M. WILLIAMS)
4. And PS: There was a very low correlation between fantasizing about child molestation and engaging in it !

Quote
Findlater believes that very few
people are ‘born paedophiles’. The problem may
manifest itself initially as curiosity, but in the end
most men become paedophiles as part of a
process that can be understood. A key part of that
process is access to material that fuels sexual
fantasy. Take away the material and you reduce the
risk.

Wow whoever Findlater is he is obviously god damn delusional, and he is going totally against what is commonly though. Holy fuck this guy just epically discredited himself to anyone who has a fucking clue about these matters! Nice to see a fresh argument though, now I can add "Child pornography makes pedophiles!" to my paper as another stupid unsupported bullshit argument that I can rip apart.

A. There is very likely a genetic basis for pedophilia, pedophiles are more often left handed and more often shorter, both of these facts give credit to a genetic basis for pedophilia: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
B. Another possibility is that pedophiles have suffered from brain damage and acquired pedophilia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14574100
C. Show me a single fucking study that shows that using CP turns people into pedophiles, it's god damn absurd and I want to complain to whatever journal it managed to get published in (if it even exists!)

Quote
We have seen that some paedophiles say that
exposure to child abuse images increases the
likelihood of offending against children, and we
have seen that several large-scale studies appear to
support that idea, even if the exact causal chain is
not, as yet, fully understood.

1. Ignores that empirical research shows a negative correlation between child pornography availability and child molestation rates
2. Ignores that numerous pedophiles self report that child pornography DECREASES their risk of sexually abusing children

Honestly I can't even read this propaganda anymore. Who the fuck even published this complete nonsense? Oh shocking a children charity, thinking they can help children by lying about reality, even though reality shows that the policies they are fighting for HURT MORE CHILDREN THAN THEY HELP.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 02:09:32 am by merge »

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #306 on: January 03, 2014, 03:19:00 am »
Quote
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24252746

What about it? I quoted it in my paper actually. It shows 16% of those arrested with CP had molested a child. Look how this biased scum fuck slave trading organization tried to play it off:

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html

Quote
"40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children"

According to an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise (ECPAT in Australia), published in the The Australian on 8 January 2008: "In 2005 the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that 40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children."[77]

The 40% number was in a report distributed by the NCMEC in 2005 and the percentage concerned research findings in relation to a total of 429 cases during the 12 months beginning 1 July 2000. However, insofar as the phrasing of the assertion quoted above appears to imply that 40% of persons arrested for possession of child pornography were found to have sexually abused children, it does not accurately reflect the research findings.

The research found that "one out of six", i.e. 16% of "cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so".
Findings of the N-JOV Study

The source of the 40% figure is the second report on the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study ("N-JOV Study")[78] conducted by researchers (Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitchell) at the Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire (in north-western U.S.A.). The research report was "funded by the U.S. Congress Through a Grant to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children".

(Note: Although NCMEC's media release of 18 August 2005 cites the above research report as the source of numerous NCMEC claims about 'growing', 'increasing', etc, the research report did not find, or claim, that anything is increasing, growing, etc. The research concerned a one year period beginning 1 July 2000 and did not compare findings from that period with any other period.)

According to the research report:

    The goals of the National Juvenile Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study were to survey law-enforcement agencies within the United States (U.S.) to count arrests for Internet-related sex crimes committed against minors and describe the characteristics of the offenders, the crimes they committed, and their victims.

The above report was the second report on the N-JOV Study and it was focussed on a 'representative national sample' of persons arrested for Internet-related sex crimes who possessed child pornography, i.e. a sub-set of the cases identified in the N-JOV survey.

The researchers found that "[U.S.] Law-enforcement agencies nationally made an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography during the 12 months beginning July 1, 2000". The estimate of 1,713 was projected from 429 actual cases identified.

The researchers also stated "[T]o give some perspective on this estimate of 1,713 arrests for Internet-related CP possession, we estimate there were approximately 65,000 arrests in 2000 for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors".

In the sub-set comprising persons who possessed child pornography (429 actual cases), 47% of the cases arose in the criminal-justice system as cases of child sexual victimization or attempted child sexual victimization (solicitations to undercover investigators) and 53% of the cases arose as cases involving child pornography possession.

The 40% number is a further sub-set which comprises cases/persons whom the researchers termed 'dual offenders' because "They sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the course of the same investigation":

    We found 40% of the cases involving CP possession in the N-JOV Study involved dual offenses of CP possession and child sexual victimization detected in the course of the same investigation. All of these offenders had identified child victims. An additional 15% both possessed CP and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors. When these cases of attempted child sexual victimization are counted, 55% of the CP possessors were dual offenders (unweighted n = 241, weighted n = 936).

(Note that the actual number of dual offender cases identified was 241).

84% of the dual offenders were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child sexual victimization which subsequently turned up child pornography possession (55% child sexual victimization plus 29% solicitations to undercover investigators). 16% were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child pornography which subsequently detected a sexually victimized child or an attempt to do so (solicitation to an undercover investigator).

The researchers stated:

    When we looked at all of the cases originating as allegations or investigations of CP possession and examined how many resulted in the arrests of dual offenders, we found

        In 14% of cases investigators found dual offenders who both possessed child pornography and sexually victimized children
        In 2% of cases investigators found offenders who possessed child pornography and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors
        84% of cases involved CP possession but investigators did not detect concurrent child sexual victimization or attempts at child victimization

    This means one out of six cases [i.e. 16%] originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.

The research report also states:

    Limitations
    The N-JOV Study is the first research gathering information about a national sample of arrested CP possessors. Data from a national sample is a strength of the N-JOV Study, but like every scientific survey, the study also has limitations. Readers should keep some of these important things in mind when considering the findings and conclusions of this study.
    First, ...
    Second, ...
    Third, there is an additional caution to our findings about dual offenders. Knowing a considerable number of dual offenders were discovered during investigations of Internet-related, child-sexual-victimization and CP possession cases does not explain how possessing child pornography is related to child sexual victimization or whether it causes or encourages such victimization. We did not have the data to determine this. In particular we had no information about the sequencing of the crimes committed by dual offenders or about undetected crimes they may have committed and little information about their criminal histories and how they used the child pornography they possessed.
    [emphasis added]

In summary, the U.S. case research from which the NCMEC's 40% figure originates, found in a one year period beginning 1 July 2000, an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography (of which 55% also involved sexual victimization of children, or attempts to do so), and an estimated 65,000 arrests in the U.S. for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors. Of the Internet-related cases, one out of six [i.e. 16% of] the cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.

Gotta love how propagandists try to fuck with study results. Especially when the study results are already biased as I previously mentioned, 1% of CP offenders detected are followed upn on and they disproportionately go after the ones with child abuse manuals and such which taints the entire pool when academic researchers have access only to arrested CP offenders to study.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #307 on: January 03, 2014, 03:19:15 am »
Quote
Your second fallacy is that you don't have a shred of evidence to prove that legalizing child porn would reduce molestation. These people have access to plenty of CP. It is not possible to conduct a peer reviewed study that can prove your assertion; and certainly not one that is statistically significant and that can be extrapolated to the entire population of pedophiles.

Already gave my evidence, not going to repeat myself for someone who is unable or unwilling to listen to what I say. Yes, people have access to CP, and the availability of CP, legal or not, has had a negative correlation with child sexual abuse rates. You keep thinking you are going to sneak up on my logic and pounce, but really you are just arguing my point for me !

Quote
Look, you can cut the fucking condescension; you are not more/better educated than me. If your level of reading comprehension were higher, you'd understand that I was specifically stating that there are no peer reviewed studies indicating that legalizing the possession of child pornography would DECREASE molestation. The first rule of statistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. is that anecdotal evidence and conjecture are not statistically significant.

My reading comprehension is actually exceptional, seriously I usually get every single problem correct on tests of reading comprehension. It's probably because my verbal IQ is genius level, that would be my guess anyway. Maybe you should read the peer reviewed study that I keep linking to that shows that legalizing the possession of child pornography leads to decreased molestation rates. It isn't anecdotal or conjecture, they actually looked at various countries before and after they legalized child pornography possession and showed a statistically significant decrease in child molestation rates correlated with the change in legislation. If you had higher reading comprehension you might have realized that !!

Milton Diamond  Eva Jozifkova  Petr Weiss, "Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic,"  30 August 2010

Quote
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.20250/abstract

Shows that there is some correlation between *pornography* (note the lack of child) use and child sex offending, particularly when deviant pornography is involved, and particularly in some high risk child molesters. Okay, I already know there is some correlation between pedophilic fantasies and pedophilic behaviors, but there is low correlation and the primary risk factor is actually psychopathic personality disorders. INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES, KEVIN M. WILLIAMS). Actually, of all studied deviant fantasies (btw 95% of college males had deviant fantasies of one sort or another) pedophilic fantasies had the lowest positive correlation with behavior. This also doesn't explain why the availability and use of child pornography has been empirically shown to negatively correlate with child abuse rates.

Quote
http://abuse.wikia.com/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

What about it? A list of biased studies that the police use for propaganda? You cannot extrapolate from the convicted CP offenders to the CP offenders as a whole, almost all of these studies are tainted by the fact that only 1% of CP consumers are followed up on after they are detected, and that the police tend to focus on the 1% with the materials that indicate they are most likely to offend. Extrapolating from arrested CP offenders to the CP consuming community in general is scientifically invalid, and even the researchers who made some of these papers have said the police are incorreclty using the results of their studies. Also note that some of the studies you linked to actually do show small numbers, for example the Swiss study indicates that 1% of CP consumers are child molesters, with one of the researchers having the following to say:

Quote
"When investigating the prevalence of internet child pornography consumption, an important practical question is whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Our results support the assumption that these consumers, in fact, form a distinct group of sex offenders. Probably, the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of 1% for hands-on and 4% for hands-off sex offenses were quite low."

Also note in your link the following:

Quote
Czech sex therapist Petr Weiss believes that child pornography use may decrease cases of child sexual abuse by allowing pedophiles to sublimate their desires.[1]

Quote
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284279

Is a paper that talks about how most men who meet underage girls for sex on the internet are actually statutory rapists and not forcing the underage girls to engage in sex, which seems to have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said and leads me to believe you are just randomly copy pasting citations.

Quote
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088812

CP consumers reported a greater interest in having sex with minors than people who didn't consume CP. Well, that isn't shocking at all, although as I previously mentioned desire to have sex with minors isn't required for CP consumption and many other things lead people to consume CP as well. Also, interest is different from action, and studies do show that pedophilic fantasy and behavior are weakly correlated.

Quote
And, according to a Mayo Clinic study, 76% of individuals arrested for internet child pornography possession had actually molested children.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf

As I already pointed out, only 1% of detected child pornography offenders are followed up on due to limited police resources, and the ones followed up on are often selected due to having things such as child molestation manuals. This taints the available pool of CP offenders for academic researchers to study, and they very often include disclaimers that their studies shouldn't be extrapolated to CP consumers in general, and on occasion, as I already showed, they bitch about the police intentionally misinterpreting the results of their studies for propaganda. Also, even though it is true that the most likely offenders to molest are targeted more so than others, we cannot ignore the fact that people are in jail for CP cartoons, for jailbait, and for other things that are generally meh and not indicative of molesting children.

Quote
Another study conducted at the Butner Correctional Facility found that 85% of those convicted for possession of child pornography had molested at least one child.
Quote from one inmate:  “Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (It's very difficult for me to cite sources that aren't in pdf format, so I'll cite NYT here)

Anecdotal evidence (which you once seemed to be so against) of inmates in court ordered treatment facilities is sketchy at best. That paper is highly controversial for a number of reasons. First of all, it was funded and carried out largely by US police agencies. It is like if you read a study on drugs by the DEA man. Note that most of the things you are linked to are studies that were NOT carried out by the general academic community but by special interest groups. Second of all, the forensic soundness of the study is contested, many of the self admitted child molesters may have admitted to such because they thought they would be perceived as honest and get better reviews, regardless of the honesty of their claims. Third of all, one of the researchers , who wasn't as associated with the police, straight up said that the police abused the study results. Additionally, keep in mind that the offender populations researchers like this have access to consist of less than 1% of overall child pornography offenders, and that they are over represented by child abusers because the police spend the most resources busting people detected with child molestation guides. Anyone who says you can extrapolate from arrested offender populations to the general offender population is completely and entirely full of fucking shit. Also note that their conclusion is the exact fucking opposite of the conclusion reached in the Swiss study!

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/12/child-abuse.aspx

Quote
Clinical psychologists Michael Bourke, PhD, and Andres Hernandez, PsyD, have been making waves in the psychology and law enforcement communities with the recent release of a paper suggesting that men charged with Internet child pornography offenses and those who commit hands-on child sex offenses are, in many cases, one and the same.

"There is this assumption—in the treatment context, in courtrooms, in investigative circles and in the assessment literature—that these are dichotomous groups," says Bourke, Chief Psychologist of the U.S. Marshals Service, who conducted the research with Hernandez between 2002 to 2005 at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C. "However, in the course of treatment, these men would disclose to us that their use of the Internet was not the limit of their sexual acting out—it was in fact an adjunctive behavior."

The study, published in the April Journal of Family Violence (Vol. 24, No. 3), analyzed data on 155 men convicted of possessing, receiving or distributing Internet-based child pornography, who took part in an 18-month treatment program. As part of their intensive therapy, the men filled out assessment measures including a "victims list," where they revealed the number, though typically not the identity, of children they had sexually molested in the past.

At the time of sentencing, 74 percent of the men had no documented hands-on victimization. But by the end of treatment, 85 percent had admitted they had sexually molested a child at least once, with an average of 13.5 victims per offender, the study finds. The numbers are more than twice that of other studies, a discrepancy the authors attribute to the fact that this is the first study to examine offenders who have disclosed secret abuse over time, while other studies mainly look at criminal convictions or at admissions made by people outside treatment settings.

"Our treatment team worked for an average of 18 months with each offender, and the environment was one of genuine therapeutic trust" that encouraged the men to tell the truth about themselves, Bourke says.

Before its publication, the paper had been a source of controversy within the Bureau of Prisons. Although BOP had internally vetted the paper and it was accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Family Violence, the BOP asked for publication to be halted in 2007, when a public affairs official at BOP discovered that Bourke and Hernandez hadn't modified their paper to include suggested edits made by a BOP lawyer, says Bourke. Those edits minimized the scientific nature of the work by removing professional language and inserting inappropriate replacements that downplayed the significance of the research, including a statement saying that the results could not be generalized to other child pornography offenders, Bourke notes. (The suppression of the study was covered in a July 19, 2007, front-page article in the The New York Times.)

The team held its ground, however, and refused to change the wording.

"We felt it would have been scientifically incorrect to say the findings are not generalizable—we simply don't know the degree to which the results are generalizable to other child pornography offenders," Hernandez explains. "Our study was exploratory, and our aim was to highlight the apparent co-morbidity of two seemingly distinct forms of criminality." Once Bourke took his job at the Marshals Service, he contacted the journal and it proceeded with publication.

Reactions to the study

The paper has been met with both caution and enthusiasm here and abroad.

Fred Berlin, MD, PhD, director of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins University, says he thinks the team should have more strongly emphasized the preliminary nature of the findings, and noted the lower rates of crossover found in other studies.

"These studies have tremendous implications, both in terms of community safety and in terms of individual liberties," he says. "So we have to be very careful that our conclusions are valid before we get too firmly tied to them." Issues he would like to see addressed in more depth include the possibility that the prisoners over-reported because they were trying to please the therapists or to otherwise seem cooperative, he says.

But Graham Hill, head of Great Britain's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—an independent arm of the Serious and Organized Crime Agency, Britain's equivalent of the FBI—says the findings verify what his agency has seen and suspected for years.

"In our view, the therapeutic relationship is the strength of the survey, because these men are more likely to be truthful with therapists they trust than if they're just filling out a questionnaire," says Hill. So impressed was his agency by the findings that in May it conferred an award on Bourke and Hernandez for outstanding contributions to child protection. The center is now using the findings as a training tool for law enforcement officers, Hill adds.

Meanwhile, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jennifer Eakin says the research and the team's in-depth clinical observations have helped to inform investigative practices at the bureau. In particular, the team's finding that men tend to vastly underreport actual child molestation and offend close to home has steered the FBI to conduct more thorough investigations that aren't just based on child sources and other material they find on the men's computers.

"The research was kind of a revelation for us, and made us much better and wiser at refining our investigations," Eakin says.

Changing the system?

To Bourke, the findings speak to some realities about these crimes and to current flaws in the system.

Because children tend to keep silent about sex crimes, it's easy for men to lie about or to avoid disclosing them, he says.

Meanwhile, clinicians, lawyers and others enable this secrecy by accepting these men's innocence at face value, giving expert testimony to that end, and offering arguments like the "'pop up' defense," where offenders maintain they are innocently browsing the Web when links to child pornography spring up out of nowhere.

When he confronted these men in treatment, however, Bourke heard a different story. The men confessed that they never received unsolicited child pornography—that in fact they had actively Googled search terms related to child exploitation, for instance.

"I've never seen a case that convinces me that the Internet causes an individual to become sexually interested in children, and there are no compelling studies to suggest that, either," says Bourke. "You don't wake up at age 40 suddenly afflicted with a bad case of pedophilia."

Bourke and Hernandez hope others will try to replicate the study, and Bourke is planning to do more research in his role at the Marshals Service. In any case, the study advances the debate on an important and still-shadowy topic, says Britain's Hill.

"The only way we'll move this area of crime forward is by promoting people to talk about it openly," he says.


Oh at least Bourke doesn't think the internet causes men to become sexually interested in children, unlike that other asshole who thinks the internet just spits pedophiles out left and right lol.

Quote
Quote: Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.6 From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7 Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes.8 The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080111204617/http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/child_sexual_exploitation_update_volume_1_number_3_2004.html (most of the studies cited in this source disagree with you)

My studies = Academic Community
Your Studies = Law Enforcement Community

Why such a disparity?! I can give citations for 5 different studies that don't show higher than 16%, with two showing as low as 1% (including one that was partially funded by the Swiss police).

Quote
First of all, I don't have to prove shit to you; you arrogant fucking prick. But OK retard: My mom's got some pictures of me running around the house naked when I was 4 years old in her attic somewhere. I don't quite think that's what pedophiles are looking for.

wut?

Quote
I'm talking specifically about images of children engaged in sexual activity. It doesn't matter if the viewer is directly responsible for the actual molestation; their demand for the content is an indirect cause of child sexual abuse.

Quote
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/20120215-16/Testimony_15_Cooper.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV81.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/internet-crimes/papers.html

One of those links is dead, one is a bibliography to numerous papers, and one does say that there is some magical market for molestation but it is from the National Institute for Missing and Exploited Children and it just says it without having any evidence backing it up. Once again, please let me know when you have an ARGUMENT instead of a STATEMENT, and NO linking to other people making statements without arguments doesn't fucking count. Anyone can say anything, I don't give a fuck if you link me to god damn Obama or Putin or Dr. Fuckaped saying that there is a market effect for child pornography (separated from finances and the other things I already clarified in my post on the previous page addressing the market theory of child pornography), it is just as god damn statement and without a fucking argument it is fucking worthless. Do you understand that?

Quote
I have no idea. Can you read? I said I stopped reading at the last sentence that I quoted. Once I find a logical fallacy in an argument, I stop reading.

Wow if I did that I don't think I would even be replying to 98% of the people in this thread!

Quote
Well, to be honest, under 13 includes children who have not reached puberty. You mean to say that it doesn't distinguish between pedophilia and hebephilia. What the fuck does that matter though? 13 is well below the age of consent and  most people are still pubescent at age 13

Hebephilia is attraction to 11-14, the DSM doesn't include hebephilia but it does include pedophilia with attraction up to 13, which it shouldn't. 13 is the age of consent in Japan and it was in Spain until recently. It's 14 in Germany and Serbia amongst other places. Most people are NOT pre-pubescent (as you seem to agree) at age 13: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_scale , the first stage of puberty is reached around 11 years of age. It is literally a bad classification system to say pedophiles are attracted to children 2-13 years old, it should be pedophiles are attracted to non-infant prepubescents, which can be from 2-13 years old but more commonly is 2-10 years old. The entire chronophilia system is fucked up, it should be based off tanner staging instead of ages, because different people develop at different ages.

Quote
The problem with the DSM is that the individual does NOT have to meet all of the criteria to be diagnosed with pedophilia, one of which is molestation; so people can be committed without ever having laid a hand on a child.

Molestation is not a requirement for pedophilia so I don't see any problem with that. I see a problem with people being in legal trouble when they never laid a hand on a child, like I keep pointing out the war on CP harms innocent pedophiles AND innocent children and the sooner we are done with it the better we all will be (well, other than the people raking in the bucks from it, ie: slave traders).

Quote
Oh really? You have a very poor understanding of the First Amendment. Can I yell "FIRE" in a cinema? Not all speech is protected, particularly if the government has an legitimate interest in limiting said speech.

The government has a legitimate interest in causing more children to be molested by criminalizing the possession of CP?

Quote
Oh, and BTW, you just blew another hole in your delusional theory: you've just stated that pedophiles have unfettered access to unlimited CP through TOR, MIME, PGP, etc. You really are a fucking idiot.

What are you even talking about?

Quote
You lack the legal knowledge required to interpret the Constitution (which, BTW, is highly subjective). You're free to disagree, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I lack the delusion required to accept that whatever the supreme court says is true must be true. The fact of the matter is that restricting pedophiles access to child pornography is a clear violation of the right to free speech, and a bunch of deluded emotional slave trading fuckwads can say different but I don't give any respect to their stupid fucking opinion.

Quote
Since you don't understand the legal history of this and the application of the First Amendment, I'll help you (BTW, it took me all of 2 minutes to find these):

Yes, I am fully aware that the supreme court has violated the constitution and convinced dumbfucks such as yourself that they have not.

Quote
Now, you show me a source that says molestation has INCREASED since CP possession was criminalized in the 1980s Are you fucking serious?

Child molestation has been generally decreasing, but it correlates with the availability of child pornography on the internet increasing. Show me one study that says molestation has INCREASED since child pornography became available on the internet in the late 90's.

Quote
OK, I gave you the relevant history behind the legality and the time at which possession of CP was criminalized. Now you show me a source that says molestation has INCREASED since it was criminalized. Oh wait; that's right you don't fucking have one dickface.You can't even show me that pedophiles have restricted access to CP.

Show me one study that says child molestation rates have INCREASED since child pornography became widely available again in the late 90's. Oh wait you can't find one, because child sexual abuse rates have been declining since the early 90's all the way up to today, despite the fact that since the late 90's child pornography availability and consumption has been growing at an exponential rate.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 03:53:33 am by merge »

Loki

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
  • Karma: +41/-231
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #308 on: January 03, 2014, 03:35:31 am »

Quote
Your second fallacy is that you don't have a shred of evidence to prove that legalizing child porn would reduce molestation. These people have access to plenty of CP. It is not possible to conduct a peer reviewed study that can prove your assertion; and certainly not one that is statistically significant and that can be extrapolated to the entire population of pedophiles.

Already gave my evidence, not going to repeat myself for someone who is unable or unwilling to listen to what I say. Yes, people have access to CP, and the availability of CP, legal or not, has had a negative correlation with child sexual abuse rates. You keep thinking you are going to sneak up on my logic and pounce, but really you are just arguing my point for me !

Quote
Look, you can cut the fucking condescension; you are not more/better educated than me. If your level of reading comprehension were higher, you'd understand that I was specifically stating that there are no peer reviewed studies indicating that legalizing the possession of child pornography would DECREASE molestation. The first rule of statistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. is that anecdotal evidence and conjecture are not statistically significant.

My reading comprehension is actually exceptional, seriously I usually every single problem correct on tests of reading comprehension. It's probably because my verbal IQ is genius level, that would be my guess anyway. Maybe you should read the peer reviewed study that I keep linking to that shows that legalizing the possession of child pornography leads to decreased molestation rates. It isn't anecdotal or conjecture, they actually looked at various countries before and after they legalized child pornography possession and showed a statistically significant decrease in child molestation rates correlated with the change in legislation. If you had higher reading comprehension you might have realized that !!

Milton Diamond  Eva Jozifkova  Petr Weiss, "Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic,"  30 August 2010

Quote
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.20250/abstract

Shows that there is some correlation between *pornography* (note the lack of child) use and child sex offending, particularly when deviant pornography is involved, and particularly in some high risk child molesters. Okay, I already know there is some correlation between pedophilic fantasies and pedophilic behaviors, but there is low correlation and the primary risk factor is actually psychopathic personality disorders. INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES, KEVIN M. WILLIAMS). Actually, of all studied deviant fantasies (btw 95% of college males had deviant fantasies of one sort or another) pedophilic fantasies had the lowest positive correlation with behavior. This also doesn't explain why the availability and use of child pornography has been empirically shown to negatively correlate with child abuse rates.

Quote
http://abuse.wikia.com/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

What about it? A list of biased studies that the police use for propaganda? You cannot extrapolate from the convicted CP offenders to the CP offenders as a whole, almost all of these studies are tainted by the fact that only 1% of CP consumers are followed up on after they are detected, and that the police tend to focus on the 1% with the materials that indicate they are most likely to offend. Extrapolating from arrested CP offenders to the CP consuming community in general is scientifically invalid, and even the researchers who made some of these papers have said the police are incorreclty using the results of their studies. Also note that some of the studies you linked to actually do show small numbers, for example the Swiss study indicates that 1% of CP consumers are child molesters, with one of the researchers having the following to say:

Quote
"When investigating the prevalence of internet child pornography consumption, an important practical question is whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Our results support the assumption that these consumers, in fact, form a distinct group of sex offenders. Probably, the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of 1% for hands-on and 4% for hands-off sex offenses were quite low."

Also note in your link the following:

Quote
Czech sex therapist Petr Weiss believes that child pornography use may decrease cases of child sexual abuse by allowing pedophiles to sublimate their desires.[1]

Quote
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284279

Is a paper that talks about how most men who meet underage girls for sex on the internet are actually statutory rapists and not forcing the underage girls to engage in sex, which seems to have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said and leads me to believe you are just randomly copy pasting citations.

Quote
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088812

CP consumers reported a greater interest in having sex with minors than people who didn't consume CP. Well, that isn't shocking at all, although as I previously mentioned desire to have sex with minors isn't required for CP consumption and many other things lead people to consume CP as well. Also, interest is different from action, and studies do show that pedophilic fantasy and behavior are weakly correlated.

Quote
And, according to a Mayo Clinic study, 76% of individuals arrested for internet child pornography possession had actually molested children.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf

As I already pointed out, only 1% of detected child pornography offenders are followed up on due to limited police resources, and the ones followed up on are often selected due to having things such as child molestation manuals. This taints the available pool of CP offenders for academic researchers to study, and they very often include disclaimers that their studies shouldn't be extrapolated to CP consumers in general, and on occasion, as I already showed, they bitch about the police intentionally misinterpreting the results of their studies for propaganda. Also, even though it is true that the most likely offenders to molest are targeted more so than others, we cannot ignore the fact that people are in jail for CP cartoons, for jailbait, and for other things that are generally meh and not indicative of molesting children.

Quote
Another study conducted at the Butner Correctional Facility found that 85% of those convicted for possession of child pornography had molested at least one child.
Quote from one inmate:  “Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (It's very difficult for me to cite sources that aren't in pdf format, so I'll cite NYT here)

Anecdotal evidence (which you once seemed to be so against) of inmates in court ordered treatment facilities is sketchy at best. That paper is highly controversial for a number of reasons. First of all, it was funded and carried out largely by US police agencies. It is like if you read a study on drugs by the DEA man. Note that most of the things you are linked to are studies that were NOT carried out by the general academic community but by special interest groups. Second of all, the forensic soundness of the study is contested, many of the self admitted child molesters may have admitted to such because they thought they would be perceived as honest and get better reviews, regardless of the honesty of their claims. Third of all, one of the researchers , who wasn't as associated with the police, straight up said that the police abused the study results. Additionally, keep in mind that the offender populations researchers like this have access to consist of less than 1% of overall child pornography offenders, and that they are over represented by child abusers because the police spend the most resources busting people detected with child molestation guides. Anyone who says you can extrapolate from arrested offender populations to the general offender population is completely and entirely full of fucking shit. Also note that their conclusion is the exact fucking opposite of the conclusion reached in the Swiss study!

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/12/child-abuse.aspx

Quote
Clinical psychologists Michael Bourke, PhD, and Andres Hernandez, PsyD, have been making waves in the psychology and law enforcement communities with the recent release of a paper suggesting that men charged with Internet child pornography offenses and those who commit hands-on child sex offenses are, in many cases, one and the same.

"There is this assumption—in the treatment context, in courtrooms, in investigative circles and in the assessment literature—that these are dichotomous groups," says Bourke, Chief Psychologist of the U.S. Marshals Service, who conducted the research with Hernandez between 2002 to 2005 at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C. "However, in the course of treatment, these men would disclose to us that their use of the Internet was not the limit of their sexual acting out—it was in fact an adjunctive behavior."

The study, published in the April Journal of Family Violence (Vol. 24, No. 3), analyzed data on 155 men convicted of possessing, receiving or distributing Internet-based child pornography, who took part in an 18-month treatment program. As part of their intensive therapy, the men filled out assessment measures including a "victims list," where they revealed the number, though typically not the identity, of children they had sexually molested in the past.

At the time of sentencing, 74 percent of the men had no documented hands-on victimization. But by the end of treatment, 85 percent had admitted they had sexually molested a child at least once, with an average of 13.5 victims per offender, the study finds. The numbers are more than twice that of other studies, a discrepancy the authors attribute to the fact that this is the first study to examine offenders who have disclosed secret abuse over time, while other studies mainly look at criminal convictions or at admissions made by people outside treatment settings.

"Our treatment team worked for an average of 18 months with each offender, and the environment was one of genuine therapeutic trust" that encouraged the men to tell the truth about themselves, Bourke says.

Before its publication, the paper had been a source of controversy within the Bureau of Prisons. Although BOP had internally vetted the paper and it was accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Family Violence, the BOP asked for publication to be halted in 2007, when a public affairs official at BOP discovered that Bourke and Hernandez hadn't modified their paper to include suggested edits made by a BOP lawyer, says Bourke. Those edits minimized the scientific nature of the work by removing professional language and inserting inappropriate replacements that downplayed the significance of the research, including a statement saying that the results could not be generalized to other child pornography offenders, Bourke notes. (The suppression of the study was covered in a July 19, 2007, front-page article in the The New York Times.)

The team held its ground, however, and refused to change the wording.

"We felt it would have been scientifically incorrect to say the findings are not generalizable—we simply don't know the degree to which the results are generalizable to other child pornography offenders," Hernandez explains. "Our study was exploratory, and our aim was to highlight the apparent co-morbidity of two seemingly distinct forms of criminality." Once Bourke took his job at the Marshals Service, he contacted the journal and it proceeded with publication.

Reactions to the study

The paper has been met with both caution and enthusiasm here and abroad.

Fred Berlin, MD, PhD, director of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins University, says he thinks the team should have more strongly emphasized the preliminary nature of the findings, and noted the lower rates of crossover found in other studies.

"These studies have tremendous implications, both in terms of community safety and in terms of individual liberties," he says. "So we have to be very careful that our conclusions are valid before we get too firmly tied to them." Issues he would like to see addressed in more depth include the possibility that the prisoners over-reported because they were trying to please the therapists or to otherwise seem cooperative, he says.

But Graham Hill, head of Great Britain's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—an independent arm of the Serious and Organized Crime Agency, Britain's equivalent of the FBI—says the findings verify what his agency has seen and suspected for years.

"In our view, the therapeutic relationship is the strength of the survey, because these men are more likely to be truthful with therapists they trust than if they're just filling out a questionnaire," says Hill. So impressed was his agency by the findings that in May it conferred an award on Bourke and Hernandez for outstanding contributions to child protection. The center is now using the findings as a training tool for law enforcement officers, Hill adds.

Meanwhile, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jennifer Eakin says the research and the team's in-depth clinical observations have helped to inform investigative practices at the bureau. In particular, the team's finding that men tend to vastly underreport actual child molestation and offend close to home has steered the FBI to conduct more thorough investigations that aren't just based on child sources and other material they find on the men's computers.

"The research was kind of a revelation for us, and made us much better and wiser at refining our investigations," Eakin says.

Changing the system?

To Bourke, the findings speak to some realities about these crimes and to current flaws in the system.

Because children tend to keep silent about sex crimes, it's easy for men to lie about or to avoid disclosing them, he says.

Meanwhile, clinicians, lawyers and others enable this secrecy by accepting these men's innocence at face value, giving expert testimony to that end, and offering arguments like the "'pop up' defense," where offenders maintain they are innocently browsing the Web when links to child pornography spring up out of nowhere.

When he confronted these men in treatment, however, Bourke heard a different story. The men confessed that they never received unsolicited child pornography—that in fact they had actively Googled search terms related to child exploitation, for instance.

"I've never seen a case that convinces me that the Internet causes an individual to become sexually interested in children, and there are no compelling studies to suggest that, either," says Bourke. "You don't wake up at age 40 suddenly afflicted with a bad case of pedophilia."

Bourke and Hernandez hope others will try to replicate the study, and Bourke is planning to do more research in his role at the Marshals Service. In any case, the study advances the debate on an important and still-shadowy topic, says Britain's Hill.

"The only way we'll move this area of crime forward is by promoting people to talk about it openly," he says.


Oh at least Bourke doesn't think the internet causes men to become sexually interested in children, unlike that other asshole who thinks the internet just spits pedophiles out left and right lol.

Quote
Quote: Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.6 From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7 Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes.8 The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080111204617/http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/child_sexual_exploitation_update_volume_1_number_3_2004.html (most of the studies cited in this source disagree with you)

My studies = Academic Community
Your Studies = Law Enforcement Community

Why such a disparity?! I can give citations for 5 different studies that don't show higher than 16%, with two showing as low as 1% (including one that was partially funded by the Swiss police).

Quote
First of all, I don't have to prove shit to you; you arrogant fucking prick. But OK retard: My mom's got some pictures of me running around the house naked when I was 4 years old in her attic somewhere. I don't quite think that's what pedophiles are looking for.

wut?

Quote
I'm talking specifically about images of children engaged in sexual activity. It doesn't matter if the viewer is directly responsible for the actual molestation; their demand for the content is an indirect cause of child sexual abuse.

Quote
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/20120215-16/Testimony_15_Cooper.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV81.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/internet-crimes/papers.html

One of those links is dead, one is a bibliography to numerous papers, and one does say that there is some magical market for molestation but it is from the National Institute for Missing and Exploited Children and it just says it without having any evidence backing it up. Once again, please let me know when you have an ARGUMENT instead of a STATEMENT, and NO linking to other people making statements without arguments doesn't fucking count. Anyone can say anything, I don't give a fuck if you link me to god damn Obama or Putin or Dr. Fuckaped saying that there is a market effect for child pornography (separated from finances and the other things I already clarified in my post on the previous page addressing the market theory of child pornography), it is just as god damn statement and without a fucking argument it is fucking worthless. Do you understand that?

Quote
I have no idea. Can you read? I said I stopped reading at the last sentence that I quoted. Once I find a logical fallacy in an argument, I stop reading.

Wow if I did that I don't think I would even be replying to 98% of the people in this thread!

Quote
Well, to be honest, under 13 includes children who have not reached puberty. You mean to say that it doesn't distinguish between pedophilia and hebephilia. What the fuck does that matter though? 13 is well below the age of consent and  most people are still pubescent at age 13

Hebephilia is attraction to 11-14, the DSM doesn't include hebephilia but it does include pedophilia with attraction up to 13, which it shouldn't. 13 is the age of consent in Japan and it was in Spain until recently. It's 14 in Germany and Serbia amongst other places. Most people are NOT pubescent at age 13: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_scale , the first stage of puberty is reached around 11 years of age. It is literally a bad classification system to say pedophiles are attracted to children 2-13 years old, it should be pedophiles are attracted to non-infant prepubescents, which can be from 2-13 years old but more commonly is 2-10 years old. The entire chronophilia system is fucked up, it should be based off tanner staging instead of ages, because different people develop at different ages.

Quote
The problem with the DSM is that the individual does NOT have to meet all of the criteria to be diagnosed with pedophilia, one of which is molestation; so people can be committed without ever having laid a hand on a child.

Molestation is not a requirement for pedophilia so I don't see any problem with that. I see a problem with people being in legal trouble when they never laid a hand on a child, like I keep pointing out the war on CP harms innocent pedophiles AND innocent children and the sooner we are done with it the better we all will be (well, other than the people raking in the bucks from it, ie: slave traders).

Quote
Oh really? You have a very poor understanding of the First Amendment. Can I yell "FIRE" in a cinema? Not all speech is protected, particularly if the government has an legitimate interest in limiting said speech.

The government has a legitimate interest in causing more children to be molested by criminalizing the possession of CP?

Quote
Oh, and BTW, you just blew another hole in your delusional theory: you've just stated that pedophiles have unfettered access to unlimited CP through TOR, MIME, PGP, etc. You really are a fucking idiot.

What are you even talking about?

Quote
You lack the legal knowledge required to interpret the Constitution (which, BTW, is highly subjective). You're free to disagree, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I lack the delusion required to accept that whatever the supreme court says is true must be true. The fact of the matter is that restricting pedophiles access to child pornography is a clear violation of the right to free speech, and a bunch of deluded emotional slave trading fuckwads can say different but I don't give any respect to their stupid fucking opinion.

Quote
Since you don't understand the legal history of this and the application of the First Amendment, I'll help you (BTW, it took me all of 2 minutes to find these):

Yes, I am fully aware that the supreme court has violated the constitution and convinced dumbfucks such as yourself that they have not.

Quote
Now, you show me a source that says molestation has INCREASED since CP possession was criminalized in the 1980s Are you fucking serious?

Child molestation has been generally decreasing, but it correlates with the availability of child pornography on the internet increasing. Show me one study that says molestation has INCREASED since child pornography became available on the internet in the late 90's.

Quote
OK, I gave you the relevant history behind the legality and the time at which possession of CP was criminalized. Now you show me a source that says molestation has INCREASED since it was criminalized. Oh wait; that's right you don't fucking have one dickface.You can't even show me that pedophiles have restricted access to CP.

Show me one study that says child molestation rates have INCREASED since child pornography became widely available again in the late 90's. Oh wait you can't find one, because child sexual abuse rates have been declining since the early 90's all the way up to today, despite the fact that since the late 90's child pornography availability and consumption has been growing at an exponential rate.

kwekfm you've returned! can you guess who i am? shit i think ive even stated it in a thread way back.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #309 on: January 03, 2014, 05:37:52 am »
Quote
Let me start off by identifying the logical fallacy in your argument: THE TRADE OF CP HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY REGARDLESS OF IT'S LEGAL STATUS

So? I already knew that the trade of CP has been dramatically increasing. What does that have to do with anything? How does that even relate to my argument? Actually, the rise in the trade of CP, regardless of its legal status, has correlated with a global decline in child sex abuse rates. That just gives more credibility to the theory that access to and use of child pornography reduces a pedophiles probability of molesting children. So I guess it does relate to my argument. In giving it more credibility. I guess what I should ask is how does it relate to your argument?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html
Well, frankly, I'm now convinced that you are, in fact, retarded. My point was that you cannot produce a statistically significant peer reviewed study that demonstrates that the availability of child pornography decreases the rate of molestation. Crime rates--as in all violent crime--have been decreasing in the US dramatically since the 1970s. Is that related to the CP trade too?

From your own source:
The rates of child sexual abuse in the United States, while still significant and troubling ... The precise reasons for the declining rates are not clear. Dr. Finkelhor noted that most types of crime have plummeted over the last 20 years ... But at least some of the decline, he believes, has resulted from greater public awareness, stepped-up prevention efforts, better training and education, specialized policing, the presence in many cities of child advocacy centers that offer a coordinated response to abuse, and the deterrence afforded by the prosecutions of offenders. And the Internet has added to the problem, making it easier for predators to find victims, he continued. ... He does not dispute a decline, but he suggested that changes in how child protection agencies classify cases could be contributing to the decrease ... 'The child abuse field has always been one that felt like there was not enough public policy attention, so the narrative reflected that It’s at crisis proportions; it’s getting worse every year; it’s an epidemic,' he said. 'So when people hear that the rates are going down, it really is sort of a challenge' ...  'It is very risky to suggest that the problem you’re involved with has gotten smaller,' she said ... 'What we’ve arrived at is celebrating the success and using that to argue that the investments that government has made have been very worthwhile,' Ms. Berliner said. ... The effectiveness of those investments, said Marci A. Hamilton, a constitutional law professor and an advocate for children at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is evident, and can be seen in the trials in Pennsylvania. 'I think there’s more of a willingness of victims to come forward and more willingness of the support system of the victims to let them come forward,' she said. 'There was a time when if a victim came out, the universal response around them was, ‘You’ll get over it. Thank you for telling me but let’s move on,’ ” Ms. Hamilton said. “The more public education you have about the consequences, the more willing spouses and parents are to say, first, I believe you; and, second, you need therapy because we all know that this has lifelong dangerous effects.'


You know, it's funny; I read the entire article, yet not once did I see the mention of CP as a factor in said decline. I'm am now, in fact, conviced that you also may be partially illeterate. Did you think I wouldn't read the article?

Your position is that child pornography use should correlate positively with child abuse rates. Your own admission, and some of the papers you linked to, indicate that globally child pornography use is on the rise and has been for quite a while. Your hypothesis can be tested then by looking at global child sex abuse rates, but when we do this we can see that there is actually a negative correlation between child sex abuse rates and the availability and use of child pornography, regardless of legality. Additionally, in countries that specifically legalize access to child pornography, in every single country ever studied this event of legalizing access to child pornography correlated with an immediate drop in child sex abuse rates.
Which countries; how big of a drop as a percentage of their population; and how immediate of a rate of decline?

So your argument is proven incorrect, and my argument has more credibility given to it. How is that a logical fallacy? Indeed, everywhere in the fucking world, even where CP is not legal, the availability of CP has had a negative correlation with the amount of child abuse.
No, that was not my position. Try re-reading. My argument was that you have not produced a single shred of evidence that supports the correlation. Just because you think they correlate does not mean that there is a statistically significant correlation between the two. And you've yet to provide that. Numbers please. It's not so because you say so. I pointed to three specific logical errors in your argument, and you have not disproven me (again, statistically). I already tore you to shreds on the legality; are you sure you really want to get into this? If so, prove your case.

If my hypothesis can be tested, then run the stats and get back to me when you can demonstrate the significance.

Quote
www.make-it-safe.net/esp/pdf/child_pornography_internet_Carr2004.pdf

Quote
I argue that the arrival of the internet has almost
certainly led to an increase in the volume of child
pornography in circulation and to an increase in
the overall level of sexual offending against
children and young people.

Not supported by research, not only have child sex abuse rates fallen in the USA as child porn availability has risen (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html) but in every country ever studied the availability of legal child pornography correlated with an almost immediate drop in child sex abuse rates (Milton Diamond  Eva Jozifkova  Petr Weiss, "Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic,"  30 August 2010).
<sigh> I've already addressed the NYT article, which doesn't say what you'd like it to say. And I'm sorry, but I specifically avoided the studies in the Czech Republic, because, as a percentage of the global population (or even of the entire fucking EU population), the Czech Republic is not significant. Do us both a favor: look up anecdotal and conjecture.

Quote
The publication or exchange of these images may
or may not be commercial in nature

Which has had a negative correlation with the frequency of child sexual abuse! I wonder why this guy didn't think to point that out. Maybe because it goes against his hypothesis and shows the position he is arguing isn't supported by research.
This is particularly why I find you to be the scum of the Earth: profiting off of the explotation of minors below the age of consent is despicable. Last time I checked, the porn industry was for profit. Let me know if that's changed.

Quote
This report argues that this increase in looking,
collecting and possession is leading to more
children being abused than otherwise would have
been the case, because
(i) it is very likely to cause a proportion of this
enlarged population of ‘lookers, collectors and
possessors’ to go on to abuse children32
(ii)it also creates a demand for new child abuse
images to be produced, and in order to
produce these new images more new children
will be recruited to be abused33

1. This is true
Yeah, no shit.

If we additionally look at the overall trends in child sex abuse rates, we can see that it is negatively correlated with the availability of child pornography, this indicates that for MORE child porn offenders using CP reduces their probability of offending than increases it. Pedophilic fantasies and pedophilic behaviors are not strongly correlated, psychopathic personality traits and acting on deviant fantasies are correlated.
First, this has nothing to do with pyschopathic or sociopathic personality traits.

Second, show me your regression analysis.

Pedophile use of child pornography acting as an outlet is also theoretically supported by numerous sexologists
What the fuck is a sexologist?

And this doesn't support your legalization argument, as you've already acknowledged that there is a readily available and rapidly expanding CP trade.

2. This is the market theory of child pornography, which I already have extensively argued against, if you wish to read the full thing check the previous page, otherwise here are some snippets

I thought I'd made clear that I wasn't interested in your 3rd year undergrad psych paper.

A. Commercial child pornography sites exist in single digits: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/sep/23/worldwide-child-porn-ring-busted/?print=1
B. The free trade in P2P child pornography is several orders of magnitude larger than commercial child pornography: Marc Liberatore, Brian Neil Levine, Clay Shields, "Strengthening Forensic Investigations of Child Pornography on P2P Networks,"
C. Free Open P2P is the most common method used for trading in child pornography: Report to Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses Chapter 12, page 329
D. The free trade in P2P Child pornography very likely hurts the for profit production CP industry, just as the adult equivalent has hurt adult commercial porn production: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/porn-industry-in-decline_n_2460799.html
E. P2P traders do not engage in community aspects of CP, or in much networking at all: Tony Krone, "A  Typology of Online Child Pornography Offending," Australian Institute of Criminology, July 2004
None of that supports your legalization argument. First of all, given the risk involved, I seriously doubt that producers are not profitting, even if consumers are sharing images/videos via p2p. And, pray tell, just what do  you suppose would happen should child pornography/EXPLOITATION be made legal? Why do you think it's primarily spread p2p? Do you not watch fucking legal porn? Do you fail to understand the porn business model? Under your vision, that's exactly where CP will go.

BTW, this is not different from the drug trade, and the same black market economics apply. Do you know what the difference is though? Drug use is a VICTIMLESS CRIME; CP is NOT

I should also point out that the market theory of child pornography is not supported by economic theory. For demand to translate into supply the supplier needs to be aware of the demand. Even without private information retrieval in the majority of cases the producer of CP is simply not aware that a given individual has downloaded the produced CP.
OK, admittedly, I've demeaned you harshly through this and my previous post, but you surely can't be that stupid. Given the level of risk involved--because let's face it: CP is illegal throughout most of the world--I find it very difficult to belive that no one profits.

Um, yeah, no, you're correct that the CP producer is simply not aware that A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL has downloaded the produced CP; that does not mean that he has not profitted. Bel Ami has no idea--since you've mentioned Eastern Europe (well, or Cazzo/Cadinot either if you prefer the West)--of how much of their porn I've downloaded gratis. Do you think they didn't profit off their porn? Were they aware I, personally, downloaded their videos? And were they unaware that there was both a demand and a market for their movies? (as an aside, grazie mille, muchas gracias, muito obrigado, y merci beaucoup to all those Euro porn producers and p2p!)

Joe Sullivan is a fucking retard and probably a propagandist with biased interest
Pot, meet kettle. Sounds pretty much like you.

Numerous reasons for possession of child pornography have been identified, ranging from obsessive compulsive disorder to sadism to pornography addiction
Here's another point where you've overstated your intelligence/education--so yay!--I get to disregard the rest. Pick up a copy of the DSM; there's no such thing as sexual addiction; there's no such thing as pornography addiction either. Sadism is also not pathological; pedophilia is. Talk about propaganda? That's straight out of an opportunistic therapist looking to sell books book. OCD is OCD, regardless of the obsession or compulsion. I'm a compulsive masturbator FWIW.

"There is little empirical evidence suggesting a direct causal link between pornography viewing and sex offending.  Pornography use can be neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of sexual offending because sexual offenses are usually committed by those offenders with little or no exposure to pornography."
Not only is that only one source, but I've also already acknowledged that I've read very little of your previous posts. Can you please provide the link if you intend to argue this? Having seen you already utterly misrepresent and mistate one of your sources (i.e. NYT if your not keeping track), I'd like to check your facts before I comment further. Thanks,

So essentially I have identified numerous examples of cherry picking so far in this propaganda article. Let's continue !
Yeah, ditto; except that I understand statistics and have a higher level of reading comprehension than you.

Quote
There is also objective evidence from elsewhere that
seems to support this view. Police sources in
Canada and the UK, and a published study within
the US prison service,37 suggest there is a definite
link, but the probabilities seem to range widely from
between 10 per cent and 70 per cent. The biggest
single published study, carried out by the US Postal
Inspection Service, puts it around 35 per cent, ie a
little over one in three men arrested merely for
possessing child abuse images will also be child
molesters.38 As a result of the US Postal Inspection
Service’s operations 530 children were rescued from
further sexual abuse and exploitation.39

The majority of the studies of arrested CP offenders are biased and I can demonstrate the methodological issues with the studies quite easily:
I beg your pardon? Do you know what METHODOLOGICAL means? It means empirical evidence, of which, none of the preceding/following is.

C. With these two pieces of information we can see why there is an over representation of hands on offenders in the subcategory of arrested child pornography offenders. These police agencies are using a biased pool and incorrectly extrapolating from this pool to the general population of CP offenders, in support of their sickening fucking propaganda.

Your doing the same thing with extrapolation. You want to convince me? Show me at least one peer reviewed study at p<.01 that supports any of your arguments.

Here, a quote from an actual researcher and his opinion ...
Yay! I get to stop again. Opinion is not fact. Try again.

1. Maybe only 1% of CP offenders molest children? (The consumption of Internet childpornography and violent and sexoffending, Jérôme Endrass, Frank Urbaniok, Lea C Hammermeister, Christian Benz, Thomas Elbert, Arja Laubacher, Astrid Rossegger, Published: 14 July 2009 BMC Psychiatry 2009)
2. Or is it 16%? (Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitche, "Child-Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes:Findings From the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study," 2005)
3. Well, 5% of randomly selected college males have engaged in non-fantasy pedophilic behaviors (INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES, KEVIN M. WILLIAMS)
I never said that there was a consensus among researchers as to the exact percentage of CP possessors who are molestors. I said that there is research that demonstrates some level of correlation, and if you deny that, then you're too stupid to be worthy of debate.

I also said that CP possessors are complicit in molestation, whether they commit the molestation themselves or merely witness someone commit it. Both are dispicable.

4. And PS: There was a very low correlation between fantasizing about child molestation and engaging in it !
Funny, because there's an extremely high correlation in fantasizing about anal among my friends and actually engaging in anal sex! Imagine that! (That's not a conflation of adult sexuality and fetishism; it's more a ridicule of your ridiculous argument).

That's your opinion, just as the above is my own, anecdotal, observation.

Wow whoever Findlater is he is obviously god damn delusional, and he is going totally against what is commonly though. Holy fuck this guy just epically discredited himself to anyone who has a fucking clue about these matters! Nice to see a fresh argument though, now I can add "Child pornography makes pedophiles!" to my paper as another stupid unsupported bullshit argument that I can rip apart.
Fair enough; it took me all of 10 minutes to locate and find those sources. I'm not being graded on this argument.

But if you can add another unsupported bullshit argument to your paper, which no one other than your professor (and possibly your mom--BTW, tell her I said hi!) will ever see, please do so. Your paper is meaningless.

If you can rip it apart, then by all means, feel free! You've yet to do so.

A. There is very likely a genetic basis for pedophilia, pedophiles are more often left handed and more often shorter, both of these facts give credit to a genetic basis for pedophilia: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
That one study is not statistically significant. I'm not disputing that pedophila is genetic; but correlation with left handedness? Oh OK. You need more than one to convince me of that. Nice try. That just makes it patently obvious that you are clueless.

B. Another possibility is that pedophiles have suffered from brain damage and acquired pedophilia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14574100
C. Show me a single fucking study that shows that using CP turns people into pedophiles, it's god damn absurd and I want to complain to whatever journal it managed to get published in (if it even exists!)
Wow! With each progressing line, I'm astounded by your level of stupidity! What the fuck, are you in community college? I neither know nor care whether pedophilia is a genetic disorder or is a result of trauma, nor did I claim to do so.

I do, however, know that it's abberant and pathological.

I also never said that CP turns people into pedophiles. I do believe that molesters are pedophiles. And, if you re-read, I acknowledged that all pedophiles are NOT actual molesters.

In fact, I do believe that one must be a pedophile to even be able to watch, for a split-second, CP without being nauseated. The mere thought makes me ill, and I hope I never encounter it. That's not because I think it will turn me into a pedophile; it's because I'm not attracted to children, and the thought of children forcefully engaged in sexual activity sickens me (and before you start to argue about "forcefully engaged", I'd like to remind you of the legal definition of the age of consent).

1. Ignores that empirical research (by whom?) shows a negative correlation between child pornography availability and child molestation rates
2. Ignores that numerous pedophiles self report that child pornography DECREASES their risk of sexually abusing children
LMFAO! Are you fucking serious?

First of all, be careful with your modifiers. When you say numerous, you mean your few cherry picked (and frankly misunderstood/misinterpreted) examples.

And second, did you fucking read that shit back to yourself when you wrote it?

Just in case you didn't: numerous pedophiles SELF-REPORT that child pornography decreases their RISK [note: NOT DESIRE] of sexually abusing CHILDREN (which would be akin to admitting to the police that you've just committed a felony, because this information is not bound by any type of confidentialtiy other that attorney-client privilige). It doesn't apply to therapists and researchers; they're required to report sexual abuse involving children.

Honestly I can't even read this propaganda anymore. Who the fuck even published this complete nonsense? Oh shocking a children charity, thinking they can help children by lying about reality, even though reality shows that the policies they are fighting for HURT MORE CHILDREN THAN THEY HELP.
You're living within your own pedophilic reality, which I now believe is pretty obvious. Perhaps your not an offender, but your clearly an uneducated pedophile. Paper my fucking ass!

Oh, and <ahem> What happened to that 1st Amendment claim?

Listen, I have an advanced degree; I've conducted plenty of empirical studies--and have fudged stats frequenty (are you familiar with statistics? You can spin data to say whatever you want it to)--and the fact of the matter is for every study you can produce, I can produce one that claims the opposite. Talk to me when you finish your undergraduate degree.

PS Can you learn how to quote properly please?

EDIT: OK I briefly caught somewhere in one of those posts that you have quote/unquote exceptional reading comprehension. I disrespectfully disagree. And frankly, you're quite easily dismissable.

If you can condense those posts into one, cogent (look it up dumb ass) argument, then perhaps your post would be worth my time. Thanks.

Oh yeah, and:

Yes, I am fully aware that the supreme court has violated the constitution and convinced dumbfucks such as yourself that they have not.
Thanks for the laugh! Because of course, you by far know more about constitutional law than Supreme Court justices for the last 70 years. LMFAO!

Call me when you get your law degree, you worthless, piece of shit, child molesting doucebag! Don't even try to argue law with me because I will rip you a new asshole.

You're free to lobby for a new constitution or a new amendment, but you have ZERO qualifications to interpret the law.

They've convinced me of nothing; I have a better understanding of the law than you. That's it you little boy cocksucking cunt

Why don't you take your pedo ass to the Czech Republic where you'd be much more welcome?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 06:11:01 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #310 on: January 03, 2014, 07:42:39 am »
Quote
Well, frankly, I'm now convinced that you are, in fact, retarded. My point was that you cannot produce a statistically significant peer reviewed study that demonstrates that the availability of child pornography decreases the rate of molestation. Crime rates--as in all violent crime--have been decreasing in the US dramatically since the 1970s. Is that related to the CP trade too?

I am not going to post this again.

Milton Diamond  Eva Jozifkova  Petr Weiss, "Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic,"  30 August 2010

Quote
Abstract Pornography continues to be a contentious mat-
ter with those on the one side arguing it detrimental to society
while others argue it is pleasurable to many and a feature of
free speech. The advent of the Internet with the ready avail-
ability of sexually explicit materials thereon particularly has
seemed to raise questions of its influence. Following the
effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed
pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed
us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the
change. As found in all other countries in which the phe-
nomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not
increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark
and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession
of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other
countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of
child sex abuse.

Quote
From your own source:
The rates of child sexual abuse in the United States, while still significant and troubling ... The precise reasons for the declining rates are not clear. Dr. Finkelhor noted that most types of crime have plummeted over the last 20 years ... But at least some of the decline, he believes, has resulted from greater public awareness, stepped-up prevention efforts, better training and education, specialized policing, the presence in many cities of child advocacy centers that offer a coordinated response to abuse, and the deterrence afforded by the prosecutions of offenders. And the Internet has added to the problem, making it easier for predators to find victims, he continued. ... He does not dispute a decline, but he suggested that changes in how child protection agencies classify cases could be contributing to the decrease ... 'The child abuse field has always been one that felt like there was not enough public policy attention, so the narrative reflected that It’s at crisis proportions; it’s getting worse every year; it’s an epidemic,' he said. 'So when people hear that the rates are going down, it really is sort of a challenge' ...  'It is very risky to suggest that the problem you’re involved with has gotten smaller,' she said ... 'What we’ve arrived at is celebrating the success and using that to argue that the investments that government has made have been very worthwhile,' Ms. Berliner said. ... The effectiveness of those investments, said Marci A. Hamilton, a constitutional law professor and an advocate for children at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is evident, and can be seen in the trials in Pennsylvania. 'I think there’s more of a willingness of victims to come forward and more willingness of the support system of the victims to let them come forward,' she said. 'There was a time when if a victim came out, the universal response around them was, ‘You’ll get over it. Thank you for telling me but let’s move on,’ ” Ms. Hamilton said. “The more public education you have about the consequences, the more willing spouses and parents are to say, first, I believe you; and, second, you need therapy because we all know that this has lifelong dangerous effects.'


I like how you strategically left out the part where they mention that the agencies that get funding from the government purposefully paint a picture of increasing abuse rates because they don't want their funding to be cut. That said, I don't see how this quote is particularly related to what we are discussing, I suppose you are trying to show that other things besides child porn legalization have led to decreases in child sex abuse rates, and I don't contest that other things have played a role. What I am pointing out is that if child pornography availability and use really did lead to more children being molested, that would be reflected in graphs of child sex abuse when compared to child pornography availability. In reality, child sex abuse rates have been falling since around 1980, and the exponential rise in child pornography use and availability starting in the late 1990's did not change the general downward trend. This by itself doesn't show that child pornography availability contributed to a decrease in child sex abuse rates, but it does show that child pornography availability didn't lead to an increase in child sex abuse rates, as indeed child sex abuse rates have continued to fall. However, if you look at the previously mentioned study:

Quote
Issues surrounding child pornography and child sex abuse
 are probably among the most contentious in the area of sex
 issues and crime. In this regard we consider instructive our find-
ings for the Czech Republic that have echoed those found in
Denmark (Kutchinsky, 1973) and Japan (Diamond & Uchiyama,
 1999) that where so-called child-pornography was readily
 available without restriction the incidence of child sexual
abuse was lower than when its availability was restricted. As with
adult pornography appearing to substitute for sexual aggres-
 sion everywhere it has been investigated, we believe the avail-
 ability of child porn does similarly. We believe this particularly
since the findings of Weiss (2002) have shown that a substantial
portion of child sex abuse instances seemed to occur, not because
 of pedophilic interest of the abuser, but because the child was
 used as a substitute subject.

Quote
You know, it's funny; I read the entire article, yet not once did I see the mention of CP as a factor in said decline. I'm am now, in fact, conviced that you also may be partially illeterate. Did you think I wouldn't read the article?

You appear not to have read the study I previously linked to. I linked to that article just to show you that child sexual abuse rates in general were in decline, I didn't claim that they said the availability of child pornography had anything to do with it. But you yourself admit that the availability and consumption of child pornography has been increasing. Sometimes you can't get enough information from a single article or paper, sometimes you need to take multiple papers and pieces of information into account at once. I believe this is called information synthesis, when you take multiple studies and use the combination of information in them to derive a new piece of information that isn't present in any of the individual studies. I don't know if you have the cognitive capacity for information synthesis, it is a lot harder than taking single studies verbatim, but I highly suggest you give it a shot because once you learn how to combine multiple studies you really are at a completely different level of cognitive ability.

https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/135/Synthesis.html

Quote
A synthesis is a written discussion that draws on one or more sources. It follows that your ability to write syntheses depends on your ability to infer relationships among sources - essays, articles, fiction, and also nonwritten sources, such as lectures, interviews, observations. This process is nothing new for you, since you infer relationships all the time - say, between something you've read in the newspaper and something you've seen for yourself, or between the teaching styles of your favorite and least favorite instructors. In fact, if you've written research papers, you've already written syntheses. In an academic synthesis, you make explicit the relationships that you have inferred among separate sources.

The skills you've already been practicing in this course will be vital in writing syntheses. Clearly, before you're in a position to draw relationships between two or more sources, you must understand what those sources say; in other words, you must be able to summarize these sources. It will frequently be helpful for your readers if you provide at least partial summaries of sources in your synthesis essays. At the same time, you must go beyond summary to make judgments - judgments based, of course, on your critical reading of your sources - as you have practiced in your reading responses and in class discussions. You should already have drawn some conclusions about the quality and validity of these sources; and you should know how much you agree or disagree with the points made in your sources and the reasons for your agreement or disagreement.

See, I took the fact that child pornography consumption and availability is increasing at an exponential rate, and the fact that child sex abuse rates have been declining throughout this entire time period, to synthesize new information: child pornography availability and consumption does not appear to lead to an overall increase in child sex abuse rates. I synthesized this information from the available research to point out that your argument that child pornography consumption is increasing dramatically can actually be used to support my hypothesis. I don't need to synthesize information though, because this theory is already directly supported by the Czech study (and the Denmark study, and the Japan study), and it has a theoretical basis that has been constructed by numerous sexologists (child pornography acts as a substitute to child molestation). Generally when there is theory, and correlation supports the theory, especially when variables have been controlled for (ie: studying multiple countries that legalized child pornography, looking at the general availability of child pornography versus child sex abuse rates, etc), we accept the theory as true or at least supported by the available evidence. Since you don't like the conclusion of the available evidence you have decided to not accept the theory as true and rather have decided to link to numerous law enforcement agencies that seem to want to say that they should not lose their jobs because they actually really do protect children by arresting CP consumers. I did already show in two cases how they have manipulated study results, and a quote from a researcher saying they misinterpreted the results of his study to further their own interests, and I also demonstrated a methodological flaw in almost all studies of CP offenders, so I feel like I have already responded to you in this regard.

Quote
Which countries; how big of a drop as a percentage of their population; and how immediate of a rate of decline?

Quote
Most obvious and most significant of our findings is that the
number of reported cases of child sex abuse immediately
dropped markedly after SEM was legalized and became
available (t = 6.7, df = 32, p\.001) (Fig. 1). The incidence of
reported child sex abuse, following this original precipitous
decline following the governmental switch in 1989, did increase
in incidence for a few years to peak in 1995 and 1998 but then
again dropped in number following a downward trend that had
begun prior to democratization (Fig. 1).
From 1989 to the present, there has been a steady population
increase. Statistical analysis using Pearson’s r for the relation
between the number of males aged 15–64 in the population and
cases of child sex abuse found a negative correlation of -.78
(p = .001).

Those are the results of the Czech study, I have been trying to dig up the Denmark and Japan studies but I do know that the results were at least similar in that there was a decline in child abuse rates following the legalization and availability of child pornography.

Quote
No, that was not my position. Try re-reading. My argument was that you have not produced a single shred of evidence that supports the correlation. Just because you think they correlate does not mean that there is a statistically significant correlation between the two. And you've yet to provide that. Numbers please. It's not so because you say so. I pointed to three specific logical errors in your argument, and you have not disproven me (again, statistically). I already tore you to shreds on the legality; are you sure you really want to get into this? If so, prove your case.

If my hypothesis can be tested, then run the stats and get back to me when you can demonstrate the significance.

As previously quoted, since child pornography was legalized in Czech Republic up to the time of the study there was a negative correlation of .78, when taking the population increase of males aged 15-64 into account, in the Czech Republic. In the later 2000's the Czech Republic gave into pressure and recriminalized child pornography, I am not aware of any research on the effect this has had on child sex abuse rates since it happened, but researchers do eagerly await the first post-recriminalization studies.

Quote
From 1989 to the present, there has been a steady population
increase. Statistical analysis using Pearson’s r for the relation
between the number of males aged 15–64 in the population and
cases of child sex abuse found a negative correlation of -.78

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #311 on: January 03, 2014, 07:42:58 am »


Quote
<sigh> I've already addressed the NYT article, which doesn't say what you'd like it to say. And I'm sorry, but I specifically avoided the studies in the Czech Republic, because, as a percentage of the global population (or even of the entire fucking EU population), the Czech Republic is not significant. Do us both a favor: look up anecdotal and conjecture.

Do me a favor and read the fucking study. It isn't anecdotal or conjecture they carried out a fucking statistical analysis you fucking retard.

Quote
This is particularly why I find you to be the scum of the Earth: profiting off of the explotation of minors below the age of consent is despicable. Last time I checked, the porn industry was for profit. Let me know if that's changed.


You selectively truncated the quote that I responded to (you seem to have a habit of this), the vast majority of CP distribution is non-commercial, and the non-commercial distribution of child pornography is going to hurt the for profit child pornography industry in much the same way that the non-commercial distribution of adult pornography is hurting the adult pornography industry. I think that paying for child pornography should remain illegal. And please touch up on your reading comprehension skills, if your IQ can support it anyway.

Quote
Quote
This report argues that this increase in looking,
collecting and possession is leading to more
children being abused than otherwise would have
been the case, because
(i) it is very likely to cause a proportion of this
enlarged population of ‘lookers, collectors and
possessors’ to go on to abuse children32
(ii)it also creates a demand for new child abuse
images to be produced, and in order to
produce these new images more new children
will be recruited to be abused33

1. This is true
Yeah, no shit.

Another fine example of you selectively truncating quotes.

Quote
First, this has nothing to do with pyschopathic or sociopathic personality traits.

First, yes it does

KEVIN M. WILLIAMS ,INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES



Quote
Of the variety of personality variables included in the present research, only psychopa-
thy uniquely predicted overall deviant sexual behavior. This result extends previous reports
of links between psychopathy and self-reported sexual aggression (Kosson et al., 1997). In
our data, the association was in the positive direction for every single deviance category but
reached conventional levels of significance only for bondage, sadism, and sexual assault.
Arguably, these are the most aggression related forms of sexual deviance.

also note

Quote
Correlations were calculated between the continuous fantasy and behavior scores. The
values are displayed in the final column of Table 1. Consistent with Hypothesis 1.1, all
were positive and (with the exception of pedophilia) statistically significant at the p < .01
level.

Pedophilic fantasy does not have a statistically significant relationship with pedophilic behavior!

Quote
Second, show me your regression analysis.

What?

Quote
What the fuck is a sexologist?

Sexology is the interdisciplinary study of human sexuality, including human sexual interests, behaviors and function.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexology)

Quote
I thought I'd made clear that I wasn't interested in your 3rd year undergrad psych paper.

Considering I have never studied psychology at university what-so-ever I actually take it as a compliment that you compare me to a 3rd year psychology undergrad!

Quote
None of that supports your legalization argument. First of all, given the risk involved, I seriously doubt that producers are not profitting, even if consumers are sharing images/videos via p2p. And, pray tell, just what do  you suppose would happen should child pornography/EXPLOITATION be made legal? Why do you think it's primarily spread p2p? Do you not watch fucking legal porn? Do you fail to understand the porn business model? Under your vision, that's exactly where CP will go.

First of all, your anecdotal doubts are highly irrelevant. Second of all, I never said that it should be legal to pay for child pornography. Third of all, if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about you would realize that when people download commercial porn from P2P networks for free, it doesn't support the commercial pornography industry at all. And availability of commercial pornography from pirated sources actually has hurt the profits of the commercial adult pornography industry and led to less production.

Quote
BTW, this is not different from the drug trade, and the same black market economics apply. Do you know what the difference is though? Drug use is a VICTIMLESS CRIME; CP is NOT

It is substantially different from the drug trade. One of the primary differences is that a child porn image can be copied indefinitely, whereas you cannot make a copy of cocaine. CP is not consumed in the same sense that cocaine is, if someone sniffs a line of cocaine there is then less cocaine and more needs to be produced to meet the demand, if someone looks at an image of CP it is not consumed and others can look at the same image and copies of it can be made. Another difference is that cocaine is a commercialized substance, when you sniff a line of cocaine you lower the supply of cocaine and now producers need to make more to meet the demand, and people pay them to make more. If you look at a CP image the producers of CP in almost all cases will be completely oblivious to the fact that this happened, and they are not going to make more CP just because you looked at an image. People who argue for the supply and demand theory of child pornography have a horrible grasp of the modern child pornography community and of economic theory in general. Essentially you argue that if I look at some commercial adult pornography that I downloaded from a P2P network it will lead to the producer of that adult pornography making more. It is bullshit! Indeed, if everybody downloaded the pornography from P2P networks and nobody paid for it, the commercial producers would go out of business! The demand for commercial adult pornography doesn't inherently lead to the supply of it, the willingness to financially contribute to the production of adult commercial pornography is what leads to the supply of it, and I have said multiple times that financially supporting child molestation should be illegal for this very reason.

Quote
OK, admittedly, I've demeaned you harshly through this and my previous post, but you surely can't be that stupid. Given the level of risk involved--because let's face it: CP is illegal throughout most of the world--I find it very difficult to belive that no one profits.

The vast majority of child pornography is not produced or distributed for profit. I don't give a fuck what you believe, who the fuck are you anyway? This isn't to say that NOBODY profits, certainly in some cases profit is made from distribution and production, but it is becoming increasingly rare. And nobody said that it should be legal to profit off the production of child pornography, so essentially your argument is a strawman at best and just flat out wrong at worst.

Quote
Um, yeah, no, you're correct that the CP producer is simply not aware that A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL has downloaded the produced CP; that does not mean that he has not profitted. Bel Ami has no idea--since you've mentioned Eastern Europe (well, or Cazzo/Cadinot either if you prefer the West)--of how much of their porn I've downloaded gratis. Do you think they didn't profit off their porn? Were they aware I, personally, downloaded their videos? And were they unaware that there was both a demand and a market for their movies (as an aside, grazie mille, muchas gracias, muito obrigado, y merci beaucoup to all those Euro porn producers and p2p!)

You can conflate commercial and non-commercial obtainment of child pornography, but I will continue to split them because they are clearly different things, with one being a completely victimless crime and with the other having the potential to be a victimizing crime. I never have said that paying for child pornography should be legal, and the fact of the matter is that the vast vast majority of people who use child pornography don't pay for it they get it for free off P2P networks. And what they are doing does not lead to children being molested, anymore than you downloading commercial adult pornography off P2P networks leads to commercial production studios producing adult pornography. 

Quote
Here's another point where you've overstated your intelligence/education--so yay!--I get to disregard the rest. Pick up a copy of the DSM; there's no such thing as sexual addiction; there's no such thing as pornography addiction either. Sadism is also not pathological; pedophilia is. Talk about propaganda? That's straight out of an opportunistic therapist looking to sell books book. OCD is OCD, regardless of the obsession or compulsion. I'm a compulsive masturbator FWIW.

Pornography addiction is not currently included in the DSM but I imagine that it will be added at some point, it is recognized by some psychologists despite not being in the DSM yet. Also, the DSM is not the God of mental disorders, just because something isn't included in it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Homosexuality used to be listed as a mental disorder for fucks sake. Sadism is certainly pathological and it is actually listed in the DSM as a mental disorder, you stupid fuck. Sure, OCD is OCD, I don't know who said differently. Some people with OCD become obsessed with collecting child pornography despite not being pedophiles. So it discredits what the fucktard I quoted said, about how all people who possess CP want to have sex with children. He is just wrong. 

Quote
Not only is that only one source, but I've also already acknowledged that I've read very little of your previous posts. Can you please provide the link if you intend to argue this? Having seen you already utterly misrepresent and mistate one of your sources (i.e. NYT if your not keeping track), I'd like to check your facts before I comment further. Thanks,

Yes, I am well aware that you don't read what I say before commenting on it, it is why you sound like such a fucking idiot every time you metaphorically open your mouth. Yes, I am aware of the fact that you don't understand that information can be synthesized by the combination of multiple sources, I will try to avoid doing this since your cognitive capacity is not adequate to deal with it.

Quote
Yeah, ditto; except that I understand statistics and have a higher level of reading comprehension than you.

Highly unlikely that your reading comprehension is better than mine, I score perfectly on reading comprehension tests. Also, my verbal intelligence is in the genius range.

Quote
I beg your pardon? Do you know what METHODOLOGICAL means? It means empirical evidence, of which, none of the following is.

There is a methodological flaw in extrapolating from the subsection of arrested child pornography offenders to the larger child pornography population, due to the fact that only ~1% of detected child pornography possessors are followed up on, and the fact that the police tend to focus on the detected offenders with child molestation manuals and similar. This clearly taints the pool of child pornography offenders that researchers have access to by leading to an over-representation of hands on offenders in studies of incarcerated child pornography offenders. The researchers sometimes point this out, but the police agencies never do. I actually synthesized this information myself from a combination of three different sources (pretty tricky, I know you have trouble getting information from a single source let alone synthesizing it from the combination of three different sources!). But I later found a quote from a researcher who straight up said the police intentionally misinterpreted the results of his study.

Quote
Your doing the same thing with extrapolation. You want to convince me? Show me at least one peer reviewed study at p<.01 that supports any of your arguments.

Already did. Two actually!

Quote
Yay! I get to stop again. Opinion is not fact. Try again.

I have identified two characteristics of you that I find to be quite annoying, one is that you selectively truncate quotes and the other is that you are selectively accepting of anecdotal evidence.

Quote
I never said that there was a consensus among researchers as to the exact percentage of CP possessors who are molestors. I said that there is research that demonstrates some level of correlation, and if you deny that, then you're too stupid to be worthy of debate.

Some studies show that there isn't a statistically significant correlation between pedophilic fantasizing and pedophilic behaving (I already quoted it previously in this post). Other studies can be used in combination to synthesize that a randomly selected college male is 5 times more likely to molest children than a randomly selected child pornography consumer.

KEVIN M. WILLIAMS, INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES

shows that 5% of the studied college males self reported engaging in non-fantasy pedophilic behavior, this result was the same across two studies actually both of which are analyzed in the cited study.

The consumption of Internet childpornography and violent and sexoffending, Jérôme Endrass, Frank Urbaniok, Lea C Hammermeister, Christian Benz, Thomas Elbert, Arja Laubacher, Astrid Rossegger, Published: 14 July 2009 BMC Psychiatry 2009
and
McCarthy, Jennifer A., The relationship between possessing child pornography and child molestation. United State New York: UMI Dissertations Publishing (2010).

both put the percentage of child pornography consumers who have molested children at 1%.

Quote
I also said that CP possessors are complicit in molestation, whether they commit the molestation themselves or merely witness someone commit it. Both are dispicable.

Why is it despicable? Who cares? Why do you care if I look at a picture of a kid being molested. Who did I hurt in doing that? The molested kid has no fucking idea that I did it, they are not negatively affected in any scientifically measurable way, the producer has no fucking idea I did it, the kid is already molested if I look at it or not and nothing is going to change that, and the producer isn't going to molest the kid more or less regardless of if I looked at it or not. If I go to some P2P network and download some CP and look at it, It is honestly a completely victimless crime. The victim causing crime was the molestation of the child, the photographing of the child being molested. If you throw in Private Information Retrieval it is just totally obviously a totally victimless crime, nobody would even be able to tell if I looked at CP or not, not even the person who runs the fucking server I would get it from.   

Quote
Funny, because there's an extremely high correlation in fantasizing about anal among my friends and actually engaging in anal sex! Imagine that! (That's not a conflation of adult sexuality and fetishism; it's more a ridicule of your ridiculous argument).

Already quoted the study.

Quote
That's your opinion, just as the above is my own, anecdotal, observation.

Not my opinion, from a study, not going to quote it again, not a statistically significant relationship between pedophilic fantasies and pedophilic behaviors, read the fucking paper or shut the fuck up.

Quote
Fair enough; it took me all of 10 minutes to locate and find those sources. I'm not being graded on this argument.

First of all, it is apparent that it took you 10 minutes to "locate and find" those sources (a bit redundant isn't it?), because some of them were not even related to the argument at hand. See, there is a big difference between doing an in depth analysis of the available research, synthesizing a valid argument, and citing the pertinent research, versus googling for somewhat related research, not reading it, and dumping a bunch of links to make it seem like you know what you are talking about. I also am not being graded on this argument, but I am quite pleased that you think my work is on par with that of a third year psychology major!

Quote
But if you can add another unsupported bullshit argument to your paper, which no one other than your professor (and possibly your mom--BTW, tell her I said hi!) will ever see. Your paper is meaningless.

I am not making this paper for school, I am making it to publish on a website and try to get it linked to so that I can reach out to intelligent people and try to get them to help change the laws regarding child pornography. Right now there are too many intelligent people who are just accepting the canned propaganda statements who don't even realize that they are not supported by empirical evidence, or who don't realize that many of the studies they have been exposed to are using flawed methodologies that are intentionally creating a false perception of child pornography in an attempt to get more money in the pockets of the slave traders of the prison industrial complex. They don't realize that they are not only currently hurting completely innocent men, but also are hurting the very children that the prison industrial complex ostensibly is trying to protect!

Quote
If you can rip it apart, then by all means, feel free! You've yet to do so.

I gave citations for the genetic basis of pedophilia and the possibility to acquire pedophilia via brain injury, I also gave a citation to a researcher who said that pedophilia is not acquired via exposure to child pornography, so I do believe that I have indeed ripped that specific argument to fucking shreds.

Quote
That one study is not statistically significant. I'm not disputing that pedophila is genetic; but correlation with left handedness? Oh OK. You need more than one to convince me of that. Nice try. That just makes it patently obvious that you are clueless.

Correlation with left handedness supports the genetic basis for pedophilia. So does correlation with small stature. You see, if pedophilia didn't have a genetic basis we would expect it to not be correlated with things that do have a genetic basis. 

Quote
Wow! With each progressing line, I'm astounded by your level of stupidity! What the fuck, are you in community college? I neither know nor care whether pedophilia is a genetic disorder or is a result of trauma, nor did I claim to do so.

Oh you just like to link to studies that cite researchers who say that pedophiles are created via normal men being exposed to child pornography? I guess the root of the problem here is that you just haphazardly link to studies without actually reading them. It makes it seem like you support what the people in the studies are saying. I will try to not forget in the future that you are a brainless fucktard and don't even read the things you cite.

Quote
I also never said that CP turns people into pedophiles. I do believe that molesters are pedophiles. And, if you re-read, I acknowledged that all pedophiles are NOT actual molesters.

Not all molesters are pedophiles. You linked to a study that cited a researcher who said that CP turns people into pedophiles, they were using it as an argument against child pornography. In the future please read the studies that you link to so we can avoid these issues.

Quote
In fact, I do believe that one must be a pedophile to even be able to watch, for a split-second, CP without being nauseated. The mere thought makes me ill, and I hope I never encounter it. That's not because I think it will turn me into a pedophile; it's because I'm not attracted to children, and the thought of children forcefully engaged in sexual activity sickens me (and before you start to argue about "forcefully engaged", I'd like to remind you of the legal definition of the age of consent).

First of all, it is widely believed that pedophilia is not the only path that leads people to child pornography consumption, as I previously mentioned. Second of all, I do not deny that in many instances the children depicted in child pornography are forcefully engaged. Third of all, I would like to mention that the age of consent varies substantially from society to society, indeed it was legal to produce pornography featuring 14 year olds in Germany only a few years ago.


1. Ignores that empirical research (by whom?) shows a negative correlation between child pornography availability and child molestation rates

Well, by Dr. Milton Diamond for one. I also synthesized this information myself by looking up child sex abuse rates in USA and plotting them against child pornography availability in the USA, and noticing that child abuse rates continued to decrease as child pornography availability continued to increase. But I know you have trouble with synthesizing information from collections of independent studies, so let's just stick to Dr. Diamonds study.

Quote
LMFAO! Are you fucking serious?

Are you seriously trying to discredit me for pointing out that multiple pedophiles self report that child pornography helped them avoid molesting children, in response to your quote of two pedophiles who said that child pornography led them to molest children? Why not laugh your fucking ass off at yourself?

Quote
First of all, be careful with your modifiers. When you say numerous, you mean your few cherry picked (and frankly misunderstood/misinterpreted) examples.

Oh please them illuminate for me what I have misunderstood or misrepresented? Here are some studies for you to read (challenge: you need to actually read them before commenting on them)

Richard Wortley, Stephen Smallbone, "Child Pornography on the Internet," Problem-Specific Guides Series Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, page 16
Green, R. (1992). Sexual science and the law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Quote
And second, did you fucking read that shit back to yourself when you wrote it?

Just in case you didn't: numerous pedophiles SELF-REPORT that child pornography decreases their RISK [note: NOT DESIRE] of sexually abusing CHILDREN (which would be akin to admitting to the police that you've just committed a felony, because this information is not bound by any type of confidentialtiy other that attorney-client privilige). It doesn't apply to therapists and researchers; they're required to report sexual abuse involving children.

I didn't realize that you wanted to criminalize the desire to sexually abuse children. I just want to reduce child molestation rates. Well, primarily I just want to stop victimizing innocent men who have not done anything but look at illegal pictures. But I note that in doing this we actually will reduce child molestation rates. The desire to sexually abuse children is not something that concerns me if it is separated from behavior. I really don't quite understand what you are saying, not because of a lack of reading comprehension skills (my reading comprehension is exceptional) but because of a communication deficit on your part. I would also like to point out that this is another example of you selectively accepting anecdotal evidence, indeed my response that you are quoting is to your own citations to studies that quoted anecdotes from pedophiles claiming that their use of child pornography increased their likelihood of hands on offending against children. 

Quote
You're living within your own pedophilic reality, which I now believe is pretty obvious. Perhaps your not an offender, but your clearly an uneducated pedophile. Paper my fucking ass!

Why is my pedophilic reality so well supported by the available body of scientific research? 

Quote
Listen, I have an advanced degree; I've conducted plenty of empirical studies--and have fudged stats frequenty (are you familiar with statistics? You can spin data to say whatever you want it to)--and the fact of the matter is for every study you can produce, I can produce one that claims the opposite. Talk to me when you finish your undergraduate degree.

You certainly don't strike me as somebody who has an advanced degree. Sure, social science is horribly unscientific, citations abound. But I have identified methodological errors in many of the studies used to paint a picture that child pornography possession should be criminalized, and I cant' identify methodological flaws in the studies that indicate that it shouldn't be. But in any case, maybe we should just dismiss social science all together and accept that it is quite possibly just educated sounding propaganda. But as it stands this isn't what is happening, some selection of studies is being used to hurt people, and it is about time that somebody pointed out that there is just as much evidence showing that hurting these people is not only pointless but counterproductive to our goals. I'm sorry, but you don't get to use flawed social science to hurt people without me being able to use the same body of social science to try to help them.

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #312 on: January 03, 2014, 11:36:13 am »
"If availability of pornography can reduce sex crimes, it is because the use of certain forms of pornography to certain potential offenders is functionally equivalent to the commission of certain types of sex offences: both satisfy the need for psychosexual stimulants leading to sexual enjoyment and orgasm through masturbation. If these potential offenders have the option, they prefer to use pornography because it is more convenient, unharmful and undangerous. (Kutchinsky, 1994, pp. 21)."

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #313 on: January 03, 2014, 02:10:15 pm »
Bel Ami has no idea--since you've mentioned Eastern Europe (well, or Cazzo/Cadinot either if you prefer the West)--of how much of their porn I've downloaded gratis. Do you think they didn't profit off their porn? Were they aware I, personally, downloaded their videos? And were they unaware that there was both a demand and a market for their movies? (as an aside, grazie mille, muchas gracias, muito obrigado, y merci beaucoup to all those Euro porn producers and p2p!)

While I think that most of merge's arguments are marginally more convincing than yours, I do like to discover that I'm not the only person to enjoy the works of both Cazzo directors and Cadinot :)

4. And PS: There was a very low correlation between fantasizing about child molestation and engaging in it !
Funny, because there's an extremely high correlation in fantasizing about anal among my friends and actually engaging in anal sex! Imagine that! (That's not a conflation of adult sexuality and fetishism; it's more a ridicule of your ridiculous argument).

Hmmm... I often fantasise about being raped but I severely hope it never happens to me in reality :-\
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #314 on: January 03, 2014, 02:34:43 pm »
you and like 30% of females
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 02:35:04 pm by merge »

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #315 on: January 03, 2014, 03:41:00 pm »
here I made a blog with my argument and graphs on it: http://sexcrimetruths.wordpress.com/

and with that I am out, peaced, gone like the motherfucking wind, I hope I enlightened you stupid fuckers :D

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #316 on: January 03, 2014, 07:52:18 pm »
Regrettably, since you're forcing me to quote an entire academic paper, I've got to split this into two posts (which is pretty fucking annoying).

First of all, you selectively quote every bit as much as I do. And on top of that, rather than simply posting the stats and citing them, you post MULTIPLE, LENGTHY posts, all of which are time consuming I don't want to read a mile long wall of text. That's why I keep asking for numbers and citations. I don't have time to read your bullshit.

Second, I selectively quote because I only want to quote relevant portions. Nobody wants to read these lengthy posts, particularly long walls of text.

And as for you New York Times link, there was not ONE SINGLE referrence to CP, despite acknowledging--RELATIVELY SPEAKING--that rates were decreasing. In fact, it pointed to the same thing that I alluded to, which is that crime rates for ALL TYPES OF CRIME of been dropping rapidly beginning in the 1980s, but even more sharply from the 1990s.

Now tell me, have the rates of murder, rape, robbery, burglary, assault and battery, etc. been steeply declining because of the increased availability of CP?

Quote
And I'm sorry, but I specifically avoided the studies in the Czech Republic, because, as a percentage of the global population (or even of the entire fucking EU population), the Czech Republic is not significant.

Do me a favor and read the fucking study. It isn't anecdotal or conjecture they carried out a fucking statistical analysis you fucking retard.[/b]
No dickface, show me the statistical significance at p<.01, the sample size, and the regression analysis (if we're talking correlation), and simply cite the source, I don't want to have to wade through your studies. I've got neither the time nor the interest to do so.

Now, let's talk Czech Republic again. First, their poplulation isn't large enough to extrapolate those numbers globally (and I doubt even to just the EU population alone either). And second, I know their sample size isn't big enough to do so. The fact is, I found a few studies on the Czech Republic that support my argument, but I purposely excluded them because of the population size.

Quote
This is particularly why I find you to be the scum of the Earth: profiting off of the explotation of minors below the age of consent is despicable. Last time I checked, the porn industry was for profit. Let me know if that's changed.

You selectively truncated the quote that I responded to (you seem to have a habit of this), the vast majority of CP distribution is non-commercial, and the non-commercial distribution of child pornography is going to hurt the for profit child pornography industry in much the same way that the non-commercial distribution of adult pornography is hurting the adult pornography industry. I think that paying for child pornography should remain illegal. And please touch up on your reading comprehension skills, if your IQ can support it anyway.
Wrong! The p2p sharing isn't hurting the porn industry, the music industry, or the entertainment (i.e. movie/TV) industry. Again, last time I checked, those industries are all thriving. I have no trouble finding new, comercial, adult, porn every day (and I'm going back 15 years). It doesn't cost all that much to produce porn, especially the quote/unquote amateur varities, which includes your pedo ass

And, to be fair, you neglected to mention whether the sale of child pornography is/was legal in the countries you've mentioned.

Oh, and one other thing, can you come up with some ORIGINAL insults and stop regurgitating mine. Even I'm sick of read about reading comprehension, and I'm the one who first said it.

Quote
1. This is true
Yeah, no shit.
Another fine example of you selectively truncating quotes.
Actually, I did address other parts of your reply. I split that up because it was obvious. And BTW sociopathy is a personality disorder. And anti-social personality disorder (aka sociopathy) has nothing to do with pedophilia, which is a paraphilia/fetish. Last time I checked, psychopathy was not included in the DSM. And pedophilia is not a diagnostic criteria of that particular personality disorder; although, if you do read the diagnostic criteria for anti-social personality disorder, it's not surprising that pedophiles would have a dual diagnosis.

Nothing that you've cited suggests that the two are mutually exclusive; one study suggests a high prevalence with that particular personality disorder, but not that pedophilia is limited to it.

Of the variety of personality variables included in the present research, only psychopa-
thy uniquely predicted overall deviant sexual behavior. This result extends previous reports
of links between psychopathy and self-reported sexual aggression (Kosson et al., 1997). In
our data, the association was in the positive direction for every single deviance category but
reached conventional levels of significance only for bondage, sadism, and sexual assault.
Arguably, these are the most aggression related forms of sexual deviance.

That does not say that ALL pedophiles are sociopaths. And they're talking about ADULTS specifically; they're not referencing molestation. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that BDSM and sexual assult (of adults) are pathologically the same as pedophilia. Rape is not a fetish!

PS The key word is arguably.

Quote
Second, show me your regression analysis.
What?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you stated you're writing a paper on the correlation between CP and molestaion, no? If so, you should know what a regression analysis is, and you should be able to conduct one with your data.

Quote
What the fuck is a sexologist?
Sexology is the interdisciplinary study of human sexuality, including human sexual interests, behaviors and function.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexology)
That was sarcasm dumb ass. I was questioning the validity of the term as a widely recognized academic discipline. Oh, and the most prominent sexologist, Kinsey, was a trained zoologist.

Quote
I thought I'd made clear that I wasn't interested in your 3rd year undergrad psych paper.
Considering I have never studied psychology at university what-so-ever I actually take it as a compliment that you compare me to a 3rd year psychology undergrad!
That wasn't a compliment, and if you took it as such, it reflects poorly on your level of education.

Quote
None of that supports your legalization argument. First of all, given the risk involved, I seriously doubt that producers are not profitting, even if consumers are sharing images/videos via p2p. And, pray tell, just what do  you suppose would happen should child pornography/EXPLOITATION be made legal? Why do you think it's primarily spread p2p? Do you not watch fucking legal porn? Do you fail to understand the porn business model? Under your vision, that's exactly where CP will go.

First of all, your anecdotal doubts are highly irrelevant. Third of all, if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about you would realize that when people download commercial porn from P2P networks for free, it doesn't support the commercial pornography industry at all. And availability of commercial pornography from pirated sources actually has hurt the profits of the commercial adult pornography industry and led to less production.
No retard, I stated that I personally downloaded p2p porn gratis (look it up jerk off). At some point, someone pays for the content. It's the same with the other industries I've mentioned. The fact that some is willing to pay for it, and that the production is profitable, allows the demand to drive the supply (BTW, I never said that p2p sharing increased supply, I said that it indicated demand).

And my doubts aren't anecdotal (could you stop parroting my language please?). If you believe that producers are giving this shit away for free, you are retarded. The other questions I posed were hypothetical, and were meant for you to answer.

Quote
BTW, this is not different from the drug trade, and the same black market economics apply. Do you know what the difference is though? Drug use is a VICTIMLESS CRIME; CP is NOT
It is substantially different from the drug trade. One of the primary differences is that a child porn image can be copied indefinitely, whereas you cannot make a copy of cocaine.
No, I'm not talking about copyright law and patents. I'm talking about black market economics, specifically, the level of demand, the risk involved and expense of minimizing risk, and the potential punishment all factor into the pricing of the product. In this case, there may only be one point of sale, but there are sales involved. Do you think these producers are eating their production costs? And where are the children coming from anyway? Sex trade?

Essentially you argue that if I look at some commercial adult pornography that I downloaded from a P2P network it will lead to the producer of that adult pornography making more. It is bullshit! Indeed, if everybody downloaded the pornography from P2P networks and nobody paid for it, the commercial producers would go out of business! The demand for commercial adult pornography doesn't inherently lead to the supply of it, the willingness to financially contribute to the production of adult commercial pornography is what leads to the supply of it, and I have said multiple times that financially supporting child molestation should be illegal for this very reason.

And yet, nonetheless, they do still keep making porn; movies and television shows are still produced; and music continues to be recorded and sold. I'm not talking about gross margins. I'm saying that there are people who are willing to pay for the content, and that those people then share that content. The amount produced is based on the overall demand, because, if no on were willing to pay for it,  it wouldn't exist. We're not talking about incest, so these children are not the children of the producers. In other words, were not talking about home movies (unless theree's a CP version of xtube.com?).

Quote
OK, admittedly, I've demeaned you harshly through this and my previous post, but you surely can't be that stupid. Given the level of risk involved--because let's face it: CP is illegal throughout most of the world--I find it very difficult to belive that no one profits.

The vast majority of child pornography is not produced or distributed for profit. I don't give a fuck what you believe, who the fuck are you anyway? This isn't to say that NOBODY profits, certainly in some cases profit is made from distribution and production
Oddly enough, I feel the same about you (well, except that I feel you are a child molesting pedophile, which detracts from your argument significantly). And your 3rd sentence says it all (BTW, the 2nd is a comma splice -- I never criticize things like that, but I actually despise you that much to do so).

Quote
Um, yeah, no, you're correct that the CP producer is simply not aware that A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL has downloaded the produced CP; that does not mean that he has not profitted. Bel Ami has no idea--since you've mentioned Eastern Europe (well, or Cazzo/Cadinot either if you prefer the West)--of how much of their porn I've downloaded gratis. Do you think they didn't profit off their porn? Were they aware I, personally, downloaded their videos? And were they unaware that there was both a demand and a market for their movies (as an aside, grazie mille, muchas gracias, muito obrigado, y merci beaucoup to all those Euro porn producers and p2p!)

You can conflate commercial and non-commercial obtainment of child pornography, but I will continue to split them because they are clearly different things, with one being a completely victimless crime
STOP RIGHT FUCKING THERE YOU REPUGNANT, SOCIOPATHIC PIG! THE PRODUCTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS FOR PROFIT. LEGALLY, CHILDREN ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO GIVE CONSENT.

Quote
Here's another point where you've overstated your intelligence/education--so yay!--I get to disregard the rest. Pick up a copy of the DSM; there's no such thing as sexual addiction; there's no such thing as pornography addiction either. Sadism is also not pathological; pedophilia is. Talk about propaganda? That's straight out of an opportunistic therapist looking to sell books book. OCD is OCD, regardless of the obsession or compulsion. I'm a compulsive masturbator FWIW.
Pornography addiction is not currently included in the DSM but I imagine that it will be added at some point, it is recognized by some psychologists
No. The DSM V was just published this year, and it was concluded that sexual addiction is NOT a valid diagnosis. PS, the DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association, so I don't really care what some (how many?) therapists think, most of whom are social workers (e.g. MSW, LCSW, LSW, etc.) BTW, not psycholoists.

Homosexuality used to be listed as a mental disorder for fucks sake. Sadism is certainly pathological and it is actually listed in the DSM as a mental disorder, you stupid fuck. Sure, OCD is OCD, I don't know who said differently. Some people with OCD become obsessed with collecting child pornography despite not being pedophiles. So it discredits what the fucktard I quoted said, about how all people who possess CP want to have sex with children. He is just wrong.
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM II in 1973; we're now on the DSM V published in 2013.

And actually, you're wrong; the collection of images of children engaged in sexual activity is one of the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, which again, is a paraphilia, or a fetish.

Quote
Not only is that only one source, but I've also already acknowledged that I've read very little of your previous posts. Can you please provide the link if you intend to argue this? Having seen you already utterly misrepresent and mistate one of your sources (i.e. NYT if your not keeping track), I'd like to check your facts before I comment further. Thanks,
Yes, I am well aware that you don't read what I say before commenting on it, it is why you sound like such a fucking idiot every time you metaphorically open your mouth. Yes, I am aware of the fact that you don't understand that information can be synthesized by the combination of multiple sources, I will try to avoid doing this since your cognitive capacity is not adequate to deal with it.
The problem is that you are incapable of effectively synthesizing and properly citing data. You made a statement that you backed up with one link; I followed the link only to find that it not only didn't support your argument, but it contradicted it. (PS that's another comma splice in your 1st sentence asswipe).

Quote
Yeah, ditto; except that I understand statistics and have a higher level of reading comprehension than you.
Highly unlikely that your reading comprehension is better than mine, I score perfectly on reading comprehension tests. Also, my verbal intelligence is in the genius range.
Oh really? You don't say? Well, I'm 22, 6'2" 175 pounds, and my cock is 26 inches long; it's easy to make statements like this anonymously. [/b]Prove it jack-ass![/b]. I'm getting very bored, so unless your paying for my time, I'm going to start skipping huge swarths of text.

Quote
Your doing the same thing with extrapolation. You want to convince me? Show me at least one peer reviewed study at p<.01 that supports any of your arguments.
Already did. Two actually!
No, you misinterpreted one. And even if you did produce another--which I'm not reading based on your continued misrepresentation of your source--I'd be shocked.

Quote
Yay! I get to stop again. Opinion is not fact. Try again.

I have identified two characteristics of you that I find to be quite annoying, one is that you selectively truncate quotes and the other is that you are selectively accepting of anecdotal evidence.
Look, I'm just analyizing your words. If this were a verbal conversation, those are the points that I'd be interrupting you at. They're your words, unaltered. I also do it to improve readabiltiy by eliminating irrelevant portions (in relation to my comments). You've already posted, so anyone interested can refer back to your post (which, BTW, is why I properly quote, so that others can easily click a link and refer to your original post.

As for the anecdotal evidence, in my very 1st reply to you, I stated that anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant.

Do you know what I find to be infuriating about you? Your overstatement of your intelligence, your inability to read, and that you you're a filthy fucking pedo.

Quote
I never said that there was a consensus among researchers as to the exact percentage of CP possessors who are molestors. I said that there is research that demonstrates some level of correlation, and if you deny that, then you're too stupid to be worthy of debate.
Some studies show that there isn't a statistically significant correlation between pedophilic fantasizing and pedophilic behaving (I already quoted it previously in this post). Other studies can be used in combination to synthesize that a randomly selected college male is 5 times more likely to molest children than a randomly selected child pornography consumer.
I'm glad you brought up the part about COLLEGE AGE MALES, because I meant to touch on that above, which is why I highlighted that in the paper. That's not the typical age of a child molestation offender, so those results aren't a bit surprising, and don't help you at all.

Quote
I also said that CP possessors are complicit in molestation, whether they commit the molestation themselves or merely witness someone commit it. Both are dispicable.
Why is it despicable? Who cares? Why do you care if I look at a picture of a kid being molested. Who did I hurt in doing that? The molested kid has no fucking idea that I did it, they are not negatively affected in any scientifically measurable way, the producer has no fucking idea I did it, the kid is already molested if I look at it or not and nothing is going to change that, and the producer isn't going to molest the kid more or less regardless of if I looked at it or not. If I go to some P2P network and download some CP and look at it, It is honestly a completely victimless crime. The victim causing crime was the molestation of the child, the photographing of the child being molested. If you throw in Private Information Retrieval it is just totally obviously a totally victimless crime, nobody would even be able to tell if I looked at CP or not, not even the person who runs the fucking server I would get it from.
That's why you're dispicible, that's why I hope you end up civilly committed at Butner, and that's why I wish you a horrible, painful death. That's also why I'm really going to start skipping. But I will say this: this is an online forum. I'm not writing an academic paper, and I did nothing more than scan my sources, because arguing with a child molester is not worth my time (and I get paid for research, so unless your paying me and this is my IRL identity, I couldn't care less about my sources).

THE BURDEN ON PROOF IS ON YOU TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A VICTIMLESS  CRIME. AND I AM SO SICKENED BY YOUR ABOVE PARAGRAPH, THAT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE WORTH MY TIME. YOUR PARAGRAPH CONTRADICTS THE STATEMENTS OF THE PSYCHIATRIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL, MEDICAL, AND LEGAL COMMUNITIES.

Are you seriously trying to discredit me for pointing out that multiple pedophiles self report that child pornography helped them avoid molesting children, in response to your quote of two pedophiles who said that child pornography led them to molest children? Why not laugh your fucking ass off at yourself?
Since your so fond of law, are you familiar with the 5th Amendment? The whole rationale behind creating it was to prevent one from being forced to incriminate oneself.

So yes, who the fuck is going to self-report that they molested children when it almost certainly will lead to spending the rest of their lives in prison?? See below:

Quote
And second, did you fucking read that shit back to yourself when you wrote it?

Just in case you didn't: numerous pedophiles SELF-REPORT that child pornography decreases their RISK [note: NOT DESIRE] of sexually abusing CHILDREN (which would be akin to admitting to the police that you've just committed a felony, because this information is not bound by any type of confidentialtiy other that attorney-client privilige). It doesn't apply to therapists and researchers; they're required to report sexual abuse involving children.

I didn't realize that you wanted to criminalize the desire to sexually abuse children. I just want to reduce child molestation rates. Well, primarily I just want to stop victimizing innocent men who have not done anything but look at illegal pictures.
What really fucking pisses me off is that you're so fucking stupid that you don't even realize that in my two previous posts, I actually agreed with this. I supported your assertion. I only disputed one sentence.

But I cannot support legalizing child pornography

Quote
Listen, I have an advanced degree; I've conducted plenty of empirical studies--and have fudged stats frequenty (are you familiar with statistics? You can spin data to say whatever you want it to)--and the fact of the matter is for every study you can produce, I can produce one that claims the opposite. Talk to me when you finish your undergraduate degree.

You certainly don't strike me as somebody who has an advanced degree. Sure, social science is horribly unscientific
That's funny, because that I don't have the time to thoroughly research the subject, particularly under the guise of an anonymous forum should tell you that I have better things to do with my time (unlike you, who can sit at home and wack off to kiddie porn all day).

1. Psychology is dominated by the biological model of behavior and is beginning to slowly merge with the medical field, so it's far from unscientific today.
2. My advanced degree is not in a social science (that's my undergrad). I think it should be obvious what my advanced degree is in, because I tore your argument to pieces in my area of expertise.

PS You can suck my fucking cock! Oh wait; nevermind, I'm too old for you, freak.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 07:17:48 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #317 on: January 03, 2014, 08:06:00 pm »
KEVIN M. WILLIAMS ,INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES
From your study:

ABSTRACT
There is widespread concern that deviant sexual fantasies promote corresponding behaviors. The authors investigated whether that concern is valid in nonoffender samples. SELF-REPORTS of nine deviant sexual fantasies and behaviors were compared in two samples of male undergraduates. In Study 1, 95% of respondents REPORTED experiencing at least one sexually deviant fantasy, and 74% reported engaging in at least one sexually deviant behavior. The correlations were all positive and averaged .44. However, only 38% of the high-fantasy group REPORTED ACTING OUT FANTASIES. The effect of pornography use on deviant behaviors was partially mediated by increases in deviant fantasies. Study 2 investigated possible moderators, including eight personality variables. The fantasy-behavior association held only for those high in SELF-REPORTED psychopathy. In addition, the association between pornography use and deviant sexual behavior held only for participants high in psychopathy. Overall, theoretically relevant individual difference variables moderated the relation between sexually deviant fantasies and behaviors and between pornography use and deviant behaviors.

STUDY 1: DEVIANT FANTASIES AND BEHAVIOR
In Study 1, the following two hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 1.1: The fantasy-behavior association will be significant for all nine categories of sexual deviance.
Hypothesis 1.2: The effects of pornography on deviant behavior will be mediated by increased deviant fantasies


Deviant Sexual Fantasies
Prevalence rates of deviant sexual fantasies are more difficult to evaluate, in part because of the competing definitions of deviance.1For that reason, we restricted our research to nine deviant behaviors (object fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, sadism, bondage, frotteurism, exhibitionism, pedophilia, and sexual assault) and corresponding fantasies about them. Research on deviant sexual fantasies in offender samples indicates substantial prevalence rates, for example, 82% (Langevin, Lang, & Curnoe, 1998), 86% (Prentky et al.,1989), and 92% (Gee et al., 2004). Understandably, these rates are higher among sexual offenders than nonsexual offenders[/b] (Curnoe & Langevin, 2002), and they are especially high among sexual-homicidal and serial sexual offenders as opposed to nonhomicidal or onetime offenders (Prentky et al., 1989). The content of sex offenders’ fantasies tends to be specific to their offenses (Gee et al., 2004; Looman, 1995; Ryan, 2004). In many cases, offenders have claimed that their fantasies precipitated their criminal behavior (MacCulloch, Snowden, Wood, & Mills, 1983). Together, the trend of these findings has led many observers to conclude that deviant sexual fantasies play an important causal role in sexual offending (Ryan, 2004). A smaller body of research has examined the prevalence rates of deviant sexual fantasies in nonoffender samples. A number of studies have estimated pedophilic fantasy rates at about 10% (Briere & Runtz, 1989; Renaud & Byers, 1999). Best established is the rate of
rape fantasies: a mean of 31% across six studies (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). [/b]For the few categories studied, the rates of deviant sexual fantasies in nonoffender samples rival those of their offender counterparts. In fact, a direct comparison has led some to conclude that rates in nonoffender populations are equally high[/b] (e.g., Baumgartner, Scalora, & Huss, 2002; Looman, 1995). This startling conclusion highlights the need to study associations between fantasies and behaviors. What explains the failure of fantasies to translate into behavior for most nonoffenders?

The possible causal impact of deviant fantasies on deviant sexual behavior has been under scrutiny since Abel and Blanchard’s (1974) review of clinical-offender studies. [/b]Outside of the offender literature, research on the fantasy-behavior association is limited to a handful of studies[/b] (Byrne & Osland, 2000; Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003; Ryan, 2004). For some deviance categories (e.g., sexual assault), this gap is not surprising, given that any confirmation of the behavior would immediately relegate individuals to the offender category. Other deviance categories (e.g., object fetishism) might continue for a lifetime with out eventuating in a crime.


NOTE: pedophilia is NOT object fetishism!

The few relevant studies suggest that there is indeed an association between deviant sexual fantasies and behavior. The link seems well established in studies in which the
dependent variable involves composite reports of aggressive and coercive sex (e.g., Knight& Sims-Knight, 2003). Indirect evidence has established links of coercive sexual fantasies with rape myth acceptance (Zurbiggen & Yost, 2004) and willingness to commit rape in hypothetical future situations
(Greendlinger & Byrne, 1987; Smeaton & Byrne, 1987).

Studies on specific paraphilias are fewer in number. In a study of 31 men, McCollaum and Lester (1994) found a substantial positive correlation between sadistic fantasies and
coercive sexual behavior [<ahem>, which molestation is] (both self-reported). This limited evidence suggests that the association between deviant sexual fantasies and behaviors may hold in nonoffender samples as well as offender samples.
In the present research, we sought to confirm that proposition with improved methodology and a larger sample size than previous work. We also sought to evaluate the fantasy-behavior link across a wider range of forms of sexual deviance.

PORNOGRAPHY CONSUMPTION
A common means of creating and amplifying sexual fantasies is exposure to pornography (e.g., Byrne & Osland, 2000). Presumably, such effects are stronger when the exposure
is self-initiated (e.g., purchasing magazines and videos, actively searching the Internet) rather than involuntary (e.g., spam initiated, music videos). In both cases, the primary soci-
etal concern—the possibility that pornography promotes sexual misbehavior—has motivated substantial research (e.g., Check & Guloien, 1989; Donnerstein, 1984; Malamuth,
Addison, & Koss, 2000; Murrin & Laws, 1990; Seto, Maric, & Barbaree, 2001; Zillman &Bryant, 1984). If pornography can amplify fantasies (and therefore arousal), it may encour-
age viewers to carry out the fantasized behavior. If the fantasy involved sexual deviance, then the corresponding deviant behavior would be encouraged. Indeed, experimental studies have confirmed the notion that exposing male participants to pornography increases rape fantasies, willingness to rape, acceptance of rape myths, and aggression against female targets (see reviews by Allen, D’Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995; Malamuth et al., 2000). In other words, pornography affects both fantasies and behaviors. In the present research, however, we were concerned with inferences drawn outside of the laboratory. In particular, we focused on college-age men. In such nonoffender groups, are sexual fantasies and behavior associated with pornography use? If so, is that association mediated by a corresponding increase in deviant fantasies?

METHOD
Participants and Procedure
A total of 103 undergraduate students (56% European, 34% East Asian, 10% other heritage; mean age=19.7 years) at a large western university participated for course credit.

Measures
Deviant sexual fantasies and behaviors. At the heart of the questionnaire package was the Multidimensional Assessment of Sex and Aggression (MASA; Knight, Prentky, &
Cerce, 1994), an established measure of sexual fantasies and behaviors. All items were administered in 5-point, Likert-type format (0=never,4=very often). On a rational basis, we organized 74 of the 116 MASA items into nine categories on the basis of the source of sexual stimulation: frotteurism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, transvestism,
pedophilia, bondage, sadism, object fetishism, and sexual assault.2 The number of items in each fantasy and behavior index were as follows: bondage (2, 3), exhibitionism (3, 2), frotteurism (1, 1), object fetishism (2, 1), pedophilia (2, 2), sexual assault (6, 12), sadism (13, 15), transvestism (1, 2), and voyeurism (4, 2). The precise item categories are available on request.  In the original scoring of that MASA version (Knight et al., 1994), fantasy and behavior items were not specifically separated. We calculated a mean fantasy score and a behavior score for each category. Each participant also received an overall fantasy score and an overall behavior score, calculated by summing the nine category rates. Hence, the overall means could range from 0 to 36.

RESULTS
Preliminary analyses revealed minimal differences across ethnicity; therefore, all analyses were conducted on the pooled sample. We scored the nine sexual deviance categories
using both continuous scales (on the basis of the 0 to 4 scoring of the individual items) and prevalence rates (percentage of the sample scoring above 0). We also calculated the overall means by averaging over the nine categories for both the continuous scoring (maximum=36) and the prevalence rates (maximum=100%). In general, we used (more reliable) continuous scoring to conduct statistical tests and prevalence rates to represent the category comparisons. Using the continuous scoring procedure, we found substantially higher means for fantasy reports (9.3) than for behavior reports (5.5), t(101)=12.1, p<.01, d=2.4. The α reliability coefficients were .86 and .94 for the overall fantasies and behavior scores, respectively. These values are very close to the α value of .91 reported for overall MASA sexual deviance by Knight et al. (1994). Reliabilities for multi-item categories ranged from .45 to .77. Alpha reliabilities could not be calculated for fetishism behaviors or frotteurism (fantasies or behaviors) because they comprised only one item each.

Prevalence Rates of Fantasies and Behaviors
To calculate prevalence rates, we counted any response other than 0 (“never”). For categories assessed with multiple items, the highest value was used.3 The prevalence rates of
deviant fantasies and behaviors are listed by category in Table 1. Note that with one exception, the fantasy rates were higher than the corresponding behavior rates. The mean rate for fantasies (52%) was significantly higher than the overall behavior rate (21%) (McNemar χ2=38.0, p<.001).

Note from the last row of Table 1 that 95% of our sample reported at least one deviant fantasy. The category rates were over 50% for frotteurism, object fetishes, and voyeurism.
Least common were fantasies involving pedophilia and transvestism. Sixty-three percent of the participants reported at least one deviant sexual behavior. Among the deviant behaviors, frotteurism was again the most common, being reported by 44% of the sample. Transvestism and pedophilic behaviors were least common.
A follow-up analysis showed that a minority of fantasizers were also behavers (M=38%). By contrast, virtually all of the behavers were also fantasizers (M=96%).

Correlations Between Deviant Fantasies and Behaviors
Correlations were calculated between the continuous fantasy and behavior scores. The values are displayed in the final column of Table 1. Consistent with Hypothesis 1.1, all
were positive and (with the exception of pedophilia) statistically significant at the p<.01 level. The mean correlation across the nine categories 4 was r=.44, and the correlation
between overall deviant sexual fantasies and behaviors was r=.70 (p<.001). In sum, participants who reported engaging in deviant behaviors also reported having
fantasies about those behaviors. Note that in every case, the deviant behavior was more highly correlated with its corresponding fantasy than with any other fantasy category.
Together, these results support the notion of specificity in sexual deviance.


Pornography Use, Fantasies, and Behaviors
On our yes-no question, 63% of participants reported current pornography use. The mean fantasy score for users (9.9) was significantly higher than the mean of 6.1 for the
nonusers, t(101)=3.41, p<.01, d=.68. Similarly, the mean behavior score for users (7.9) was significantly higher than the mean of 3.1 for the nonusers, t(101)=4.11, p<.01, d=.82. In sum, pornography users reported substantially more deviant fantasies and behaviors than nonusers.


To evaluate Hypothesis 1.2, we converted the above effect sizes to correlations. [bThe significant relation between pornography use and behavior, r(100)=.32, p<.01 (one tailed),
was reduced but remained significant after overall fantasies was partialed out, r(100)=.21, p<.05 (one-tailed). The mediating effect of overall fantasies was determined to be signif-
icant using the standard Sobel formulas (Z=2.3, p<.05).
This result provided partial support for Hypothesis 1.2

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~dpaulhus/research/DARK_TRIAD/ARTICLES/CJB%20Williams%20et%20al%2009.pdf

Pedophilic fantasy does not have a statistically significant relationship with pedophilic behavior!
Try again. That doesn't say what you'd like it to; and the second hypothesis, which is the crux of your argument, is only partially supported at p<.05, not fully supported at p<.01.

That's the last time I'm bothering to read your sources, and that's why I keep questioning your reading comprehension (and also the ability of one to spin data). Your misrepresenting your sources. This is the 2nd time I've called you out on that.

WHAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT, FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 20 YEARS, SELF-REPORTED STUDIES ARE VIEWED SKEPTICALLY. THEY ARE NOT OBJECTIVE; THEY ARE HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE, AND FOR REASONS THAT ARE TOO LENGTHY FOR ME TO EXPLAIN HERE, THERE ARE NUMEROUS REASONS THAT PEOPLE LIE DURING THEM.

PS According to this source, the average age of a child sex offender is 34, which is why I'm discounting the study of college age males at ONE university in an unknown counrty:
www.psychologytoday.com/ blog/ shadow-boxing/ 201206/ how-can-we-spot-child-molester

And I think you fall under the naïve pedophile classification.

I've also already told you, I'm not reading multiple posts from you, so I haven't read most of what you've written, and in fact, you've posted so much, that it was dificult to locate the exact post to quote.




« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 08:30:38 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #318 on: January 03, 2014, 08:12:55 pm »
Bel Ami has no idea--since you've mentioned Eastern Europe (well, or Cazzo/Cadinot either if you prefer the West)--of how much of their porn I've downloaded gratis. Do you think they didn't profit off their porn? Were they aware I, personally, downloaded their videos? And were they unaware that there was both a demand and a market for their movies? (as an aside, grazie mille, muchas gracias, muito obrigado, y merci beaucoup to all those Euro porn producers and p2p!)

While I think that most of merge's arguments are marginally more convincing than yours, I do like to discover that I'm not the only person to enjoy the works of both Cazzo directors and Cadinot :)
Hehe I forgot to thank those filthy Germans (god bless them, danke). I can live with with most of and marginally more convincing, particularly since I was piss drunk when I wrote that. ;)

Your wording suggests that you agree with me in essenece, but that my argument wasn't made strongly enough; I'm fine with that, because I don't think this person is worth my time, and he is delusional, and is in a very, very small minority that will never gain popular support in any Western nation (I don't consider Czech Republic to be Western, EU member or not).

4. And PS: There was a very low correlation between fantasizing about child molestation and engaging in it !
Funny, because there's an extremely high correlation in fantasizing about anal among my friends and actually engaging in anal sex! Imagine that! (That's not a conflation of adult sexuality and fetishism; it's more a ridicule of your ridiculous argument).

Hmmm... I often fantasise about being raped but I severely hope it never happens to me in reality :-\
Ah, my friend, but being raped is a passive act; you are not the aggressor. That's a huge difference. And that doesn't mean you wouldn't role play rape. ;)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 08:32:58 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #319 on: January 03, 2014, 08:17:47 pm »
[NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR PEDO BLOGS, RANTS, AND GRAPHS, FREAK!]

and with that I am out, peaced, gone like the motherfucking wind, I hope I enlightened you stupid fuckers :D
I think you've demonstrated at least 5 things:
1. You're an uneducated boob.
2. You're suffering from narcissistic personality disorder
3. You're potentially suffering from anti-social personality disorder.
4. You're possibly schizophrenic
5. You don't understand statistics.

GOOD RIDDANCE FREAK! ;D
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #320 on: January 04, 2014, 02:04:42 am »
Quote
Second, I selectively quote because I only want to quote relevant portions. Nobody wants to read these lengthy posts, particularly long walls of text.

You quite obviously selectively quote to try to make it seem like you are correct. You just leave out the things that are inconvenient for you.

Quote
And as for you New York Times link, there was not ONE SINGLE referrence to CP, and despite acknowledging that rates were decreasing. In fact, it pointed to the same thing that I alluded to, which is that crime rates for ALL TYPES OF CRIME of been dropping rapidly beginning in the 1980s, but even more sharply from the 1990s.

The most pertinent thing to notice is that exponential increases in child pornography availability and consumption didn't correlate with an increase in child sex abuse rates. I don't even need to try to attribute the decline in child sex abuse rates over this time period to child pornography availability, the simple fact that child sex abuse rates didn't rise during this time period is enough to shit all over your argument that CP consumption leads to higher child molestation rates. I guess the only question I can ask is if that is the case why hasn't it happened?

Quote
Now tell me, have the rates of murder, rape, robbery, burglary, assault and battery, etc. been steeply declining because of the increased availability of CP?

How about instead you tell me why child abuse rates haven't been rising despite greatly increased availability and consumption of child pornography? That factoid shits all over your claim that CP consumption will lead to increased child molestation rates.

Quote
Do me a favor and read the fucking study. It isn't anecdotal or conjecture they carried out a fucking statistical analysis you fucking retard.[/b]
No dickface, show me the statistical significance at p<.01, the sample size, and the regression analysis (if we're talking correlation), and simply cite the source, I don't want to have to wade through your studies. I've got neither the time nor the interest to do so.
[/quote]

Already did, read the Czech study or fuck off. It's that simple. I am not going to keep repeating myself. Either put in the time to read the things I write or just stop arguing against me, I am not going to infinitely quote the same fucking papers and hope that you happen to read them. But of course you wont read my links before arguing against me, because you didn't even read your own fucking links before posting them to me.

Quote
Now, let's talk Czech Republic again. First, their poplulation isn't large enough to extrapolate those numbers globally (and I doubt even to just the EU population alone either). And second, I know their sample size isn't big enough to do so. The fact is, I found a few studies on the Czech Republic that support my argument, but I purposely excluded them because of the population size.

Oh please let me see these studies that support your argument! Don't worry I don't care about the sample size. After all most CP offender studies have sample sizes of a few hundred inmates at the most. So an entire country seems like an adequate sample size to me. BTW What about the entirety of Czech Republic, Denmark and Japan? Is that a big enough sample size for you? I don't think many studies have such large sample sizes. But oh please show me your made up research from Czech Republic that I am sure totally supports you, but you are just way too academically honest (despite admitting to fudging statistics to argue for what you want) to include a study that only has a sample size of an entire countries population lol. Fucking retard. You extrapolate from some small section of the 1% of arrested CP offenders, people who are far more likely to have had molestation manuals, to the entire CP offending community, but wont extrapolate from the entire population of three entire fucking countries. You know how I know you didn't find studies on the Czech Republic that support your "argument"? Because that would have required you to read a fucking study and that is more than you have proven yourself capable of doing.

Quote
Wrong! The p2p sharing isn't hurting the porn industry, the music industry, or the entertainment (i.e. movie/TV) industry. Again, last time I checked, those industries are all thriving. I have no trouble finding new, comercial, adult, porn every day (and I'm going back 15 years). It doesn't cost all that much to produce porn, especially the quote/unquote amateur varities, which includes your pedo ass

It is completely moronic to think that free sources of product are not hurting the people who produce the product to sell for a profit.  Everybody in the porn industry knows it is struggling to compete with piracy. One study showed that after a popular pirated streaming movie site got shut down movie sales went up by fucking 10% immediately afterward. God man you are seriously starting to degrade into just a first class fucktard.

Quote
And, to be fair, you neglected to mention whether the sale of child pornography is/was legal in the countries you've mentioned.

In Japan it is at least partially legal to sell CP to this very day, not sure about Czech Republic or Denmark.

Quote
Actually, I did address other parts of your reply. I split that up because it was obvious. And BTW sociopathy is a personality disorder. And anti-social personality disorder (aka sociopathy) has nothing to do with pedophilia, which is a paraphilia/fetish. Last time I checked, psychopathy was not included in the DSM. And pedophilia is not a diagnostic criteria of that particular personality disorder; although, if you do read the diagnostic criteria for anti-social personality disorder, it's not surprising that pedophiles would have a dual diagnosis.

If you actually read the study I linked to, you would see that it is related, because pedophilic fantasy isn't strongly correlated with pedophilic behavior, but sociopathic personality traits increase the risk. This all comes back to a lack of you reading things, or a startling lack of reading comprehension if you do.

Quote
Nothing that you've cited suggests that the two are mutually exclusive; one study suggests a high prevalence with that particular personality disorder, but not that pedophilia is limited to it.

It doesn't suggest a high prevalence so much as it suggests that sociopathic personality traits in people who fantasize about pedophilia increases their risk of having pedophilic behaviors, but there still isn't a statistically significant correlation between pedophilic fantasy and behavior. 

Quote
That does not say that ALL pedophiles are sociopaths. And they're talking about ADULTS specifically; they're not referencing molestation. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that BDSM and sexual assult (of adults) are pathologically the same as pedophilia. Rape is not a fetish!

Bro I fully understand what that study says, your reading comprehension has seriously just degraded to the point that you are just saying bullshit at this point. They do reference molestation because they separate fantasy from behavior, one can only imagine that pedophilic behavior would include molestation. Of course they are not the same as pedophilia. Pedophilia is arguably not even a fetish, I would consider it to be a chronophilia, which is in a way similar to the heterosexuality-bisexuality-homosexuality spectrum. Except it goes infrantophile-pedophile-hebephile-ephebophile-teliophile-gerontophilia. Everybody falls somewhere on both of those spectrums. Desire to rape has several causes some of which are certainly pathological such as Sadism. But this study is primarily addressing the link between deviant fantasies and deviant behaviors, and rape and pedophilia are both deviant.

Quote
That wasn't a compliment, and if you took it as such, it reflects poorly on your level of education.

First you said I am three years beyond where I should be (considering I didn't study psychology at all), now you say I have a poor education? Make up your fucking mind dude.

Quote
No retard, I stated that I personally downloaded p2p porn gratis (look it up jerk off). At some point, someone pays for the content. It's the same with the other industries I've mentioned. The fact that some is willing to pay for it, and that the production is profitable, allows the demand to drive the supply (BTW, I never said that p2p sharing increased supply, I said that it indicated demand).

Demand separated from financial contribution doesn't lead to supply. Do you honestly think you downloading adult porn off P2P networks is going to lead in any way shape or form to commercial adult pornography production? If everybody used P2P for porn nobody would produce more porn! It is really simple fucking economics. People don't produce things that cost money just to give them away to you for free. 

Quote
And my doubts aren't anecdotal (could you stop parroting my language please?). If you believe that producers are giving this shit away for free, you are retarded. The other questions I posed were hypothetical, and were meant for you to answer.

Very frequently producers give CP away for free, but I am sure that the guess you just pulled out of your stupid fucking asshole is more accurate than the information I have learned by actually studying about shit.

Quote
No, I'm not talking about copyright law and patents. I'm talking about black market economics, specifically, the level of demand, the risk involved and expense of minimizing risk, and the potential punishment all factor into the pricing of the product. In this case, there may only be one point of sale, but there are sales involved. Do you think these producers are eating their production costs? And where are the children coming from anyway? Sex trade?

In some cases they do produce for profit, but in the modern world this is very rare. The last big for profit production studios got busted in the early 2000's. Sure if there are sales then it is bad, but you can't say the badness extends all the way to the people downloading shit for free. It doesn't support the child pornography industry anymore than you downloading adult porn off P2P supports the adult pornography industry. If you want to be delusional and disagree then go ahead, but honest to god you just sound like a fucking idiot.

Quote
And yet, nonetheless, they do still keep making porn; movies and television shows are still produced; and music continues to be recorded and sold. I'm not talking about gross margins. I'm saying that there are people who are willing to pay for the content, and that those people then share that content. The amount produced is based on the overall demand, because, if no on were willing to pay for it,  it wouldn't exist. We're not talking about incest, so these children are not the children of the producers. In other words, were not talking about home movies (unless theree's a CP version of xtube.com?).

The amount produced is based on the OVERALL ************FINANCIAL************** DEMAND, the overall demand is completely fucking irrelevant to a commercial producer. Also, a tremendous amount of CP is incest or molestation of acquaintance children, probably the large majority of it though I don't have an immediate citation for that.

Quote
STOP RIGHT FUCKING THERE YOU REPUGNANT, SOCIOPATHIC PIG! THE PRODUCTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS FOR PROFIT. LEGALLY, CHILDREN ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO GIVE CONSENT.

This is just another example of your poor reading comprehension. I of course thing it is bad to produce CP (Although JB I don't give a fuck about, produce away), but I only think ti is bad to obtain CP via paying for it to be produced. Paying for child molestation is bad. Looking at pictures of child molestation is totally neutral.

Quote
No. The DSM V was just published this year, and it was concluded that sexual addiction is NOT a valid diagnosis. PS, the DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association, so I don't really care what some (how many?) therapists think, most of whom are social workers (e.g. MSW, LCSW, LSW, etc.) BTW, not psycholoists.

It was rejected for inclusion in the current version of the DSM but I seriously imagine it will make it to one of the future versions. For right now perhaps we can just call it hypersexuality with pornography and be done with it.

Quote
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM II in 1973; we're now on the DSM V published in 2013.

I was merely showing that the DSM is not the word of God.

Quote
And actually, you're wrong; the collection of images of children engaged in sexual activity is one of the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, which again, is a paraphilia, or a fetish.

I don't recall claiming otherwise. I don't think they specify it so clearly, but certainly persistent sexual fantasies about prepubescent children (well, 13 or under according to the DSM, but it is bullshit) are a diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. It is called a chronophilia and it is part of a spectrum that we all fall somewhere on.

Quote
The problem is that you are incapable of effectively synthesizing and properly citing data. You made a statement that you backed up with one link; I followed the link only to find that it not only didn't support your argument, but it contradicted it. (PS that's another comma splice in your 1st sentence asswipe).

You have degraded to the point where you just make shit up now. I didn't realize you couldn't follow my logic although it must be pretty tricky though, as I am significantly more intelligent than you are. It certainly didn't contradict anything I said though, and I would love for you to explain how it did, or are you just making shit up now? I wish I could just make shit up too, but I have a certain affinity for the truth (something you yourself admitted you don't have, when you admitted you had manipulated statistics in some of your alleged academic research papers).

Quote
No, you misinterpreted one. And even if you did produce another--which I'm not reading based on your continued misrepresentation of your source--I'd be shocked.

Did not, did not, you did. You misinterpreted fucking everything. You were totally proven wrong. You tried to be right but just misinterpreted shit. Fuck off you fucking troll.

Quote
Look, I'm just analyizing your words. If this were a verbal conversation, those are the points that I'd be interrupting you at.

Uhm, this is a verbal conversation.

Quote
Do you know what I find to be infuriating about you? Your overstatement of your intelligence, your inability to read, and that you you're a filthy fucking pedo.

1. My intelligence has been tested professionally, it is significantly high
2. My ability to read has been tested by numerous reading comprehension tests throughout my life, I always get perfect scores
3. I am actually mostly an ephebophile maybe a bit of hebephile too, definitely not attracted to prepubescents so I wouldn't say I am really a pedophile.


Quote
I'm glad you brought up the part about COLLEGE AGE MALES, because I meant to touch on that above, which is why I highlighted that in the paper. That's not the typical age of a child molestation offender, so those results aren't a bit surprising, and don't help you at all.

What? 5% of college aged males had engaged in nonfantasy pedophilic behavior. Other studies show only 1% of CP offenders had molested children. So are you saying that over time the disparity between CP offenders and other males is only going to continue to grow? Holy shit, maybe we need to start locking up everybody who doesn't look at CP, it seems they are huge threats to children.

Quote
That's why you're dispicible, that's why I hope you end up civilly committed at Butner, and that's why I wish you a horrible, painful death. That's also why I'm really going to start skipping. But I will say this: this is an online forum. I'm not writing an academic paper, and I did nothing more than scan my sources, because arguing with a child molester is not worth my time (and I get paid for research, so unless your paying me and this is my IRL identity, I couldn't care less about my sources).

Wow people actually pay you for research? That is shocking. I wouldn't pay you to do shit because you are clearly a fucking idiot.

Quote
THE BURDEN ON PROOF IS ON YOU TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A VICTIMLESS  CRIME. AND I AM SO SICKENED BY YOUR ABOVE PARAGRAPH, THAT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE WORTH MY TIME. YOUR PARAGRAPH CONTRADICTS THE STATEMENTS OF THE PSYCHIATRIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL, MEDICAL, AND LEGAL COMMUNITIES.

I already made my paper feel free to read it. I mean, I think I met the burden of proof. I think it is primarily a contradiction of the legal community.

Quote
So yes, who the fuck is going to self-report that they molested children when it almost certainly will lead to spending the rest of their lives in prison?? See below:

Dude, you have serious deficits in reading comprehension. The people who said CP helped them not molest children were convicted sex offenders! And really, your own fucking quote before mine was of two pedophiles saying CP made them molest kids! SO fuck you, you God damn trolling ass hypocritical fucktard. I seriously hate fucking retards like you.

Quote
But I cannot support legalizing child pornography

Research and children be damned, we don't like them there pedophiles?

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #321 on: January 04, 2014, 02:19:31 am »
Quote
NOTE: pedophilia is NOT object fetishism!

NOTE: Uhm, obviously? What do you think you are doing just opening my eyes to the light? I already read the study. I have great reading comprehension. I understand all of the material in the entire study.

Quote
The few relevant studies suggest that there is indeed an association between deviant sexual fantasies and behavior. The link seems well established in studies in which the
dependent variable involves composite reports of aggressive and coercive sex (e.g., Knight& Sims-Knight, 2003). Indirect evidence has established links of coercive sexual fantasies with rape myth acceptance (Zurbiggen & Yost, 2004) and willingness to commit rape in hypothetical future situations
(Greendlinger & Byrne, 1987; Smeaton & Byrne, 1987).

Yes, they found significant correlation between fantasy and behavior, for all types of deviant fantasy OTHER THAN PEDOPHILIA. Read the entire fucking study.

Quote
PORNOGRAPHY CONSUMPTION
A common means of creating and amplifying sexual fantasies is exposure to pornography (e.g., Byrne & Osland, 2000). Presumably, such effects are stronger when the exposure
is self-initiated (e.g., purchasing magazines and videos, actively searching the Internet) rather than involuntary (e.g., spam initiated, music videos). In both cases, the primary soci-
etal concern—the possibility that pornography promotes sexual misbehavior—has motivated substantial research (e.g., Check & Guloien, 1989; Donnerstein, 1984; Malamuth,
Addison, & Koss, 2000; Murrin & Laws, 1990; Seto, Maric, & Barbaree, 2001; Zillman &Bryant, 1984). If pornography can amplify fantasies (and therefore arousal), it may encour-
age viewers to carry out the fantasized behavior. If the fantasy involved sexual deviance, then the corresponding deviant behavior would be encouraged. Indeed, experimental studies have confirmed the notion that exposing male participants to pornography increases rape fantasies, willingness to rape, acceptance of rape myths, and aggression against female targets (see reviews by Allen, D’Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995; Malamuth et al., 2000). In other words, pornography affects both fantasies and behaviors. In the present research, however, we were concerned with inferences drawn outside of the laboratory. In particular, we focused on college-age men. In such nonoffender groups, are sexual fantasies and behavior associated with pornography use? If so, is that association mediated by a corresponding increase in deviant fantasies?

College aged men are a hot group to study, it really is pretty common in sexual deviancy studies. 

Quote
Note from the last row of Table 1 that 95% of our sample reported at least one deviant fantasy. The category rates were over 50% for frotteurism, object fetishes, and voyeurism.
Least common were fantasies involving pedophilia and transvestism. Sixty-three percent of the participants reported at least one deviant sexual behavior. Among the deviant behaviors, frotteurism was again the most common, being reported by 44% of the sample. Transvestism and pedophilic behaviors were least common.

So? It still showed 5% as pedophilic behaviors, which is five times as high of a rate as the Swiss study into CP consumers.


Pedophilic fantasy does not have a statistically significant relationship with pedophilic behavior!
Try again. That doesn't say what you'd like it to; and the second hypothesis, which is the crux of your argument, is only partially supported at p<.05, not fully supported at p<.01.
That's the last time I'm bothering to read your sources, and that's why I keep questioning your reading comprehension (and also the ability of one to spin data). Your misrepresenting your sources. This is the 2nd time I've called you out on that.
[/quote]

It doesn't support my argument? Here is a direct fucking quote from the study you fucking retard:

Quote
Correlations were calculated between the continuous fantasy and behavior scores. The
values are displayed in the final column of Table 1. Consistent with Hypothesis 1.1, all
were positive and (with the exception of pedophilia) statistically significant at the p < .01
level.


Jesus Christ how did you ever manage to get an advanced degree? It's the second time you called me out on what turned out to be a lack of your own fucking reading comprehension abilities. I should just stop arguing with you because you are just too stupid to even understand anything anyway. My claim was that pedophilic fantasy doesn't have a statistically significant correlation with pedophilic behavior, that is DIRECTLY supported by the above quote (I even bolded it for your fucking retarded ass).

Quote
WHAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT, FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 20 YEARS, SELF-REPORTED STUDIES ARE VIEWED SKEPTICALLY. THEY ARE NOT OBJECTIVE; THEY ARE HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE, AND FOR REASONS THAT ARE TOO LENGTHY FOR ME TO EXPLAIN HERE, THERE ARE NUMEROUS REASONS THAT PEOPLE LIE DURING THEM.

Oh, you seemed so into the study where 85% of pedophiles in prison treatment self reported to their therapists that they were child molesters. It seems you are just selective as fuck, sometimes anecdotal evidence is fine other times it isn't, sometimes self report studies are fine and other times they are not. Fact of the matter is that a massive amount of social science studies rely on self reporting. Why the fuck would a college male lie and say they are child molesters? And the study took measures to minimize lying, for example it was a fully anonymized study.

Quote
PS According to this source, the average age of a child sex offender is 34, which is why I'm discounting the study of college age males at ONE university in an unknown counrty:
www.psychologytoday.com/ blog/ shadow-boxing/ 201206/ how-can-we-spot-child-molester

Wow the average age for a child sex offender is 34 and already 5% of college aged males have engaged in non-fantasy pedophilic behavior. By the time they get to be 40 males are probably way more likely to have molested a child if they are not child pornography consumers, at least if we use the Swiss studies results. 1% of arrested CP consumers, 5% of college aged males, and college aged males are not even to the age where they are likely to molest yet!!!!

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #322 on: January 04, 2014, 02:23:52 am »
Quote
Your wording suggests that you agree with me in essenece, but that my argument wasn't made strongly enough; I'm fine with that, because I don't think this person is worth my time, and he is delusional, and is in a very, very small minority that will never gain popular support in any Western nation (I don't consider Czech Republic to be Western, EU member or not).

Dude you seriously have the most unwarranted inflated ego of anyone I know. Honestly, I fucking dislike you extremely, and think you are a massive douche. Also Uruguay is pretty western, child porn is legal to view there. It is in lots of South American countries. It also is in several European countries, and in Japan. And if you include Jailbait it's legal all over the fucking place, even in Germany it was just recently made illegal to produce commercial porn of 14 year olds. Anyway have fun fighting for the cause, you know the cause of fucking over pedophiles and children at the same time. Because you are pedophobic. Just like a homophobic person.

Quote
Ah, my friend, but being raped is a passive act; you are not the aggressor. That's a huge difference. And that doesn't mean you wouldn't role play rape. ;)

Is that so Dr. ? Well gee thanks for clearing that up for us. So glad to be blessed with your infinite wisdom. How about you work on getting your reading comprehension up to a 9th grade level it's seriously fucking pitiful.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #323 on: January 04, 2014, 02:34:20 am »
I already made my paper feel free to read it. I mean, I think I met the burden of proof. I think it is primarily a contradiction of the legal community.
Then post a link to your fucking paper for scrutiny, moron!

Quote
Second, I selectively quote because I only want to quote relevant portions. Nobody wants to read these lengthy posts, particularly long walls of text.

You quite obviously selectively quote to try to make it seem like you are correct. You just leave out the things that are inconvenient for you.
Oh, pardon me, I thought you were leaving. ArrivaderLa!

1. My intelligence has been tested professionally, it is significantly high
2. My ability to read has been tested by numerous reading comprehension tests throughout my life, I always get perfect scores
3. I am actually mostly an ephebophile maybe a bit of hebephile, but I am attracted to prepubescents, so I would say I am really a pedophile.
PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING REPULSIVE FREAK. GIVE ME YOUR IRL NAME, AND POST COPIES OF SAID TESTS. OH, THAT'S RIGHT, YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE YOU'D BE IN FUCKING PRISON (WHICH IS PRECISELY WHERE YOU BELONG!)




« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 02:44:23 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #324 on: January 04, 2014, 02:38:42 am »
Quote
Your wording suggests that you agree with me in essenece, but that my argument wasn't made strongly enough; I'm fine with that, because I don't think this person is worth my time, and he is delusional, and is in a very, very small minority that will never gain popular support in any Western nation (I don't consider Czech Republic to be Western, EU member or not).
Dude you seriously have the most unwarranted inflated ego of anyone I know. Honestly, I fucking dislike you extremely, and think you are a massive douche. Also Uruguay is pretty NOT [W]estern, [ed: AND] child porn is legal to VIEW, YET NOT TO POSSESS there. It is in lots of South American countries, but at the moment, I can only name one. It also is in several UNNAMED European countries, and in Japan , which is indeed, by definition, quite Western.. And if you include Jailbait (ed note: huh? I thought that the discussion of pre-pubescent children had been established several posts ago; and by consensus) it's legal all over the fucking place, EXCEPT FOR THE ENTIRE UNTIED STATES, IN WHICH EACH STATE HAS IT'S OWN AGE OF CONSENT, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR THOSE UNDER AGE 16, TO NAME TWO WHILE TALKING COMPLETELY OUT OF MY ASS [ed note: please allow me to introduce thou to a semicolon, and its proper use, which shall be used henceforth by thou, thyself, to join clauses]; even in Germany it was just recently made illegal to produce commercial porn of 14 year olds because, as a nation, Germany is less than 150 years old, and in it's current form is about 20-25 years old. Anyway have fun fighting for the cause, you know the cause of fucking over pedophiles (ed note: better than you fucking and recording for all posterity my under 14 family members) and children at the same time. Because you are pedophobic. Just like a homophobic person.

Again, did you read that shit back to yourself, cuntface? BTW, if you start comparing pedophilia to homosexuality, you're going to have problems with more people than me. And 'phobic' implies fear, which is not the case at all; it's more my desire to protect children from the likes of yourself.

Was I speaking to you? NO! So shut the fuck up! AGAIN, I THOUGHT YOU WERE TAKING YOUR SUPERIOR INTELLECT ELSEWHERE?!?


Buona sera!
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 08:04:25 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

merge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +33/-34
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #325 on: January 04, 2014, 03:09:57 am »
http://sexcrimetruths.wordpress.com/

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #326 on: January 07, 2014, 02:22:25 am »
I admit to being an emotionally responsive, frothing at the mouth, ego centric blah blah blah fuck you Merge.

Your bullshit is just that, bullshit. There are never any excuses to permit violators of innocence to continue being violators.

When you are dying, will it matter to you that you defended the violoators of children? When you are shitting out your last meal, how important to you will this stance be?

Will you ever face victims of child pornography, and tell them to their faces that they weren't harmed?

No, you won't. You are a fucking coward, like most pedophiles


May you and all your kind rot in perpetuity, with rats feasting on your fetid, rank, remains.

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries.

Now, you may be dismissed. Go crawl back under your rock from whence you came, before I am forced to taunt you again.

Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #327 on: January 07, 2014, 06:32:56 pm »
Go choke on a pedophile's dick, you cum guzzling cowardly ball of spider snot. Yes, I am a bigot, I freely admit to my hate, as well as my membership in MENSA, fuckwit. I am superior to YOU.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #328 on: January 07, 2014, 06:51:31 pm »
If you care so much about children why don't you want to do things that all empirical research indicates leads to less children being molested? Oh yeah, because you hate pedophiles more than you care about children.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #329 on: January 07, 2014, 07:09:40 pm »
Awe, did I hurt your widdle feewings? Removed your post, did ya? Coward. You are incorrect. Research and studies and by their own admissions, the need for greater stimulation due to desentization leads to MORE children being violated. Being attracted to children is MALADAPTIVE. Damn, all of you defenders of CP have totally missed the fucking boat.

The static images that have already been produced, and are in circulation should be enough, right? Why make more? If the desire is just to VIEW, and not actually violate, the libraries of CP that already exist would NOT be increased. However, more and more is needed to feed the beast. Why?

BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR KIND ARE FULL OF SHIT. SCUM.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #330 on: January 07, 2014, 07:14:09 pm »
Awe, did I hurt your widdle feewings? Removed your post, did ya? Coward. You are incorrect. Research and studies and by their own admissions, the need for greater stimulation due to desentization leads to MORE children being violated. Being attracted to children is MALADAPTIVE. Damn, all of you defenders of CP have totally missed the fucking boat.

The static images that have already been produced, and are in circulation should be enough, right? Why make more? If the desire is just to VIEW, and not actually violate, the libraries of CP that already exist would NOT be increased. However, more and more is needed to feed the beast. Why?

BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR KIND ARE FULL OF SHIT. SCUM.
Nice ;) ...
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #331 on: January 07, 2014, 07:27:49 pm »
Awe, did I hurt your widdle feewings? Removed your post, did ya? Coward. You are incorrect. Research and studies and by their own admissions, the need for greater stimulation due to desentization leads to MORE children being violated. Being attracted to children is MALADAPTIVE. Damn, all of you defenders of CP have totally missed the fucking boat.

The static images that have already been produced, and are in circulation should be enough, right? Why make more? If the desire is just to VIEW, and not actually violate, the libraries of CP that already exist would NOT be increased. However, more and more is needed to feed the beast. Why?

BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR KIND ARE FULL OF SHIT. SCUM.

If the ~50,000,000 currently known images and videos of child pornography were made legal to possess and provided on servers to pedophiles, I doubt many would ever feel the need for more, almost none of them ever get anywhere near that many images. But no, you didn't hurt my feelings. I deleted my post because I don't want to argue with idiots. Just like I don't argue with gaybashers. There is no point in validating your stupidity with a response, although I guess I am being hypocritical in doing so now, at least I am not being hypocritical in causing children to be molested while pretending to be against child molestation. There is no research or studies that indicates that overall access to child pornography causes more children to be molested. There are people who say that, but talk is worthless and that is all they have. The simple truth of the matter is that in every single country that has gone from criminalizing child pornography possession to legalizing its possession, there was an immediate and sharp decline in child molestation rates. The simple truth of the matter is that as child pornography consumption has grown at an exponential rate even in countries where it is illegal, there has not been a correlative increase in child sex abuse but rather there has been a continued decrease in child sex abuse. Your opinion has been demonstrated as wrong, all of the facts taken together show you as being wrong, your hypothesis has no supporting evidence and an abundance of evidence showing that it is the complete opposite of reality. That is the truth, it isn't my opinion it is the fact of the matter, and if you cared to be open minded and looked into it yourself with a rational mind you would see the same thing because that's just the way it is.

As far as maladaptive goes, well, lots of things are maladaptive. Arguably homosexuality is maladaptive, at least evolutionarily it certainly seems to be. Pedophilia is certainly pathological, something that homosexuality isn't. But if pedophiles don't act on their urges, as many of them don't, it really isn't a big deal. Hating people for what they want to do is a sign of being a primitive being, it really is. A lot of people don't even want to do what they want to do! Nothing stops us from living in a world where everybody is accepted and shown respect so long as they don't hurt others, the only thing in practice that stops us from living in a much better world is ignorant emotional fucktards like you. People like you are holding humanity back and I will honestly never forgive you for it. It's obvious as shit that pedophiles who just look at pictures and who don't pay for them or anything like that are not doing anything to hurt anyone. It doesn't even deserve an argument, it's just plain as day, you should just know that pictures are not magic items that can cause harm to the people depicted in them when viewed. It is absolutely ludicrous to think otherwise, and nobody with any fucking sense would think otherwise, and really the only reason anybody thinks otherwise is because so many people are just fucking idiots. You are fucking idiots and not only are you idiots but you are dedicated idiots, even when people show you the truth you just close your eyes and plug your ears and refuse to see it or hear it. And that is because you have hate in you, and it isn't well placed hate either, because you don't hate people for the harm they cause to others but you just hate people because what they feel is not what you feel, and that makes you no better than a gay basher. 
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 07:30:24 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #332 on: January 07, 2014, 07:48:12 pm »
If you care so much about children why don't you want to do things that all empirical research indicates leads to less children being molested? Oh yeah, because you hate pedophiles more than you care about children.
The point that I was trying to make is that there is very little empirical evidence, and I'm not the one with something to prove, so I'm not wasting my time wading through studies.

And self-report studies are not all that empirical, and in psychology, they're much less frequently used today (as in last decade) than they were in say the 60s-early 2000s

Yes they try to control for other variables, but no self-report study can control for the fact that people lie (not necessarily because they need to; even if they have anonymity, people tend to want to be percieved by others in a way in which they would not be harshly judged. Again, even with anonynimnty).

And studies of college-age males or not very good indicators of potential for molestation, because the average molestor is much older than the average college-age male. And in that study, there were very few self-reported pedophiles.

Plus, those studies are analyizing many different types of quote/unquote aberrant sexual behaviors.

I let my rage get the better of me with merge because I found him to be repugnant, but my main gripes with him were that:

1. He was claiming to be writing an academic paper.

2. He had not collected any data of his own and did not understand how to run very simple stats, and I guarantee didn't know the 1st thing about experimental design.

3. He made some claims about said paper that were unsupported? Why? Because any paper worth it's weight in salt must be reviewed by your peers (i.e. those in your field of study with your level of education or higher) before it has any merit.

4. He has not submitted said paper for review by anyone, and I'd bet my life it's not posted on his blog

5. What he is actually writing is called a review of literature which is a bit amateur. And he was unqualified to even do that because not only did he not know how to interpret stats, be he was incapable of casting a critical eye on published studies for flaws in experimental design, which is required in a review of literature.

6. He has, by his own admission no college education, which makes him grossly underqualified for anything other than stating personal opinions.

7. He made unsubstantiated claims about his level of intellect that he could not back up with evidence. He claimed to be tested for exceptional reading comprehension. Oh yeah? Me too. From K-6th grade (which is when they stopped that kind of testing in my district). I can't prove that though. I don't have copies of those test results. And I'm not sure that I can even get copies of them now. My point on that is that those tests are conducted at a very young age.

8. He admitted that he was engaged in the CP trade, which means he can never link his IRL ID here, or to anything that would associate him with the handle merge. So it's just a bunch of hot air IMHO.

PS I wasn't planning on coming back, but since this got bumped a few minutes ago, I thought I'd clarify that. I should know better than to lose my temper in an argument, because it ultimately detracts from the argument.

EDIT: And +1 to @Calcium345and @twatWaffle, but @twatWaffle, try not to let your contempt get the better of you as I did.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 07:50:14 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #333 on: January 07, 2014, 08:35:15 pm »
@ JSC, I appreciate the feedback. I have been known to be a pedantic, overblown, arrogant, condescending asshat.

I do attempt to mitigate my arsehood with good deeds, warm fuzzies, and sharing the PLUR.

This debate though, is futile.

I will NEVER agree that real images of CP are not harmful. Images of real children being sexualized will NEVER be acceptable to me.

If and only if, CP was just an image, then an artistic rendering of children being violated would suffice to satisfy the urges of pedophiles. However, that is not the case.

If I had my druthers, producers, promoters, posessors of CP would all be put to death. Any who profit from the images of real children being sexualized would be exterminated, with prejudice. I am a bit mad on this subject, not at all rational. That's why I can't practice. I am too attached now, incapable of being objective.

I am incapable of viewing pedophiles and child pornographers as anything but parasitical mistakes of nature.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #334 on: January 07, 2014, 08:46:29 pm »
Quote
1. He was claiming to be writing an academic paper.

Well, it was extremely well cited. I don't think he claimed to be going for a Doctorate did he?

Quote
2. He had not collected any data of his own and did not understand how to run very simple stats, and I guarantee didn't know the 1st thing about experimental design.

He didn't appear to intend to carry out any experiment. To me it looked like he analyzed the body of available data. It seems a bit strange that you or anyone else would care if he ran any experiments or not, he linked to several papers explaining the experiments of doctorate level researchers and used their findings to synthesize new information. I didn't see him make any claims about stats at all, short of the ones in the papers that he provided direct citations to and quotations from. I did see you make a complete ass of yourself misinterpreting the papers that you obviously barely read though.

Quote
3. He made some claims about said paper that were unsupported? Why? Because any paper worth it's weight in salt must be reviewed by your peers (i.e. those in your field of study with your level of education or higher) before it has any merit.

I did not see any unsupported claims, although I did see you continuously say that claims were unsupported even after you were repeatedly linked to the studies in question, and shown citations including page numbers. My impression is that you are not a very intelligent person, because you had a lot of trouble comprehending the linked to research, and were way off base multiple times. Also, many of the articles that he linked to appear to have been published in professional peer reviewed journals, a fact you would have immediately noticed if you had read any of them.

Quote
4. He has not submitted said paper for review by anyone, and I'd bet my life it's not posted on his blog

Well, it is on his blog, so I guess you should kill yourself. Also, I don't think his intention was for the paper to be peer reviewed, although I would love for it to be, because it is very solid in my opinion, and does point out a methodological flaw in many of the law enforcement studies that has never been clearly pointed out in any of the academic literature I have read, although it has been alluded to by at least one researcher (primarily that the arrested CP offenders are most likely to be hands on offenders, and then law enforcement incorrectly extrapolates from this group to the general child pornography consuming community).

Quote
5. What he is actually writing is called a review of literature which is a bit amateur. And he was unqualified to even do that because not only did he not know how to interpret stats, be he was incapable of casting a critical eye on published studies for flaws in experimental design, which is required in a review of literature.

What have you written? Let's see your response. You don't have shit. Which is a bit nothing. He didn't interpret stats at all. Show one instance where he misinterpreted stats. Every single time you have said he misrepresented the research linked to he gave a clear as day citation to the exact part of the research that supported his claims, your inability to comprehend information doesn't mean you are automatically right it means you are a fucking idiot. He did an excellent job of finding flaws in experimental designs, primarily in being the only person I have ever seen who showed citations that clearly showed that the 1% of child pornography consumers detected who are followed up on are more likely to have child molestation manuals and this phenomenon has tainted the pool of child pornography consumers in the studies that law enforcement use to make their propaganda with. If that isn't a critical eye that caught a methodological error I don't know what is!

Quote
6. He has, by his own admission no college education, which makes him grossly underqualified for anything other than stating personal opinions.

If your reading comprehension was a bit better you would realize that he said he had no college education in psychology, but if you knew what an autodidact was you would realize that having a college degree doesn't automatically determine how smart you are.

Quote
7. He made unsubstantiated claims about his level of intellect that he could not back up with evidence. He claimed to be tested for exceptional reading comprehension. Oh yeah? Me too. From K-6th grade (which is when they stopped that kind of testing in my district). I can't prove that though. I don't have copies of those test results. And I'm not sure that I can even get copies of them now. My point on that is that those tests are conducted at a very young age.

It seems strange that somebody with an "advanced degree" wouldn't remember the SAT or ACT reading comprehension tests. I do believe that you stopped taking such tests in about the 6th grade though, it makes perfect sense.

Quote
8. He admitted that he was engaged in the CP trade, which means he can never link his IRL ID here, or to anything that would associate him with the handle merge. So it's just a bunch of hot air IMHO.

This is a blatant lie.

 
Quote
PS I wasn't planning on coming back, but since this got bumped a few minutes ago, I thought I'd clarify that. I should know better than to lose my temper in an argument, because it ultimately detracts from the argument.

You don't have an argument, all you have is a temper.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 11:26:44 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #335 on: January 08, 2014, 02:45:11 am »
Quote
1. He was claiming to be writing an academic paper.

Well, it was extremely well cited. I don't think he claimed to be going for a Doctorate did he?
Was it? I've yet to read it; it was never provided for scrutiny. Citing a source or two is not the equivilant of a peer reviewed study. It's, at best, amateur.

Quote
2. He had not collected any data of his own and did not understand how to run very simple stats, and I guarantee didn't know the 1st thing about experimental design.

He didn't appear to intend to carry out any experiment. To me it looked like he analyzed the body of available data. It seems a bit strange that you or anyone else would care if he ran any experiments or not, he linked to several papers explaining the experiments of doctorate level researchers and used their findings to synthesize new information. I didn't see him make any claims about stats at all, short of the ones in the papers that he provided direct citations to and quotations from. I did see you make a complete ass of yourself misinterpreting the papers that you obviously barely read though.
OK you're as uneducated as he is. By experimental design, I don't mean an actual experiment. I mean putting forth a hypothesis(es), identifying independent and dependent variables, gathering empirical data in a way that controls for variables that could potentially affect your study that you do not intend to or have no way to measure. And after that, running basic statistics. I'm going to stop here; if you'd like more information, then ask. But if someone writing an academic paper with the intention of demonstrating correlation doesn't know what a regression analysis is, and doesn't know how to calculate a corelation coefficient, then they are unqualified to write said paper.

Oh an, PS, correlation does not equal causation. Any 1st year undergraduate would be familiar with that.

Quote
3. He made some claims about said paper that were unsupported? Why? Because any paper worth it's weight in salt must be reviewed by your peers (i.e. those in your field of study with your level of education or higher) before it has any merit.

I did not see any unsupported claims, although I did see you continuously say that claims were unsupported even after you were repeatedly linked to the studies in question, and shown citations including page numbers. My impression is that you are not a very intelligent person, because you had a lot of trouble comprehending the linked to research, and were way off base multiple times. Also, many of the articles that he linked to appear to have been published in professional peer reviewed journals, a fact you would have immediately noticed if you had read any of them.
What are your credentials? And what qualifies you to analyze anything?

Who, exactly, in the field, reviewed his paper? I really don't care what your impression of me is, I write circles around your pedophilic self. I understood the research in the one study that I quoted.

He misrepresented one source (majorly, because it 100% disagreed with him; read the NYT article); he doesn't understand the flaws in the other (which, BTW, if you read, in part disagrees with his hypothesis).
I highlighted the problems with that. After that, It's not worth my time.

I don't care if you think I'm unintelligent; you're not gettting me to lose my temper again. Sorry. Who are you again, merge?

Quote
4. He has not submitted said paper for review by anyone, and I'd bet my life it's not posted on his blog

Well, it is on his blog, so I guess you should kill yourself. Also, I don't think his intention was for the paper to be peer reviewed, although I would love for it to be, because it is very solid in my opinion, and does point out a methodological flaw in many of the law enforcement studies that has never been clearly pointed out in any of the academic literature I have read, although it has been alluded to by at least one researcher (primarily that the arrested CP offenders are most likely to be hands on offenders, and then law enforcement incorrectly extrapolates from this group to the general child pornography consuming community).
He doesn't have more than a high school education. He doesn't have peers who are qualified to review his review of literature, which is what his quote/unquote academic paper is. If he is unfamiliar with what that is, then he doesn't know how to write an academic paper.

PS Psychologists and psychiatrists who work in the penal system are not, by definiton, LAW ENFORCEMENT

Quote
5. What he is actually writing is called a review of literature which is a bit amateur. And he was unqualified to even do that because not only did he not know how to interpret stats, be he was incapable of casting a critical eye on published studies for flaws in experimental design, which is required in a review of literature.

What have you written? Let's see your response. You don't have shit. Which is a bit nothing. He didn't interpret stats at all. Show one instance where he misinterpreted stats. Every single time you have said he misrepresented the research linked to he gave a clear as day citation to the exact part of the research that supported his claims, your inability to comprehend information doesn't mean you are automatically right it means you are a fucking idiot.
When you (and your alter ego, merge--because it's clear as day (for many reasons) that you are, in fact, one in the same--provide your IRL credentials, I'll provide mine).

And <ahem> the NYT article did not support his hypothesis. I found my sources in 5 minutes and didn't bother reading them; he's supposed to be researching this topic, so he should know better. He completely misread a NEWSPAPER article. If you can't properly interpet a newspaper article, then you are not qualified to interpret post-graduate level work. And for the record, I've written several reviews of literature. They're terribly easy to write.

He did an excellent job of finding flaws in experimental designs, primarily in being the only person I have ever seen who showed citations that clearly showed that the 1% of child pornography consumers detected who are followed up on are more likely to have child molestation manuals and this phenomenon has tainted the pool of child pornography consumers in the studies that law enforcement use to make their propaganda with. If that isn't a critical eye that caught a methodological error I don't know what is!
You're correct; you have no idea what I meant by that. Google critical eye. If your review of literature finds ZERO flaws within your own sources, then it's worthless. What do you think the purpose of writing such a paper is.

Quote
6. He has, by his own admission no college education, which makes him grossly underqualified for anything other than stating personal opinions.

If your reading comprehension was a bit better you would realize that he said he had no college education in psychology, but if you knew what an autodidact was you would realize that having a college degree doesn't automatically determine how smart you are.
Really, did he deny that? Anyone with a college education who was equated with a 3rd year undergrad would be offended, which is why I said it reflected poorly on his level of education. And having some college education does NOT equal holding a degree. Anyone so eager to prove a point would surely mention their field of study, no?

He said that I overstated his level of education and took it as a compliment. Where did he state that he had an UNDERGRADUATE degree, and what field was it in? <sigh> You're as transparent as glass merge/m0rph

Quote
7. He made unsubstantiated claims about his level of intellect that he could not back up with evidence. He claimed to be tested for exceptional reading comprehension. Oh yeah? Me too. From K-6th grade (which is when they stopped that kind of testing in my district). I can't prove that though. I don't have copies of those test results. And I'm not sure that I can even get copies of them now. My point on that is that those tests are conducted at a very young age.

It seems strange that somebody with an "advanced degree" wouldn't remember the SAT or ACT reading comprehension tests. I do believe that you stopped taking such tests in about the 6th grade though, it makes perfect sense.
Well since you've asked, my SAT score was 1380. And I took them once. Seems funny that someone as educated as you are, merge/m0rph, wouldn't think to ask about my GRE scores. Or better yet, my LSATs.

And you know damn well what my degree is in, which is why you, coincidentally, like merge, didn't challenge me on. Coincedence? Oh OK. Sure.

And SATs scores are termed verbal scores, not reading comprehension. And he didn't mention what tests, precisely he was talking about. Reading comprehension is an elementary term, and I've already asked you twice to stop parroting my language

Quote
8. He admitted that he was engaged in the CP trade, which means he can never link his IRL ID here, or to anything that would associate him with the handle merge. So it's just a bunch of hot air IMHO.

This is a blatant lie.
Show me where he disavowed it.  How many times did I call him a pedophile, and, exactly, how many times did he disavow that claim? He ignored my accusations several times. Silence speaks volumes.

<sigh> But since you've asked, here:

Why is it despicable? Who cares? Why do you care if I look at a picture of a kid being molested. Who did I hurt in doing that? The molested kid has no fucking idea that I did it, they are not negatively affected in any scientifically measurable way, the producer has no fucking idea I did it, the kid is already molested if I look at it or not and nothing is going to change that, and the producer isn't going to molest the kid more or less regardless of if I looked at it or not. If I go to some P2P network and download some CP and look at it, It is honestly a completely victimless crime. The victim causing crime was the molestation of the child, the photographing of the child being molested. If you throw in Private Information Retrieval it is just totally obviously a totally victimless crime, nobody would even be able to tell if I looked at CP or not, not even the person who runs the fucking server I would get it from.

Quote
PS I wasn't planning on coming back, but since this got bumped a few minutes ago, I thought I'd clarify that. I should know better than to lose my temper in an argument, because it ultimately detracts from the argument.

You don't have an argument, all you have is a temper.
You don't say; have I lost my temper with you?

PS Aside from the fact that you didn't bother to change your style of writing, diction, or syntax--which is how I know I'm currently speaking with the same person--you also don't know how to quote properly (not to mention your tone and level of emotionality and instability)

Don't you have some CP to jerk-off to now? Would you care to cite your blog again?

Ciao! Piacere.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

doctorwhat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2594
  • Karma: +295/-160
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #336 on: January 08, 2014, 02:47:26 am »
i like that you take time to format your insults i usually just say dudes a fag and move on ya mean nigga?
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAGIC-randomprincessnikki

immortalQ cant pay his debts to the honorable doctor, also he tends to smell.

smity is shitty.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #337 on: January 08, 2014, 02:50:36 am »
@ JSC, I appreciate the feedback. This debate though, is futile.

Agreed. It's rather one sided. And those of us with young family members tend to, with good reason, become upset by this debate.

I will NEVER agree that real images of CP are not harmful. Images of real children being sexualized will NEVER be acceptable to me.

I am incapable of viewing pedophiles and child pornographers as anything but parasitical mistakes of nature.
If you read through the thread, we are in the majority. It's rather coincidental that just as merge disapeared, m0rph appeared with precisely the same argument, no? And that he's the only person on the planet who's read the paper in question is indeed telling.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #338 on: January 08, 2014, 03:55:40 am »
Quote
Was it? I've yet to read it; it was never provided for scrutiny. Citing a source or two is not the equivilant of a peer reviewed study. It's, at best, amateur.

It was linked to. You saw the link to the blog. Click on it if you want to. It was provided. It cited something like 40 different sources, although the total number of claims backed by citation was closer to 70. 

Quote
OK you're as uneducated as he is. By experimental design, I don't mean an actual experiment. I mean putting forth a hypothesis(es), identifying independent and dependent variables, gathering empirical data in a way that controls for variables that could potentially affect your study that you do not intend to or have no way to measure. And after that, running basic statistics. I'm going to stop here; if you'd like more information, then ask. But if someone writing an academic paper with the intention of demonstrating correlation doesn't know what a regression analysis is, and doesn't know how to calculate a corelation coefficient, then they are unqualified to write said paper.

The hypothesis is that child pornography consumption doesn't lead to child molestation. This is supported by numerous independent pieces of evidence. One thing it is supported by is the fact that as child pornography consumption rates are growing exponentially since the early 90's, child sexual abuse rates have been plummeting. A good argument that you could have made if you had two brain cells would be that child pornography availability is used to groom children and normalize sexual abuse to them, as they are exposed to their peers in sexualized situations by pedophiles with child pornography, and this leads to lower overall rates of reported sexual abuse when in reality there could be high rates of actually perpetrated sexual abuse. That would be a great argument you could have made, but you are too stupid to make good arguments so I will make that one for you. But I don't think it is true, although it does merit consideration. At the end of the day, I honestly don't personally give a fuck if child pornography consumption leads to higher rates of child sexual abuse. Having free access to guns could very well lead to higher homicide rates, it doesn't mean I want to restrict the freedom of everybody because of a few bad apples. And when it comes to something like child pornography, where the people who get busted are literally ruined for the rest of their lives, it's just fucking absolutely disgusting to do that to people who haven't actually harmed anybody. And viewing child pornography doesn't inherently in itself harm people, and anyone who doesn't believe in fucking magic knows that to be the case. I will wait for people to do bad things before I condemn them, I don't have such a fascination with precrime in the name of the children as you do. And precrime in the name of the children is actually hurting children too, what are you going to think when your young relatives end up labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives because they took naked pictures of each other? Or what if one of your young relatives grows up and turns out to be a pedophile, and doesn't molest kids at all but one day gets some CP off a P2P network and then might as well have just molested kids in the first fucking place thanks to the sentence he will get, and thanks to you dumb fucking idiots who say that people who look at pictures are the same as people who molest kids.

Maybe the research supporting child pornography decriminalization can be contested in some cases, but so can all of the research supporting its criminalization. When you have a field of study that has reports from less than 1% to more than 85% of child pornography consumers are child molesters you know that the field is just fucking propaganda don't you? But I don't think it is fair that you get to use propaganda and bullshit to ruin peoples lives who factually did not abuse children, but we can't use the same body of research to say that this shouldn't happen? Nothing in merges paper was unsupported by scientific evidence, if you have a problem with anything that was said then you should attack the papers that were cited, because everything he said is traceable to peer reviewed journals and straight out of the mouths of law enforcement agencies. Sorry, but I have seen drug war propaganda and I know how these fucking slave traders are, I don't believe a single fucking thing that they say and if there is contested research with people going in two directions I am strongly inclined to side against the people who I know produce mass propaganda to brainwash people to justify locking up millions of people to funnel tax money to the fucking prison industrial complex. All of the research in this area is complete bullshit and can be used to paint whatever picture you want to paint. That means it isn't science, it is propaganda, and we shouldn't be ruining peoples lives because of fucking propaganda.

And your hypothesis actually does have less supporting it. If we go off the raw fucking data, your hypothesis falls apart. Child pornography consumption rates are at an all time high. Child molestation rates are at an all time low. You are too stupid to even have a good argument against this interpretation of the data, so I gave you one and said I don't even give a fuck about it! I don't care if 90% of CP consumers rape little kids, I am not going to fuck over 10% of the ones who don't because I don't believe in fucking precrime. Just like I don't care if 90% of heroin junkies are going to go and start robbing people to get a fix so they can stop withdrawals, it isn't a fucking reason to make heroin illegal it is a reason to make robbing people illegal. Once you go down that path it never ends, anything can be a statistical indicator of criminality. Why don't we lock all of the black people up, why don't we lock all of the poor people up, why don't we all just live in fucking prisons to protect the children from everybody?

Quote
Oh an, PS, correlation does not equal causation. Any 1st year undergraduate would be familiar with that.

Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint. But I can ignore totally all of merges claims and focus on yours. You think that child pornography consumption leads to children being molested. There is no demonstrable positive correlation there! There are only negative correlations EVERYWHERE between child pornography availability and consumption and child molestation. So if we take the raw fucking data your hypothesis has no support.

Quote
What are your credentials? And what qualifies you to analyze anything? Who, exactly, in the field, reviewed his paper? I really don't care what your impression of me is, I write circles around your pedophilic self. I understood the research in the one study that I quoted.

You really didn't though. You really had a horrible grasp of what the paper was talking about or how it was pertinent to the situation at hand. Your ability to comprehend verbal information is pathetic. You are a fucking retard. My credentials are I am not a fucking retard. It makes me infinitely more qualified to analyze anything than you are. His paper drew directly from papers in peer reviewed journals. It was directly from citations directly from quotes straight from law enforcement for fucks sake, he took their fucking arguments together and turned them against them when taken in whole. And it's so easy to do that to people who don't understand what they are doing. If anything his paper turned propaganda against itself. Welcome to information synthesis. Law enforcement brags how they spend their resources getting the worst of the worst CP offenders with molestation manuals (despite the fact people are in prison for cartoons), and it just means they biased the very research they turn around and cite when they say they need to keep child pornography possession illegal because 85%+ of the people studied (aka: busted) with it were "detected" (disputed by people in the field who analyzed the study) to have molested children (oh yeah and one of the researchers who made that study pointed out that law enforcement did this and manipulated the results of the research for their propaganda, but you don't even need him to tell you because law enforcement is too fucking stupid to not brag about biasing the studies that they use for propaganda!). 

Quote
He misrepresented one source (majorly, because it 100% disagreed with him; read the NYT article); he doesn't understand the flaws in the other (which, BTW, if you read, in part disagrees with his hypothesis).
I highlighted the problems with that. After that, It's not worth my time.

You have a serious problem with taking information from multiple sources to derive new information not present in any of the sources. The NYT article said child molestation rates are decreasing. That is the ONLY relevant data point taken from that article. That is contrasted to OTHER sources, that claim (truthfully) that child pornography consumption has been growing at an exponential rate since the early 90's. When these two distinct data points are taken together they can be used the synthesize new information, information that is supported by both citations only when taken together, that an increase in child pornography consumption did not correlate with an increase in child sex abuse rates but rather NEGATIVELY CORRELATED WITH IT, THE SAME PHENOMENON THAT WAS NOTED IN ACTUAL STUDIES THAT DID FOCUS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CP AVAILABILITY AND CHILD SEX ABUSE RATES. Welcome to, as merge pointed out, information synthesis, you stupid illiterate fuckwad.

Quote
I don't care if you think I'm unintelligent; you're not gettting me to lose my temper again. Sorry. Who are you again, merge?

I am not merge but I am 100% Libertarian as they come.

Quote
He doesn't have more than a high school education. He doesn't have peers who are qualified to review his review of literature, which is what his quote/unquote academic paper is. If he is unfamiliar with what that is, then he doesn't know how to write an academic paper.

Anybody can review it, it's published for anyone to see. Go review it and critique it then. Go get some people in the field to review it and critique it. Do you think merge had the life long ambition of publishing his paper in a scientific journal? Do you think that was merges thesis or something? That wasn't my impression. My impression was he wanted to show people that his argument is actually entirely supported by facts and indeed by academic literature. If people are intelligent they can then read it and see, if not I highly doubt he gives a flying fuck. I am personally very interested in your critique of the paper, and I look forward to you using the argument that I gave you against it against me! 

Quote
PS Psychologists and psychiatrists who work in the penal system are not, by definiton, LAW ENFORCEMENT

They are part of the prison industrial complex , I don't differentiate between them.

Quote
When you (and your alter ego, merge--because it's clear as day (for many reasons) that you are, in fact, one in the same--provide your IRL credentials, I'll provide mine).

My credentials are I am not a complete fucking retard. My credentials are my arguments and the logic soundness of them. I don't need credentials from some third party to know that I am correct, I just need to know that I am correct and observe that you cannot prove that I am not correct, nor can anybody else, because I am right.

Quote
And <ahem> the NYT article did not support his hypothesis. I found my sources in 5 minutes and didn't bother reading them; he's supposed to be researching this topic, so he should know better. He completely misread a NEWSPAPER article. If you can't properly interpet a newspaper article, then you are not qualified to interpret post-graduate level work. And for the record, I've written several reviews of literature. They're terribly easy to write.

Please stop reminding me of your inability to analyze information from multiple sources to come up with new information that isn't present in any of the individual sources. It is boring.

"Jesus H Christ has an IQ of 30" - citation one
"People with IQ's of 30 are retarded" - citation two

My claim : "Jesus H Christ is a retard"1,2

see how information synthesis works? No , you don't, because you are retarded, and you keep arguing "omg none of those sources said Jesus H Christ is retarded! you misinterpreted them!", like a retard, which is actually more supporting evidence of my hypothesis that you are a fucking retard, so I guess I will use this little chat between us as my third citation.

Quote
You're correct; you have no idea what I meant by that. Google critical eye. If your review of literature finds ZERO flaws within your own sources, then it's worthless. What do you think the purpose of writing such a paper is.

Oh there are flaws in his sources. Decreased child molestation reported rates are not the same thing as decreased rates of child molestation. Maybe availability of child pornography leads to children being groomed with it and conditioned into thinking that it is normal for them to be abused and it acts sort of like advertising to condition their minds, so they don't report when they are abused, giving the false impression of child pornography availability leading to reduced rates of molestation when it really just leads to more molestation that isn't reported. That is worth considering. It is worth considering that in at least the Czech Republic there were major social changes correlating with the decrease of child molestation rates, and child molestation rates were falling well before child pornography was legalized, although the studies in Japan and Denmark help control for at least the major social changes during the same time period. There are tons of flaws in all of the research, because it is bullshit social science propaganda. The difference is that you are using bullshit social science propaganda to lock innocent people up, and I am using bullshit social science propaganda to try to keep innocent people free. Because common people are fucking easily manipulated sheep who don't have a critical eye for god damn anything, and if the prison industrial complex is going to brainwash them with bullshit then I might as well brainwash them with bullshit too. Best case scenario is I am right and you are wrong, worst case scenario is it's all fucking propaganda pseudoscience bullshit, the difference is in reality innocent people who did nothing other than look at fucking pictures are being treated like people who rape and mutilate little babies and it's fucking wrong beyond belief.   


Quote
Really, did he deny that? Anyone with a college education who was equated with a 3rd year undergrad would be offended, which is why I said it reflected poorly on his level of education. And having some college education does NOT equal holding a degree. Anyone so eager to prove a point would surely mention their field of study, no?

I mean, if I had the education of a 3rd year student of every field I would be a pretty smart fucker wouldn't I ? I think my specialty is definitely computer science, but in general I tend to know a good deal about a wide range of subjects, including psychology, which I do find particularly interesting despite having no formal training in. 

Quote
He said that I overstated his level of education and took it as a compliment. Where did he state that he had an UNDERGRADUATE degree, and what field was it in? <sigh> You're as transparent as glass merge/m0rph

Who really gives a fuck anyway? Argumentum ad hominem much? Do you know those big words? You can't attack the argument so you attack the man who says it.

Quote
And SATs scores are termed verbal scores, not reading comprehension. And he didn't mention what tests, precisely he was talking about. Reading comprehension is an elementary term, and I've already asked you twice to stop parroting my language

Reading comprehension is a part of the verbal intelligence tested by SATs. Believe me, you didn't invent the term.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 04:04:22 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #339 on: January 08, 2014, 04:27:41 am »
@ JSC, I appreciate the feedback. This debate though, is futile.

Agreed. It's rather one sided. And those of us with young family members tend to, with good reason, become upset by this debate.

I will NEVER agree that real images of CP are not harmful. Images of real children being sexualized will NEVER be acceptable to me.

I am incapable of viewing pedophiles and child pornographers as anything but parasitical mistakes of nature.
If you read through the thread, we are in the majority. It's rather coincidental that just as merge disapeared, m0rph appeared with precisely the same argument, no? And that he's the only person on the planet who's read the paper in question is indeed telling.

Selectively accepting of anecdotal evidence, selectively accepting of academic evidence, selectively quote people, AND selectively believe that correlation is causation. Shocking.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #340 on: January 08, 2014, 05:00:23 am »
Quote
Was it? I've yet to read it; it was never provided for scrutiny. Citing a source or two is not the equivilant of a peer reviewed study. It's, at best, amateur.
It was linked to. You saw the link to the blog. Click on it if you want to. It was provided. It cited something like 40 different sources, although the total number of claims backed by citation was closer to 70.
If it's all the same, I'd rather not. And you're the only one who's read it. 
Quote
OK you're as uneducated as he is. By experimental design, I don't mean an actual experiment. I mean putting forth a hypothesis(es), identifying independent and dependent variables, gathering empirical data in a way that controls for variables that could potentially affect your study that you do not intend to or have no way to measure. And after that, running basic statistics. I'm going to stop here; if you'd like more information, then ask. But if someone writing an academic paper with the intention of demonstrating correlation doesn't know what a regression analysis is, and doesn't know how to calculate a corelation coefficient, then they are unqualified to write said paper.

The hypothesis is that child pornography consumption doesn't lead to child molestation. This is supported by numerous independent pieces of evidence. One thing it is supported by is the fact that as child pornography consumption rates are growing exponentially since the early 90's, child sexual abuse rates have been plummeting. A good argument that you could have made if you had two brain cells would be that child pornography availability is used to groom children and normalize sexual abuse to them, as they are exposed to their peers in sexualized situations by pedophiles with child pornography, and this leads to lower overall rates of reported sexual abuse when in reality there could be high rates of actually perpetrated sexual abuse. That would be a great argument you could have made, but you are too stupid to make good arguments so I will make that one for you. But I don't think it is true, although it does merit consideration. At the end of the day, I honestly don't personally give a fuck if child pornography consumption leads to higher rates of child sexual abuse. Having free access to guns could very well lead to higher homicide rates, it doesn't mean I want to restrict the freedom of everybody because of a few bad apples. And when it comes to something like child pornography, where the people who get busted are literally ruined for the rest of their lives, it's just fucking absolutely disgusting to do that to people who haven't actually harmed anybody. And viewing child pornography doesn't inherently in itself harm people, and anyone who doesn't believe in fucking magic knows that to be the case. I will wait for people to do bad things before I condemn them, I don't have such a fascination with precrime in the name of the children as you do. And precrime in the name of the children is actually hurting children too, what are you going to think when your young relatives end up labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives because they took naked pictures of each other? Or what if one of your young relatives grows up and turns out to be a pedophile, and doesn't molest kids at all but one day gets some CP off a P2P network and then might as well have just molested kids in the first fucking place thanks to the sentence he will get, and thanks to you dumb fucking idiots who say that people who look at pictures are the same as people who molest kids.

Maybe the research supporting child pornography decriminalization can be contested in some cases, but so can all of the research supporting its criminalization. When you have a field of study that has reports from less than 1% to more than 85% of child pornography consumers are child molesters you know that the field is just fucking propaganda don't you? But I don't think it is fair that you get to use propaganda and bullshit to ruin peoples lives who factually did not abuse children, but we can't use the same body of research to say that this shouldn't happen? Nothing in merges paper was unsupported by scientific evidence, if you have a problem with anything that was said then you should attack the papers that were cited, because everything he said is traceable to peer reviewed journals and straight out of the mouths of law enforcement agencies. Sorry, but I have seen drug war propaganda and I know how these fucking slave traders are, I don't believe a single fucking thing that they say and if there is contested research with people going in two directions I am strongly inclined to side against the people who I know produce mass propaganda to brainwash people to justify locking up millions of people to funnel tax money to the fucking prison industrial complex. All of the research in this area is complete bullshit and can be used to paint whatever picture you want to paint. That means it isn't science, it is propaganda, and we shouldn't be ruining peoples lives because of fucking propaganda.

And your hypothesis actually does have less supporting it. If we go off the raw fucking data, your hypothesis falls apart. Child pornography consumption rates are at an all time high. Child molestation rates are at an all time low. You are too stupid to even have a good argument against this interpretation of the data, so I gave you one and said I don't even give a fuck about it! I don't care if 90% of CP consumers rape little kids, I am not going to fuck over 10% of the ones who don't because I don't believe in fucking precrime. Just like I don't care if 90% of heroin junkies are going to go and start robbing people to get a fix so they can stop withdrawals, it isn't a fucking reason to make heroin illegal it is a reason to make robbing people illegal. Once you go down that path it never ends, anything can be a statistical indicator of criminality. Why don't we lock all of the black people up, why don't we lock all of the poor people up, why don't we all just live in fucking prisons to protect the children from everybody?
tl;dr

Quote
Oh an, PS, correlation does not equal causation. Any 1st year undergraduate would be familiar with that.

Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.
Uh huh. Sure. And your level of education, field of study, and profession is?

Quote
What are your credentials? And what qualifies you to analyze anything? Who, exactly, in the field, reviewed his paper? I really don't care what your impression of me is, I write circles around your pedophilic self. I understood the research in the one study that I quoted.

You really didn't though. You really had a horrible grasp of what the paper was talking about or how it was pertinent to the situation at hand. Your ability to comprehend verbal information is pathetic. You are a fucking retard. My credentials are I am not a fucking retard. It makes me infinitely more qualified to analyze anything than you are. His paper drew directly from papers in peer reviewed journals. It was directly from citations directly from quotes straight from law enforcement for fucks sake, he took their fucking arguments together and turned them against them when taken in whole. And it's so easy to do that to people who don't understand what they are doing. If anything his paper turned propaganda against itself. Welcome to information synthesis. Law enforcement brags how they spend their resources getting the worst of the worst CP offenders with molestation manuals (despite the fact people are in prison for cartoons), and it just means they biased the very research they turn around and cite when they say they need to keep child pornography possession illegal because 85%+ of the people studied (aka: busted) with it were "detected" (disputed by people in the field who analyzed the study) to have molested children (oh yeah and one of the researchers who made that study pointed out that law enforcement did this and manipulated the results of the research for their propaganda, but you don't even need him to tell you because law enforcement is too fucking stupid to not brag about biasing the studies that they use for propaganda!).
tl;dr

Quote
He misrepresented one source (majorly, because it 100% disagreed with him; read the NYT article); he doesn't understand the flaws in the other (which, BTW, if you read, in part disagrees with his hypothesis).
I highlighted the problems with that. After that, It's not worth my time.

You have a serious problem with taking information from multiple sources to derive new information not present in any of the sources. The NYT article said child molestation rates are decreasing.
That sounds distinctly familiar. I believe I read that a page or so ago. Something about synthesis, no?

<sigh>
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html

<ahem>

From your own source:
The rates of child sexual abuse in the United States, while still significant and troubling ... The precise reasons for the declining rates are not clear. Dr. Finkelhor noted that most types of crime have plummeted over the last 20 years ... But at least some of the decline, he believes, has resulted from greater public awareness, stepped-up prevention efforts, better training and education, specialized policing, the presence in many cities of child advocacy centers that offer a coordinated response to abuse, and the deterrence afforded by the prosecutions of offenders. And the Internet has added to the problem, making it easier for predators to find victims, he continued. ... He does not dispute a decline, but he suggested that changes in how child protection agencies classify cases could be contributing to the decrease ... 'The child abuse field has always been one that felt like there was not enough public policy attention, so the narrative reflected that It’s at crisis proportions; it’s getting worse every year; it’s an epidemic,' he said. 'So when people hear that the rates are going down, it really is sort of a challenge' ...  'It is very risky to suggest that the problem you’re involved with has gotten smaller,' she said ... 'What we’ve arrived at is celebrating the success and using that to argue that the investments that government has made have been very worthwhile,' Ms. Berliner said. ... The effectiveness of those investments, said Marci A. Hamilton, a constitutional law professor and an advocate for children at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is evident, and can be seen in the trials in Pennsylvania. 'I think there’s more of a willingness of victims to come forward and more willingness of the support system of the victims to let them come forward,' she said. 'There was a time when if a victim came out, the universal response around them was, ‘You’ll get over it. Thank you for telling me but let’s move on,’ ” Ms. Hamilton said. “The more public education you have about the consequences, the more willing spouses and parents are to say, first, I believe you; and, second, you need therapy because we all know that this has lifelong dangerous effects.'


You know, it's funny; I read the entire article, yet not once did I see the mention of CP as a factor in said decline. I'm am now, in fact, conviced that you also may be partially illeterate. Did you think I wouldn't read the article?

Quote
I don't care if you think I'm unintelligent; you're not gettting me to lose my temper again. Sorry. Who are you again, merge?

I am not merge but I am 100% Libertarian as they come.
And? Seems he is too. Jury's still out on your identity.

Quote
He doesn't have more than a high school education. He doesn't have peers who are qualified to review his review of literature, which is what his quote/unquote academic paper is. If he is unfamiliar with what that is, then he doesn't know how to write an academic paper.

Anybody can review it, it's published for anyone to see.
That's not, by definition, what peer reviewed means, merge.
From Merriam-Webster:
peer review
noun

: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer%20review

Quote
PS Psychologists and psychiatrists who work in the penal system are not, by definiton, LAW ENFORCEMENT

They are part of the prison industrial complex , I don't differentiate between them.
And? Who are you again, merge?

Let's see, who has more integrity; someone with 2-6 years post graduate education and/ or research, a career, a reputation, and verifiable IRL identity and credentials, or some anonymous person in an online suffering from pedophilic disorder?

Quote
When you (and your alter ego, merge--because it's clear as day (for many reasons) that you are, in fact, one in the same--provide your IRL credentials, I'll provide mine).

My credentials are I am not a complete fucking retard. My credentials are my arguments and the logic soundness of them.
I think you mean logical soundness. And I believe, that by definition, that's the antithesis of a logically sound argument.

Quote
And <ahem> the NYT article did not support his hypothesis. I found my sources in 5 minutes and didn't bother reading them; he's supposed to be researching this topic, so he should know better. He completely misread a NEWSPAPER article. If you can't properly interpet a newspaper article, then you are not qualified to interpret post-graduate level work. And for the record, I've written several reviews of literature. They're terribly easy to write.

Please stop reminding me of your inability to analyze information from multiple sources to come up with new information that isn't present in any of the individual sources. It is boring.

"Jesus H Christ has an IQ of 30" - citation one
"People with IQ's of 30 are retarded" - citation two

My claim : "Jesus H Christ is a retard"1,2

see how information synthesis works? No , you don't, because you are retarded, and you keep arguing "omg none of those sources said Jesus H Christ is retarded! you misinterpreted them!", like a retard, which is actually more supporting evidence of my hypothesis that you are a fucking retard, so I guess I will use this little chat between us as my third citation.
Whom, exactly, do you think your convincing with that nonsense, merge?

Quote
You're correct; you have no idea what I meant by that. Google critical eye. If your review of literature finds ZERO flaws within your own sources, then it's worthless. What do you think the purpose of writing such a paper is.

Oh there are flaws in his sources. Decreased child molestation reported rates are not the same thing as decreased rates of child molestation. Maybe availability of child pornography leads to children being groomed with it and conditioned into thinking that it is normal for them to be abused and it acts sort of like advertising to condition their minds, so they don't report when they are abused, giving the false impression of child pornography availability leading to reduced rates of molestation when it really just leads to more molestation that isn't reported. That is worth considering. It is worth considering that in at least the Czech Republic there were major social changes correlating with the decrease of child molestation rates, and child molestation rates were falling well before child pornography was legalized, although the studies in Japan and Denmark help control for at least the major social changes during the same time period. There are tons of flaws in all of the research, because it is bullshit social science propaganda. The difference is that you are using bullshit social science propaganda to lock innocent people up, and I am using bullshit social science propaganda to try to keep innocent people free. Because common people are fucking easily manipulated sheep who don't have a critical eye for god damn anything, and if the prison industrial complex is going to brainwash them with bullshit then I might as well brainwash them with bullshit too. Best case scenario is I am right and you are wrong, worst case scenario is it's all fucking propaganda pseudoscience bullshit, the difference is in reality innocent people who did nothing other than look at fucking pictures are being treated like people who rape and mutilate little babies and it's fucking wrong beyond belief.
tl;dr 

Quote
Really, did he deny that? Anyone with a college education who was equated with a 3rd year undergrad would be offended, which is why I said it reflected poorly on his level of education. And having some college education does NOT equal holding a degree. Anyone so eager to prove a point would surely mention their field of study, no?

I mean, if I had the education of a 3rd year student of every field I would be a pretty smart fucker wouldn't I ? I think my specialty is definitely computer science, but in general I tend to know a good deal about a wide range of subjects, including psychology, which I do find particularly interesting despite having no formal training in.
The highlighted text just about sums up both the strength of your argument and your level of education.

Yes, indeed, I quite suspect that your backround is indeed in computer science.

I think your grammar demonstrates that, in fact, you are not "a pretty smart fucker."

Quote
He said that I overstated his level of education and took it as a compliment. Where did he state that he had an UNDERGRADUATE degree, and what field was it in? <sigh> You're as transparent as glass merge/m0rph

Who really gives a fuck anyway? Argumentum ad hominem much? Do you know those big words? You can't attack the argument so you attack the man who says it.
If you lack the credentials to make the argument, then your argument is worthless. It's called conjecture. Would you like me to provide the dictionary definition of that as well?

Quote
And SATs scores are termed verbal scores, not reading comprehension. And he didn't mention what tests, precisely he was talking about. Reading comprehension is an elementary term, and I've already asked you twice to stop parroting my language

Reading comprehension is a part of the verbal intelligence tested by SATs. Believe me, you didn't invent the term.
No, in fact, I did not; but I was the first in the thread to mention it, and henceforth it has--rather unoriginally--been regurgitated.

Pray tell, what does that say of your verbal intelligence?

Now, if you don't mind, could you remind me of who has the temper? And I do write circles around your pathetic child abusing self. Keep trying.

Buona Sera merge!

PS Paragraphs are your friend (perhaps your only friend at that). Knew you how to use them, perhaps I'd've read more.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #341 on: January 08, 2014, 05:03:51 am »
@ JSC, I appreciate the feedback. This debate though, is futile.

Agreed. It's rather one sided. And those of us with young family members tend to, with good reason, become upset by this debate.

I will NEVER agree that real images of CP are not harmful. Images of real children being sexualized will NEVER be acceptable to me.

I am incapable of viewing pedophiles and child pornographers as anything but parasitical mistakes of nature.
If you read through the thread, we are in the majority. It's rather coincidental that just as merge disapeared, m0rph appeared with precisely the same argument, no? And that he's the only person on the planet who's read the paper in question is indeed telling.

Selectively accepting of anecdotal evidence, selectively accepting of academic evidence, selectively quote people, AND selectively believe that correlation is causation. Shocking.
Coincidentally, you also have merge's habit of mentioning selective quoting, and also, the habit of inserting yourself into conversations in which no one was speaking to you. That's, at best, impolite.

You sound a touch oversentsitive, and frankly, unhinged.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 05:05:11 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #342 on: January 08, 2014, 05:42:46 am »
Quote
Quote
Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.
Uh huh. Sure. And your level of education, field of study, and profession is?

Quote
"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." - Edward Rolf Tufte (/ˈtʌfti/; born 1942), an American statistician and professor emeritus of political science, statistics, and computer science at Yale University.


Quote
<sigh>
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html

<ahem>

I think we have spent enough time explaining information synthesis to you, I guess some people just can't grasp it.

Quote
And? Who are you again, merge?

And? Who are you again?

Quote
Let's see, who has more integrity; someone with 2-6 years post graduate education and/ or research, a career, a reputation, and verifiable IRL identity and credentials, or some anonymous person in an online suffering from pedophilic disorder?

2-6 years huh, that is a pretty weird range of POST GRADUATE education. It must mean you are super fucking smart. Wow so glad to be in the presence of someone are brilliant as you. Not that I don't like, talk to people on the bleeding edge of computer security on a regular basis. So I mean, your 2-6 years of post graduate education means fuck all to me. You can't even argue against my logic all you can do is try to argue against me. It is a sure sign of your lack of having any logical argument against me.

Quote
And <ahem> the NYT article did not support his hypothesis. I found my sources in 5 minutes and didn't bother reading them

Wow, you are sure a master of debate.

Quote
Whom, exactly, do you think your convincing with that nonsense, merge?

I am not merge, and also I think I was just giving a good example of how information synthesis works. Since you SERIOUSLY struggle with it. PS: I think you meant you're.

Quote
Yes, indeed, I quite suspect that your backround is indeed in computer science.

I think your grammar demonstrates that, in fact, you are not "a pretty smart fucker."

Due to your previous struggle with differentiating between "your" and "you're" I do highly suggest that you stop using contractions to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. I think you also forgot the g in background, which is shocking considering your variable amount of POST GRADUATE education.

Quote
If you lack the credentials to make the argument, then your argument is worthless. It's called conjecture. Would you like me to provide the dictionary definition of that as well?

That is indeed argumentum ad hominem. The credentials of the person who gives an argument has nothing to do with the validity of their argument. There have been child prodigies with no formal education at all who were as intelligent as college graduates.

Quote
PS Paragraphs are your friend (perhaps your only friend at that). Knew you how to use them, perhaps I'd've read more.

I find it unlikely, considering you didn't even read your own sources.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 05:46:16 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #343 on: January 08, 2014, 05:55:49 am »
Seriously, I don't believe I have ever before witnessed somebody

1. Not read the paper he is arguing against
2. Read and horribly misinterpret a small selection of the citations in the paper he is arguing against
3. Post a bunch of citations, some completely unrelated
4. Brag about how he didn't read any of the cited papers he linked to
5. Go on and on about his POST GRADUATE education like it means he is automatically right
6. Make outlandish claims that were immediately proven false with direct citations to the studies that were actually not even read by him
7. Make various attacks against the grammar of his opponent rather than the substance of his opponents argument
8. Completely fail to understand that information that is unique can be derived from a combination of sources
9. Declare himself the victor of the argument

Y
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #344 on: January 08, 2014, 06:31:29 am »
Will any of you pervs address this query?

Why are artistic renderings of child sexual abuse not satisfying to the pedophile? Why must the images be of real children, being violated in real life?

If in fact, CP is just about the image, NOT about real children being sexualized before sexual maturity, NOT ABOUT SEXUALLY ABUSING CHILDREN, then an artificial abuse image should suffice to sate the appetite for child sexual abuse, right?

If in fact, pedophiles could be sated with artificially generated images of SEXUALLY IMMATURE HUMANS BEING VIOLATED, why are there real children in the images?

BECAUSE PEDOPHILES ARE LYING, SCUM SUCKING, MOUTH BREATHING, BOTTOM FEEDING, BICYCLE SEAT SNIFFING, BOOGER EATING, COWARDS!
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #345 on: January 08, 2014, 05:59:57 pm »
Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.
Uh huh. Sure. And your level of education, field of study, and profession is?
Well. first of all, as indicated below, you plagiarized in your original statement. Those were not your words in the above quote that you, yourself, quoted, which further detracts from your argument, and also from you intellectual capability in making such an argument. And you left out quite a bit for someone who complains so frequently about selective quoting.

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." - Edward Rolf Tufte (/ˈtʌfti/; born 1942), an American statistician and professor emeritus of political science, statistics, and computer science at Yale University.

<sigh>
You lifted that from a paper regarding Tufte's disdain for power point, and it it doesn't mean what you think it does. He's talking about the limitations of PowerPoint slides and presentations (Tufte hates PP), and it's actually mocking abvieviated statements that are made in statistics courses, something that you've probably never experienced.

The paper was entitled The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint Here's the full quote:
Quote from: Tufte
PP slides projected upon the wall are very low resolution—compared to paper, 35mm slides, and the immensely greater capacities of the human eye-brain system. Impoverished space leads to over-generalizations, imprecise statements, slogans, lightweight evidence, abrupt and thinly-argued claims.

For example, this slide from a statistics course shows a seriously incomplete statement. Probably the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

Or perhaps "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit. It means we should find a better way to make presentations.[/i]
.
Or, perhaps you lifted it from Wikipedia, because I know that you did not pay for access to his paper as you likely spend most of your disposable income on CP.

<sigh> Here:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete. While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:

    "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
    "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

<yawn>Here's one more from Tufte that more completely explains a concept that you do not understand (i.e. statistics):
Quote from: Tufte
Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). [note: CAN BE]

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc fallacy.[/i]

Ah, the wonder of the power of the almighty Google. That's one more misrepresented source for you! Have you got any more you'd like to trot out?

Quote
<sigh>
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html
<ahem>
From your own source:
The rates of child sexual abuse in the United States, while still significant and troubling ... The precise reasons for the declining rates are not clear. Dr. Finkelhor noted that most types of crime have plummeted over the last 20 years ... But at least some of the decline, he believes, has resulted from greater public awareness, stepped-up prevention efforts, better training and education, specialized policing, the presence in many cities of child advocacy centers that offer a coordinated response to abuse, and the deterrence afforded by the prosecutions of offenders. And the Internet has added to the problem, making it easier for predators to find victims, he continued. ... He does not dispute a decline, but he suggested that changes in how child protection agencies classify cases could be contributing to the decrease ... 'The child abuse field has always been one that felt like there was not enough public policy attention, so the narrative reflected that It’s at crisis proportions; it’s getting worse every year; it’s an epidemic,' he said. 'So when people hear that the rates are going down, it really is sort of a challenge' ...  'It is very risky to suggest that the problem you’re involved with has gotten smaller,' she said ... 'What we’ve arrived at is celebrating the success and using that to argue that the investments that government has made have been very worthwhile,' Ms. Berliner said. ... The effectiveness of those investments, said Marci A. Hamilton, a constitutional law professor and an advocate for children at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is evident, and can be seen in the trials in Pennsylvania. 'I think there’s more of a willingness of victims to come forward and more willingness of the support system of the victims to let them come forward,' she said. 'There was a time when if a victim came out, the universal response around them was, ‘You’ll get over it. Thank you for telling me but let’s move on,’ ” Ms. Hamilton said. “The more public education you have about the consequences, the more willing spouses and parents are to say, first, I believe you; and, second, you need therapy because we all know that this has lifelong dangerous effects.'


You know, it's funny; I read the entire article, yet not once did I see the mention of CP as a factor in said decline. I'm am now, in fact, conviced that you also may be partially illeterate. Did you think I wouldn't read the article?

I think we have spent enough time explaining information synthesis to you, I guess some people just can't grasp it.

I believe you mean you as in the 2nd person singular rather than we, which implies plurality. It's clear that I'm still speaking with the same person, so whenever you like, feel free to drop the charade.

It's funny, one person masquarading as two, with no formal education, feels that he understands the concept of information synthesis and excels at it, yet feels the whole world cannot grasp it. Perhaps, in addition to pedophilic disorder, and possibly dissociative identity disorder as you fail to see just how patently obvious it is that you and merge are the same person, you're suffering from narcissistic personality disorder? Funny, I drew the exact same conclusion of merge. Coincidence?

And, um, yeah, I learned the term information synthesis in middle school; I now hold a post-graduate level degree. I think I get it, so you can cut the condescension. Wow, I said those same exact words to merge too. Coincidence?

And you cannot synthesize information that completely disagrees with your hypothesis without, at the very least, suggesting potential flaws in the methodology of the source, which is the opposite of what was done. It was put forth as support to the hypothesis.

As an aside, newspaper articles are generally not cited as sources in a review of literature (hint: it's short for review of academic literature)

I've already told you--as, IIRC, I believe the NYT article also mentions--that the rates of ALL violent crime have dropped sharply since 1980, and even more sharply since the 1990s. So, not only does the source disagree with you, and not only did you misrepresent it, but you cannont even explain why rates of molestation are any different from rape, murder, robbery, assualt/battery, etc.

That's why I'm convinced that you neither understand the academic purpose for nor the definition of a review of literature

Oh and, nice try cutting out the source that you cited--because you are merge--that disagrees with you.

Quote
And? Who are you again, merge?
And? Who are you again?
I am Jesus H Christ; you are one person going by both the nicks m0rph and merge. You've fooled no one, and you've convinced no one that you have a valid argument. In fact, all you've done is made a fool of yourself.

Quote
Let's see, who has more integrity; someone with 2-6 years post graduate education and/ or research, a career, a reputation, and verifiable IRL identity and credentials, or some anonymous person in an online suffering from pedophilic disorder?

2-6 years huh, that is a pretty weird range of POST GRADUATE education. It must mean you are super fucking smart. Wow so glad to be in the presence of someone are brilliant as you. Not that I don't like, talk to people on the bleeding edge of computer security on a regular basis. So I mean, your 2-6 years of post graduate education means fuck all to me. You can't even argue against my logic all you can do is try to argue against me. It is a sure sign of your lack of having any logical argument against me.
<sigh> Here we go again; who has the problem with reading comprehension?
PS Psychologists and psychiatrists who work in the penal system are not, by definiton, LAW ENFORCEMENT
They are part of the prison industrial complex , I don't differentiate between them.
And? Who are you again, merge?

Let's see, who has more integrity; someone with 2-6 years post graduate education and/ or research, a career, a reputation, and verifiable IRL identity and credentials, or some anonymous person in an online suffering from pedophilic disorder?
I obviously wasn't speaking of myself. I was referring to the psychiatrists (MDs), psychologists (PsyDs and PhDs), and therapists (MAs, MSWs, and LCSWs) whom you were demeaning, discrediting, dismissing, etc. They all have varying levels of education, so I provided a range.

You have not made a logical argument; and even if you had, you lack the education required to make said argument. That is, if you want it to carry any weight outside of the small community of sufferers of pedophilic disorder.

I've never made any statements about my own level of intelligence; I simply said that you lack the education necessary to make this argument. I also said that I have a graduate degree. That's it.

Additionally, your argument is particualarly invalid because you not only lack the necessary education to advance your hypothesis, but you're also biased as you, yourself, are suffering from pedophilic disorder and are trying to justify your own narcissistic behavior.

Quote
And <ahem> the NYT article did not support his hypothesis. I found my sources in 5 minutes and didn't bother reading them

Wow, you are sure a master of debate.
I don't really find you worthy of debate, which is why I'm spending all of about 5 minutes on each reply. And considering that you've just exposed yourself as a plagairist, I think that's even more true now

"Jesus H Christ has an IQ of 30" - citation one
"People with IQ's of 30 are retarded" - citation two

My claim : "Jesus H Christ is a retard"1,2

see how information synthesis works? No , you don't, because you are retarded, and you keep arguing "omg none of those sources said Jesus H Christ is retarded! you misinterpreted them!", like a retard, which is actually more supporting evidence of my hypothesis that you are a fucking retard, so I guess I will use this little chat between us as my third citation.
Whom, exactly, do you think your convincing with that nonsense, merge?

I am not merge, and also I think I was just giving a good example of how information synthesis works. Since you SERIOUSLY struggle with it. PS: I think you meant you're.
In fact I did mean you're. If the best criticism of my post that you could find is a homophone error, it furthur demonstrates the strength of your argument. And given your own grammar, your level of maturity.

Perhaps this is more evidence that you're (note: contraction meaning you are) suffering from dissociative identity disorder as well?

Not only am I convinced that you are merge, but you've also now indicated to me why you hold such disdain for quote/unquote selective quoting: because you, yourself are a master of it.

Quote
Yes, indeed, I quite suspect that your backround is indeed in computer science.

I think your grammar demonstrates that, in fact, you are not "a pretty smart fucker."

Due to your previous struggle with differentiating between "your" and "you're" I do highly suggest that you stop using contractions to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. I think you also forgot the g in background, which is shocking considering your variable amount of POST GRADUATE education.
Wait. Hold on. Did someone who used (and incidentally quoted himself) the phrase a pretty smart fucker (twice I believe) and logic soundness just criticize my grammar?

You're is a contraction meaning you are, whereas your is a possessive adjective. It's called a homophone error, and they're (notice I didn't type their or there) quite common, even amongst the most educated people. Using contractions is not, in fact, poor grammar (and you don't want to get me started on grammar, believe me)

The statement in the subjunctive mood of I do highly suggest reeks of someone attempting to sound much more intelligent then they actually are. Try again please.

And the other error you pointed out, which I acknowledge, is called a typographical error or, more simply, a typo (Sorry, I type fast). I've already mentioned several times that I'm not spending very much time answering your posts.

Is that the best you've got? Your (possessive adjective) grammatical errors where more than just typos.

Considering your background in COMPUTER SCIENCE, which you don't actually even claim told hold a degree in--well, gee, it seems my keyboard has a CapsLk key too--you're abysmally bad at quoting (note: you're) And that's funny, because merge is too. Wow, perhaps a third coincidence?

Quote
If you lack the credentials to make the argument, then your argument is worthless. It's called conjecture. Would you like me to provide the dictionary definition of that as well?

That is indeed argumentum ad hominem. The credentials of the person who gives an argument has nothing to do with the validity of their argument. There have been child prodigies with no formal education at all who were as intelligent as college graduates.
OK. Fine. You're not one of them ; that's quite evident.

and <ahem> I've already addressed this; see below:
From Merriam-Webster:
peer review
noun

: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer%20review

Quote
PS Paragraphs are your friend (perhaps your only friend at that). Knew you how to use them, perhaps I'd've read more.
I find it unlikely, considering you didn't even read your own sources.
To be fair, I admitted to not only that--more than once BTW--I've also admitted to not reading most of what you and your alter ego, merge, have written, because they are disorganized, choatic, rambling, rants, which I really don't have time to read.

If you're so good at synthesis, then why not work on concision?

You are beneath me and are therefore not worth my time. And once again, you're the one who's got something to prove, not me. The law, and of the people in this thread, agree with me, not you.

And I find you to be a complicit in the molestation and exploitation of children. And possibly an actual child molester and/or a sexual predator.

And, to be honest, for someone claiming to be of such a high level of intelligence, you're rather childish. Perhaps that's why you fantasize about having sex with children (and I'm being kind, because I believe it's more than that, and that, in your case, you actually molest children)

Ciao!
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 04:18:12 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #346 on: January 08, 2014, 06:24:59 pm »
Seriously, I don't believe I have ever before witnessed somebody

1. Not read the paper he is arguing against
It was written by someone who is biased, unducated, and it has not been peer-reviewed (and, no, the pedophilic community does not qualify as peers). Ergo, it's not worth my time, because not only does it carry ZERO weight politically, legally, or academically, it was written by someone who is beneath me.
2. Read and horribly misinterpret a small selection of the citations in the paper he is arguing against
See above
3. Post a bunch of citations, some completely unrelated.
Indeed, in ONE post, which I completely admitted too. Tell me, was there anything wrong with my citations of the current legal precedent and the establishment of said precedent?
4. Brag about how he didn't read any of the cited papers he linked to
Because I'm above you; I've got better things to do with my time; and I'm not the one with something to prove
5. Go on and on about his POST GRADUATE education like it means he is automatically right
Actually, it's you that keeps going on about it. It doesn't mean as much to me as it does to you. Envy? Oh, and I've been 100% right in my field of study. What was yours again?
6. Make outlandish claims that were immediately proven false with direct citations to the studies that were actually not even read by him
I found one completely misreprented source, I found several flaws in the methodology of the second, which was completely misinterpreted and did not show statistical significance at the level at which I had requested, so became unwilling to read more. Plus, now that I've just caught you plagairizing, that sealed the deal for me. Not worth the effort.
7. Make various attacks against the grammar of his opponent rather than the substance of his opponents argument
I actually did attack the substance. It was only when you'd begun mocking me and calling me retarded, and referring to your superior intellect and reading comprehension (i.e. verbal) skills, that I decided your grammatical flaws warranted highlighting. Your own statements are what made your grammar worthy of scrutiny.
8. Completely fail to understand that information that is unique can be derived from a combination of sources

You're repeating yourself (frankly, ad naseum); See above as to why I refuse to read any more sources.
9. Declare himself the victor of the argument
I did nothing of the sort; however, if you're still unclear as to why I refuse to debate you, please see above

Frankly, I've never seen such an egomaniacal, delusional, narcissistic--well, frankly--brat in my entire life.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #347 on: January 09, 2014, 02:42:44 am »
The static images that have already been produced, and are in circulation should be enough, right? Why make more? If the desire is just to VIEW, and not actually violate, the libraries of CP that already exist would NOT be increased. However, more and more is needed to feed the beast. Why?

Could not the same be said of all porn (and other forms of entertainment) that remains in production? My own large porn collection, both still images and videos (including the aforementioned Cazzo and Cadinot works), continues to grow despite my having no sex life with beings other than myself. So, for that matter, does my collection of mainstream action films and comics without any desire on my part to get blown up or wear a skintight costume.

Well... Hardly ever on the last one, anyway  ;)

i like that you take time to format your insults i usually just say dudes a fag and move on ya mean nigga?

I thought Jesus was accusing him of being a paedophile, not of being gay.

Why are artistic renderings of child sexual abuse not satisfying to the pedophile? Why must the images be of real children, being violated in real life?

If in fact, CP is just about the image, NOT about real children being sexualized before sexual maturity, NOT ABOUT SEXUALLY ABUSING CHILDREN, then an artificial abuse image should suffice to sate the appetite for child sexual abuse, right?

If in fact, pedophiles could be sated with artificially generated images of SEXUALLY IMMATURE HUMANS BEING VIOLATED, why are there real children in the images?

BECAUSE PEDOPHILES ARE LYING, SCUM SUCKING, MOUTH BREATHING, BOTTOM FEEDING, BICYCLE SEAT SNIFFING, BOOGER EATING, COWARDS!

Again, one could ask the same about ordinary adult porn and of films and television. Most people most of the time prefer photorealism to cartoons (although personally, probably being in a minority, I often do prefer cartoon porn to photographs).
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #348 on: January 09, 2014, 04:45:06 am »
Will any of you pervs address this query?

Why are artistic renderings of child sexual abuse not satisfying to the pedophile? Why must the images be of real children, being violated in real life?

I believe it is currently due to the fact that most (probably all currently) computer generated or other artistic renderings are obviously not real. I suppose a reply to this question is why are there adult porn stars instead of purely computer generated ones? I certainly imagine that, in many cases, a pedophile who uses CP would be satisfied with renderings that can not be differentiated from reality. Are there some sadistic pedophiles who are partially turned on by abuse separated from the graphical depictions of it? Sure, I imagine there are. I also know there are many pedophiles who make due with hentai instead of real child pornography. I also don't care if they use real child pornography, because looking at pictures of anything is no big deal, and some people are not satisfied with the visual quality of artistic renderings, and there are already millions of pictures of real sexualized children, and if they want to look at those pictures without contributing to the production of said pictures, I don't see why anybody should care.

Another question for you is, what will you think when artistic renderings get to the point when they are impossible to differentiate from real child pornography? What will you think if someone in a country where it is legal to view CP views CP and then produces an exact replica of the image with 3D rendering software? Is the new replica image then acceptable, but not the original upon which it was based? Surprisingly many of the supporters of the war on child pornography consumption will say that the computer generated image is acceptable to view, but not the image that was taken with a camera. This demonstrates a lack of ability to use logic in said group of people, as they are reduced to saying A != A. Another more far fetched thought experiment is this; imagine that an artistic rendering of child abuse is produced, and by random chance at some point in the future a child is abused on camera in such a way that the resulting picture is the binary equivalent of the artistic rendering of abuse. You seem to have implied that you find artistic renderings of abuse acceptable, so what do you think about artistic renderings of abuse that had not happened at the time of production that then become equal to photographs of real abuse taken with cameras? Again, you will likely either argue that A != A and show that your grasp of logic is poor, or you will argue for some magical phenomenon taking place that taints the once acceptable artistic rendering of abuse. This is a great summary of people who argue from your position, some of them have a general poor grasp of logic despite not having magical beliefs, and others believe in magic which is indeed the manifestation of their generally poor grasp of logic. 

Quote
If in fact, CP is just about the image, NOT about real children being sexualized before sexual maturity, NOT ABOUT SEXUALLY ABUSING CHILDREN, then an artificial abuse image should suffice to sate the appetite for child sexual abuse, right?

In many cases I believe that a computer generated image that is indistinguishable from a real image will suffice to satiate the appetite of a child pornography consumer. However, this is certainly not always the case. Some people who view child pornography do indeed get off on real abuse, a computer generated image will not suffice for them as it is removed from abuse. Are these people more dangerous than child pornography consumers who are satiated with artificial images? I imagine that they are, as they are likely to have psychopathic personality traits, and psychopathy is the only recognized indicator of pedophilic fantasy leading to pedophilic behavior, as mentioned in one of the previously cited studies. However, I still do not think it is inherently bad for these people to get enjoyment from the abuse of others, so long as they are not contributing to the abuse of others, and thus even if photo realistic child pornography comes to be, I will still have no problems with those who view real child pornography. Additionally, it is quite likely, although I have no readily available citation, that some people get off on the forbidden illegal nature of child pornography. If virtual photorealistic child pornography becomes legal, it is quite possible that this group of consumers will have less interest in it than the still forbidden and illegal child pornography. For some group of consumers I personally believe that the rush of doing something taboo and forbidden is one of the primary attractions of child pornography, and so if photo realistic virtual child pornography becomes available and legal, I still will not have a problem with people who view real child pornography for the rush they obtain from doing so. It is worth mentioning that this group of consumer may actually grow bored with child pornography if it is legal to possess it. It is also worth noting that as long as the taboo behavior they engage in doesn't cause harm to others, that it should not be forbidden, and it is quite obvious that viewing child pornography does not inherently cause harm to others.

Quote
If in fact, pedophiles could be sated with artificially generated images of SEXUALLY IMMATURE HUMANS BEING VIOLATED, why are there real children in the images?

Well, one assumption you are making is that child pornography producers only produce child pornography because there are people who will look at it. This is not something I am convinced of. Also, as previously mentioned, I don't believe that there is any substantial amount of photo realistic virtual child pornography.

Quote
BECAUSE PEDOPHILES ARE LYING, SCUM SUCKING, MOUTH BREATHING, BOTTOM FEEDING, BICYCLE SEAT SNIFFING, BOOGER EATING, COWARDS!

You cannot generalize the motivations of why people consume child pornography, for a significant subsection of CP consumers I imagine they would indeed be satiated with photo realistic virtual images. BTW, even cartoons are illegal in the USA, and several individuals have been charged with child pornography for possessing such cartoons. Maybe some people view real child pornography because they know the penalties are equivalent to those for viewing virtual child pornography? Who knows.


Quote
Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.
Uh huh. Sure. And your level of education, field of study, and profession is?
Well. first of all, as indicated below, you plagiarized in your original statement. Those were not your words in the above quote that you, yourself, quoted, which further detracts from your argument, and also from you intellectual capability in making such an argument. And you left out quite a bit for someone who complains so frequently about selective quoting.

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." - Edward Rolf Tufte (/ˈtʌfti/; born 1942), an American statistician and professor emeritus of political science, statistics, and computer science at Yale University.

<sigh>
You lifted that from a paper regarding Tufte's disdain for power point, and it it doesn't mean what you think it does. He's talking about the limitations of PowerPoint slides and presentations (Tufte hates PP), and it's actually mocking abvieviated statements that are made in statistics courses, something that you've probably never experienced.

The paper was entitled The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint Here's the full quote:
Quote from: Tufte
PP slides projected upon the wall are very low resolution—compared to paper, 35mm slides, and the immensely greater capacities of the human eye-brain system. Impoverished space leads to over-generalizations, imprecise statements, slogans, lightweight evidence, abrupt and thinly-argued claims.

For example, this slide from a statistics course shows a seriously incomplete statement. Probably the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

Or perhaps "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit. It means we should find a better way to make presentations.[/i]
.
Or, perhaps you lifted it from Wikipedia, because I know that you did not pay for access to his paper as you likely spend most of your disposable income on CP.

<sigh> Here:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete. While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:

    "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
    "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

<yawn>Here's one more from Tufte that more completely explains a concept that you do not understand (i.e. statistics):
Quote from: Tufte
Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). [note: CAN BE]

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc fallacy.[/i]

Ah, the wonder of the power of the almighty Google. That's one more misrepresented source for you! Have you got any more you'd like to trot out?

Since you have enormous trouble with paragraphs, and since I quite enjoy lists anyway, let me spell this out for you point by point:

1. I don't consider what I did to be plagiarism. I memorized his sentence some time ago and put it into my own words. I believe many a mathematician has said that 1 + 1 = 2, do I need to give citation for obvious facts? He merely concisely stated an obvious reality, and I did not verbatim copy his words.

2. I never claimed that they were my own words, although as previously mentioned I felt the statement was so obvious that a citation was not in order, I did not suspect that you would try to argue against such an obvious fact and require me to provide a citation to a professor who said something similar, when you questioned my academic achievements and argued against such an obvious fact of reality in an ill advised attempt to discredit me

3. You are having some serious verbal analysis (happy?) issues if what you take away from your own quote is that he is primarily critiquing power point. He attributes incorrect summarization of reality to a lack of power point resolution, but his primary critique is toward the lack of correct summarization.

4. He actually critiques the authors of power point slides more than he critiques power point itself, as is demonstrated by the following quote where he points out that shorter summarizations that are true can indeed be constructed, and that even with limited communication capacity presenters have a responsibility to say true things. You could interpret what he said to mean that power point should be avoided for presentations that require higher communication capacity than is provided (the most likely meaning), or you could interpret what he said to mean that people using power point should find ways to more concisely say true statements (less likely as he ended with "we should find a better way to make presentations" rather than "we should find ways to utilize our available resources that don't take away from the truth of what we communicate", but supported by his providing of more concise true statements in relation to correlation and causation's relationship, and by his specific critique of abbreviating the truth rather than make true statements that can be communicated with limited communication capacity). Regardless, the primary thing to take away from what he said is not that power point sucks, but rather that due to power point being an inadequate communication medium for the task, many people are exposed to the sentence "correlation is not causation" without any mention of the fact that correlation is a requirement of causation. Another primary point is that people should not abbreviate true statements to such an extent that they lose pertinent information, this is not a critique of power point so much as it is a critique of the tactics utilized by information presenters.   

Quote
Probably the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality." Or perhaps "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit. It means we should find a better way to make presentations.

5. He is indeed mocking abbreviated statements, the abbreviated statement he is mocking is the one that you yourself used in an attempt to discredit me

Quote
Oh an, PS, correlation does not equal causation. Any 1st year undergraduate would be familiar with that.

To which I responded with

Quote
Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.

to which you responded

Quote
Uh huh. Sure. And your level of education, field of study, and profession is?

to which I responded with the quote by Tufte, a rather famous statistician, professor, and indisputably well educated individual, that was the same in essence as what I said (and indeed I had him in mind when saying it, as he did a great job of giving a concise and true statement regarding correlations relationship with causation, something that you failed to do). After this you demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension and mistook his critique of dumbasses such as yourself for a critique of power point, something that can be attributed to your general lack of reading comprehension abilities.

Quote
It's funny, one person masquarading as two, with no formal education, feels that he understands the concept of information synthesis and excels at it, yet feels the whole world cannot grasp it. Perhaps, in addition to pedophilic disorder, and possibly dissociative identity disorder as you fail to see just how patently obvious it is that you and merge are the same person, you're suffering from narcissistic personality disorder? Funny, I drew the exact same conclusion of merge. Coincidence?

No, I think many people have a grasp of information synthesis, I just think you don't.

Quote
And, um, yeah, I learned the term information synthesis in middle school; I now hold a post-graduate level degree. I think I get it, so you can cut the condescension. Wow, I said those same exact words to merge too. Coincidence?

If you really understood information synthesis you would understand why the citation to the NYT article was pertinent, and supporting of the claims made by merge. Merge took two published documents, one said that child pornography rates have been growing exponentially since the early 90's, the other said child abuse rates have been falling over this entire time period. Rather than accept the new information that merge synthesized from these two sources, you got hung up on the fact that the information wasn't present in either of the used precursor papers, and thus you demonstrated a (shockingly persistent) inability to understand the concept of information synthesis.

For someone who has POST GRADUATE education, you certainly do make frequent use of logical fallacies. May I introduce you to

Argumentum ab auctoritate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Quote
Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:[1][2][3]

    cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
    cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
    any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.

and your other favorite

argumentum ad hominem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

Quote
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7]

Ad hominem as it is discussed in this article refers to the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem, and not to the literal Latin phrase ad hominem.

In deciding whether an ad hominem statement is fallacious, it is important to draw a distinction whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issue of credibility of the witness of the fact may be crucial.
See also: List of fallacies


Quote
And you cannot synthesize information that completely disagrees with your hypothesis without, at the very least, suggesting potential flaws in the methodology of the source, which is the opposite of what was done. It was put forth as support to the hypothesis.

It was used merely as a source to show that child sex abuse rates have been declining. When taken together with the fact that child pornography availability and consumption have been increasing, it is at worst contradictory to the hypothesis that child sex abuse is positively correlated with child pornography consumption, at best it is supporting evidence that child pornography consumption has a causative relationship with reduced child molestation rates. A valid argument from you would have been that perhaps child pornography availability increases the number of children who are groomed into accepting sexual abuse as normal, and therefore leads to lower reported rates of child sex abuse while only masking a potentially increasing problem. But that would have required you to have the capacity to make logical arguments instead of use logical fallacies, and thus far you have not demonstrated that you possess such a capacity. Also, I do believe that there are citations I can provide that show this is an unlikely hypothesis, it is generally believed that children report sex abuse more frequently today than they did in the past. 

PS: The information synthesized didn't disagree with the hypothesis, your claim is that one of the precursors had a mutually exclusive relationship with the resulting synthesis. So you really don't appear to understand information synthesis.

Quote
As an aside, newspaper articles are generally not cited as sources in a review of literature (hint: it's short for review of academic literature)

Perhaps not, but when the quotes are from professionals involved in the field being discussed, they are still valid.

Quote
I've already told you--as, IIRC, I believe the NYT article also mentions--that the rates of ALL violent crime have dropped sharply since 1980, and even more sharply since the 1990s. So, not only does the source disagree with you, and not only did you misrepresent it, but you cannont even explain why rates of molestation are any different from rape, murder, robbery, assualt/battery, etc.

That's why I'm convinced that you neither understand the academic purpose for or the definition of a review of literature

Oh and, nice try cutting out the source that you cited--because you are merge--that disagrees with you.

Yes the rate of all violent crime is falling. But if we look at for example the Czech study, we can control for this, as violent crime rates did not decrease but child molestation rates did decrease after the legalization of child pornography possession. So that variable was already controlled for. Once again, you are having trouble with information synthesis. It's really probably my fault, I have an exceptional ability to keep large amounts of active verbal information in my mind at the same time, and sometimes I forget that normal people can't do this. So even though I can trivially analyze multiple information streams simultaneously, I should take it more into consideration that people like you have trouble when multiple independent streams of information are utilized simultaneously. 

 
Quote
In fact, all you've done is made a fool of yourself.

I find it incredibly unlikely that I have made a bigger fool of myself than you have. In the perception of people with high intelligence I would say that I am certain I have not !

Quote
I obviously wasn't speaking of myself. I was referring to the psychiatrists (MDs), psychologists (PsyDs and PhDs), and therapists (MAs, MSWs, and LCSWs) whom you were demeaning, discrediting, dismissing, etc. They all have varying levels of education, so I provided a range.

Oh, so now you support them? Because when presented with numerous of their studies you attempted to discredit them. I guess the ones who agree with you are right and the ones who agree with me are wrong. The entire paper that Merge wrote made numerous references to papers published in peer reviewed journals, but when he was utilizing these studies you seemed to have no problem demeaning, discrediting, or dismissing the highly educated authors.

Quote
You have not made a logical argument; and even if you had, you lack the education required to make said argument. That is, if you want it to carry any weight outside of the small community of sufferers of pedophilic disorder.

I am quite certain that Merges argument will be well appreciated by anyone with above average intelligence. To people like you I am sure that it wont matter, but it is largely due to people like you being what is known as "fucking retarded".

Quote
Additionally, your argument is particualarly invalid because you not only lack the necessary education to advance your hypothesis, but you're also biased as you, yourself, are suffering from pedophilic disorder and are trying to justify your own narcissistic behavior.

It certainly appears as if the arguments from the prison industrial complex are biased, but I am smart enough to avoid reliance on argumentum ad hominem, and can appreciate arguments separated from the people who make them. And if you actually read what Merge had to say, you would realize that he pointed out numerous methodological flaws in the studies used to advance the argument of the people in said industry. Indeed, he even provided a direct quote from a researcher who claimed that law enforcement misrepresented the findings of his study in order to further advance their own interests.

Quote
In fact I did mean you're. If the best criticism of my post that you could find is a homophone error, it furthur demonstrates the strength of your argument. And given your own grammar, your level of maturity.

If I recall correctly, you are the one who decided to argue against spelling mistakes instead of arguments. I merely decided to point out the irony of a person critiquing the spelling of another only to immediately commit grammatical errors of ones own.

Quote
Wait. Hold on. Did someone who used (and incidentally quoted himself) the phrase a pretty smart fucker (twice I believe) and logic soundness just criticize my grammar?

Indeed, I critiqued your grammar and spelling after you critiqued me for making a slight grammatical mistake.

Quote
You're is a contraction meaning you are, whereas your is a possessive adjective. It's called a homophone error, and they're (notice I didn't type their or there) quite common, even amongst the most educated people. Using contractions is not, in fact, poor grammar (and you don't want to get me started on grammar, believe me)

Had your reading comprehension abilities progressed past the sixth grade perhaps you would have realized that I did not claim that use of contractions is poor grammar, but rather that not using contractions would protect you from mistaking "your" and "you're" in the future. It really is quite tiresome to have to clarify everything for you, it's a pity that you don't possess adequate verbal intelligence to accurately comprehend the things I attempt to communicate to you.

Quote
And the other error you pointed out, which I acknowledge, is called a typographical error or, more simply, a typo (Sorry, I type fast). I've alread mentioned serveral times that I'm not spending very much time answering your posts.

Indeed, as was my omission of the suffix on the word logical.

Quote
Is that the best you've got? Your (possessive adjective) grammatical errors where more than just typos.

Were they? Also, errors means more than one, I can only recall a single instance where I used an incorrect word by neglecting to affix a suffix.

Quote
Considering your background in COMPUTER SCIENCE, which you don't actually even claim told hold a degree in--well, gee, it seems my keyboard has a CapsLk key too--you're abysmally bad at quoting (note: you're) And that's funny, because merge is too. Wow, perhaps a third coincidence?

And how exactly do you know that I don't hold a degree in computer science? But once again you are merely making arguments to authority and committing logical fallacies. It is really boring to argue with people like you, it isn't at all intellectually stimulating at all. Because you don't even have an argument against me, all you have is logical fallacies.

Quote
And, to be honest, for someone claiming to be of such a high level of intelligence, you're rather childish. Perhaps that's why you fantasize about having sex with children (and I'm being kind, because I believe it's more than that, and that, in your case, you actually molest children)

In actuality, I have never molested any children nor do I foresee myself doing so in the future.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 05:25:11 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #349 on: January 09, 2014, 05:43:33 am »
Quote
Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.
Uh huh. Sure. And your level of education, field of study, and profession is?
Well. first of all, as indicated below, you plagiarized in your original statement. Those were not your words in the above quote that you, yourself, quoted, which further detracts from your argument, and also from you intellectual capability in making such an argument[/b]. And you left out quite a bit for someone who complains so frequently about selective quoting.

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." - Edward Rolf Tufte (/ˈtʌfti/; born 1942), an American statistician and professor emeritus of political science, statistics, and computer science at Yale University.

<sigh>
You lifted that from a paper regarding Tufte's disdain for power point, and it it doesn't mean what you think it does. He's talking about the limitations of PowerPoint slides and presentations (Tufte hates PP), and it's actually mocking abvieviated statements that are made in statistics courses, something that you've probably never experienced.

The paper was entitled The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint Here's the full quote:
Quote from: Tufte
PP slides projected upon the wall are very low resolution—compared to paper, 35mm slides, and the immensely greater capacities of the human eye-brain system. Impoverished space leads to over-generalizations, imprecise statements, slogans, lightweight evidence, abrupt and thinly-argued claims.

For example, this slide from a statistics course shows a seriously incomplete statement. Probably the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

Or perhaps "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit. It means we should find a better way to make presentations.[/i]
.
Or, perhaps you lifted it from Wikipedia, because I know that you did not pay for access to his paper as you likely spend most of your disposable income on CP.

<sigh> Here:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete. While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:

    "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
    "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

<yawn>Here's one more from Tufte that more completely explains a concept that you do not understand (i.e. statistics):
Quote from: Tufte
Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). [note: CAN BE]

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc fallacy.[/i]

Ah, the wonder of the power of the almighty Google. That's one more misrepresented source for you! Have you got any more you'd like to trot out?

Since you have enormous trouble with paragraphs, and since I quite enjoy lists anyway, let me spell this out for you point by point:

1. I don't consider what I did to be plagiarism. memorized his sentence some time ago and put it into my own words[anyone else want to take over, because he has now overwhelmingly demonstrated that he is a moron; I'm not even going to address that oxymoron]. I believe many a mathematician has said that 1 + 1 = 2, do I need to give citation for obvious facts? He merely concisely stated an obvious reality, and I did not verbatim copy his words.

LOL, What does what you consider it to be matter? Which is it: MEMORIZED OR PARAPHRASED? It's one or the other, not both.

In fact, you quoted him VERBATIM, which is by definition plagiarism.
Why do you think I quoted your original post? And unlike you, who is in your own words, a computer science specialist--because, let's face it, you don't have a degree in anything--I managed to have the intellectual capability to link your quote directly for all to see.

You didn't even understand his point, or you'd've realized that that quote demonstrated precisely what he was railing against. Take note of what he goes on to say about the opposite logical fallacy.

And, yes, you do need to cite your source when your DIRECTLY COPYING THEIR WORDS VERBATIM, AND NOT, BY DEFINITION, IN YOUR OWN WORDS. In fact you'd even need to do so if you were paraphrasing, as this is not common knowledge. And nice try backtracking, but you've been caught.

That is not AN OBVIOUS FACT. In fact, IT'S NOT EVEN A FACT. It's the opinion of ONE person. What's so galling about it is that you actually had the nerve to cite him after the fact. You should have left it alone.

You absolutely did copy his words, and you failed to understand what he was talking about. It was a direct quote that you tried to pass of as the evidence of your own intellectual heft.

I'm not even reading any of the rest of your rant until you acknowledge that. You see, you made an even more grave error than I did when I lost my temper: you tried to take credit for someone else's words, and in the process, destroyed the shred of credibility that you almost had.

Not that it's terribly difficult, but you make making you look stupid ridiculously easy, and honestly, boring. And that's why I'm not reading the rest of that rant.

PS it's you who can't compile a coherent, concise paragraph not me. I'm not sure what it is, but you just have that non-so-che that I find under-stimulating, at best

Once again (and hopefully, but probably not, finally) Buona Sera!

« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 06:53:54 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #350 on: January 09, 2014, 06:45:46 am »
Quote
LOL, What does what you consider it to be matter? Which is it: MEMORIZED OR PARAPHRASED? It's one or the other, not both.

Why do you think that memorized things cannot be paraphrased? I highly suggest that you simply stop arguing with me, your level of perceived stupidity has a positive correlative relationship with the number of sentences you type. I highly suspect that there is a causative relationship.

Quote
In fact, you quoted him VERBATIM, which is by definition plagiarism.[/b] Why do you think I quoted your original post? And unlike you, who is in your own words, a computer science specialist--because, let's face it, you don't have a degree in anything--I managed to have the intellectual capability to link your quote directly for all to see.

I did not, in fact, quote him verbatim.

I said

Quote
Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.

He said

Quote
Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint

Once again, I highly suggest that you stop talking if you want to avoid looking like a fool. By the way, do you know how many times people have said things like "Every time child pornography is viewed, it's like the child is molested all over again", etc? I imagine that many of the statements that you have said can be attributed to people who said them before you, there usually is little variance in the terminology used.

Quote
You didn't even understand his point, or you'd've realized that that quote demonstrated precisely what he was railing against. Take note of what he goes on to say about the opposite logical fallacy.

I fully understood his point, the only thing you took away from his document was that he was critiquing powerpoint!

Quote
[/b]And, yes, you do need to cite your source when your DIRECTLY COPYING THEIR WORDS VERBATIM, AND NOT, BY DEFINITION, IN YOUR OWN WORDS. In fact you'd even need to do so if you weren't paraphrasing, as this is not common knowledge. And nice try backtracking, but you've been caught.

I believe it is extremely common knowledge that correlation is a prerequisite of causation, that is why I was so shocked when you questioned my level of education after mentioning such, as if it wasn't patently obvious.

Quote
That is not AN OBVIOUS FACT. In fact, IT'S NOT EVEN A FACT. It's the opinion of ONE person. What's so galling about it is that you actually had the nerve to cite him after the fact. You should have left it alone.

Oh, it is indeed a VERY obvious fact that correlation is a prerequisite of causation, and that looking for correlations can help us identify causation. It is not to be mistaken for causation, but it obviously has a relationship with it. Speaking of which, the very term that you quoted prompting me to correct you, was as follows:

Quote
correlation does not equal causation.

Note that this verbatim phrasing can be attributed to people who have used it prior to you, for example:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/07/note-to-ipcc-correlation-does-not-equal-causation-and-causes-do-not-equal-effects/

Quote
Note to IPCC: Correlation Does Not Equal Causation and Causes Do Not Equal Effects

Did you therefore plagiarize them, as you failed to provide citation to their claim which predated your verbatim copy of it? Certainly it seems as if you are the bigger plagiarist than I, for you verbatim copied the previously made statement of another whereas I at least modified the wording. Of course, in either case, the intrinsic truth of the statement, and simplicity of the statement, and obviousness of the statement, make it so that plagiarism has not happened in either of these cases. But certainly if it has happened in the opinion of some person, it must have been more blatant in your case than in mine.

Quote
You absolutely did copy his words, and you failed to understand what he was talking about. It was a direct quote that you tried to pass of as the evidence of your own intellectual heft.

I did not verbatim copy his words, although I freely admit that I first heard such a concisely true explanation of the relationship between correlation and causation from his writings. However, I did not try to pass it off as evidence of my own intellectual abilities, and in fact I am surprised you think such an obvious truth would be something I considered to be intellectual, rather after I said such an obvious truth and you proceeded to discount it with an appeal to authority / argumentum ad hominem, I quickly made a fool out of you by citing an indisputably well educated person using similar terminology, indeed the person who I first heard give a correct summary of the discussed relationship, and furthermore he gave the summary in critique of the improper summary that you yourself used and did not originally generate (or even rephrase).

Quote
I'm not even reading any of the rest of your rant until you acknowledge that. You see, you made an even more grave error than I did when I lost my temper: you tried to take credit for someone else's words, and in the process, destroyed the shred of credibility that you almost had.

I actually am glad that you are done reading this thread, because you are derailing the topic. We are trying to debate the legalization of child pornography possession, and have a moral, legal, philosophical conversation using logic and science. You on the other hand, are engaging in nothing other than superficial logical fallacies, and generally making as ass out of yourself, accomplishing nothing other than changing the focus of the debate to the simple trivialities that your simplistic mind can comprehend.   

Quote
Not that it's terribly difficult, but you make making you look stupid ridiculously easy, and honestly, boring. And that's why I'm not reading the rest of that rant.

You have quite the projection issue.

Quote
[/b]PS it's you who can't compile a coherent, concise paragraph not me. I'm not sure what it is, but you just have that non-so-che that I find under-stimulating, at best

I find your logical fallacies and particularly your inability to comprehend verbal information to not only be under-stimulating but also theoretically saddening. I imagine if I had the affective empathy levels of a neurotypical that I would actually feel sad for you, but I don't have such mind poisoning levels of emotionality, and therefore I am merely annoyed by your self righteous foolishness and ignorance.

Quote
Once again (and hopefully, but probably not, finally) Buona Sera!

Please do stay gone unless you learn how to have a serious debate, I am not a reading comprehension tutor and I am sick of intellectually holding your hand, I don't even really care for you at all.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 07:23:57 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #351 on: January 09, 2014, 07:14:42 am »
Quote
memorized his sentence some time ago and put it into my own words[anyone else want to take over, because he has now overwhelmingly demonstrated that he is a moron; I'm not even going to address that oxymoron].

I think once again the trouble is that I expect others to have as high of verbal intelligence as I do, and fail to take into account the fact that average people have significant limitations. You see, I have a remarkable ability to be able to remember things I read or hear, and I can pull the verbal information out of my memory at will, and then be exposed to it as if I am reading it off of paper or hearing it said to me again. I think the reason you think memorization and paraphrasing are oxymorons is because your long term verbal store is so small compared to mine that you don't have the ability to recall verbal information as if you are being originally exposed to it. Because your claim seems to be that it is impossible to read something and then rephrase it. See, I learn very well via memorization, and when I need pertinent information I very frequently pull it out of long term verbal memory and then manipulate it as required. When you made your improperly concise summarization of the relationship between causation and correlation, I immediately remembered reading the words of a professor who clarified that this common summarization leaves out important information, and I piped his words into my mind. As I imagined that the factual accuracy of the statement "correlation doesn't equal causation, but it certainly gives us a hint" would be undisputed, and as I merely wanted to correct you, I decided to merely rephrase what I had learned to say concisely (and what I had known prior as obvious truth) as a simple statement of fact, I did not think it was required that I gave a citation for this reason. However, after you foolishly critiqued the statement I made to you, and questioned my level of education and intellect after I had made said statement, I decided that a citation was in order, and as I have a remarkable ability to remember where I heard things, I countered your naive insult with a direct quote and citation from an indisputably highly educated individual. 
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #352 on: January 09, 2014, 08:07:04 am »
Quote
LOL, What does what you consider it to be matter? Which is it: MEMORIZED OR PARAPHRASED? It's one or the other, not both.

Why do you think that memorized things cannot be paraphrased?
Because both words are Standard English, and unlike you, I know the difference. But here:

mem·o·rize
transitive verb \ˈme-mə-ˌrīz\
: to learn (something) so well that you are able to remember it perfectly

See here if you'd like a more complete definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/memorize

para·phrase
noun \ˈper-ə-ˌfrāz,ˈpa-rə-\

: a statement that says something that another person has said or written in a different way

Complete definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraphrase

Quote
In fact, you quoted him VERBATIM, which is by definition plagiarism.[/b] Why do you think I quoted your original post? And unlike you, who is in your own words, a computer science specialist--because, let's face it, you don't have a degree in anything--I managed to have the intellectual capability to link your quote directly for all to see.
Quote
I did not, in fact, quote him verbatim.
I said
Quote
Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.
Quote
He said
Quote
Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint
Fair enough, you added a modifier (definitely) that is unsupported by Tufte's words, to make your argument appear stronger than it is. And you still need to cite it, you would be expelled from even a community college for that kind of error. It's plagiarism whether it's a direct quote or a paraphrase (I learned that in middle school BTW).

You did not come up with that on your own, you tried to pass it off as original thought, and you misrepresented his words (by selectively quoting), because he does indeed indicate that there is a logical fallacy frequently drawn from the idea that correlation indicates causation. See below:
Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). [note: CAN BE]

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc fallacy.[/i]
Once again, I highly suggest that you stop talking if you want to avoid looking like a fool.
Stop talking to me in the subjunctive mood please.

Quote
You didn't even understand his point, or you'd've realized that that quote demonstrated precisely what he was railing against. Take note of what he goes on to say about the opposite logical fallacy.

I fully understood his point, the only thing you took away from his document was that he was critiquing powerpoint!
<sigh>Well, that was what he was talking about; but anyway, I did so because he says himself that it's size limitations conveniently lead to abbreviated statements. See below:
The paper was entitled The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint Here's the full quote:
Quote from: Tufte
PP slides projected upon the wall are very low resolution—compared to paper, 35mm slides, and the immensely greater capacities of the human eye-brain system. Impoverished space leads to over-generalizations, imprecise statements, slogans, lightweight evidence, abrupt and thinly-argued claims.

For example, this slide from a statistics course shows a seriously incomplete statement. Probably the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

Or perhaps "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit. It means we should find a better way to make presentations.
You don't understand that those words are being used as an example of another fallacy; that was the purpose of the coordinating conjunction or

Quote
[/b]And, yes, you do need to cite your source when your DIRECTLY COPYING THEIR WORDS VERBATIM, AND NOT, BY DEFINITION, IN YOUR OWN WORDS. In fact you'd even need to do so if you weren't paraphrasing, as this is not common knowledge. And nice try backtracking, but you've been caught.
I believe it is extremely common knowledge that correlation is a prerequisite of causation, that is why I was so shocked when you questioned my level of education after mentioning such, as if it wasn't patently obvious.
It is not. And if you're going use something that close to the original, you need to cite it. If it's a fact, then give me two more sources that use the same language as you. I don't care who it is, if it can't be empirically demonstrated, which Tufte himself does not claim it can be, it is not fact. Considering he's still alive, you should definitely have cited him, particularly since this paper is not available for use in the public domain.

Quote
That is not AN OBVIOUS FACT. In fact, IT'S NOT EVEN A FACT. It's the opinion of ONE person. What's so galling about it is that you actually had the nerve to cite him after the fact. You should have left it alone.
Speaking of which, the very term that you quoted prompting me to correct you, was as follows:
Quote
correlation does not equal causation.
Quote
Note that this verbatim phrasing can be attributed to people who have used it prior to you, for example:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/07/note-to-ipcc-correlation-does-not-equal-causation-and-causes-do-not-equal-effects/
Quote
Note to IPCC: Correlation Does Not Equal Causation and Causes Do Not Equal Effects
I can find 10-15 different sources that use that same phrasing (in 5 minutes or less). That is common knowledge. I could not find one other than Tufte, that uses yours. That's the difference. And I did try searching for it. Plus, there is no one, singular source, to whom my source can be attributed. That's the other difference.

Here's what I said (with a link to my post):
The first rule of statistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. is that anecdotal evidence and conjecture are not statistically significant.

Quote
You absolutely did copy his words, and you failed to understand what he was talking about. It was a direct quote that you tried to pass of as the evidence of your own intellectual heft.

I did not verbatim copy his words, although I freely admit that I first heard such a concisely true explanation of the relationship between correlation and causation from his writings. However, I did not try to pass it off as evidence of my own intellectual abilities, and in fact I am surprised you think such an obvious truth
Obvious to whom?

Quote
I'm not even reading any of the rest of your rant until you acknowledge that. You see, you made an even more grave error than I did when I lost my temper: you tried to take credit for someone else's words, and in the process, destroyed the shred of credibility that you almost had.

I actually am glad that you are done reading this thread, because you are derailing the topic. We are trying to debate the legalization of child pornography possession, and have a moral, legal, philosophical conversation using logic and science.
Whom are you referencing? Merge? I'm not sure that you noticed, but you're the only person arguing in favor of your position.

Here's my fourth coincidence: You joined this forum precisely FOUR DAYS after merge coincidentally stopped posting to it. And you started off with his argument? And you're calling me retarded? Did I get that all correct? And what brought you here again? Gee, I wonder if merge will pop up tomorrow to chime in to disprove me.

Quote
Not that it's terribly difficult, but you make making you look stupid ridiculously easy, and honestly, boring. And that's why I'm not reading the rest of that rant.

You have quite the projection issue.
Listen, I'm going to brutally honest with you: you write in the style of a person who is trying to make himself sound more intelligent than he is.

Quote
[/b]PS it's you who can't compile a coherent, concise paragraph not me. I'm not sure what it is, but you just have that non-so-che that I find under-stimulating, at best

I find your logical fallacies and particularly your inability to comprehend verbal information to not only be under-stimulating but also saddening. I imagine if I had empathy levels of a neurotypical that I would feel sad for you, but I don't have such mind poisoning levels of emotionality, and therefore I am merely annoyed by your self righteous foolishness and ignorance.
Do you really believe that you're winning this argument. You can't even get me (or anyone else) to seriously debate you. If you haven't noticed, no one's paying attention to you. Were it not for me, you'd just be jacking off to kiddie porn right now. Period.

Let me ask you this: if I'm so stupid, retarded, unstable, etc., then what does the fact that you continue to try to engage me say about you? And that you resort to insults tells me that your argument is weak. There are other intelligent folks on this thread; you are not one.

Quote
Once again (and hopefully, but probably not, finally) Buona Sera!

Please do stay gone unless you learn how to have a serious debate, I am not a reading comprehension tutor and I am sick of intellectually holding your hand, I don't even really care for you at all.
I really couldn't care less if you dislike me. I thought that was obvious. That you felt the need to suggest it, and that you think that that, or any of your other insults upsets me, or otherwise bothers me, is cute!

Keep trying. And once again Buona Sera!

PS Can you please learn how to properly use a quote tag (you have the same issue as both merge and kok--whom you also resemble)?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 08:15:14 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #353 on: January 09, 2014, 08:09:22 am »
Quote
memorized his sentence some time ago and put it into my own words[anyone else want to take over, because he has now overwhelmingly demonstrated that he is a moron; I'm not even going to address that oxymoron].

I think once again the trouble is that I expect others to have as high of verbal intelligence as I do, and fail to take into account the fact that average people have significant limitations.
I stopped reading here.

If I'm so unintelligent, and you're so superior to me, then why are you still here? Doesn't that ultimately make you the bigger fool?

What, exactly, do you think that says of you?

Oh, and, you also coincidentally like merge, appear to be a security expert. And your posts in the Security board bear a striking similarity to his.

PS You're averaging 80 posts per day? Do yourself a favor: lay off the meth.

Vaffanculo! Ciao!
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 08:31:06 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #354 on: January 09, 2014, 08:40:54 am »
Quote
Because both words are Standard English, and unlike you, I know the difference. But here:

mem·o·rize
transitive verb \ˈme-mə-ˌrīz\
: to learn (something) so well that you are able to remember it perfectly

See here if you'd like a more complete definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/memorize

para·phrase
noun \ˈper-ə-ˌfrāz,ˈpa-rə-\

: a statement that says something that another person has said or written in a different way

Complete definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraphrase

Are you seriously so stupid that you think these two things are mutually exclusive? Here is what happened.

First I

1.  learn[ed] (a concise way of accurately stating the relationship between correlation and causation) so well that [i was] able to remember it perfectly

Then I

2.  [made] a statement that [said] something that another person [had] said or written in a different way

The fact that you think memorization and paraphrasing are mutually exclusive just demonstrates your low verbal intelligence.


Quote
In fact, you quoted him VERBATIM, which is by definition plagiarism.[/b] Why do you think I quoted your original post? And unlike you, who is in your own words, a computer science specialist--because, let's face it, you don't have a degree in anything--I managed to have the intellectual capability to link your quote directly for all to see.

Quote
I did not, in fact, quote him verbatim.
I said

Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.

He said

Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint

Quote
Fair enough, you added a modifier (definitely) that is unsupported by Tufte's words, to make your argument appear stronger than it is.

Surely and definitely are synonyms

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surely
Quote
Synonyms
    all right, alright, assuredly, certainly, clearly, definitely, doubtless, easily, forsooth, hands down, inarguably, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indisputably, plainly, really, so, sure, indeed, truly, unarguably, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably

Quote
And you still need to cite it, you would be expelled from even a community college for that kind of error. It's plagiarism whether it's a direct quote or a paraphrase (I learned that in middle school BTW).

In this case you should be expelled for making the statement that correlation doesn't equal causation without a citation, you certainly are not the originator of that claim. But it is an obvious and simple truth, generally such obvious and simple truths do not require citations. Maybe to you it isn't an obvious and simple truth, but once again we are just having trouble due to the fact that I operate on a higher cognitive level than you do, things that to me are simple and obvious facts are to you great mysteries.

Quote
You did not come up with that on your own, you tried to pass it off as original thought, and you misrepresented his words (by selectively quoting), because he does indeed indicate that there is a logical fallacy frequently drawn from the idea that correlation indicates causation. See below:
Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). [note: CAN BE]

And did you come up with "Correlation does not equal causation" all by yourself? So then why did you not cite it? Because it is simple and obvious fact? No fucking shit there is a logical fallacy in thinking that correlation implies causation, I never once denied that. I merely clarified for you that your statement left off important information. You know, before you indicated that I am an uneducated idiot for thinking that. You know, right before I gave a citation to a highly educated professor who said something very similar?

Quote
<sigh>Well, that was what he was talking about; but anyway, I did so because he says himself that it's size limitations conveniently lead to abbreviated statements. See below:
Quote
The paper was entitled The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint Here's the full quote:
Quote from: Tufte
PP slides projected upon the wall are very low resolution—compared to paper, 35mm slides, and the immensely greater capacities of the human eye-brain system. Impoverished space leads to over-generalizations, imprecise statements, slogans, lightweight evidence, abrupt and thinly-argued claims.

This issue truly traces itself back to a lack of verbal analysis capabilities on your part. The focus of his paper was not on projected slides but rather on artifacts he saw in a common cognitive style, that he partially attributed to, and analogized with, power point presentations. I can make an even better analogy. Your low resolution mind (ie: low intelligence) correctly recalled that "correlation does not equal causation", my higher resolution mind (ie: high intelligence) zoomed out from your verbatim verbally regurgitated without attribution (because you can't remember where you heard it) statement, and added the important phrase "but it sure gives a hint" to it, this is something I was able to do because my mind is higher resolution than yours, and I was able to attribute a source to the precursor of my words for the same reason. 

Quote
For example, this slide from a statistics course shows a seriously incomplete statement. Probably the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
Or perhaps "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit. It means we should find a better way to make presentations.


Quote
You don't understand that those words are being used as an example of another fallacy; that was the purpose of the coordinating conjunction or

I think the word or doesn't mean what you think it means. He gave two examples that he considered to be the shortest true statements you can make about the relationship between correlation and causation, both of which are longer than the commonly used phrase "correlation is not causation". But power point slides, much like your capacity for verbal recall, are of limited resolution, and people often leave out important information.

Quote
It is not. And if you're going use something that close to the original, you need to cite it. If it's a fact, then give me two more sources that use the same language as you. I don't care who it is, if it can't be empirically demonstrated, which Tufte himself does not claim it can be, it is not fact. Considering he's still alive, you should definitely have cited him, particularly since this paper is not available for use in the public domain.

Are you seriously contesting the inherently obvious fact that for something to have caused something else, the two things must both occur in combination with each other? Please give me ANY SINGLE example of something causing something without correlating with it. Let's see, fire burns paper, if I put paper in fire the paper burns, there is a causative relationship (fire burns paper) and a correlative relationship (paper put in a fire burns). I seriously don't even have the ability to think of how something could possibly cause something without correlating with it, it's complete nonsense that I would expect a seriously mentally ill person to think.

Quote
I can find 10-15 different sources that use that same phrasing (in 5 minutes or less). That is common knowledge. I could not find one other than Tufte, that uses yours. That's the difference. And I did try searching for it.

In educated circles, certainly in any post graduate community, it is common knowledge that correlation is a prerequisite of causation. If there is not correlation, there is not causation. If there is correlation, there might not be causation. It is common knowledge and it is obvious as fuck. Sorry your low resolution mind couldn't fit more of reality into it.

Quote
Obvious to whom?

People who are not mentally ill is the only thing that immediately comes to mind, although I am not sure which illness would cause a person to think that there can be causation without correlation. Perhaps mental retardation would lead a person to question this though.

Quote
Listen, I'm going to brutally honest with you: you write in the style of a person who is trying to make himself sound more intelligent than he is.

I know exactly how intelligent I am because I have had my IQ tested. My verbal intelligence is actually quite exceptional, and I am certainly of above average general intelligence.

Quote
Do you really believe that you're winning this argument. You can't even get me (or anyone else) to seriously debate you. If you haven't noticed, no one's paying attention to you. Were it not for me, you'd just be jacking off to kiddie porn right now. Period.

I think that I am quite clearly winning this argument, although I attribute this largely to the fact that everybody who is trying to argue against me is retarded. On the other hand, to argue against me on this point a person would either need to be a sophist or retarded, so it makes sense.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 11:28:28 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #355 on: January 09, 2014, 08:50:35 am »
Jesus Christ, these quote tags have gotten fucked up. It just took me a good ten minutes to fix that previous post.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #356 on: January 09, 2014, 06:32:16 pm »
Quote
Because both words are Standard English, and unlike you, I know the difference. But here:

mem·o·rize
transitive verb \ˈme-mə-ˌrīz\
: to learn (something) so well that you are able to remember it perfectly

See here if you'd like a more complete definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/memorize

para·phrase
noun \ˈper-ə-ˌfrāz,ˈpa-rə-\

: a statement that says something that another person has said or written in a different way

Complete definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraphrase
Are you seriously so stupid that you think these two things are mutually exclusive?
Any literate person would be able to tell you that, by definition, cannot both recite something that you have memorized and, at the same time paraphrase.

Here is what happened.

First I

1.  learn[ed] (a concise way of accurately stating the relationship between correlation and causation) so well that [i was] able to remember it perfectly

Then I

2.  [made] a statement that [said] something that another person [had] said or written in a different way
And why, pray tell would you have memorized such an obscure quote when you have no experience in the field of statistics and no formal education? Where did you learn that?

The fact that you think memorization and paraphrasing are mutually exclusive just demonstrates your low verbal intelligence.
Anyone capable of reading those definitions would be able to tell you that you cannot do both simultaneously.

And henceforth, I shall be ignoring any unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims of your own intelligence and will be ignoring any insults that you attempt hurl at me, because that's the behavior of a spoiled child and is, frankly, the other reason why I refuse to seriously debate you. And again, I couldn't care less what your assessment of me is.

Anyone with a superior intellect would be above this type of behavior. And while you sound like an adolescent, we all know that that's not possible as you are a self-confessed pedophile. 

In fact, you quoted him VERBATIM, which is by definition plagiarism.[/b] Why do you think I quoted your original post? And unlike you, who is in your own words, a computer science specialist--because, let's face it, you don't have a degree in anything--I managed to have the intellectual capability to link your quote directly for all to see.

Quote
I did not, in fact, quote him verbatim.
I said

Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.

He said

Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint

Quote
Fair enough, you added a modifier (definitely) that is unsupported by Tufte's words, to make your argument appear stronger than it is. And you still need to cite it, you would be expelled from even a community college for that kind of error. It's plagiarism whether it's a direct quote or a paraphrase (I learned that in middle school BTW).

You did not come up with that on your own, you tried to pass it off as original thought, and you misrepresented his words (by selectively quoting), because he does indeed indicate that there is a logical fallacy frequently drawn from the idea that correlation indicates causation. See below:
The paper was entitled The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint Here's the full quote:
Quote from: Tufte
PP slides projected upon the wall are very low resolution—compared to paper, 35mm slides, and the immensely greater capacities of the human eye-brain system. Impoverished space leads to over-generalizations, imprecise statements, slogans, lightweight evidence, abrupt and thinly-argued claims.

For example, this slide from a statistics course shows a seriously incomplete statement. Probably the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

Or perhaps "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit. It means we should find a better way to make presentations.
You don't understand that those words are being used as an example of another fallacy; that was the purpose of the coordinating conjunction or

Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). [note: CAN BE]

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc fallacy.[/i]

Surely and definitely are synonyms

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surely
Quote
Synonyms
    all right, alright, assuredly, certainly, clearly, definitely, doubtless, easily, forsooth, hands down, inarguably, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indisputably, plainly, really, so, sure, indeed, truly, unarguably, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably

<sigh> they have different connotations and he [did not say[/b] surely; he said sure. And even if I accept your words at face value it was not an original idea, and you did not come up with it on your own. You plagiarized it.

At least I'm mature enough to admit when I'm wrong, unlike you.

And let's say I accept that you've quote unquote memorized it. It was a quote or a paraphrase that can be attributed to a single, living source, from a non-public academic paper. That's what makes it plagiarism. And you would have been expelled from just about any college for what is a very amateur error.

Quote
And you still need to cite it, you would be expelled from even a community college for that kind of error. It's plagiarism whether it's a direct quote or a paraphrase (I learned that in middle school BTW).

In this case you should be expelled for making the statement that correlation doesn't equal causation without a citation, you certainly are not the originator of that claim.
There is no one single source to which the above quote the above source, and that's why I don't have to cite it. It is taught on the undergraduate level at every university in the United States? Should I have cited my undergraduate Statistics 101 professor? That's the difference Yours is attributable, and it is not a single quote to be found with the same language (because at most, you changed three words and the source is not only obvious, but you later cited it directly.

Oh, and plus I wasn't expelled from college, and you have, to your own admission, no academic credentials, so you are unqualified to make that assessment.

You did not come up with that on your own, you tried to pass it off as original thought, and you misrepresented his words (by selectively quoting), because he does indeed indicate that there is a logical fallacy frequently drawn from the idea that correlation indicates causation. See below:

Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). [note: CAN BE]

And did you come up with "Correlation does not equal causation" all by yourself? So then why did you not cite it? Because it is simple and obvious fact?
See above. Henceforth, I will also not be addressing duplicate queries.

No fucking shit there is a logical fallacy in thinking that correlation implies causation, I never once denied that.
You know, right before I gave a citation to a highly educated professor who said something very similar?

Really? That's the entire basis for your paper. See below:
Third of all, I can give citation to scientific studies showing that in every single country studied, the legalization and wide availability of child pornography correlated with a reduction in child sexual assaults. If this happened in one country we may think that it is correlation without causation, but when it has happened in every single country ever studied it makes a stronger case that there is a causative effect.

A. There is very likely a genetic basis for pedophilia, pedophiles are more often left handed and more often shorter, both of these facts give credit to a genetic basis for pedophilia:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115/2
First, I'd like to point out again that this is a newspaper article and that it is not appropriate for use as a citation in an academic paper. But since you've made me read it, I'd like to draw your attention to this gem within the article you yourself linked:
Researchers have also determined that pedophiles are nearly an inch shorter on average than non-pedophiles and lag behind the average IQ by 10 points — discoveries that are consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.

In a 2008 study, Cantor's team conducted MRI brain scans on 65 pedophiles. Compared with men with criminal histories but no sex offenses, they had less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain.

Most pedophiles, however, don't receive any attention until they've been arrested.

In an attempt to change that, sex researchers in Germany launched an unusual media campaign in 2005.

"You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behavior," said billboards urging them to contact the Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine in Berlin. "There is help! Don't become an offender!"

More than 1,700 men have responded to the print, television and online ads for Project Dunkelfeld — literally "dark field." As of August, 80 had completed a one-year program aimed at teaching them to control their impulses. Some received hormone shots. Compared to men still on the waiting list, those who received treatment were deemed less likely to molest children, according to an analysis of risk factors.

The German researchers promise patients confidentiality. About half of those assessed admitted to having already molested a child.

Though extolled by many researchers, the same program could not be conducted in the United States or many other countries, where clinicians and others are required by law to notify authorities if they suspect a child has been or could be harmed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115/2

That's why I don't read your sources. They never say what you'd like them to say.

And before you say anything else, you are obviously merge. See below:
It's funny, one person masquarading as two, with no formal education, feels that he understands the concept of information synthesis and excels at it, yet feels the whole world cannot grasp it. Perhaps, in addition to pedophilic disorder, and possibly dissociative identity disorder as you fail to see just how patently obvious it is that you and merge are the same person, you're suffering from narcissistic personality disorder? Funny, I drew the exact same conclusion of merge. Coincidence?

I think I get it, so you can cut the condescension. Wow, I said those same exact words to merge too. Coincidence?

[Y]ou're abysmally bad at quoting
(note: you're) And that's funny, because merge is too. Wow, perhaps a third coincidence?

Here's my fourth coincidence: You joined this forum precisely FOUR DAYS after merge coincidentally stopped posting to it. And you started off with his argument? And you're calling me retarded? Did I get that all correct? And what brought you here again? Gee, I wonder if merge will pop up tomorrow to chime in to disprove me.

Oh, and, you also coincidentally like merge, appear to be a security expert. And your posts in the Security board bear a striking similarity to his.

PS You're averaging 80 posts per day? Do yourself a favor: lay off the meth.

I fully understood his point, the only thing you took away from his document was that he was critiquing powerpoint!
<sigh>Well, that was what he was talking about; but anyway, I did so because he says himself that it's size limitations conveniently lead to abbreviated statements. See below:
The paper was entitled The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint Here's the full quote:
Quote from: Tufte
PP slides projected upon the wall are very low resolution—compared to paper, 35mm slides, and the immensely greater capacities of the human eye-brain system. Impoverished space leads to over-generalizations, imprecise statements, slogans, lightweight evidence, abrupt and thinly-argued claims.

This issue truly traces itself back to a lack of verbal analysis capabilities on your part. The focus of his paper was not on projected slides but rather on artifacts he saw in a common cognitive style, that he partially attributed to, and analogized with, power point presentations.
Read that again and get back to me. As I've stated above, I'm not responding to any further insults about your unproven intellectual abilities, and given the quote above about the average intelligence of pedophiles, directly from your source, I have no reason to.

Also, if your level of maturity is so low that you can do nothing but attempt to insult me, which BTW, I take no offense to insults from random, unidentifiable, strangers on the internet, who do not only not know me personally, but who also cower behind anonymity.

Quote
For example, this slide from a statistics course shows a seriously incomplete statement. Probably the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
Or perhaps "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit. It means we should find a better way to make presentations.


Quote
You don't understand that those words are being used as an example of another fallacy; that was the purpose of the coordinating conjunction or

I think the word or doesn't mean what you think it means.
<sigh>Here:
or
conjunction \ər, ˈȯr, Southern also ˈär\
Definition of OR
1—used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>
2archaic :  either
3archaic :  whether
4—used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare disjunction

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or

dis·junc·tion
noun \dis-ˈjəŋ(k)-shən\

: a lack of connection between things that are related or should be connected

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disjunction?show=0&t=1389289712

coordinating conjunction
noun

grammar : a conjunction (such as and, or, or but ) that joins together words, phrases, or clauses of equal importance
Full Definition of COORDINATING CONJUNCTION
:  a conjunction (as and or or) that joins together words or word groups of equal grammatical rank

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coordinating%20conjunction

Quote
It is not. And if you're going use something that close to the original, you need to cite it. If it's a fact, then give me two more sources that use the same language as you. I don't care who it is, if it can't be empirically demonstrated, which Tufte himself does not claim it can be, it is not fact. Considering he's still alive, you should definitely have cited him, particularly since this paper is not available for use in the public domain.

Are you seriously contesting the inherently obvious fact that for something to have caused something else, the two things must both occur in combination with each other?
No, I'm accusing you of plagiarism in that, you paraphrased someone else's work and presented it as your own because: said work had only one attributable source; said source is still living; and said source was not available for use in the public domain.

And then you foolishly pointed me directly to the source in a subsequent post.

Quote
I can find 10-15 different sources that use that same phrasing (in 5 minutes or less). That is common knowledge. I could not find one other than Tufte, that uses yours. That's the difference. And I did try searching for it.

In educated circles, certainly in any post graduate community, it is common knowledge that correlation is a prerequisite of causation. If there is not correlation, there is not causation. If there is correlation, there might not be causation. It is common knowledge and it is obvious as fuck. Sorry your low resolution mind couldn't fit more of reality into it.
Insulting me, as I keep trying to point out, only demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

Show me a minimum of two other sources, using the exact same phrasing as Tufte, that suggest that [it] sure is a hint and I'll retract that statement. And those source cannot directly cite Tufte. Otherwise, it's plagiarism.

And the other thing is, you're not among educate circles. You have no formal education, and it's not even clear that you even have a high school diploma.

So that's not obvious to someone of your level of education, and you did not learn that; you lifted it. Just admit it.

Quote
Listen, I'm going to brutally honest with you: you write in the style of a person who is trying to make himself sound more intelligent than he is.

I know exactly how intelligent I am because I have had my IQ tested. My verbal intelligence is actually quite exceptional, and I am certainly of above average general intelligence.
No one cares about your unverifiable claims, which are to be expected of a narcissist. Shall I count how many times you've used the word quite in this post alone? That's what I meant about your style of writing.

And that's a very distinct American use of quite and although I do use it that way, I don't use it with nearly the frequency that you do, and particularly not when attempting to overstate my intelligence, as you are. It does not make you sound more intelligent; in fact, it has the opposite effect. 

Quote
Do you really believe that you're winning this argument. You can't even get me (or anyone else) to seriously debate you. If you haven't noticed, no one's paying attention to you. Were it not for me, you'd just be jacking off to kiddie porn right now. Period.
I think that I am quite clearly winning this argument, although I attribute this largely to the fact that everybody who is trying to argue against me is retarded.
That's why I've correctly labeled you as a delusional, narcissistic, brat. Because of course, you are a misunderstood prodigy to whom that vast majority of people are inferior to you.

You are, in actuality, just throwing temper tantrums, and frankly, trying to get the last word, which, again, is to be expected.

You are clearly not above everyone in this thread, because you are not capable of remaining calm and rationally debating rather than insulting everyone, which offends absolutely no one, and as I've said previously, substantially weakens your argument, as do the two newspaper articles you cited.

PS One last thing:
Seriously, I don't believe I have ever before witnessed somebody
1. Not read the paper he is arguing against
2. Read and horribly misinterpret a small selection of the citations in the paper he is arguing against
[e.g. NYT article, LA Times Article, and a flawed study]
3. Post a bunch of citations, some completely unrelated [see above]
6. Make outlandish claims that were immediately proven false with direct citations to the studies that were actually not even read by him [see numbers 2 and 3]
9. Declare himself the victor of the argument
Does any of that sound familiar? They all sound exactly like you to me, ESPECIALLY NUMBER NINE

PPS:
Jesus Christ, these quote tags have gotten fucked up. It just took me a good ten minutes to fix that previous post.
See how easy that is? That's what I've been complaining about throughout this thread. If you can't copy and paste a quote tag, you aren't all that intelligent. You make these posts unreadable. It's a very simple process, yet you don't seem to grasp it. Odd for such a genius, no?

But that's right, according to your LA Times articles, pedophiles, on average, have a lower mean intelligence than others and have been shown to have less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain.

And you didn't even fix them, yet have the nerve to complain about it. LOL!

So once again, and I'm sure that it won't be the last time:

Vaffanculo! Ciao! :D


You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

AliceInWonderland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Karma: +54/-12
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #357 on: January 09, 2014, 07:38:20 pm »
Anyone capable of reading those definitions would be able to tell you that you cannot do both simultaneously.
So you are claiming that it is not possible to memorize something, and then afterwards paraphrase it.?
I don't see why not, allthough it would be more logical to just recite it.

And even if I accept your words at face value it was not an original idea, and you did not come up with it on your own. You plagiarized it.
This is a forum, and not a research paper! On internet forums we are really not that anal about citing original authors of quotes!

as you are a self-confessed pedophile
Would you mind pointing me towards the part where he confessed to being a pedophile.? Arguing on their behalfs doesn't really make him one!

Oh, and plus I wasn't expelled from college, and you have, to your own admission, no academic credentials, so you are unqualified to make that assessment.
You are really rather proud of your college degree! Him not having a degree doesn't make him unquallified to judge anything! That you would make this argument implies that you are a very arrogant person, that consider yourself to be better than everyone else!

No, I'm accusing you of plagiarism in that, you paraphrased someone else's work and presented it as your own because: said work had only one attributable source
Again, this is not a scientific report, or a school assignment, so why are you so focused on that.? And on the claim that something like this would have gotten him thrown out of every college out their; It wouldn't at the school I went to (I am not American, but have something that would almost be equivalent of a University degree).
He might have gotten a remark, but would definately not have been expelled!

See how easy that is? That's what I've been complaining about throughout this thread. If you can't copy and paste a quote tag, you aren't all that intelligent. You make these posts unreadable. It's a very simple process, yet you don't seem to grasp it. Odd for such a genius, no?
Lol, this makes you like more childish than you are trying to make him out to be! I was going to explain why, but with your fancy degrees, and high educational level, you can probably figure out why!

And before you say anything else, you are obviously merge.
This is an anonymous forum, so perhaps you should stop trying to link these two nicks together, and go after the ball instead!
Wether this is in fact one or two persons is completely irrelevant, and any effort to link any identities/nicks, is very bad practise, and should (imo) be stopped!


I would urge you both to stay on topic, instead of attacking each other! You are degrading the debate, and making yourselves look imature!

Both of you seem to think you are smarter than the other, so I would give you both this advice:

Never argue with an idiot! They will try to drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience!
Remember to look in the knowledgebase before asking questions:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?action=kb

The Ten Commandments - http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=15762.0

Why you should never talk to the police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #358 on: January 10, 2014, 01:40:59 am »
Anyone capable of reading those definitions would be able to tell you that you cannot do both simultaneously.
So you are claiming that it is not possible to memorize something, and then afterwards paraphrase it.?
I don't see why not, allthough it would be more logical to just recite it.
Not at all; I was suggesting that you can't simultaneously recite a memorized phrase, while paraphrasing it. What has been written is either one or the other. In other words, when you write the sentence, it's either a recitation of something that you've memorized perfectly, or it's paraphrased. It cannot be both at the same time.

With that said, of course you can memorize something and then paraphrase it later. That's not what I meant.

And even if I accept your words at face value it was not an original idea, and you did not come up with it on your own. You plagiarized it.
This is a forum, and not a research paper! On internet forums we are really not that anal about citing original authors of quotes!
While I'd generally agree, this person is trying to advance an academic paper using this forum as an avenue. I think that merits heightened scrutiny. Plus, it's just dishonest.

as you are a self-confessed pedophile
Would you mind pointing me towards the part where he confessed to being a pedophile.? Arguing on their behalfs doesn't really make him one!
Read through the last 4 pages of the thread. Merge and m0rph are one in the same.

I don't at all have a problem with the discussion of CP. I do however take issue with the hypothesis and the idea of legalizing CP.

Oh, and plus I wasn't expelled from college, and you have, to your own admission, no academic credentials, so you are unqualified to make that assessment.
You are really rather proud of your college degree! Him not having a degree doesn't make him unquallified to judge anything! That you would make this argument implies that you are a very arrogant person, that consider yourself to be better than everyone else!
You're a little late on this one Alice. Read through if you don't understand why I pointed that out. It's not that I'm proud of my degree. And while I'm not necessarily proud, at the same time, I do take comfort in being better educated than the person in question. And why would I be ashamed of being educated?

No, I'm accusing you of plagiarism in that, you paraphrased someone else's work and presented it as your own because: said work had only one attributable source
Again, this is not a scientific report, or a school assignment, so why are you so focused on that.? And on the claim that something like this would have gotten him thrown out of every college out their; It wouldn't at the school I went to (I am not American, but have something that would almost be equivalent of a University degree).
He might have gotten a remark, but would definately not have been expelled!
This is being presented as an academic research paper. Plagiarizing in an academic research paper is grounds for expulsion.

This is being presented as a scientific paper, replete with research, citations, statistics, etc,

See how easy that is? That's what I've been complaining about throughout this thread. If you can't copy and paste a quote tag, you aren't all that intelligent. You make these posts unreadable. It's a very simple process, yet you don't seem to grasp it. Odd for such a genius, no?
Lol, this makes you like more childish than you are trying to make him out to be! I was going to explain why, but with your fancy degrees, and high educational level, you can probably figure out why!
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to cut you off here. While I appreciate your remarks, you obviously have not read the thread. This person has claimed not only to be of exceptional intelligence, but also has claimed to be a computer science expert, yet he can't copy and paste tags?

And before you say anything else, you are obviously merge.
This is an anonymous forum, so perhaps you should stop trying to link these two nicks together, and go after the ball instead!
Wether this is in fact one or two persons is completely irrelevant, and any effort to link any identities/nicks, is very bad practise, and should (imo) be stopped!
I'm sorry, but not only is it obvious, not only given that he popped up within merge vanishing and is the only person who's read merge's paper, but also from his writing style and inability to properly use quote tags.And he's also stopped denying it. They also just happen to both be security experts? Oh OK.

Why did he show up not only in this forum, but on this particular thread randomly? I'm sorry, that's more than coincidental, and if you notice, I've already pointed that out and he did not deny the connection.

I rarely ever do that, but this one's crystal clear.

I would urge you both to stay on topic, instead of attacking each other! You are degrading the debate, and making yourselves look imature!
I'd urge you to refrain from commenting before at least reading the entire conversation (it's really not that long, most of it is just quoting). If you had, you'd understand that we are on topic. Start somewhere around page 21-22 if you're really interested in jumping in on the discussion.

I'm not trying to put you down, but it's clear that you haven't read the thread.

And just to reiterate, it's not the discussion of CP that I take issue with; I balked at the idea of legalizing CP, and the hypothesis that doing so would ultimately reduce molestation rates. That's what this argument is about. And that's why I'm questioning credentials.

And yes, I've lost my temper a few time where I'd've been better off exercising restraint, but I really do feel like I'm dealing with a spoiled child, which is frustrating.

If you'd read through, you'd see that I'm the one mature enough to admit when I was wrong or otherwise had misspoken.

I feel like if someone is going to call me and several others in the thread retarded, illiterate, stupid, etc. and then go on to tout his own superior intellect, then all is fair game.

Both of you seem to think you are smarter than the other, so I would give you both this advice:

Never argue with an idiot! They will try to drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience!
Oh, I don't think that, I know it. But I agree that you are correct in your advice.

To be fair, I have tried to point that out several times.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

AliceInWonderland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Karma: +54/-12
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #359 on: January 10, 2014, 02:23:30 am »
You are indeed correct that I did only skim the last 5-7 pages of the discussion. After reading a good amount of pages with shit slinging (from others), and repeating the same arguments (from Merge), I started getting a bit sidetracked/tired, before I reached the part where an actual debate was taking place.

I admit that I probably missed quite a few things, in that skimming, and tried to get the full grasp of the state of the debate by reading the last posts from you both, and reply to the very last (I am aware that this is not good practise).

I'm sorry if I misjudged you/your arguments from those last posts, and I will try to read through those last few pages one of these days, to better grasp the individual arguments of you both.

However I will still say that allthough it is probably likely that Merge and m0rph are the same person, I still don't think it is in order to call him  on that. In a place like this OPSEC is very important, and in my oppinion one should never try to interfere with another persons attempts at hiding their indentity (Even though it might seem like a weak attempt). Such things should be reserved to private PM's.

Also, without saying to much, I have been following the posts of Merge (through another alias), since the early days of the original SR, and I do believe that he is indeed a security expert. He is in fact probably the person who have contributed the most towards OPSEC in the forums for the last couple of years! Being able to properly quote a post is in no way indicative of his security capabilities! I suspect that you are aware that he just didn't bother fixing them further, and used that to take a cheap shot at discrediting him, which frankly, seems beneath you as you are obviously quite intelligent.

I would also agree that Merge might seem a bit offensive, rude and narcisistic, but I don't blame him after all the shit he have taken from speaking his mind in this thread. He might be wrong on some of his points, and have probably over-enterpretted some of his findings, but I stil think it is commendable that he keeps trying to enlighten people on some of their bigotry, and uninformed oppinions, after seeing the level of intelligence on the first half of this thread! Most of these people won't even listen to anything he has to say, even when it is actually quite insightful. They just put their fingers in their ears and scream lalala, cunt, lalala shitface, lalala I kill you, a lot like small children being told they are wrong.

On this note, I also think it is commenable that you actually engage in the debate, allthough I disagree with some of your oppinions too (For eksample not wanting to acknowledge most of his sources due to lacking peer reviews, and such).

As stated earlier, I will probably have to read through the last couple of pages, mostly because this debate seems stimulating (aside from the personal insults), but I can't guarantee that I will reply, as I ususally only reply if I feel like I have something to add or question in the debates, and this is not really a topic I normally concerns myself with, and therefore probably don't have anything to contribute with.

Anyway, just wanted to attempt to act as a kind of referee, and remind you both to play nice :-)
This way the debate seems more valuable to me...
Remember to look in the knowledgebase before asking questions:
http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?action=kb

The Ten Commandments - http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=15762.0

Why you should never talk to the police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #360 on: January 10, 2014, 02:59:45 am »
You are indeed correct that I did only skim the last 5-7 pages of the discussion. After reading a good amount of pages with shit slinging (from others), and repeating the same arguments (from Merge), I started getting a bit sidetracked/tired, before I reached the part where an actual debate was taking place.

I admit that I probably missed quite a few things, in that skimming, and tried to get the full grasp of the state of the debate by reading the last posts from you both, and reply to the very last (I am aware that this is not good practise).

I'm sorry if I misjudged you/your arguments from those last posts, and I will try to read through those last few pages one of these days, to better grasp the individual arguments of you both.
You're good. It's tough to read thoroughly through 25 pages of this, especially with such lengthy posts (I made the same mistake with my first post on the thread).

However I will still say that allthough it is probably likely that Merge and m0rph are the same person, I still don't think it is in order to call him  on that. In a place like this OPSEC is very important, and in my oppinion one should never try to interfere with another persons attempts at hiding their indentity (Even though it might seem like a weak attempt). Such things should be reserved to private PM's
That's fair, and as I've said, I've admittedly, in both frustration and drunkenness, lost my temper unnecessarily.

And you're right about the accusation, but that was pretty brazen from someone talking about how stupid I am and how much smarter he is.

But I still should've taken the high road.

Also, without saying to much, I have been following the posts of Merge (through another alias), since the early days of the original SR, and I do believe that he is indeed a security expert. He is in fact probably the person who have contributed the most towards OPSEC in the forums for the last couple of years! Being able to properly quote a post is in no way indicative of his security capabilities! I suspect that you are aware that he just didn't bother fixing them further, and used that to take a cheap shot at discrediting him, which frankly, seems beneath you as you are obviously quite intelligent.
Oh, I alluded to there being one more obvious merge on this thread. I may or may not have mentioned the name (I can't remember, I went back-and-forth as whether or not I should).

And I appreciate your compliment, and that impression is mutual. And judging solely from the posts I read through on the security forum, I'd also agree. I'd even go so far as to say that, in his field, he is by far more educated than I am.

I'd just like to say that I'd begun making that accusation before I'd begun looking into their forum posts.

I'd begun to say that when he was claiming to be a "computer science expert." It's just frustrating because it becomes difficult to tell who said what, and he cuts out quite a bit. At least when I cut out text, I link to the post that I'm quoting, so that the readers can evaluate the original statements for themselves in context.

I'd also like to add that I was really irritated at his last post, in which he complained that I screwed up the quote tags. I very well may have, because it was nearly impossible to sort it all out without devoting more time too it than I could feasibly do.

And I really was just pushing him to admit that he wasn't 100% correct. It's not easy to admit you're wrong, but I try to own up to it myself.

I would also agree that Merge might seem a bit offensive, rude and narcisistic, but I don't blame him after all the shit he have taken from speaking his mind in this thread. He might be wrong on some of his points, and have probably over-enterpretted some of his findings, but I stil think it is commendable that he keeps trying to enlighten people on some of their bigotry, and uninformed oppinions, after seeing the level of intelligence on the first half of this thread! Most of these people won't even listen to anything he has to say, even when it is actually quite insightful. They just put their fingers in their ears and scream lalala, cunt, lalala shitface, lalala I kill you, a lot like small children being told they are wrong.
Alice, the most frustrating aspect of all this is that, in my very 1st post on the thread, I tried to partially agree with him. So that you don't have to wade through all that, I'll pull it up:

I'm writing a paper right now that addresses this issue, I have over 68 citations currently, many of them to academic literature. The more I research it the more I see how totally fucked up these emotional "thinking" people are and how their "intuition" and emotional response leads to the exact fucking opposite of what they want. Once you really dig into the issue and research it it just becomes super obvious that CP possession needs to be immediately legalized, not only because it being illegal ruins the lives of countless harmless men but also because it leads to significantly higher amounts of child molestation!

OK I'm stopping there. There was an interesting article in The New Yorker about this a while ago.

That said, you have ZERO evidence other than conjecture to back up that last sentence.

You're right to say that many pedophiles are not child molesters (directly at least), but the trade of child pornography exploits innocent children, and in some cases, leaves them in scarred.

CP does not belong on SR. Period!

But I will also agree that the DSM and current treatment/assessment models are flawed at best.

And I will agree that they are locking people up indefinitely after they serve their full sentence and that that in and of itself is unconstitutional. But judges are signing off on indefinite detention.

I did try to remind him of this once or twice to no avail.

On this note, I also think it is commenable that you actually engage in the debate, allthough I disagree with some of your oppinions too (For eksample not wanting to acknowledge most of his sources due to lacking peer reviews, and such).

As stated earlier, I will probably have to read through the last couple of pages, mostly because this debate seems stimulating (aside from the personal insults), but I can't guarantee that I will reply, as I ususally only reply if I feel like I have something to add or question in the debates, and this is not really a topic I normally concerns myself with, and therefore probably don't have anything to contribute with.

Anyway, just wanted to attempt to act as a kind of referee, and remind you both to play nice :-)
This way the debate seems more valuable to me...
Oh, I'm not saying that others have got to see it my way. It'd be nice, but I do firmly believe in the freedom of thought and the freedom of expression, even if I don't like the topic.

It's my training in school that is making me so adamant about this point; I did (stupidly) confess that my undergraduate degree was in a social science and that I'd studied statistics heavily, and that I'd both read and written several academic papers and/or lab reports.

But you don't need to agree with to me.

And I also made clear what my other post grad degree was in; and I know that he knows what that is in, because he has not challenged me once on any of the points I've made in my field.

But I did start off pretty fast and loose with the facts in my 1st post in an attempt to quickly silence him, which was definitely a mistake. That's actually beneath me, and I should know better. But I've been acknowledging that from the very moment that he challenged me on it.

And as a side note, I'd like to add that it was a pleasure to arrive at this thread and to encounter someone interested in civil debate and the free exchange of ideas, and I appreciate your insight.

As we say in Italian, piacere signorina! (or it's been a pleasure to have met you miss!).

Thanks again for cooling me off!
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 03:09:32 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #361 on: January 10, 2014, 09:49:21 am »
Quote
Any literate person would be able to tell you that, by definition, cannot both recite something that you have memorized and, at the same time paraphrase.

Strawman fallacy, I never claimed to have recited what I memorized, I quite clearly said I paraphrased what I had memorized. After this post I think I might just stop responding to your logical fallacies, which most likely means I will end up just ignoring everything you say. I am not going to be trolled, and you are either a troll or a retard, and I am not going to humor a retard either. You have taken the topic entirely off track, which was probably your original goal since you can't actually form an argument against anything merge or I have said.

Quote
And why, pray tell would you have memorized such an obscure quote when you have no experience in the field of statistics and no formal education? Where did you learn that?

I memorized it because I think it is important to know the relationship between correlation and causation. Just like you memorized correlation isn't causation. The difference is that I memorized a more accurate statement than you did. And then you questioned my level of education for making such a statement, and made an enormous fool of yourself when I turned around and immediately cited a well known highly educated professor who said something very similar. So you looked like a fucking retard. And now to try to detract from how retarded you look, you decided to accuse me of plagiarism instead of realize that you look like a fucking idiot for having questioned the education of a person who would say such a thing only to be shown that someone who is highly educated said such a thing. You quite obviously don't have a post graduate degree in anything, certainly not in statistics, because you didn't even realize that correlation is a prerequisite of causation. That is some obvious shit, and anyone who would argue against it is obviously an uneducated moron. You can't fool me into thinking you are as educated as you claim to be, I actually talk regularly with highly educated people and none of them are as stupid as you obviously are.

Quote
The fact that you think memorization and paraphrasing are mutually exclusive just demonstrates your low verbal intelligence.
Anyone capable of reading those definitions would be able to tell you that you cannot do both simultaneously.

You can do both simultaneously you fucking retard. Paper in your hand with something written on it is a substitute for verbal memory, by your claim it is impossible to paraphrase anything!

Quote
Anyone with a superior intellect would be above this type of behavior. And while you sound like an adolescent, we all know that that's not possible as you are a self-confessed pedophile. 

More lies from you. I never confessed to being a pedophile, and it would be strange if I did because I am not attracted to prepubescent children.

Quote
<sigh> they have different connotations and he [did not say[/b] surely; he said sure. And even if I accept your words at face value it was not an original idea, and you did not come up with it on your own. You plagiarized it.

Wow I plagiarized "but it's definitely a hint", which is the only thing I added to your equally plagiarized statement "correlation does not equal causation", despite the fact that both of those sentences are statements of obvious fact and well known by anyone with a fucking brain so in neither case is it actually plagiarism.

Quote
And let's say I accept that you've quote unquote memorized it. It was a quote or a paraphrase that can be attributed to a single, living source, from a non-public academic paper. That's what makes it plagiarism. And you would have been expelled from just about any college for what is a very amateur error.

You would have failed out of college for not already knowing that correlation is a prerequisite of causation. Statistics post graduate my ass.

Quote
There is no one single source to which the above quote the above source, and that's why I don't have to cite it. It is taught on the undergraduate level at every university in the United States? Should I have cited my undergraduate Statistics 101 professor? That's the difference Yours is attributable, and it is not a single quote to be found with the same language (because at most, you changed three words and the source is not only obvious, but you later cited it directly.

1. "Correlation hints at causation" http://blog.fastfedora.com/2011/07/8-things-to-know-about-correlation.html

2. "Correlation is a strong hint that there may be a relationship, but identifying the exact nature of that relationship requires either controlled experiments or proper statistical analysis, both of which need to be carefully designed. " http://scienceornot.net/2012/07/05/confusing-correlation-with-causation-rooster-syndrome/

3. "Yes, correlation does not defacto equal causation.  But its either (1) a pretty fucking good hint or (2) a hint that some other closely related variable produces the causation." https://laidnyc.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/the-quickest-way-to-win-an-argument/

4. " So, we want to keep the correlation information (it gives us hints), but lose the implication of causation." http://thefinchandpea.com/2012/10/16/v-is-for-correlation/

5. "Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Everyone knows that. But the thing is, while it’s most certainly true that it doesn’t automatically logically imply causation, it does hint at it." http://scientiststhesis.tumblr.com/post/61413631655/causality-part-1-correlations-and-causal-models

6. " More accurately, we should stress that correlation is not causation.  Ongoing correlation gives us a hint that the correlated things are connected, but it ain’t necessarily so." https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc/

7. "We use the term association to indicate that two variables are not independent of each other. So, we expect that a change in value in one of the variables will be associated with a change in the other. We do not assume that relationship between two variables reflects causation. This last point has become something of a cliche and it is worth pointing out that while correlation does not prove causation, it is a pretty strong hint." https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Statistics_Ground_Zero/Association

Quote
Oh, and plus I wasn't expelled from college, and you have, to your own admission, no academic credentials, so you are unqualified to make that assessment.

It's strange that you think I am a self confessed pedophile without any college degree, when in reality I never claimed to be a pedophile nor did I say I don't have a college degree. This all seems to stem back to a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

Quote
Really? That's the entire basis for your paper. See below:
Third of all, I can give citation to scientific studies showing that in every single country studied, the legalization and wide availability of child pornography correlated with a reduction in child sexual assaults. If this happened in one country we may think that it is correlation without causation, but when it has happened in every single country ever studied it makes a stronger case that there is a causative effect.

They controlled for variables you fucking ignoramus. You seem to be taking the position that if there is correlation there cannot be causation. I find it shocking that this is what you have derived from the quote "correlation doesn't imply causation", and take it as additional evidence that you have no significant college education.

Quote
First, I'd like to point out again that this is a newspaper article and that it is not appropriate for use as a citation in an academic paper. But since you've made me read it, I'd like to draw your attention to this gem within the article you yourself linked:
Researchers have also determined that pedophiles are nearly an inch shorter on average than non-pedophiles and lag behind the average IQ by 10 points — discoveries that are consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.

In a 2008 study, Cantor's team conducted MRI brain scans on 65 pedophiles. Compared with men with criminal histories but no sex offenses, they had less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain.

Most pedophiles, however, don't receive any attention until they've been arrested.

In an attempt to change that, sex researchers in Germany launched an unusual media campaign in 2005.

"You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behavior," said billboards urging them to contact the Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine in Berlin. "There is help! Don't become an offender!"

More than 1,700 men have responded to the print, television and online ads for Project Dunkelfeld — literally "dark field." As of August, 80 had completed a one-year program aimed at teaching them to control their impulses. Some received hormone shots. Compared to men still on the waiting list, those who received treatment were deemed less likely to molest children, according to an analysis of risk factors.

The German researchers promise patients confidentiality. About half of those assessed admitted to having already molested a child.

Though extolled by many researchers, the same program could not be conducted in the United States or many other countries, where clinicians and others are required by law to notify authorities if they suspect a child has been or could be harmed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115/2

That's why I don't read your sources. They never say what you'd like them to say.

Look, I guess I need to spell things out better for you. That source showed that pedophiles have an over representation of traits that are related to genetics. Since you are a self professed statistics POST GRADUATE I would have guessed that you would be able to tell that the lack of uniform distribution of pedophilia across people with varying genes would indicate to you that pedophilia likely has a genetic cause. Actually, I pointed out the two leading hypotheses, one being that pedophilia has a genetic cause and the other being that pedophilia is caused by early childhood brain injury, although a combination is possible. But since you cannot extrapolate or engage in information synthesis of any sort, and rather need direct citations to direct quotes, here you go:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Quote
Scientists at the Toronto center have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.

Among the most compelling findings is that 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, triple the general rate. Because hand dominance is established through some combination of genetics and the environment of the womb, scientists see that association as a powerful indicator that something is different about pedophiles at birth.

"The only explanation is a physiological one," said James Cantor, a leader of the research.

And I don't really care that it is from a newspaper. Why should I waste my time tracking down the actual scientific papers for you when you openly admit that you are not going to read any of them anyway?

Quote
Read that again and get back to me. As I've stated above, I'm not responding to any further insults about your unproven intellectual abilities, and given the quote above about the average intelligence of pedophiles, directly from your source, I have no reason to.

First of all, I am not a pedophile, second of all one would imagine such a well educated statistics major as yourself would know the definition of an average.

Quote
Also, if your level of maturity is so low that you can do nothing but attempt to insult me, which BTW, I take no offense to insults from random, unidentifiable, strangers on the internet, who do not only not know me personally, but who also cower behind anonymity.

Ah, but you are the one who started down that path. I am merely replying to you on your own level, since by your own admission you wont even bother reading any of the scientific papers I link to anyway. You are very likely just a troll, at least I hope for your sake that you are because if you are not trolling you are most certainly retarded.

Quote
You don't understand that those words are being used as an example of another fallacy; that was the purpose of the coordinating conjunction or

You don't understand that the words he said are not the words on the slide he made reference to, which were not demonstrated in your quote, but which someone with high reading comprehension can determine are "correlation doesn't imply causation". You really have trouble with implications, information synthesis, extrapolation, really I don't see how you could possibly have managed to get a degree.

Quote
It is not. And if you're going use something that close to the original, you need to cite it. If it's a fact, then give me two more sources that use the same language as you. I don't care who it is, if it can't be empirically demonstrated, which Tufte himself does not claim it can be, it is not fact. Considering he's still alive, you should definitely have cited him, particularly since this paper is not available for use in the public domain.

Already provided numerous sources where similar language was used. If you were a statistics major you would definitely have already known that if you were at the post graduate level. Why feel the need to lie about your level of education?

Quote
I can find 10-15 different sources that use that same phrasing (in 5 minutes or less). That is common knowledge. I could not find one other than Tufte, that uses yours. That's the difference. And I did try searching for it.

Already showed several other people using similar language.

Quote
Show me a minimum of two other sources, using the exact same phrasing as Tufte, that suggest that [it] sure is a hint and I'll retract that statement. And those source cannot directly cite Tufte. Otherwise, it's plagiarism.

Already did.

Quote
And the other thing is, you're not among educate circles. You have no formal education, and it's not even clear that you even have a high school diploma.

I am most certainly among educated circles, I imagine most of my regular contacts have IQ's of about 140 +/- 20.

Quote
So that's not obvious to someone of your level of education, and you did not learn that; you lifted it. Just admit it.

I already knew it before I even fucking read it. Because I know how science works. Something you obviously don't know.

Quote
No one cares about your unverifiable claims, which are to be expected of a narcissist. Shall I count how many times you've used the word quite in this post alone? That's what I meant about your style of writing.

Shall I mention how many times you have said shall or henceforth?

Quote
And that's a very distinct American use of quite and although I do use it that way, I don't use it with nearly the frequency that you do, and particularly not when attempting to overstate my intelligence, as you are. It does not make you sound more intelligent; in fact, it has the opposite effect. 

I believe if anyone is attempting to sound more educated than he is in actuality, that it must be you, as I quite often hear people say quite, but very rarely hear people say henceforth.

Quote
That's why I've correctly labeled you as a delusional, narcissistic, brat. Because of course, you are a misunderstood prodigy to whom that vast majority of people are inferior to you.

I am not quite a prodigy, although I was indeed grade levels ahead of my similarly aged peers.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 10:20:45 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #362 on: January 10, 2014, 10:01:24 am »
Quote
Not at all; I was suggesting that you can't simultaneously recite a memorized phrase, while paraphrasing it. What has been written is either one or the other. In other words, when you write the sentence, it's either a recitation of something that you've memorized perfectly, or it's paraphrased. It cannot be both at the same time.

You are the only one who has used the word recite. Therefore, you are engaging in a strawman fallacy, something characteristic of retards such as yourself.

Quote
With that said, of course you can memorize something and then paraphrase it later. That's not what I meant.

It's exactly what you said.

Quote
While I'd generally agree, this person is trying to advance an academic paper using this forum as an avenue. I think that merits heightened scrutiny. Plus, it's just dishonest.

First of all, I showed seven other people who used very similar language. It isn't worthy of a citation because it is fucking obvious. Just like correlation doesn't equal causation is fucking obvious. Second of all, you keep neglecting to address the fact that you said I must be an uneducated idiot for saying such a claim, only for me to immediately turn around and show you a professor who made a very similar claim. This makes you look like a total fucking retard, and I would just like to remind everybody of exactly what happened. Your strategy to avoid looking like an idiot has been to falsely accuse me of plagiarism.



Quote
Read through the last 4 pages of the thread. Merge and m0rph are one in the same.

I don't at all have a problem with the discussion of CP. I do however take issue with the hypothesis and the idea of legalizing CP.

Neither merge nor I claimed that we are pedophiles, you once again have resorted to strawman fallacies. Additionally, you are not qualified to have an opinion of the hypothesis presented, or the idea of legalizing CP, because by your own admission you have not read a single fucking thing linked to or even the very paper that you are so vehemently arguing against! You didn't even read your own citations that you claimed argued against the paper that you didn't read!

Quote
You're a little late on this one Alice. Read through if you don't understand why I pointed that out. It's not that I'm proud of my degree. And while I'm not necessarily proud, at the same time, I do take comfort in being better educated than the person in question. And why would I be ashamed of being educated?

Most probably your degree doesn't even exist, I can't imagine a statistics major with such a poor understanding of things such as "correlation and causation" or "averages".

Quote
This is being presented as an academic research paper. Plagiarizing in an academic research paper is grounds for expulsion.

This thread is most certainly not being presented as an academic research paper. That was linked to by merge, and you refused to read it before commenting on it, much like you didn't read your own sources.

Quote
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to cut you off here. While I appreciate your remarks, you obviously have not read the thread. This person has claimed not only to be of exceptional intelligence, but also has claimed to be a computer science expert, yet he can't copy and paste tags?

I believe the main issue with the quotes is that your style of writing posts involves using about ten billion tags and full quote tags, making it hard to manually insert quotes without fucking shit up.

Quote
I'd urge you to refrain from commenting before at least reading the entire conversation (it's really not that long, most of it is just quoting). If you had, you'd understand that we are on topic. Start somewhere around page 21-22 if you're really interested in jumping in on the discussion.

We really are not on topic, because you are too stupid to argue and instead are just using logical fallacy after logical fallacy. This has turned primarily into a thread in which I tutor you on how to read and correctly interpret academic papers.

Quote
And just to reiterate, it's not the discussion of CP that I take issue with; I balked at the idea of legalizing CP, and the hypothesis that doing so would ultimately reduce molestation rates. That's what this argument is about. And that's why I'm questioning credentials.

Maybe instead of telling other people to read the thread, YOU SHOULD READ THE PAPER OR RESEARCH YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST?

Quote
I feel like if someone is going to call me and several others in the thread retarded, illiterate, stupid, etc. and then go on to tout his own superior intellect, then all is fair game.

I'm sorry that reality hurts so much.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #363 on: January 10, 2014, 11:34:20 am »
For the ones advocating changes in laws regarding CP, what kind of changes do you suggest?

(p.s. this goes out to both sides)
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 11:45:13 am by SandStorm »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #364 on: January 10, 2014, 12:07:56 pm »
For the ones advocating changes in laws regarding CP, what kind of changes do you suggest?

1. Complete legalization of possession and receiving child pornography

2. If the country has intellectual property laws, treat downloading CP as piracy, with the children depicted being given de facto rights to any images that they were featured in, so they can still sue if there are intellectual property laws

3. Increase penalties for paying for the production of child pornography, I would even be fine with life sentences, nobody should pay people to molest children

4. Increase penalties for child molestation, should pretty much be automatic life sentence if convicted of molestation of prepubescents, I think less strict sentencing for statutory rape of pubescents is acceptable though. Most men are at least somewhat attracted to those ~12 and older, and there should definitely be sentencing difference between someone statutory raping a 12 year old versus someone violently raping a toddler, but definitely I think all non-statutory child rape and all prepubescent rape of any sort should have a mandatory life sentence.

5. Lower the age of consent substantially, it should be at most 14 years old. However, a better technique would be to have a licensing system after some form of blinded psychological evaluation. Germany has minimum age of consent at 14, but after the fact if the 14 year old or her/his guardians complain to the legal system, the 14 year old is given a psychological evaluation, and the result of the evaluation determine if the child was mentally developed enough to engage in sex or if he/she was manipulated into it, if they find he/she was manipulated it is retroactively statutory rape, otherwise it is dismissed entirely. I think a better system would be for people to be given a psychological evaluation PRIOR to engaging in sex, with some form of certificate card like a drivers license being issued if they are evaluated as capable of sexual self determinism, with it being always legal to have consensual sex with a licensed person, and with the possibility of criminal charges being brought for having sex with an unlicensed person (probably with judge discretion to dismiss cases, for example, if you have sex with a 29 year old of normal intelligence who, for whatever reason, was not licensed).

6. Distribution of child porn should be treated like piracy as well, but

7. Private trading networks of child pornography should be illegal to operate, any structure that requires the uploading of child pornography for anything in return (money, more child porn, whatever) should be illegal

8. Take the > $1,000,000,000 budget (in the USA alone) for identifying and arresting CP offenders, and the even larger amount of money spent imprisoning them, not to mention the countless agent man hours spent doing that, and spend it on voluntary treatment facilities for pedophiles (like the German experiment), tracking down actual child abusers (via photographic forensics and similar), advertising campaigns that reach out to children who are being abused and try to get them to know it isn't normal (I don't recall as a child EVER being exposed to ANY television advertisements telling me that I shouldn't be molested, I can't even recall ever being talked to about it at school), systems for identifying children in child porn (ie: facial recognition systems loaded with year book pictures, etc), research into pedophilia and child sex abuse, maybe even programs that generate CGI and cartoon CP, etc.

They could also easily spend some of that money hiring some NSA level hackers, the FBI only needs to hire like ten of the best hackers in the world to stand a good chance of being able to pwn a lot of CP producers. Look at their FH attack, they used a 30 day old exploit that was only targeted to Windows. If they spent just 1% of the current money they spend on shitty P2P monitoring operations busting non-financial consumers and spent it on a team of a dozen world class hackers and exploit databases, they could cut through the security of identified producers and deanonymize them in no time. The people on Tor Hidden Services molesting kids are being tracked down with photographic forensics in the majority of cases, it works but it often requires a large sample of photographs and a decent amount of time, if they reallocated the money they spend going after non-financial consumers into a real dedicated world class cyber team they could probably bust a lot of these people a lot faster. Ten million bucks should get you some firefox zero days and maybe even some virtualbox/xen/jails/etc zero days and apache zero days or whatever, the feds could have an arsenal that cuts through security systems to deanonymize targets more like the NSA does than the pitiful old outdated already patched application layer attacks they are currently using.

Currently the way they are thinking is that oh shit 85% of people with CP have molested children so let's spend our money detecting the lowest level security people (of which there are millions) trading CP openly on P2P networks, then if we can bust like 10,000 people we can bust 8,500 child molesters! Versus spending the same amount of resources developing weapons grade exploit packages that can cut through the security of people who are *known* to molest children and upload their pictures to the internet. And their logic is that they will stop more child molestation this way, because they are using a probabilistic formula (x% of CP consumers molest children, by busting Y CP consumers we but X% of Y child molesters) rather than a deterministic formula (If we bust this guy who just uploaded pictures to this CP forum, we busted a CP consumer), and if you look at the numbers probably they turn out as showing they will bust more child molesters with their current tactic, because many child molesters who look at CP in theory would not upload CP to the internet to be targeted with such exploit kits. But there are problems with their assumptions, and what they are doing is inherently immoral. It's immoral because they are accepting as collateral damage the percentage of pedophiles who don't molest children but who view CP. And there are flaws in their assumptions. They bias the studies that show numbers like 85%, because they are studies of people convicted for CP possession, and the feds limited resources only allow them to follow up on 1% of identified CP consumers on P2P networks, so they predominately go after people with molestation manuals and such. That leads to an over representation of child porn consumers who have molested children, but they use those statistics to justify continuing carrying out their operations they way they currently do. And it also ignores that they can still use the *INTELLIGENCE* that someone has a child molestation guide to interview children that this person has come into contact with, to carry out investigations trying to find *EVIDENCE* of child molestation. It also ignores that many would be child molesters use child pornography instead of molesting children. It also ignores other studies that show 1% of child porn consumers have molested children, and it ignores research that indicates that child pornography consumers and child molesters are very distinct groups with only minor overlap.

One of the articles from 2008 said they had with P2P monitoring software at the time identified 642,000 people trading CP on P2P networks in the USA (this number has since greatly increased). The same article says they go after 1% of them a year, due to limited resources. That means in 2008 they probably went after about 6,420 people. If we go with the 85% estimate (highest I have ever seen), it means they probably busted 5,457 child molesters in doing this, if we go off the 1% estimate (about the lowest I have ever seen), it means they busted about 65 child molesters in doing this. I mean, it's really important to have accurate statistics on how many of the arrested child pornography consumers were child molesters, because there is a big difference between an operation that busted 5,457 child molesters and one that busted 65 child molesters. If they really only busted 65 child molesters, it would be pretty easy to argue that allocating their resources differently could easily lead to more child molesters being busted. I don't know how many active child porn producers the federal police are aware of but are incapable of tracing, but if it is 66-5,458 then it would make a hell of a lot more sense for them to stop using their funding to bust people on P2P networks who are probabilistically child molesters to one degree or another, and start investing it in exploit kits for tracing people who are deterministically child pornography producers and therefore child molesters.

9. The government and concerned agencies should have a network that people can submit child pornography they find to without fear of being sent to prison for it, if anyone could help find CP and add it to a network of known CP it could reduce the time it takes for molested children in CP to be identified, crowd sourced CP searching is always going to do a better job of quickly identifying new CP than law enforcement specific searching is going to do, and if there were no criminal penalties for viewing CP there are fuck tons of vigilantes who would spend their time trying to infiltrate private CP networks to give law enforcement access, etc.

I think making those changes would cause a dramatic drop in child sex abuse rates, and it would also stop fucking over people who have the only crime of having looked at the wrong series of colored dots.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 04:24:31 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Hiniguel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Karma: +683/-153
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #365 on: January 10, 2014, 03:18:19 pm »
For the ones advocating changes in laws regarding CP, what kind of changes do you suggest?

1. Complete legalization of possession and receiving child pornography

2. If the country has intellectual property laws, treat downloading CP as piracy, with the children depicted being given de facto rights to any images that they were featured in, so they can still sue if there are intellectual property laws

3. Increase penalties for paying for the production of child pornography, I would even be fine with life sentences, nobody should pay people to molest children

4. Increase penalties for child molestation, should pretty much be automatic life sentence if convicted of molestation of prepubescents, I think less strict sentencing for statutory rape of pubescents is acceptable though. Most men are at least somewhat attracted to those ~12 and older, and there should definitely be sentencing difference between someone statutory raping a 12 year old versus someone violently raping a toddler, but definitely I think all non-statutory child rape and all prepubescent rape of any sort should have a mandatory life sentence.

5. Lower the age of consent substantially, it should be at most 14 years old. However, a better technique would be to have a licensing system after some form of blinded psychological evaluation. Germany has minimum age of consent at 14, but after the fact if the 14 year old or her/his guardians complain to the legal system, the 14 year old is given a psychological evaluation, and the result of the evaluation determine if the child was mentally developed enough to engage in sex or if he/she was manipulated into it, if they find he/she was manipulated it is retroactively statutory rape, otherwise it is dismissed entirely. I think a better system would be for people to be given a psychological evaluation PRIOR to engaging in sex, with some form of certificate card like a drivers license being issued if they are evaluated as capable of sexual self determinism, with it being always legal to have consensual sex with a licensed person, and with the possibility of criminal charges being brought for having sex with an unlicensed person (probably with judge discretion to dismiss cases, for example, if you have sex with a 29 year old of normal intelligence who, for whatever reason, was not licensed).

6. Distribution of child porn should be treated like piracy as well, but

7. Private trading networks of child pornography should be illegal to participate in, any structure that requires the uploading of child pornography for anything in return (money, more child porn, whatever) should be illegal

8. Take the > $1,000,000,000 budget (in the USA alone) for identifying and arresting CP offenders, and the even larger amount of money spent imprisoning them, not the mention the countless agent man hours spent doing that, and spend it on voluntary treatment facilities for pedophiles (like the German experiment), tracking down actual child abusers (via photographic forensics and similar), advertising campaigns that reach out to children who are being abused and try to get them to know it isn't normal (I don't recall as a child EVER being exposed to ANY television advertisements telling me that I shouldn't be molested, I can't even recall ever being talked to about it at school), systems for identifying children in child porn (ie: facial recognition systems loaded with year book pictures, etc), research into pedophilia and child sex abuse, maybe even programs that generate CGI and cartoon CP, etc.

They could also easily spend some of that money hiring some NSA level hackers, the FBI only needs to hire like ten of the best hackers in the world to stand a good chance of being able to pwn a lot of CP producers. Look at their FH attack, they used a 30 day old exploit that was only targeted to Windows. If they spent just 1% of the current money they spend on shitty P2P monitoring operations busting non-financial consumers and spent it on a team of a dozen world class hackers and exploit databases, they could cut through the security of identified producers and deanonymize them in no time. The people on Tor Hidden Services molesting kids are being tracked down with photographic forensics in the majority of cases, it works but it often requires a large sample of photographs and a decent amount of time, if they reallocated the money they spend going after non-financial consumers into a real dedicated world class cyber team they could probably bust a lot of these people a lot faster. Ten million bucks should get you some firefox zero days and maybe even some virtualbox/xen/jails/etc zero days and apache zero days or whatever, the feds could have an arsenal that cuts through security systems to deanonymize targets more like the NSA does than the pitiful old outdated already patched application layer attacks they are currently using.

Currently the way they are thinking is that oh shit 85% of people with CP have molested children so let's spend our money detecting the lowest level security people (of which there are millions) trading CP openly on P2P networks, then if we can bust like 10,000 people we can bust 8,500 child molesters! Versus spending the same amount of resources developing weapons grade exploit packages that can cut through the security of people who are *known* to molest children and upload their pictures to the internet. And their logic is that they will stop more child molestation this way, because they are using a probabilistic formula (x% of CP consumers molest children, by busting Y CP consumers we but X% of Y child molesters) rather than a deterministic formula (If we bust this guy who just uploaded pictures to this CP forum, we busted a CP consumer), and if you look at the numbers probably they turn out as showing they will bust more child molesters with their current tactic, because many child molesters who look at CP in theory would not upload CP to the internet to be targeted with such exploit kits. But there are problems with their assumptions, and what they are doing is inherently immoral. It's immoral because they are accepting as collateral damage the percentage of pedophiles who don't molest children but who view CP. And there are flaws in their assumptions. They bias the studies that show numbers like 85%, because they are studies of people convicted for CP possession, and the feds limited resources only allow them to follow up on 1% of identified CP consumers on P2P networks, so they predominately go after people with molestation manuals and such. That leads to an over representation of child porn consumers who have molested children, but they use those statistics to justify continuing carrying out their operations they way they currently do. And it also ignores that they can still use the *INTELLIGENCE* that someone has a child molestation guide to interview children that this person has come into contact with, to carry out investigations trying to find *EVIDENCE* of child molestation. It also ignores that many would be child molesters use child pornography instead of molesting children. It also ignores other studies that show 1% of child porn consumers have molested children, and it ignores research that indicates that child pornography consumers and child molesters are very distinct groups with only minor overlap.

One of the articles from 2008 said they had with P2P monitoring software at the time identified 642,000 people trading CP on P2P networks in the USA (this number has since greatly increased). The same article says they go after 1% of them a year, due to limited resources. That means in 2008 they probably went after about 6,420 people. If we go with the 85% estimate (highest I have ever seen), it means they probably busted 5,457 child molesters in doing this, if we go off the 1% estimate (about the lowest I have ever seen), it means they busted about 65 child molesters in doing this. I mean, it's really important to have accurate statistics on how many of the arrested child pornography consumers were child molesters, because there is a big difference between an operation that busted 5,457 child molesters and one that busted 65 child molesters. If they really only busted 65 child molesters, it would be pretty easy to argue that allocating their resources differently could easily lead to more child molesters being busted. I don't know how many active child porn producers the federal police are aware of but are incapable of tracing, but if it is 66-5,458 then it would make a hell of a lot more sense for them to stop using their funding to bust people on P2P networks who are probabilistically child molesters to one degree or another, and start investing it in exploit kits for tracing people who are deterministically child pornography producers and therefore child molesters.

9. The government and concerned agencies should have a network that people can submit child pornography they find to without fear of being sent to prison for it, if anyone could help find CP and add it to a network of known CP it could reduce the time it takes for molested children in CP to be identified, crowd sourced CP searching is always going to do a better job of quickly identifying new CP than law enforcement specific searching is going to do, and if there were no criminal penalties for viewing CP there are fuck tons of vigilantes who would spend their time trying to infiltrate private CP networks to give law enforcement access, etc.

I think making those changes would cause a dramatic drop in child sex abuse rates, and it would also stop fucking over people who have the only crime of having looked at the wrong series of colored dots.


Aw for gods sake, you even advocate child porn. I can't deal with you, you are either a troll or just one of the most irratating and fucked humans I have ever come across - welcome to my ignore list.
NO LONGER LISTING - STILL ONLINE IF YOU NEED ME PM ME I WILL GET BACK TO YOU.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #366 on: January 10, 2014, 03:24:36 pm »
It was an interesting read, m0rph.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #367 on: January 10, 2014, 07:20:29 pm »
First of all, I am not going to engage you on your level, so my replies will be limited until you can speak like an adult. I'm mostly going to ignore you until then.
Quote
And why, pray tell would you have memorized such an obscure quote when you have no experience in the field of statistics and no formal education? Where did you learn that?

I memorized it because I think it is important to know the relationship between correlation and causation. Just like you memorized correlation isn't causation
That's not what I said.

Quote
Anyone with a superior intellect would be above this type of behavior. And while you sound like an adolescent, we all know that that's not possible as you are a self-confessed pedophile. 

More lies from you. I never confessed to being a pedophile, and it would be strange if I did because I am not attracted to prepubescent children.
You just did. If you are attracted to adolescents, it's pedophilia, both in common parlance and legally. You can call it hebephilia or ephebophilia if it makes you feel better, but it's still pedophilia.

And, the DSM-V considers hebephilia to be equivalent to pedophilia.

Even if we're talking ephebophilia, legally speaking, it's statutory rape/molestation if below the age of consent, which is 16 in the UK and varies in the US (each state has it's own statutes regarding this, each of which is too complicated to get into unless you request clarification--in many states, the person of the age of majority many not be more than a given number of years older than the individual under the age of 18, and there are other limitations on this).

A person of the minority age cannot legally give consent to sex (hence the term age of consent), just as a minor cannot legally enter into or be bound by a contract.

And that brings me to:

A minor--for good reasons--cannot consent to be featured in pornography in the United States, and anyone possessing or producing pornography featuring images of children who are under the age of 18 is in violation of US law, which is why we're having this discussion (and this is the case for most of the world, although the legal age of majority may vary).

So for all intents and purposes, it's pedophilia, because, legally speaking, the people in question are children

And merge said the same thing--an if you'll note I'm not the only one who believes you are merge--so we have coincidence number 6.


I don't recall you making any statements about this at all under the nick m0rph. I was basing that on what merge (who is you anyway) said.

Here:
Quote
Do you know what I find to be infuriating about you? Your overstatement of your intelligence, your inability to read, and that you you're a filthy fucking pedo.

1. My intelligence has been tested professionally, it is significantly high
2. My ability to read has been tested by numerous reading comprehension tests throughout my life, I always get perfect scores
3. I am actually mostly an ephebophile maybe a bit of hebephile too, definitely not attracted to prepubescents so I wouldn't say I am really a pedophile.

Wow, you and merge have a lot in common. Is that more genetic evidence?

Quote
<sigh> they have different connotations and he [did not say[/b] surely; he said sure. And even if I accept your words at face value it was not an original idea, and you did not come up with it on your own. You plagiarized it.

Wow I plagiarized "but it's definitely a hint", which is the only thing I added to your equally plagiarized statement "correlation does not equal causation", despite the fact that both of those sentences are statements of obvious fact and well known by anyone with a fucking brain so in neither case is it actually plagiarism.
It's not plagiarism, because I did not present it as my own thoughts or words. For the third time, here's what I said:
The first rule of statistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. is that anecdotal evidence and conjecture are not statistically significant.
Was I trying to pass that off as my own? ???

Quote
And let's say I accept that you've quote unquote memorized it. It was a quote or a paraphrase that can be attributed to a single, living source, from a non-public academic paper. That's what makes it plagiarism. And you would have been expelled from just about any college for what is a very amateur error.

You would have failed out of college for not already knowing that correlation is a prerequisite of causation. Statistics post graduate my ass.
I never said that I studied statistics on the post graduate level, nor did I say I majored in statistics on either the undergraduate or graduate level.

I took two courses in statistics on the undergraduate level because they were part of my degree requirements. I used them frequently in the courses within both my major and minor as an undergraduate student (which is approximately 80 credits of course and lab work, not counting the 6 in statistics itself). I know how to run basic stats, and I can both understand and interpret them.

I've never said more than that regarding my experience with statistics.

I also never said that correlation is not correlation is a prerequisite of causation.

What I've been trying to get across to you--which your own source, Tufte indicates--is that your paper engages in the opposite logical fallacy; that is, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning that you're trying to suggest in your review of literature that correlation is proof of causation.


Quote
There is no one single source to which the above quote the above source, and that's why I don't have to cite it. It is taught on the undergraduate level at every university in the United States? Should I have cited my undergraduate Statistics 101 professor? That's the difference. Yours is attributable, and it is not a single quote to be found with the same language (because at most, you changed three words and the source is not only obvious, but you later cited it directly).
I memorized it because I think it is important to know the relationship between correlation and causation. Just like you memorized correlation isn't causation. The difference is that I memorized a more accurate statement than you did.
Um, yeah, no, sorry, that's still plagiarism. Your sentence was almost identical to Tufte's, and then you conveniently cited him on your next post. Is that a coincidence too?

Why didn't you use any of these other sources, because those are all phrased differently. Your sentence was Tufte's with all of 3 words changed.

And I know that you were quoting specifically because of the object pronoun us. And here's what you said when I called you out on it:

I did not, in fact, quote him verbatim.

I said
Quote
Correlation doesn't equal causation but it definitely gives us a hint.
He said
Quote
Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint
Show me where you denied using Tufte's words. ??? in fact, you also said:
1. I don't consider what I did to be plagiarism. I memorized his sentence some time ago and put it into my own words.
So you did, by your own admission, plagiarize Tufte.

Quote
Oh, and plus I wasn't expelled from college, and you have, to your own admission, no academic credentials, so you are unqualified to make that assessment.

It's strange that you think I am a self confessed pedophile without any college degree, when in reality I never claimed to be a pedophile nor did I say I don't have a college degree. This all seems to stem back to a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
Silence speaks volumes. I've said this several times regarding your education, and you've yet to deny it. And, to be honest, you don't speak like someone who is either rational or college educated.

And as for being a pedophile, a few lines up, you've just now said:
More lies from you. I never confessed to being a pedophile, and it would be strange if I did because I am not attracted to prepubescent children.

That modifier, prepubescent combined with the use of the word children is telling indeed.

Quote
Really? That's the entire basis for your paper. See below:
Third of all, I can give citation to scientific studies showing that in every single country studied, the legalization and wide availability of child pornography correlated with a reduction in child sexual assaults. If this happened in one country we may think that it is correlation without causation, but when it has happened in every single country ever studied it makes a stronger case that there is a causative effect.
They controlled for variables you fucking ignoramus. You seem to be taking the position that if there is correlation there cannot be causation. I find it shocking that this is what you have derived from the quote "correlation doesn't imply causation", and take it as additional evidence that you have no significant college education.
Well, first, you just confirmed that you are merge (since that who I quoted in my post, and you in turn, qutoed in your reply). Thanks (not that anyone couldn't tell).

And second, it is not possible to control for every single variable in a study involving humans outside of a laboratory. That's one of the purposes of a review of literature, which is what you've written that you're calling a paper

Quote
First, I'd like to point out again that this is a newspaper article and that it is not appropriate for use as a citation in an academic paper. But since you've made me read it, I'd like to draw your attention to this gem within the article you yourself linked:
Researchers have also determined that pedophiles are nearly an inch shorter on average than non-pedophiles and lag behind the average IQ by 10 points — discoveries that are consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.

In a 2008 study, Cantor's team conducted MRI brain scans on 65 pedophiles. Compared with men with criminal histories but no sex offenses, they had less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain.

Most pedophiles, however, don't receive any attention until they've been arrested.

In an attempt to change that, sex researchers in Germany launched an unusual media campaign in 2005.

"You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behavior," said billboards urging them to contact the Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine in Berlin. "There is help! Don't become an offender!"

More than 1,700 men have responded to the print, television and online ads for Project Dunkelfeld — literally "dark field." As of August, 80 had completed a one-year program aimed at teaching them to control their impulses. Some received hormone shots. Compared to men still on the waiting list, those who received treatment were deemed less likely to molest children, according to an analysis of risk factors.

The German researchers promise patients confidentiality. About half of those assessed admitted to having already molested a child.

Though extolled by many researchers, the same program could not be conducted in the United States or many other countries, where clinicians and others are required by law to notify authorities if they suspect a child has been or could be harmed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115/2

That's why I don't read your sources. They never say what you'd like them to say.

Look, I guess I need to spell things out better for you. That source showed that pedophiles have an over representation of traits that are related to genetics.
I agree, that's why I quoted it. Plus, I wanted everyone to read that. It disagrees with every single statement you've made, particularly regarding your intelligence.

And you cited it, so that's further proof.

Not to mention, these are all theories, which are not established facts

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
Quote
Scientists at the Toronto center have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.

Among the most compelling findings is that 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, triple the general rate. Because hand dominance is established through some combination of genetics and the environment of the womb, scientists see that association as a powerful indicator that something is different about pedophiles at birth.

"The only explanation is a physiological one," said James Cantor, a leader of the research.

And I don't really care that it is from a newspaper. Why should I waste my time tracking down the actual scientific papers for you when you openly admit that you are not going to read any of them anyway?
I deliberately cited the link it so that anyone who was actually interested could read it. I only quote the part that was relevant to you.

Oh good, so you admit to citing it?  Because that source came from all the way back here:
I think an anti-prepubescent-child-molester approach is more helpful, and I think just about everyone in this thread already sides with that :)
TBH, I didn't get very far through the thread; it was giving me a headache. That comment was specifically directed at the person above me, specifically because the idea that making child porn legal is going to STOP?!? molestation is ludicrous and is unsupported by evidence.

I realize I'm slightly late on this. Sorry :)

And that wasn't shouting, I just didn't want the two most important points to be missed. Just emphasis.

Side note, I'm diggin these colors

EDIT: <sigh> And I'm sorry I fucking bumped it again.

Okay then show me some citations. Since it isn't supported by the evidence, according to you. Did you even read what I wrote? Every claim I made is backed with citations to academic articles. I'm sorry but your intuition doesn't mean jack fucking shit.

First of all, I can show quotes from industry insiders in the adult pornography production industry that shows they believe the for profit production industry has been harmed by P2P sharing. Not a scientific study (I couldn't find one), but still it is supporting evidence that when things are available free of charge it hurts the industry that makes profit from production and distribution of said things.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/porn-industry-in-decline_n_2460799.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-ct-porn10-2009aug10,0,3356050.story
http://www.talentzoo.com/beyond-madison-ave/blog_news.php?articleID=7358
So that's the 2nd confirmation from you, directly in this post, that confirms you are merge.

And your diction and level of vulgarity is identical. 

Quote
Read that again and get back to me. As I've stated above, I'm not responding to any further insults about your unproven intellectual abilities, and given the quote above about the average intelligence of pedophiles, directly from your source, I have no reason to.

econd of all one would imagine such a well educated statistics major as yourself would know the definition of an average.
Are we talking mean or median?

Show me where I said I was a statistics major and I will retract that statement.

I know I never said that, because I did not major (or minor) in statistics.

Here's what I said:
Quote
Listen, I have an advanced degree; I've conducted plenty of empirical studies--and have fudged stats frequenty (are you familiar with statistics? You can spin data to say whatever you want it to)--and the fact of the matter is for every study you can produce, I can produce one that claims the opposite. Talk to me when you finish your undergraduate degree.

You certainly don't strike me as somebody who has an advanced degree. Sure, social science is horribly unscientific
That's funny, because that I don't have the time to thoroughly research the subject, particularly under the guise of an anonymous forum should tell you that I have better things to do with my time (unlike you, who can sit at home and wack off to kiddie porn all day).

1. Psychology is dominated by the biological model of behavior and is beginning to slowly merge with the medical field, so it's far from unscientific today.
2. My advanced degree is not in a social science (that's my undergrad). I think it should be obvious what my advanced degree is in, because I tore your argument to pieces in my area of expertise.

Quote
Also, if your level of maturity is so low that you can do nothing but attempt to insult me, which BTW, I take no offense to insults from random, unidentifiable, strangers on the internet, who do not only not know me personally, but who also cower behind anonymity.

Ah, but you are the one who started down that path. I am merely replying to you on your own level, since by your own admission you wont even bother reading any of the scientific papers I link to anyway. You are very likely just a troll, at least I hope for your sake that you are because if you are not trolling you are most certainly retarded.
Case in point. I think I cooled off several pages ago. You, on the other hand, keep regurgitating the same insults repeatedly. That speaks volumes for your vocabulary.

And that's the 3rd time you've now confirmed that you are merge in this post.

Quote
It is not. And if you're going use something that close to the original, you need to cite it. If it's a fact, then give me two more sources that use the same language as you. I don't care who it is, if it can't be empirically demonstrated, which Tufte himself does not claim it can be, it is not fact. Considering he's still alive, you should definitely have cited him, particularly since this paper is not available for use in the public domain.

Already provided numerous sources where similar language was used. If you were a statistics major you would definitely have already known that if you were at the post graduate level. Why feel the need to lie about your level of education?
I disagree. Especially given that you acknowledged above (^^look up^^) that you were referencing Tufte.

Quote
I can find 10-15 different sources that use that same phrasing (in 5 minutes or less). That is common knowledge. I could not find one other than Tufte, that uses yours. That's the difference. And I did try searching for it.

Already showed several other people using similar language.
No, in fact you did not.

Quote
Show me a minimum of two other sources, using the exact same phrasing as Tufte, that suggest that [it] sure is a hint and I'll retract that statement. And those source cannot directly cite Tufte. Otherwise, it's plagiarism.

Already did.
Um, ditto.

Quote
And the other thing is, you're not among educated circles. You have no formal education, and it's not even clear that you even have a high school diploma.

I am most certainly among educated circles, I imagine most of my regular contacts have IQ's of about 140 +/- 20.
Oh OK, sure. Your language is definitely indicative of that. I'm more inclined to agree with your LA Times link; I'd assess you, from your lack of communication and social skills, and limited vocabulary, as somewhere around 80-90.

Quote
So that's not obvious to someone of your level of education, and you did not learn that; you lifted it. Just admit it.

I already knew it before I even fucking read it. Because I know how science works. Something you obviously don't know.
Case in point re: limited vocabulary.

Quote
No one cares about your unverifiable claims, which are to be expected of a narcissist. Shall I count how many times you've used the word quite in this post alone? That's what I meant about your style of writing.

Shall I mention how many times you have said shall or henceforth?
Not more than 2 a piece. I rarely use those words outside of a professional context. And I surely have not used them more than that in my conversations with you in the last several pages.

I'm not doing it for the same reason that you are.

Quote
And that's a very distinct American use of quite and although I do use it that way, I don't use it with nearly the frequency that you do, and particularly not when attempting to overstate my intelligence, as you are. It does not make you sound more intelligent; in fact, it has the opposite effect. 

I believe if anyone is attempting to sound more educated than he is in actuality, that it must be you, as I quite often hear people say quite, but very rarely hear people say henceforth.
Henceforth is used frequently in professional circles.

And again, this is a unique American usage of the word quite, generally used by people attempting to sound formal, educated, humerous or poetic (or, misguidedly British, as quite is just beginning to be used in that sense in the UK)

Quote
That's why I've correctly labeled you as a delusional, narcissistic, brat. Because of course, you are a misunderstood prodigy to whom that vast majority of people are inferior to you.

I am not quite a prodigy, although I was indeed grade levels ahead of my similarly aged peers.
Yes, indeed I'm sure you were.

That is, amongst your peers whom you rode to school on the short bus with.

Vaffanculo! :D
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #368 on: January 10, 2014, 07:48:38 pm »
Quote
Not at all; I was suggesting that you can't simultaneously recite a memorized phrase, while paraphrasing it. What has been written is either one or the other. In other words, when you write the sentence, it's either a recitation of something that you've memorized perfectly, or it's paraphrased. It cannot be both at the same time.
You are the only one who has used the word recite. Therefore, you are engaging in a strawman fallacy, something characteristic of retards such as yourself.
Quote
With that said, of course you can memorize something and then paraphrase it later. That's not what I meant.
It's exactly what you said.
That's your interpretation, not reality. Can you come up with something more original than retard, please? You're carrying on like a baby, and it's getting old.

Quote
While I'd generally agree, this person is trying to advance an academic paper using this forum as an avenue. I think that merits heightened scrutiny. Plus, it's just dishonest.

First of all, I showed seven other people who used very similar language. It isn't worthy of a citation because it is fucking obvious. Just like correlation doesn't equal causation is fucking obvious. Second of all, you keep neglecting to address the fact that you said I must be an uneducated idiot for saying such a claim, only for me to immediately turn around and show you a professor who made a very similar claim. This makes you look like a total fucking retard, and I would just like to remind everybody of exactly what happened. Your strategy to avoid looking like an idiot has been to falsely accuse me of plagiarism.
You've again confirmed you are merge.

Quote
Read through the last 4 pages of the thread. Merge and m0rph are one in the same.

I don't at all have a problem with the discussion of CP. I do however take issue with the hypothesis and the idea of legalizing CP.

Neither merge nor I claimed that we are pedophiles
3. I am actually mostly an ephebophile maybe a bit of hebephile too
Semantics.

Quote
You're a little late on this one Alice. Read through if you don't understand why I pointed that out. It's not that I'm proud of my degree. And while I'm not necessarily proud, at the same time, I do take comfort in being better educated than the person in question. And why would I be ashamed of being educated?
You are indeed correct that I did only skim the last 5-7 pages of the discussion. After reading a good amount of pages with shit slinging (from others), and repeating the same arguments (from Merge), I started getting a bit sidetracked/tired, before I reached the part where an actual debate was taking place.

However I will still say that allthough it is probably likely that Merge and m0rph are the same person.

I would also agree that Merge might seem a bit offensive, rude and narcisistic

Also, without saying to much, I have been following the posts of Merge (through another alias), since the early days of the original SR

Quote
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to cut you off here. While I appreciate your remarks, you obviously have not read the thread. This person has claimed not only to be of exceptional intelligence, but also has claimed to be a computer science expert, yet he can't copy and paste tags?

I believe the main issue with the quotes is that your style of writing posts involves using about ten billion tags and full quote tags, making it hard to manually insert quotes without fucking shit up.
Um, you're the expert; what's the problem? ???

And quote tags have nothing to do with the other tags I've used. :P

And that's formatting, not my style of writing.

And it's very basic cutting and pasting; an expert should be able to handle it, no?

Quote
This is being presented as an academic research paper. Plagiarizing in an academic research paper is grounds for expulsion.
This thread is most certainly not being presented as an academic research paper. That was linked to by merge, and you refused to read it before commenting on it, much like you didn't read your own sources.
Really? Here :D :
I'm writing a paper right now that addresses this issue, I have over 68 citations currently, many of them to academic literature. The more I research it the more I see how totally fucked up these emotional "thinking" people are and how their "intuition" and emotional response leads to the exact fucking opposite of what they want. Once you really dig into the issue and research it it just becomes super obvious that CP possession needs to be immediately legalized, not only because it being illegal ruins the lives of countless harmless men but also because it leads to significantly higher amounts of child molestation! All of the studies that say otherwise are fundamentally fucking flawed, as I point out. For example, studies of incarcerated CP consumers in the USA are totally biased because
I spared people from having to re-read the list that followed ;)

Quote
And just to reiterate, it's not the discussion of CP that I take issue with; I balked at the idea of legalizing CP, and the hypothesis that doing so would ultimately reduce molestation rates. That's what this argument is about. And that's why I'm questioning credentials.

Maybe instead of telling other people to read the thread, YOU SHOULD READ THE PAPER OR RESEARCH YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST?

I've already stated the reason why I refuse to do so. How many other people on this thread have read, or seen, your paper?

Quote
I feel like if someone is going to call me and several others in the thread retarded, illiterate, stupid, etc. and then go on to tout his own superior intellect, then all is fair game.

I'm sorry that reality hurts so much.
It doesn't; you've again misread. I've stated that you've put every aspect of yourself, from grammar, to intellect, to credibility up for scrutiny.

LOL Nice try with this one ;) Too easy.

So once again, vaffanculo! :D
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 07:50:40 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #369 on: January 10, 2014, 10:15:03 pm »
LOL I'm glad I was bored enough to come back and read through this, because I totally missed this gem earlier! ;)

For the ones advocating changes in laws regarding CP, what kind of changes do you suggest?

1. Complete legalization of possession and receiving child pornography

2. If the country has intellectual property laws, treat downloading CP as piracy, with the children depicted being given de facto rights to any images that they were featured in, so they can still sue if there are intellectual property laws
You can stop there; children cannot legally give consent; only their parents can give consent on their behalf; the ability to give that consent is also restricted by age; and, this only applies to sexual activity, not pornography.

On top of that, depending on where you reside, there are age restrictions on the parties involved in that sexual activity (i.e. if one is a minor, and the other is of the age of majority), and their relationship with the child (e.g. family, teachers, figures of authority, etc.); varies widely between what's permissible form state to state (it's not possible to make a blanket statement, because this is sanctioned by state, not Federal law) and again, that only applies to sexual activity, not pornography, regardless of whether the pornography is commercial or non-commercial.

The only way this would be legal would be if both parties are minors, which is not only not what you're suggesting, but it's also restricted in some states by age (i.e. one party can only be so many years older than the other).

Agreeing to be featured in pornography, in exactly the way you've described it, is akin to entering into a contract, whether that contract is verbal or written (hint: they're usually written, especially given your remark regarding intellectual property rights a/k/a copyrights in this case).

In the United States, persons under the age of majority, which is 18, cannot legally be bound to nor enter into contractual arrangements.

Any contract involving a party under the age of 18, without parental consent, is invalid, and is therefore unenforceable.

A contract, by definition, is a legally binding agreement between a given set of parties to a certain terms and conditions, whether or not it is verbal or written.

And if we're talking about pornography in the United States, assuming, for the sake of argument, that what you want comes to pass, the parents, or any other immediate family members up to and including cousins of the first degree, could not in any way, shape, or form be involved in the production of this pornography, because, again, in the United States, incest is a criminal offense (and is felonious) in all 50 states, with exception of one, and in that particular state, it's only permissible if both parties are over the age of 18 (i.e. all parties are consenting adults).

So, you'll need to change a whole host of laws in order to even make this possible, and that will never happen. Children, will never be granted the right to enter into contracts, with good reason, particularly in the case of pornography.

Additionally, you cannot, legally, take back something that you have given to someone without coercion, so once a child gives pornographic images or videos to another person, they have forfeited their rights to that property. It is no longer theirs.

And if they give it to other parties, without a formal contract that expressly prohibits reproduction, which we've already established isn't possible anyway, non-commercial, unpublished, works have no copyrights.

So they could never recover these images, and they could never prevent the other party from reproducing, non-commercially, as you've suggested, those images because:

1. They consented (again this is for the sake of argument, because this is not legal anywhere in the United States) to be photographed and/or videotaped.

2. They gave these images (note: not sold) to the other party with no terms and conditions (which is why many parents are concerned about their children sexting and sending nude images/videos to other parties).

You need to do more research, because there are many laws that would need to be changed, on both the state and Federal level, as the laws governing this are not specifically enumerated by the US Constitution, nor any of it's Amendments, so the powers are left to the states (10th Amendment), although one could easily make the argument that Congress has the power to regulate the trade of child pornography under the Commerce Clause if images/videos are crossing state lines (i.e. interstate commerce).

And this is not even touching on US Customs and Border Protection regulations regarding importing pornographic content in which children are involved, before you explain that you're talking about pornography produced outside of the United States.

<ahem> And human trafficking, the sex trade, etc.

Having said all of that, do you mean to tell me that an 8-16 year old, using that as a rough estimate of when puberty begins and ends (i.e. adolescence), are mature enough to make a decision that could potentially affect them for the rest of their lives?

Do you think they are capable of projecting just how far into the future these images can follow/haunt them for, for precisely the reasons stated above? You've got to be fucking kidding me!

That's why this will never become legal in the United States, on neither the state nor Federal levels;
, this discussion will never be more than theoretical.

You mentioned earlier in the thread that there are already countries where this is legal; if that's so, why don't you go fucking live there! Japan? Uruguay?

Shit, I think they just legalized marijuana in Uruguay, no? Sounds lovely! ¿Hablas español?

And you wonder why I demeaned your intelligence. Seriously?

Now, who's a fucking retard again? ;)

Good luck with all of that! :D

Vaffanculo! ;D
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #370 on: January 10, 2014, 11:34:26 pm »
Oh Fuck! Wait. There's more! I stopped reading earlier ;)

For the ones advocating changes in laws regarding CP, what kind of changes do you suggest?
3. Increase penalties for paying for the production of child pornography, I would even be fine with life sentences, nobody should pay people to molest children
But hey, if it's gratis, then why not? Seriously? :P

4. There should definitely be sentencing difference between someone statutory raping a 12 year old versus someone violently raping a toddler, but definitely I think all non-statutory child rape and all prepubescent rape of any sort should have a mandatory life sentence.
Right! Good luck with that one! You're in a very tiny minority with this view.

So if a 40 year old male, because most molesters are male, inserts either a part of his body or an object, into any orifice of a 12 year old male or female child, they deserve a lighter sentence? ???

Can you remember being 12? This will never happen in the US, and this discussion is definitely theoretical. Why?

Because the age of consent, permissible difference in age between parties--when only one is above the age of consent--and the restrictions on relationship (note: I'm not talking about blood relationship) of the adult to the child are all different in every state! This is not a Federal law, and it never will be Why?

Because the power to regulate the age of consent is a state's rights issue.Why?

Read the 10th Amendment. Now you're really talking out of your ass, because:

1. A sex crime--unless it's under some bizarre situation like, say, a moving vehicle--occurs in a specific district. The district in which it occurs has jurisdiction over said crime.

2. There's no power enumerated to Congress under any Article, Clause, or Amendment of/to the US Constitution to regulate sex crimes occurring in one, specific district.

3. There's no interstate activity involved because, as stated above, any crime falls under the jurisdiction of the district it occurs in, and only the local and state laws are applicable.

4. You'll never get the legislatures of all 50 states, plus Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Islands, and to a much lesser extent because of their limited size, population, and isolation, Guam, American Samoa, and The Northern Mariana Islands, to agree to amend their statutes to the degree that you're proposing. You wouldn't even be able to persuade a majority of them to do this.

If the person is assessed as a high-risk to re-offend, they should be civilly committed for life and never released back into society (This is not in reference to pornography possession, which is a separate issue; that's not what you're talking about here).

5. Lower the age of consent substantially, it should be at most 14 years old. However, a better technique would be to have a licensing system after some form of blinded psychological evaluation. Germany has minimum age of consent at 14.
See above re: why this will never, ever happen in the United States. Do you really believe you are going to convince a plurality of Americans to do this by using Germany as an example (or, honestly, anywhere in Europe, with possibly the exception of the United Kingdom)? ???

8. Take the > $1,000,000,000 budget (in the USA alone) for identifying and arresting CP offenders, and the even larger amount of money spent imprisoning them, not to mention the countless agent man hours spent doing that, and spend it on voluntary treatment facilities for pedophiles.
This is not all part of the Federal budget. This is governed by state and Federal law, and while there are offenders in the Federal prison system, many are in state prisons, and some states do have specific institutions reserved for sex offenders.

Three things:
1. You've got a very loose understanding of how the US government is organized.
2. You're, in the same post, talking about child pornography possession and molestation, which are two entirely separate issues that should be treated differently (and that don't belong in the same discussion).
3. Do you think that that is a lot of money from the perspective of the US Federal Government? If so, you're wrong; that's roughly < $3.50 per person. It's a latte from Starbucks.
9. The government and concerned agencies should have a network that people can submit child pornography they find to without fear of being sent to prison for it, if anyone could help find CP and add it to a network of known CP it could reduce the time it takes for molested children in CP to be identified, crowd sourced CP searching is always going to do a better job of quickly identifying new CP than law enforcement specific searching is going to do, and if there were no criminal penalties for viewing CP there are fuck tons of vigilantes who would spend their time trying to infiltrate private CP networks to give law enforcement access, etc.
How does this help your legalization argument? I could/can do that now. And what's the point of legalizing it in this case?

See my other post re: minors and contracts. The age of consent is irrelevant to the discussion of pornography There are some states, and if I'm not mistaken, the UK as well, in which the age of consent is 16 already, with no restrictions on age difference. But pornography is an entirely different story.

So, should 14 year olds, using your theoretical age of consent, be allowed to vote? Enlist in the military? Drive? Purchase alcoholic beverages and tobacco for themselves?

They can't enter into contracts, as I keep repeating, because they are minors. This has absolutely nothing to do with the age of consent. And the majority of Americans don't support your argument anyway.

You know, you could be much more persuasive if you improved your vocabulary. ;)

I think making those changes would cause a dramatic drop in child sex abuse rates, and it would also stop fucking over people who have the only crime of having looked at the wrong series of colored dots.
Which brings me back to: what qualifies you to make this assessment? Aren't you slightly biased?

You want to continue this? Because I will wipe the floor with you on this.

Possession of child pornography is an entirely different issue than the production and distribution of child pornography. And it's completely separate from the age of consent, which I'd bet that you know the laws for your state by heart

Now, come back at me by calling me a retard, ignoramus, fucktard, moron, etc. (I've been called much worse). That doesn't help your argument one bit.

Buona Sera! Vaffanculo! ;D

PS See you tomorrow ;)
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #371 on: January 11, 2014, 01:17:34 am »
Quote
You just did. If you are attracted to adolescents, it's pedophilia, both in common parlance and legally. You can call it hebephilia or ephebophilia if it makes you feel better, but it's still pedophilia.

This is quite strange indeed. Certainly, to some section of laypeople, particularly in the United States, Australia, and the UK, I might be incorrectly termed a pedophile. This is due to their lack of education. If a bunch of retarded people called me an elephant, I would not thereafter refer to myself as one, due to the fact that I am not an elephant, and the fact that they are retarded. Legally, the situation is a bit more complicated. Certainly, this will vary from country to country. For example, in Germany or Serbia, I would not legally be considered a pedophile, as the age of consent is 14, and I feel primarily attracted to people 14 years or older. I would say the sharpest cut off between a developmental stage I am attracted to versus one that I am not at all, typically is reached at 12 years old. By this I mean that I very rarely will find myself attracted sexually to anyone under the age of 12, but by the age of 14 I am typically sexually attracted to someone if I ever am going to be. So I would say I am typically not at all sexually attracted to anyone under the age of 12, attracted to varying degrees to those 12-13, and strongly attracted to those 14 or older. This would seem to imply a diagnosis of hebephilia or ephebophilia certainly (well, if either of these things were mental illnesses, neither is recognized as such outside of some countries legal systems), but it is hard to accurately determine which of the two would be more appropriate. It could be construed to warrant a diagnosis of pedophilia as the DSM specifies that pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children generally ages 13 and younger, but due to the fact that I am not attracted to prepubescent children I don't feel as if I would qualify for the diagnosis with their current wording (which gives an estimated age range, but does actually specify prepubescence). I suppose I could also consider myself to be a normal male, which research (as well as evolutionary theory) actually indicates that I am:

http://www.wisspd.org/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf

Quote
1967, p. 228).
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975).
These physiological findings were replicated by another group of Canadian
   

But you are correct in saying that I may be considered as a pedophile in some legal systems, regardless of the fact that I am like the vast majority of males. I actually find it appalling that the legal system of the USA has its own state psychological standards that deviate from the DSM and independent medical community, but I suppose that is to be expected of slave traders when reality doesn't mesh with their industry.

Quote
And, the DSM-V considers hebephilia to be equivalent to pedophilia.

Actually, the DSM rejected the attempt to merge hebephilia into pedophilia. That's why it is still called pedophilia instead of hebepedophilia.

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.fr/2012/12/apa-rejects-hebephilia-last-of-three.html

Quote
To hear government experts on the witness stand in civil detention trials in recent months, the novel diagnosis of "hebephilia" was a fait accompli, just awaiting its formal acceptance into the upcoming fifth edition of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

They were flat-out wrong.
In a stunning blow to psychology's burgeoning sex offender processing industry, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposed diagnosis outright, not even relegating it to an appendix as meriting further study, its proponents' fall-back position.

The rejection follows the failure of two other sexual disorders proposed by the DSM-5's paraphilias subworkgroup. These were paraphilic coercive disorder (or a proclivity toward rape) and hypersexuality, an inherently hard-to-define construct that introduced the committee members' value judgments as to how much sex is within acceptable limits.

After abandoning those two disorders, the subworkgroup clung tenaciously to a whittled-down version of its proposed expansion of pedophilia to cover sexual attraction to early pubescent youngsters (generally in the age range of 11-14), ignoring widespread opposition from both within and outside of the APA.

The buzz is that senior psychiatrists in the APA were unhappy with the intransigence of psychologists in the subworkgroup who communicated the belief that if they just stuck to their guns, they could force the ill-considered proposal into the new manual, despite a lack of scientific support.

All three proposed sexual disorder expansions were widely critiqued by mental health professionals, especially those working in the forensic contexts in which they would be deployed. They led to a spate of critical peer-reviewed publications (including a historical overview of hebephilia by yours truly, published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law), and an open letter to APA leadership from more than 100 professionals, including prominent forensic psychologists and psychiatrists in the U.S. and internationally.

The unequivocal rejection sends a strong signal of the American Psychiatric Association's continuing reluctance to be drawn into the civil commitment quagmire, where pretextual diagnoses are being invoked as excuses to indefinitely confine sex offenders who have no genuine mental disorders. In marked contrast with the field of psychology, psychiatry leaders have expressed consistent concerns about the use of psychiatric labels to justify civil detention schemes.

Next time around, the APA might want to do a better job selecting committee members in the first place. The "paraphilias subworkgroup" was heavily biased in favor of hebephilia because of its domination by psychologists from the Canadian sex clinic that proposed the new disorder in the first place, and is the only entity doing research on it. But what a waste of time and energy to create a committee that comes up with wild and wacky proposals that are only going to end up getting shot down when the rubber meets the road.


Thankfully the independent medical community has not been so thoroughly infiltrated by government slave traders that they would dare to declare pathological a condition that is held by the vast majority of males. It is already bad enough that the the retarded laypeople you previously mentioned think that the average male is a pedophile!

Quote
Even if we're talking ephebophilia, legally speaking, it's statutory rape/molestation if below the age of consent, which is 16 in the UK and varies in the US (each state has it's own statutes regarding this, each of which is too complicated to get into unless you request clarification--in many states, the person of the age of majority many not be more than a given number of years older than the individual under the age of 18, and there are other limitations on this).

Legally speaking, ephebophilia is completely legal in Germany, Serbia, Italy, tons of other countries too I can't even name them all off of the top of my head. It was legal in Spain including hebephilia until recently, when some whacko murdered his 13 year old girlfriend and they decided that meant no 13 year old could ever consent to sex again (because whackos never kill their 18 year old girlfriends!).

Quote
A person of the minority age cannot legally give consent to sex (hence the term age of consent), just as a minor cannot legally enter into or be bound by a contract.

So??

Quote
And that brings me to:

A minor--for good reasons--cannot consent to be featured in pornography in the United States, and anyone possessing or producing pornography featuring images of children who are under the age of 18 is in violation of US law, which is why we're having this discussion (and this is the case for most of the world, although the legal age of majority may vary).

This is not the case for most of the world. The US has the strictest CP laws in the entire world and one of the highest ages of consent in the world. In many European countries jailbait porn is totally legal to posses, in Germany they distinguish between youth porn of 14+ and child porn of 13 and below, with youth porn being historically legal to produce and possess, they did change the law a bit a few years ago but it is still defacto legal apparently. In much of the world the age of consent is 14 years old, and in huge parts of the world there are no laws against CP possession at all, for example Russia, Uruguay, Serbia, Japan, and various other countries. Czech Republic recently recriminalized CP possession but it carries minor penalties, it was legal for a long time and actually their legalization of it correlated with an immediate drop in child sex abuse rates. Hell, the age of consent in Canada was 14 until a few years ago! The primary reason countries are increasing age of consent and making CP illegal is because of the global political power of the US, which is disgusting moral imperialism.

Quote
So for all intents and purposes, it's pedophilia, because, legally speaking, the people in question are children

To a retard it might be pedophilia, and perhaps a slave trader may pretend that it is, but no educated person seriously considers ephebophilia or hebephilia to be the same thing as pedophilia. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, hebephilia and ephebophilia are not and they are both empirically demonstrated as being the normal condition of males.

Quote
And merge said the same thing--an if you'll note I'm not the only one who believes you are merge--so we have coincidence number 6.[/b]

Honestly, I do not give the slightest fuck who you or anyone else thinks I am or am not.

Quote
What I've been trying to get across to you--which your own source, Tufte indicates--is that your paper engages in the opposite logical fallacy; that is, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning that you're trying to suggest in your review of literature that correlation is proof of causation.[/b]

I never said correlation is proof of causation, and if you actually read the paper you would see that there is

1. Theory
2. Correlation
3. Controlled Variables

That strongly indicates causation.

Quote
Why didn't you use any of these other sources, because those are all phrased differently. Your sentence was Tufte's with all of 3 words changed.

Tufte's sentence was all of 6 words (ignoring the standard "correlation doesn't equal causation" part), so I think changing 50% of it is pretty good

Quote
So you did, by your own admission, plagiarize Tufte.

I learned something from him, much as you learned "correlation does not equal causation" from somebody, and then I put it into my own words when addressing you. Due to the fact that what he said isn't all that remarkable, and the fact that I have shown 7 other people say the same thing with similar language, I think it is pretty safe to say that I did not, in fact, plagiarize him.

Quote
I agree, that's why I quoted it. Plus, I wanted everyone to read that. It disagrees with every single statement you've made, particularly regarding your intelligence.

LOL.

Quote
Not to mention, these are all theories, which are not established facts

They are theories with enough evidence backing them that multiple researchers have concluded they are facts. Sort of like evolution. Do you think that is just a theory too? Are you a creationist by chance?

Quote
Case in point. I think I cooled off several pages ago. You, on the other hand, keep regurgitating the same insults repeatedly. That speaks volumes for your vocabulary.

Perhaps it speaks volumes about your insultable characteristics?

Quote
Quote
Already showed several other people using similar language.
No, in fact you did not.

Yes, in fact, I did indeed.

Quote
Um, ditto.

Indeed.

Quote
Oh OK, sure. Your language is definitely indicative of that. I'm more inclined to agree with your LA Times link; I'd assess you, from your lack of communication and social skills, and limited vocabulary, as somewhere around 80-90.

My verbal intelligence average is in the 120-129 range (superior), my short term verbal memory is 130+ (very superior), my GIQ is 112 (high average), and I am at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum when compared to many of the people I regularly communicate with, although I imagine my verbal IQ is close to average (average for those I communicate with, not average humans, to which my verbal abilities are superior or very superior, depending on how you break them down). 

Quote
Quote
I already knew it before I even fucking read it. Because I know how science works. Something you obviously don't know.
Case in point re: limited vocabulary.

That you think limited vocabulary is a sign that I don't know how science works is probably a sign of your low verbal intelligence. I always try to remember that I am superior to average humans when it comes to understanding words, I really need to start taking it more into account because in this thread it has led to all kinds of troubles (ie: my assumption that people can synthesize information, extrapolate, pick up implications, simultaneously process verbal information from multiple papers, etc). 


Quote
I'm not doing it for the same reason that you are.

I'm doing it because it's the way that I talk.

Quote
That's why I've correctly labeled you as a delusional, narcissistic, brat. Because of course, you are a misunderstood prodigy to whom that vast majority of people are inferior to you.

Honestly overall I'm just on the high end of average, but verbally I am superior or very superior to the vast majority of people (according to the WAIS-IV), so I guess that does mean that they are inferior to me.

Your previous sentence actually demonstrated a failure of short term verbal memory. you started off trying to say "you are a misunderstood prodigy to whom [the] vast majority of people are inferior to", but you failed to retain part of the sentence, and so finished it as if you had originally tried to write "the vast majority of people are inferior to you" as an independent sentence. Don't feel too bad though, I have a very superior short term verbal memory and I still make mistakes like that on occasion. It's hard for me to imagine how limited most peoples capacity for words must be, because technically if a person was as below average in the short term verbal memory department as I am above average, they would be retarded. Also, if a persons general verbal intelligence was as far below average as mine is above average, they would be borderline retarded. You can take some solace in the fact that my visual IQ is indeed significantly below average.

Quote
Yes, indeed I'm sure you were.

Really I was way ahead of my grade. I pretty much slept through school.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 01:57:07 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #372 on: January 11, 2014, 02:19:05 am »
Quote
That's your interpretation, not reality. Can you come up with something more original than retard, please? You're carrying on like a baby, and it's getting old.

Well, two people interpreted what you said to be the same, whereas only you claim we have misinterpreted you, so it seems like you are having communication difficulties. I guess I will be more accurate than retard, assuming you are of average verbal intelligence (which is debatable), if I then subtract from your IQ score the number of points I am above average, that would put you at borderline mental retardation. So I guess I will start saying borderline retarded.

Quote
Semantics.

Not according to the APA or international medical community.

Quote
I believe the main issue with the quotes is that your style of writing posts involves using about ten billion tags and full quote tags, making it hard to manually insert quotes without fucking shit up.
Um, you're the expert; what's the problem? ???

And quote tags have nothing to do with the other tags I've used. :P

And that's formatting, not my style of writing.
[/quote]

I believe I may have identified the issue. Oftentimes the quote tag is ABOVE the paragraph, but in some cases in our conversation, for some reason, it has ended up NEXT TO the paragraph. When manually adding quote tags, it is easy to miss this and add too many quote tags, which fucks up the formatting.

Quote
I've already stated the reason why I refuse to do so. How many other people on this thread have read, or seen, your paper?

You shouldn't comment on things you haven't read.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #373 on: January 11, 2014, 02:30:50 am »
Quote
You can stop there; children cannot legally give consent; only their parents can give consent on their behalf; the ability to give that consent is also restricted by age; and, this only applies to sexual activity, not pornography.

What? I merely pointed out that the current laws against CP are not required for compensation, currently restitution laws are used for the victims of child pornography to extract money from the people who viewed the CP featuring them, but if CP is treated like any other intellectual property we can still let these people sue people who possess their images.

Quote
On top of that, depending on where you reside, there are age restrictions on the parties involved in that sexual activity (i.e. if one is a minor, and the other is of the age of majority), and their relationship with the child (e.g. family, teachers, figures of authority, etc.); varies widely between what's permissible form state to state (it's not possible to make a blanket statement, because this is sanctioned by state, not Federal law) and again, that only applies to sexual activity, not pornography, regardless of whether the pornography is commercial or non-commercial.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote
The only way this would be legal would be if both parties are minors, which is not only not what you're suggesting, but it's also restricted in some states by age (i.e. one party can only be so many years older than the other).

Agreeing to be featured in pornography, in exactly the way you've described it, is akin to entering into a contract, whether that contract is verbal or written (hint: they're usually written, especially given your remark regarding intellectual property rights a/k/a copyrights in this case).

In the United States, persons under the age of majority, which is 18, cannot legally be bound to nor enter into contractual arrangements.

Any contract involving a party under the age of 18, without parental consent, is invalid, and is therefore unenforceable.

A contract, by definition, is a legally binding agreement between a given set of parties to a certain terms and conditions, whether or not it is verbal or written.

And if we're talking about pornography in the United States, assuming, for the sake of argument, that what you want comes to pass, the parents, or any other immediate family members up to and including cousins of the first degree, could not in any way, shape, or form be involved in the production of this pornography, because, again, in the United States, incest is a criminal offense (and is felonious) in all 50 states, with exception of one, and in that particular state, it's only permissible if both parties are over the age of 18 (i.e. all parties are consenting adults).

So, you'll need to change a whole host of laws in order to even make this possible, and that will never happen. Children, will never be granted the right to enter into contracts, with good reason, particularly in the case of pornography.

Uhm, children who were in CP regularly demand restitution from the people busted with their images. Some have become millionaires in such a way. If we treat CP as intellectual property, they can continue to do this through civil rather than criminal proceedings. That was my entire point.

Quote
Additionally, you cannot, legally, take back something that you have given to someone without coercion, so once a child gives pornographic images or videos to another person, they have forfeited their rights to that property. It is no longer theirs.

A problem with your multiple tags is also that I see things like (/color) and mistake it for (/quote) so neglect to add a closing tag. That is another issue contributing to the fucked up quotes.

Also, lolwut.

Quote
Having said all of that, do you mean to tell me that an 8-16 year old, using that as a rough estimate of when puberty begins and ends (i.e. adolescence), are mature enough to make a decision that could potentially affect them for the rest of their lives?

Your lack of reading comprehension strikes again! I am not saying that children should be able to enter into contracts in which they are molested on camera, I am saying if a child is molested on camera illegally, that the child should own the rights to the production as an adult, and be able to do what they please with it, and if there are intellectual property laws that will include suing people who illegal obtain the image. In civil court. Also, your estimate for when puberty begins is a bit low although I don't know the exact age, it has been consistently falling though, but I do know that peak sexual maturity is reached on average at 14.5 years old in females. 

Quote
Do you think they are capable of projecting just how far into the future these images can follow/haunt them for, for precisely the reasons stated above? You've got to be fucking kidding me!

Your reading comprehension seriously sucks.

Quote
That's why this will never become legal in the United States, on neither the state nor Federal levels;[/color], this discussion will never be more than theoretical.

You mentioned earlier in the thread that there are already countries where this is legal; if that's so, why don't you go fucking live there! Japan? Uruguay?

Shit, I think they just legalized marijuana in Uruguay, no? Sounds lovely! ¿Hablas español?

And you wonder why I demeaned your intelligence. Seriously?

Now, who's a fucking retard again? ;)

Good luck with all of that! :D

Vaffanculo! ;D

I highly want to move to Uruguay as it is the freest country in the world overall. Legal guns, low taxes, 15 is the age of consent (should be a bit lower), CP is legal, personal use of all drugs is legal, marijuana is essentially totally legal and sold by the government, sounds like a libertarian utopia to me. I will probably eventually end up renouncing my current citizenship and moving to Uruguay, but at this point in time I am not quite able to do this. I can't imagine being happier than I would be if I knew I could use drugs, fuck teenagers, and look at pictures of naked teenagers all day without having to worry about going to prison. I would probably immediately celebrate by completely legally sniffing some coke off of a 15 year old girls tits, and then laugh about how people think USA is the land of the free. After doing this I would probably then proceed to look at some pictures of naked sexualized 14 year olds, and wish to myself that Japan had low taxes, lax gun laws, and legal drugs. I guess no country is totally perfect! Uruguay comes the closest though. Too bad trafficking drugs other than marijuana is illegal there though, I mean I am at this point in my life happy to be a simple user but I would still continue to try to free the slaves in prison for trafficking. I would also bitch about the fact that I couldn't legally sniff coke off of a 14 year old girls tits (tits reach peak perfection at 14 and then have a sudden decline), but I would still be much happier :D.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 04:17:02 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #374 on: January 11, 2014, 03:22:01 am »
Quote
But hey, if it's gratis, then why not? Seriously? :P

I mean, if you are not contributing to child molestation then who gives a fuck? Go jack off to some babies being ass raped for all I care, it really wont bother me any. I will think you are a disturbed individual and certainly will think you probably have some level of mental illness, but I wont hold it against you if you don't actually rape babies or incite others to do so. I would think you are a disturbed and probably mentally ill individual if you jacked off to pictures of the holocaust as well, but strangely that isn't illegal.

Quote
4. There should definitely be sentencing difference between someone statutory raping a 12 year old versus someone violently raping a toddler, but definitely I think all non-statutory child rape and all prepubescent rape of any sort should have a mandatory life sentence.
Right! Good luck with that one! You're in a very tiny minority with this view.

So if a 40 year old male, because most molesters are male, inserts either a part of his body or an object, into any orifice of a 12 year old male or female child, they deserve a lighter sentence? ???

Can you remember being 12? This will never happen in the US, and this discussion is definitely theoretical. Why?

The US legal system already differentiates between statutory rape of 12 year olds and 'statutory' rape of those under 12. They actually do differentiate on CP laws as well, CP featuring children under 12 carries heftier sentences. I think that this should continue. I think it is worse for a 40 year old male to stick his dick in a 2 year old than it is in a 12 year old. I mean, if I knew someone had sexual interaction with a 12 year old I could conceive of a situation in which I would not turn them into the police, provided the 12 year old consented. On the other hand, if someone fucked a 2 year old, I would certainly turn them into the police, there is no conceivable situation where I would think "That was probably wrong, but in the grand scheme of things it probably didn't cause much harm, and it seemed like a temporary judgement error and not something that will likely be repeated", or something similar, if it involved a 2 year old. I think 12 year olds have a much higher capacity for sexual self determinism than 2 year olds do, and although 12 is probably too young an age for a person much older to have sex with, I feel like it would be more understandable if someone had sex with a well developed 12 year old than a 2 year old. It's probably wrong even for a 12 year old, certainly for a 2 year old, but in one case it is certainly worse than the other, as I am sure you probably agree?

I guess to summarize, the common saying is something like "dude, she's 12" , whereas with a 2 year old it is more like "what the actual fuck is wrong with you?!"

Also yeah I remember being 12. I would say it was when I first developed significant interest in sex, although I had experimented with porn earlier than that, and had puppy love crushes on girls prior to that, but prior puppy love feelings lacked any significant sexual connotation. I remember looking up the girls dresses at school every chance I managed, and compulsively jacking off every chance I got. I don't think the girls at that time were usually as sexually motivated as the boys had become, but we probably all had substantially more interest in sex than we did when we were 2. I don't think it would have been at all harmful to me if some 20 year old girl decided to give me a blowjob at the time, and I am sure I would have immensely enjoyed it. For girls it is a little bit different though, if some 20 year old dude decided to fuck one of them it probably would not have had as happy of an ending, but it would still have been more understandable for him to have given into the temptation to do that then it would have been for someone to give into their pathological temptation to fuck a 2 year old. And even though it would have most likely been wrong and manipulative to a degree, I think the degree of manipulative behavior would have been less than it would in the case of a 2 year old, and that any penalty should reflect the difference. Certainly I think a 12 year old girl has more understanding of sex than a 2 year old, and much more of an ability to refuse to engage in it if it isn't desired.

Quote
Because the age of consent, permissible difference in age between parties--when only one is above the age of consent--and the restrictions on relationship (note: I'm not talking about blood relationship) of the adult to the child are all different in every state! This is not a Federal law, and it never will be Why?

What?

Quote
Because the power to regulate the age of consent is a state's rights issue.Why?

The minimum federal age of consent is 16 years old, states have their own age of consent at 17 or 18 though.

Quote
1. A sex crime--unless it's under some bizarre situation like, say, a moving vehicle--occurs in a specific district. The district in which it occurs has jurisdiction over said crime.

2. There's no power enumerated to Congress under any Article, Clause, or Amendment of/to the US Constitution to regulate sex crimes occurring in one, specific district.

3. There's no interstate activity involved because, as stated above, any crime falls under the jurisdiction of the district it occurs in, and only the local and state laws are applicable.

4. You'll never get the legislatures of all 50 states, plus Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Islands, and to a much lesser extent because of their limited size, population, and isolation, Guam, American Samoa, and The Northern Mariana Islands, to agree to amend their statutes to the degree that you're proposing. You wouldn't even be able to persuade a majority of them to do this.

So?

Quote
If the person is assessed as a high-risk to re-offend, they should be civilly committed for life and never released back into society (This is not in reference to pornography possession, which is a separate issue; that's not what you're talking about here).

It really depends on the age of the minor involved. Like, if someone gets a handjob from a 12 year old, they should probably be at least at risk of going to prison for several years in many cases. If they fuck a 2 year old I think they should never be released from prison regardless of their risk to reoffend. The only possible exception would be like if it is shown they had a brain tumor or other mental illness that had been dealt with to the point that they are provably a new person. There was one case of a guy with a brain tumor who started having sex with his step daughter I believe, and it was actually later identified that he had a brain tumor, and after it was removed all of his pedophilic (or maybe it was hebephilic) tendencies were gone (or he could suppress them normally again). In his case, maybe he doesn't need to stay in prison for the rest of his life. But generally if someone has raped a prepubescent child I think they should go to prison for the rest of the lives.

But really the best system is licensing after blinded psychological evaluation. It removes all of the guess work. A person either obtains certification or they fail to obtain it. Their age doesn't really matter. If by a freak of nature a 2 year old had the mind of a 21 year old, I would not think it should be illegal for someone to have consensual sex with them, just as if a 20 year old has the mental capabilities of a 2 year old it should not be legal to have sex with them. Age is just a rough approximation of what is acceptable, we can be much more precise with psychological evaluations and certification.

Quote
See above re: why this will never, ever happen in the United States. Do you really believe you are going to convince a plurality of Americans to do this by using Germany as an example (or, honestly, anywhere in Europe, with possibly the exception of the United Kingdom)? ???

I don't think I can convince a plurality of Americans to do anything that they should do, because they are brainwashed mindless drones that are controlled almost exclusively by religious leaders and the slave traders of the prison industrial complex.

Quote
This is governed by state and Federal law, and while there are offenders in the Federal prison system, many are in state prisons, and some states do have specific institutions reserved for sex offenders.

No, it's actually the federal government alone that has a billion dollar anti-CP consumer budget, that they spend predominately on P2P operations busting insecure consumers. Actually, I think the billion dollars was exclusively meant for federal operations against P2P networks. The actual amount of money being spent on CP consumers in the USA is almost laughable, it's seriously in the multi billions of dollars. It's turned into a massive industry. It's a slave trade, much like the war on drugs has turned drug users into slaves. If CP was legalized, a whole lot of people would lose their jobs. They don't care about science or reality or even children honestly, they care about funneling money to themselves at the expense of slaves. 

Quote
Three things:
1. You've got a very loose understanding of how the US government is organized.
2. You're, in the same post, talking about child pornography possession and molestation, which are two entirely separate issues that should be treated differently (and that don't belong in the same discussion).
3. Do you think that that is a lot of money from the perspective of the US Federal Government? If so, you're wrong; that's roughly < $3.50 per person. It's a latte from Starbucks.
9. The government and concerned agencies should have a network that people can submit child pornography they find to without fear of being sent to prison for it, if anyone could help find CP and add it to a network of known CP it could reduce the time it takes for molested children in CP to be identified, crowd sourced CP searching is always going to do a better job of quickly identifying new CP than law enforcement specific searching is going to do, and if there were no criminal penalties for viewing CP there are fuck tons of vigilantes who would spend their time trying to infiltrate private CP networks to give law enforcement access, etc.
How does this help your legalization argument? I could/can do that now. And what's the point of legalizing it in this case?

Partially I don't know what you are talking about, second of all you could indeed try help the feds locate new CP or infiltrate CP networks, or look through known CP trying to identify children, but if you did so you would risk going to prison for having looked at CP, so I doubt you will do it.

Quote
So, should 14 year olds, using your theoretical age of consent, be allowed to vote? Enlist in the military? Drive? Purchase alcoholic beverages and tobacco for themselves?

I definitely think they should be able to do all of those things. In some states I am pretty sure 14 year olds actually can drive. They should also not be restricted from joining the military, unless the military doesn't want them, that's up to the military. If they want to smoke or drink I don't give a shit, I smoked and drank when I was 14, for fucks sake I ordered psychedelic research chemicals from Chinese labs and got high as a kite when I was 14, and I turned out just fine. If anything we should provide people in this age range with safe access to drugs and honest truthful information about the risks of drugs, when I was 14 I knew a lot of people who took cough medicine with acetaminophen and other shit in it because they knew they wanted to take DXM and didn't even know any better, I took pure DXM powder that I ordered off the internet but I actually sort of wish I didn't even do that and instead had access to ketamine which I feel is safer overall. I am 100% okay with 14 year olds fucking drinking and smoking, because when I was 14 my peers were already doing ALL OF THOSE THINGS, in a more dangerous way than necessary, because of fucking retards who tried to protect the children!

Quote
They can't enter into contracts, as I keep repeating, because they are minors. This has absolutely nothing to do with the age of consent. And the majority of Americans don't support your argument anyway.

You know, you could be much more persuasive if you improved your vocabulary. ;)

Yes you keep saying how things are and I keep saying how things ought to be, please don't tell me you are going to add is-ought to your already impressive list of logical fallacies!

Quote
Which brings me back to: what qualifies you to make this assessment? Aren't you slightly biased?

Certainly I am biased, but I can show empirical research that supports me and numerous academic studies that support me, studies you refuse to read or address. Also, CERTAINLY the prison industrial complex and their cronies are massively biased, considering keeping sex laws and porn laws the way they are is a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS.

Quote
You want to continue this? Because I will wipe the floor with you on this.

Wiping floors is certainly a job I think you are qualified for.

Quote
Possession of child pornography is an entirely different issue than the production and distribution of child pornography. And it's completely separate from the age of consent, which I'd bet that you know the laws for your state by heart

They are different but related issues.

Quote
Now, come back at me by calling me a retard, ignoramus, fucktard, moron, etc. (I've been called much worse). That doesn't help your argument one bit.

Buona Sera! Vaffanculo! ;D

PS See you tomorrow ;)

See you tomorrow !!!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 03:57:35 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Sensaiy36

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +31/-22
  • Trap Or Die
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Child porn thread
« Reply #375 on: January 11, 2014, 03:26:42 am »
Why does that thread have over 20 pages of post? That's weird.
You want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

Euphoria

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +16/-1
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Child porn thread
« Reply #376 on: January 11, 2014, 03:30:50 am »
Apparently there are a lot of people that like discussing child pornography.

Sensaiy36

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +31/-22
  • Trap Or Die
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Child porn thread
« Reply #377 on: January 11, 2014, 03:34:23 am »
I haven't checked the post, I just think it's odd that the thread gets bumped every minute hahaa! Smh..
You want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #378 on: January 11, 2014, 03:40:44 am »
Quote
You can stop there; children cannot legally give consent; only their parents can give consent on their behalf; the ability to give that consent is also restricted by age; and, this only applies to sexual activity, not pornography.

What? I merely pointed out that the current laws against CP are not required for compensation, currently restitution laws are used for the victims of child pornography to extract money from the people who viewed the CP featuring them, but if CP is treated like any other intellectual property we can still let these people sue people who possess their images.
Legally speaking, this is only true because CP is illegal. Legalization would change this.

Quote
On top of that, depending on where you reside, there are age restrictions on the parties involved in that sexual activity (i.e. if one is a minor, and the other is of the age of majority), and their relationship with the child (e.g. family, teachers, figures of authority, etc.); varies widely between what's permissible form state to state (it's not possible to make a blanket statement, because this is sanctioned by state, not Federal law) and again, that only applies to sexual activity, not pornography, regardless of whether the pornography is commercial or non-commercial.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Because you don't understand the rule of law. Come mothers and fathers throughout the land; and don't criticize what you can't understand. I was referring to the ability to give consent for sexual activity, trying to be as detailed as possible without going over your head, but apparently, I've failed.

It is part of the quote that you, conveniently, split up; perhaps to feign ignorance? Not that you need the pretense.

Quote
The only way this would be legal would be if both parties are minors, which is not only not what you're suggesting, but it's also restricted in some states by age (i.e. one party can only be so many years older than the other).

Agreeing to be featured in pornography, in exactly the way you've described it, is akin to entering into a contract, whether that contract is verbal or written (hint: they're usually written, especially given your remark regarding intellectual property rights a/k/a copyrights in this case).

In the United States, persons under the age of majority, which is 18, cannot legally be bound to nor enter into contractual arrangements.

Any contract involving a party under the age of 18, without parental consent, is invalid, and is therefore unenforceable.

A contract, by definition, is a legally binding agreement between a given set of parties to a certain terms and conditions, whether or not it is verbal or written.

And if we're talking about pornography in the United States, assuming, for the sake of argument, that what you want comes to pass, the parents, or any other immediate family members up to and including cousins of the first degree, could not in any way, shape, or form be involved in the production of this pornography, because, again, in the United States, incest is a criminal offense (and is felonious) in all 50 states, with exception of one, and in that particular state, it's only permissible if both parties are over the age of 18 (i.e. all parties are consenting adults).

So, you'll need to change a whole host of laws in order to even make this possible, and that will never happen. Children, will never be granted the right to enter into contracts, with good reason, particularly in the case of pornography.

Uhm, children who were in CP regularly demand restitution from the people busted with their images. Some have become millionaires in such a way. If we treat CP as intellectual property, they can continue to do this through civil rather than criminal proceedings. That was my entire point.
All rendered moot by your legalization position; without the illegality, there is no restitution, because the activity has been rendered legal and consensual

Quote
Additionally, you cannot, legally, take back something that you have given to someone without coercion, so once a child gives pornographic images or videos to another person, they have forfeited their rights to that property. It is no longer theirs.

A problem with your multiple tags is also that I see things like (/color) and mistake it for (/quote) so neglect to add a closing tag. That is another issue contributing to the fucked up quotes.
Bullshit. Quote tags are at the top. And then there's the preview feature. At best, you're lazy. Try again.

My "retarded" self, with my poor reading comprehension can grasp this, but you can't? Sure, if you say so.

Quote
Having said all of that, do you mean to tell me that an 8-16 year old, using that as a rough estimate of when puberty begins and ends (i.e. adolescence), are mature enough to make a decision that could potentially affect them for the rest of their lives?

Your lack of reading comprehension strikes again! I am not saying that children should be able to enter into contracts in which they are molested on camera, I am saying if a child is molested on camera illegally, that the child should own the rights to the production as an adult, and be able to do what they please with it, and if there are intellectual property laws that will include suing people who illegal obtain the image. In civil court. Also, your estimate for when puberty begins is a bit low although I don't know the exact age, it has been consistently falling though, but I do know that peak sexual maturity is reached on average at 14.5 years old in females.
Can you come up with a more original insult, for the love of fucking Christ? The dumb are mostly intrigued by the the drum, so to speak.

For someone with such a high verbal intelligence and who is, by his own description a child prodigy, your level of creativity, and the lack of depth of your vocabulary, from a writer's standpoint, belies your own statements.

Actually, your failure to understand the law is the issue at hand. Read up on it and get back to me. There is no civil recourse if CP is made legal.

<sigh> The age of consent does not equal the age of majority. That's what you fail to grasp. Even if the age of consent were 14, a 14 year old cannot enter into a legally binding contract

What, in fact, your advocating for is a lowering of the age of consent, which mistakenly believe lowers the age of majority. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. Here's precisely what you've said:

5. Lower the age of consent substantially, it should be at most 14 years old. However, a better technique would be to have a licensing system after some form of blinded psychological evaluation.

As for adolescence, it varies by individual, so I provided a broad range.

And just because you are into girls does not mean that this law could be restricted to females. That's not possible. Statutory rape is statutory rape regardless of sex/gender

Quote
Do you think they are capable of projecting just how far into the future these images can follow/haunt them for, for precisely the reasons stated above? You've got to be fucking kidding me!

Your reading comprehension seriously sucks.
Care to refute me rather than insult me? I cut nothing from this one, so again it demonstrates the weakness of your argument. I told you, if you want to argue law with me, I will mop the fucking floor with you. Try me.

Quote
That's why this will never become legal in the United States, on neither the state nor Federal levels;[/color], this discussion will never be more than theoretical.

You mentioned earlier in the thread that there are already countries where this is legal; if that's so, why don't you go fucking live there! Japan? Uruguay?

Shit, I think they just legalized marijuana in Uruguay, no? Sounds lovely! ¿Hablas español?

And you wonder why I demeaned your intelligence. Seriously?

Now, who's a fucking retard again? ;)

Good luck with all of that! :D

Vaffanculo! ;D

I highly want to move to Uruguay as it is the freest country in the world overall.
Then get the fuck out already; that is, if you can secure a visa. Why are you wasting your time here arguing with me? In case you haven't noticed, you're not winning.

Have you ever seen The Serpent and the Rainbow?

Because that nailing scene is what I would, figuratively, do to you in a court of law. Hopest thou that we never meet face-to-face.

Oh, and:

Vaffanculo ;D

Still think you're winning? ;)
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 07:09:30 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

snigger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #379 on: January 11, 2014, 03:43:09 am »
It seems to me like Jesus can't really come up with a decent argument so he reverts to name calling. It seems pretty immature for someone who is supposedly "so intelligent". I don't know if I'm completely sold on legalizing child pornography possession, but I do think that sentencing guidelines are harsh and need to be reduced.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #380 on: January 11, 2014, 04:20:31 am »
Quote
But hey, if it's gratis, then why not? Seriously? :P

I mean, if you are not contributing to child molestation then who gives a fuck?
That one's easy: The majority of the people of the United States, which is the country you're railing against.

4. There should definitely be sentencing difference between someone statutory raping a 12 year old versus someone violently raping a toddler, but definitely I think all non-statutory child rape and all prepubescent rape of any sort should have a mandatory life sentence.
Right! Good luck with that one! You're in a very tiny minority with this view.

And <ahem>, if I may quote you:
[I mean, if you are not contributing to child molestation then who gives a fuck? Go jack off to some babies being ass raped for all I care, it really wont bother me any.
Quote

So if a 40 year old male, because most molesters are male, inserts either a part of his body or an object, into any orifice of a 12 year old male or female child, they deserve a lighter sentence? ???

Can you remember being 12? This will never happen in the US, and this discussion is definitely theoretical. Why?

The US legal system already differentiates between statutory rape of 12 year olds and 'statutory' rape of those under 12.
Guess you've never been down South, eh? You'd get life in the Southern United States.

Quote
Because the age of consent, permissible difference in age between parties--when only one is above the age of consent--and the restrictions on relationship (note: I'm not talking about blood relationship) of the adult to the child are all different in every state! This is not a Federal law, and it never will be Why?

What?
For the third (or perhaps fourth?) time, these laws are not FEDERAL. The age of consent in the US varies by state, and it's also limited in other states by other factors

For example, in certain states, the age of consent is 16, but the adult cannot be more than 3-5 years older than the minor, and cannot be a family member or a figure of authority.

If you'd like legal advice tailored to your particular state, then retain attorney who specializes in your state's law, because this is not a Federal matter in the US. Surely, someone of your self-proclaimed level intelligence can understand this very simple concept.

Quote
Because the power to regulate the age of consent is a state's rights issue.Why?

The minimum federal age of consent is 16 years old, states have their own age of consent at 17 or 18 though.
You fail to understand the complexity of state laws. There are more complex rules, that from your previous posts, you fail to understand

Let me put it this way:

If you're 25, in my state--in which the age of consent is 16--and you have sexual contact with a 16 year old, you're going to prison

Quote
1. A sex crime--unless it's under some bizarre situation like, say, a moving vehicle--occurs in a specific district. The district in which it occurs has jurisdiction over said crime.

2. There's no power enumerated to Congress under any Article, Clause, or Amendment of/to the US Constitution to regulate sex crimes occurring in one, specific district.

3. There's no interstate activity involved because, as stated above, any crime falls under the jurisdiction of the district it occurs in, and only the local and state laws are applicable.

4. You'll never get the legislatures of all 50 states, plus Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Islands, and to a much lesser extent because of their limited size, population, and isolation, Guam, American Samoa, and The Northern Mariana Islands, to agree to amend their statutes to the degree that you're proposing. You wouldn't even be able to persuade a majority of them to do this.

So?
You'd be lucky to convince one to amend their statutes. Isn't this a point of this discussion?

No matter how much you'd like to fuck a 14 year old, and no matter how much you pine over them, there's no way in holy hell that you'll get the age of consent lowered in any state, let alone Federally.

Because of course, what we need in this country, precisely, is more 14 year olds knocked up by deadbeats.

Coincidentally, you do realize that the legal age for abortion, without parental consent varies form state to state?


But that's not your fault, right?

Quote
If the person is assessed as a high-risk to re-offend, they should be civilly committed for life and never released back into society (This is not in reference to pornography possession, which is a separate issue; that's not what you're talking about here).

It really depends on the age of the minor involved.
NO. Sorry. No matter how badly you wish this to be true, for good reason, it never will be.

Keep theorizing, although, if I may say so, you're not very good at it.

Chemical castration anyone?

Quote
See above re: why this will never, ever happen in the United States. Do you really believe you are going to convince a plurality of Americans to do this by using Germany as an example (or, honestly, anywhere in Europe, with possibly the exception of the United Kingdom)? ???

I don't think I can convince a plurality of Americans to do anything that they should do, because they are brainwashed mindless drones that are controlled almost exclusively by religious leaders and the slave traders of the prison industrial complex.
In reference to what they quote should do, who the fuck are you?

Emigrate. No one is forcing you to stay here. If Germany will let you fuck a 14 year old, then go there.

What is the point of your argument?


Quote
This is governed by state and Federal law, and while there are offenders in the Federal prison system, many are in state prisons, and some states do have specific institutions reserved for sex offenders.

No, it's actually the federal government alone that has a billion dollar anti-CP consumer budget, that they spend predominately on P2P operations busting insecure consumers. Actually, I think the billion dollars was exclusively meant for federal operations against P2P networks
Which, as you've quoted below, is the price of one Starbucks latte, per American. Well worth it.

And you've got to let me know whether you'd like to discuss the possession of child pornography, or the production and distribution of child pornography and the molestation of children, because they're dramatically different offenses.

Molesters rot in state prisons. My state has a correctional facility specifically devoted to the likes of you.

Quote
Three things:
1. You've got a very loose understanding of how the US government is organized.
2. You're, in the same post, talking about child pornography possession and molestation, which are two entirely separate issues that should be treated differently (and that don't belong in the same discussion).
3. Do you think that that is a lot of money from the perspective of the US Federal Government? If so, you're wrong; that's roughly < $3.50 per person. It's a latte from Starbucks.[/quote
9. The government and concerned agencies should have a network that people can submit child pornography they find to without fear of being sent to prison for it, if anyone could help find CP and add it to a network of known CP it could reduce the time it takes for molested children in CP to be identified, crowd sourced CP searching is always going to do a better job of quickly identifying new CP than law enforcement specific searching is going to do, and if there were no criminal penalties for viewing CP there are fuck tons of vigilantes who would spend their time trying to infiltrate private CP networks to give law enforcement access, etc.
How does this help your legalization argument? I could/can do that now. And what's the point of legalizing it in this case?

Partially I don't know what you are talking about, second of all you could indeed try help the feds locate new CP or infiltrate CP networks, or look through known CP trying to identify children, but if you did so you would risk going to prison for having looked at CP, so I doubt you will do it.
If you're incapable of understanding my words (and splitting the quote, just like omitting proper quote tags, does not help your argument), then I can't help you.

Not only am I writing in Standard English, but I'm particularly writing in the General American dialect, so anyone of such, again, self-proclaimed verbal intelligence should be able to keep up.

Unless you're proclaiming that you're not fluent in English, that is.

Quote
So, should 14 year olds, using your theoretical age of consent, be allowed to vote? Enlist in the military? Drive? Purchase alcoholic beverages and tobacco for themselves?

I definitely think they should be able to do all of those things.
That was rhetorical. More for the jury than you.

Quote
They can't enter into contracts, as I keep repeating, because they are minors. This has absolutely nothing to do with the age of consent. And the majority of Americans don't support your argument anyway.

You know, you could be much more persuasive if you improved your vocabulary. ;)

Yes you keep saying how things are and I keep saying how things ought to be, please don't tell me you are going to add is-ought to your already impressive list of logical fallacies!
No, in fact, my have got (and I prefer have got to, ought to, personally) list is not a list of fallacies. It's current US law.

Which I'd bet you're currently in violation of


Quote
Which brings me back to: what qualifies you to make this assessment? Aren't you slightly biased?

Certainly I am biased
Enough said. Confirmation bias?. Is that within your superior vocabulary? ???

Quote
You want to continue this? Because I will wipe the floor with you on this.

Wiping floors is certainly a job I think you are qualified for.
How am I doing so far? ???

Quote
Possession of child pornography is an entirely different issue than the production and distribution of child pornography. And it's completely separate from the age of consent, which I'd bet that you know the laws for your state by heart

They are different but related issues.
No. Molestation is not the same; according to you, it's a separate issue. ;)

Here's what you said, in the very same post that I've just quoted:
I mean, if you are not contributing to child molestation then who gives a fuck? Go jack off to some babies being ass raped for all I care, it really wont bother me any.
Quote

So, how does that statement help your argument (and I spared you the embarrassment of quoting most of this post). I think this says it all.

And, according to you, not at all your fault nor problem

If you make me do so, I will dig up several posts by you that back me up on this. Is that what you'd like? I don't at all mind ;D
 
Quote
Now, come back at me by calling me a retard, ignoramus, fucktard, moron, etc. (I've been called much worse). That doesn't help your argument one bit.

Buona Sera! Vaffanculo! ;D

PS See you tomorrow ;)

See you tomorrow !!!
I will not cease. I look forward to it ;D

Vaffanculo! ;)

PS I note that you're no longer denying to be the same person as merge LOL! Duh! ;)
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 05:49:30 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Child porn thread
« Reply #381 on: January 11, 2014, 04:21:44 am »
Why does that thread have over 20 pages of post? That's weird.
Good question.

This troll is persistent, and I'm argumentative :/

Sorry
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #382 on: January 11, 2014, 04:24:19 am »
It seems to me like Jesus can't really come up with a decent argument so he reverts to name calling. It seems pretty immature for someone who is supposedly "so intelligent". I don't know if I'm completely sold on legalizing child pornography possession, but I do think that sentencing guidelines are harsh and need to be reduced.

Oh Christ, is this another sock puppet? Show me, exactly, where I've resorted to name calling, and m0rph has risen above it ;)

You've gotta love trolls.

Well, at least I love being trolled by bad trolls ;D

LMFAO! Joined yesterday; 52nd post, with your 51st--just after you'd squirmed your way out of the Newbie board--in security, where I'd bet, coincidentally, that you're an expert, just like m0rph/merge, and you just happened to navigate to this thread?

But I'm sure that's just another coincidence too, no?

If you honestly think that they are not allowed to track plutopete you're fucking retarded, especially in the UK... it's a fucking police state.
Same diction too; surprise surprise. It only took you all of 9 minutes to navigate here, read the posts, and weigh in on the argument? LOL! Oh OK. Sure. If you say so ;D

Snigga, I'm not that fucking retarded (if I may quote you?) ;D

Troll fail! LOL! :D

Vaffanculo! ;)
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 04:47:09 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

snigger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #383 on: January 11, 2014, 04:48:11 am »
coming from the dude that responds to well thought out arguments with tl/dr... LOL

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #384 on: January 11, 2014, 04:50:34 am »
coming from the dude that responds to well thought out arguments with tl/dr... LOL
Uh huh ;)

Snigga please! ;D

You are a mutha fuckin' retard.

OK ready?

If it was tl;dr, how, exactly, did you arrive at the conclusion that his arguments were well thought out?

Because you fucking made the fucking argument yourself, and I've, as promised, been mopping the floor with you. ;)
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 05:12:11 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
lolol
« Reply #385 on: January 11, 2014, 06:19:15 am »
Quote
Legally speaking, this is only true because CP is illegal. Legalization would change this.

Then let CP be intellectual property owned by the child. Fix whatever fucked up laws USA has to get to the point we can be rational about this shit. I don't give a tenth of a fuck if we need to wipe the slate clean and start from fucking scratch. Appeals to current law are irrelevant, I argue that we need to fundamentally change the laws.

Quote
Because you don't understand the rule of law. Come mothers and fathers throughout the land; and don't criticize what you can't understand. I was referring to the ability to give consent for sexual activity, trying to be as detailed as possible without going over your head, but apparently, I've failed.

The ability to give informed consent for sexual activity is probably reached somewhere around 14 on average for females, which is a shame, because there are plenty of fuckable 12 and 13 year olds (11 is almost always too young looking though, they look like little kids still, but then at 12 it's like BOOM starting to get a bit more interesting usually). Some of them might be above average intelligence enough though :D. For males I think it really comes a bit earlier though, 12 year old boys want to fuck (usually females) and I definitely would never report an older female to the police for fucking a willing 12 year old male (whom I would likely high five, and be quite jealous of).   

Quote
The only way this would be legal would be if both parties are minors, which is not only not what you're suggesting, but it's also restricted in some states by age (i.e. one party can only be so many years older than the other).

Fuck the current law, burn it to the ground and start from scratch. It's convoluted bullshit. We can do much better. Kill many of the people who enforced the old laws while you are at it, they really don't deserve to live. Start a new social order based on sanity and science instead of religion and slavery. All of your references to current laws are completely irrelevant because we need to wipe the fucking slate clean and start over.

Quote
Agreeing to be featured in pornography, in exactly the way you've described it, is akin to entering into a contract, whether that contract is verbal or written (hint: they're usually written, especially given your remark regarding intellectual property rights a/k/a copyrights in this case).

In the United States, persons under the age of majority, which is 18, cannot legally be bound to nor enter into contractual arrangements.

Wipe the slate clean motherfucker, in my world 14 year olds can enter contracts all they want to because I recognize they are not fucking retards. Well, most of them are retards. But to me, most humans are retards. And they are no more retarded than average retards. And some are quite exceptional!

Quote
Any contract involving a party under the age of 18, without parental consent, is invalid, and is therefore unenforceable.

A contract, by definition, is a legally binding agreement between a given set of parties to a certain terms and conditions, whether or not it is verbal or written.

Dude, we are wiping the slate clean, the previous rulers did a horrible job and fucked shit up, and now it's time to cut their heads off and instill a new social order. I don't give a flying fuck about any previous legalistic bullshit that slave traders thought up, it's time for a free world :D.

Quote
All rendered moot by your legalization position; without the illegality, there is no restitution, because the activity has been rendered legal and consensual

Maybe that is how it is in bullshit reality, I don't really know or care, because I want to change bullshit reality into sane world, so I am not restricting myself with any of the artifacts of bullshit reality. Honestly, I don't even think intellectual property is such a good idea, and probably abused children in CP are just fucked and even though it's wrong there isn't shit we can do about it but punish the people who did that to them, punishing the people who look at the results isn't going to change shit and since I think intellectual property is bullshit I don't think the abused kids are even entitled to jack shit from the people who view their images. GIve them all property of the person who abused them, that is something they deserve, I really feel sorry for them, but not sorry enough for them that I am going to fuck over innocent people in their name.

Quote
For someone with such a high verbal intelligence and who is, by his own description a child prodigy, your level of creativity, and the lack of depth of your vocabulary, from a writer's standpoint, belies your own statements.

I gave you accurate figures re: my intelligence subscores and GIQ. Belies is a fun word, did you learn that from me when I used it previously? Strangely enough I even remember where I learned that word from, even though it was quite a long time ago. You know the word I really hate? Pragmatic! Every time I see that fucker I need to translate it to practical via rote association, I simply cannot use it naturally. Ostensibly is another fun one. Words are fun. When I am your interlocutor you will learn many new words, especially if I don't dumb myself down enough that the average borderline retarded people can understand me. That's why I love the internet. So many smart people! I would probably never talk to anyone with an IQ below 110 again if I could help it. I really wish my IQ was higher though, especially my visual subscores, some of the people on the internet are so far beyond me I can hardly even understand them but I just barely can manage to, but IRL it's just sad man people are really on average borderline retarded, God I would hate for my IQ to be like 170 those people must seriously think that they are demigods (oh wait isn't 170 high enough for Prometheus society? I think they actually do talk of themselves as Gods!).

That's the thing that sucks about high functioning  Autism, you are twice exceptional (someone else said that first but I wont provide a citation as I don't give a flying fuck). My Verbal IQ is high enough that most people really seem to be borderline retarded when they talk, but my visual IQ is borderline retarded to an average person. Meh. At least I get to experience being beyond average in a way, I really think I wouldn't trade it for the world, but I am indeed hella jealous of the Autistic people who have above average verbal and visual IQ's. Neurotypicals I really think they just don't get very far, I rarely meet significantly intelligent people who don't have at least traits of autism.

Quote
Actually, your failure to understand the law is the issue at hand. Read up on it and get back to me. There is no civil recourse if CP is made legal.

I think you fail to understand that I don't give a flying fucking fuck shit about the current law. Wipe the slate clean, we can start over from scratch and do a hell of a lot better job. Tell you what, just make me dictator of the country, I swear I wont let power get to my head, and I will make it a far better place for everybody, guaranteed. Everybody wins when I am the dictator, no joke. Well, slave traders lose I guess. Vote me for dictator and everyone wins but slave traders!!

Quote
<sigh> The age of consent does not equal the age of majority. That's what you fail to grasp. Even if the age of consent were 14, a 14 year old cannot enter into a legally binding contract[/b[

Fuck it, I don't care if 14 year olds enter into legally binding contracts. Under my rule, 14 is the new 18. And 13 is the new 17, and 12 is the new 16. In that everyone can openly admit they want to fuck 14 year olds and knock themselves out, and they can secretly acknowledge that they want to fuck 13 and 12 year olds, maybe hint at it to their closer male friends but never come directly out and say it especially not in public. but should be a bit discreet about it, and probably not actually do it very much except maybe on rare occasions if the girl is particularly mature or something. Under my dictatorship we seriously just knock age ranges back by 4 years. 


Quote
What, in fact, your advocating for is a lowering of the age of consent, which mistakenly believe lowers the age of majority. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. Here's precisely what you've said:

Fuck dude I am going to bust the god damn knee caps out of the legal leg with an anarchist fucking baseball bat and then I am going to take the shattered leg and put it into a cast of my own construction.

Quote
And just because you are into girls does not mean that this law could be restricted to females. That's not possible. Statutory rape is statutory rape regardless of sex/gender

Tons of countries have different age of consent for males versus females, but I would get rid of the primitive age of consent systems and just have a fucking certification system in my dictatorship. Then if I wanted to fuck a 14 year old I would just find one who was certified as mentally developed enough to fuck (of which there are plenty) and not even feel the slightest bad about it. And if I wanted to fuck a 12 year old I would do the same thing. At some age there would be nobody who could pass the evaluation though, so sucks for people only attracted to people in that age range they can't actually have sex with anyone, but they can jack off to all the CP that was already produced that they want to as long as they don't pay for it or make it come into existence, and maybe they can go get some counseling or some shit to help them not give into their urges and end up raping a little boy or girl. Also, we wont judge them really, cuz they can't control what they want only what they do, what they want isn't bad to want really it's just bad to do, so whatever.

Also, I wouldn't say I am exclusively into girls anyway. I think of sexual orientation as more of a spectrum, ranging from pure heterosexuality to pure homosexuality. If we map this abstraction to a discrete numeric scale, say from 1 to 9, with 1 being entirely heterosexual and 9 being entirely homosexual, I would put myself at probably 2 or 3.  I mean, I would still consider myself to be predominately heterosexual, because I would say [1-3] is heterosexual, [4-6] is bisexual, and [7-9] is homosexual. But if you hooked my dick up to some phalometric device, I imagine the result would indicate that I am aroused to nearly no extent by people 11 or under, to varying degree by those 12-13, and to the maximum degree by those 14+. But unlike the average males in the Czech study (and this is where I differ from them, as as far as age is concerned I am the same as them), I think I would have some level of arousal to some males. Not enough that I think I will run out and get gay married in some free country that supports it, but enough that I would definitely not say that I am purely heterosexual, just predominately.


Quote
Then get the fuck out already; that is, if you can secure a visa. Why are you wasting your time here arguing with me? In case you haven't noticed, you're not winning.

Oh trust me dude I am heading to Uruguay as soon as it is feasible for me to do so, and I will leave all the fucking insane hypocritical self denying religious brainwashed fuckwads behind and say GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE YOU BORDERLINE RETARDED PIECES OF FUCKING SHIT, right before I fuck a 15 year old, dive into a pile of personal use ketamine and get legally high as shit and then whack off to pictures of slutty 14 year old high school freshmen getting tag team butt fucked by 50 year olds, without breaking any laws or giving the slightest fuck about it. Maybe I can use the parts of my intellect that are superior and very superior to make a boat load of cash and support multiple wives, polygamous ephebophilia sounds like it would be a blast and polygamy and ephebophilia are both totally legal in Uruguay so why the fuck not? Just sucks that they have to have their age of consent as 15, 14 would make it so much more awesome ya know?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 07:47:29 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #386 on: January 11, 2014, 07:51:57 am »
oh. my. fucking. God.

Quote
Between the ages of 12 and 15, there is an intermediary status where violence is legally presumed until otherwise proven.[24] In this case, the onus probandi (the burden of proof) shifts from the plaintiff to the accused, who still has the chance to prove in their defense that consent was given. Below the age of 12 proof of consent is not a defense.

Jesus fucking christ I cannot wait to go to Uruguay and marry a couple of 13/14 year olds (making sure to prove consent very thoroughly  so as to avoid court), and do insane amounts of drugs, and jack off to insane amounts of jailbait, and not give the slightest fuck about it. Seriously I might not even need jailbait or porn at all in Uruguay, because I can just jack off to the sick pleasure I get from knowing how pissed off you stupid fucking USA/AUS/UK bastards will be at the fact that I can do all of that shit and you can't do a single fucking thing to stop me as I wont break a single fucking law in the process. I wonder what paraphilia that is, sexual pleasure from the indignation of uptight culturally brainwashed fucktards? Sadofucktardphilia? Is that a thing? I think I am highly afflicted by it!!!

God, it must be so fun to live in a country where you don't automatically day dream about shipping bombs to government officials. I think I would be hella more statist if I lived in Uruguay. Like, that is a country I would actually fucking defend and probably even work for the intelligence services of, due to the fact that I highly support most of their laws. Like, I am not even from Uruguay and I am proud of Uruguay, it's a bastion of freedom and fucking sanity in an otherwise mostly bleak and depressing world. Thank fucking God such places still exist. Sucks they still imprison non marijuana drug traffickers though, but by God that country is going in the right direction fast.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 08:04:17 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Nice Try ;)
« Reply #387 on: January 11, 2014, 06:13:28 pm »
Quote
Legally speaking, this is only true because CP is illegal. Legalization would change this.

Then let CP be intellectual property owned by the child. Fix whatever fucked up laws USA has to get to the point we can be rational about this shit. I don't give a tenth of a fuck if we need to wipe the slate clean and start from fucking scratch. Appeals to current law are irrelevant, I argue that we need to fundamentally change the laws.
That's you're idea of rational? ???

There are no property rights, intellectual or otherwise, in the situation you describe.

LOL! And good luck with that; let me know how much support you get!

Quote
Because you don't understand the rule of law. Come mothers and fathers throughout the land; and don't criticize what you can't understand. I was referring to the ability to give consent for sexual activity, trying to be as detailed as possible without going over your head, but apparently, I've failed.

The ability to give informed consent for sexual activity is probably reached somewhere around 14 on average for females, which is a shame, because there are plenty of fuckable 12 and 13 year olds (11 is almost always too young looking though, they look like little kids still, but then at 12 it's like BOOM starting to get a bit more interesting usually). Some of them might be above average intelligence enough though :D. For males I think it really comes a bit earlier though, 12 year old boys want to fuck (usually females) and I definitely would never report an older female to the police for fucking a willing 12 year old male (whom I would likely high five, and be quite jealous of).
First of all, you're wrong; on average, females reach puberty before males

And second, you want the law to distinguish between males and females? ???

Didn't you say something about not admitting to being a pedophile? ???

Because, legally and medically(hint: DSM V diagnostic criteria), your are, by definition, a pedophile. :P

Remind me again: why are we having this discussion? ???

It was somewhere around here:
Quote
Anyone with a superior intellect would be above this type of behavior. And while you sound like an adolescent, we all know that that's not possible as you are a self-confessed pedophile. 
More lies from you. I never confessed to being a pedophile.
   

And here:
Neither merge nor I claimed that we are pedophiles, you once again have resorted to strawman fallacies. Additionally, you are not qualified to have an opinion of the hypothesis presented, or the idea of legalizing CP, because by your own admission you have not read a single fucking thing linked to or even the very paper that you are so vehemently arguing against!

Moving on:
Quote
The only way this would be legal would be if both parties are minors, which is not only not what you're suggesting, but it's also restricted in some states by age (i.e. one party can only be so many years older than the other).

Fuck the current law, burn it to the ground and start from scratch. It's convoluted bullshit. We can do much better. Kill many of the people who enforced the old laws while you are at it, they really don't deserve to live. Start a new social order based on sanity and science instead of religion and slavery. All of your references to current laws are completely irrelevant because we need to wipe the fucking slate clean and start over.
You need help, because you clearly are suffering from mental illness. ;)

I'm not sure if it's schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or [meth]amphetamine induced psychosis, but you're clearly delusional.

My money's on the latter given your average daily post count. :P

But I'll play along; let's say we quote "Fuck the current law, burn it to the ground and start from scratch,", what makes you think that the new legal system would be created under your vision? ???

Good luck with that; but, hey, ¡Viva la Revolución!

Quote
Agreeing to be featured in pornography, in exactly the way you've described it, is akin to entering into a contract, whether that contract is verbal or written (hint: they're usually written, especially given your remark regarding intellectual property rights a/k/a copyrights in this case).

In the United States, persons under the age of majority, which is 18, cannot legally be bound to nor enter into contractual arrangements.

Wipe the slate clean motherfucker, in my world 14 year olds can enter contracts all they want to because I recognize they are not fucking retards. Well, most of them are retards. (ed: huh? ???) But to me, most humans are retards. And they are no more retarded than average retards.
Have you got any words other than retard? ???

Be a big boy; use your words. ;)

The only thing clear here is that you reside in your own, non-existent world within your head. The more you go on about this, the less rational and more deranged you look


Quote
Any contract involving a party under the age of 18, without parental consent, is invalid, and is therefore unenforceable.

A contract, by definition, is a legally binding agreement between a given set of parties to a certain terms and conditions, whether or not it is verbal or written.

Dude, we are wiping the slate clean, the previous rulers did a horrible job and fucked shit up, and now it's time to cut their heads off and instill a new social order. I don't give a flying fuck about any previous legalistic bullshit that slave traders thought up, it's time for a free world :D.
Who are these people whom you're referring to as we?

Are you talking about your sock puppets? So far we have merge, m0rph, and now, snigger. That's a world of three people. Impressive.

Notice that you've got TONS of support on this thread ;D

Quote
All rendered moot by your legalization position; without the illegality, there is no restitution, because the activity has been rendered legal and consensual
Maybe that is how it is in bullshit reality, I don't really know or care, because I want to change bullshit reality into sane world, so I am not restricting myself with any of the artifacts of bullshit reality. Honestly, I don't even think intellectual property is such a good idea, ???and probably abused children in CP are just fucked and even though it's wrong there isn't shit we can do about it but punish the people who did that to them, punishing the people who look at the results isn't going to change shit and since I think intellectual property is bullshit I don't think the abused kids are even entitled to jack shit from the people who view their images. GIve them all property of the person who abused them, that is something they deserve, I really feel sorry for them, but not sorry enough for them that I am going to fuck over innocent people in their name.
Huh? ???

Sane? ???

Oh, and:
The ability to give informed consent for sexual activity is probably reached somewhere around 14 on average for females, which is a shame, because there are plenty of fuckable 12 and 13 year olds (11 is almost always too young looking though, they look like little kids still, but then at 12 it's like BOOM starting to get a bit more interesting usually)
So you're basically talking about yourself then? ??? Because according to you:
"Fuck it, I don't care if 14 year olds enter into legally binding contracts. Under my rule, 14 is the new 18."
.
In your world, 14 is the age of majority, so under 14 would be a child

Quote
For someone with such a high verbal intelligence and who is, by his own description a child prodigy, your level of creativity, and the lack of depth of your vocabulary, from a writer's standpoint, belies your own statements.
I gave you accurate figures re: my intelligence subscores and GIQ.
Oh OK; when you scan notarized copies of those results, then maybe I'll believe you. Maybe. ;)

Do you expect people to take your word for it? ???

You're certainly not demonstrating that here. The only thing you're actually doing here is exposing just how sick, from a mental health standpoint, you are. ;D

Belies is a fun word, did you learn that from me when I used it previously? Strangely enough I even remember where I learned that word from, even though it was quite a long time ago.
LMFAO! Really? ??? You remember learning belies? ???

I don't; its an ordinary word that is part of my vocabulary. I can't recall you using it. But since you've brought this up, when did you start using the abbreviation re: for regarding? ;)

I would probably never talk to anyone with an IQ below 110 again if I could help it. I really wish my IQ was higher though, especially my visual subscores, some of the people on the internet are so far beyond me I can hardly even understand them but I just barely can manage to, but IRL it's just sad man people are really on average borderline retarded,
LOL OK! Then do everyone a favor, and stop! Nobody actually wants to talk to you.

I'm sticking with your newspaper article link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-ct-porn10-2009aug10,0,3356050.story
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Quote from: LA Times
Researchers have also determined that pedophiles are nearly an inch shorter on average than non-pedophiles and lag behind the average IQ by 10 points — discoveries that are consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.

In a 2008 study, Cantor's team conducted MRI brain scans on 65 pedophiles. Compared with men with criminal histories but no sex offenses, they had less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain.
Ah, the power of attribution; you should learn how to use it ;)

That's the thing that sucks about high functioning  Autism, you are twice exceptional (someone else said that first but I wont provide a citation as I don't give a flying fuck). My Verbal IQ is high enough that most people really seem to be borderline retarded when they talk, but my visual IQ is borderline retarded to an average person.
Regarding the average person, you've got it backwards: to the average person, your verbal intelligence appears to be on the level of mentally retarded. I wouldn't go so far as to call you mentally retarded, though, mainly because I wouldn't want to insult people who are in some way mentally retarded ;)

If you're verbal intelligence is so high, why do retard[ed] and fuck[ing] make up such a huge portion of your vocabulary? ??? Why is fuck[ing] the only modifier that you are able to use consistently? ???

And why can I ID you so easily from your other accounts? ??? Because let's face it: you've stopped denying that you were merge several posts ago. And:
It seems to me like Jesus can't really come up with a decent argument so he reverts to name calling. It seems pretty immature for someone who is supposedly "so intelligent". I don't know if I'm completely sold on legalizing child pornography possession, but I do think that sentencing guidelines are harsh and need to be reduced. [Post number 52]
Oh Christ, is this another sock puppet? Show me, exactly, where I've resorted to name calling, and m0rph has risen above it ;)

You've gotta love trolls.

Well, at least I love being trolled by bad trolls ;D

LMFAO! Joined yesterday; 52nd post, with your 51st--just after you'd squirmed your way out of the Newbie board--in security, where I'd bet, coincidentally, that you're an expert, just like m0rph/merge, and you just happened to navigate to this thread?

But I'm sure that's just another coincidence too, no?
If you honestly think that they are not allowed to track plutopete you're fucking retarded, especially in the UK... it's a fucking police state. [Post number 50. Guess where? ??? Surprise: Security ;D]
Same diction too; surprise surprise. It only took you all of 9 minutes to navigate here, read the posts, and weigh in on the argument? LOL! Oh OK. Sure. If you say so ;D

Snigga, I'm not that fucking retarded (if I may quote you?) ;D

Troll fail! LOL! :D

Vaffanculo! ;)
coming from the dude that responds to well thought out arguments with tl/dr... LOL
[Post number 53]
Uh huh ;)

Snigga please! ;D

You are a mutha fuckin' retard.

OK ready?

If it was tl;dr, how, exactly, did you arrive at the conclusion that his arguments were well thought out?

Because you fucking made the fucking argument yourself, and I've, as promised, been mopping the floor with you. ;)

But anyway:
Quote
Actually, your failure to understand the law is the issue at hand. Read up on it and get back to me. There is no civil recourse if CP is made legal.

I think you fail to understand that I don't give a flying fucking fuck shit about the current law. Wipe the slate clean, we can start over from scratch and do a hell of a lot better job. Tell you what, just make me dictator of the country, I swear I wont let power get to my head, and I will make it a far better place for everybody, guaranteed. Everybody wins when I am the dictator, no joke. Well, slave traders lose I guess. Vote me for dictator and everyone wins but slave traders!!
Um, that sure sounds sane ;D

And haven't you made that comment about the current US laws like twice already in this post? Way to flex those verbal intelligence muscles you've got! ;)

Quote
<sigh> The age of consent does not equal the age of majority. That's what you fail to grasp. Even if the age of consent were 14, a 14 year old cannot enter into a legally binding contract

HERE'S WHERE I FIGURED OUT THAT YOU ARE DEFINITELY TROLLING: :P
Fuck it, I don't care if 14 year olds enter into legally binding contracts. Under my rule, 14 is the new 18. And 13 is the new 17, and 12 is the new 16. In that everyone can openly admit they want to fuck 14 year olds and knock themselves out, and they can secretly acknowledge that they want to fuck 13 and 12 year olds, maybe hint at it to their closer male friends but never come directly out and say it especially not in public. but should be a bit discreet about it, and probably not actually do it very much except maybe on rare occasions if the girl is particularly mature or something. Under my dictatorship we seriously just knock age ranges back by 4 years.
<sigh>:
Quote
So, should 14 year olds, using your theoretical age of consent, be allowed to vote? Enlist in the military? Drive? Purchase alcoholic beverages and tobacco for themselves?

I definitely think they should be able to do all of those things. In some states I am pretty sure 14 year olds actually can drive. They should also not be restricted from joining the military, unless the military doesn't want them, that's up to the military. If they want to smoke or drink I don't give a shit, I smoked and drank when I was 14, for fucks sake I ordered psychedelic research chemicals from Chinese labs and got high as a kite when I was 14, and I turned out just fine
Um, OK. First, 14 year olds cannot drive in any state (except maybe on farms, but not public streets).

Second, I think many people, aside from me, would question your assertion that you "turned out just fine."

So let me reiterate: you want 14 year olds to be able to drive, purchase alcohol and tobacco for themselves, have consensual sex with adults, enlist in the military (including the Air Force), and drop out of school without parental consent (while complaining about stupidity at the same time?)? ??? Oh, shit; I left out reproduce, which I'm not sure why you'd want to encourage, because you said above:

Wipe the slate clean motherfucker, in my world 14 year olds can enter contracts all they want to because I recognize they are not fucking retards. Well, most of them are retards But to me, most humans are retards. And they are no more retarded than average retards.

And:
I would probably never talk to anyone with an IQ below 110 again if I could help it. I really wish my IQ was higher though, especially my visual subscores, some of the people on the internet are so far beyond me I can hardly even understand them but I just barely can manage to, but IRL it's just sad man people are really on average borderline retarded,
So doesn't that just produce more retards, whom you claim to loathe interacting with?(not surprising; I'm sure it's mutual ;) )????

Quote
What, in fact, your advocating for is a lowering of the age of consent, which mistakenly believe lowers the age of majority. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. Here's precisely what you've said:

Fuck dude I am going to bust the god damn knee caps out of the legal leg with an anarchist fucking baseball bat and then I am going to take the shattered leg and put it into a cast of my own construction.
Right. OK ;D

Quote
And just because you are into girls does not mean that this law could be restricted to females. That's not possible. Statutory rape is statutory rape regardless of sex/gender

Tons of countries have different age of consent for males versus females, but I would get rid of the primitive age of consent systems and just have a fucking certification system in my dictatorship. Then if I wanted to fuck a 14 year old I would just find one who was certified as mentally developed enough to fuck (of which there are plenty) and not even feel the slightest bad about it. And if I wanted to fuck a 12 year old I would do the same thing. At some age there would be nobody who could pass the evaluation though, so sucks for people only attracted to people in that age range they can't actually have sex with anyone, but they can jack off to all the CP that was already produced that they want to as long as they don't pay for it or make it come into existence, and maybe they can go get some counseling or some shit to help them not give into their urges and end up raping a little boy or girl. Also, we wont judge them really, cuz they can't control what they want only what they do, what they want isn't bad to want really it's just bad to do, so whatever.
OK Ready?:

1. That's incoherent.
2. Emigrate.


But if you hooked my dick up to some phalometric device, I imagine the result would indicate that I am aroused to nearly no extent by people 11 or under, to varying degree by those 12-13, and to the maximum degree by those 14+.
Three things:

1. You have a penis? ???
2. Is it actually large enough to hook to up to machinery, let alone insert inside something? ???
3. They're called PET scans and fMRIs jackass ;)

Quote
Then get the fuck out already; that is, if you can secure a visa. Why are you wasting your time here arguing with me? In case you haven't noticed, you're not winning.
Oh trust me dude I am heading to Uruguay as soon as it is feasible for me to do so, and I will leave all the fucking insane hypocritical self denying religious brainwashed fuckwads behind and say GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE YOU BORDERLINE RETARDED PIECES OF FUCKING SHIT, right before I fuck a 15 year old, dive into a pile of personal use ketamine and get legally high as shit and then whack off to pictures of slutty 14 year old high school freshmen getting tag team butt fucked by 50 year olds, without breaking any laws or giving the slightest fuck about it.
¡Buen viaje a uruguay! ¡Adiós!

Buona fortuna! Ciao! LOL!


Oh, and, while you're at it:
Vaffanculo!

PS Even though you're clearly trolling, this shit is really starting to get fun! It's not hard to make you look stupid!

PPS The whole point of trolling is not to let the other person know they're being trolled.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 06:22:08 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #388 on: January 11, 2014, 06:25:07 pm »
oh. my. fucking. God.

Quote
Between the ages of 12 and 15, there is an intermediary status where violence is legally presumed until otherwise proven.[24] In this case, the onus probandi (the burden of proof) shifts from the plaintiff to the accused, who still has the chance to prove in their defense that consent was given. Below the age of 12 proof of consent is not a defense.

<ahem> ^^^Um, whom are you quoting here?^^^ ???
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

snowwhite421

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
  • Karma: +56/-22
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Nice Try ;)
« Reply #389 on: January 11, 2014, 07:11:14 pm »
Quote
Legally speaking, this is only true because CP is illegal. Legalization would change this.

Then let CP be intellectual property owned by the child. Fix whatever fucked up laws USA has to get to the point we can be rational about this shit. I don't give a tenth of a fuck if we need to wipe the slate clean and start from fucking scratch. Appeals to current law are irrelevant, I argue that we need to fundamentally change the laws.
That's you're idea of rational? ???

There are no property rights, intellectual or otherwise, in the situation you describe.

LOL! And good luck with that; let me know how much support you get!

Quote
Because you don't understand the rule of law. Come mothers and fathers throughout the land; and don't criticize what you can't understand. I was referring to the ability to give consent for sexual activity, trying to be as detailed as possible without going over your head, but apparently, I've failed.

The ability to give informed consent for sexual activity is probably reached somewhere around 14 on average for females, which is a shame, because there are plenty of fuckable 12 and 13 year olds (11 is almost always too young looking though, they look like little kids still, but then at 12 it's like BOOM starting to get a bit more interesting usually). Some of them might be above average intelligence enough though :D. For males I think it really comes a bit earlier though, 12 year old boys want to fuck (usually females) and I definitely would never report an older female to the police for fucking a willing 12 year old male (whom I would likely high five, and be quite jealous of).
First of all, you're wrong; on average, females reach puberty before males

And second, you want the law to distinguish between males and females? ???

Didn't you say something about not admitting to being a pedophile? ???

Because, legally and medically(hint: DSM V diagnostic criteria), your are, by definition, a pedophile. :P

Remind me again: why are we having this discussion? ???

It was somewhere around here:
Quote
Anyone with a superior intellect would be above this type of behavior. And while you sound like an adolescent, we all know that that's not possible as you are a self-confessed pedophile. 
More lies from you. I never confessed to being a pedophile.
   

And here:
Neither merge nor I claimed that we are pedophiles, you once again have resorted to strawman fallacies. Additionally, you are not qualified to have an opinion of the hypothesis presented, or the idea of legalizing CP, because by your own admission you have not read a single fucking thing linked to or even the very paper that you are so vehemently arguing against!

Moving on:
Quote
The only way this would be legal would be if both parties are minors, which is not only not what you're suggesting, but it's also restricted in some states by age (i.e. one party can only be so many years older than the other).

Fuck the current law, burn it to the ground and start from scratch. It's convoluted bullshit. We can do much better. Kill many of the people who enforced the old laws while you are at it, they really don't deserve to live. Start a new social order based on sanity and science instead of religion and slavery. All of your references to current laws are completely irrelevant because we need to wipe the fucking slate clean and start over.
You need help, because you clearly are suffering from mental illness. ;)

I'm not sure if it's schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or [meth]amphetamine induced psychosis, but you're clearly delusional.

My money's on the latter given your average daily post count. :P

But I'll play along; let's say we quote "Fuck the current law, burn it to the ground and start from scratch,", what makes you think that the new legal system would be created under your vision? ???

Good luck with that; but, hey, ¡Viva la Revolución!

Quote
Agreeing to be featured in pornography, in exactly the way you've described it, is akin to entering into a contract, whether that contract is verbal or written (hint: they're usually written, especially given your remark regarding intellectual property rights a/k/a copyrights in this case).

In the United States, persons under the age of majority, which is 18, cannot legally be bound to nor enter into contractual arrangements.

Wipe the slate clean motherfucker, in my world 14 year olds can enter contracts all they want to because I recognize they are not fucking retards. Well, most of them are retards. (ed: huh? ???) But to me, most humans are retards. And they are no more retarded than average retards.
Have you got any words other than retard? ???

Be a big boy; use your words. ;)

The only thing clear here is that you reside in your own, non-existent world within your head. The more you go on about this, the less rational and more deranged you look


Quote
Any contract involving a party under the age of 18, without parental consent, is invalid, and is therefore unenforceable.

A contract, by definition, is a legally binding agreement between a given set of parties to a certain terms and conditions, whether or not it is verbal or written.

Dude, we are wiping the slate clean, the previous rulers did a horrible job and fucked shit up, and now it's time to cut their heads off and instill a new social order. I don't give a flying fuck about any previous legalistic bullshit that slave traders thought up, it's time for a free world :D.
Who are these people whom you're referring to as we?

Are you talking about your sock puppets? So far we have merge, m0rph, and now, snigger. That's a world of three people. Impressive.

Notice that you've got TONS of support on this thread ;D

Quote
All rendered moot by your legalization position; without the illegality, there is no restitution, because the activity has been rendered legal and consensual
Maybe that is how it is in bullshit reality, I don't really know or care, because I want to change bullshit reality into sane world, so I am not restricting myself with any of the artifacts of bullshit reality. Honestly, I don't even think intellectual property is such a good idea, ???and probably abused children in CP are just fucked and even though it's wrong there isn't shit we can do about it but punish the people who did that to them, punishing the people who look at the results isn't going to change shit and since I think intellectual property is bullshit I don't think the abused kids are even entitled to jack shit from the people who view their images. GIve them all property of the person who abused them, that is something they deserve, I really feel sorry for them, but not sorry enough for them that I am going to fuck over innocent people in their name.
Huh? ???

Sane? ???

Oh, and:
The ability to give informed consent for sexual activity is probably reached somewhere around 14 on average for females, which is a shame, because there are plenty of fuckable 12 and 13 year olds (11 is almost always too young looking though, they look like little kids still, but then at 12 it's like BOOM starting to get a bit more interesting usually)
So you're basically talking about yourself then? ??? Because according to you:
"Fuck it, I don't care if 14 year olds enter into legally binding contracts. Under my rule, 14 is the new 18."
.
In your world, 14 is the age of majority, so under 14 would be a child

Quote
For someone with such a high verbal intelligence and who is, by his own description a child prodigy, your level of creativity, and the lack of depth of your vocabulary, from a writer's standpoint, belies your own statements.
I gave you accurate figures re: my intelligence subscores and GIQ.
Oh OK; when you scan notarized copies of those results, then maybe I'll believe you. Maybe. ;)

Do you expect people to take your word for it? ???

You're certainly not demonstrating that here. The only thing you're actually doing here is exposing just how sick, from a mental health standpoint, you are. ;D

Belies is a fun word, did you learn that from me when I used it previously? Strangely enough I even remember where I learned that word from, even though it was quite a long time ago.
LMFAO! Really? ??? You remember learning belies? ???

I don't; its an ordinary word that is part of my vocabulary. I can't recall you using it. But since you've brought this up, when did you start using the abbreviation re: for regarding? ;)

I would probably never talk to anyone with an IQ below 110 again if I could help it. I really wish my IQ was higher though, especially my visual subscores, some of the people on the internet are so far beyond me I can hardly even understand them but I just barely can manage to, but IRL it's just sad man people are really on average borderline retarded,
LOL OK! Then do everyone a favor, and stop! Nobody actually wants to talk to you.

I'm sticking with your newspaper article link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-ct-porn10-2009aug10,0,3356050.story
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

Quote from: LA Times
Researchers have also determined that pedophiles are nearly an inch shorter on average than non-pedophiles and lag behind the average IQ by 10 points — discoveries that are consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.

In a 2008 study, Cantor's team conducted MRI brain scans on 65 pedophiles. Compared with men with criminal histories but no sex offenses, they had less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain.
Ah, the power of attribution; you should learn how to use it ;)

That's the thing that sucks about high functioning  Autism, you are twice exceptional (someone else said that first but I wont provide a citation as I don't give a flying fuck). My Verbal IQ is high enough that most people really seem to be borderline retarded when they talk, but my visual IQ is borderline retarded to an average person.
Regarding the average person, you've got it backwards: to the average person, your verbal intelligence appears to be on the level of mentally retarded. I wouldn't go so far as to call you mentally retarded, though, mainly because I wouldn't want to insult people who are in some way mentally retarded ;)

If you're verbal intelligence is so high, why do retard[ed] and fuck[ing] make up such a huge portion of your vocabulary? ??? Why is fuck[ing] the only modifier that you are able to use consistently? ???

And why can I ID you so easily from your other accounts? ??? Because let's face it: you've stopped denying that you were merge several posts ago. And:
It seems to me like Jesus can't really come up with a decent argument so he reverts to name calling. It seems pretty immature for someone who is supposedly "so intelligent". I don't know if I'm completely sold on legalizing child pornography possession, but I do think that sentencing guidelines are harsh and need to be reduced. [Post number 52]
Oh Christ, is this another sock puppet? Show me, exactly, where I've resorted to name calling, and m0rph has risen above it ;)

You've gotta love trolls.

Well, at least I love being trolled by bad trolls ;D

LMFAO! Joined yesterday; 52nd post, with your 51st--just after you'd squirmed your way out of the Newbie board--in security, where I'd bet, coincidentally, that you're an expert, just like m0rph/merge, and you just happened to navigate to this thread?

But I'm sure that's just another coincidence too, no?
If you honestly think that they are not allowed to track plutopete you're fucking retarded, especially in the UK... it's a fucking police state. [Post number 50. Guess where? ??? Surprise: Security ;D]
Same diction too; surprise surprise. It only took you all of 9 minutes to navigate here, read the posts, and weigh in on the argument? LOL! Oh OK. Sure. If you say so ;D

Snigga, I'm not that fucking retarded (if I may quote you?) ;D

Troll fail! LOL! :D

Vaffanculo! ;)
coming from the dude that responds to well thought out arguments with tl/dr... LOL
[Post number 53]
Uh huh ;)

Snigga please! ;D

You are a mutha fuckin' retard.

OK ready?

If it was tl;dr, how, exactly, did you arrive at the conclusion that his arguments were well thought out?

Because you fucking made the fucking argument yourself, and I've, as promised, been mopping the floor with you. ;)

But anyway:
Quote
Actually, your failure to understand the law is the issue at hand. Read up on it and get back to me. There is no civil recourse if CP is made legal.

I think you fail to understand that I don't give a flying fucking fuck shit about the current law. Wipe the slate clean, we can start over from scratch and do a hell of a lot better job. Tell you what, just make me dictator of the country, I swear I wont let power get to my head, and I will make it a far better place for everybody, guaranteed. Everybody wins when I am the dictator, no joke. Well, slave traders lose I guess. Vote me for dictator and everyone wins but slave traders!!
Um, that sure sounds sane ;D

And haven't you made that comment about the current US laws like twice already in this post? Way to flex those verbal intelligence muscles you've got! ;)

Quote
<sigh> The age of consent does not equal the age of majority. That's what you fail to grasp. Even if the age of consent were 14, a 14 year old cannot enter into a legally binding contract

HERE'S WHERE I FIGURED OUT THAT YOU ARE DEFINITELY TROLLING: :P
Fuck it, I don't care if 14 year olds enter into legally binding contracts. Under my rule, 14 is the new 18. And 13 is the new 17, and 12 is the new 16. In that everyone can openly admit they want to fuck 14 year olds and knock themselves out, and they can secretly acknowledge that they want to fuck 13 and 12 year olds, maybe hint at it to their closer male friends but never come directly out and say it especially not in public. but should be a bit discreet about it, and probably not actually do it very much except maybe on rare occasions if the girl is particularly mature or something. Under my dictatorship we seriously just knock age ranges back by 4 years.
<sigh>:
Quote
So, should 14 year olds, using your theoretical age of consent, be allowed to vote? Enlist in the military? Drive? Purchase alcoholic beverages and tobacco for themselves?

I definitely think they should be able to do all of those things. In some states I am pretty sure 14 year olds actually can drive. They should also not be restricted from joining the military, unless the military doesn't want them, that's up to the military. If they want to smoke or drink I don't give a shit, I smoked and drank when I was 14, for fucks sake I ordered psychedelic research chemicals from Chinese labs and got high as a kite when I was 14, and I turned out just fine
Um, OK. First, 14 year olds cannot drive in any state (except maybe on farms, but not public streets).

Second, I think many people, aside from me, would question your assertion that you "turned out just fine."

So let me reiterate: you want 14 year olds to be able to drive, purchase alcohol and tobacco for themselves, have consensual sex with adults, enlist in the military (including the Air Force), and drop out of school without parental consent (while complaining about stupidity at the same time?)? ??? Oh, shit; I left out reproduce, which I'm not sure why you'd want to encourage, because you said above:

Wipe the slate clean motherfucker, in my world 14 year olds can enter contracts all they want to because I recognize they are not fucking retards. Well, most of them are retards But to me, most humans are retards. And they are no more retarded than average retards.

And:
I would probably never talk to anyone with an IQ below 110 again if I could help it. I really wish my IQ was higher though, especially my visual subscores, some of the people on the internet are so far beyond me I can hardly even understand them but I just barely can manage to, but IRL it's just sad man people are really on average borderline retarded,
So doesn't that just produce more retards, whom you claim to loathe interacting with?(not surprising; I'm sure it's mutual ;) )????

Quote
What, in fact, your advocating for is a lowering of the age of consent, which mistakenly believe lowers the age of majority. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. Here's precisely what you've said:

Fuck dude I am going to bust the god damn knee caps out of the legal leg with an anarchist fucking baseball bat and then I am going to take the shattered leg and put it into a cast of my own construction.
Right. OK ;D

Quote
And just because you are into girls does not mean that this law could be restricted to females. That's not possible. Statutory rape is statutory rape regardless of sex/gender

Tons of countries have different age of consent for males versus females, but I would get rid of the primitive age of consent systems and just have a fucking certification system in my dictatorship. Then if I wanted to fuck a 14 year old I would just find one who was certified as mentally developed enough to fuck (of which there are plenty) and not even feel the slightest bad about it. And if I wanted to fuck a 12 year old I would do the same thing. At some age there would be nobody who could pass the evaluation though, so sucks for people only attracted to people in that age range they can't actually have sex with anyone, but they can jack off to all the CP that was already produced that they want to as long as they don't pay for it or make it come into existence, and maybe they can go get some counseling or some shit to help them not give into their urges and end up raping a little boy or girl. Also, we wont judge them really, cuz they can't control what they want only what they do, what they want isn't bad to want really it's just bad to do, so whatever.
OK Ready?:

1. That's incoherent.
2. Emigrate.


But if you hooked my dick up to some phalometric device, I imagine the result would indicate that I am aroused to nearly no extent by people 11 or under, to varying degree by those 12-13, and to the maximum degree by those 14+.
Three things:

1. You have a penis? ???
2. Is it actually large enough to hook to up to machinery, let alone insert inside something? ???
3. They're called PET scans and fMRIs jackass ;)

Quote
Then get the fuck out already; that is, if you can secure a visa. Why are you wasting your time here arguing with me? In case you haven't noticed, you're not winning.
Oh trust me dude I am heading to Uruguay as soon as it is feasible for me to do so, and I will leave all the fucking insane hypocritical self denying religious brainwashed fuckwads behind and say GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE YOU BORDERLINE RETARDED PIECES OF FUCKING SHIT, right before I fuck a 15 year old, dive into a pile of personal use ketamine and get legally high as shit and then whack off to pictures of slutty 14 year old high school freshmen getting tag team butt fucked by 50 year olds, without breaking any laws or giving the slightest fuck about it.
¡Buen viaje a uruguay! ¡Adiós!

Buona fortuna! Ciao! LOL!


Oh, and, while you're at it:
Vaffanculo!

PS Even though you're clearly trolling, this shit is really starting to get fun! It's not hard to make you look stupid!

PPS The whole point of trolling is not to let the other person know they're being trolled.

lmfao@all of this, I was like cp thread wtf? lmao@dupe accounts cause morph has no friends because he loves being a pedo. snorting coke off a 12-14yr olds tits? 14yr olds tits are the best? you gotsta be trolling, if not you are a fucking loser that cant pull fine ass grown women..

Herby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: +156/-157
  • gone to Agora
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #390 on: January 11, 2014, 08:37:44 pm »
STOP BUMPING THIS THREAD AND LET IT DIE ALREADY!
I have been banned for Mindlessly Spamming for Agora
We will no longer be vending at SR. or checking forums.

Sensaiy36

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +31/-22
  • Trap Or Die
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #391 on: January 11, 2014, 08:49:40 pm »
This is fucking sick, and this thread should be deleted.
You want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #392 on: January 11, 2014, 09:19:01 pm »
I would urge you both to stay on topic, instead of attacking each other! You are degrading the debate, and making yourselves look imature!

Both of you seem to think you are smarter than the other, so I would give you both this advice:

Never argue with an idiot! They will try to drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience!

+1

… It's not that I'm proud of my degree. And while I'm not necessarily proud, at the same time, I do take comfort in being better educated than the person in question. And why would I be ashamed of being educated?

I've never attended a university and have no academic qualifications (not even so much as an O-Level from school). That doesn't mean that I'm not well educated; just that I've mostly educated myself.

This is an anonymous forum, so perhaps you should stop trying to link these two nicks together, and go after the ball instead!
Wether this is in fact one or two persons is completely irrelevant, and any effort to link any identities/nicks, is very bad practise, and should (imo) be stopped!
I'm sorry, but not only is it obvious, not only given that he popped up within merge vanishing and is the only person who's read merge's paper, but also from his writing style and inability to properly use quote tags.And he's also stopped denying it. They also just happen to both be security experts? Oh OK.

So what?

For the ones advocating changes in laws regarding CP, what kind of changes do you suggest?

One major change I would advocate in British law would be no longer classifying people as sexual offenders merely for possessing cartoon representations of young people.

This is fucking sick, and this thread should be deleted.

I strongly disagree. If something is important enough to arouse strong feelings and even legislation then it certainly needs to be discussed.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #393 on: January 11, 2014, 11:21:20 pm »
For the ones advocating changes in laws regarding CP, what kind of changes do you suggest?

One major change I would advocate in British law would be no longer classifying people as sexual offenders merely for possessing cartoon representations of young people.

I totally agree with this. We are sexual creatures and have the need for relieve ourselves from our sexual needs from time to time. If not our sexual frustration might make us do stuff we shouldn't. I can surf the web for porn, use my imagination or get laid to do this. For people who are attracted to illegally young ones; if they are to follow the law they only have their imagination. And I suspect that the more ways you can relieve sexual frustration, the less likely you are to do things you shouldn't. So I believe that child porn reduces the number of people engaging in the sexual exploitation of minors, and production of cartoon child porn doesn't hurt anyone.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 11:22:59 pm by SandStorm »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #394 on: January 12, 2014, 03:27:57 am »
Looking at pictures of already produced CP that you didn't pay for doesn't hurt a single fucking person either. If it does then looking at holocaust images must hurt Jews. Only a blithering idiot would think that it does.

Jesus H. Christ, I am too busy right now to respond to your stupidity, but as I already pointed out, the DSM does not list hebephilia and it was actually explicitly rejected as a mental disorder. Also, as I previously pointed out, when random samples of men are hooked up to sexual arousal measuring devices (they are called phallometers, not MRI's) the majority of men respond the same way to 12 year olds as they do to 18 year olds. It has been demonstrated in multiple studies, non-exclusive hebephilia is the normal state of being a male. Maybe you should read what I write and the studies I link to instead of babbling on incoherently. You just look like a retard when you keep repeating that I am a pedophile according to the DSM, especially right after I just made a post showing that I am not a pedophile according to the DSM. I will make a bigger response to your stupidity later when I have more time.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #395 on: January 12, 2014, 03:33:41 am »
also 14 year old tits are certainly the best, they are very close to final size, but still have that extra perkiness and not quite as fatty. 
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #396 on: January 12, 2014, 08:25:04 am »
also 14 year old tits are certainly the best, they are very close to final size, but still have that extra perkiness and not quite as fatty.

I just threw up in my mouth a bit at this. You actually fucking posted this. Damn, you seriously need to get out more. WITH ADULTS. Who will kill you.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 11:11:26 am by twatWaffle »
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #397 on: January 12, 2014, 05:06:29 pm »
Looking at pictures of already produced CP that you didn't pay for doesn't hurt a single fucking person either. If it does then looking at holocaust images must hurt Jews. Only a blithering idiot would think that it does.
For me "already produced [real depictions] CP" is much more complicated than cartoon CP, but I have opinions about that to. I do however feel much more uncertain when it comes to that kind of CP and therefore I don't want to take a stance on those matters. Especially since this discussion tend to be so aggressive from both sides.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 06:30:44 pm by SandStorm »

Ronald Ernest Paul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Karma: +42/-22
  • Fuck Mitt Romney
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #398 on: January 12, 2014, 10:32:21 pm »
Some of you people need a bullet to the dick.
Oh, it's not a swindle. What you do is, see, you give them all your credit card numbers, and if one of them is lucky, they send you a prize.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #399 on: January 13, 2014, 12:14:07 pm »
also 14 year old tits are certainly the best, they are very close to final size, but still have that extra perkiness and not quite as fatty.

I just threw up in my mouth a bit at this. You actually fucking posted this. Damn, you seriously need to get out more. WITH ADULTS. Who will kill you.

Why throw up in your mouth? Everybody knows it's true that young girls are hot. Seriously, first of all, when random men are hooked up to machines that measure their level of sexual arousal, they become just as aroused by images of 12+ year olds as they do by 18+ year olds. So you can act like what I said disgusts you, but you are just bullshitting for some reason. Why feel the need to lie? Are you so fucking culturally indoctrinated that you really feel the need to lie on an anonymous forum? There is a massive likelihood that you would get an erection if you saw a girl as young as 12 doing something sexual. And it is supported as well by evolutionary theory, many have argued that hebephilia and ephebophilia are evolutionarily advantageous traits, so of course they have become common over time. Especially as in the past in many locations males married females as young as 12 years old very frequently. The current matrix world that we live in and open secrets that we keep originated sometime around 1850 after political campaigning by religious organizations and feminists. You can look at the history of this shit and see how absolutely artificial it is. Additionally, in many current countries, it is completely legal and socially acceptable to fuck 14 year olds. There are countries where 14 essentially is the 18 of the USA. Are you so disgusted by their 'barbarism' lol. Even in fucking Germany 14 year olds are legal to fuck, and until recently porn of those 14+ was explicitly legal to produce and distribute. Additionally, men are hardwired to be attracted to signs of youth and signs of sexual maturity, it is super unlikely that you don't actually find 14 year olds more sexually attractive than say 30 year olds, they have sexual maturity and they have a lot more youth.

I find it entirely implausible that you would throw up from seeing some hot 14 year old flashing. You would quite possibly be amazed at the quality of her breasts compared to what you are used to, it's kind of hard to put it in words, but some younger teenagers definitely have superior breasts as their most markedly superior sexual trait. Smoother more radiant skin would have to be a close second though. I find it incredibly unlikely that many here actually disagree with me, it's just not supported by the experiments or the theory (ie: the science). So it really makes me wonder why you want to lie to yourself so badly. Are you ashamed of yourself because your society has indoctrinated you into thinking your natural desires are monstrous? It just makes no sense to me. And in any case, I already suggested doing away with the age based consent system and moving toward individual certification after blinded psychological evaluation. So why do you care if someone has sex with a 14 year old who has proven to be capable of sexual self determination? I thought exploitation of the vulnerable was your primary concern, but that issue can be addressed in such a way that young teenagers are still in at least some cases acceptable sexual partners. Or do you not have as the basis of your moral indignation the exploitation of the vulnerable, but rather have some indoctrination that has convinced you 18 is a magical age, and thus cling to your artificial belief more like a religion than anything else? 
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 12:18:39 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #400 on: January 13, 2014, 12:16:43 pm »
Looking at pictures of already produced CP that you didn't pay for doesn't hurt a single fucking person either. If it does then looking at holocaust images must hurt Jews. Only a blithering idiot would think that it does.
For me "already produced [real depictions] CP" is much more complicated than cartoon CP, but I have opinions about that to. I do however feel much more uncertain when it comes to that kind of CP and therefore I don't want to take a stance on those matters. Especially since this discussion tend to be so aggressive from both sides.

You should take a stance on it, because right now people are being ruined for life for doing things that are obviously not inherently bad, and indeed things which are completely legal in countries around the world. You should free yourself of your indoctrination and help make a change instead of being complicit in brainwashing and slavery.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 12:17:08 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Nice Try ;)
« Reply #401 on: January 13, 2014, 02:00:45 pm »
Quote
LOL! And good luck with that; let me know how much support you get!

I don't need any support I will just move to Uruguay where nothing I want to do is illegal anyway. I find it strange that countries with the laxest drug laws tend to have the laxest age of consent and CP laws as well. Although not a scientific study, my anecdotal experience seems to indicate that drug laws and CP/age of consent laws correlate in countries, meaning countries with harsh drug laws (USA) have high ages of consent and strict CP laws, and countries with lax drug laws (Uruguay) have low ages of consent and lax CP laws. I guess countries either tend toward or away from freedom in general, so it really isn't that strange, I just wanted to point it out to you.

Quote
Quote
For males I think it really comes a bit earlier though, 12 year old boys want to fuck (usually females) and I definitely would never report an older female to the police for fucking a willing 12 year old male (whom I would likely high five, and be quite jealous of).
First of all, you're wrong; on average, females reach puberty before males

And second, you want the law to distinguish between males and females? ???

First of all, I'm not wrong, because I never said that males start puberty earlier than females. Males tend to be more sexually motivated than females through out life, and the same holds true for younger people as well. I don't think 12 year old females are as motivated to have sex as 12 year old boys are.



Quote
Didn't you say something about not admitting to being a pedophile? ???

Because, legally and medically(hint: DSM V diagnostic criteria), your are, by definition, a pedophile. :P

I already covered this, and although I typically don't repeat myself for retards, I will point out that hebephilia was straight up rejected as a mental disorder:


http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.fr/2012/12/apa-rejects-hebephilia-last-of-three.html

Quote
To hear government experts on the witness stand in civil detention trials in recent months, the novel diagnosis of "hebephilia" was a fait accompli, just awaiting its formal acceptance into the upcoming fifth edition of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

They were flat-out wrong.
In a stunning blow to psychology's burgeoning sex offender processing industry, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposed diagnosis outright, not even relegating it to an appendix as meriting further study, its proponents' fall-back position.

The rejection follows the failure of two other sexual disorders proposed by the DSM-5's paraphilias subworkgroup. These were paraphilic coercive disorder (or a proclivity toward rape) and hypersexuality, an inherently hard-to-define construct that introduced the committee members' value judgments as to how much sex is within acceptable limits.

After abandoning those two disorders, the subworkgroup clung tenaciously to a whittled-down version of its proposed expansion of pedophilia to cover sexual attraction to early pubescent youngsters (generally in the age range of 11-14), ignoring widespread opposition from both within and outside of the APA.

The buzz is that senior psychiatrists in the APA were unhappy with the intransigence of psychologists in the subworkgroup who communicated the belief that if they just stuck to their guns, they could force the ill-considered proposal into the new manual, despite a lack of scientific support.

All three proposed sexual disorder expansions were widely critiqued by mental health professionals, especially those working in the forensic contexts in which they would be deployed. They led to a spate of critical peer-reviewed publications (including a historical overview of hebephilia by yours truly, published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law), and an open letter to APA leadership from more than 100 professionals, including prominent forensic psychologists and psychiatrists in the U.S. and internationally.

The unequivocal rejection sends a strong signal of the American Psychiatric Association's continuing reluctance to be drawn into the civil commitment quagmire, where pretextual diagnoses are being invoked as excuses to indefinitely confine sex offenders who have no genuine mental disorders. In marked contrast with the field of psychology, psychiatry leaders have expressed consistent concerns about the use of psychiatric labels to justify civil detention schemes.

Next time around, the APA might want to do a better job selecting committee members in the first place. The "paraphilias subworkgroup" was heavily biased in favor of hebephilia because of its domination by psychologists from the Canadian sex clinic that proposed the new disorder in the first place, and is the only entity doing research on it. But what a waste of time and energy to create a committee that comes up with wild and wacky proposals that are only going to end up getting shot down when the rubber meets the road.



And also the majority of human males are non-exclusive hebephiles, making it strange that anyone would consider it pathological:

http://www.wisspd.org/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf

Quote
1967, p. 228).
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975).
These physiological findings were replicated by another group of Canadian

Either address these citations, or stop going on and on about something you have already been shown to be incorrect about.

Quote
You need help, because you clearly are suffering from mental illness. ;)

In a world of insanity sanity is the most disturbing mental illness of all.

Quote
But I'll play along; let's say we quote "Fuck the current law, burn it to the ground and start from scratch,", what makes you think that the new legal system would be created under your vision? ???

I don't particularly care honestly, I will just move to Uruguay, shit's already more or less good there, they just need to legalize all amounts of all recreational drugs instead of personal use only for everything but weed

Quote
The only thing clear here is that you reside in your own, non-existent world within your head. The more you go on about this, the less rational and more deranged you look[/b]

No, I actually look extremely rational and well put together. You, on the other hand, look like a fool. And most of the people in this thread are liars for saying they are not attracted to underage teenagers, it's been empirically demonstrated you fucking retards you might as well deny evolution.

Quote
In your world, 14 is the age of majority, so under 14 would be a child

In my world nobody gets to vote because I am the benevolent dictator who keeps you brain dead sheep in line so you don't try to enslave each other, and peoples ability to do things like drive, fuck, drink, or smoke, is determined by their ability to pass various tests and evaluations to obtain certification.

Quote
You're certainly not demonstrating that here. The only thing you're actually doing here is exposing just how sick, from a mental health standpoint, you are. ;D

Oh noez, I am so sick, I have attraction to underage teenagers, but oh waitz a minute, not considered mental disorder by APA, oh and waitz a minute more, empirical experiments have on at least three different occasions determined that majority of males are, and oh wuts that, evolutionary theory backs up this already empirically demonstrated as true hypothesis? Wow, I am so sick omg.

Quote
LMFAO! Really? ??? You remember learning belies? ???

I have a remarkable ability to remember where I learned particular words.

Quote
Quote from: LA Times
Researchers have also determined that pedophiles are nearly an inch shorter on average than non-pedophiles and lag behind the average IQ by 10 points — discoveries that are consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.

In a 2008 study, Cantor's team conducted MRI brain scans on 65 pedophiles. Compared with men with criminal histories but no sex offenses, they had less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain.
Ah, the power of attribution; you should learn how to use it ;)

Code: [Select]
[quote]
[quote author=LA Times]
[b][color=blue]Researchers have also determined that pedophiles are nearly an inch shorter on average than non-pedophiles and lag behind the average IQ by 10 points — discoveries that are consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.

In a 2008 study, Cantor's team conducted MRI brain scans on 65 pedophiles. Compared with men with criminal histories but no sex offenses, they had less white matter, the connective circuitry of the brain.[/b][/quote]
[b]Ah, the power of attribution; you should learn how to use it[/b] ;)
[/quote]

Please stop making quote tags that are on the same line as the thing being quoted, it really makes it a pain in the ass to quote you, especially when you throw in your five billion other tags.

Welcome to the world of bell curves! First of all, this is in regards to pedophiles, something which I am not considered to be. Second of all, some pedophiles are actually quite intelligent.

Quote
Regarding the average person, you've got it backwards: to the average person, your verbal intelligence appears to be on the level of mentally retarded. I wouldn't go so far as to call you mentally retarded, though, mainly because I wouldn't want to insult people who are in some way mentally retarded ;)

Wow this might bother me but since I actually had my intelligence professionally evaluated I really don't give the slightest fuck what a retard thinks of it.

Quote
And haven't you made that comment about the current US laws like twice already in this post? Way to flex those verbal intelligence muscles you've got! ;)

It has always been in response to you saying the same thing over and over.


Quote
Um, OK. First, 14 year olds cannot drive in any state (except maybe on farms, but not public streets).

Wrong, 14 year olds can drive in the following states: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. Usually there are some restrictions, such as inability to drive past a certain time, but they are definitely not restricted to driving on farms. Maybe in the future you should research things before you spout off talking about shit you have no fucking clue about.

Quote
Second, I think many people, aside from me, would question your assertion that you "turned out just fine."

I think many people, including me, would question any assertion you made that you turned out fine.

Quote
So let me reiterate: you want 14 year olds to be able to drive, purchase alcohol and tobacco for themselves, have consensual sex with adults, enlist in the military (including the Air Force), and drop out of school without parental consent (while complaining about stupidity at the same time?)? ??? Oh, shit; I left out reproduce, which I'm not sure why you'd want to encourage, because you said above:

Yes, I think 14 year olds are capable of all of those things, and I think they regularly do all of them anyway short of enlisting in the military or dropping out of school (although some illegally stop going to school).
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 02:03:25 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #402 on: February 08, 2014, 10:09:51 am »
another good way to prevent child sex abuse would be to mandate polygraph or phallometric evaluation for people in positions where they could abuse children. I guess the courts currently rule that it is unconstitutional to require phallometric testing as a criteria of employment, but I don't see why it should be illegal or that it's a bad idea. Polygraph testing could catch abuse early on, the first case I can think of is the Mikelsons case where the guy molested 83 daycare kids over several years before he was caught with photographic forensics. Phallometric testing would have had a high chance of detecting that he was an infantophile and could have disqualified him from the position, polygraph testing could have detected he was a infantophile as well, or detected the molestation before he was tracked down with photographic forensics. He actually had prior CP convictions in Germany but the Netherlands apparently wasn't aware of this, but I wouldn't say that CP offending should be used to disqualify people in such a way due to the fact that I think CP shouldn't be illegal to view. But even without using CP possession as a screening tool like this, phallometry and polygraphs could both work to screen out pedophiles from working with young children. Of course it wouldn't work to prevent high school teachers from "molesting" their students though, since nearly every male teacher would be detected as a hebephile.

I don't think it's really bad to be sexually attracted to infants (like Mikelsons), but I also think it's entirely understandable if screening tools are used to prevent such people from taking jobs where they work with infants. Using basic screening like this as a requirement of working with young children seems like a no brainer, I wonder why the courts currently declare it illegal to do so.

And yeah you could say that criminalizing CP leads to such people being arrested and then society as a whole knowing that they are potentially pedophiles, and use that as an argument for continued criminalization of CP. After all, why protect kids in some random daycare but not protect random kids from their cousin or whatever? But I think that if someone knows they are a pedophile/infantophile and they purposefully get a job where they will be unsupervised with people who are in that age range, that they are probably planning to do something bad. On the other hand, some random kids cousin could very well know he is a pedophile and have no intention of molesting kids. I think that "pedophile" doesn't put someone in the same risk bracket as "pedophile who intentionally tries to position himself near children". The first description is a deviant sexual preference that a person has no choice in, whereas the second is a deviant sexual preference coupled with a choice that makes acting on the deviant sexual preference easier to do.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 10:23:33 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #403 on: February 08, 2014, 10:37:34 pm »
Must be serious when you (as in chomos)  are looked down by some of  societies most feared and (labeled) despicable people on the planet.

It might be safe to say Child molesters are the numero uno criminals that is the worse in this world of criminals. Rapist, you’re not to far behind.

The Boston bomber gets more respect than you.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

Quality Hydro Buds

  • Vendor
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 89
  • Karma: +10/-12
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #404 on: February 09, 2014, 02:34:31 am »
You bunch of fucking rock spiders. get off the site you need to be shot ASAP

WH1T3 W0LF 33

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Karma: +11/-12
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #405 on: February 09, 2014, 02:40:25 am »
Us humans have free will, so shit like this has and will happen, i haven't read any of this, but what are you trying to archive with this discussion?
Though i hate this idea of say, i turn 18 and the same day i get raided with nude pics of 16-17 year old girlfriends on my pc, i can get charged with child porn.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
"Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay."

Quotes by Aleister Crowley

co8c6G9o8lb

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #406 on: February 09, 2014, 04:33:17 am »
omfg this is a fascinating thread.  wow.  wtf... but wow.
PGP key in profile.  I only respond to PGP encrypted messages.

PillfirePharmacy

  • Vendor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Karma: +236/-63
  • Quality, Customer Service& Integrity are our goals
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #407 on: February 09, 2014, 06:38:30 am »
also 14 year old tits are certainly the best, they are very close to final size, but still have that extra perkiness and not quite as fatty.

I just threw up in my mouth a bit at this. You actually fucking posted this. Damn, you seriously need to get out more. WITH ADULTS. Who will kill you.

I don't think it's really bad to be sexually attracted to infants

Another gem. All the intelligence in the world does not compensate for the fact that you are a VERY sick fuck. 
SR's #1 TRUSTED Suboxone Vender. Top Shelf & Fire Fishscale cocaine listings now live (levamisole, ephedrine & amphetamine FREE)!
SR2:http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/pillfirepharmacy
Agora: vendor/PillfirePharmacy#
Evolution:http://k5zq47j6wd3wdvjq.onion/store/5368

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #408 on: February 10, 2014, 07:51:41 am »
Must be serious when you (as in chomos)  are looked down by some of  societies most feared and (labeled) despicable people on the planet.

It might be safe to say Child molesters are the numero uno criminals that is the worse in this world of criminals. Rapist, you’re not to far behind.

The Boston bomber gets more respect than you.

It's more sad that misunderstood people who have seen what propaganda can do to mass perception would themselves misunderstand others due to their perceptions being distorted by lies and propaganda. Just as well as you know that ending drug prohibition would be good, I know that ending the prohibition of child pornography possession would be good. Just as certainly as you know that not all drug users are violent robbers looking to score their next fix at all costs, I know that not all CP consumers are conniving pedophiles who plan to rape or molest your children. Just as you know that smoking marijuana doesn't lead people down a path of rape and murder, I know that people looking at CP does not lead to children being harmed. And just as much as you are aware that the war on drugs is political bullshit for the profit of the elites, I am aware that the war against CP consumers is no different. And in your ignorance you can say that I am a filthy pedophile who should be put to death, and I will hear you as you hear the person who calls you a filthy junkie. And in your ignorance you can mindlessly repeat things that you heard in propaganda, and I will regard you the same as you regard the ones who repeat drug war propaganda while they know nothing about drugs. And you can hate me and feel superior to me all you want, because I don't need to look far to find the person who feels hatred and superiority toward you. 
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 08:12:21 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #409 on: February 10, 2014, 08:07:33 am »
also 14 year old tits are certainly the best, they are very close to final size, but still have that extra perkiness and not quite as fatty.

I just threw up in my mouth a bit at this. You actually fucking posted this. Damn, you seriously need to get out more. WITH ADULTS. Who will kill you.

I don't think it's really bad to be sexually attracted to infants

Another gem. All the intelligence in the world does not compensate for the fact that you are a VERY sick fuck.

I don't think it's bad to want to rape people either, but it's bad to rape people. Some studies indicate that as many as 60% of males have urges to rape, since you think that desire is bad even if separated from action then do you propose that we round up all of those males then? How can an intrinsic desire be morally good or morally bad? Desires just are. They are no more good or bad than rocks or rivers. Only actions can be immoral. Desires can be pathological but they are simply devoid of morality. We should all hope that infantophiles have a better ability to distinguish between the morality of desire and the morality of action than you do.

With your system of morality you leave them only two options, death or molestation. If desire can be immoral then they are immoral for their desires. They cannot change their desires so they are immoral beings that can never be cleansed of their immorality. Since they are already immoral beings, why shouldn't they then be immoral beings that molest children? The only thing left that they can do then is kill themselves to end their existence and their intrinsic immorality. It isn't a likely scenario. More likely is that they will molest children and be immoral in their action as they were in their desire. If such a person used your system of morality they would be far more likely to molest children than to not do so. My system of morality has an alternative to suicide or molestation. Because a person is not made immoral by their desires the person who desires to molest children is not inherently immoral. They can exist in a state of moral purity. If they molest children then they have done an immoral thing and they are then in that way morally tainted. If their desire for moral purity is higher than their desire to molest children, then they will not molest children. With your system of morality they will not molest children only if their desire for moral purity is higher than their desire for life. And there are things they can do to reduce the intensity of their desire to molest children, and one of the most important such things requires the ability to relieve sexual tension with child pornography. By reducing the intensity of their desire to molest children they can keep it below the intensity of their desire to maintain moral purity.   
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 08:31:28 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #410 on: February 10, 2014, 10:24:51 am »
Us humans have free will, so shit like this has and will happen, i haven't read any of this, but what are you trying to archive with this discussion?
Though i hate this idea of say, i turn 18 and the same day i get raided with nude pics of 16-17 year old girlfriends on my pc, i can get charged with child porn.

But don't you know that if you look at those pictures on the day you turn 18 that you will cause severe damage to your girlfriend? She will only be a child, and you will be a twisted adult revictimizing her for your demented sexual pleasure. Or do you think when you turn 18 this is not the case, but when you turn 19 it is? Or when you turn 21? How about when you turn 50 or 70? And what if you replace the naked picture of your girlfriend with a naked picture of some random teenager you found on the internet? Then is it a horrible crime when you are 17? If not, then is it when you are 18, 19, 21, 50 or 70? And what if the girl is 15 instead of 16? Is it wrong then? How about if she is 14? What difference does it make to you if she consented to be in the picture? If she consented for her picture to be released? What if she did or did not do every possible combination of those things with every age asked at every age  asked? Do things really change so much for the same action? The action is the same in any case, it is looking at a picture. Do you really think the content of a picture changes the morality of looking at a picture? How can you attribute such power to arrangements of pixels, to large binary numbers? Some large numbers are moral and others are immoral?!

My system is much more elegant and polished than yours. If you are worried about a person not being capable of consenting to sex, then have a blind licensing system where people can prove their competency to have sex. Age is not the direct thing you want to measure, you want to measure competency so then measure it. We will both agree that a person who is incompetent to consent to sex should not be exploited for sex by a person who is competent. But we will not agree that this is determined by the crossing of an arbitrary boundary on the number line, a boundary that has changed radically over time and is radically different across cultures even in the world of today. Do you think that a 14 year old with an IQ score of 100 on an adult intelligence test is any less competent to consent to sex than an 18 year old who scores the same? I think that there is a certain point where a person lacks the basic cognitive capacity to engage in consensual sex, although what that number is will vary. Do you fear that there will be (well, many, I suppose) 5 year old children scoring above 70 or 80 on an adult IQ test? Do you think that a 7 year old could demonstrate basic understanding of the physical and emotional risks of sex? Do you think an 8 year old could demonstrate a developed theory of mind after being presented with various sexual scenarios involving fictional characters? Or that a 5 year old could demonstrate via some test that they do not consider themselves to be subservient? Do you think that an 8 year old would say they actually desire to have sex in and of itself and not that someone else wants to have sex with them? There are so many things that could be done that would disqualify all of the people you are afraid of having sex from demonstrating the competency required to be certified as capable of sexual self determinism. But there are plenty of 14 year olds who could pass all of these tests just as well as an 18 year old could, so what then is it that makes you say that this person is sexually abused in freely deciding to have sex with someone who is older than they are? What is their lack of competency if it is not something that can be demonstrated? Why would you want to use an arbitrary age based system instead of this ? The only reason why you would want to do such a thing is if your desire is not restricting the exploitation of the vulnerable but rather is restricting the sexual activity of certain age groups. And what reason do you have then for that desire if it is not the protection of the vulnerable? A belief that arises from itself has no foundation.

And as for pictures, there can be no arbitrary range. There is no need for the competency of the subject of a photograph to be evaluated. Do you think that the children depicted in images of the holocaust should be evaluated for their willingness to die at the hands of the Nazi regime? You cannot arbitrarily say that one type of image of victims should be illegal to look at but not another. I really loathe your arbitrariness, irrationality, and inconsistency. To me you look like a mad man, a bunch of contradictions.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 10:28:24 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #411 on: February 10, 2014, 12:16:20 pm »
Yes, the magical age is:
15 year, 56 days, 8 hour, 15 minutes, 46 seconds, 112 ms, 619µs, 113 ns.

It is the most natural age of consent I can think of. So Italy and Germany are letting them lose a bit to early :P.

(Please don't take this post seriously, just didn't have to much to do)

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #412 on: February 11, 2014, 02:37:41 am »
You sick fuck! People don't become sexually attractive until they are 15 years, 56 days, 8 hours, 15 minutes, 112 ms, 619us, 114ns old! You are a vile nenepophile, someone attracted to those between 15 years, 56 days, 8 hours, 15 minutes, 112 ms, 619us, 111ns and 15 years, 56 days, 8 hours, 15 minutes, 112 ms, 619us, 113ns! Don't you know the invisible pink sexuality fairy doesn't appear and smack people with her wand of sexual self awareness until they are 15 years, 56 days, 8 hours, 15 minutes, 112 ms, 619us, 114ns old?! Death to SandStorm!!
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #413 on: February 11, 2014, 04:31:18 pm »
Child molesters, you are like  living walking forms of genital warts. No matter how much we burn you, you still seem to come back.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #414 on: February 11, 2014, 05:56:50 pm »
is your ability to store verbal information so low that you have to make due with exaggerated concept lumping?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #415 on: February 11, 2014, 06:14:53 pm »
Also, ignoring your completely inaccurate terminology and assuming you are making a reference to me, I just have to ask: are you kidding? Do you really think you guys are burning me? What distorted ass reality you must live in. Anyone with a brain can see that you guys are blithering emotional idiots who have absolutely no foundation for your argument other than "OMGZ GOVERNMENT SAID DON'T DO THIS SO DUN DO IT FER TEH CHILDRUNZ LOLOL" and/or "Derrr I can't hate them thur homosexuals no mores so stead i'ma start hating me some politically correct to hate people alrighty!". I would say I made you all look like complete fools, but that honor belongs to you! You made yourselves look like complete fools! I just set a nice stark comparison, it might have exaggerated how foolish you looked, but you really did kind of take foolishness to the max. From the people arguing that their made up terminologies are correct and the medical profession that originated the terminology is wrong, to the people who linked to studies they didn't read to refute studies they didn't read, all the way through to the people who said with straight faces that images have magical properties or that unknown demand fuels supply, whew you guys really took retardation to a new and exciting level. We had the people who eagerly pointed out that their countries age of consent is right but every other is wrong, demonstrating the same amazing luck that religious people had to be born in countries that practice the one true religion. You guys are seriously some lucky fucks that your country/state just happened to pick the one true age of consent of all other countries in the world, sick barbarians that they are! Special mention to the (very special) people who called any science that disagreed with them the work of secret pedophile networks that have infiltrated academia to falsify studies, you guys get the "Dumb as fucking creationists" award!  And we can't forget to give a round of applause to the people who screamed about protecting the vulnerable while calling individualized sexual self determinism certification a system for pedophiles, since obviously a persons ability to consent to sex maps directly to their age and not to their ability to consent to sex. Can't forget all the mental health professionals who pointed out that hebephilia is considered a mental disorder and the same thing as pedophilia (oh wait, it isn't and it isn't? how can that be, some obviously very intelligent people on a drug forum told me it is so! They are so intelligent they just burn me left and right, how can it be that they would be wrong?!)

Seriously I was burned to a crisp by you guys. I'm fucking smoking. You sure put me in my place, lol. You just ran rings around me pwning me every chance you could get, with your awesome strategy of repeating meaningless propaganda and calling for my death and castration. You know what they say, the person who calls for the death and castration of his opponent wins the debate, the person who makes a sound argument backed up by research loses and is probably a fucking pedophile anyway. Sheesh, how could I have ever hoped to compete with you clever people, it just wasn't meant to be.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 06:18:08 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #416 on: February 11, 2014, 06:24:38 pm »
is your ability to store verbal information so low that you have to make due with exaggerated concept lumping?

AHHHah your right! My ability to store verbal information is low. So I had to look in a thesaurus to think of colorful ways of using real life symptoms of real life diseases that people find to be disgusting. Which your  ARE. To be honest I didn’t even read all your crazy shit until you became defensive to a general statement towards Chomos. 

I guess it hit a nerve because your feeling a little defensive for having all that kiddy porn on your lap top.  Can’t find a real woman? Damn I guess that would be tough. Should we feel bad for you that you have to pick up on young undeveloped minds??

ahhhhhhhhhhha how great is this, I really didn't read what you said. youre to funny you sick dick in the ass.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 06:40:03 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

norteryder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Karma: +8/-39
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #417 on: February 11, 2014, 06:27:10 pm »
fuck you all ...fucking sick ppl yaa luck i dont know ya or have a gun ..piss on ppl like yall fucking sick pigs .
 hope you all get aids and die , ,, and also i hope from the bottom of my heart your own kids get molesd .. dumb ass

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #418 on: February 11, 2014, 06:34:25 pm »
fuck you all ...fucking sick ppl yaa luck i dont know ya or have a gun ..piss on ppl like yall fucking sick pigs .
 hope you all get aids and die , ,, and also i hope from the bottom of my heart your own kids get molesd .. dumb ass

Whoa,  I wouldn’t  be saying all that. They say that people who were molested  have a higher chance of being the one who perpetrates this offence. I’m not saying that’s always the case because I was once involved in an event. I only remember it because after I told my mom and the cops were immediately involved. Guess I was lucky I told my mom everything at the time.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 06:42:40 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #419 on: February 11, 2014, 06:49:47 pm »
is your ability to store verbal information so low that you have to make due with exaggerated concept lumping?

AHHHah your right! My ability to store verbal information is low. So I had to look in a thesaurus to think of colorful ways of using real life symptoms of real life diseases that people find to be disgusting. Which your  ARE. To be honest I didn’t even read all your crazy shit until you became defensive to a general statement towards Chomos.  ahhhhhhhhhhha how great is this, I really didn't read what you said. youre to funny you sick dick in the ass.

I guess it hit a nerve because your feeling a little defensive for having all that kiddy porn on your lap top.  Can’t find a real woman? Damn I guess that would be tough. Should we feel bad for you that you have to pick up on young undeveloped minds??

Are you improperly using the word "your" in an attempt to try to make fun of my proper use of the word "your" because you think I used "your" improperly because you're a fucking retard? That is even worse than using "your" improperly by mistake! And no, I'm not really defensive, I'm just enjoying laughing at you primitive idiots. I think you must live in an alternate reality to think that you are just burning me so badly. In my reality you just look like a bunch of underdeveloped dumb fucks, to put it bluntly.  Strangely I don't want to have sex with you! Also, I have no CP on any of my systems. In fact, my entire house is completely clean of anything illegal. Feel free to raid me feds, just please put my equipment on the fast track through your forensics lab so I can get it back without having to wait a year. I guess first you would need to find me though, not looking like you will have much luck with that though is it :<. I have no need to pick up on young undeveloped minds. Honestly I can't even remember the last time I talked to anyone under 18 years old. Anyway, despite the fact that many of you seem to have deep relationships with the girls in the pictures you wank to, I don't actually care about the minds of any of the people involved, nor would I really say I pick any of them up. Not to say that I wouldn't have a relationship with a young teenager if I lived in a free country that allowed it and had an opportunity fall into my lap via the graces of the magic invisible pink unicorn, but you really have incorrectly estimated the intensity of my desire to fuck underage people.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 07:01:56 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #420 on: February 11, 2014, 07:27:05 pm »
Once again AHAHAHAHAH you make me laugh bro. Thank you for correcting my grammatical errors. I’m a little baked, and I don’t mind trying to improve my skills.

So I take it that you are smart enough not to have it on your computer because you can’t really erase them. So do you have a stash around the house?

I’m also picking up that you’re not to the level of picking up children  yet. You’re  still just on the level of beating off to pictures?

That too is still sick you fcking twisted dildo sucking sorry excuse for a living organisms.  What a waste of a once beautiful creation. Now sicker than a dieing cancer patient. You really are because there isn’t really anything we could do for people like you. Except to lock you away for many years of your life where hopefully, by the karma system, someone will pound on your ass with the angry force that everyone in the world wants to thrust upon you.

Well ok then, MOST PEOPLE OF THE WORLD!!!
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 08:34:08 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #421 on: February 11, 2014, 08:08:30 pm »
if everyone in the world wants it thrust upon me then why is it potentially legal to fuck 12 year olds in Uruguay (15 without any hassle at all!)) and legal to jack off to CP all day? Doesn't seem like they really care.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Fistingfedz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 943
  • Karma: +126/-59
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #422 on: February 11, 2014, 08:17:16 pm »
Once again AHAHAHAHAH you make me laugh bro. Thank you for correcting my grammatical errors. I’m a little baked, and I don’t mind trying to improve my skills.

So I take it that you are smart enough not to have it on your computer because you can’t really erase them. So do you have a stash around the house?

I’m also picking up that you’re not to the level of picking up children  yet. You’re  still just on the level of beating off to pictures?

That too is still sick you fcking twisted dildo sucking sorry excuse for a living organisms.  What a waste of a once beautiful creation. Now sicker than a dieing cancer patient. You really are because there isn’t really anything we could do for people like you. Except to lock you away for many years of your life where hopefully, by the karma system, someone will pound on your ass with the angry force that everyone in the world wants to thrust upon you.
The sad truth is people like himself wouldn't exist if it wasn't for our fucked society and the way we throw sex appeal around like its nothing, Of course little susie is going to be fucking at 7, she was watching niptuck on regular cable at 5. God forbid if she had HBO. Same goes for little dudes too. Then you have these people who mature and grow up going through there whole lives with repressed sexual desires that they've had since before they can remember because there exposed to it. Now i am not saying our youth should be shielded from sex, its a natural thing and keeping them ignorant to it would just be making the problem worst. We have to attach the feelings of love and emotion to it, not just smashin hoes and suckin dick....Get me??
As for the child pornography thread im ashamed this has even lasted this long on this forum and i think you guys need serious help. All done
“Knowledge, like air, is vital to life. Like air, no one should be denied it.”

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #423 on: February 11, 2014, 08:20:43 pm »
people like me wouldn't exist if there was a massive global purge of males. Science (I know, pedophile nonsense!) has already empirically demonstrated that the average male is just as attracted to 12 year olds as to 18 year olds. There is an extremely high chance that my sexuality is more or less the same as yours. I suppose the only difference is I am not in the closet over it. 
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 08:21:38 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #424 on: February 11, 2014, 11:25:04 pm »
Its sad that you can justify your sick fetish and not realize its really something that isn’t normal. It should be addressed with a professional before you do something that is extremely  disgusting. People are trained to help with your twisted view of  sexuality.

I’ve gone from making fun of you to truly being concerned  for the safety of  the little people around you. I hope you don’t live close to a school.  I have a picture in my mind of you rubbing one off while you look threw your binoculars

You act as if you’re the smartest person in the room by correcting me. Then why are you to dumb to see this isn’t a normal urge that you have.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

KurtKobain

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Karma: +2/-25
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #425 on: February 11, 2014, 11:46:47 pm »
get rid of this thread. It only promotes these sick fucks

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #426 on: February 12, 2014, 11:30:33 am »
Its sad that you can justify your sick fetish and not realize its really something that isn’t normal. It should be addressed with a professional before you do something that is extremely  disgusting. People are trained to help with your twisted view of  sexuality.

I’ve gone from making fun of you to truly being concerned  for the safety of  the little people around you. I hope you don’t live close to a school.  I have a picture in my mind of you rubbing one off while you look threw your binoculars

You act as if you’re the smartest person in the room by correcting me. Then why are you to dumb to see this isn’t a normal urge that you have.

If it isn't normal then why have so many studies of male sexual arousal demonstrated that the majority of males have an equal level of arousal to 12 year olds as they do to 18 year olds?

http://www.wisspd.org/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf

Quote
1967, p. 228).
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975).
These physiological findings were replicated by another group of Canadian
researchers in the 1980s. Comparing men incarcerated for pedophilia, rape, and
heterosexual conduct with adolescents, the researchers found no evidence of ‘‘deviant
sexual arousal’’ patterns among either rapists or ‘‘heterosexual hebephiles’’ (defined as
men with victims ages 12–16). ‘‘We may conclude that rapists and hebephiles are not
sexually deviant in terms of either the preferred age of the sexual partners, or in terms of
a sexual desire enhanced by the use of force,’’ the researchers concluded.

If it isn't normal then why is it not considered to be a mental disorder?

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.de/2012/12/apa-rejects-hebephilia-last-of-three.html

Quote
To hear government experts on the witness stand in civil detention trials in recent months, the novel diagnosis of "hebephilia" was a fait accompli, just awaiting its formal acceptance into the upcoming fifth edition of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

They were flat-out wrong.
In a stunning blow to psychology's burgeoning sex offender processing industry, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposed diagnosis outright, not even relegating it to an appendix as meriting further study, its proponents' fall-back position.

The rejection follows the failure of two other sexual disorders proposed by the DSM-5's paraphilias subworkgroup. These were paraphilic coercive disorder (or a proclivity toward rape) and hypersexuality, an inherently hard-to-define construct that introduced the committee members' value judgments as to how much sex is within acceptable limits.

After abandoning those two disorders, the subworkgroup clung tenaciously to a whittled-down version of its proposed expansion of pedophilia to cover sexual attraction to early pubescent youngsters (generally in the age range of 11-14), ignoring widespread opposition from both within and outside of the APA.

The buzz is that senior psychiatrists in the APA were unhappy with the intransigence of psychologists in the subworkgroup who communicated the belief that if they just stuck to their guns, they could force the ill-considered proposal into the new manual, despite a lack of scientific support.

All three proposed sexual disorder expansions were widely critiqued by mental health professionals, especially those working in the forensic contexts in which they would be deployed. They led to a spate of critical peer-reviewed publications (including a historical overview of hebephilia by yours truly, published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law), and an open letter to APA leadership from more than 100 professionals, including prominent forensic psychologists and psychiatrists in the U.S. and internationally.

The unequivocal rejection sends a strong signal of the American Psychiatric Association's continuing reluctance to be drawn into the civil commitment quagmire, where pretextual diagnoses are being invoked as excuses to indefinitely confine sex offenders who have no genuine mental disorders. In marked contrast with the field of psychology, psychiatry leaders have expressed consistent concerns about the use of psychiatric labels to justify civil detention schemes.

Next time around, the APA might want to do a better job selecting committee members in the first place. The "paraphilias subworkgroup" was heavily biased in favor of hebephilia because of its domination by psychologists from the Canadian sex clinic that proposed the new disorder in the first place, and is the only entity doing research on it. But what a waste of time and energy to create a committee that comes up with wild and wacky proposals that are only going to end up getting shot down when the rubber meets the road.

If it isn't normal then why is the leading theory that it is evolutionarily selected for? Even the smarter culturally indoctrinated fucktards admit that it is normal, they just claim that despite being normal it is totally immoral*

*if the government you live under says so anyway, otherwise it is just fine

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/hebephilia-crime-not-mental-disorder

Quote
“Hebephilia” is a simply terrible idea. The basic issue is that sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters is not the slightest bit abnormal or unusual. Until recently, the age of consent was age 13 years in most parts of the world (including the United Statse) and it remains 14 in many places. Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters—our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction.

For hundreds of thousands of years, sex followed closely behind puberty. Only recently has society chosen to protect the moratorium of adolescence and to declare as inappropriate and illegal a sexual interest in the pubescent. This is a wonderful idea, but you can’t change human nature by fiat. Surveys show that sexual interest in pubescent youngsters remains very common and anyone who doubts the numbers should do a study of Calvin Klein ads.

It is natural and no sign of mental illness to feel sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters. But to act on such impulses is, in our society, a reprehensible crime that deserves severe punishment. The proper disposition for those who break the law and selfishly violate the innocence of the vulnerable is prison—not a mental hospital.

I'm sorry but until you can make a real argument against the overwhelming majority of science and research, your claim that I am somehow less than normal is something that I am forced to reject. I have science on my side, you have absolutely nothing backing you other than the screams of people who are very likely to be lying to themselves and others. Humans lie, science doesn't.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

mary666

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2378
  • Karma: +505/-92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #427 on: February 12, 2014, 01:03:59 pm »
OMFG, m0rph, you are a fuckin sicko, 12 yr olds are fuckin kids, I will not respond as this thread should not exist on a fuckin drug forum!!!!  >:( Away on your other sites you like and fuck off from here!!
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness, I am kind to everyone but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

-Al Capone

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #428 on: February 12, 2014, 01:40:19 pm »
why omfg m0rph and not omfg reality or omfg science ?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #429 on: February 12, 2014, 03:58:56 pm »
Ok you win! You have seem to justify this to yourself and trying to explain that its not normal is returned with what you think is a legitimate reason for you to have these urges. So mister smartest guy in the room, be smart enough to know that something might not be right when you have the majority of the Earth’s population against you. I guess this is why they’re isn’t any sympathy for the abuser because you (they) are arrogant and think that you have every right to do what you are doing.  May the cosmos and karma system work in your case. I hope, pray, or wish that you feel nothing but bone crushing pain for your victims. May your penis stop working so that no more victims have to go threw therapy because of you twisted urge that you have clearly justified to yourself.  There’s no taking a person down who has justified something to themselves. Hopefully you end up in jail with my good friend bubba because I hear he really enjoys the sweet smell of a child molester. He said it’s a natural urge for him to what to butt fck them with angry force that might cause ones asshole to start bleeding. ITS NATURAL?!?!?!?! You do make me angry but mostly you make me sad. Sad that someone will fall prey to your twisted world of rationality.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #430 on: February 12, 2014, 08:25:13 pm »
Majority of earth population is against me for roughly 150 years, for thousands of years prior to that majority of earths population did not pretend that they were not exactly like me. You're not going to take me down by repeating nothing to me. You have not got any argument all you have is words. What is your counter argument to the links and quotes I posted? You have none. You have absolutely fucking nothing other than your empty words and the outrage of your little mob of idiots. You talk shit but stand with your thumb in your ass incapable of saying anything to disprove me, and ironically in your irrationality you think that I am to be insulted by the claim that I live in the world of the rational.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Velix

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: +4/-5
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #431 on: February 12, 2014, 08:58:22 pm »
Majority of earth population is against me for roughly 150 years, for thousands of years prior to that majority of earths population did not pretend that they were not exactly like me.

Actually, more like 40 years. CP became illegal to produce in the US around the 70's and illegal to own in the 80's. It seems like most of the people here are too young to remember or simply don't know about what pornography was like before the 70's.

It was many years later that it became illegal in other countries, mostly due to America's influences.

People also tend to forget that 12 year olds are already post-pubescent.

(no nudity, clearnet links)
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/IHateAds/12YearOlds.png
http://www.graphicsdb.com/data/media/594/12-year-olds.jpg
https://bmmoejackson2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/madison-leisle-bikini-04091204.jpg

The Japanese aren't so shy about it:

http://www.asianbite.com/post/12-year-old-Saaya-Irie-Poses-for-Japanese-Playboy!--news-189
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 08:59:03 pm by Velix »
-----\(*(i)*)/-----
torchat: mnergxcklw2velix

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #432 on: February 12, 2014, 11:30:45 pm »
I had to spam this twice because I feel like this is the realist shit I’ve had to say all week.

I guess you can blame it on the media for informing the masses of how it affects future adults who come forward. I would love for you  to try to explain your arguments to a now grown victim to one of your “brothers/sisters” in crime.  I have a feeling they might be able to explain something that we can’t. To be honest this just hit me like a bus. I wasn’t aware of people bragging about how they think its ok. This is my first time hearing it from the mouth of someone trying to explain why this should be allowed. I can’t see how you don’t have regret or feel guilt of what you cause in pain.  If you don’t regret fucking up another person’s life. Then you are a shitty ass person that does belong with criminals. The thing is in their world. They have nothing to loose because they are locked away for years of their life already. You should become prey to big ass fcking guys how want to make an example out of you on a nightly bases. I hope the correctional officers turn a blind eye to this kind of action until your bitch ass is in solitary confinement  for years until someone slips in and cuts your throat.

Personally that’s what I hope happens in your case. I guess It’s a catch you if they can and I hope they can.

: ( :
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 11:39:54 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #433 on: February 13, 2014, 05:24:10 am »
Majority of earth population is against me for roughly 150 years, for thousands of years prior to that majority of earths population did not pretend that they were not exactly like me.

Actually, more like 40 years. CP became illegal to produce in the US around the 70's and illegal to own in the 80's. It seems like most of the people here are too young to remember or simply don't know about what pornography was like before the 70's.

It was many years later that it became illegal in other countries, mostly due to America's influences.

People also tend to forget that 12 year olds are already post-pubescent.

(no nudity, clearnet links)
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/IHateAds/12YearOlds.png
http://www.graphicsdb.com/data/media/594/12-year-olds.jpg
https://bmmoejackson2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/madison-leisle-bikini-04091204.jpg

The Japanese aren't so shy about it:

http://www.asianbite.com/post/12-year-old-Saaya-Irie-Poses-for-Japanese-Playboy!--news-189

That may be true about CP, but age of consent was raised past ~12 about 150 years ago, and the pervasive attraction to people of this age became increasingly taboo ever since. Only a fool would think that it doesn't exist today, but it is an open secret, a very strange cultural phenomenon indeed, and something that in the future will likely be studied. I personally find it extremely strange that people so vehemently lie about the matter, a bunch of people lying to each other and themselves. They deny reality and science with the same vigor and irrationality as creationists, and I have the same level of respect for them, if not less due to the fact that they spread pain to others rather than merely raw ignorance.

I guess there is probably some lesson to learn though. We should study how this was brought to be, how huge amounts of people in the world were convinced that they must lie about something that everybody knows is true. Massive domination of humanity was accomplished, so I suppose analyzing what happened (techniques etc) would be useful for me in my quest toward world domination :).

I find it impossible to believe that a majority of men here wouldn't find two of the 12 year olds you posted links to to be sexually attractive (the ones with developed breasts). The others are sexually attractive to varying degrees, but less so as they have little breast development. The younger looking blond is certainly appealing though (her friend has too many child like traits for my tastes though). 12 is kind of a hit or miss age due to individuals developing at different rates (some 12 year olds do look too child like to be sexually attractive to me), but by 14 the large majority of girls are developed enough to be as attractive as they ever will be. I think 12 is about the age where you start finding a significant number of sexually attractive people though, 11 has much fewer such people and by 10 it is an abnormality (such as precarious puberty).

I do agree though that people forget how developed many 12 year olds are. I suppose it is understandable to an extent that a persons first thought when they think of a 12 year old is someone who is not sexually developed. But when presented with photographs of such people, it is not understandable when they deny sexual attraction to them. Who do they think they are fooling? Tests have already been carried out people, it's been empirically demonstrated that YOU would be the one who is not normal if you were not sexually aroused by developed 12 year olds. Your claim goes against what has been demonstrated and against what everybody knows for themselves to be true anyway. You claim to be angry with me but you are just angry with what is true. Reality is it, science has demonstrated it, I merely tell you about it, but it is me that you condemn! Instead you should condemn the reality ,or condemn that which has demonstrated it, or better yet condemn nothing at all, as nothing is wrong with it. Haven't you heard the saying that you shouldn't shoot the messenger?!

I don't claim that just because the majority of men are sexually attracted to 12 year olds means that it is moral to have sex with 12 year olds, just as I don't claim that just because the majority of men have urges to rape that it is moral then to rape. But I will not deny either of these things are normal, because they both are normal. We need to separate our desire from our actions as appropriate, but it is foolish to deny what you desire and it accomplishes nothing at all. You deny what you desire because you think that a desire in itself can be immoral, and you do not want to think of yourself as immoral. The root of your problem is your inability to see that a desire is devoid of morality. I do not think that a desire can be moral or immoral and I have no shame in saying what my desires are, both ones that would be immoral or moral to act upon. And as far as action goes we must approach the situation in an academic and rational fashion. Why is there potential for it to be immoral to have sex with 12 year olds? Because there is the potential for exploitation of vulnerable people. But that potential exists regardless of age, it is potentially immoral to have sex with a 30 year old for the same reason, as the 30 year old may have the mental development of the average five year old. Using age as your criteria when determining the morality of having sex with a person is a primitive measurement system, and this is why I advocate for doing away with age of consent systems and implementing blind certification systems that directly measure the competency of individuals to consent without taking age into account. What is so vile and reprehensible about this approach which is based on rationality and logic rather than based on inaccuracies and arbitrariness? If a 12 year old demonstrates an ability for sexual self determinism what is your complaint then if a person who is attracted to said 12 year old has consensual sex with them? No matter how many times I ask you never answer this question, just as no matter how many times I show science that demonstrates the normality of sexual attraction to sexually developed people, regardless of their age, you cannot refute the things I show you but rather you ignore them and merely condemn me.     
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 05:58:23 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #434 on: February 13, 2014, 06:28:57 am »
"What is so vile and reprehensible about this approach which is based on rationality and logic rather than based on inaccuracies and arbitrariness? If a 12 year old demonstrates an ability for sexual self determinism what is your complaint then if a person who is attracted to said 12 year old has consensual sex with them?"

The above is the essence of your argument for having sex with underage consenting children? Or creating pornography with underage consenting children?

For starters, a 12yr old cannot "demonstrate an ability for sexual self determinism". Their brains are NOT done, they are NOT competent to make decisions that have such far reaching consequences.

A healthy society with a healthy approach to sexuality does not arbitrarily assign a cut off that says "hey, at this age its ok to fuck kids, but not at this age", as you keep insisting.

The healthy society instead approaches sex from the position that the human brain is not mature at the onset of puberty. For a human, male or female, having sexual contact with adults before or at that stage of development, whether consensual or not is traumatic.

Sexualizing humans before they are emotionally mature enough to accept the responsibilities and consequences of being sexually active sabotages any chance they ever had of growing up without learning things they weren't prepared to learn. It leaves permanent psychological scars that will haunt them all their lives.

The permanent scarring from being sexualized before their brains were ready has left its mark in modern society in the vast numbers of addicts, felons, homeless, as they have not been able to come to terms with their premature sexualization.

When children are sexualized, it permanently changes their brain chemistry, the way they feel about themselves, and how they relate to the rest of the world. Children do not need their sexual antenae attenuated before they are ready to cope with all of the weird incoming signals from the hormonal onslaught of puberty.

It doesn't matter if you are or you are not attracted to children, bees, that table lamp. If they can't give consent, they are off limits to the responsible adult.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #435 on: February 13, 2014, 06:46:53 am »
Majority of earth population is against me for roughly 150 years, for thousands of years prior to that majority of earths population did not pretend that they were not exactly like me.

Actually, more like 40 years. CP became illegal to produce in the US around the 70's and illegal to own in the 80's. It seems like most of the people here are too young to remember or simply don't know about what pornography was like before the 70's.

It was many years later that it became illegal in other countries, mostly due to America's influences.

People also tend to forget that 12 year olds are already post-pubescent.

(no nudity, clearnet links)
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/IHateAds/12YearOlds.png
http://www.graphicsdb.com/data/media/594/12-year-olds.jpg
https://bmmoejackson2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/madison-leisle-bikini-04091204.jpg

The Japanese aren't so shy about it:

http://www.asianbite.com/post/12-year-old-Saaya-Irie-Poses-for-Japanese-Playboy!--news-189

That may be true about CP, but age of consent was raised past ~12 about 150 years ago, and the pervasive attraction to people of this age became increasingly taboo ever since. Only a fool would think that it doesn't exist today, but it is an open secret, a very strange cultural phenomenon indeed, and something that in the future will likely be studied. I personally find it extremely strange that people so vehemently lie about the matter, a bunch of people lying to each other and themselves. They deny reality and science with the same vigor and irrationality as creationists, and I have the same level of respect for them, if not less due to the fact that they spread pain to others rather than merely raw ignorance.

I guess there is probably some lesson to learn though. We should study how this was brought to be, how huge amounts of people in the world were convinced that they must lie about something that everybody knows is true. Massive domination of humanity was accomplished, so I suppose analyzing what happened (techniques etc) would be useful for me in my quest toward world domination :).

I find it impossible to believe that a majority of men here wouldn't find two of the 12 year olds you posted links to to be sexually attractive (the ones with developed breasts). The others are sexually attractive to varying degrees, but less so as they have little breast development. The younger looking blond is certainly appealing though (her friend has too many child like traits for my tastes though). 12 is kind of a hit or miss age due to individuals developing at different rates (some 12 year olds do look too child like to be sexually attractive to me), but by 14 the large majority of girls are developed enough to be as attractive as they ever will be. I think 12 is about the age where you start finding a significant number of sexually attractive people though, 11 has much fewer such people and by 10 it is an abnormality (such as precarious puberty).

I do agree though that people forget how developed many 12 year olds are. I suppose it is understandable to an extent that a persons first thought when they think of a 12 year old is someone who is not sexually developed. But when presented with photographs of such people, it is not understandable when they deny sexual attraction to them. Who do they think they are fooling? Tests have already been carried out people, it's been empirically demonstrated that YOU would be the one who is not normal if you were not sexually aroused by developed 12 year olds. Your claim goes against what has been demonstrated and against what everybody knows for themselves to be true anyway. You claim to be angry with me but you are just angry with what is true. Reality is it, science has demonstrated it, I merely tell you about it, but it is me that you condemn! Instead you should condemn the reality ,or condemn that which has demonstrated it, or better yet condemn nothing at all, as nothing is wrong with it. Haven't you heard the saying that you shouldn't shoot the messenger?!

I don't claim that just because the majority of men are sexually attracted to 12 year olds means that it is moral to have sex with 12 year olds, just as I don't claim that just because the majority of men have urges to rape that it is moral then to rape. But I will not deny either of these things are normal, because they both are normal. We need to separate our desire from our actions as appropriate, but it is foolish to deny what you desire and it accomplishes nothing at all. You deny what you desire because you think that a desire in itself can be immoral, and you do not want to think of yourself as immoral. The root of your problem is your inability to see that a desire is devoid of morality. I do not think that a desire can be moral or immoral and I have no shame in saying what my desires are, both ones that would be immoral or moral to act upon. And as far as action goes we must approach the situation in an academic and rational fashion. Why is there potential for it to be immoral to have sex with 12 year olds? Because there is the potential for exploitation of vulnerable people. But that potential exists regardless of age, it is potentially immoral to have sex with a 30 year old for the same reason, as the 30 year old may have the mental development of the average five year old. Using age as your criteria when determining the morality of having sex with a person is a primitive measurement system, and this is why I advocate for doing away with age of consent systems and implementing blind certification systems that directly measure the competency of individuals to consent without taking age into account. What is so vile and reprehensible about this approach which is based on rationality and logic rather than based on inaccuracies and arbitrariness? If a 12 year old demonstrates an ability for sexual self determinism what is your complaint then if a person who is attracted to said 12 year old has consensual sex with them? No matter how many times I ask you never answer this question, just as no matter how many times I show science that demonstrates the normality of sexual attraction to sexually developed people, regardless of their age, you cannot refute the things I show you but rather you ignore them and merely condemn me.   

Im not even sure where to start with you...so your argument is "people used to do it so its ok?  using that judgement owning slaves id fine or women for that matter killing anyone as long as you do it from the front do these sound reasonable no.
We as humans "evolve" (not all clearly) we learnt shame and covered ourselves, we learnt compassion and human rights and banned slavery we learnt its NOT OK to sexualize children EVER and society stoped but there were some who couldnt grasp the concept. And take it from me it does alter a childs look on life well into adulthood you chat cunt 
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #436 on: February 13, 2014, 06:53:12 am »
Quote
For starters, a 12yr old cannot "demonstrate an ability for sexual self determinism". Their brains are NOT done, they are NOT competent to make decisions that have such far reaching consequences.

In that case this should be demonstrable with some form of testing, and can screen them out from obtaining certification to consent to sex. What test do you propose we use to measure this? The issue I have with your age of consent system is that you make the claim that a 12 year old is not competent to make such decisions, but how do you demonstrate that? If what you say is true then there must be some cognitive test that can be utilized that can invariably distinguish between a 12 year old and an 18 year old. My suggestion is to move away from age based consent systems and to performance based consent systems that directly measure a persons ability for sexual self determinism. Your system is abstracted from the thing that you claim to be concerned about, mine is a direct measurement of it.   

Quote
A healthy society with a healthy approach to sexuality does not arbitrarily assign a cut off that says "hey, at this age its ok to fuck kids, but not at this age", as you keep insisting.

I totally agree! But it seems that you are the one who is arguing for arbitrary cut offs, whereas I am the one arguing for individualized evaluation.

Quote
The healthy society instead approaches sex from the position that the human brain is not mature at the onset of puberty. For a human, male or female, having sexual contact with adults before or at that stage of development, whether consensual or not is traumatic.

The healthy society determines an individuals competency to engage in consensual sexual activity rather than lumping people together into arbitrary age groups and acting as if some age groups, by their very nature, are capable of consenting to sex while others are not. The absurdity of such lumping age based systems is readily apparent, as we would I assume both agree that a 30 year old with the mental capacity of an infant is not capable of consenting to sex. This clearly demonstrates the absurdity of mapping consent to age rather than mapping it to an individuals cognitive capacity, and my suggestion is that we do away with systems that map the ability to consent to age and instead use systems that map it directly to cognitive capabilities, which can be measured in an individualized fashion. 

Quote
Sexualizing humans before they are emotionally mature enough to accept the responsibilities and consequences of being sexually active sabotages any chance they ever had of growing up without learning things they weren't prepared to learn. It leaves permanent psychological scars that will haunt them all their lives.

Sure, and for this reason we should make it illegal to have sex with people who are not mature enough to handle it. But we cannot use age to determine this, as is made apparent by the fact that a 30 year old with the cognitive abilities of an infant is not capable of consenting to sex. The same is true of a 12 year old with the cognitive abilities of the average 30 year old, they are in the same way capable of consenting to sex.

Quote
The permanent scarring from being sexualized before their brains were ready has left its mark in modern society in the vast numbers of addicts, felons, homeless, as they have not been able to come to terms with their premature sexualization.

If you want to talk about premature sexualization causing damage you really should avoid saying that it has been happening in modern society, age of consent is higher than it has ever been in history and age of sexual activity is significantly higher than it has ever been as well. People are sexualized at older ages today than they ever have been in the past.

Quote
It doesn't matter if you are or you are not attracted to children, bees, that table lamp. If they can't give consent, they are off limits to the responsible adult.

And did I ever disagree with that? I merely proposed a more accurate measurement system. But you seem to be afraid of accurately measuring individuals ability for sexual self determinism, which seems to me to indicate that this is not your concern at all.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #437 on: February 13, 2014, 07:09:43 am »
Majority of earth population is against me for roughly 150 years, for thousands of years prior to that majority of earths population did not pretend that they were not exactly like me.

Actually, more like 40 years. CP became illegal to produce in the US around the 70's and illegal to own in the 80's. It seems like most of the people here are too young to remember or simply don't know about what pornography was like before the 70's.

It was many years later that it became illegal in other countries, mostly due to America's influences.

People also tend to forget that 12 year olds are already post-pubescent.

(no nudity, clearnet links)
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/IHateAds/12YearOlds.png
http://www.graphicsdb.com/data/media/594/12-year-olds.jpg
https://bmmoejackson2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/madison-leisle-bikini-04091204.jpg

The Japanese aren't so shy about it:

http://www.asianbite.com/post/12-year-old-Saaya-Irie-Poses-for-Japanese-Playboy!--news-189

That may be true about CP, but age of consent was raised past ~12 about 150 years ago, and the pervasive attraction to people of this age became increasingly taboo ever since. Only a fool would think that it doesn't exist today, but it is an open secret, a very strange cultural phenomenon indeed, and something that in the future will likely be studied. I personally find it extremely strange that people so vehemently lie about the matter, a bunch of people lying to each other and themselves. They deny reality and science with the same vigor and irrationality as creationists, and I have the same level of respect for them, if not less due to the fact that they spread pain to others rather than merely raw ignorance.

I guess there is probably some lesson to learn though. We should study how this was brought to be, how huge amounts of people in the world were convinced that they must lie about something that everybody knows is true. Massive domination of humanity was accomplished, so I suppose analyzing what happened (techniques etc) would be useful for me in my quest toward world domination :).

I find it impossible to believe that a majority of men here wouldn't find two of the 12 year olds you posted links to to be sexually attractive (the ones with developed breasts). The others are sexually attractive to varying degrees, but less so as they have little breast development. The younger looking blond is certainly appealing though (her friend has too many child like traits for my tastes though). 12 is kind of a hit or miss age due to individuals developing at different rates (some 12 year olds do look too child like to be sexually attractive to me), but by 14 the large majority of girls are developed enough to be as attractive as they ever will be. I think 12 is about the age where you start finding a significant number of sexually attractive people though, 11 has much fewer such people and by 10 it is an abnormality (such as precarious puberty).

I do agree though that people forget how developed many 12 year olds are. I suppose it is understandable to an extent that a persons first thought when they think of a 12 year old is someone who is not sexually developed. But when presented with photographs of such people, it is not understandable when they deny sexual attraction to them. Who do they think they are fooling? Tests have already been carried out people, it's been empirically demonstrated that YOU would be the one who is not normal if you were not sexually aroused by developed 12 year olds. Your claim goes against what has been demonstrated and against what everybody knows for themselves to be true anyway. You claim to be angry with me but you are just angry with what is true. Reality is it, science has demonstrated it, I merely tell you about it, but it is me that you condemn! Instead you should condemn the reality ,or condemn that which has demonstrated it, or better yet condemn nothing at all, as nothing is wrong with it. Haven't you heard the saying that you shouldn't shoot the messenger?!

I don't claim that just because the majority of men are sexually attracted to 12 year olds means that it is moral to have sex with 12 year olds, just as I don't claim that just because the majority of men have urges to rape that it is moral then to rape. But I will not deny either of these things are normal, because they both are normal. We need to separate our desire from our actions as appropriate, but it is foolish to deny what you desire and it accomplishes nothing at all. You deny what you desire because you think that a desire in itself can be immoral, and you do not want to think of yourself as immoral. The root of your problem is your inability to see that a desire is devoid of morality. I do not think that a desire can be moral or immoral and I have no shame in saying what my desires are, both ones that would be immoral or moral to act upon. And as far as action goes we must approach the situation in an academic and rational fashion. Why is there potential for it to be immoral to have sex with 12 year olds? Because there is the potential for exploitation of vulnerable people. But that potential exists regardless of age, it is potentially immoral to have sex with a 30 year old for the same reason, as the 30 year old may have the mental development of the average five year old. Using age as your criteria when determining the morality of having sex with a person is a primitive measurement system, and this is why I advocate for doing away with age of consent systems and implementing blind certification systems that directly measure the competency of individuals to consent without taking age into account. What is so vile and reprehensible about this approach which is based on rationality and logic rather than based on inaccuracies and arbitrariness? If a 12 year old demonstrates an ability for sexual self determinism what is your complaint then if a person who is attracted to said 12 year old has consensual sex with them? No matter how many times I ask you never answer this question, just as no matter how many times I show science that demonstrates the normality of sexual attraction to sexually developed people, regardless of their age, you cannot refute the things I show you but rather you ignore them and merely condemn me.   

Im not even sure where to start with you...so your argument is "people used to do it so its ok?  using that judgement owning slaves id fine or women for that matter killing anyone as long as you do it from the front do these sound reasonable no.
We as humans "evolve" (not all clearly) we learnt shame and covered ourselves, we learnt compassion and human rights and banned slavery we learnt its NOT OK to sexualize children EVER and society stoped but there were some who couldnt grasp the concept. And take it from me it does alter a childs look on life well into adulthood you chat cunt

My argument is not that people used to do it so it is okay. Obviously the history of what people used to do has no affect on the morality of those actions. Your comparison to slavery is entirely accurate and valid. The thing to realize is that I never claimed that just because people used to (for all of human history save the past 150 or so years) have sex with people 12 years and older that it is morally acceptable to do so. I argue that because human males had sex with 12 year olds for the large majority of human history, that it is normal for humans to desire to have sex with 12 year olds. Evolution works over a long period of time, it is absurd to think that 150 years ago people across the world suddenly stopped having sexual interest in 12 year olds. Not long ago, and for all of time before that, human males were open about their sexual attraction to 12 year olds. In modern times, human males tend to claim that they are not attracted to 12 year olds. The argument is that, due to the fact that evolution does not work so rapidly as to erase the past sexual desires of males from the present population of males, that it is extremely likely that males who claim today that they are not sexually attracted to 12 year olds are lying. But we do not even need this logic to demonstrate the truthfulness of what I say, as studies carried out by various groups throughout the world have clearly demonstrated that it is still typical today for males to be sexually attracted to 12 year olds. Morality doesn't even come into play at this point! I am not arguing with this that the normality of our desires causes it to be moral to act on our desires. I am not arguing about social evolution, society has indeed evolved to a point where sexual attraction to 12 year olds is typically frowned upon. I am talking about biological evolution, and we have not evolved in such a way that males are not sexually attracted to 12 year olds.

My argument is that it is time for a new social evolution, one where sexual self determinism is not mapped to age but is mapped to individualized cognitive testing and certification. The argument that it is immoral to have sex with 12 year olds reduces to an argument that it is immoral to have sex with people who are not capable of sexual self determinism, and I have the intellectual capacity to recognize the validity of this, even if it contradicts my (extremely common) biological wiring. But I also have the intellectual capacity to realize that you cannot validly map a persons age to their ability for sexual self determinism, and the truthfulness of this is readily apparent if you consider a 30 year old who has the cognitive development of an infant. Despite the fact that they are 30 years old and well past puberty, they lack the cognitive capacity for sexual self determinism and therefore it should be illegal for a person to have sex with them. But the flip side of that coin is also true, if a 12 year old has the cognitive development of the typical 30 year old then there is no longer validity to your argument that they cannot engage in consensual sexual activity. The reason why your argument is poor is because you make a false equivalency between a persons age and their ability for sexual self determinism. My suggestion is that we do away with age of consent systems and rather implement a system where people are individually evaluated and certified as to their ability for sexual self determinism. This would prevent 30 year olds with the mental capacity of infants from being sexually exploited just as well as it would prevent 12 year olds with the mental capacity you attribute to 12 year olds from being sexually exploited. But it would also not prevent 12 year olds who are capable of sexual self determinism from having consensual sex. If there are no 12 year olds with such ability then nobody will be permitted to have sex with 12 year olds and the thing you are ostensibly concerned with will not be an issue! The only reason why you would not like this alternative to age of consent systems is if you are not truly concerned with a persons ability for sexual self determinism but rather are concerned with the age of the person in question, in which case you should stop bullshitting about being concerned about vulnerable people being exploited and be honest about your baseless hatred for normal males.   
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #438 on: February 15, 2014, 02:59:45 pm »
I'm my opinion it is done very wrong in the United States where it is way to black and white. So when a person of at the age of 20 get convicted for statutory rape because he had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend really disgusts me. I believe to have a healthy sexual development one should experience it with someone one trusts. And one should be on equal terms, for this reason it is important that it shouldn't be allowed to have sex with someone you are in an authoritative position to. Teachers shouldn't be allowed to have sex with their students, physicians with their patients and so on.

And kids often learn that the adults are in authority, so adults shouldn't be allowed to have sex with "kids". But where to set the line who is kid and who is adult is not as straight forward as saying "kid<(x years old)<adult". So I believe one should take the circumstances in to serious considerations when judging such a case.

If a 15 year old and a 30 year old really love each others and they are in a relationship where they are equal I would say that is better than a relationship between a 20 yo and 23 yo where one is subdued by the other partner. But I do suspect that most 30/15 couples wouldn't have true love as their foundation.

And we also have the financial factor. When you're a kid and only get your weekly allowance from mom and dad, what a random guy with a job can give can seems like a lot. I read a story about a 20-something guy who were buying sex from 11-13 yo for nothing at all and at the court they were to decide if he was a pedophile, in his defense he said he wasn't it was just so easy to buy off the kids.

I don't see it as inherently bad to have some pictures of nude young individuals, especially if that is the only thing that gets you off. It is much better that you get of to some images than the real thing. But I am against allowing free distribution of such images for the same reasons I'm would like to ban the "revenge on my ex"-porn sites and make it illegal to put my picture on facebook. It is very disrespectful to the individuals in the photos.

Edit: Forgot the main reason I wanted to post here today. Just saw a very good danish movie related to this subject I would recommend: The Celebration/Festen
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 03:06:15 pm by SandStorm »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #439 on: February 15, 2014, 08:56:35 pm »
So do you suggest a caste system, with people not allowed to have sex with those in different castes? And the caste a person is in is determined by how much money they have? The difference in financial power between Bill Gates and me is significantly more so than the financial power between many 14 year olds and me. A 14 year old might have a few thousand dollars a year but most likely under $10,000 unless they come from a very rich family. Assuming that I make $10,000 or more a year but less than $100,000, that means I make probably about an order of magnitude more money than the average 14 year old. Bill Gates on the other hand has $60,000,000,000 or so dollars. Assuming he makes standard interest on all of that money, he would make about $3,000,000,000 a year, which would be five orders of magnitude more than I do. So does that mean that I should be forbidden from having sex with Bill Gates even if both of us consent to do so? How exactly would you like to sort the castes? Should it just be people need to stay within their own level of magnitude? And how severe should the punishment be for leaving your caste?

If you don't think that a person who makes $100,000 a year should be banned from having sex with a person who makes $25,000 a year then there is no consistency to your belief system when you claim that a person who makes $20,000 a year should be banned from having sex with a person who makes $5,000 a year. Good belief systems have no inconsistencies, so I suspect that your argument was just shown to be invalid.

I will never be convinced that information should be censored, but it is nice to see that you are significantly closer to sane than most of the others. It's too bad that you are not the norm instead of these brain dead mouth foaming extremists, who have been indoctrinated into their current beliefs in the same way religious extremists are indoctrinated into their religions. 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 09:04:07 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #440 on: February 15, 2014, 09:23:02 pm »
If Bill Gates was your teacher I would say you would have to have graduated from his class before he would have been allowed to have sex with you. As for the sanctions, I think I would have fired Bill Gates from his tutoring position.

And the most important point I made was that one should take the circumstances in to serious considerations when judging such a case.

And answer to your question m0rph; no that is not something I would vote for.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 10:46:30 pm by SandStorm »

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #441 on: February 15, 2014, 10:07:01 pm »
AHAHAH to all you sick fucks.

I regretfully look forward to seeing you on the sex offenders site one day because that means that you have paid only a small price for your actions.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #442 on: February 18, 2014, 11:57:58 am »
AHAHAH to all you sick fucks.

I regretfully look forward to seeing you on the sex offenders site one day because that means that you have paid only a small price for your actions.

I look forward to you losing your indoctrination and learning to think for yourself. The first step is to realize that you have a problem. The problem that you have is that your country has injected beliefs into your brain and destroyed your ability to think for yourself.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #443 on: February 18, 2014, 05:38:15 pm »
AHAHAH to all you sick fucks.

I regretfully look forward to seeing you on the sex offenders site one day because that means that you have paid only a small price for your actions.

I look forward to you losing your indoctrination and learning to think for yourself. The first step is to realize that you have a problem. The problem that you have is that your country has injected beliefs into your brain and destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

Yes! You are correct. My country was able to teach me that fcking with youngsters isn’t something that should be allowed because it can cause emotional distress in the young “victims”.

Were you molested or something? It would be sad if you were, but it would also tickle me a little. Ahhh I wish someone unleashed their sick fetish on you while you were growing up by sticking a finger in your butt. (__o__)



« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 07:13:07 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #444 on: February 19, 2014, 02:01:53 am »
I think I was completely capable of telling people not to stick their fingers in my butt by the time I was 14 years old. Indeed, if you were not capable of such at that age my impression of you would be that you were mentally disabled.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #445 on: February 19, 2014, 02:13:07 am »
PS: How do you feel about the fact that in Germany many 14 year olds can legally consent to having most 40 year olds stick fingers in their butts? Does that really make you think Germany has a fucked up legal system or what? I just think it's so strange how your country just happened to get it just right. It reminds me entirely of religious people who just happened to have been born in areas that practice the one true religion. It's like wow it's so lucky of you to be born in a country that just got age of consent dead right, I mean age of consent varies from as young as marriage regardless of age to as low as 12 in some countries to as high as 21 in some countries and everything in between, but 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 your country just happened to pick the one that is morally correct, I mean really what are the odds of that?

Still wondering exactly what horrible thing it is that you are condemning me for, it isn't quite clear to me yet. Do you condemn me for saying that there shouldn't be age of consent but rather consent should be tied to individual evaluation and certification? What don't you like about that, the only thing I can think of that you wouldn't like about it is that you were not indoctrinated into it your entire life so it can't be The One True System. Or are you condemning me for saying that it isn't really bad to be attracted to kids or even babies, so long as you don't abuse them? Are you just as mad at the fact that the mental health community is going in the direction of considering even pedophilia to not be a mental disorder unless the person afflicted by it feels it is okay to act on it? Or do you condemn me for pointing out the truth that the majority of males are attracted to females as young as 12 years old? If so why not condemn reality or science instead of me, I did not make reality the way it is I just did not pretend to not see it. Or is it because I think that looking at pictures does not cause magic things to happen, things that you can not explain at all but will undoubtedly claim until you are blue in the face? Sorry that I don't believe in photographs having such magical powers, but I am far too intelligent to believe in such nonsense.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

DeadVacation

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: +3/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #446 on: February 19, 2014, 06:56:01 am »
Even the title of this thread sickens me.  I think it should be deleted entirely, there should be no room for this.  I may post nigger jokes that get some people butthurt, but I am strongly opposed to anything that hurts or abuses children, and those that make light of such a subject should be executed Chinese style (i.e. - bullet to back of head immediately after sentence, no appeals, no 20 years on death row).  I will not post here again and I hope this thread eventually dies and moves well down in the page count, but I would prefer it just be deleted entirely and anyone who keeps bringing this subject up should be silenced for good.

I agree. NO TOLERANCE FOR CP!!! It's not a "delicate emotional issue." It's not a sexual orientation. It's just fucking wrong.
Freedom™

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #447 on: February 19, 2014, 07:21:39 am »
How ironic that your signature is Freedom and under your avatar you have Ideas Are Bullet Proof.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Sulliasi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 341
  • Karma: +156/-20
  • Our day will come.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #448 on: February 19, 2014, 04:23:54 pm »
How ironic that your signature is Freedom and under your avatar you have Ideas Are Bullet Proof.

I have to agree with Morph. I has been shown before that men are attrated to younger girls. There is nothing wrong with this. But, acting on this is a different matter, as most cases the men force themselves on the younger girls leaving them emotionally destroyed for the rest of their lives.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #449 on: February 19, 2014, 07:10:39 pm »
Most men are attracted to 12 year olds, 11 is really the grayest area. 10 is not normal to be attracted to though, at least not to the same extent as older. But it is really a bad system to tie attraction to ages, it should be tied to stages of development because most people are not attracted to a person because of their age but because of the way they look. Even if we ignore the fact that men are attracted to 12 year olds, I just can't even fathom how anyone could claim to not be attracted to 14 year olds. Lots of them are already fully sexually developed. You literally can't even tell many 14 year olds apart from many 18 year olds. Some 14 year olds are actually at more advanced stages of sexual development than some 18 year olds are. It's just patently obvious that it is normal to find such people sexually attractive if it is normal to find 18 year olds attractive.

Nothing is inherently wrong with acting on attraction to young teenagers either. Just as much as nothing is inherently wrong with acting on attraction to older girls. It's obviously wrong to rape a 30 year old, does that mean that it's wrong to have sex with any 30 year old? Of course not. It is wrong to hurt other people for your own pleasure. I am not at all convinced that in every single case it would hurt a 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 year old if someone older than 17 has sex with them. Probably it is probabilistically more likely for it to hurt a 14 year old than an 18 year old, but that is why people should be individually evaluated, we can remove probability from the formula entirely. Why should anyone have any complaint about that? I think the people bitching in this thread don't even read anything that is said at all, their entire brains just shut down when they come here. It's why they look like fools. They certainly don't do their cause any favors by coming across in such a way.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #450 on: February 19, 2014, 09:59:57 pm »
To be honest, a sex certificate sounds strange. What happens to those who have sex before they take it? Or should it be a school program where pupils answers questions year by year and depending on what they answer they get the card when they are evaluated to be ready. Do you have any thoughts about how this sexual maturity evaluation is going to be performed m0rph?

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #451 on: February 20, 2014, 03:10:36 am »
Does it sound any stranger than a magical birthday where you are automatically awarded such a certificate? Having sex without having a certificate shouldn't be any crime at all, the crime should be having sex with someone who hasn't got one. It is actually fairly similar to what a few countries already do, Germany and Uruguay both come to mind. In Germany the age of consent is not done how it is in the USA/UK/AUS. The minimum age for consent is 14 years old, but there are some restrictions. One restriction is that people in authority positions cannot have sex with 14 year olds, so no teachers or police can have sex with 14 year olds, I think for them the age of consent is 18. 14 year old can also not be given substantial gifts by the people who have sex with them, and particularly vulnerable 14 year olds are not able to consent, for example homeless 14 year olds. For normal not homeless 14 year olds having sex without getting substantial gifts from their sexual partner, you can legally have sex with them as long as you are not in a position of authority such as teacher or police officer. But they still have the ability to file a retroactive complaint saying that they were taken advantage of (by someone over 21). If such a complaint is filed, the 14 year old (or 15 year old) in question is evaluated by a forensic psychologist who determines if they are mature enough to have knowingly consented to sex, they call it being capable of sexual self determinism. If the evaluation reveals that the 14 year old was capable of consenting to sex, then it is not a crime to have had sex with them and no criminal charges are brought against the person who had sex with them, even if they are 90 years old. If the evaluation reveals that the 14 year old is not capable of sexual self determinism and was taken advantage of, then the older party is criminally liable for statutory rape. 16 year olds are still off limits to people in positions of authority and have other restrictions, but they cannot retroactively revoke consent and demand such an evaluation, it is presumed that they are capable of sexual self determinism.

In Uruguay they have a different system as well. The youngest age where sexual self determinism is presumed is 15, and having sex with 15 year olds is not different there than having sex with 16 or 18 year olds in USA/UK/AUS. Having sex with someone under 15 but at least 12 is in a legal grey area, consent and sexual self determinism is not presumed (statutory rape is presumed if under 15) but if a complaint is made it is a valid defense in court if you can prove that there was consent and the younger person was capable of sexual self determinism. So it can be legal to have sex with 12 year olds in Uruguay, but it is the responsibility of the older person to be able to prove that the younger person consented and was fully capable of doing so, whereas a 15 year old would have the burden of proof fall on them that they did not consent to sex or were not capable of doing so. It is always illegal to have sex with anyone under 12 in Uruguay.

In Portugal the minimum age of consent is 14, but it is possible for 14-16 to be charged as statutory rape if it is shown that the 14-16 year old was sexually inexperienced at the time a person older than 16 had sex with them.

Romania takes a bit of a different approach, the age of consent for blowjobs and vaginal or anal intercourse is 15 , but 13 year olds can consent to give hand jobs.

I think the systems of Germany and Uruguay both go in the correct direction, but instead of being retroactive they should be proactive. Why wait for a 14 year old in Germany to have sex before you determine if they are competent to have consented to do so? Wouldn't it make more sense if they undergo a forensic psychological evaluation PRIOR to having sex? If we assume that it would indeed be harmful for a 14 year old who is not capable of sexual self determinism to have sex, then wouldn't it protect such 14 year olds if it is always illegal to have sex with them UNLESS they have ALREADY demonstrated that they are capable of sexual self determinism? Why wait until the potential damage is already done to determine if damage was done or not, when you can instead proactively determine if damage WILL BE done or not?

Also, why have any hard bottom limit at all? If a 3 year old has a mind that is indistinguishable from that of a normal 30 year old then why should we prevent them from having sex if they want to? I don't think such 3 year olds exist, but just as a thought experiment. As for the exact criteria of how a person is certified, well I am not sure. I don't know exactly what they do in Uruguay or Germany. First of all, a person would have to try to get certified in the first place. I imagine most 12 year old girls wouldn't even attempt to do so, and even if they could manage to do so if they wanted to it isn't like it would unleash a flood of sex crazed youngsters onto the world. Definitely an adult IQ test could be part of the equation. A persons adult IQ is not set until they are about 16 to 17 years old, younger than that and they will score lower than they will as adults. It's hard to say that a retarded adult shouldn't be capable of having sex, but I think one thing that could be done is say that anyone with a very low adult IQ needs at least several years of paperwork to stand a chance of being certified as capable of sexual self determinism. Saying that a person needs to have an adult IQ of 80 will immediately disqualify most children.

A rough way to determine the mental age of a person under 16 is to add a decimal place to their IQ and multiply it by their age. An 8 year old with an IQ of 100 , 1.00 * 8 = 8, so an 8 year old with a childhood IQ of 100 is mentally 8 years old, or (8 / 16) * 100 = ~50 adult IQ, wow I guess the average 8 year old is very unlikely to be capable of sexual self determinism because they would be retarded if they were 18. That seems like a pretty valid way to say that an average 8 year old isn't capable of sexual self determinism, even if they say they want to have sex, which is highly unlikely in itself. On the other hand, a 14 year old with an IQ of 100: 1.00 * 14 = (14 / 16) * 100 = 87.5 , hm the average 14 year old is as intelligent as a low average adult, I am not convinced from this that they are not capable of sexual self determinism. (11 / 16) * 100 = 68.75, even the average 11 year old would be a mentally retarded adult. (12 / 16) * 100 = 75, I guess the average 12 year old is borderline retarded, (13 / 16) * 100 = 81.25 , but the average 13 year old would not be considered to be intellectually disabled if they were 18, though they would only be just barely out of the red zone. Using IQ scores alone you would immediately disqualify the majority of people 11 or under and a substantial percentage of 12 year olds as well. There is your most reliable and truthful filter, but even more can be done.

just for reference:

Age --- Average Adult IQ at time of test

1----6.25
2----12.5
3---18.75 <--- this and below is profoundly retarded
4---25
5---31.25 <---- this and below is severely retarded
6---37.5
7---43.75
8---50     <----- this and below is moderately retarded
9---56.25
10---62.5
11---68.75 <------ this and below is mildly retarded
12---75 <----- this is borderline retarded
13---81.25 <---this and above is not intellectually disabled
14---87.5
15---93.75
16 + ---- 100

tanner stages of sexual development:

0...10 = stage one
10..11.5 = stage two
11.5..13 = stage three
13...15 = stage four

75% of 15+ = stage five
25% of 15+ = stage four


mental disability is possible at 79 and below for adults and confirmed at 69, 80-119 is the normal range for adults, which means that the average 13 year old is intellectually comparable to an adult without mental disability. Strangely enough this synchs up with tanner stage 4 of sexual development, a stage of sexual maturity that 25% of females never exceed. So the average 13 year old is comparable to a fully sexually developed adult (who never progressed past tanner stage 4, which is fairly common at 1/4ths) without any mental disability, that to me strongly implies that the average 13 year old is capable of consenting to sex, and definitely implies that many normal males would find the average 13 year old to be sexually (well, most males would) and intellectually (no less so than an 18 year old in the normal range of intelligence anyway) appealing.   

Theory of mind can be tested as well, with the hypothesis that a person without a well developed theory of mind could be misled by a more experienced person, and taken advantage of in such a way. There are various ways that theory of mind can be evaluated, although usually people pass such tests before their adult IQ is beyond retarded. Presumably there are a variety of other tests as well, and criteria that can be met for certification, such as basic knowledge of STD's and birth control I guess. I really am interested in the evaluation criteria that the people who are against teenagers having sex have in mind, they seem very certain that they can reliably distinguish 14 year olds from 18 year olds with some cognitive assessment (as they keep claiming that 14 year olds lack the cognitive development required to have sex, whereas 18 year olds do not), and I would love to know the battery of tests they plan to use to do this. Of course the test must be blindly administered, as only the results matter. Like I already showed, using IQ by itself can be demonstrated as a valid way of showing that only an exceptional 12 year old would have the minimum cognitive capacity to be considered capable of sexual self determinism, but I'm not sure how you are going to manage to screen out the 14 year olds. I am really excited to hear the empirical test that you can administer to demonstrate to me that a 14 year old isn't capable of having sex, without disqualifying significant numbers of 18 year olds as well. You can't even use sexual development stages at 14, some 14 year olds are already at tanner stage 5 while some 18 year olds never progress beyond tanner stage 4. Using tanner staging as a criteria the most you could really do is exclude 12 year olds, but they are already mostly excluded by IQ testing anyway.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 04:09:21 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

dark_prophet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Karma: +104/-50
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #452 on: February 20, 2014, 04:28:43 am »
Does it sound any stranger than a magical birthday where you are automatically awarded such a certificate? Having sex without having a certificate shouldn't be any crime at all, the crime should be having sex with someone who hasn't got one. It is actually fairly similar to what a few countries already do, Germany and Uruguay both come to mind. In Germany the age of consent is not done how it is in the USA/UK/AUS. The minimum age for consent is 14 years old, but there are some restrictions. One restriction is that people in authority positions cannot have sex with 14 year olds, so no teachers or police can have sex with 14 year olds, I think for them the age of consent is 18. 14 year old can also not be given substantial gifts by the people who have sex with them, and particularly vulnerable 14 year olds are not able to consent, for example homeless 14 year olds. For normal not homeless 14 year olds having sex without getting substantial gifts from their sexual partner, you can legally have sex with them as long as you are not in a position of authority such as teacher or police officer. But they still have the ability to file a retroactive complaint saying that they were taken advantage of (by someone over 21). If such a complaint is filed, the 14 year old (or 15 year old) in question is evaluated by a forensic psychologist who determines if they are mature enough to have knowingly consented to sex, they call it being capable of sexual self determinism. If the evaluation reveals that the 14 year old was capable of consenting to sex, then it is not a crime to have had sex with them and no criminal charges are brought against the person who had sex with them, even if they are 90 years old. If the evaluation reveals that the 14 year old is not capable of sexual self determinism and was taken advantage of, then the older party is criminally liable for statutory rape. 16 year olds are still off limits to people in positions of authority and have other restrictions, but they cannot retroactively revoke consent and demand such an evaluation, it is presumed that they are capable of sexual self determinism.

In Uruguay they have a different system as well. The youngest age where sexual self determinism is presumed is 15, and having sex with 15 year olds is not different there than having sex with 16 or 18 year olds in USA/UK/AUS. Having sex with someone under 15 but at least 12 is in a legal grey area, consent and sexual self determinism is not presumed (statutory rape is presumed if under 15) but if a complaint is made it is a valid defense in court if you can prove that there was consent and the younger person was capable of sexual self determinism. So it can be legal to have sex with 12 year olds in Uruguay, but it is the responsibility of the older person to be able to prove that the younger person consented and was fully capable of doing so, whereas a 15 year old would have the burden of proof fall on them that they did not consent to sex or were not capable of doing so. It is always illegal to have sex with anyone under 12 in Uruguay.

In Portugal the minimum age of consent is 14, but it is possible for 14-16 to be charged as statutory rape if it is shown that the 14-16 year old was sexually inexperienced at the time a person older than 16 had sex with them.

Romania takes a bit of a different approach, the age of consent for blowjobs and vaginal or anal intercourse is 15 , but 13 year olds can consent to give hand jobs.

I think the systems of Germany and Uruguay both go in the correct direction, but instead of being retroactive they should be proactive. Why wait for a 14 year old in Germany to have sex before you determine if they are competent to have consented to do so? Wouldn't it make more sense if they undergo a forensic psychological evaluation PRIOR to having sex? If we assume that it would indeed be harmful for a 14 year old who is not capable of sexual self determinism to have sex, then wouldn't it protect such 14 year olds if it is always illegal to have sex with them UNLESS they have ALREADY demonstrated that they are capable of sexual self determinism? Why wait until the potential damage is already done to determine if damage was done or not, when you can instead proactively determine if damage WILL BE done or not?

Also, why have any hard bottom limit at all? If a 3 year old has a mind that is indistinguishable from that of a normal 30 year old then why should we prevent them from having sex if they want to? I don't think such 3 year olds exist, but just as a thought experiment. As for the exact criteria of how a person is certified, well I am not sure. I don't know exactly what they do in Uruguay or Germany. First of all, a person would have to try to get certified in the first place. I imagine most 12 year old girls wouldn't even attempt to do so, and even if they could manage to do so if they wanted to it isn't like it would unleash a flood of sex crazed youngsters onto the world. Definitely an adult IQ test could be part of the equation. A persons adult IQ is not set until they are about 16 to 17 years old, younger than that and they will score lower than they will as adults. It's hard to say that a retarded adult shouldn't be capable of having sex, but I think one thing that could be done is say that anyone with a very low adult IQ needs at least several years of paperwork to stand a chance of being certified as capable of sexual self determinism. Saying that a person needs to have an adult IQ of 80 will immediately disqualify most children.

A rough way to determine the mental age of a person under 16 is to add a decimal place to their IQ and multiply it by their age. An 8 year old with an IQ of 100 , 1.00 * 8 = 8, so an 8 year old with a childhood IQ of 100 is mentally 8 years old, or (8 / 16) * 100 = ~50 adult IQ, wow I guess the average 8 year old is very unlikely to be capable of sexual self determinism because they would be retarded if they were 18. That seems like a pretty valid way to say that an average 8 year old isn't capable of sexual self determinism, even if they say they want to have sex, which is highly unlikely in itself. On the other hand, a 14 year old with an IQ of 100: 1.00 * 14 = (14 / 16) * 100 = 87.5 , hm the average 14 year old is as intelligent as a low average adult, I am not convinced from this that they are not capable of sexual self determinism. (11 / 16) * 100 = 68.75, even the average 11 year old would be a mentally retarded adult. (12 / 16) * 100 = 75, I guess the average 12 year old is borderline retarded, (13 / 16) * 100 = 81.25 , but the average 13 year old would not be considered to be intellectually disabled if they were 18, though they would only be just barely out of the red zone. Using IQ scores alone you would immediately disqualify the majority of people 11 or under and a substantial percentage of 12 year olds as well. There is your most reliable and truthful filter, but even more can be done.

just for reference:

Age --- Average Adult IQ at time of test

1----6.25
2----12.5
3---18.75 <--- this and below is profoundly retarded
4---25
5---31.25 <---- this and below is severely retarded
6---37.5
7---43.75
8---50     <----- this and below is moderately retarded
9---56.25
10---62.5
11---68.75 <------ this and below is mildly retarded
12---75 <----- this is borderline retarded
13---81.25 <---this and above is not intellectually disabled
14---87.5
15---93.75
16 + ---- 100

tanner stages of sexual development:

0...10 = stage one
10..11.5 = stage two
11.5..13 = stage three
13...15 = stage four

75% of 15+ = stage five
25% of 15+ = stage four


mental disability is possible at 79 and below for adults and confirmed at 69, 80-119 is the normal range for adults, which means that the average 13 year old is intellectually comparable to an adult without mental disability. Strangely enough this synchs up with tanner stage 4 of sexual development, a stage of sexual maturity that 25% of females never exceed. So the average 13 year old is comparable to a fully sexually developed adult (who never progressed past tanner stage 4, which is fairly common at 1/4ths) without any mental disability, that to me strongly implies that the average 13 year old is capable of consenting to sex, and definitely implies that many normal males would find the average 13 year old to be sexually (well, most males would) and intellectually (no less so than an 18 year old in the normal range of intelligence anyway) appealing.   

Theory of mind can be tested as well, with the hypothesis that a person without a well developed theory of mind could be misled by a more experienced person, and taken advantage of in such a way. There are various ways that theory of mind can be evaluated, although usually people pass such tests before their adult IQ is beyond retarded. Presumably there are a variety of other tests as well, and criteria that can be met for certification, such as basic knowledge of STD's and birth control I guess. I really am interested in the evaluation criteria that the people who are against teenagers having sex have in mind, they seem very certain that they can reliably distinguish 14 year olds from 18 year olds with some cognitive assessment (as they keep claiming that 14 year olds lack the cognitive development required to have sex, whereas 18 year olds do not), and I would love to know the battery of tests they plan to use to do this. Of course the test must be blindly administered, as only the results matter. Like I already showed, using IQ by itself can be demonstrated as a valid way of showing that only an exceptional 12 year old would have the minimum cognitive capacity to be considered capable of sexual self determinism, but I'm not sure how you are going to manage to screen out the 14 year olds. I am really excited to hear the empirical test that you can administer to demonstrate to me that a 14 year old isn't capable of having sex, without disqualifying significant numbers of 18 year olds as well. You can't even use sexual development stages at 14, some 14 year olds are already at tanner stage 5 while some 18 year olds never progress beyond tanner stage 4. Using tanner staging as a criteria the most you could really do is exclude 12 year olds, but they are already mostly excluded by IQ testing anyway.

You have done way to much research to not feel guilty about being attracted to 11 year old.....hmmmm this makes me kinda sad in a way

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #453 on: February 20, 2014, 05:29:06 am »
Actually the information I just demonstrated makes a case for 13 years old being the youngest on average age that a person would be expected to be capable of sexual self determinism. If anything, it is the first empirically demonstrated reason in this entire thread for why the average 11 year old isn't capable of sexual self determinism. Seeing as the average 11 year old has the intellectual capacity of a mentally retarded adult. I wouldn't have sex with a retarded 18 year old even if she was attractive and my body wanted to have sex with her, and for the same reason I wouldn't have sex with an 11 year old even if she was in tanner stage 3 and caused me some degree of automatic sexual arousal. Once you get to the point that the average person of a given age is in the normal range of adult intelligence + sexually developed enough that they have a 25% chance of being fully sexually matured, I have a much harder time understanding why it should be illegal to have sex with them. I mean, there is a significant chance that I would fuck a tanner stage four 18 year old with a low but not impaired IQ, so I still wait for you guys to show me the reason why this is okay but not okay to fuck someone younger with identical physical and intellectual traits (someone who would be legal to fuck in much of the world as well, just so you know).

Usually 11 year olds are pretty underdeveloped and not particularly sexually appealing either. Couple that with an average IQ of 68.75 and there isn't much to be attracted by. Some 11 year olds are probably somewhat sexually appealing, but I really would have to say I prefer older than that both visually and intellectually. 12 year olds start to be more physically attractive, and I would definitely look at some of them naked and derive sexual pleasure from doing so, but the average 12 year old is borderline retarded and I don't think I would have sex with a borderline retarded person of any age, even if I felt an urge to do so. By 13 I might say fuck it though, 14 pretty much certainly I wouldn't care. If you are smart enough to be 18 without an intellectual disability you are smart enough to know if you want to have sex with me or not. Of course I wouldn't actually have sex with someone under the age of consent where I live though, there is too much uncontrollable risk in that, and the reward isn't high enough for me. Thankfully I am not exclusively attracted to underage people! But as far as my personal sense of morality goes, my line of willingness to do anything with a person is at about 13 or so, but I would be lying to say I would have no desire below that. I can truthfully say that it is a very rare 11 year old who I find to be sexually appealing though, and I don't believe I have ever been aroused by anyone under that :D. I guess I would feel bad and ashamed about myself because of it, but I've already read too much research on the matter and realized that this is just the normal way of being for males. Actually I doubt I would feel bad or ashamed in any case, lol. Why should I feel bad for things that I can't control, I would rather feel good for the things that I can.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 06:02:43 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #454 on: February 25, 2014, 08:40:57 pm »
I think I was completely capable of telling people not to stick their fingers in my butt by the time I was 14 years old. Indeed, if you were not capable of such at that age my impression of you would be that you were mentally disabled.

I didn't know I had a child prodigy in my presence. For the younglings who don’t or cant say no to someone sticking a finger in their butt. Do you feel sorry for them or do you wish that it was you doing this crime?
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #455 on: February 26, 2014, 10:09:25 am »
I think I was completely capable of telling people not to stick their fingers in my butt by the time I was 14 years old. Indeed, if you were not capable of such at that age my impression of you would be that you were mentally disabled.

I didn't know I had a child prodigy in my presence. For the younglings who don’t or cant say no to someone sticking a finger in their butt. Do you feel sorry for them or do you wish that it was you doing this crime?

Honestly my general goal is to avoid hurting people. So far I feel like I have entirely accomplished this, and I don't imagine that I will fail to do so any time soon. Do I feel sorry for them? I don't know, really. I have significantly low empathy. On occasion I feel a fleeting yet deep sorrow for people who are hurt by others. But for the most part I am largely indifferent to it. I would say I even have traits of sadism, in that I can take pleasure in the mistreatment of others. It's also difficult to answer if I wish it was me doing such a crime or not. The same thing could be asked in regards to rape, if I would wish that it was me having sex with some extremely beautiful girl, although without her consent. On one hand I would certainly wish that it was me, on a physical level I would desire to do so at least. But on the other hand, I can recognize the wrongness of hurting people in such a way, and I can imagine myself in a situation I would hate to be in and realize that I should not put other people in such situations because I would be a bad person if I did so. So even if I might wish it was me doing such a crime, I wouldn't do such a thing even if I had the desire to do so. And I don't think I have any control over what my desires are, so I don't feel bad for having them, although I would probably change them if I could. But I do have control over what my actions are, and I would feel bad if my actions led to me being a bad person, and my desire to be a good person is higher than my desire to do anything that would hurt others. Additionally, I am fairly certain it is not a fear of being caught that prevents me from doing anything to hurt others. I think that I could easily abuse people through the internet without ever being apprehended, but I don't do this even though I feel strongly as if I could without risk. So I feel like I already am in the thought experiment where I could sexually take advantage of a person without any fear of being apprehended, and that I have proven that I would not do so in not doing so. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't take pleasure out of doing so, it simply means that I take more pleasure out of knowing that I am not a bad person.

I would potentially be alarmed at my own desires, but in doing research I have determined that I am actually far from uncommon.

Quote
· 35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it (ref 6,7).

35% of males anonymously admitted that they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it. That is a substantial percentage of males, and if we take into account the ones who would desire to do so but would prevent themselves from doing it, it is going to be even higher. I don't think it is hard to imagine that over half of males would have some level of temptation to take coercive sexual advantage of a girl if they thought there was no possibility of any consequences at all coming to them from doing so. As I already previously mentioned, I do feel as if I could get away with taking coercive sexual advantage of girls, and yet I have never done so, so I am happy both with my normalcy (although I would remove my desire if possible) as well as with my ability to control myself without the need for external threat of consequence.

Quote
1967, p. 228).
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975).

Additionally, research has shown that hebephilia is extremely common to the point of actually being the norm. So once again I do not feel as if I am abnormal in this sense. And once again I have full confidence that I would not act on my desires/wishes if I thought that in doing so I would hurt others. And as before, I do not feel any level of guilt for my desires at all, due to the fact that I had absolutely no say in them. And as before I also feel no guilt for my actions, as I have not acted in such a way that anyone has been damaged by me. And again, if I could remove my sexual attraction to young teenagers I would very possibly do so, provided that I could manage to find older females as sexually attractive at least. As I have said previously, I do find older females to be sexually attractive, but find that I generally prefer younger females (although not prior to puberty, or immediately thereafter either).

So I feel like I am entirely moral and normal, and like I can support this claim with a substantial body of evidence. I am happy enough to refrain from having any interaction at all with anyone under the age of 18, but I also wouldn't feel bad about having sex with someone as young as 13 or so if I had reasonable belief that doing so would not cause them harm. This is why I suggest sexual certification rather than age of consent, it would allow people to have sex with younger girls in some cases while not being a risk to the ones who can not handle it. As far as CP goes, well, I also have no need for that, and actually have no interest at all in CP for that matter. On the other hand, I fully recognize that it isn't going to hurt anyone if someone looks at pictures on the internet, and I can see that the people saying otherwise are either brainwashed, have ulterior motives, or simply hate pedophiles and others with deviant sexualities, much in the same way that many hate homosexuals.

is that a satisfactory answer?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #456 on: February 26, 2014, 10:23:46 am »
I think I was completely capable of telling people not to stick their fingers in my butt by the time I was 14 years old. Indeed, if you were not capable of such at that age my impression of you would be that you were mentally disabled.

I didn't know I had a child prodigy in my presence. For the younglings who don’t or cant say no to someone sticking a finger in their butt. Do you feel sorry for them or do you wish that it was you doing this crime?

Honestly my general goal is to avoid hurting people. So far I feel like I have entirely accomplished this, and I don't imagine that I will fail to do so any time soon. Do I feel sorry for them? I don't know, really. I have significantly low empathy. On occasion I feel a fleeting yet deep sorrow for people who are hurt by others. But for the most part I am largely indifferent to it. I would say I even have traits of sadism, in that I can take pleasure in the mistreatment of others. It's also difficult to answer if I wish it was me doing such a crime or not. The same thing could be asked in regards to rape, if I would wish that it was me having sex with some extremely beautiful girl, although without her consent. On one hand I would certainly wish that it was me, on a physical level I would desire to do so at least. But on the other hand, I can recognize the wrongness of hurting people in such a way, and I can imagine myself in a situation I would hate to be in and realize that I should not put other people in such situations because I would be a bad person if I did so. So even if I might wish it was me doing such a crime, I wouldn't do such a thing even if I had the desire to do so. And I don't think I have any control over what my desires are, so I don't feel bad for having them, although I would probably change them if I could. But I do have control over what my actions are, and I would feel bad if my actions led to me being a bad person, and my desire to be a good person is higher than my desire to do anything that would hurt others. Additionally, I am fairly certain it is not a fear of being caught that prevents me from doing anything to hurt others. I think that I could easily abuse people through the internet without ever being apprehended, but I don't do this even though I feel strongly as if I could without risk. So I feel like I already am in the thought experiment where I could sexually take advantage of a person without any fear of being apprehended, and that I have proven that I would not do so in not doing so. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't take pleasure out of doing so, it simply means that I take more pleasure out of knowing that I am not a bad person.

I would potentially be alarmed at my own desires, but in doing research I have determined that I am actually far from uncommon.

Quote
· 35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it (ref 6,7).

35% of males anonymously admitted that they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it. That is a substantial percentage of males, and if we take into account the ones who would desire to do so but would prevent themselves from doing it, it is going to be even higher. I don't think it is hard to imagine that over half of males would have some level of temptation to take coercive sexual advantage of a girl if they thought there was no possibility of any consequences at all coming to them from doing so. As I already previously mentioned, I do feel as if I could get away with taking coercive sexual advantage of girls, and yet I have never done so, so I am happy both with my normalcy (although I would remove my desire if possible) as well as with my ability to control myself without the need for external threat of consequence.

Quote
1967, p. 228).
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975).

Additionally, research has shown that hebephilia is extremely common to the point of actually being the norm. So once again I do not feel as if I am abnormal in this sense. And once again I have full confidence that I would not act on my desires/wishes if I thought that in doing so I would hurt others. And as before, I do not feel any level of guilt for my desires at all, due to the fact that I had absolutely no say in them. And as before I also feel no guilt for my actions, as I have not acted in such a way that anyone has been damaged by me. And again, if I could remove my sexual attraction to young teenagers I would very possibly do so, provided that I could manage to find older females as sexually attractive at least. As I have said previously, I do find older females to be sexually attractive, but find that I generally prefer younger females (although not prior to puberty, or immediately thereafter either).

So I feel like I am entirely moral and normal, and like I can support this claim with a substantial body of evidence. I am happy enough to refrain from having any interaction at all with anyone under the age of 18, but I also wouldn't feel bad about having sex with someone as young as 13 or so if I had reasonable belief that doing so would not cause them harm. This is why I suggest sexual certification rather than age of consent, it would allow people to have sex with younger girls in some cases while not being a risk to the ones who can not handle it. As far as CP goes, well, I also have no need for that, and actually have no interest at all in CP for that matter. On the other hand, I fully recognize that it isn't going to hurt anyone if someone looks at pictures on the internet, and I can see that the people saying otherwise are either brainwashed, have ulterior motives, or simply hate pedophiles and others with deviant sexualities, much in the same way that many hate homosexuals.

is that a satisfactory answer?

I've got to say m0rph, your views on CP are very similiar, almost identical in fact, to that of former member, kmfkewm. Why such an abhorent, incidious and repulsive topic even requires discussion is beyond me!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #457 on: February 26, 2014, 11:02:56 am »
You are pretty far behind so most things are going to be beyond you.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #458 on: February 26, 2014, 11:12:42 am »
You are pretty far behind so most things are going to be beyond you.

Thanks champ. What am I pretty far behind?? What is beyond me is why anyone with a shred of decency or morality (obviously not you) would feel the need to contribute anything to such a vile, repugnant topic!!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #459 on: February 26, 2014, 11:29:59 am »
You are pretty far behind so most things are going to be beyond you.

Thanks champ. What am I pretty far behind??

Most things. See, I already told you this and you had to ask again. You were way far behind on that. Try to keep up champ.

Quote
What is beyond me is why anyone with a shred of decency or morality (obviously not you) would feel the need to contribute anything to such a vile, repugnant topic!!

Most things are beyond you because you are slow. You can't keep up. Things zoom past you and then they are way beyond you. You are waaaaay far behind. If I had no decency or morality I would be doing very bad things and getting away with it. I obviously have both, as I am not doing such things. As I already explained, but I wouldn't expect your slow behind ass to keep up with me.

I feel the need to contribute to this topic because it's bullshit that people are restricted from going to websites on the internet in countries that pretend they are all about freedom and freedom of speech in particular. How can USA say with a straight face it is a country with freedom of speech when it is illegal to go to websites that it isn't illegal to go to in Russia? Russia has no restrictions on going to websites that will get you 25 years to life if you get caught going to them in the USA. But yeah USA sure is great with all of its freedom. Freedom to go to prison and be a slave to the prison industrial complex. Freedom to be blatantly brainwashed and manipulated by the power elite obviously. More people in prison in USA than any other country in the entire fucking world by far but they talk about how free they are, brainwashed retards is what they are. And most of the people in prison in USA did non-crimes like drug related crimes, statutory rape with people who are old enough to fuck in half of the world, or going to websites that are legal to view in Russia. It's the land of the police and the home of of the slaves. And UK and Australia are hardly better, people in the UK are more brainwashed by tabloids than anyone in USA is, you guys are seriously foaming at the mouth about pedophiles it just makes you look like rabid animals though and you must be dumber than a bag of fucking bricks to be worked up into such a frenzy by fucking tabloids. You guys to me look just as stupid calling for death of people viewing pictures on the internet as people look to you and me both when they act so afraid of drugs and such. Your entire countries are filled to the brim with brainless drone people who have been cultivated like plants to be slaves of the people who are above you, and you are so set in your brainwashing that nothing will ever wake you up. Just know that you can think poorly of me, but I KNOW that you are fucking retards, and I don't really give a fuck about what you think, because I can just bounce to Uruguay where it's legal to fuck teenagers , no websites are banned from being visited, and I can use whatever drugs I want all day. Have fun in your shit hole countries imprisoning each other and getting on your pseudo moral high horses.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 11:30:36 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #460 on: February 26, 2014, 11:46:19 am »
You are pretty far behind so most things are going to be beyond you.

Thanks champ. What am I pretty far behind??

Most things. See, I already told you this and you had to ask again. You were way far behind on that. Try to keep up champ.

Quote
What is beyond me is why anyone with a shred of decency or morality (obviously not you) would feel the need to contribute anything to such a vile, repugnant topic!!

Most things are beyond you because you are slow. You can't keep up. Things zoom past you and then they are way beyond you. You are waaaaay far behind. If I had no decency or morality I would be doing very bad things and getting away with it. I obviously have both, as I am not doing such things. As I already explained, but I wouldn't expect your slow behind ass to keep up with me.

I feel the need to contribute to this topic because it's bullshit that people are restricted from going to websites on the internet in countries that pretend they are all about freedom and freedom of speech in particular. How can USA say with a straight face it is a country with freedom of speech when it is illegal to go to websites that it isn't illegal to go to in Russia? Russia has no restrictions on going to websites that will get you 25 years to life if you get caught going to them in the USA. But yeah USA sure is great with all of its freedom. Freedom to go to prison and be a slave to the prison industrial complex. Freedom to be blatantly brainwashed and manipulated by the power elite obviously. More people in prison in USA than any other country in the entire fucking world by far but they talk about how free they are, brainwashed retards is what they are. And most of the people in prison in USA did non-crimes like drug related crimes, statutory rape with people who are old enough to fuck in half of the world, or going to websites that are legal to view in Russia. It's the land of the police and the home of of the slaves. And UK and Australia are hardly better, people in the UK are more brainwashed by tabloids than anyone in USA is, you guys are seriously foaming at the mouth about pedophiles it just makes you look like rabid animals though and you must be dumber than a bag of fucking bricks to be worked up into such a frenzy by fucking tabloids. You guys to me look just as stupid calling for death of people viewing pictures on the internet as people look to you and me both when they act so afraid of drugs and such. Your entire countries are filled to the brim with brainless drone people who have been cultivated like plants to be slaves of the people who are above you, and you are so set in your brainwashing that nothing will ever wake you up. Just know that you can think poorly of me, but I KNOW that you are fucking retards, and I don't really give a fuck about what you think, because I can just bounce to Uruguay where it's legal to fuck teenagers , no websites are banned from being visited, and I can use whatever drugs I want all day. Have fun in your shit hole countries imprisoning each other and getting on your pseudo moral high horses.

Wow, you're either kmfkewm or his twin! The only brain dead, illiterate dope I can see here is you, posting your incoherrant, detestable beliefs and thoughts on a topic which would make any sensible, educated person sick to the stomach. Take your ill conceived, immoral theories and shove them where the sun don't shine. I just hope that one day you get what's coming to you cunt. Fuck you!!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #461 on: February 26, 2014, 12:08:03 pm »
Quote
Wow, you're either kmfkewm or his twin! The only brain dead, illiterate dope I can see here is you, posting your incoherrant, detestable beliefs and thoughts on a topic which would make any sensible, educated person sick to the stomach. Take your ill conceived, immoral theories and shove them where the sun don't shine. I just hope that one day you get what's coming to you cunt. Fuck you!!

I will assume that incoherrant is a new word since you seem to think your literacy is beyond mind. I'm not sure exactly what incoherrant means, but it looks really similar to incoherent so I will assume that it has the same meaning. In which case I wonder how you know my incoherent beliefs are detestable. Can you understand what my beliefs are? If so they must be pretty coherent, because you are pretty slow, so if someone as slow as you can figure them out well enough to think that they are detestable, well they must be pretty coherent after all. I wonder if you want to make my thoughts and beliefs illegal to have. Maybe you can get some police agency to go after people with my thoughts and beliefs. You can call them the thought police. They can also go after people who look at images, which are essentially thoughts. Visual thoughts are images after all. Should it be illegal to fantasize about molesting children? I mean, cartoons of it are already illegal, why not go all the way? Lack of ability to read the minds of people? Is the lack of ability to read thoughts remotely the only thing that prevents you from calling for the formation of the thought police?

Ill conceived seems like a stretch, I have more citations than anyone. And my citations are to real studies. Real science that doesn't rely on the bullshit of social sciences in many cases, such as phallometric studies to prove that typical males are attracted to girls as young as 12 years old. Your citations to The Police and The Sex Offender Processing Community are about as meaningful to me as citations to NIDA studies on drugs or the words of DEA agents or substance abuse counselors. They are all bullshit and obvious propaganda that would only convince a brain dead retard such as yourself. Point in case, you are a retard and you are convinced, I am not and I am not, anecdotal evidence certainly but it's more evidence than you have presented to disprove anything I have said!

PS: Do people in the UK say cunt like dogs go bark? Is there some spin toy for children with a picture of someone with horrible dental care and a dazed look on his face, and if the arrow lands on him it says "what does the retard in the UK say?" followed by "Cunt ! Cunt!" ? I imagine there must be such a toy because I don't think I have talked to someone from the UK for more than five seconds without hearing them use the word cunt. Sometimes I wonder if it is the only word you guys are capable of learning, like dogs don't have very big vocabularies at all but you can expect them to know "bark", I feel the same is roughly true for people who live in the UK but their word is "cunt". The only exception is "vile" a word that has clearly been impressed onto your brain via your dedicated reading of tabloids! Isn't it strange that your tabloids used to regularly feature topless pictures of girls as young as 16 years old, but now only a few years after that was prohibited they refer to such pictures as vile and abusive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3

Wow such a rapid change since 2003, the tabloids that brainwashed you went from featuring count downs to girls 16th birthdays to show off naked pictures of them, and now they call people who look at such pictures vile pedophiles. And you guys eat it up! Truly I believe that you have no brain at all and live more like a wild animal than what I have come to consider a human.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #462 on: February 26, 2014, 12:21:57 pm »
And seriously, if I am so horrible I can't even imagine what you guys think of the people who actually molest and rape children or even teenagers. You should really make sure to not consider me the lowest of the low or lacking entirely in morality, because that would imply that there is no difference between me and someone who actually does victimize people. And if there is no difference between me and someone who via coercion takes advantage of people, I suppose that I may as well take advantage of people and live in the most hedonistic fashion, seeing as I am intrinsically tainted and have already achieved a state of immorality such that none are more immoral than I am. I really am amazed to hear the people who argue that there is no difference between someone who looks at images of child abuse (or even says it shouldn't be a crime to do so!) and someone who abuses children. I bet there are hundreds of thousands of happy children out there who would beg to differ with you, in that they are much happier not being molested than they would be if they were molested by someone who did not molest children but looked at images of child molestation (or said it shouldn't be a crime to do so!). How fortunate that I am not as stupid as you are to think that there is any validity to your judgement. 
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #463 on: February 26, 2014, 12:35:56 pm »
Quote
Wow, you're either kmfkewm or his twin! The only brain dead, illiterate dope I can see here is you, posting your incoherrant, detestable beliefs and thoughts on a topic which would make any sensible, educated person sick to the stomach. Take your ill conceived, immoral theories and shove them where the sun don't shine. I just hope that one day you get what's coming to you cunt. Fuck you!!

I will assume that incoherrant is a new word since you seem to think your literacy is beyond mind. I'm not sure exactly what incoherrant means, but it looks really similar to incoherent so I will assume that it has the same meaning. In which case I wonder how you know my incoherent beliefs are detestable. Can you understand what my beliefs are? If so they must be pretty coherent, because you are pretty slow, so if someone as slow as you can figure them out well enough to think that they are detestable, well they must be pretty coherent after all. I wonder if you want to make my thoughts and beliefs illegal to have. Maybe you can get some police agency to go after people with my thoughts and beliefs. You can call them the thought police. They can also go after people who look at images, which are essentially thoughts. Visual thoughts are images after all. Should it be illegal to fantasize about molesting children? I mean, cartoons of it are already illegal, why not go all the way? Lack of ability to read the minds of people? Is the lack of ability to read thoughts remotely the only thing that prevents you from calling for the formation of the thought police?

Ill conceived seems like a stretch, I have more citations than anyone. And my citations are to real studies. Real science that doesn't rely on the bullshit of social sciences in many cases, such as phallometric studies to prove that typical males are attracted to girls as young as 12 years old. Your citations to The Police and The Sex Offender Processing Community are about as meaningful to me as citations to NIDA studies on drugs or the words of DEA agents or substance abuse counselors. They are all bullshit and obvious propaganda that would only convince a brain dead retard such as yourself. Point in case, you are a retard and you are convinced, I am not and I am not, anecdotal evidence certainly but it's more evidence than you have presented to disprove anything I have said!

PS: Do people in the UK say cunt like dogs go bark? Is there some spin toy for children with a picture of someone with horrible dental care and a dazed look on his face, and if the arrow lands on him it says "what does the retard in the UK say?" followed by "Cunt ! Cunt!" ? I imagine there must be such a toy because I don't think I have talked to someone from the UK for more than five seconds without hearing them use the word cunt. Sometimes I wonder if it is the only word you guys are capable of learning, like dogs don't have very big vocabularies at all but you can expect them to know "bark", I feel the same is roughly true for people who live in the UK but their word is "cunt". The only exception is "vile" a word that has clearly been impressed onto your brain via your dedicated reading of tabloids! Isn't it strange that your tabloids used to regularly feature topless pictures of girls as young as 16 years old, but now only a few years after that was prohibited they refer to such pictures as vile and abusive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3

Wow such a rapid change since 2003, the tabloids that brainwashed you went from featuring count downs to girls 16th birthdays to show off naked pictures of them, and now they call people who look at such pictures vile pedophiles. And you guys eat it up! Truly I believe that you have no brain at all and live more like a wild animal than what I have come to consider a human.

You're kmfkewm for sure. The very fact that you are here trying to justify the actions and morbid mentality of a pedophile tells me that you are one fucked up prick! I don't care if you want to catagorize pedophiles champ. A pedophile is a pedophile, full stop!! It doesn't matter what you do, whether engaging sexually with a child or looking at sexually explicit pictures of children, you're still a fucking low life pedophile, the scum of the earth. You're no human being cunt, just a vile, perverse oxygen thief who I'd love to see rot in prison!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

sweettganjababe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Karma: +15/-16
  • never give up and never back down
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #464 on: February 26, 2014, 12:52:06 pm »
THEY FOUND A CURE FOR ALL PEDOPHILES , AAAA FUCKING SHOTGUN TO THE HEAD

BEST CURE , THINK ALL PEDOS SHOULD GO SEEK THE CURE ASAP
hydro hybrid
master kush  in supply
http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/sweettganjababe

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #465 on: February 26, 2014, 12:56:23 pm »
THEY FOUND A CURE FOR ALL PEDOPHILES , AAAA FUCKING SHOTGUN TO THE HEAD

BEST CURE , THINK ALL PEDOS SHOULD GO SEEK THE CURE ASAP

+1. m0rph and all his pedophile mates should go and be cured. I'll gladly pay the costs to make it happen!!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #466 on: February 26, 2014, 01:51:26 pm »
So essentially you argue that it makes no difference if I molest children or instead look at pictures of child pornography, in either case I am equally immoral and vile and the scum of the earth and in need of immediate castration and killing with a shotgun?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #467 on: February 26, 2014, 05:03:00 pm »
So essentially you argue that it makes no difference if I molest children or instead look at pictures of child pornography, in either case I am equally immoral and vile and the scum of the earth and in need of immediate castration and killing with a shotgun?

yes! that is a good idea. You should be castrated and afterwards sodimized. I might feel just a wee bit bad for chomo’s if they admitted they had a problem that they can’t control. But as I have seen the pedo’s of the world have this since of entitlement to our precious younglings. I can no way relate to checking out 12 yro’s because I dig WOMEN with juicy rip curves that can handle their shit in life. Not someone that I have to tutor on life issues. Maybe its like a power thing for you because no real woman will let you have any power. Or maybe you feel you’re to smart for real woman and have to lower your standards for highschoolers.

In the words of Yo Gotti….. “Im Lebron James and you’re a fcking rookie” when it comes to woman because you’re still in little league
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

The Red Baron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +43/-17
  • Ve vill deztroy our enemiz mein comarades!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #468 on: February 26, 2014, 06:18:22 pm »
So essentially you argue that it makes no difference if I molest children or instead look at pictures of child pornography, in either case I am equally immoral and vile and the scum of the earth and in need of immediate castration and killing with a shotgun?

yes! that is a good idea. You should be castrated and afterwards sodimized. I might feel just a wee bit bad for chomo’s if they admitted they had a problem that they can’t control. But as I have seen the pedo’s of the world have this since of entitlement to our precious younglings. I can no way relate to checking out 12 yro’s because I dig WOMEN with juicy rip curves that can handle their shit in life. Not someone that I have to tutor on life issues. Maybe its like a power thing for you because no real woman will let you have any power. Or maybe you feel you’re to smart for real woman and have to lower your standards for highschoolers.

In the words of Yo Gotti….. “Im Lebron James and you’re a fcking rookie” when it comes to woman because you’re still in little league


oh snap! :)
10, 20, 30, 40 ,50 or more, the mighty Red Baron, is rollin out the score.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #469 on: February 26, 2014, 06:47:11 pm »
So essentially you argue that it makes no difference if I molest children or instead look at pictures of child pornography, in either case I am equally immoral and vile and the scum of the earth and in need of immediate castration and killing with a shotgun?

There isn't a class of pedophile dip shit! You're a pedophile if you engage in anything sexual where children are involved. Photos of child porn are taken when a child is being molested by a filthy, disgusting, low life creature such as yourself, thus providing reading material for sick fucks like yourself. I don't give a fuck about how you justify things in your sick, demented brain,,the fact is you're a sick pathetic excuse for a human being if you exploit children in any way, shape or form, including looking at child porn photos!! I still believe that you are kmfkewm as your warped views on the subject are identical!!
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 06:48:41 pm by The Jigsaw Puzzle »
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #470 on: February 26, 2014, 07:15:18 pm »
using signs of sexual, physical and mental maturity as your distinguishing criteria may make it unlikely that you would be especially attracted to average 12 year olds, but it doesn't rule out 13 year olds, or especially 14 year olds as they are generally at peak sexual maturity before they are done being 14. It looks like there is roughly slightly less than a ten pound difference between the average 14 year old female and the average 20 year old female: http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

From the same source we can see that the average height difference is roughly 1 inch. We can also see that depending on the percentile, 12 to 20 year olds can be roughly equivalent in height and weight, in that a 12 year old in the 95th percentile is taller and heavier than a 20 year old in the 50th percentile.

Quote
Stage five represents the fully matured girl (usually around ages 14 to 17, though not uncommonly up to age 19) who has passed through all preceding stages of puberty. The girl has likely reached her maximum adult height by this time. Breasts have likely reached their full size, and pubic hair is fully developed. Periods and ovulation occur regularly. The cardiovascular, skeletal and muscle systems are all fully developed.

That shows that stage 5 can be reached at age 14. The average age of stage 5 being reached is actually ~14.5 according to many reference tanner scales. Tanner scale is partially bullshit though as the ages vary fairly significantly depending on the reference you find. Also, actually ~25% of females never progress past stage 4 traits (breasts are included in the citation) as according to this forensic evaluation:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/4/e978.full

Quote
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Forensic testimony in alleged child pornography cases commonly asserts that Tanner stage (TS) 4 breast development, characterized by secondary mounding of the areola that is obliterated in TS 5, is evidence of age <18 years. Clinical experience does not support this notion, but there are no relevant studies. We sought to estimate how frequently TS 4 might be interpreted from nonclinical images by individual forensic experts.

METHOD: Published images of 547 adult women were independently examined by the authors and classified as having TS 4 or TS 5 breast development.

RESULTS: There was concordance among all 4 of the examiners for 17 of the images, agreement of 3 of the examiners on another 36 images, of 2 examiners on 39 images, and 53 images were designated TS 4 by only 1 examiner, for a total of 153 (26.5%) images that could have been considered by a single forensic expert to represent TS 4.

CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of adults have persistent TS 4 breast development. This observation, and the frequent difficulty distinguishing TS 4 from TS 5, even by adolescent development specialists, especially in nonclinical images, renders testimony based on this distinction invalid. Without clinical relevance for distinguishing these advanced stages of breast development, they should both be considered indicative of full maturation. Testimony based on this inappropriate test of maturity should no longer be allowed.

You can say believably I suppose that your primary attraction is to girls older, on average anyway, than 12 year olds. Once we get to 13 year olds though your argument is much less persuasive, as the ability to differentiate between members randomly selected from the group of average 13 year olds and members randomly selected from the group of average 18 year olds is so low that even forensic specialists cannot do it reliably from visual information alone. It also cannot be done reliably with adult IQ testing:

Age --- Average Adult IQ at time of test

1----6.25
2----12.5
3---18.75 <--- this and below is profoundly retarded
4---25
5---31.25 <---- this and below is severely retarded
6---37.5
7---43.75
8---50     <----- this and below is moderately retarded
9---56.25
10---62.5
11---68.75 <------ this and below is mildly retarded
12---75 <----- this is borderline retarded
13---81.25 <---this and above is not intellectually disabled
14---87.5
15---93.75
16 + ---- 100

as you can see, average 13 year olds are in the normal range of intelligence for average 18 year olds. This is also in contrast to average 12 year olds, who would be, on average, considered as borderline retarded, if they were 18.

I tried to find reference for waist to hip ratio in young teenage females but only was able to find charts starting at 20 years and older.

Actually it's quite likely that you would still be fully (rather than partially) attracted to some later 12 year olds. As previously demonstrated, about 25% of adult females retain tanner stage 4 sexual characteristics. Tanner stage 4 is reached, according to this chart, on average at age 12.9. So the average female reaches a stage of sexual development that 25% of adult females will not surpass before they turn 13 years old. Also, from the height and weight chart, you can see that a female who is 12 years old in the 75th percentile is taller and heavier than a 20 year old in the 25th percentile. So a bigger 12 year old could have sexual development indistinguishable from a smaller 20 year old, height and weight indistinguishable from a smaller 20 year old, and even intelligence in the normal range of a 20 year old if the 12 year old is a bit smarter than average and the 20 year old is on the lower end of normal.

one reference chart for stage 4:

Quote
    Breast
        Areolae forms secondary mound on the Breast
        Age: 12.9 years (10.5-15.3 years)
    Pubic Hair
        Hair of adult quality
        No spread to junction of medial thigh with perineum
        Age: 12.6 years (10.4-14.8 years)


Pretty much your ability to tell "children" apart from adults is going to start plummeting at around age 12. A girl could be a hotter 20 year old or an average 13 year old, or a girl could be an older looking 13 year old or a normal 20 year old!
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 08:14:14 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #471 on: February 26, 2014, 07:36:32 pm »
Quote
There isn't a class of pedophile dip shit!

Oh I totally agree, there isn't a single class of pedophile but rather there are classes of pedophilia. Some pedophiles are completely delusional and believe it is fine to rape little children, other pedophiles recognize that it isn't good to do this. Even the police have different classification systems for pedophiles. Lumping is very frequently used by idiots though, so don't worry it is entirely expected of you to fail to precisely categorize things.

Quote
You're a pedophile if you engage in anything sexual where children are involved.

Hell that isn't even required to be a pedophile according to most of the mental health standards. Let's see exactly what it takes to be considered a pedophile

Quote
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Just need urges to be a pedophile. Note that specifically the urges need to be toward someone who is prepubescent, which automatically disqualifies me from being diagnoses as a pedophile as I have no urges for prepubescent children. Also note that attraction to pubescents of any age is not considered to be a mental disorder, so according to the psychiatrists of the world I have no mental disorder in having attraction to people the ages I do. But I'm sure an illiterate fucktard from the UK is *MUCH* more capable of diagnosing people with mental disorders than the entire mental health community of the full entire world, which flat out rejected that sexual attraction to pubescent is abnormal and essentially told the people who proposed it as a mental disorder to fuck off.

Quote
Photos of child porn are taken when a child is being molested by a filthy, disgusting, low life creature

In many cases this is true. Lots of pictures of what some people call child porn are also taken when slutty high school freshmen take pictures of themselves flashing their mirrors with their cellphone cameras too though. I'd say that probably the majority of child porn is at least slightly coercive though (in that even if the subject self produced the photograph, in many cases they didn't intend for it to be widely distributed I imagine), and of course the worst of it is just disgustingly so. In any case I don't see your point in particular.

Quote
such as yourself, thus providing reading material for sick fucks like yourself.

I'm not sure I would consider it to be reading material but I'm not at all surprised that you think of pictures when you think of reading, considering your general level of intelligence. But in any case, I am sure that it is better for pedophiles to read about child molestation than it is for them to molest children. If 50 pedophiles jack off to one child being abused isn't it better than 50 children being abused to satiate the same number of pedophiles? Especially when you take into account the fact that simply viewing images of child abuse contributes to child abuse about as much as looking at pictures of the holocaust contributes to war crimes.

Quote
I don't give a fuck about how you justify things in your sick, demented brain,,the fact is you're a sick pathetic excuse for a human being if you exploit children in any way, shape or form, including looking at child porn photos!! I still believe that you are kmfkewm as your warped views on the subject are identical!!

Wow it's so great that I am not a brainwashed retard like you. How incredibly fortunate! Believe me if I thought all retards were the same person I could accuse you of being over half the posters on this forum.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #472 on: February 26, 2014, 08:35:51 pm »
using signs of sexual maturity as your distinguishing criteria may make it unlikely that you would be especially attracted to 12 year olds but it doesn't rule out 14 year olds as they are generally at peak sexual maturity before they are done being 14. It looks like there is roughly slightly less than a ten pound difference between the average 14 year old female and the average 20 year old female: http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

From the same source we can see that the average height difference is roughly 1 inch. We can also see that depending on the percentile, 12 to 20 year olds can be roughly equivalent in height and weight, in that a 12 year old in the 95th percentile is taller and heavier than a 20 year old in the 50th percentile.

Quote
Stage five represents the fully matured girl (usually around ages 14 to 17, though not uncommonly up to age 19) who has passed through all preceding stages of puberty. The girl has likely reached her maximum adult height by this time. Breasts have likely reached their full size, and pubic hair is fully developed. Periods and ovulation occur regularly. The cardiovascular, skeletal and muscle systems are all fully developed.

That shows that stage 5 can be reached at age 14. The average age of stage 5 being reached is actually ~14.5 according to many reference tanner scales. Tanner scale is partially bullshit though as the ages vary fairly significantly depending on the reference you find. Also, actually ~25% of females never progress past stage 4 traits (breasts are included in the citation) as according to this forensic evaluation:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/4/e978.full

Quote
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Forensic testimony in alleged child pornography cases commonly asserts that Tanner stage (TS) 4 breast development, characterized by secondary mounding of the areola that is obliterated in TS 5, is evidence of age <18 years. Clinical experience does not support this notion, but there are no relevant studies. We sought to estimate how frequently TS 4 might be interpreted from nonclinical images by individual forensic experts.

METHOD: Published images of 547 adult women were independently examined by the authors and classified as having TS 4 or TS 5 breast development.

RESULTS: There was concordance among all 4 of the examiners for 17 of the images, agreement of 3 of the examiners on another 36 images, of 2 examiners on 39 images, and 53 images were designated TS 4 by only 1 examiner, for a total of 153 (26.5%) images that could have been considered by a single forensic expert to represent TS 4.

CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of adults have persistent TS 4 breast development. This observation, and the frequent difficulty distinguishing TS 4 from TS 5, even by adolescent development specialists, especially in nonclinical images, renders testimony based on this distinction invalid. Without clinical relevance for distinguishing these advanced stages of breast development, they should both be considered indicative of full maturation. Testimony based on this inappropriate test of maturity should no longer be allowed.

You can say believably I suppose that your primary attraction is to girls older than 12 or 13 years old, although it is quite likely that you are still sexually aroused by both 12 and 13 year old girls. Once we get to 14 year olds though your argument is much less persuasive, as the ability to differentiate between the group of 14 year olds and the group of 18 year olds is so low that even forensic specialists cannot do it accurately from visual information alone. It also cannot be done reliably with adult IQ testing:

Age --- Average Adult IQ at time of test

1----6.25
2----12.5
3---18.75 <--- this and below is profoundly retarded
4---25
5---31.25 <---- this and below is severely retarded
6---37.5
7---43.75
8---50     <----- this and below is moderately retarded
9---56.25
10---62.5
11---68.75 <------ this and below is mildly retarded
12---75 <----- this is borderline retarded
13---81.25 <---this and above is not intellectually disabled
14---87.5
15---93.75
16 + ---- 100

as you can see, average 14 year olds are in the normal range of intelligence for average 18 year olds, they are not a standard deviation away from adult average. This is also in contrast to average 12 year olds, who are exactly one standard deviation away from average adults, and would be on average considered as borderline retarded if they were 18.

I tried to find reference for waist to hip ratio in young teenage females but only was able to find charts starting at 20 years and older.

The more I read your posts, especially this last one, where you make an attempt to justify your twisted views by quoting a study that was done somewhere in the world or stating that a country has different laws to the majority of western countries, leads me to believe that you are the former low life pedophile, kmfkewm. You are devoid of any morality or compassion for the children who find themselves in these frightening situations and are fueled by a distorted, abhorrent take on reality. The more I read, the more convinced I've become. Your reasoning, views, beliefs, the length and detail of your posts on this disgusting topic and others throughout the forum relating to CP, Security and Libertarian views, the phrasing of your posts and the way you try and justify your actions/beliefs by outlining how all those who don't agree with you are unable to comprehend "your" logic for doing what you do. Kmfkewm was very passionate about his views on CP , Libertarianism and Security related topics and you seem to fit that bill perfectly. There wouldn't be many people around with his passion on the subject of CP, especially someone who feels they need to explain every little detail to help justify their actions to others.  There were some other dick heads from the SR1 forums who supported the view of kmfkewm, but none of them would engage in such long, laborious posts, attempting to change the beliefs of others who disagreed with their warped and distorted views. There's nothing he or any other low life creature could say or do that will justify the rape and sexual molestation of children, including looking at or exchanging CP photos. I believe m0rph is kmfkewm or his identical twin.

This comment below by you sums it all up for me. You need a Mental Health Standard to realize that engaging in any sexual activities with a child is WRONG! You're a pathetic excuse for a human being!

Quote
  You're a pedophile if you engage in anything sexual where children are involved.

                                                  and your response to that is -

Quote
  Hell that isn't even required to be a pedophile according to most of the mental health standards. Let's see exactly what it takes to be considered a pedophile 
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #473 on: February 26, 2014, 10:33:54 pm »
M0rph must be a punk ass little bitch that wets his pants when he walks next to a real woman. I guess it must be tough when you’re realize that you’re not on my level because the when I fck a woman they know how to handle a man. The chicks you dig can only handle a little boy… ahah is your mom proud of her son for creeping around high schools for dates. It must be great thanksgiving/Christmas talks. Aww to only be a fly on the wall when your dad tries to explain “leave those younglings alone son”. I makes me feel a little better after I just came to realization of how pathetic your life is because your dick only fits in really really small chotca.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #474 on: February 26, 2014, 11:43:52 pm »
Thanks champ. What am I pretty far behind?? What is beyond me is why anyone with a shred of decency or morality (obviously not you) would feel the need to contribute anything to such a vile, repugnant topic!!

You're unable to understand why you're contributing to this topic?

So essentially you argue that it makes no difference if I molest children or instead look at pictures of child pornography, in either case I am equally immoral and vile and the scum of the earth and in need of immediate castration and killing with a shotgun?
There isn't a class of pedophile dip shit! You're a pedophile if you engage in anything sexual where children are involved.…

So you're suggesting that it doesn't matter what people do, only the broad labels that are attached to them? That seems a terrible argument to me.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

sweettganjababe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Karma: +15/-16
  • never give up and never back down
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #475 on: February 27, 2014, 01:41:19 am »
So essentially you argue that it makes no difference if I molest children or instead look at pictures of child pornography, in either case I am equally immoral and vile and the scum of the earth and in need of immediate castration and killing with a shotgun?

u guys dont have a problem , u are the problem and the only way to fix a problem like is CUT THE FUCKING THROAT , THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE IN SOMEONE MOLESTING OR WATCHING CHILD PORN , WHEN U WATCH CHILD PORN U ENCURAGE MORE SCUM BAGS TO DO AWFUL THINGS TO LITTLE KIDS SO BASICALLY U ADD TO THE PROBLEM

THERE IS NO EXCUSE ANYONE WHO , WHO HURTS ,RAPES ,TORTURES OR KILLS WOMEN , THE ELDERLY AND CHILDREN HAS NO PLACE ON EARTH ,AS I HAVE STATED JUST BY WATCHING CHILD PORN U ENCURAGE MORE RAPE AND TORTURE TO CHILDREN
SO GO KNOCK YOUR SELF OFF , PROBABLY THE ONLY HUMANE THING U CAN DO

I KNOW MANY MANYYYY RAUGH BLOKES IN AUSTRALIA WHO ACTUALLY GO AROUND LOOKING FOR PEDOS AND DO WHATS GOT TO BE DONE
GOD BLESS THEM
hydro hybrid
master kush  in supply
http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/sweettganjababe

metro

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +6/-3
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #476 on: February 27, 2014, 02:28:29 am »
using signs of sexual maturity as your distinguishing criteria may make it unlikely that you would be especially attracted to 12 year olds but it doesn't rule out 14 year olds as they are generally at peak sexual maturity before they are done being 14. It looks like there is roughly slightly less than a ten pound difference between the average 14 year old female and the average 20 year old female: http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

From the same source we can see that the average height difference is roughly 1 inch. We can also see that depending on the percentile, 12 to 20 year olds can be roughly equivalent in height and weight, in that a 12 year old in the 95th percentile is taller and heavier than a 20 year old in the 50th percentile.

Quote
Stage five represents the fully matured girl (usually around ages 14 to 17, though not uncommonly up to age 19) who has passed through all preceding stages of puberty. The girl has likely reached her maximum adult height by this time. Breasts have likely reached their full size, and pubic hair is fully developed. Periods and ovulation occur regularly. The cardiovascular, skeletal and muscle systems are all fully developed.

That shows that stage 5 can be reached at age 14. The average age of stage 5 being reached is actually ~14.5 according to many reference tanner scales. Tanner scale is partially bullshit though as the ages vary fairly significantly depending on the reference you find. Also, actually ~25% of females never progress past stage 4 traits (breasts are included in the citation) as according to this forensic evaluation:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/4/e978.full

Quote
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Forensic testimony in alleged child pornography cases commonly asserts that Tanner stage (TS) 4 breast development, characterized by secondary mounding of the areola that is obliterated in TS 5, is evidence of age <18 years. Clinical experience does not support this notion, but there are no relevant studies. We sought to estimate how frequently TS 4 might be interpreted from nonclinical images by individual forensic experts.

METHOD: Published images of 547 adult women were independently examined by the authors and classified as having TS 4 or TS 5 breast development.

RESULTS: There was concordance among all 4 of the examiners for 17 of the images, agreement of 3 of the examiners on another 36 images, of 2 examiners on 39 images, and 53 images were designated TS 4 by only 1 examiner, for a total of 153 (26.5%) images that could have been considered by a single forensic expert to represent TS 4.

CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of adults have persistent TS 4 breast development. This observation, and the frequent difficulty distinguishing TS 4 from TS 5, even by adolescent development specialists, especially in nonclinical images, renders testimony based on this distinction invalid. Without clinical relevance for distinguishing these advanced stages of breast development, they should both be considered indicative of full maturation. Testimony based on this inappropriate test of maturity should no longer be allowed.

You can say believably I suppose that your primary attraction is to girls older than 12 or 13 years old, although it is quite likely that you are still sexually aroused by both 12 and 13 year old girls. Once we get to 14 year olds though your argument is much less persuasive, as the ability to differentiate between the group of 14 year olds and the group of 18 year olds is so low that even forensic specialists cannot do it accurately from visual information alone. It also cannot be done reliably with adult IQ testing:

Age --- Average Adult IQ at time of test

1----6.25
2----12.5
3---18.75 <--- this and below is profoundly retarded
4---25
5---31.25 <---- this and below is severely retarded
6---37.5
7---43.75
8---50     <----- this and below is moderately retarded
9---56.25
10---62.5
11---68.75 <------ this and below is mildly retarded
12---75 <----- this is borderline retarded
13---81.25 <---this and above is not intellectually disabled
14---87.5
15---93.75
16 + ---- 100

as you can see, average 14 year olds are in the normal range of intelligence for average 18 year olds, they are not a standard deviation away from adult average. This is also in contrast to average 12 year olds, who are exactly one standard deviation away from average adults, and would be on average considered as borderline retarded if they were 18.

I tried to find reference for waist to hip ratio in young teenage females but only was able to find charts starting at 20 years and older.

The more I read your posts, especially this last one, where you make an attempt to justify your twisted views by quoting a study that was done somewhere in the world or stating that a country has different laws to the majority of western countries, leads me to believe that you are the former low life pedophile, kmfkewm. You are devoid of any morality or compassion for the children who find themselves in these frightening situations and are fueled by a distorted, abhorrent take on reality. The more I read, the more convinced I've become. Your reasoning, views, beliefs, the length and detail of your posts on this disgusting topic and others throughout the forum relating to CP, Security and Libertarian views, the phrasing of your posts and the way you try and justify your actions/beliefs by outlining how all those who don't agree with you are unable to comprehend "your" logic for doing what you do. Kmfkewm was very passionate about his views on CP , Libertarianism and Security related topics and you seem to fit that bill perfectly. There wouldn't be many people around with his passion on the subject of CP, especially someone who feels they need to explain every little detail to help justify their actions to others.  There were some other dick heads from the SR1 forums who supported the view of kmfkewm, but none of them would engage in such long, laborious posts, attempting to change the beliefs of others who disagreed with their warped and distorted views. There's nothing he or any other low life creature could say or do that will justify the rape and sexual molestation of children, including looking at or exchanging CP photos. I believe m0rph is kmfkewm or his identical twin.

This comment below by you sums it all up for me. You need a Mental Health Standard to realize that engaging in any sexual activities with a child is WRONG! You're a pathetic excuse for a human being!

Quote
  You're a pedophile if you engage in anything sexual where children are involved.

                                                  and your response to that is -

Quote
  Hell that isn't even required to be a pedophile according to most of the mental health standards. Let's see exactly what it takes to be considered a pedophile 

Since it seems you and others here require that the obvious be pointed out to you....This thread is actually more about censorship, control and freedom than it is about CP.
That is what it's about to those in power who understand how to use emotion to their advantage.
Technology is making censorship of digital images tougher and in turn will require more control by those in power.
Will you be among those that beg your masters to "do something" about it or will you finaly realize that you're playing into their hands yet again?
Fuck your laws

The Red Baron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +43/-17
  • Ve vill deztroy our enemiz mein comarades!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #477 on: February 27, 2014, 07:30:17 am »
using signs of sexual maturity as your distinguishing criteria may make it unlikely that you would be especially attracted to 12 year olds but it doesn't rule out 14 year olds as they are generally at peak sexual maturity before they are done being 14. It looks like there is roughly slightly less than a ten pound difference between the average 14 year old female and the average 20 year old female: http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

From the same source we can see that the average height difference is roughly 1 inch. We can also see that depending on the percentile, 12 to 20 year olds can be roughly equivalent in height and weight, in that a 12 year old in the 95th percentile is taller and heavier than a 20 year old in the 50th percentile.

Quote
Stage five represents the fully matured girl (usually around ages 14 to 17, though not uncommonly up to age 19) who has passed through all preceding stages of puberty. The girl has likely reached her maximum adult height by this time. Breasts have likely reached their full size, and pubic hair is fully developed. Periods and ovulation occur regularly. The cardiovascular, skeletal and muscle systems are all fully developed.

That shows that stage 5 can be reached at age 14. The average age of stage 5 being reached is actually ~14.5 according to many reference tanner scales. Tanner scale is partially bullshit though as the ages vary fairly significantly depending on the reference you find. Also, actually ~25% of females never progress past stage 4 traits (breasts are included in the citation) as according to this forensic evaluation:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/4/e978.full

Quote
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Forensic testimony in alleged child pornography cases commonly asserts that Tanner stage (TS) 4 breast development, characterized by secondary mounding of the areola that is obliterated in TS 5, is evidence of age <18 years. Clinical experience does not support this notion, but there are no relevant studies. We sought to estimate how frequently TS 4 might be interpreted from nonclinical images by individual forensic experts.

METHOD: Published images of 547 adult women were independently examined by the authors and classified as having TS 4 or TS 5 breast development.

RESULTS: There was concordance among all 4 of the examiners for 17 of the images, agreement of 3 of the examiners on another 36 images, of 2 examiners on 39 images, and 53 images were designated TS 4 by only 1 examiner, for a total of 153 (26.5%) images that could have been considered by a single forensic expert to represent TS 4.

CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of adults have persistent TS 4 breast development. This observation, and the frequent difficulty distinguishing TS 4 from TS 5, even by adolescent development specialists, especially in nonclinical images, renders testimony based on this distinction invalid. Without clinical relevance for distinguishing these advanced stages of breast development, they should both be considered indicative of full maturation. Testimony based on this inappropriate test of maturity should no longer be allowed.

You can say believably I suppose that your primary attraction is to girls older than 12 or 13 years old, although it is quite likely that you are still sexually aroused by both 12 and 13 year old girls. Once we get to 14 year olds though your argument is much less persuasive, as the ability to differentiate between the group of 14 year olds and the group of 18 year olds is so low that even forensic specialists cannot do it accurately from visual information alone. It also cannot be done reliably with adult IQ testing:

Age --- Average Adult IQ at time of test

1----6.25
2----12.5
3---18.75 <--- this and below is profoundly retarded
4---25
5---31.25 <---- this and below is severely retarded
6---37.5
7---43.75
8---50     <----- this and below is moderately retarded
9---56.25
10---62.5
11---68.75 <------ this and below is mildly retarded
12---75 <----- this is borderline retarded
13---81.25 <---this and above is not intellectually disabled
14---87.5
15---93.75
16 + ---- 100

as you can see, average 14 year olds are in the normal range of intelligence for average 18 year olds, they are not a standard deviation away from adult average. This is also in contrast to average 12 year olds, who are exactly one standard deviation away from average adults, and would be on average considered as borderline retarded if they were 18.

I tried to find reference for waist to hip ratio in young teenage females but only was able to find charts starting at 20 years and older.

The more I read your posts, especially this last one, where you make an attempt to justify your twisted views by quoting a study that was done somewhere in the world or stating that a country has different laws to the majority of western countries, leads me to believe that you are the former low life pedophile, kmfkewm. You are devoid of any morality or compassion for the children who find themselves in these frightening situations and are fueled by a distorted, abhorrent take on reality. The more I read, the more convinced I've become. Your reasoning, views, beliefs, the length and detail of your posts on this disgusting topic and others throughout the forum relating to CP, Security and Libertarian views, the phrasing of your posts and the way you try and justify your actions/beliefs by outlining how all those who don't agree with you are unable to comprehend "your" logic for doing what you do. Kmfkewm was very passionate about his views on CP , Libertarianism and Security related topics and you seem to fit that bill perfectly. There wouldn't be many people around with his passion on the subject of CP, especially someone who feels they need to explain every little detail to help justify their actions to others.  There were some other dick heads from the SR1 forums who supported the view of kmfkewm, but none of them would engage in such long, laborious posts, attempting to change the beliefs of others who disagreed with their warped and distorted views. There's nothing he or any other low life creature could say or do that will justify the rape and sexual molestation of children, including looking at or exchanging CP photos. I believe m0rph is kmfkewm or his identical twin.

This comment below by you sums it all up for me. You need a Mental Health Standard to realize that engaging in any sexual activities with a child is WRONG! You're a pathetic excuse for a human being!

Quote
  You're a pedophile if you engage in anything sexual where children are involved.

                                                  and your response to that is -

Quote
  Hell that isn't even required to be a pedophile according to most of the mental health standards. Let's see exactly what it takes to be considered a pedophile 

Since it seems you and others here require that the obvious be pointed out to you....This thread is actually more about censorship, control and freedom than it is about CP.
That is what it's about to those in power who understand how to use emotion to their advantage.
Technology is making censorship of digital images tougher and in turn will require more control by those in power.
Will you be among those that beg your masters to "do something" about it or will you finaly realize that you're playing into their hands yet again?

seriously m0rph, or merge, or kmfkewn or Cornelius or whatever label you want to give yourself take the hint and fuck off out of here like we have all told you to so many times before and if we could have our way with you the same as you want to or DO, with kids, you would have your entrails cut out and be hanging from a tree!

think Braveheart's end scene and then multiply that by a factor of 1000 and that is what we would do to you and all of those like you you fucking scumbag piece of shit!
10, 20, 30, 40 ,50 or more, the mighty Red Baron, is rollin out the score.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #478 on: February 27, 2014, 08:14:29 am »
seriously m0rph, or merge, or kmfkewn or Cornelius or whatever label you want to give yourself take the hint and fuck off out of here like we have all told you to so many times before and if we could have our way with you the same as you want to or DO, with kids, you would have your entrails cut out and be hanging from a tree!

Me? I can assure you I'm not any of those other people, nor anyone else on these forums other than myself. And I don't want to do anything with kids. Really. I don't like being around children. I have enough difficulty with adults :)

think Braveheart's end scene and then multiply that by a factor of 1000 and that is what we would do to you and all of those like you you fucking scumbag piece of shit!

Are you referring to any specific "we" there?
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #479 on: February 27, 2014, 09:15:27 am »
So essentially you argue that it makes no difference if I molest children or instead look at pictures of child pornography, in either case I am equally immoral and vile and the scum of the earth and in need of immediate castration and killing with a shotgun?

u guys dont have a problem , u are the problem and the only way to fix a problem like is CUT THE FUCKING THROAT , THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE IN SOMEONE MOLESTING OR WATCHING CHILD PORN , WHEN U WATCH CHILD PORN U ENCURAGE MORE SCUM BAGS TO DO AWFUL THINGS TO LITTLE KIDS SO BASICALLY U ADD TO THE PROBLEM

THERE IS NO EXCUSE ANYONE WHO , WHO HURTS ,RAPES ,TORTURES OR KILLS WOMEN , THE ELDERLY AND CHILDREN HAS NO PLACE ON EARTH ,AS I HAVE STATED JUST BY WATCHING CHILD PORN U ENCURAGE MORE RAPE AND TORTURE TO CHILDREN
SO GO KNOCK YOUR SELF OFF , PROBABLY THE ONLY HUMANE THING U CAN DO

I KNOW MANY MANYYYY RAUGH BLOKES IN AUSTRALIA WHO ACTUALLY GO AROUND LOOKING FOR PEDOS AND DO WHATS GOT TO BE DONE
GOD BLESS THEM

I guess next time I feel like jacking off to some questionably aged teenagers I will instead just kidnap and rape a high school girl. Might as well right, it's no worse than the alternative. If she asks me why I will just say it's all good sweetganjababe said I might as well, it came down to violating her or looking at a picture and since each is equally immoral and illegal I went with the one that was more pleasurable. Thanks for clearing that up for me, now I can make better choices.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Red Baron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +43/-17
  • Ve vill deztroy our enemiz mein comarades!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #480 on: February 27, 2014, 09:22:13 am »
seriously m0rph, or merge, or kmfkewn or Cornelius or whatever label you want to give yourself take the hint and fuck off out of here like we have all told you to so many times before and if we could have our way with you the same as you want to or DO, with kids, you would have your entrails cut out and be hanging from a tree!

Me? I can assure you I'm not any of those other people, nor anyone else on these forums other than myself. And I don't want to do anything with kids. Really. I don't like being around children. I have enough difficulty with adults :)

think Braveheart's end scene and then multiply that by a factor of 1000 and that is what we would do to you and all of those like you you fucking scumbag piece of shit!

Are you referring to any specific "we" there?

oh look another neg from the pedophile crew ::)

go fuck your horse you sick cunt!.

that is all I am saying to you fuckstain but the fact you asked that we question proves you are all the same person and Cornelius/m0rph, or whatever you wish to call yourself kmfkewn, it is funny how you have deleted your m0rph account and redone it again and used your sock puppets to give yourself now five plus karma's so including the m0rph account we can deduce you have six forum accounts and because those are the two you are using right now that is why you have negged me twice.

your denials are a joke and thanks to the use of hallucingenic drugs I see straight through your disguises ;)

take the fucking hint and fuck off or better yet do the world a favor and shoot yourself in the head or overdose on poison!

did I say you were a sick cunt?

just in case you missed it again... YOU. ARE. A. SICK. CUNT!

do not ever address me again you will be ignored I do not recognize kid fuckers as humans and conversing with animals is irrationally impossible and you make us all sick to be in the same virtual space with you fucking filthy swine and if I had the immense pleasure to meet you in real life I would torture you worse than you do to the innocent children you enjoy hurting and defiling so much >:(
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 09:24:19 am by The Red Baron »
10, 20, 30, 40 ,50 or more, the mighty Red Baron, is rollin out the score.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #481 on: February 27, 2014, 09:24:58 am »
Actually now I totally agree with you! Looking at pictures of anyone under the age of 18 naked is totally horrible and just as bad as sexually assaulting underage people, there is absolutely no difference at all! I can't believe I ever thought differently than that, what an inconvenience that was. Seriously, I cannot thank you enough for opening my eyes, I don't know why I ever tried to think there was a difference.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #482 on: February 27, 2014, 09:41:33 am »
Quote
  Since it seems you and others here require that the obvious be pointed out to you....This thread is actually more about censorship, control and freedom than it is about CP.
That is what it's about to those in power who understand how to use emotion to their advantage.
Technology is making censorship of digital images tougher and in turn will require more control by those in power.
Will you be among those that beg your masters to "do something" about it or will you finaly realize that you're playing into their hands yet again? 

From what I can see metro, the tittle of this thread reads - The Discussion of Child Pornography. I wasn't aware of any parameters which would proclude me from posting my thoughts on the incidious acts these vile creatures perpetrate on innocent children. Your use of sentences like -

 [/quote]  Will you be among those that beg your masters to "do something" about it or will you finaly realize that you're playing into their hands yet again?  [/quote]

leads me to believe that you don't have a grasp on reality and live in some fantasy world with your mate, kmfkewm. I won't be begging,  I have no masters and I am not playing into anyones hands, despite what you may believe! 
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

The Red Baron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +43/-17
  • Ve vill deztroy our enemiz mein comarades!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #483 on: February 27, 2014, 09:52:46 am »
Actually now I totally agree with you! Looking at pictures of anyone under the age of 18 naked is totally horrible and just as bad as sexually assaulting underage people, there is absolutely no difference at all! I can't believe I ever thought differently than that, what an inconvenience that was. Seriously, I cannot thank you enough for opening my eyes, I don't know why I ever tried to think there was a difference.

the fact you need to jerk off to anything Cornelious/merge/m0rph/kmfkewn, shows whar sort of loser you actually are despite the fact you like jerking off to children aside are you incompetent fucking pedo scum!

last thing I will ever say to your clapped out bucket assed bitch!

The Jigsaw Puzzle +1!

I am getting the fuck out of this thread it makes me sick conversing with these parasitic reptilian creatures disguised as humans, but I had to say something on behalf of those without a voice to do so and the victims of these cunts.
10, 20, 30, 40 ,50 or more, the mighty Red Baron, is rollin out the score.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #484 on: February 27, 2014, 10:02:30 am »
Actually now I totally agree with you! Looking at pictures of anyone under the age of 18 naked is totally horrible and just as bad as sexually assaulting underage people, there is absolutely no difference at all! I can't believe I ever thought differently than that, what an inconvenience that was. Seriously, I cannot thank you enough for opening my eyes, I don't know why I ever tried to think there was a difference.

the fact you need to jerk off to anything Cornelious/merge/m0rph/kmfkewn, shows whar sort of loser you actually are despite the fact you like jerking off to children aside are you incompetent fucking pedo scum!

last thing I will ever say to your clapped out bucket assed bitch!

The Jigsaw Puzzle +1!

I am getting the fuck out of this thread it makes me sick conversing with these parasitic reptilian creatures disguised as humans, but I had to say something on behalf of those without a voice to do so and the victims of these cunts.

I totally agree with your thoughts The Red Baron. Couldn't have said it better myself. I just +1'd you a minute ago. A pedophile is a pedophile, full stop. The relentless attempts to justify their actions just makes my blood boil!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #485 on: February 27, 2014, 10:05:11 am »
it's painfully obvious that you have masters, all that anyone needs to know to see that is that it was legal to fuck 12 year olds across most of the world from 150 years ago back to the beginning of humanity, and that the age of consent across the world today varies from like 9 with marriage to 21. Do you really think that someone as obviously stupid as you are came up with the idea that it is immoral to have sex with pubescent females that you are evolutionarily wired to find attractive all by your self? You are mastered by the ones who designed your current social structure, and your reality consists of shadows on the wall of a cave. I haven't even said it should be legal to have sex with 12 year olds or any specific age group, instead of clinging to your poorly designed social norms I have proposed a new system whereby ability to consent is individually determined via a battery of tests. I don't claim that 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, etc year olds are capable of consent, I propose that we use *science* to find out what the appropriate age is, instead of *tradition* that traces back to feminist and religious sociopolitical campaigning 150 years ago and is obviously arbitrary as fuck. And as it is apparent that people develop at different rates, the solution is not normative but rather individualized testing.

What on earth could you possibly find objectionable to this suggestion? The fact that you are so vehemently opposed to it is a clear sign that you have been thoroughly brainwashed. To you, the age of consent in your country is no different than the religion of a persons country is to a religious person. You have nothing at all to support it, it contrasts with the dozens of established social phenomenons of history and geography, but you have undying faith in its absolute truth, and you have blind and rabid hatred toward any who would question the truthfulness of it. You are equivalent to a religious extremist, your violent opposition to any who question the ceremonial superstitions and rituals of your culture is only comparable to those who fly planes into buildings, and the damage you have caused to others in your ignorance is equivalent as well.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

TheRealCynic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
  • Karma: +72/-24
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #486 on: February 27, 2014, 10:14:51 am »
This thread will be noted as a high ranking, top 5 worse thread I ever ventured into and and the misfortune to read.
I am fucking shocked at where this conversation went.
Objective, deductive reasoning and argument is one thing, but this is insane.
I had misjudged you Cornelius, you're a heinous sex fiend and that's about there is to that.
Fuck I wish I had never ventured in here.

Walking out slowly back to the wall...
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 11:01:15 am by TheRealCynic »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #487 on: February 27, 2014, 10:21:59 am »
Quote from: therealcynic
Are Photographs of Pornographic images more or less evil than pedophilia sex acts?
IMO they are both as abhorrent as the other.

Yes I decided that I actually agree with you! Why bother with immoral pictures when you can get the real thing. It just makes it a lot easier on my conscious knowing that I am no worse of a person if I rape an underage person than if I look at pictures of 15 year olds showing off their breasts. In fact, I think that now that I have seen the light I will be more voracious a defender of this logic than any of you!

Quote
One early child hood photo of me was taken in the bath. 3 years old as innocent as I have ever been, all captured by kodak.
It's one of a few photo's that survive today.
now a few years ago I was bathing my daughter. I thought, 'oh wouldn't a picture be nice?'  Then I thought about a quick second more for it to occur to me that a picture of her in the bath could have catastrophic consequences that could destroy lives. yet here is one of my childhood memories framed on the mantle?

Yes taking a photograph of her in the bath could have catastrophic consequences that could destroy lives. Because you could go to prison and get ass raped by dumb fucks. Because child porn is illegal and poorly defined.

Quote
Funny thing the changing perspective of an evolving society.
I don't understand the concept of Child porn. In fact i struggle with adult porn but that's another thing.
How someone could even consider molesting an innocent child ( even a non innocent child.) is far beyond my comprehension.

You say evolving, I say brainwashed by the prison industrial complex to create an influx of prisoners and provide jobs to retards and make slave traders rich, what's the difference right?! Tomato Tomato. Huh, I guess that doesn't work in text.

Quote
To say you are scum, or sick or perverse is a waist you already know this.

I actually don't believe I am scum or sick or perverse, and indeed have given multiple scientific citations that demonstrate I am actually entirely normal in this aspect. I do have a waist though!

Quote
I want to know what drives people to even consider it.  The community I live amongst is rife with it.

To consider what? Well, pedophiles jack off to child porn because they have an abnormality that makes them attracted to children in the same way that normal people are attracted to ~12+ year olds. In the same way that normal people utilize adult pornography to relieve sexual tension, pedophiles use child pornography to do the same. Having child porn is actually even more important for pedophiles, because they can't even actually have sex without permanently scarring a child and risking immense prison sentences and social ruin. That is one path to child porn anyway. Some people also have obsessive compulsive disorder without necessarily being pedophiles though, and their route to it is different. There are actually all kinds of routes to it. There is even in the FBI classification system of CP offenders a category called simply libertarians, who view CP simply to assert their right to have access to information, despite a complete lack of sexual interest in children. You could read up on offender taxonomies and other academic and law enforcement literature if you are really interested in what drives people to consider it.

Jailbait is pretty much the same story but replace pedophiles with abnormalities with normal men without any abnormalities. Shit even reddit had a thread with clothed teenagers on it, and pretty damn near much every big forum on the internet has a jailbait thread for non nudes. Some people just get sick of clothing getting in the way of truly appreciating hot young girls.

Quote
We live in a fractured society that is suffering terminal decay.
I believe child molestation is a major contributor to this tear in the fabric of society.
Who can you respect when you can't respect your elders?
Without mutual respect then how do we move forward?

You really do strike me as a religious person so no surprise you went to a Catholic school. Our society is suffering decay because emotional retards do things that feel good to them despite having no logical basis upon which to rest. These people are manipulated via their emotions by the prison industrial complex leading to a massive slave trade and all of the ills associated with widespread slavery and corruption.

Quote
Anyone who forces themselves on another person for their own selfish sexual pleasure or mental pleasure or whatever it is that motivates sex crime you should be put in a tiny room for the rest of your life and fed once a day. You do not deserve a position in society.
Children are our future and that is something that should be nurtured.

1. Looking at pictures isn't forcing yourself on someone
2. Having consensual sex with someone who is 15 isn't forcing yourself on someone either

nobody really argued that rape is acceptable. Oh wait yeah they did, because they said instead of looking at naked teenagers I might as well just rape them. Sorry, I never said rape is acceptable, but the people arguing against me seem to think it isn't any worse than looking at pictures.

Quote
Pedophiles are the scum of our society. They need to be weeded out and segregated. There is no justification for your activities whether they be by media of porn of act!
But I am almost sure they know that too.
The whole thing has me fucked as to why.

You need to have a certain level of cognitive development before you can understand things of this magnitude.  PS: Mary was probably 13 or 14 when God molested her.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 10:25:54 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #488 on: February 27, 2014, 10:24:34 am »
it's painfully obvious that you have masters, all that anyone needs to know to see that is that it was legal to fuck 12 year olds across most of the world from 150 years ago back to the beginning of humanity, and that the age of consent across the world today varies from like 9 with marriage to 21. Do you really think that someone as obviously stupid as you are came up with the idea that it is immoral to have sex with pubescent females that you are evolutionarily wired to find attractive all by your self? You are mastered by the ones who designed your current social structure, and your reality consists of shadows on the wall of a cave. I haven't even said it should be legal to have sex with 12 year olds or any specific age group, instead of clinging to your poorly designed social norms I have proposed a new system whereby ability to consent is individually determined via a battery of tests. I don't claim that 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, etc year olds are capable of consent, I propose that we use *science* to find out what the appropriate age is, instead of *tradition* that traces back to feminist and religious sociopolitical campaigning 150 years ago and is obviously arbitrary as fuck. And as it is apparent that people develop at different rates, the solution is not normative but rather individualized testing.

What on earth could you possibly find objectionable to this suggestion? The fact that you are so vehemently opposed to it is a clear sign that you have been thoroughly brainwashed. To you, the age of consent in your country is no different than the religion of a persons country is to a religious person. You have nothing at all to support it, it contrasts with the dozens of established social phenomenons of history and geography, but you have undying faith in its absolute truth, and you have blind and rabid hatred toward any who would question the truthfulness of it. You are equivalent to a religious extremist, your violent opposition to any who question the ceremonial superstitions and rituals of your culture is only comparable to those who fly planes into buildings, and the damage you have caused to others in your ignorance is equivalent as well.

Again with the reasons for justification!!  Kmfkewm, you should be locked away for good and never allowed to walk freely on this earth again. You are clearly a beer short of a six pack, making accusations which bare no relevance to the subject at hand. My only hatred is for scum like you who think it's acceptable to destroy the lives of innocent children for your own sexual gratification. Why don't you go and inform your immediate family of who you really are?? Ask your mum about how she would feel knowing her dead beat son gets off on the rape, torture and sexual abuse of innocent children. Spread the news kefkewm and see what others have to say. You're one fucked up prick!!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #489 on: February 27, 2014, 10:56:01 am »
it's painfully obvious that you have masters, all that anyone needs to know to see that is that it was legal to fuck 12 year olds across most of the world from 150 years ago back to the beginning of humanity, and that the age of consent across the world today varies from like 9 with marriage to 21. Do you really think that someone as obviously stupid as you are came up with the idea that it is immoral to have sex with pubescent females that you are evolutionarily wired to find attractive all by your self? You are mastered by the ones who designed your current social structure, and your reality consists of shadows on the wall of a cave. I haven't even said it should be legal to have sex with 12 year olds or any specific age group, instead of clinging to your poorly designed social norms I have proposed a new system whereby ability to consent is individually determined via a battery of tests. I don't claim that 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, etc year olds are capable of consent, I propose that we use *science* to find out what the appropriate age is, instead of *tradition* that traces back to feminist and religious sociopolitical campaigning 150 years ago and is obviously arbitrary as fuck. And as it is apparent that people develop at different rates, the solution is not normative but rather individualized testing.

What on earth could you possibly find objectionable to this suggestion? The fact that you are so vehemently opposed to it is a clear sign that you have been thoroughly brainwashed. To you, the age of consent in your country is no different than the religion of a persons country is to a religious person. You have nothing at all to support it, it contrasts with the dozens of established social phenomenons of history and geography, but you have undying faith in its absolute truth, and you have blind and rabid hatred toward any who would question the truthfulness of it. You are equivalent to a religious extremist, your violent opposition to any who question the ceremonial superstitions and rituals of your culture is only comparable to those who fly planes into buildings, and the damage you have caused to others in your ignorance is equivalent as well.

Again with the reasons for justification!!  Kmfkewm, you should be locked away for good and never allowed to walk freely on this earth again. You are clearly a beer short of a six pack, making accusations which bare no relevance to the subject at hand. My only hatred is for scum like you who think it's acceptable to destroy the lives of innocent children for your own sexual gratification. Why don't you go and inform your immediate family of who you really are?? Ask your mum about how she would feel knowing her dead beat son gets off on the rape, torture and sexual abuse of innocent children. Spread the news kefkewm and see what others have to say. You're one fucked up prick!!

First off, where I live it is essentially an open secret that males are attracted to young teenagers. Sure, there are plenty of rabid retards such as yourself, but there is no surprise in hearing a closer male friend or even regular acquaintance to say things that indicate they are attracted to teenagers. I can think of so many examples of this that it boggles the mind.

Once two neighbors of mine in an apartment complex I lived in were talking about age of consent in different countries and one straight up said he wouldn't mind fucking a 12 year old. Bare in mind that this is a person who we smoked weed with and chilled with,  but not a super close friend (the relation of all of us to each other). The other said 12 was too young for his tastes, but he did like 14 year olds. I actually claimed myself that I wouldn't go below 16, but this was a lie, although I do regret lying in retrospect it is much easier to speak frankly with a mask of anonymity. Surprisingly none of us wanted to kill the other, and just by chance three separate neighbors happened to live by each other all of whom were attracted to young teenagers. We never mentioned this conversation again or had any others like it, but I did file it away in my brain under the conversations I have had with male peers that indicate that they are attracted to underage females.

Not long ago a friend of mine was mildly concerned as he had to bring a phone in for repair and the phone had pictures of his naked ex girlfriend from when she was 16 on it. He didn't bat an eye in confessing to me that he possessed child pornography, and I imagine he would have been rightfully shocked if I expressed any disapproval of him having such images. Certainly I don't consider him to be a heinous sex fiend worthy of being tortured to death in prison, but under the current law he could be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life and suffer such a fate.

Once I met with four people, a close friend and three of his acquaintances, we had met through our shared interest in drugs. Upon seeing an attractive young girl he asked if we liked jailbait, to which there was unanimous agreement. He even revealed that he had looked at jailbait on Tor, and nobody cared or batted an eye.

As far as my family goes, my male relatives have never denied being sexually attracted to developed young teenagers, and I imagine that the females of my family are all aware of this, although it is not a subject of particular discussion, and I don't believe anyone in my family has ever actually illegally had sex with anyone under the age of consent.

There was another situation where several friends together were talking about how they are nervous to have sex with girls without viewing their identification due to the fact that they are actually sexually attracted to significantly young girls and can't reliably tell them apart. Of course there was much winking and nudging as everyone was I am sure fully willing to fuck such underage girls if not for the law. Actually, one of them had a 15 year old girl friend who was with us at the time, and he was I believe 19 so it was an illegal relationship, and none of the probably eight people with us, including females, gave the slightest fuck about it.

So I don't really feel like it would be particularly bad if people thought I wanted to fuck young teenagers, and most of the males probably already assume it to be the case, like I said it is a pretty open secret around here and people only take slight effort to hide it when amongst friends or family, although in less close social situations people do play their silly little game, generally not with quite the same fervor as some of you guys seem to though! I find it very unlikely that fate has just conspired to bring me together with so many "pedophiles" on so many occasions, and it seems incredibly likely to me just from my anecdotal experiences that average males are attracted to young teenage females, but I don't need to base my conclusion off of anecdotal evidence because I actually read the phallometry studies that empirically demonstrated the normalcy of it.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

NotASuspiciousName

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
  • Karma: +66/-11
  • Nothing to see here, Move along.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #490 on: February 27, 2014, 11:10:27 am »
Had a run in with this issue a while ago...Well underage sex to be precise.

A friend of mine's sister, 15, had sex with one his friends who is 20...Fucking disgusting.

The second my friend found out the other guy ended up on the floor, a massive rugby player beating the leaving shit out of him. In the end had to go to hospital and just about pulled through.

I wish the same fate on anyone who does that.

Best

NotSuspicious
All war is deception - Sun Tzu

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #491 on: February 27, 2014, 11:19:39 am »
Had a run in with this issue a while ago...Well underage sex to be precise.

A friend of mine's sister, 15, had sex with one his friends who is 20...Fucking disgusting.

The second my friend found out the other guy ended up on the floor, a massive rugby player beating the leaving shit out of him. In the end had to go to hospital and just about pulled through.

I wish the same fate on anyone who does that.

Best

NotSuspicious

Wow that's so disgusting. Assuming you live in the UK she was approximately 26 Mondays away from being legal for him to fuck. Definitely he deserved to be beaten to death. I'm glad that when my 19 year old friend fucked a 15 year old that nobody killed him. In fact I think we were mostly jealous of him, that girl was amazingly hot. 
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

NotASuspiciousName

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
  • Karma: +66/-11
  • Nothing to see here, Move along.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #492 on: February 27, 2014, 11:28:03 am »
Had a run in with this issue a while ago...Well underage sex to be precise.

A friend of mine's sister, 15, had sex with one his friends who is 20...Fucking disgusting.

The second my friend found out the other guy ended up on the floor, a massive rugby player beating the leaving shit out of him. In the end had to go to hospital and just about pulled through.

I wish the same fate on anyone who does that.

Best

NotSuspicious

Wow that's so disgusting. Assuming you live in the UK she was approximately 26 Mondays away from being legal for him to fuck. Definitely he deserved to be beaten to death. I'm glad that when my 19 year old friend fucked a 15 year old that nobody killed him. In fact I think we were mostly jealous of him, that girl was amazingly hot.

That poor girl was blindingly drunk and had no opportunity to say no. In the UK we class that, by law, as rape. Praying on young girls for sex is terrible, they are still just children and will be thinking about it and regretting it for a long time to come. You seem to lack a basic human emotion of empathy...

Best

NotSuspicious 
All war is deception - Sun Tzu

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #493 on: February 27, 2014, 11:53:34 am »
Quote
conversing with animals is irrationally impossible

Humans are animals and due to your irrationality you have substantial difficulty conversing with humans so I have to say you really nailed it.

Quote
Praying on young girls for sex is terrible

Praying for young girls to have sex with is probably a waste of time, but if I thought it would work I might give it a shot.

"Dear lord, please send to me a precocious slutty 14 year old to fuck, I love the way their young perky breasts look, and their smooth and radiant skin is astounding! You really did a great job. I know you feel me, seeing as you magically impregnated a girl who was probably 12-14 , given customs of the time. Amen"
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 12:00:12 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

metro

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +6/-3
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #494 on: February 27, 2014, 11:56:40 am »
Quote
  Since it seems you and others here require that the obvious be pointed out to you....This thread is actually more about censorship, control and freedom than it is about CP.
That is what it's about to those in power who understand how to use emotion to their advantage.
Technology is making censorship of digital images tougher and in turn will require more control by those in power.
Will you be among those that beg your masters to "do something" about it or will you finaly realize that you're playing into their hands yet again? 

From what I can see metro, the tittle of this thread reads - The Discussion of Child Pornography. I wasn't aware of any parameters which would proclude me from posting my thoughts on the incidious acts these vile creatures perpetrate on innocent children. Your use of sentences like -

 
  Will you be among those that beg your masters to "do something" about it or will you finaly realize that you're playing into their hands yet again?  [/quote]

leads me to believe that you don't have a grasp on reality and live in some fantasy world with your mate, kmfkewm. I won't be begging,  I have no masters and I am not playing into anyones hands, despite what you may believe!
[/quote]


Please point me to a post where someone advocated incidious acts against children since I must have missed it.

If you want someone to tell you which photographs you may or may not look at then I'm sorry to say that you do indeed have masters.
Fuck your laws

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #495 on: February 27, 2014, 12:04:35 pm »

Quote
  Humans are animals and due to your irrationality you have substantial difficult conversing with humans so I have to say you really nailed it.


I think you may have left the "y" off difficult.
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #496 on: February 27, 2014, 12:07:42 pm »
That only proves that he wants to be a master. What proves that he has masters is the fact that his dedication to his countries age of consent is reminiscent of a religious persons dedication to the God of the their country. A religious Muslim who wants to implement Sharia law wants to be the master of others, but their own master is the one who convinced them to believe in the Quran, or perhaps the one who convinced that person. It's a bunch of puppets controlling puppets, The JigSaw Piece thinks he is a puppet master but he doesn't realize he moves his puppets only when his own master pulls his strings to make him do so. At the very top there is the ultimate puppet master, and this is actually a group of global elites that manages to shape the major societies of the world. Then there are people like me, I am not a puppet master at the top or the bottom or anywhere in the middle, and I merely try to avoid letting them string me up. 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 12:15:57 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #497 on: February 27, 2014, 12:14:44 pm »

Quote
  Humans are animals and due to your irrationality you have substantial difficult conversing with humans so I have to say you really nailed it.


I think you may have left the "y" off difficult.

Oh shit you just discredited everything I've said. Fuck!
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #498 on: February 27, 2014, 12:16:57 pm »
Quote
  Please point me to a post where someone advocated incidious acts against children since I must have missed it.

If you want someone to tell you which photographs you may or may not look at then I'm sorry to say that you do indeed have masters.


Engaging in any form of child pornography, regardless of how insignificant you may believe it is, is in my view an insidious act!  Obviously you're a member of the pedo crew so what you have to say is irrelevant to me, not to mention the fact that it doesn't make a shred of sense. Gotta go, my master is calling me in for dinner!
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 12:18:57 pm by The Jigsaw Puzzle »
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #499 on: February 27, 2014, 12:28:57 pm »
you are literally so stupid that it hurts.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #500 on: February 27, 2014, 12:35:48 pm »
you are literally so stupid that it hurts.

Fuck off you little, pin dick retard. Rot in HELL!!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #501 on: February 27, 2014, 02:11:52 pm »
I just want you to do me one favor. Think to yourself, "I think looking at a photograph is just as bad as raping a little girl". Now imagine a building split up into two rooms. In one room there is a little girl and in the other there is a picture of a molested little girl. Now picture a pedophile going into the building, raping the little girl, and then coming out. Now imagine yourself telling the crying little girl that it would have been no better if the pedophile left her alone and jacked off to a picture in the other room. Then seriously contemplate killing yourself, because you are the horribleness that you condemn.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #502 on: February 27, 2014, 08:08:39 pm »
you are literally so stupid that it hurts.

We all  must seem stupid when you live in a world such as yours. I “likez” how I can call you a little biiiiitch and you have nothing to say. It must be true. Ahahahah  biiitch

: ) :
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #503 on: February 27, 2014, 08:50:54 pm »
you do mostly seem stupid, you got that right!
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #504 on: February 27, 2014, 09:00:51 pm »
you do mostly seem stupid, you got that right!

Ahah its true. Fun Fact!!! Did you know that I suffer from a brain injury that was acquired  from an IED blast while passed out in the backseat of an HMMV.

What’s your excuse for being a fcking dumb dickass?

oh yea, ahahah BIIIITCH.


as I hear crickets.

: ) :

« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 09:09:56 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #505 on: February 28, 2014, 02:03:54 am »
I'm not a bitch you stupid fucking cock sucking dumb fucking butt fucker! Fucking fuck fuck! You stupid fuck fuck fuck fuck! Fuck ! FUCK FUCK FUCK! I AM NOT A FUCKING Biiitch FUCKER FUCK YOU EVEN FUCKING SAYING THAT YOU DUMB FUCKING FUCK! FUCK! AHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #506 on: February 28, 2014, 02:40:53 am »
I'm not a bitch you stupid fucking cock sucking dumb fucking butt fucker! Fucking fuck fuck! You stupid fuck fuck fuck fuck! Fuck ! FUCK FUCK FUCK! I AM NOT A FUCKING Biiitch FUCKER FUCK YOU EVEN FUCKING SAYING THAT YOU DUMB FUCKING FUCK! FUCK! AHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Seems like someone is having a bad day!

PS - You are a little bitch kmfkewm, a stupid, mentally challenged soft cock of a bitch to be precise!! Rot in HELL rock spider!

 
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #507 on: February 28, 2014, 03:33:00 am »
If i'm a little bitch does that mean you think it's immoral if I fuck myself? Just trying to make it clear, because people in this thread call me a little bitch but tell me to go fuck myself, but at the same time the reason they seem to dislike me is because I want to fuck little bitches in the first place.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #508 on: February 28, 2014, 03:44:56 am »
If i'm a little bitch does that mean you think it's immoral if I fuck myself? Just trying to make it clear, because people in this thread call me a little bitch but tell me to go fuck myself, but at the same time the reason they seem to dislike me is because I want to fuck little bitches in the first place.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. You are a little bitch, a teeny, weeny little bitch named kmfkewm, head of the SR pedo crew.
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #509 on: February 28, 2014, 04:12:29 am »
look, all I'm saying is that if God can fuck a 12-14 year old virgin, and Mohammed can fuck a 9 year old, I don't see why I can't fuck a 14 year old. I don't even want an immaculate conception, I would be happy with some immaculate head. And I especially don't see why I can't look at pictures of naked teenagers. Have you ever seen the non nude jailbait sites (like reddit, lolol)?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/29/jailbaitgallery-mylife-facebook-technology-internet-pictures.html

Quote
Internet advertisement platforms are brimming with photos of sunny smiles and exposed body parts. Many of these ads are published by outsiders, called “affiliate marketers,” that get paid to promote products on a company’s behalf.

But where do these people get the pictures they use?

Take a recent example of an ad campaign promoting Mylife.com, a site that helps you locate people. The campaign rolled out on Facebook and featured provocatively dressed girls and the alluring headline “Is someone Googling you?”

Problem is–those grinning girls probably don’t know that their pictures are being put to work.

In Pictures: 20 Social Media Blunders

In this particular case, Mylife’s affiliate advertiser had grabbed an image from a dodgier site called Jailbaitgallery.com, evident from a tiny logo in the lower right hand corner. And Jailbait Gallery, in turn, frequently scrapes the Web for its content–in other words, pulling pictures from sites where people might have posted provocative or alluring pictures of themselves or their friends. Jailbait Gallery’s main stock in trade: It aggregates picture of semi-nude and scantily clad girls and encourages users to vote on how young they think the subjects are. The pictures that wound up as part of the Facebook ad campaign were voted by the Jailbait Gallery crowd to be around 16 years old.

Nasty stuff.

Yet as distasteful as it is to find rogue marketers actively using photos of underage girls on Facebook to pitch products, neither Facebook nor Mylife broke any policy. And in a world where online affiliate advertising is growing and clicks are king, such abuses are likely to continue.

Dipik Rai, who heads marketing for MyLife, says the advertisement–which showed two apparently underage blondes in low-cut shirts–was unapproved, against policy and ran contrary to the companies’ financial and brand interests.

Exactly how long it ran on Facebook–and how it slipped through MyLife’s approval process–is unclear. It’s likely, however, that the affiliate that illegally ran the photo made money from the abuse and, unless the two girls in the photo saw the ad and filed a formal complaint, no one could have done much about it.

Mylife, a private company based in Los Angeles, is the result of a merger between Reunion.com and Wink.com in 2008. The service was launched in February and already receives close to 14 million visits a month, according to Compete.com, a Web analytics service. About 10% of its referral traffic comes from Facebook.

Rai says this particular ad isn’t the kind of representation Mylife wants. “This [image] definitely was not approved,” says Rai. “A lot of the images do certainly have a certain style, but the idea of being scantily clad or misleading is absolutely out of bounds.”

Trying to vet every ad isn’t easy, he says. “To the extent that people are running these ads pointing to our site, we certainly try to police those,” says Rai. “Even of that 10% of Facebook traffic, I think you’d really be talking about a very small fraction of 1% of that traffic that would be promoting those kinds of images.”

Mylife received $25 million in venture funding from Oak Investment Partners and says it is profitable. The company likely makes most of its money by up-selling free memberships into premium services. It pays affiliates around $1 for every new registration recruit but it does not pay for individual clicks.

Affiliate marketers, in turn, pay advertising networks up front, based on impressions or clicks. They must decide for themselves what potential users–and, perhaps more importantly, what tactics–will maximize their returns.

Rai says that affiliates must get Mylife’s approval of all the images and copy in the ads developed for the site, which includes attaining the proper copyright licenses for any media used. He notes, however, that bad actors will sometimes gain approval for one ad, then run another–presumably to juice up click rates. Some such program might design its ad campaigns to circumvent Mylife’s quality checks. That means Mylife relies on networks–such as Facebook–to pull down bad ads that might crop up, even if they are promoting Mylife.

“We’ve been trying to get our arms around the whole policing aspect,” says Rai. “What we’ve found is that the networks are actually a more effective policing mechanism.”

Facebook, in turn, approves all ads on its network but has no mechanism to ensure that those who run photos own the rights to those images. It does try to stamp out use of illegal images, however: A spokesman says copyright owners can fill out an online form and Facebook will take action within 24 hours. The form asks the submitter to identify the original work, the content that infringes on it, where it infringes and how.

That ultimately means that the advertiser and the advertisee are relying on each other, the community and the honor system to stop affiliates from using content illegally.

Forrester analyst Sean Corcoran, who covers online marketing for the technology research firm, says that as technologies change there will always be unsavory actors who will take advantage of the environment. Sites wind up playing whack-a-mole: Take down one offensive campaign here and those who created it will simply shift it to another site.

That once again puts the burden of protecting property on the backs of the people who create the content in the first place.

“You have to be very careful about the images you put up there, because you may end up in an ad somewhere,” says Corcoran. “It’s unfortunate, but the exploitation can happen to just about anybody.”

So horrible and disgusting omfg these sites are collecting pictures of underage girls, that they posted all over the internet themselves, and then concentrating them into a single site full of hot jailbait goodness! Such exploitation!

how can you go to a site like that and not be like, damn I wish these clothes were not getting in the way of the view. I wonder how good old motherless is doing, let's see

wow 335th most popular website in the world 198th most popular website in the USA! Pretty amazing considering how it has traditionally been a site with the primary focus of distributing images of nude underage teenagers. I wonder how a site like that could get so popular if hebephilia and ephebophilia are such abnormalities. Haha 143rd most popular website for people in the UK to view is one of the biggest sources of illegal jailbait porn on the internet! How weird.

I really find it just amazing that you are not attracted to teenagers. What's not to like?

can you seriously, honestly, with a straight face tell me that you don't find this girl sexually attractive? (completely legal fully clothed picture from completely legal website mentioned in forbes article: http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGs1fk2w8rm0.jpg) ? Because I just don't believe you at all. Because that girl is incredibly attractive, and her breasts seem to defy the laws of gravity, and would undoubtedly be much nicer if they didn't have anything covering them :P.

BTW: You brag about being in the major league while I am in the minor league, but it's actually great to be in the minor league we have some amazing cheerleaders http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGtq6wzpfgys.jpg http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGgnz3jry2t6.jpg
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 04:53:04 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #510 on: February 28, 2014, 03:15:39 pm »
think Braveheart's end scene and then multiply that by a factor of 1000 and that is what we would do to you and all of those like you you fucking scumbag piece of shit!
Are you referring to any specific "we" there?
oh look another neg from the pedophile crew ::)

go fuck your horse you sick cunt!.

that is all I am saying to you fuckstain but the fact you asked that we question proves you are all the same person and Cornelius/m0rph, or whatever you wish to call yourself kmfkewn …

Nope, I'm just me. That you consider a request for clarification as proof of another identity suggests that your rationality, like that of so many others in this thread, has been drowned by the emotionality of the subject matter.

I think that m0rph, under all of his names, has claimed an attraction to young girls. I am primarily attracted to men in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties and, as I've previous stated, cannot stand to see young children in a sexual context even if clothed.

Oh, and I don't own a horse.

*Edit:

I had misjudged you Cornelius, you're a heinous sex fiend and that's about there is to that.

On what do you base that conclusion? :( I might want to be heinous sex fiend toward some thirty-year-olds I meet (and toward one friend in particular who has recently reached that age) but I just don't have the energy these days.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 03:49:49 pm by Cornelius23 »
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #511 on: February 28, 2014, 03:38:10 pm »
I respect you Cornelius. I despise m0rph. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. I am very unreasonable on this subject. Thats why I can't practice anymore.

The last client I had broke the therapist in me. Her journey of survival unleashed an avalanche of repressed rage I had held onto subconsciously.

Picking up the broken pieces of human wreckage left after a history of abuse is not something to be undertaken lightly. I lost my objectivity.

All the studies m0rph has cited justifying the abuse of children has never taken into account the price the children pay. He doesn't care, nor do other perpetrators. Or, they do care, but not enough to not engage in their soul destroying behaviors.

The price a 14yr old pays for being objectified is reaped later in adulthood. When they are using maladaptive coping mechanisms to mask the inner abyss they stare into every day.

It is not good for the 14yr old to be turned into a thing. It is not healthy for any person to be turned into a thing. Real children are being violated right now, all across the planet, for the pleasure of adults. The adults get to walk away, having sated themselves at the expense of the minds, bodies, and souls of their victims.

That is my problem with this debate. As far as I am concerned, keep your fucking hands to yourself, don't touch the innocence you wish to despoil with your own miserable inner shite. Its hard enough to grow up, without adults thinking they are entitled to the bodies of our young, just because they are attracted to them.

Hell, I am very very attracted to my neighbor's Mercedes, but that doesn't give me any privileges or rights to it.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #512 on: February 28, 2014, 03:58:13 pm »
I respect you Cornelius. I despise m0rph. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. I am very unreasonable on this subject. Thats why I can't practice anymore.

Oh, I've given up responding to m0rph. I can't even be bothered to read most of his posts any more (mostly because they're either too long and repetitious or short bursts of childish name-calling).

I'm perhaps able to retain a little more objectivity because I'm distanced from my emotions (as a result of dysthymia along with my OCD). That might be both a blessing and a curse.

Oh, and I very much respect you as well.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #513 on: February 28, 2014, 10:26:47 pm »
I respect you Cornelius. I despise m0rph. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. I am very unreasonable on this subject. Thats why I can't practice anymore.

Oh, I've given up responding to m0rph. I can't even be bothered to read most of his posts any more (mostly because they're either too long and repetitious or short bursts of childish name-calling).

I'm perhaps able to retain a little more objectivity because I'm distanced from my emotions (as a result of dysthymia along with my OCD). That might be both a blessing and a curse.

Oh, and I very much respect you as well.

I respected cornelius until he tried to throw me under the bus to save his own reputation after the illogical retards started to attack him for not being an illogical retard.

I respect you Cornelius. I despise m0rph. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. I am very unreasonable on this subject. Thats why I can't practice anymore.

Yeah you are super unreasonable why don't you try to fix your problems.

Quote
The last client I had broke the therapist in me. Her journey of survival unleashed an avalanche of repressed rage I had held onto subconsciously.

Did she survive being sexually abused or survive being a 14 year old slut? Big difference.

Quote
Picking up the broken pieces of human wreckage left after a history of abuse is not something to be undertaken lightly. I lost my objectivity.

Once again I am very glad that you decided to admit that you have no objectivity. That means that everything you have to say is essentially worthless.

Quote
All the studies m0rph has cited justifying the abuse of children has never taken into account the price the children pay. He doesn't care, nor do other perpetrators. Or, they do care, but not enough to not engage in their soul destroying behaviors.

Uhm, none of the studies I cited justify the abuse of children. They do clearly demonstrate that the average male is sexually attracted to 12+ though. That is a simple fact, it doesn't justify anything or make claims of morality it just states fact. Other studies show that allowing access to child pornography reduces child molestation rates, and once again this is just a statement of an empirically observed correlation that has theory to support causation as well. It seems that it is you who doesn't care about the price that children pay when they are molested by people who would have been satiated with child porn, but who instead decided to molest children because the penalties are essentially the same in many cases, or because they are judged the same by you fucking idiots in either case, or because they didn't have access to child pornography maybe in some rarer cases.

You have not been able to tell me how to distinguish between a person who cannot consent to sex and a person who can other than with age. Your theory is proven false by mentioning that a 30 year old without the appropriate mental development is incapable of consent, therefore ability to consent is not directly tied to age. If you disagree with this it means you think it is okay to have sex with 30 year olds who have the cognitive capacity of 8 year olds. If you don't disagree with this then it is up to you to find the appropriate cognitive test that can differentiate between people capable of consent and people who are not. I suggested adult IQ test as one filter and showed that it would indicate that 12 and below are on average probably not capable of consent, and anything below 12 is much less likely than the next age above it. If I didn't care about people I would be doing things that are certainly immoral, but as I already said I am not doing these things because I don't want to hurt others. But what I am saying is that you are a stupid bitch who doesn't know anything but thinks you know everything, and you can't even explain why anything you think I do is immoral because you don't have a single fucking clue, the best you can do is regurgitate the propaganda of your country, propaganda that isn't believed by people in huge swaths of the modern world, and come across as a brainwashed imbecile. I consider myself a very rational person, and you have entirely failed to convince me. Maybe try an argument that doesn't have at its foundation the magical properties of photographs, because I don't believe in magic so you are not going to convince me with that. You have nothing at all to say that has any information in it, all you have to say has nothing but the emotion of a mentally disturbed girl.

Also, let it be noted that God impregnated Mary when she was about 14 years old, and from this came Jesus Christ, the lord and savior of souls. So if it wasn't for males having sex with 14 year olds, all of our souls would be destroyed in a lake of eternal fire.

Quote
The price a 14yr old pays for being objectified is reaped later in adulthood. When they are using maladaptive coping mechanisms to mask the inner abyss they stare into every day.

Wow every single 14 year old huh. That is just absolutely amazing, that in all of this big world there are no 14 year olds who could have sex and not be utterly destroyed by the horrendous disgusting soul shattering deed. You views of sex are pathological and indicative of your self admitted abuse as a child, abuse being a key word that differentiates what happened to you from what happens to tons of underage girls who fuck older guys entirely of their own free will. There are no coping mechanisms needed because the penis of an adult male does not actually contain a soul sucking vacuum inside of it, despite what your feminist indoctrination has led you to believe. 

Quote
It is not good for the 14yr old to be turned into a thing. It is not healthy for any person to be turned into a thing. Real children are being violated right now, all across the planet, for the pleasure of adults. The adults get to walk away, having sated themselves at the expense of the minds, bodies, and souls of their victims.

Yeah sure in some cases, especially with really young children. But you are absolutely insane if you think some 14 year old girl can't fuck a 19 or 20 year old without having her entire life just utterly destroyed. The claims you make just sound absolutely fucking ridiculous honestly. Like, really? You really think that? That is just utterly amazing that any person thinks that. It is clearly indicative of brainwashing really.

Quote
That is my problem with this debate. As far as I am concerned, keep your fucking hands to yourself, don't touch the innocence you wish to despoil with your own miserable inner shite. Its hard enough to grow up, without adults thinking they are entitled to the bodies of our young, just because they are attracted to them.

Hell, I am very very attracted to my neighbor's Mercedes, but that doesn't give me any privileges or rights to it.

If your neighbor says you can have his Mercedes then nobody gives a fuck about it. The problem is if your neighbor is competent enough to make such a choice, if he is extremely intoxicated or having some mental issue maybe he isn't capable of deciding to give you his car, and you will be an asshole if you take it from him anyway. You have not at all convinced me, or even attempted to convince me really, that a 14 year old can't decide that they want to have sex with someone older than 18. Until you come up with a cognitive assessment that can reliably differentiate between people of X age and people of Y age, you are not going to convince me that there should be restrictions on people of X age but not on people of Y age. Age means absolutely nothing at all, at best it is an indicator of a persons development based on normative data, but even looking at this normative data there is nothing that markedly differentiates a 14 year old from an 18 year old such that you could reliably differentiate between members randomly selected from either group. The average 14 year old is in the average range for an 18 year old in terms of physical, sexual, and intellectual development.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #514 on: February 28, 2014, 10:37:53 pm »
If i'm a little bitch does that mean you think it's immoral if I fuck myself? Just trying to make it clear, because people in this thread call me a little bitch but tell me to go fuck myself, but at the same time the reason they seem to dislike me is because I want to fuck little bitches in the first place.

AHAHA

"youz a bitch azz nigga"

to much of a pussy for real grown women.

He's a premi most likely...

is that true that youre to much of a quick draw for a real woman... is that why you like younglings?

what a fcking pussy ass pussy bitch ass bitch... ahahah

I don't condone  suicide but youre a smart guy… just do us a favor. Don’t worry we will owe you one big hoss.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #515 on: February 28, 2014, 11:37:22 pm »
Quote
to much of a pussy for real grown women.

I like women over 18 too, I just think females reach their peak at about 14 give or take a year or so.

Quote
He's a premi most likely...

A what now?

Quote
is that true that youre to much of a quick draw for a real woman... is that why you like younglings?

Not sure exactly what you mean by quick draw. I am quick to obtain erection, but don't see how that is related. I can control when I orgasm pretty close to perfectly, so have a large range. I like "younglings" for a variety of reasons.

1. I prefer tanner stage 4 sexual traits, and while the large majority of 12.9-14.5 year olds have these traits, only about 25% of those 18 or older do.

2. I prefer petite girls with smaller frames, and 14 year olds are about an inch shorter and 10 pounds lighter than they will be when they are entirely grown, which leads to more of a petite appearance

3. I prefer the smoother and more radiant skin of younger girls, they have more of a glow associated with them

4. Younger girls achieve the perfect combination of cute and hot. Too young and you have cuteness but not hotness, too old and you have hotness but not as much cuteness, just right is when there is still the cuteness of youth but the hotness of maturity is present as well. They are cute like a puppy and hot like a model.

I would say that's about it; perkier breasts, cleaner public hair, more petite, smoother more radiant skin, cuter and just as hot. Seems superior to me, which is why I prefer younger girls I guess.


Quote
what a fcking pussy ass pussy bitch ass bitch... ahahah

I don't condone  suicide but youre a smart guy… just do us a favor. Don’t worry we will owe you one big hoss.

Why not just move to Uruguay and fuck young girls look at jailbait all day and take drugs, in a society that wont condemn me for it? Seems like a much better option than killing myself!
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #516 on: February 28, 2014, 11:45:54 pm »
As far as being a stupid bitch, I have an IQ that is higher than 98% of the worlds' population.

You, are a waste. Never have you contributed anything worthwhile in your entire misbegotten excuse for a life.

Begone, foul fetid walking corpse. You are already dead inside, your body will catch up soon enough.

Oh learned and auspicious one, are you familiar with "crowded rat syndrome"?

Do you understand the implications for our species, and your stance on sexualizing our children? Do you get how wrong you are? No, read it again.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #517 on: February 28, 2014, 11:53:45 pm »
As far as being a stupid bitch, I have an IQ that is higher than 98% of the worlds' population.

Although certainly possible I find it unlikely. People tend to have a limited number of points which they can assign either to empathy or intelligence, and the fact that you clearly have a poisonous level of misdirected empathy leads me to believe you probably don't have many points left over for intelligence. Certainly I find in my anecdotal experience that more intelligent people tend to have views on sex that are roughly inline with my own, although there are some rare exceptions. Intelligent people will realize the normalcy of male attraction to underage females, and will not be likely to believe in photographs having magical properties.

Quote
You, are a waste. Never have you contributed anything worthwhile in your entire misbegotten excuse for a life.

Begone, foul fetid walking corpse. You are already dead inside, your body will catch up soon enough.

I imagine I have contributed some worthwhile things, and I have plenty of life ahead of me, though it is true we will all be dead soon enough. I don't feel dead inside at all though!

Quote
Oh learned and auspicious one, are you familiar with "crowded rat syndrome"?

I am not, could you give me a name for it that will allow me to find information about it on google? Is it pack-rat syndrome? I'm not familiar with that either but just want to make sure I read about the same thing you mentioned.

Quote
Do you understand the implications for our species, and your stance on sexualizing our children? Do you get how wrong you are? No, read it again.

Your children are sexualized as soon as they have sexually desirable characteristics, it's really not my fault it's just part of nature.

edit: nope, pack rat syndrome is related to hoarding. I really have no idea what crowded rat syndrome is, nor does google apparently.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 11:54:45 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #518 on: February 28, 2014, 11:56:57 pm »
Clearnet link http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22514/1/2308Ramadams.pdf
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #519 on: March 01, 2014, 12:08:22 am »
So your concern is that 'sexualization' of young teenagers will lead to a population boom that will lead to the down fall of humanity? Wow, it's a good thing we have birth control so mastered.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #520 on: March 01, 2014, 01:16:55 am »
You are so fucking retarded. The study emphasizes how stress in the species will cause the young to become sexually mature earlier and earlier, and eventually the species is doomed to extinction. FUCKWIT!
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #521 on: March 01, 2014, 03:04:21 am »
I respected cornelius until he tried to throw me under the bus to save his own reputation after the illogical retards started to attack him for not being an illogical retard.

No throwing and I don't think my reputation was in any more danger than usual. I observed long ago that I accumulate negative karma just about every time I post in this thread. You may have noticed my increasing lack of response to your posts as their length has tended to increase. I still think that the majority of what I recall you writing was more reasonable than that written by most of your opponents, blinded as they tended, and tend, to be by the emotions these subjects evoke. I think I've previously pointed out most of the areas where our views diverge, particularly concerning the market for child porn leading to the potential abuse of young people.

I respect you Cornelius. I despise m0rph. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. I am very unreasonable on this subject. Thats why I can't practice anymore.
Yeah you are super unreasonable why don't you try to fix your problems.

I would think that twatWaffle has indeed tried, just as I have tried to overcome my own mental problems. "Fixing" such things is usually far easier said than done, though, and often the best we can do is try to work around the bits of ourselves that are damaged. twatWaffle has enough wisdom to acknowledge her blind spots and to bear them in mind.
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #522 on: March 01, 2014, 04:12:51 am »
Morph, until you know what it's like to be a 14 year old girl, you have no right to speak in their name. How old are you anyway????


« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 04:14:08 am by r0guebubbles »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #523 on: March 01, 2014, 04:16:59 am »
You are so fucking retarded. The study emphasizes how stress in the species will cause the young to become sexually mature earlier and earlier, and eventually the species is doomed to extinction. FUCKWIT!

Hm not sure I can see that happening in humans. Humans have become sexually mature earlier and earlier for quite a while now according to many estimates, but I would say that in the modern world our level of stress is at an all time low. We don't need to really worry much about being able to get food, we have various items that ease the amount of work we need to do, medicine is better than it ever has been, etc. If anything we have far fewer reasons to be stressed out today than we did in the past, but sexual maturity continues to be reached at younger and younger ages. I must say though, I never considered guys jacking off to pictures of naked 14 year olds to be an existential problem of such an epic proportion, who would have guessed that the fate of humanity depends on 20 year olds not looking at 14 year olds taking pictures of themselves flashing mirrors!
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #524 on: March 01, 2014, 06:03:47 am »
Morph, until you know what it's like to be a 14 year old girl, you have no right to speak in their name. How old are you anyway????

I am in my early 20's
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

CD8N

  • Vendor
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 91
  • Karma: +14/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #525 on: March 01, 2014, 06:36:11 am »
I'd go Dexter on these sick fucks.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #526 on: March 01, 2014, 06:50:35 am »
You are in your early 20's? Hah, I have children older than you, and hopefully way less wastes of food and space.

Buwhwahahahaaa you are barely shaving, and you think you have the world figured out? Bauwahahaaa.

Come back inna few years when you have some seasoning.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #527 on: March 01, 2014, 07:03:06 am »
Morph, until you know what it's like to be a 14 year old girl, you have no right to speak in their name. How old are you anyway????

I am in my early 20's

And you find girls say, twelve to fourteen attractive? I'm not sure if that qualifies as being pedophilia as it's always such a thin line but you have mentioned some things that I have encountered before. And this was exactly what the guy that has taken advantage of me, told me. He also spoke of the same things. For example. He told me that sexuality is possible in a child, which it is, but it doesn't mean that you should take advantage of it, nor should you ignore the fact that these girls are far too young to comprehend what love, sex means, at least not on your level. Some of them are, some of them aren't. I was younger than 14, I was 12. But I can tell you I'm quite shocked by some comments here. Maybe because I have been through it, maybe because I'm female. I don't know. I don't understand men. But men don't understand women, and even less, young girls. I would say at 14 you are busy with a whole spectrum of things, and it seems exciting dating an older man. But when you grow a little older, you realize, it's not all what you expected it to be. You feel taken advantage of and in some cases, abused. Can you remember what it was like for you as a 14 year old? It often helps to understand how they think, perceive, are easy to manipulate.

As I have stated, at what point does pedophilia begin, and at what point does it end? What's the age limit? In legal terms, at least in my country, adult males aren't allowed to have sex with underage girls. In fact, they get jail time when caught. I'm not sure what to think of you. I'm only sure that I don't understand you. And you probably don't understand my point of view. But I am talking as girl. For myself. Not all of them. The guy I had problems with had a great interest in defending this sorts of things, constantly quoting out the famous book Lolita. Saying that noblemen used to marry children. Only that only happens in third world countries these days. But back then, I did not know how to respond. It all seemed natural. Even though now I see it completely different. Early twenties is fairly young but still, where do you draw the line. At what point in your life do you stop being attracted to young girls? For example, you could still be attracted to them at age 50. Then the story changes doesn't it?

Pedophilia is an illness. But age is something that many people can argue about. Some like 16, some 12. I personally can't even draw a line there. I can only say that I know now, ten years later that it wasn't what I wanted and my mind wasn't adult enough to comprehend what was happening. You tend to look up to older men when you are very young. It makes it difficult. One, for the girl to understand that she should find a boyfriend of her own age, second because the man thinks that she likes it that way. Once again. The age limit is something that is so difficult and every person perceives it differently

« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 07:06:57 am by r0guebubbles »

ato72543

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +8/-10
  • Say My Name
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #528 on: March 01, 2014, 07:10:30 am »
ANY FUCK ON HERE THAT EVEN DEBATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DESERVES TO BE IN PRISON FORAWHILE FOR LEGAL MATTERS, THEN RELEASED AND THEN HAVE THE FAMILY OF THAT VICTIM DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO WITH THEM LIKE POUR BOILING WATER ON THEIR PRIVATES, AND ALL SORT OF OTHER TORTURE UNTIL THEY JUST PRAY FOR DEATH, THEN FINALLY SHOOT THEM IN THE GOD DAMN HEAD AND LET THEM BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.

SICK FUCKS ALL OF THEM. PERIOD.

Im not saying the people that deabate this need this, Im saying the people that have done the actual crime deserve what I said above. 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 07:12:55 am by ato72543 »
I am the one who knocks.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #529 on: March 01, 2014, 07:18:52 am »
ANY FUCK ON HERE THAT EVEN DEBATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DESERVES TO BE IN PRISON FORAWHILE FOR LEGAL MATTERS, THEN RELEASED AND THEN HAVE THE FAMILY OF THAT VICTIM DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO WITH THEM LIKE POUR BOILING WATER ON THEIR PRIVATES, AND ALL SORT OF OTHER TORTURE UNTIL THEY JUST PRAY FOR DEATH, THEN FINALLY SHOOT THEM IN THE GOD DAMN HEAD AND LET THEM BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.

SICK FUCKS ALL OF THEM. PERIOD.

Im not saying the people that deabate this need this, Im saying the people that have done the actual crime deserve what I said above.

Totally agreed. They are the worst of kind and infect society with their deviant behavior often thinking the child in question likes what they do, and leaving them with feelings of guilt. There is in my view no alternative for these people. Cut off their balls. Take away the sexual urges. Problem solved. As to punishment. It depends but I'm happy to see that so many men are willing to defend young girls and children. It fills me with joy actually. I doxxed several pedophiles in the past and have never been sorry about it. We used to go on darknet websites dedicated to just that and doxx people. But you know, the real bastards, are often wise enough to keep it all hidden. So karma for you Ato +1 man!




« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 07:22:48 am by r0guebubbles »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #530 on: March 01, 2014, 08:17:07 am »
You are in your early 20's? Hah, I have children older than you, and hopefully way less wastes of food and space.

Buwhwahahahaaa you are barely shaving, and you think you have the world figured out? Bauwahahaaa.

Come back inna few years when you have some seasoning.

Strangely I actually find myself to be more intelligent and cognitively developed than probably the majority of people who are older than I am. For example, you have children older than me, and you still lack any ability to use logic or reason, and rather are an irrational emotional mess. It's actually a phenomenon I have noticed for the majority of my life, I would say that I have always been significantly ahead of my years, but I don't consider it to be anything particularly worthy of bragging about, I actually find it sad that typical humans develop at such a slow pace, and often their peak is nothing noteworthy either.

Quote
And you find girls say, twelve to fourteen attractive? I'm not sure if that qualifies as being pedophilia as it's always such a thin line but you have mentioned some things that I have encountered before.

Sure 12 to 14 is usually sexually attractive. People develop at different rates though. I would need to see some slide show of a girl from 0 to 25 to say when I find her most attractive. In clinical references of the tanner scale featuring naked girls (many of which are freely available on google and no more sexually revealing than much illegal child porn is, I imagine anyway) I would actually say I find stage 5 to be most attractive, but the medical images don't (usually) map to the reality that I see, although some of the drawn diagrams seem more accurate. Primarily I prefer breasts that curve upward and look exceptionally firm, secondary mounding is fun as well although not strictly required. That seems characteristic of tanner stage 4 according to verbal descriptions and some diagrams, but it conflicts with many of the reference images which show anything below stage 5 as being nearly flat chested. In any case, I would say that in my experience I am typically more attracted to younger teenagers than to older females. As previously mentioned, it isn't that I am not attracted to older females, it's just that I prefer the way younger teenagers look. If young teenagers looked like they look in some of the clinical images though, I would say I am only significantly attracted to people in tanner stage 5, which is reached at about ~14.5 though so still would allow for a pretty young minimum age.

Additionally, it would not be considered pedophilia even if I happened to be 90 years old. Because pedophilia specifically requires attraction to prepubescents, and I have a level of attraction to prepubescents that approaches zero. By absolutely no clinical criteria would I be considered as a pedophile, and I like to use words as the people who use them professionally define them, not as lay people define them, because really who gives a fuck what some retard in the UK considers pedophilia to be? I would say I would most accurately be classified as somewhere between a hebephile and an ephebophile, if tanner stage 4 is reached at 12.9 I wouldn't say I am particularly attracted to anything below that, although I certainly am more attracted to pubescents than prepubescents regardless of age. I probably prefer ~12.9 to ~14.5 , which is pretty much firmly in hebephilia, although not including the lower range, and partially overlapping with the lower range of ephebophilia according to some classification systems (some start ephebophilia at 15 and others at 14). I also probably prefer 14.5-17 to 18+. So in order of preference, roughly (12.9-14.5) (14.5-17) (18-29) (30-39), (11, 12), (40-55), (55-65),  (anything below 11). 11 to 12 is hard to place though. Some of them definitely are too young looking for me, I definitely wouldn't say I prefer them but they do get me aroused in some cases depending on individual development rate, but assuming they are tanner stage 3 (though by some clinical photographic references tanner stage 3 is not at all appealing). On the other hand, I feel roughly the same way about most people over 40 or so, in that they can get me aroused for sure but I definitely don't prefer them. So strangely enough I would have to say my sexual interest in 11 to 12 year olds is roughly equivalent to my sexual interest in 40 year olds, though the forbidden nature of the younger girls gives them a certain allure that would probably lead me to picking them if I was in a matrix world with computer simulated things that looked like humans but had no humanity to them. I probably wouldn't actually have sex with an 11 year old in reality though, because meh they are 11 and that would be kind of fucked up, a sentiment I don't at all feel when contemplating having sex with a 14 year old or even 13 year old much for that matter.   

Of course it depends on the individual though. I mean, I fully recognize that I am capable of doing horrible things and i'm not sure I would really care about it. But I can constrain myself to a system of logical morality, and I can see that there are logical reasons for why I shouldn't fuck anyone under the age of about 13. But I can't see any valid logic that would restrict me from having sex with many 13 and 14 year olds, and really the only reason why I don't do this is because it is illegal for one and not worth the risk, and for two I haven't really had an opportunity to do so anyway and don't foresee myself having such an opportunity any time really. If I did have an opportunity to I think I would probably restrict myself from doing so out of fear of the law, but the solution to that problem is moving to a more free country where I wont have that concern. Certainly I feel no moral obligation to refrain from having sex with willing 14 year olds who I deem capable of consenting. Additionally I feel no moral obligation to refrain from looking at *ANY* picture I want to look at, what-so-ever, because it's a fucking picture and if I look at it or not it has absolutely zero affect on fucking anything at all, and the only people who disagree with this are people who should try to outlaw fucking voodoo dolls because they are THAT retarded.

Quote
And this was exactly what the guy that has taken advantage of me, told me. He also spoke of the same things. For example. He told me that sexuality is possible in a child, which it is, but it doesn't mean that you should take advantage of it, nor should you ignore the fact that these girls are far too young to comprehend what love, sex means, at least not on your level. Some of them are, some of them aren't.

Yes some are and some are not. That is why I suggested individualized testing. Then I can fuck 14 year olds who have proven they can consent and I am happy in knowing that I can do that and everyone else should be happy in knowing that nobody was taken advantage of. But you guys stick to your countries age of consent system like religious fanatics stick to the religion of their country, and no amount of logic will take you away from your baseless (and retarded) point of view. The same thing can be said about 30 year olds, certainly being 30 doesn't automatically make a person capable of consenting to sex! 

Quote
I was younger than 14, I was 12. But I can tell you I'm quite shocked by some comments here. Maybe because I have been through it, maybe because I'm female. I don't know. I don't understand men. But men don't understand women, and even less, young girls. I would say at 14 you are busy with a whole spectrum of things, and it seems exciting dating an older man. But when you grow a little older, you realize, it's not all what you expected it to be. You feel taken advantage of and in some cases, abused. Can you remember what it was like for you as a 14 year old? It often helps to understand how they think, perceive, are easy to manipulate.

When I was 14 I was a drug dealer and spent most of my time running from the police or partying, often with slutty girls, many of whom were nothing short of promiscuous. I have no recollection of an innocent adolescence, and I imagine that most of you grew up in totally different conditions than I did to have the perception of teenagers that you do.     

Quote
As I have stated, at what point does pedophilia begin, and at what point does it end? What's the age limit?

Pedophilia begins at 2 years old (younger than that is infantophilia) and ends at about 10 in reality according to the criteria of the DSM (although they specifically state usually before 13), or maybe about 12 according to the ICD. So if a girl is 13 or older you pretty much certainly are not a pedophile if you are sexually attracted to her (provided you are not also sexually attracted to people younger than that), but there is a gray area between 10-12 where you may or may not be a pedophile if you are attracted to people in that age range (according to the DSM, according to the ICD the gray area would be at about 12).

Quote
In legal terms, at least in my country, adult males aren't allowed to have sex with underage girls. In fact, they get jail time when caught.

Given your usage of the term "underage"  I think that is true of any country in the world. But the age of consent varies significantly from location to location, in almost all countries in the world it is between 14 and 18, outliers go as young as 9 with marriage and on the other end some go as high as 21.

Quote
I'm not sure what to think of you. I'm only sure that I don't understand you. And you probably don't understand my point of view. But I am talking as girl. For myself. Not all of them. The guy I had problems with had a great interest in defending this sorts of things, constantly quoting out the famous book Lolita. Saying that noblemen used to marry children. Only that only happens in third world countries these days. But back then, I did not know how to respond. It all seemed natural. Even though now I see it completely different. Early twenties is fairly young but still, where do you draw the line. At what point in your life do you stop being attracted to young girls? For example, you could still be attracted to them at age 50. Then the story changes doesn't it?

I imagine I will be attracted to young girls for my entire life. And as previously mentioned, it has been empirically demonstrated that this is so common as to be the norm. Well, the age of consent in Japan is 13, Spain it still is but they are in the process of raising it because some crazy guy killed his 13 year old girlfriend and crusaders were able to manipulate it into getting the age of consent raised (because no crazy people kill their 18 year old girlfriends!). A much wider selection of countries have age of consent at 14. Also in many countries even though the age of consent is strictly speaking a certain age, there is possibility for exceptions, for example it is still technically legally possible to have sex with a 12 year old in Uruguay and many other countries, it just is an involved process with shit loads of protections in place to make sure the younger person is not exploited. It's the same way in Germany for example, but their bare minimum is 14.

Quote
Pedophilia is an illness. But age is something that many people can argue about. Some like 16, some 12. I personally can't even draw a line there. I can only say that I know now, ten years later that it wasn't what I wanted and my mind wasn't adult enough to comprehend what was happening. You tend to look up to older men when you are very young. It makes it difficult. One, for the girl to understand that she should find a boyfriend of her own age, second because the man thinks that she likes it that way. Once again. The age limit is something that is so difficult and every person perceives it differently

Age limit is a bad system, best would be to design a test or series of tests that can be used to evaluate if a person is capable of consenting or not. I wonder how they evaluate 14 year olds in Germany, as previously said in Germany it can be legal to have sex with 14 year olds but if they file a complaint they are given an evaluation that determines if they were capable of giving consent or if they were exploited. Maybe the Germans have done some research on being able to evaluate individuals in such a way.

Quote
ANY FUCK ON HERE THAT EVEN DEBATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DESERVES TO BE IN PRISON FORAWHILE FOR LEGAL MATTERS, THEN RELEASED AND THEN HAVE THE FAMILY OF THAT VICTIM DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO WITH THEM LIKE POUR BOILING WATER ON THEIR PRIVATES, AND ALL SORT OF OTHER TORTURE UNTIL THEY JUST PRAY FOR DEATH, THEN FINALLY SHOOT THEM IN THE GOD DAMN HEAD AND LET THEM BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.

SICK FUCKS ALL OF THEM. PERIOD.

Im not saying the people that deabate this need this, Im saying the people that have done the actual crime deserve what I said above.

I highly doubt God will send me to hell for looking at naked pictures of young teenagers considering he fucking impregnated one.

Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #531 on: March 01, 2014, 08:33:40 am »
And you believe in a sky daddy, as well as diddling little kids? Hah Gawd, when you do reproduce, I can't wait till you get unhinged when someone looks crosseyed at your kid. Or, are you going to be attracted to your very own 13yr old daughter, nieces, grandchildren, and justify turning them into meat? You are so juvenile, its a wonder you're out of pampers.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #532 on: March 01, 2014, 08:50:29 am »
And you believe in a sky daddy, as well as diddling little kids? Hah Gawd, when you do reproduce, I can't wait till you get unhinged when someone looks crosseyed at your kid. Or, are you going to be attracted to your very own 13yr old daughter, nieces, grandchildren, and justify turning them into meat? You are so juvenile, its a wonder you're out of pampers.

I don't actually, I'm just pointing out that I can appeal to science or religion. I don't think I would be attracted to my own children, I certainly wouldn't have sex with them in any case though. Honestly though I can't see myself giving much of a shit if someone wanted to fuck my 13 year old daughter, provided I thought she was capable of consent. I imagine she would be if she had my genetics though !
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 08:51:49 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #533 on: March 01, 2014, 09:04:33 am »
And you believe in a sky daddy, as well as diddling little kids? Hah Gawd, when you do reproduce, I can't wait till you get unhinged when someone looks crosseyed at your kid. Or, are you going to be attracted to your very own 13yr old daughter, nieces, grandchildren, and justify turning them into meat? You are so juvenile, its a wonder you're out of pampers.

I don't actually, I'm just pointing out that I can appeal to science or religion. I don't think I would be attracted to my own children, I certainly wouldn't have sex with them in any case though. Honestly though I can't see myself giving much of a shit if someone wanted to fuck my 13 year old daughter, provided I thought she was capable of consent. I imagine she would be if she had my genetics though !

FUCK ME!!!  You're one demented piece of shit kmfkewm, a pathetic little rock spider who deserves nothing more than to be squashed under the sole of a shoe. Every dog has it's day and you'll have yours, I'm sure!!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #534 on: March 01, 2014, 09:14:56 am »
And you believe in a sky daddy, as well as diddling little kids? Hah Gawd, when you do reproduce, I can't wait till you get unhinged when someone looks crosseyed at your kid. Or, are you going to be attracted to your very own 13yr old daughter, nieces, grandchildren, and justify turning them into meat? You are so juvenile, its a wonder you're out of pampers.

I don't actually, I'm just pointing out that I can appeal to science or religion. I don't think I would be attracted to my own children, I certainly wouldn't have sex with them in any case though. Honestly though I can't see myself giving much of a shit if someone wanted to fuck my 13 year old daughter, provided I thought she was capable of consent. I imagine she would be if she had my genetics though !

FUCK ME!!!  You're one demented piece of shit kmfkewm, a pathetic little rock spider who deserves nothing more than to be squashed under the sole of a shoe. Every dog has it's day and you'll have yours, I'm sure!!

I already noted that I wouldn't have sex with anyone with an adult IQ in the retarded range, and that totally removes any possibility of me fucking you.

I doubt that I have "my day", because I already plan to relocate to a country where I can legally fuck young teenagers and jack off to jailbait. As an added bonus I can use drugs legally! It's going to be pretty sweet. And I imagine there are lots of intelligent people like me who are sick of living in religious police states. I predict that in the coming years US, UK and Australia will experience a brain drain due to their draconian and illogical laws, and countries primarily in South America and some select ones in Europe will experience a boost to national human capital as smart people flock to them for their freedoms. Your retardation and the retardation of the people in your countries is nothing short of a threat to national security and geopolitical dominance.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #535 on: March 01, 2014, 09:24:10 am »
You are barely shaving, and you spend how much time here, ruling with an iron fist your pedo thread?

This is how you get rich, so you can move to pedowood?

Rave on m0rph, rave on.

When you get out of that walk up next to the water heater, in the refrigerator box you kicked the dog out of, send us a post card.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #536 on: March 01, 2014, 09:27:54 am »
You are barely shaving, and you spend how much time here, ruling with an iron fist your pedo thread?

This is how you get rich, so you can move to pedowood?

Rave on m0rph, rave on.

When you get out of that walk up next to the water heater, in the refrigerator box you kicked the dog out of, send us a post card.

If you think I'm not capable of getting rich you are delusional i'm on the far right of the technical capabilities bell curve.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #537 on: March 01, 2014, 09:39:37 am »
And I can piss standing up. I just don't because it will run down my leg. Yes, you CAN get rich, but are you? Hah, you are a sniveling weaselly piss poor excuse for a troll, much less an intelligent specimen of the species.

What houses/land/properties do you own? How much is in your bank accounts? How much have you really accomplished, on your own?

The acquisition of material wealth is not my goal in life, although I am comfortable. My goal is to be content, experience joy, and take my pleasures where I may.

Is anyone in love with you? Would anyone ever tell you if they were?

Not that I really give two fucks what you do, or say, you are fun to play with, as you can't not respond to each person who thinks your intestinal bacterium are the most fascinating part of your intellect.

Who would take a bullet for you? Who would defend you without expectation of compensation? Who would offer you shelter without a doubt, around their children?

Nada, zilch, the fatass goose egg of no one, no body, and nothing. You are a failure at life, a failure as a person, and especially a failure.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #538 on: March 01, 2014, 09:44:48 am »
I don't care if i'm a failure as long as I get to fuck young teenagers jack off to jailbait and take drugs all day.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #539 on: March 01, 2014, 09:49:36 am »
Only the successful get to fuck teens, jack off to jailbait, and take drugs all day. Losers, failures, mistakes end up homeless, giving handjobs for crack. Or fucking their uncles. Tried that one yet? Fuck your uncle, m0rph? You eat, sleep, mow the lawn, and fuck your uncle all day long?
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #540 on: March 01, 2014, 09:53:50 am »
Only the successful get to fuck teens, jack off to jailbait, and take drugs all day. Losers, failures, mistakes end up homeless, giving handjobs for crack. Or fucking their uncles. Tried that one yet? Fuck your uncle, m0rph? You eat, sleep, mow the lawn, and fuck your uncle all day long?

Mostly I work on improving my technical skills with the end goal of being in the top 1% of hackers so I can find vulnerabilities in software and sell them to military intelligence agencies for hundreds of thousands of dollars so I can relocate to Uruguay and live in mansion in which I will have a polygamous relationship with a harem of young teenagers and be able to support my massive drug habit (plus pay for enough bandwidth to download as much jailbait as I can find). And I can do it all legally without having to worry about the police! So life is actually pretty good, and I think I can wait it out long enough to escape from the prison country I currently live in.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #541 on: March 01, 2014, 09:56:49 am »
And you call me delusional? Seriously? Buwhahahaaa

Stopped yer meds against docs orders again, and look what happens.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #542 on: March 01, 2014, 10:05:51 am »
And you call me delusional? Seriously? Buwhahahaaa

Stopped yer meds against docs orders again, and look what happens.

What is delusional?

1. Intelligence agencies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for remote code execution vulnerabilities: http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/partner-zone-infosecurity/governments-big-buyers-zero-day-flaws

Quote
A new report in the New York Times describes the market for zero-day flaws. "On the tiny Mediterranean island of Malta, two Italian hackers have been searching for bugs … secret flaws in computer code that governments pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn about and exploit." The hackers in question run the company known as Revuln, and like France-based Vupen, it finds or acquires zero-day vulnerabilities that it can sell on to the highest bidder.

I'm not quite to the point I can do that yet, but I am definitely to the point that I can do that in the fairly near future.

2. Polygamous relationships are allowed and socially acceptable in Uruguay and although uncommon they are not unheard of  http://www.everyculture.com/To-Z/Uruguay.html

Quote
Marriage. Official marriages have been civil since 1837; marriages are not arranged and are monogamous. About 48 percent of persons older than 15 years old are married, 10 percent live together, 28 percent are single, 4 percent are divorced, 2 percent are separated, and 8 percent are widows and widowers. Serial polygamy is accepted but is not common.

3. The age of consent in Uruguay is 15 without hassle and 12 is possible with strong proof of consent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America#Uruguay

Quote
The age of consent in Uruguay stands at 15 regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation.[23]

Between the ages of 12 and 15, there is an intermediary status where violence is legally presumed until otherwise proven.[24] In this case, the onus probandi (the burden of proof) shifts from the plaintiff to the accused, who still has the chance to prove in their defense that consent was given. Below the age of 12 proof of consent is not a defense.

Uruguay also has a Corruption of minors law, which can bring charges to those manipulating minors below the age of 18 into having sexual relations -.[25] For ages over 15, however, a lawsuit can be initiated only by a minor or the minor's parents, except when the minor has no parents or legal guardian; or where the accusation is brought against a parent or legal guardian.[26]

4. In Uruguay no drugs are illegal in personal use amounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization

Quote
Uruguay is one of the few countries that never criminalized the possession of drugs for personal use. Since 1974, the law establishes no quantity limits, leaving it to the judge’s discretion to determine whether the intent was personal use. Once it is determined by the judge that the amount in possession was meant for personal use, there are no sanctions.[53]

In June 2012, the Uruguayan government announced plans to legalize state-controlled sales of marijuana in order to fight drug-related crimes. The government also stated that they will ask global leaders to do the same.[54]

On July 31, 2013, the Uruguayan House of Representatives approved a bill to legalize the production, distribution, sale, and consumption of marijuana by a vote of 50 to 46. The bill heads next to the Senate, where the left-leaning majority coalition, the Broad Front, holds a comfortable majority, the bill was approved in senate by 16 to 13 on 10-December-2013.[55] The bill will now be presented to President José Mujica, also of the Broad Front coalition, who has supported legalization since June 2012. Relating this vote to the 2012 legalization of marijuana by the U.S. states Colorado and Washington, John Walsh, drug policy expert of the Washington Office on Latin America, stated that "Uruguay's timing is right. Because of last year’s Colorado and Washington State votes to legalize, the U.S. government is in no position to browbeat Uruguay or others who may follow.”[56]

5. In Uruguay there are no laws against viewing child pornography (though I am only interested in jailbait): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornography

check the map.



So I don't see why my plan is delusional, but please feel free to try to explain why to me.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 12:19:57 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #543 on: March 01, 2014, 10:16:48 am »
As soon as one just one military personnel learns of your proclivities, you will cease to be. This. Here. Indicative of your inability to comprehend how loathsome your fellow species members find you. As you know, the military does very thorough background checks on their talent, especially talent that has to be given clearance.

You will continue to beat your rancid meat, while yer mom pays the check. You are not capable of dissembling nor are you capable of shielding your rock spider ways. You will be found out, you will cease to be. The end. Hell, you won't pass the background check, much less the personality profiling.

Guess its back to uncle fucking and handjobs.   
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #544 on: March 01, 2014, 10:26:51 am »
As soon as one just one military personnel learns of your proclivities, you will cease to be. This. Here. Indicative of your inability to comprehend how loathsome your fellow species members find you. As you know, the military does very thorough background checks on their talent, especially talent that has to be given clearance.

Oh I wouldn't actually work FOR the military, I would just sell them exploits. They don't care who they buy exploits from. Working for the military you don't make jack shit anyway being independent is the only intelligent thing to do if you goal is to actually make money. Also, people with top secret clearances are in practice exempt from child pornography laws just fyi. Funny how hard it is to find information on this massive cover up. Of course members of the elite are not held to the same standards as you stupid sheep are. So sad tens of thousands of normal people went to prison whereas most of the ones with top secret clearance had the evidence against them magically disappear. Even ICE said it was a fucking disgrace. And these people actually did pay for child porn by the way, something I wouldn't do, and something that wouldn't be required if everyone had free access to it, though I think the distributor was just reselling old shit and not producing much if any new shit.

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/why-was-pentagon-child-pornography-investigation-halted/

Quote
Child pornography being linked to the American government has all the hallmarks of being one of the major scandals of the decade.

When the Pentagon child pornography story surfaced in 2010, it was naturally one of those media reports that created a whirlwind of interest and astonishment. Yet almost as quickly as the scandal emerged, it disappeared, leaving the nation dumbfounded and none the wiser of its outcome.

At the time the story came out, both the US and the international media was littered with reports of a “major federal investigation” being carried out, which found dozens of military officials and defense contractors, allegedly buying and downloading child pornography onto private and government computers.

While the shocking case was only leaked to the media in 2010, the Pentagon released investigative reports that spanned almost a decade, implicating employees of government agencies and who handled some of the US’s most top secret issues.

A 2006 investigative report into the Pentagon child pornography stated:

    “Defense workers who purchased child porn put the Department of Defense, the military and national security at risk by compromising computer systems, military installations and security clearance.” > 
    Humiliation for the DoD

    Driving the DoD into greater humiliation and disgrace and generating an even greater flurry of media excitement, were reports that the child pornography suspects also put the Defense Department “at risk of blackmail, bribery and threats.” (1)

    The Huffington Post went on to state that a computer repair company had alerted police after it had found “thousands of possible child pornography images” on the hard drive which had been brought to the shop by a man who was an employee of the Naval Air Welfare Center in California. (1)

    The findings instigated a broader federal investigation, which operated under the code name “Operation Flicker”. The project began in 2007 and identified more than 5,200 individuals who had subscribed to child pornography websites. Out of the thousands of individuals who had been identified as subscribing to child porn, many provided Army or fleet zip codes or military email addresses. (2)

    Despite dramatic claims of a decade-long federal investigation and the highly hyped top-secret project known as “Operation Flicker”, the investigation into the Pentagon child porn scandal only actually ran for eight months and only cross-checked 3,500 names for Pentagon ties.

    Defense Criminal Investigation Service (DCI) documents revealed that in a Freedom of Information Act request, out of the 3,500 names that had been crosschecked, 264 individuals were uncovered as being specifically Pentagon employees or contractors, including staffers for the Secretary of Defense. Only 20 percent of these 264 people were completely investigated and fewer still were prosecuted.

    computer screenWhere the Investigation Fell Short

    Despite the operation possibly tying as many as 5,000 individuals to child pornography sites and at least 264 of those people being linked directly to the DoD, 1,700 alleged child porn customers still went unchecked, and at least nine cases were closed because the investigators lacked “current, relevant evidence”. (1)

    This begs the question: Why were the 1,700 suspects never investigated or identified? Why did Project Flicker end only eight months after it had started, without there being any charges or convictions, despite the fact that buying child pornography is illegal?

    On a CNN report, Senator Grassley confirmed that that there were “no answers” to why the 1,700 suspects of purchasing child pornography were never investigated and that unknown numbers are still committing criminal acts. (3)

    Keep in mind that when a priest is associated with this repulsive crime, the media interest in the story lasts for months. Or, even look at the Jimmy Saville child abuse scandal in Britain. It has been going on for the best part of six months and shows little sign of abating.

    By comparison when the U.S. government is caught up in similar scandal not only do investigations get halted and suspects get off scott-free, but even the media seems to lose interest somewhat prematurely – augmenting the conspiracy theory that the government has tight control of the media.



Quote
You will continue to beat your rancid meat, while yer mom pays the check. You are not capable of dissembling nor are you capable of shielding your rock spider ways. You will be found out, you will cease to be. The end. Hell, you won't pass the background check, much less the personality profiling.

Guess its back to uncle fucking and handjobs.

I wont be found out because I'm not going to do anything until I get out of my Nazi country and to a free country, and even if I did slip up and do something I wouldn't get caught because my technical security skills already surpass the offensive capabilities of the federal police.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 11:13:42 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #545 on: March 01, 2014, 11:12:37 am »
Aw, your naivety is so cute! The CIA is more likely to pimp children out to powerful people to obtain blackmail on them to manipulate them for intelligence goals than they are to go after random nobodies jacking off to 14 year olds! The CIA has been implicated in numerous child prostitution scandals, and although I can't find any particularly fantastic sources to confirm this (unlike operation flicker which is well documented), it is highly likely that the CIA has engaged in child prostitution to further intelligence interests.

http://educate-yourself.org/tg/franklincoverupexcerptwashtimesphoto.shtml is one thing I can immediately find, it appears to be a copy of a story that ran in The Washington Times in the 80s

Quote
he Washington Times, Thursday, June 29, 1989 , Washington D.C.
Homosexual prositution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush
'Call Boys' took midnight tour of White House

by Paul M Rodriguez and George Archibald

A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close social ties to Washington's political elite, documents obtained by The Washington Times reveal.

One of the ring's high profile clients was so well-connected, in fact, that he could arrange a middle-of-the-night tour of the While House for his friends on Sunday, July 3, of last year. Among the six persons on the extraordinary 1 a.m. tour were two male prostitutes.

Federal authorities, including the Secret Service, are investigating criminal aspects of the ring and have told male prostitutes and their homosexual clients that a grand jury will deliberate over the evidence throughout the summer, The Times learned.

Reporters for this newspaper examined hundreds of credit card vouchers, drawn on both corporate and personal cards and made payable to the escort service operated by the homosexual ring. Many of the vouchers were run through a so called "sub-merchant" account of the Chambers Funeral Home by a son of the owner, without the company's knowledge.

Among the client names contained in the vouchers -- and identified by prostitutes and escort operators --are government officials, locally based US military officers, businessmen, lawyers, bankers, congressional aides, and other professionals.

Editors of The Times said the newspaper would print only the names of those found to be in sensitive government posts or positions of influence. "There is no intention of publishing names or facts about the operation merely for titillation," said Wesley Pruden, managing editor of The Times.

The office of U.S. Attorney Jay B. Stephens, former deputy White House counsel to President Reagan, is coordinating federal aspects of the inquiry but refused to discuss the investigation or grand jury action.

Several former White House colleagues of Mr. Stephens are listed among clients of the homosexual prostitution ring , according to the credit card records, and those persons have confirmed that the charges were theirs.

Mr. Stephen's office, after first saying it would cooperate with The Times inquiry, withdrew the offer late yesterday and also declined to say whether Mr. Stephens would recuse himself from the case because of possible conflict of interest.

At least one highly placed Bush administration official and a wealthy businessman who procured homosexual prostitutes from the escort services operated by the ring are cooperating with the investigation. several sources said.

Among clients who charged homosexual prostitution services on major credit cards over the past 18 months are Charles K. Dutcher, former associate director of presidential personnel in the Reagan administration, and Paul R. Balach, Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole's political personnel liaison to the White House.

In the 1970's, Mr. Dutcher was a congressional aide to former Rep. Robert Bauman, Maryland Republican, who resigned from the House after he admitted having engaged in sexual liaisons with teenage male (see PROBE page A7) prostitutes. Mr. Dutcher also worked on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle when he represented an Indiana district in the House.

A charge also was discovered against the credit card of a former White House staffer who prepared the president's daily news summary in the Reagan administration. Todd A. Blodgett said he had not made the charge.

One of the ring's big-spending clients is Craig J. Spence, Washington socialite and international trade consultant, according to documents and interviews with operators and prostitutes who say they engaged in sexual activities with Mr. Spence.

Mr. Spence spent upwards of $20,000 a month for male prostitutes who provided sex to him and his friends, said to include military personnel who also acted as his "body-guards." It was Mr. Spence who arranged the nocturnal tour of the Reagan White House. Repeated attempts to reach Mr. Spence by telephone, fax machine and personal visits to his home, were unsuccessful.

Credit card vouchers confirm that Mr. Spence charged thousands of dollars on American Express and Visa cards, sometimes making $600 charges against his cards several times a day, drawn in behalf of an escort service called Professional Services, Inc.

Professional Services is one of several umbrella companies used by operators supplying male prostitutes as escorts, as advertised in Washington tabloid newspapers and the telephone Yellow Pages.

Members of major news organizations also procured escort services from the ring, credit-card documents show. These include Stanley Mark Tapscott, who was an assistant managing editor of The Washington Times.

Mr. Tapscott, whose resignation on June 20 was accepted, said he had not procured homosexual escorts or sexual services of any kind. He said in an interview that he had talked to two women he arranged to meet through the escort service as part of an investigation of dial-a-porn services he had initiated a year earlier when he was editor of the newspaper's Money section. The charges were made against his company American Express card. His editors knew of no such investigation.

Before joining The Times, Mr. Tapscott worked for the Office of Personnel Management in the Reagan administration.

Managers of the escort ring said that "a few women" were used for clients who called with specific requests, but that the regular stable was altogether male.

The documents show that a number of clients--lawyers, doctors and business executives--used corporate credit cards to procure escort services and that a number of military officers from the United States and allied countries--including one foreign officer using a "Department of Defence" credit card--charged male escort services.

One former top level Pentagon officer said that for the past eight years, military and civilian intelligence authorities have been concerned that "a nest of homosexuals at top levels of the Reagan administration may have been penetrated by Soviet-backed espionage agents posing as male prostitutes," said one former top level Pentagon official.

A major concern, said the former official with longtime ties to top-ranking military intelligence officers, was that hostile foreign intelligence services were using young male prostitutes to compromise top administration homosexuals, thus making them subject to blackmail.

"We have known for many, many years that there is a department of the KGB [Soviet intelligence] whose job it is to prey on sexual deviants" said retired Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Because "closet" homosexuals in government service can easily be "turned" through blackmail for espionage purposes, Gen. Graham said. "we have always in intelligence tried very hard not to be giving classified information to known homosexuals."

Those interviewed by The Times confirmed there were blackmail attempts by male prostitutes who wanted money and other favors to protect clients' secret sexual lives.

The clients interviewed say a Feb. 28 police raid on a house at 6004 34th Place NW was set off by reports of blackmail and possible credit-card fraud and complaints by District hotel operators about prostitution activities.

In the raid, spearheaded by the Washington Field Office of the U.S. Secret Service, authorities found a telephone switchboard operation serving a half dozen homosexual escort services.

Secret Service agents and District police vice investigators confiscated financial records, as well as ledgers, photos, diaries, telephone records, Rolodexes, and client lists of the prostitution network, during the raid and with subsequent subpoenas issued by D.C. Superior Court.

Although the confiscated material was turned over to District police on the scene, witnesses and law enforcement agents say the Secret Service kept one box of files containing names and other information about high-level government officials who were clients of male escort business.

District police officials say that, to their knowledge, this is the first time the Secret Service has ever become involved in such a raid in this area.

Initially, the Secret Service denied it was involved in the raid, but after a second raid of the 34th Place house on May 18, the agency acknowledged its involvement in the investigation.

Secret Service spokesman Bob Snow said the agency participated in the search and seizure operation because of its jurisdiction over credit card fraud. "We come into such operations usually at the request of a U.S. attorney...if the fraud involves $10,000 or more... . We are not involved in any local prostitution investigation." Mr. Snow said.

Witnesses to the February raid said 12 Secret Service agents in blue parkas entered the house and spent several hours collecting and removing boxes of files.

Federal and District investigators have since interrogated several prostitutes working for the ring, as well as clients of the homosexual escort services operating under such names as Jovan, Man-to-Man, Metrodate, Ultimate Models and Ultimate First Class.

In addition to credit-card fraud, the investigation is said to be focused on illegal interstate prostitution, abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion, extortion, larceny and related illicit drug trafficking and use of prostitutes and their clients.

One of the chief operators of Professional Services Inc. and a regular client of the service speculated in separate interviews that the investigation would be restricted because "big names" were involved.

"Henry Vinson [the operator] said a high-level official is gong to try to block the investigation and may succeed" said Mr. Balach, the labor secretary's liaison to the white House. Mr. Vinson said he believes a highly placed federal official, whom he would not name, is working to derail the investigation, but he would not elaborate.

Authorities have been investigating possible credit-card fraud by the ring since last fall.

As early as last October--nine months before the police raid at 34th Place--Mr. Balach was interviewed by investigators about grand larceny he said was committed against him by a male escort named Jason Michael Manos.

According to Mr. Balach, who first procured homosexual prostitutes from the network in June 1988, several clients, including himself, were blackmailed by the prostitutes.

Operators of the ring told The Times that videotapes, audio tapes and still photographs wee made of sex acts performed by clients and the call boys, including perverted acts.

Documents show that customers wee charged for "videotapes" from the operations.

In an attempt to hide the nature of credit-card charges for some clients, Professional Services billed them for innocuous items such as a "cremation urn" or "prayer cards." One of the ring's "credit-card processing" companies was established by Robert A. Chambers, a funeral director whose family owns Chambers Funeral Home.

Mr. Chambers, who declined to be interviewed, was said to have arranged with the Sovran Bank in silver Spring to establish the sub-merchant account in teh Chambers Funeral Home credit accounts in the name Professional Services Inc. It is through this sub-merchant account that credit-card vouchers and checks were processed from the male escort services.

Following the Feb. 28 police raid on the 34th Place residence, Chambers Funeral Home officials, at the request of W.W. Chambers, the patriarch of the family business, canceled the unauthorized Professional Services account according to the company comptroller. Robert Chambers was fired by his father from the company at the time, a company official said.

Mr. Vinson, Professional Services' call-boy "dispatcher," is a trained mortician who also once worked for the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Balach is still involved in civil litigation with a local bank over payment of thousands of dollars of MasterCard charges of Mr. Manos in Mr. Balach's name.

Mr. Balach said in an interview that Mr. Manos tricked him into taking a trip last fall to Greece in pursuit of employment with a Greek shipping tycoon for whom Mr. Manos had provided homosexual services.

When Mr. Balach returned from Athens, he found that Mr. Manos had taken $4,000 from his bank checking accounts --"my bank accounts were in the negative"--cashed savings bonds and opened up about a dozen charge accounts in his name at major department stores along the East Coast.

Also, Mr. Manos stole and demolished his car while Mr. Balach was on the trip to Greece, he said.

"This was a nightmare in my life," Mr. Balach said, explaining that his involvement with Mr. Manos was brought about by "loneliness, laziness."

Mr. Balach said his financial losses occurred after Mr. Manos threatened to expose to his government superiors his homosexual involvement with the prostitution ring. Mr. Balach said he informed his superior at OPM, Edward Guss, of the blackmail attempts and other problems involving Mr. Manos.

The Times has been unable to locate Mr. Manos, who reportedly has returned to the District in recent weeks.

Mr. Dutcher, who now heads a private consulting firm called The Dutcher Co., was charged with placing Reagan-oriented conservatives into the career Civil Service during the closing years of Mr. Reagan's presidency.

He described himself as "bisexual" and said "stress" drove him to seek out a male prostitute. "I only used the service once. I only saw the person once. This person was there no longer than 35 minutes." Mr. Dutcher said.

He confirmed paying $155, which was charged to his Visa card. The sexual encounter was brief and the sex "was safe--extremely...I've had friends who died of AIDS." said Mr. Dutcher.

Mr. Dutcher said he never used his White House personnel position to place anyone in a government position whom he knew to be homosexual. "My priority was my job, not my private life." he said.

According to a credit voucher, Todd Blodgett's account was charged $325 on May 19, 1988, for male escort service "referral" by Professional Services.

Mr. Blodgett, a Republican National Committee staffer assigned to conduct "opposition research" against Democratic candidates nationwide, said in a series of interviews that a friend who is homosexual used his card to procure a male escort.

Mr. Blodgett brought the friend, Boston antique dealer Benedict J. Hastings, to an interview Tuesday to substantiate his claim that he had done nothing illicit. "I am innocent." Mr. Blodgett said.

Mr. Hastings said Mr. Blodgett allowed him to use his American Express card and apartment on numerous occasions, and that he in turn allowed Mr. Blodgett to use his credit card on occasion.

Mr. Hastings said he used Mr. Blodgett's credit card to pressure a male escort unbeknownst to the Republican staffer.

Mr. Hastings said the person was hired as a bartender at a quickly arranged party in Mr. Blodgett's District apartment. "I needed ...someone who would wear just a black bow tie and [under] shorts." he said.

Mr. Blodgett said Mr. Hastings reimbursed him in cash for this and other charges when he returned to town. He said he did not know the details of those transactions until this week and that he "trusted" his friend of six years.

(Jerry Seper contributed to this report)

there have been allegations that the CIA has been tied to child sex brothels in Thailand as well. The operation works as such: run a child brothel and fill it with surveillance cameras, wait for powerful politicians and business leaders and such to obtain the services of child prostitutes (of course use your moles and undercover agents to lead them there), blackmail them with the gathered intelligence and turn them into your pawns. It is standard MICE, money ideology compromise ego, the four ways to recruit intelligence assets according to US HUMINT. This would be a C operation, compromising photographs are obtained and used to recruit intelligence assets. It wouldn't be surprising even if the CIA straight up offered powerful people to have sex with children in return for their undying (and enforced by photographs of the act that they could leak) loyalty. Welcome to the world of intelligence.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/28/paul-m-rodriguez-former-times-investigative-report/?page=all

Quote
During his time as an investigative reporter covering Capitol Hill, Mr. Rodriguez broke stories on the House bank and post office scandals, and uncovered the male prostitution ring run out of the Capitol Hill home of former Rep. Barney Frank.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 11:23:23 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #546 on: March 01, 2014, 12:08:18 pm »
Ding. Dong. Ding. Dong. It tolls for thee.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster takes issue with your misuse of pasta.

All that copy pasta you produce could be better used to paper your pedo cell.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 12:18:01 pm by twatWaffle »
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #547 on: March 01, 2014, 12:25:34 pm »
What don't you understand about the fact that I have figured out a way to legally fuck young teenagers, jack off to jailbait, and take drugs? I already spelled it out very clearly for you. There is no prison in my future because I don't break any laws currently other than very small drug use very rarely these days. My entire focus is on making assloads of money and moving to Uruguay so I can fuck young teenagers, jack off to jailbait, and take drugs all day, and laugh at you. There is nothing you or anyone can do to stop me, because there is no law I will break in the process. So neener neener tbthhhhhh I can fuck young teenagers jack off to jailbait take drugs and you can't do shit but be mad about it.   
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #548 on: March 01, 2014, 12:31:15 pm »
Ding. Why you mad bro?

Uncle fucking not paying like it used to?

How about switching up to blowies n reach arounds?

That should get you the kind of play you are looking for.

Dong.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

MissX

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
  • Karma: +153/-23
  • Greetings from the dark side ..
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #549 on: March 01, 2014, 12:41:10 pm »
@ Twat ... happy to see that you are enjoyng yourself so much today! Poke it and it bites ... every time a winner!
@ mOrph ... if the best way you can think of to spend "ass loads of money" is to move to Uruguay - you've obviously never been there ... its a shit hole ... oh! but that's so appropriate  ... silly me :-\
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 12:44:26 pm by MissX »
Qoinpro daily adds FREE Bitcoin Litecoin Infinitecoin & other crypto currencies to YOUR account.
http://www.qoinpro.com/d131c5e6eb5597926536e0cb352ab2fd
NEWS ...
FREE daily BTCs upped by 6%
Dodgecoin added to the freebies
1,500 withdrawals completed

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #550 on: March 01, 2014, 01:02:08 pm »
I'd rather be free in a shit hole than live in a luxurious prison. Also, even shit holes have nice areas.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #551 on: March 01, 2014, 01:06:35 pm »
Ding. Why you mad bro?

Uncle fucking not paying like it used to?

How about switching up to blowies n reach arounds?

That should get you the kind of play you are looking for.

Dong.

I'm not mad! Why should I be mad? I'm extremely intelligent and have nearly endless potential to make money, I can get rich as shit and go to a country where I can partake in all of the pleasures of life without fear of the Religious Police enforcing their Sharia law on me. I still have most of my life ahead of me and I can spend it playing with technology, making loads of money, doing the things I love, and being free to fuck young teenagers jack off to jailbait and take drugs all day. I'm not mad at all! If anything I'm excited for the future :D.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #552 on: March 01, 2014, 02:03:29 pm »
Ding.

"I have figured out a way to legally fuck young teenagers, jack off to jailbait, and take drugs"

"moving to Uruguay so I can fuck young teenagers, jack off to jailbait, and take drugs all day"

"I can fuck young teenagers jack off to jailbait take drugs"

3 in one! Congratulations. You win nothing. You get nothing. You are nothing.

Dong.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #553 on: March 01, 2014, 02:48:03 pm »
You know, it's really funny, but I'm pretty much the textbook definition of a CP offender. I'm a white highly educated male, and I've always had an interest in deviant pornography. The first was bestiality when I was very young, hell I must have been about 11 when I got into that. I think I grew out of it when I was about 14 or so though, but my interest shifted to rape porn. I got stuck on that for a long time, and really it disturbed the shit out of me that I found it so appealing. My deviant sexual fantasies were not something I really wanted, and at times I really really wished I didn't have them. The more hardcore and abusive of fantasies I had the more enjoyment I got out of them, even though afterwards I would be like what the fuck is wrong with me. I spent a long time going back and forth between actual rape porn and just really hardcore normal porn, usually that was enough to satisfy me. But really thinking back I had traits of something not quite right with me from a really young age. One of my earlier memories shortly after puberty was killing a frog with a rock, and this is something I wouldn't normally do (certainly not today) and I have no idea why I did it really, but I remember it got me insanely aroused. I didn't think much of it at the time though. I also got aroused when I would see flies trapped in spider webs, something about a helpless creature struggling just turned me on, which is pretty sick but hey I was like 11 I don't think anyone can really condemn an 11 year old :P. I even have memories of rape fantasies from a really young age in retrospect, hell even when I still had stuffed animals I had rape fantasies, which is really weird. I was never molested as a child, something must just be fundamentally abnormal in my brain in that regards (in contrast to hebephilia which is actually normal according to science and God and Mohammed).

I'm pretty certainly a sadist, which I actually find far more disturbing than being a hebephile. If anything it actually sucks and is definitely the trait I would remove more than anything. It's not like I want to be aroused by suffering, it just happened to be the way my brain was wired I guess. I think maybe the underlying issue is that my brain interprets things that should be shocking or disgusting as humorous. I'm pretty certain if I was in an fmri or whatever that upon seeing images that are disgusting or shocking the part of my brain that would activate is the part of the brain that would activate when normal people hear a funny joke or something. Maybe the word is "wrong" I suppose rather than shocking or disgusting. I mean, it's not really right for a woman to be fucked by a horse, but when I was 11 I thought it was pretty hilarious and a turn on as well. It's also definitely wrong to rape people, but if I see a picture of someone being raped it just strikes me as hilarious and arousing. I'm not deluded by any means and I know that this is not the normal way for a person to be, which is why I find it funny when you guys condemn me for things that are actually entirely normal (ie: being attracted to young teenagers). Although there is a lot of research showing that the normal male is tempted by rape, so maybe a lot of others are fucked up in this respect as well. I imagine it's a bit different for me though.

I didn't even really think at all about child porn until I was 19 or so and using Tor for drugs. Now, unlike bestiality or rape porn, child porn is actually illegal, so of course I never looked at any of that. And really I don't think I would be at all attracted by actual child porn simply due to the fact that I don't find prepubescents to be attractive. I think that it would actually make me feel disgusted and that I wouldn't find it to be humorous, which is actually a relief considering some of the fucked up shit I find to be hilarious and arousing. Jailbait on the other hand is something I have essentially zero doubt I would highly enjoy. Again, I didn't even really realize that I preferred younger teenagers until I thought about it after hearing such porn existed on Tor, although I never looked at it to confirm if I did or not because it is illegal. But I do usually fantasize about young teenagers now, and it's actually nice because much how rape porn replaced bestiality porn for me, just fantasizing about young teenagers is enough to get me as aroused as fantasizing about rape was, and it doesn't even need to be coercive. It's really nice, because I much prefer fantasizing about non coercive things than I do coercive things, and I really don't believe there is anything wrong or abnormal about wanting to fuck young teenagers, or even doing so in at least some cases. As far as deviant fantasies go, it's actually the one I feel the least disturbed by! Well, I guess bestiality isn't particularly disturbing either, but oddly enough I completely grew out of that to the point I don't even find it appealing anymore.

And really I'm pretty happy with myself in knowing that I never actually raped or abused anyone. Hell, I've never even had sex with anyone, or done much of anything sexual with anyone for that matter. I imagine the primary reason for this is that I'm actually very passive and don't really go out trying to get people to have sex with me. I've had a few opportunities, but never took advantage of any of them, generally out of social anxiety. Once when I was 17 a neighbor girl who was in her 20's and actually very attractive got very drunk and tried to have sex with me, but I didn't want to risk her thinking that I had raped her or something once she sobered up and so declined (much to her surprise), and unsurprisingly the next day she said she had no memory of the prior night (which wasn't really surprising either). So even though at the time I was very into rape pornography, I didn't take advantage of a situation where I could have had pseudo-consensual sex with a girl, even though I wanted to have sex with her. Because I am totally capable of controlling myself and doing what is right even if I have some desire to do things that are not right. And really I can fully understand studies that show availability of child porn negatively correlates with child sex abuse, because if I didn't have porn I could very easily see myself having a harder time to do that. And I'm not even talking about child porn or any illegal porn, but just porn in general. I don't even have any desire for real child porn, as far as I personally am concerned every image of a naked prepubescent in the world could be destroyed and I wouldn't be negatively affected by it. But I have very little doubt that children would be negatively affected by it, because real pedophiles have sex drives and they are going to end up going somewhere just as a matter of fact, and it is way better for them to go toward images of abuse that have *already happened* instead of going toward children who *have not been molested yet*. And the people who don't understand this are making horrible choices because they just don't understand it and they don't even have the logical capacity to be able to understand it when they are told it because they are idiots. When you treat people who are controlling themselves and not really hurting people just the same as you treat people who are hurting people you just encourage them to hurt people if they have don't have total conviction that you are wrong. I know you are wrong, so it doesn't bother me when you are wrong when you say things to me, but not everybody is going to be as capable of seeing the truth as I am, and you are confusing them in a way that is bad for everybody.

Because I know that in many ways my brain is wired incorrectly in its automatic sex drive, I can instead fall back to systems of logic to know what is right or wrong. I know it is wrong to hurt people and that people own their own bodies, so I know it is wrong to rape people and so I don't, because I am a good person really, and once again I am fully convinced of this regardless of what you idiots say to me. And I know it is wrong to take advantage of an intellectual deficiency of a person, and for that reason I would say the typical 12 year old is not capable of consenting to sex even if I want to have sex with them because they are developed enough that they are appealing. But there is nothing I can derive that makes me think I should not have sex with many 13 or 14 year olds. They are in the range of normal intelligence and physical development for adults. It is accepted in numerous countries around the world to this very day and it seems like your distaste for this is the result of enculturation. It started off with feminist and religious campaigners 150 years ago, they wanted to raise the age of consent beyond 7-10, which was a good goal, but they picked an arbitrary age of 18 as their end goal, they did not have science or anything to back this age up and the science of the time was very primitive by the standards of today. The main driving force behind the continuation of this is the massive for profit sex offender processing industry, and in much the same way drugs are kept illegal for these slave traders profits the age of consent is set past what is reasonable and the viewing of child porn is kept illegal for the same exact reason. They reinforce the enculturation that started being passed on in the 1850's and get you to reject any calls to come to more sane conclusions than the feminist movement of the 1850's was capable of doing with their current level of canonical development. And the same is true in regard to child pornography. I cannot see any logical reason why I should not be allowed to look at whatever I want. The logic presented by the prison industry is flawed, i've poked holes in it, the reason the supreme court used to criminalize child pornography may have been valid at the time but in the modern world it is not only inapplicable but it is also entirely counterproductive.

So, because I (like most males) prefer young teenagers and have absolutely nothing that logically says to me that I should not fuck them if the opportunity arises and I judge them capable of consent, other than the law and risk of being ruined for life by doing so, my plan is to move to one of the several countries where it is acceptable to do so. Additionally, as I see absolutely no logical reason that isn't fundamentally flawed as to why I shouldn't be able to look at jailbait porn, and seeing as I would prefer to do that versus looking at any other sort of porn, I would also like to live in a country where it is acceptable to do so. Also, I very much enjoy using drugs and being able to do that is great as well. Uruguay fits the bill perfectly, so as I already said I plan to move there, fuck young teenagers, jack off to jailbait, and take drugs all day. Note that this is in contrast to rape, something else I unfortunately (well I don't feel it is unfortunate that I want to fuck young teenagers really because I don't feel bad about it at all) would certainly enjoy doing, but which I would not do regardless of opportunity or law, due to the fact that I like not being a bad person, despite the fact that idiots think I am a bad person regardless, but really who cares what idiots think? I don't even really judge most of you guys as worthy of being in the same species as me, and feel like due to some genetic mutation I am perhaps the next step in the evolution of your species, because I am so superior to you in so many ways that it just makes me really sad for you. Of course that isn't to say that I don't have issues of my own, but they really don't bother me much anymore, because they are nothing to me, I can see what they are and what they are not and control them and route around them, so they are nothing that hinders me, much like the police and you retards.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #554 on: March 01, 2014, 03:37:18 pm »
You are in your early 20's? Hah, I have children older than you, and hopefully way less wastes of food and space.

Buwhwahahahaaa you are barely shaving, and you think you have the world figured out? Bauwahahaaa.

Come back inna few years when you have some seasoning.

Strangely I actually find myself to be more intelligent and cognitively developed than probably the majority of people who are older than I am. For example, you have children older than me, and you still lack any ability to use logic or reason, and rather are an irrational emotional mess. It's actually a phenomenon I have noticed for the majority of my life, I would say that I have always been significantly ahead of my years, but I don't consider it to be anything particularly worthy of bragging about, I actually find it sad that typical humans develop at such a slow pace, and often their peak is nothing noteworthy either.

Holy shit, maturity's going to be tough on this m0rph kid.

m0rph, I guess you think you're special. Dude, people generally do when they're in their early 20s. The fact is that wise people -regardless of age - don't have these kinds of tabs on themselves.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #555 on: March 01, 2014, 04:13:21 pm »
Only the successful get to fuck teens, jack off to jailbait, and take drugs all day. Losers, failures, mistakes end up homeless, giving handjobs for crack. Or fucking their uncles. Tried that one yet? Fuck your uncle, m0rph? You eat, sleep, mow the lawn, and fuck your uncle all day long?

Mostly I work on improving my technical skills with the end goal of being in the top 1% of hackers so I can find vulnerabilities in software and sell them to military intelligence agencies for hundreds of thousands of dollars so I can relocate to Uruguay and live in mansion in which I will have a polygamous relationship with a harem of young teenagers and be able to support my massive drug habit (plus pay for enough bandwidth to download as much jailbait as I can find). And I can do it all legally without having to worry about the police! So life is actually pretty good, and I think I can wait it out long enough to escape from the prison country I currently live in.

My daily salute to the “bitch ass pussy” that I’ve come to know as m0rph.

You think the more you try to explain your side that you are going to convince us of your sick ways.

You most likely suffer from premature ejaculation and that is the reason why you’re still in little league because they don’t know any better.

Youz a pussy ass little bitch. I hope someone in the military finds out about you and ass fcks you with out any lub.

You look at little girl pictures from off the internet. I hope you use your tears as lubrication because deep down you know that you’re a big ass BITCH that his own mother would be ashamed of.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #556 on: March 01, 2014, 05:04:39 pm »
Good God you people are seriously stupider than shit. It's really just nothing short of shocking how ignorant and primitive you are. It's really like I have been beamed down to a planet of creatures that look similar to me, but which have absolutely none of the sophistication or cognitive capabilities which I possess. I think I must be an alien or something. Whatever it is, I am certainly not one of you, and thank God for that!

Quote
You think the more you try to explain your side that you are going to convince us of your sick ways.

I don't try to convince you of anything because your brain consists of write once memory and the government already got to you and filled it to its limited capacity.

Quote
You most likely suffer from premature ejaculation and that is the reason why you’re still in little league because they don’t know any better.

Yup you figured it out bro. That's exactly it. ps: I will keep you in mind when I premature ejaculate on a 14 year olds perky little tits, thinking about how pissed off it makes you will probably make me have multiple orgasms.

Quote
Youz a pussy ass little bitch. I hope someone in the military finds out about you and ass fcks you with out any lub.

brah nobody can do shit to me. There is no evidence of any potential crimes I have committed in the past, no witnesses, no nada, nothing, I could get raided right now and I would tell the feds to suck my dick like a 14 year old slut. Before I do anything I will be chilling in Uruguay where nobody can do shit to me because nothing I want to do is illegal there anyway because its the land of the fucking free and the home of the brave. You stupid fucks lose. FBI, you lost. DEA, you lost. Retards on SR, you lost. None of you can stop me from doing what I want to do. You got not shit on me. Zero zip nada nothing. Talk all the shit you want why do you think I give the slightest fuck about what you retarded fucktards think or have to say? You have no effect on me at all, i'm not going to go to jail for a single day, I can do everything I want to do and all you can do is cry about it. Waaaah. Waaaah. Fucking little children is what you are, I don't think you guys are even capable of consent because you are brain dead as fuck.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 06:05:03 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #557 on: March 01, 2014, 05:24:21 pm »
Ding.

14yr old slut? Seriously? 14yrolds are incapable of being sluts. They can be sexually abused but sluts?

That particular part of your statement above is indicative of your juvenile and immature brain.

You are not competent to have sex.

Dong.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #558 on: March 01, 2014, 05:54:22 pm »
You might as well tell me that "all drug use is abuse". When I say I use drugs but don't have a problem. Then I can say "no really I just use them", and you can say "no really you are just-IFYing your addiction", and then I can say "No seriously I use drugs very responsibly" and you can tell me I'm a horrible addict who will end up sucking dick under a bridge unless I turn my life over to Jesus Christ, but I don't really want to turn my life over to Jesus because he is God and God fucked a 14 year old virgin to beget him and not only that but JesusGod also told Mohammed to fuck a 9 year old and Joesph Smith was told to fuck all kinds of underage girls by this same God and I just don't know what to do anymore because I'm horribly addicted to drugs and need Jesus to save me from them but Jesus is the leader of a child molestation conspiracy that has been ongoing for thousands of years and everyone hates me because I want to fuck 14 year olds like God and Mohammed and Joesph Smith but they also hate me because I am horribly addicted to drugs and the only cure is Jesus and i'm just so confused I don't even know what to do anymore!!!!

Really though you think a 14 year old girl can't choose to have multiple short term sex partners? It's just IMPOSSIBLE. It just defies the laws of the Lord who impregnated a 14 year old virgin?

I'm so confused. I don't comprehend this world. I'm just having an existential crisis. An existential crisis just like the existential crisis our species is having because 20 year olds jack of to naked pictures of 14 year olds and now the crowding of the cities and premature sexualization of the youth is analogous to us being crowded rats in a artificial environment and we are going to start eating our babies and the entire species is doomed. We are all doomed now omfg stop jacking off to 14 year old sluts the entire God Who Molested a Virgin 14 Year Old Damn species is coming to an end because of this you sick fucks. AHHH. AHHH. CUT A PEDOS HEAD OFF> AHAHAH&AUDGH789sHDF&*(sjf=90zasf fuck fuck fuck fuck BBUIIIIITCGH 9gfejw80gjue890-g hje=0g jer98vgt6hyuw3e45m9 tjywe45m98yuwe45r9-ytue5r9tjyie45r9tyj-e45vr gtj -er9ty[p45t94    I WILL DESTROY AND ASS RAPE AND MUR&DER A PEDOPHILE YUOU R*WUISO)RYO)_PV %JY_MU<R*(ry90-4b yt8ip4-6y0-eut 4rijo0[yb9usb-pty5i9o tjykg9 0e456jn8yp
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 05:59:41 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twonenathandjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
  • Karma: +57/-8
  • letshug Fanclub President
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #559 on: March 01, 2014, 06:15:03 pm »
You might as well tell me that "all drug use is abuse". When I say I use drugs but don't have a problem. Then I can say "no really I just use them", and you can say "no really you are just-IFYing your addiction", and then I can say "No seriously I use drugs very responsibly" and you can tell me I'm a horrible addict who will end up sucking dick under a bridge unless I turn my life over to Jesus Christ, but I don't really want to turn my life over to Jesus because he is God and God fucked a 14 year old virgin to beget him and not only that but JesusGod also told Mohammed to fuck a 9 year old and Joesph Smith was told to fuck all kinds of underage girls by this same God and I just don't know what to do anymore because I'm horribly addicted to drugs and need Jesus to save me from them but Jesus is the leader of a child molestation conspiracy that has been ongoing for thousands of years and everyone hates me because I want to fuck 14 year olds like God and Mohammed and Joesph Smith but they also hate me because I am horribly addicted to drugs and the only cure is Jesus and i'm just so confused I don't even know what to do anymore!!!!

Really though you think a 14 year old girl can't choose to have multiple short term sex partners? It's just IMPOSSIBLE. It just defies the laws of the Lord who impregnated a 14 year old virgin?

I'm so confused. I don't comprehend this world. I'm just having an existential crisis. An existential crisis just like the existential crisis our species is having because 20 year olds jack of to naked pictures of 14 year olds and now the crowding of the cities and premature sexualization of the youth is analogous to us being crowded rats in a artificial environment and we are going to start eating our babies and the entire species is doomed. We are all doomed now omfg stop jacking off to 14 year old sluts the entire God Who Molested a Virgin 14 Year Old Damn species is coming to an end because of this you sick fucks. AHHH. AHHH. CUT A PEDOS HEAD OFF> AHAHAH&AUDGH789sHDF&*(sjf=90zasf fuck fuck fuck fuck BBUIIIIITCGH 9gfejw80gjue890-g hje=0g jer98vgt6hyuw3e45m9 tjywe45m98yuwe45r9-ytue5r9tjyie45r9tyj-e45vr gtj -er9ty[p45t94    I WILL DESTROY AND ASS RAPE AND MUR&DER A PEDOPHILE YUOU R*WUISO)RYO)_PV %JY_MU<R*(ry90-4b yt8ip4-6y0-eut 4rijo0[yb9usb-pty5i9o tjykg9 0e456jn8yp

Fucking 14 year olds is socially unacceptable in our culture, and since you were raised in this culture you obviously took a bum imprint somewhere. It's foreign to you, it isn't at all like the cultures that marry their girls off at 13-14. You're a devient through and through, and it translates to all your thought patterns. Consider also that since it is here not a part of our culture to be  couple 13-14 year olds with much older mates, the younger parties are by social design not emotionally ready for something like that. Could they be in another cultural setting? Probably, but not in this one.

Also notice how you compare your 'use' of these girls/boys to the 'use' of a drug. The difference here is the drug isn't sentient. You don't use people as if they were things, you interact with them.

And I don't want to kill all pedophiles, just the ones who have or plan on or are likely to violate the will of a creature unable to formulate clearly his or her own will.
Join the letshug Fan Club today!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #560 on: March 01, 2014, 06:56:13 pm »
You might as well tell me that "all drug use is abuse". When I say I use drugs but don't have a problem. Then I can say "no really I just use them", and you can say "no really you are just-IFYing your addiction", and then I can say "No seriously I use drugs very responsibly" and you can tell me I'm a horrible addict who will end up sucking dick under a bridge unless I turn my life over to Jesus Christ, but I don't really want to turn my life over to Jesus because he is God and God fucked a 14 year old virgin to beget him and not only that but JesusGod also told Mohammed to fuck a 9 year old and Joesph Smith was told to fuck all kinds of underage girls by this same God and I just don't know what to do anymore because I'm horribly addicted to drugs and need Jesus to save me from them but Jesus is the leader of a child molestation conspiracy that has been ongoing for thousands of years and everyone hates me because I want to fuck 14 year olds like God and Mohammed and Joesph Smith but they also hate me because I am horribly addicted to drugs and the only cure is Jesus and i'm just so confused I don't even know what to do anymore!!!!

Really though you think a 14 year old girl can't choose to have multiple short term sex partners? It's just IMPOSSIBLE. It just defies the laws of the Lord who impregnated a 14 year old virgin?

I'm so confused. I don't comprehend this world. I'm just having an existential crisis. An existential crisis just like the existential crisis our species is having because 20 year olds jack of to naked pictures of 14 year olds and now the crowding of the cities and premature sexualization of the youth is analogous to us being crowded rats in a artificial environment and we are going to start eating our babies and the entire species is doomed. We are all doomed now omfg stop jacking off to 14 year old sluts the entire God Who Molested a Virgin 14 Year Old Damn species is coming to an end because of this you sick fucks. AHHH. AHHH. CUT A PEDOS HEAD OFF> AHAHAH&AUDGH789sHDF&*(sjf=90zasf fuck fuck fuck fuck BBUIIIIITCGH 9gfejw80gjue890-g hje=0g jer98vgt6hyuw3e45m9 tjywe45m98yuwe45r9-ytue5r9tjyie45r9tyj-e45vr gtj -er9ty[p45t94    I WILL DESTROY AND ASS RAPE AND MUR&DER A PEDOPHILE YUOU R*WUISO)RYO)_PV %JY_MU<R*(ry90-4b yt8ip4-6y0-eut 4rijo0[yb9usb-pty5i9o tjykg9 0e456jn8yp

Fucking 14 year olds is socially unacceptable in our culture, and since you were raised in this culture you obviously took a bum imprint somewhere. It's foreign to you, it isn't at all like the cultures that marry their girls off at 13-14. You're a devient through and through, and it translates to all your thought patterns. Consider also that since it is here not a part of our culture to be  couple 13-14 year olds with much older mates, the younger parties are by social design not emotionally ready for something like that. Could they be in another cultural setting? Probably, but not in this one.

Also notice how you compare your 'use' of these girls/boys to the 'use' of a drug. The difference here is the drug isn't sentient. You don't use people as if they were things, you interact with them.

And I don't want to kill all pedophiles, just the ones who have or plan on or are likely to violate the will of a creature unable to formulate clearly his or her own will.

No, I don't compare my "use" of them to the use of a drug, I compare twatwaffles thought terminating cliches to the thought terminating cliches of the brainwashed drug warriors. In our society sexualized 14 year olds are super common just look at some advertisements. Why do you think advertisers keep ripping girls pictures off from jailbaitgallery, you think it might be because of the response it gets? Really our culture isn't at all like Germany where the age of consent is 14? Are German girls just way superior to our girls in terms of development? Fuck your social design. By social design we do all kinds of bad shit. Social design puts Jews in death camps. But you probably like that seeing as you seem to believe in German Nationalism and Superiority! Are only the Aryan Germans superior to our females? Do you think they are the master race? If your social design is to emotionally stunt 14 year olds so they are not capable of having sex then isn't it your fault when people have sex with them anyway, as is bound to happen, and they are emotionally damaged by it? That's a popular argument of pedophiles, makes it strange to see someone who is against them essentially say it is the case that society is the one at fault.

Don't worry brah I am first of all not a pedophile as has been explained ad nauseam , and I will go to one of the superior cultures where they don't emotionally stunt their 14 year olds and leave you and your emotionally stunted 14 year olds behind to worship the Lord and try to enslave as many people as possible.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 06:59:41 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #561 on: March 01, 2014, 07:00:02 pm »
14yr old slut? Seriously? 14yrolds are incapable of being sluts. They can be sexually abused but sluts?

Slut is an outdated word. You shouldn't call a 14 year old girl or a 41 year old woman a slut. Some people just have a much bigger sexual craving than others and I see nothing wrong with choosing to have many sexual encounters with different partners. Maybe you don't remember this, but it is normal for 14 year old to have sexual desires (both for guys and girls).

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #562 on: March 01, 2014, 07:03:27 pm »
Dear 14 year olds, in order to protect you from older men, we are going to emotionally stunt you, so that when older men have sex with you it emotionally destroys you. We do this because we love you. Much like God, who impregnated a 14 year old virgin, will send you to a lake of eternal fire if you don't believe he impregnated a 14 year old virgin with himself in order to save you from sin, because he loves you.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #563 on: March 01, 2014, 07:05:38 pm »
14yr old slut? Seriously? 14yrolds are incapable of being sluts. They can be sexually abused but sluts?

Slut is an outdated word. You shouldn't call a 14 year old girl or a 41 year old woman a slut. Some people just have a much bigger sexual craving than others and I see nothing wrong with choosing to have many sexual encounters with different partners. Maybe you don't remember this, but it is normal for 14 year old to have sexual desires (both for guys and girls).

She was actually critiquing me for making reference to 14 year old sluts, and really it is a valid point that I shouldn't call people sluts like that regardless of their age, generally I wouldn't do that, but at this point seeing as nobody in this thread has any fucking sense at all I am just upsetting them for shits and giggles and used that terminology to do so. Though I wouldn't hesitate to fantasize about calling a 14 year old a slut :D, I wouldn't actually likely do so IRL seeing as I am not such an asshole to people (unless they are stupid fucktards like twatwaffle and ishitbacon)
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #564 on: March 01, 2014, 07:07:28 pm »
It most be beautiful in your world M0rph. As you think that you are the smartest one on the bloc. You might have good testing scores, but you should also know that little “bitch ass punks” can’t find a real woman. They prowle like animals threw the streets to find weak ass prey. You guys (chomos) just find any reason to justify this to yourselves.

Maybe its because you had to justify why your dad stuck his penis in your bum hole… hahaha

M0rph’s butt hole is so lose that he shitz out the pancakes. Chuckle chuckle chuckle.

“youz will always be a bitch ass little hoe” 

: ( :
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #565 on: March 01, 2014, 07:29:06 pm »
It most be beautiful in your world M0rph. As you think that you are the smartest one on the bloc. You might have good testing scores, but you should also know that little “bitch ass punks” can’t find a real woman. They prowle like animals threw the streets to find weak ass prey. You guys (chomos) just find any reason to justify this to yourselves.

Maybe its because you had to justify why your dad stuck his penis in your bum hole… hahaha

M0rph’s butt hole is so lose that he shitz out the pancakes. Chuckle chuckle chuckle.

“youz will always be a bitch ass little hoe” 

: ( :

Don't you think it's kind of pathological to think of females as prey?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #566 on: March 01, 2014, 07:32:11 pm »
It most be beautiful in your world M0rph. As you think that you are the smartest one on the bloc. You might have good testing scores, but you should also know that little “bitch ass punks” can’t find a real woman. They prowle like animals threw the streets to find weak ass prey. You guys (chomos) just find any reason to justify this to yourselves.

Maybe its because you had to justify why your dad stuck his penis in your bum hole… hahaha

M0rph’s butt hole is so lose that he shitz out the pancakes. Chuckle chuckle chuckle.

“youz will always be a bitch ass little hoe” 

: ( :

Don't you think it's kind of pathological to think of females as prey?

thats a good one! you fcking sick ass BITCH... youre really not trying convience me because its starting to seem like your're trying fool youself.

hahahah "youz a bitch!!" as I sing to myself.

: ( :
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #567 on: March 01, 2014, 07:36:59 pm »
Look man, all I'm saying is that an act of hebephilia saved humanity from eternal hell fire, so even if it is going to lead to us eating our babies and the end of the species like Twatwaffle thinks, at least it gave us eternal salvation in the afterlife, and since this life is limited anyway, and the afterlife is eternal, I think all things considered hebephilia hasn't turned out to be so bad after all now has it?

Trust me, I am a man of great faith. Every time I see a hot virgin 14 year old I ask myself "What Would Jesus Do?"
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 07:43:47 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #568 on: March 01, 2014, 07:41:20 pm »
I don't care if i'm a failure as long as I get to fuck young teenagers jack off to jailbait and take drugs all day.

One word, freak!

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #569 on: March 01, 2014, 07:43:14 pm »
Look man, all I'm saying is that an act of hebephilia saved humanity from eternal hell fire, so even if it is going to lead to us eating our babies and the end of the species like Twatwaffle thinks, at least it gave us eternal salvation in the afterlife, and since this life is limited anyway, and the afterlife is eternal, I think all things considered hebephilia hasn't turned out to be so bad after all now has it?

ahahaha at the fact that you might actually think I will ever agree with you.

Just cut the bullshit. You know you have a problem. You just don’t want to admit to it. that’s the first step bro.

Let me know when they put you on the Sex Offenders site. I will post a really cute comment in support of you. I hope you have a good picture on the postcard that you will have to mail out to all of your neighbors so the parents can tell their kids to stay away from the “sick chomo”. hope you don't have a busted eye and mouth ahahh

Once again… “youz a big ass BITCH”!!! I’m sorry (not really) but it feels so good to type that to you.

: ) :

« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 07:45:25 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #570 on: March 01, 2014, 07:57:56 pm »
Look man, all I'm saying is that an act of hebephilia saved humanity from eternal hell fire, so even if it is going to lead to us eating our babies and the end of the species like Twatwaffle thinks, at least it gave us eternal salvation in the afterlife, and since this life is limited anyway, and the afterlife is eternal, I think all things considered hebephilia hasn't turned out to be so bad after all now has it?

ahahaha at the fact that you might actually think I will ever agree with you.

Just cut the bullshit. You know you have a problem. You just don’t want to admit to it. that’s the first step bro.

Let me know when they put you on the Sex Offenders site. I will post a really cute comment in support of you. I hope you have a good picture on the postcard that you will have to mail out to all of your neighbors so the parents can tell their kids to stay away from the “sick chomo”. hope you don't have a busted eye and mouth ahahh

Once again… “youz a big ass BITCH”!!! I’m sorry (not really) but it feels so good to type that to you.

: ) :

I already admitted that I have a problem, but it isn't that I want to fuck hot young teenagers, because that is totally normal. Seriously, of all the parts of my sexuality that there are, wanting to fuck hot young teenagers is probably the least deviant of all. I don't think I will be going on any sex offender registry because of the fact that I'm not breaking any laws until I get to move to a country where I can do all the things I want to without breaking any laws. Why the fucking hell would I risk that when I can move to Uruguay and fuck teenagers and jack off to jailbait and take drugs all day without having to worry about the police?!  Ugh, I wish I was just fucking born in Uruguay it would make things so much easier. It would be great to have been born in a country where I never had to be a criminal to do anything I wanted to do. Fucking shit why did I have to be born in the freest country in the entire world with the biggest prison population in the entire world some of the highest ages of consent in the entire world some of the strictest drug laws in the world and quite possibly the strictest laws in the entire world against jacking off to jailbait (other than countries with total bans on porn due to Islamic law and such)? Living in this awesome Utopia of freedom fucking sucks I can't wait to move to a country where I'm not censored from websites, somewhere like Russia. Russia, where they hate homosexuals but actually overall probably are less discriminatory than the UK or US or Australia seeing as they don't wage a war against pedophiles who look at porn or hebephiles who look at porn and even though they hate gays a bit more than the USA does haven't totally outlawed homosexuality. I really hit the fucking jackpot I'm so glad for all of my freedoms. My freedom to free speech as long as it doesn't involve anything that people find distasteful, freedom to life liberty and the pursuit of getting off parole if you get busted with a joint, it's fucking so awesome.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #571 on: March 01, 2014, 08:03:20 pm »
Look man, all I'm saying is that an act of hebephilia saved humanity from eternal hell fire, so even if it is going to lead to us eating our babies and the end of the species like Twatwaffle thinks, at least it gave us eternal salvation in the afterlife, and since this life is limited anyway, and the afterlife is eternal, I think all things considered hebephilia hasn't turned out to be so bad after all now has it?

ahahaha at the fact that you might actually think I will ever agree with you.

Just cut the bullshit. You know you have a problem. You just don’t want to admit to it. that’s the first step bro.

Let me know when they put you on the Sex Offenders site. I will post a really cute comment in support of you. I hope you have a good picture on the postcard that you will have to mail out to all of your neighbors so the parents can tell their kids to stay away from the “sick chomo”. hope you don't have a busted eye and mouth ahahh

Once again… “youz a big ass BITCH”!!! I’m sorry (not really) but it feels so good to type that to you.

: ) :

I already admitted that I have a problem, but it isn't that I want to fuck hot young teenagers, because that is totally normal. Seriously, of all the parts of my sexuality that there are, wanting to fuck hot young teenagers is probably the least deviant of all. I don't think I will be going on any sex offender registry because of the fact that I'm not breaking any laws until I get to move to a country where I can do all the things I want to without breaking any laws. Why the fucking hell would I risk that when I can move to Uruguay and fuck teenagers and jack off to jailbait and take drugs all day without having to worry about the police?!  Ugh, I wish I was just fucking born in Uruguay it would make things so much easier. It would be great to have been born in a country where I never had to be a criminal to do anything I wanted to do. Fucking shit why did I have to be born in the freest country in the entire world with the biggest prison population in the entire world some of the highest ages of consent in the entire world some of the strictest drug laws in the world and quite possibly the strictest laws in the entire world against jacking off to jailbait (other than countries with total bans on porn due to Islamic law and such)? Living in this awesome Utopia of freedom fucking sucks I can't wait to move to a country where I'm not censored from websites, somewhere like Russia. Russia, where they hate homosexuals but actually overall probably are less discriminatory than the UK or US or Australia seeing as they don't wage a war against pedophiles who look at porn or hebephiles who look at porn and even though they hate gays a bit more than the USA does haven't totally outlawed homosexuality. I really hit the fucking jackpot I'm so glad for all of my freedoms. My freedom to free speech as long as it doesn't involve anything that people find distasteful, freedom to life liberty and the pursuit of getting off parole if you get busted with a joint, it's fucking so awesome.

Geezuz mate. Stop trying to convince me of your sick ways. I will never be your wing man!

Youz just a “bitch” like I’ve come to love to say to you. ( geez to many to’s)


As I play Yo gotti - “Lebron James” while thinking of you

“I’m Lebron James, you a fcking ROOKIE”

: ( :
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #572 on: March 01, 2014, 08:25:33 pm »
I don't care if i'm a failure as long as I get to fuck young teenagers [and] jack off to jailbait

One word, freak!

u jelly? Don't worry, even though your breasts are a little saggier and your skin is a bit duller I'm sure you are still sexually attractive !

And on a final note for the day, http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGdsvkbq8tyc.jpg good god what type of sick freak would think that girl is attractive, anyone who does should be immediately castrated! (as always, image and linked to site are totally legal).
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 08:35:13 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #573 on: March 01, 2014, 08:28:23 pm »
I don't care if i'm a failure as long as I get to fuck young teenagers [and] jack off to jailbait

One word, freak!

u jelly?

They're jelly that I am Constantly thrusting my gianurmous penis in and out of your asshole

The thing is…I don’t know why you cry so much. I mean its just the tip.

: ( :

« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 08:29:27 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #574 on: March 01, 2014, 08:31:45 pm »
I just want you to know , m0rph, that you must be a little bitch to post outside of the chomo thread.

I see you stray every now and then. Just know it makes me feel a little sick posting after you in another threead.


you crazy "bitch ass dick herpes"

: ( :
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #575 on: March 01, 2014, 08:37:01 pm »
ishitbacon you never answered me if you found any of the girls I posted links to attractive or not? I want you to click on the previous link (it's legal) and tell me yes or no do you think that girl is sexually attractive? And if you could see pictures of girls like that completely naked without any risk of getting in legal trouble for it, are you seriously going to tell me that you wouldn't do it? And if you could have sex with girls that look like that are you going to really claim that you wouldn't do it?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 08:47:24 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #576 on: March 01, 2014, 08:53:09 pm »
ishitbacon you never answered me if you found any of the girls I posted links to attractive or not? I want you to click on the previous link (it's legal) and tell me yes or no do you think that girl is sexually attractive? And if you could see pictures of girls like that completely naked without any risk of getting in legal trouble for it, are you seriously going to tell me that you wouldn't do it? And if you could have sex with girls that look like that are you going to really claim that you wouldn't do it?

I wasn't aware of you asking me a question because I feel if I read everything that you post that I might contract AIDs.

I will never click on a link that you have given, because I hate that I’m already in one place that is co inhabited by you.

I like woman with real curves that have life experience because my soul is older than my peers because of my adventures.

Even if I check out porn (which I doez like) and she looks to young, it’s a complete turn off and makes me regret even looking up porn.

oh geezz I forgot.. m0rph you know this already... "youz a bitch"

: ( :
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 08:58:27 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

CD8N

  • Vendor
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 91
  • Karma: +14/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #577 on: March 01, 2014, 08:55:32 pm »
Mate, spare me your basic Anthropological bullshit. There are still mature, educated people on here who wish to see what happens to child abusers in prison with a rusty shank.

Humanity has a dark past and our conscious mind has evolved to produce a dark society which is STILL EVOLVING.

Despite what our primal attributes of the conscious mind tell us we COULD be doing is right, doesn't mean it cannot be over-ridden by the frontal lobe (LOGIC - 'men' and 'women' have it... a lot of...*cringe* 'humans' don't) to adhere with the rules society has set for us for the good of our doomed species. There is logic to support some laws , there is logic to disobey some (drugs being the obvious one as we have them thrust in our faces legally daily  and a few corporate shills determine which ones are acceptable... this is bullshit when you know anything about toxicology and industrial drug design. and even IF you dont!!!)

There is no logic in support of child abuse. It is abuse of power like that of corporations, government and other entities in society I have grown to loath. Even if people turn their eyes from it in some developing countries. It is abusing the naivety of uneducated and undeveloped human lives by doing so. It is inexcusable even if it were some factor of our evolution (dubious...).

...so was rubbing together sticks to make fire.

Threads like this give SR a bad name. Freedom of speech is for those who can exercise humanity. a dying virtue.

I also agree with IshitBacon. If you are only attracted by the superficial aspects of a woman, something is still wrong. give me experience any day. Glad to hear some of us are attracted to mind over matter :S


m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #578 on: March 01, 2014, 09:05:43 pm »
Hm you got me there, young teenage girls have absolutely no curves at all http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGy02qfxtdc8.jpg (legal as always). But I actually disagree with you there, I prefer more subtle curves and a less filled out frame. In any case it doesn't matter since you are afraid to click on links because you will be forced to either blatantly lie to me or admit that you find them attractive.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #579 on: March 01, 2014, 09:07:36 pm »
Hm you got me there, young teenage girls have absolutely no curves at all http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGy02qfxtdc8.jpg (legal as always). But I actually disagree with you there, I prefer more subtle curves and a less filled out frame. In any case it doesn't matter since you are afraid to click on links because you will be forced to either blatantly lie to me or admit that you find them attractive.

might be because you don't want to admit that you like guys. It would be better for society if you sckd dicks instead of abusing the young.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #580 on: March 01, 2014, 09:22:57 pm »
Mate, spare me your basic Anthropological bullshit. There are still mature, educated people on here who wish to see what happens to child abusers in prison with a rusty shank.

That's great. Except I'm not a child abuser. And I'm going to move to Uruguay and fuck young teenagers and jack off to jailbait and not go to jail because there are no laws against it there at all. So I don't give a fuck.

Quote
Humanity has a dark past and our conscious mind has evolved to produce a dark society which is STILL EVOLVING.

Yes sure I don't appeal to nature, although it would be nice if you guys would at least admit that you are sexually attracted to these girls and would be aroused by seeing naked pictures of similar girls. But feel free to keep bullshitting me I already know from scientific literature that you would.

Quote
Despite what our primal attributes of the conscious mind tell us we COULD be doing is right, doesn't mean it cannot be over-ridden by the frontal lobe (LOGIC - 'men' and 'women' have it... a lot of...*cringe* 'humans' don't)

I think my logical capabilities far surpass those of my opponents. I already gave a logical analysis of the situation that indicated 13 year olds are on average capable of consenting to sex as they are in the normal range of adult intelligence and physical development. Nobody has been able to tell me a cognitive test that can differentiate them from 18 year olds. Without an ability to differentiate between the minds on one person or another you cannot tell me that it is immoral to have sex with one but not the other. Where is your cognitive test that can with great accuracy determine someone is below the age you want consent to be set at?

Quote
to adhere with the rules society has set for us for the good of our doomed species.

Yes, like not using drugs right? So pretty much your argument is do what the masters tell us to do because the masters know what is best for us. Wow that is an incredibly childish take on life. PS: I plan to move to a society that says I can fuck young teenagers and jack off to jailbait and take drugs all day, so I guess your argument kind of goes down the shitter now huh?

Quote
There is logic to support some laws , there is logic to disobey some (drugs being the obvious one as we have them thrust in our faces legally daily  and a few corporate shills determine which ones are acceptable... this is bullshit when you know anything about toxicology and industrial drug design. and even IF you dont!!!)

What you are blind to is the fact that the sex laws of your country have the same corporations backing them because the war on CP and statutory sex offenders is a multi billion dollar industry. The lobby for it is fucking ridiculously large, and anyone who dares question them is immediately branded a deviant child rapist who deserves to be castrated and stabbed to death. You are playing right into the same scheme that is being done for drugs, you just don't realize it. If you know anything about CP you would know it is totally bullshit that people are banned from viewing it because the arguments that people use for why it must be banned are fundamentally flawed. In fact, allowing people to access CP leads to LESS molestation in EVERY country EVER studied that legalized it!

Quote
There is no logic in support of child abuse. It is abuse of power like that of corporations, government and other entities in society I have grown to loath. Even if people turn their eyes from it in some developing countries. It is abusing the naivety of uneducated and undeveloped human lives by doing so. It is inexcusable even if it were some factor of our evolution (dubious...).

I don't support child abuse, I support letting people look at whatever pictures they want and letting them fuck young teenagers who prove through individualized testing that they are capable of consent. Nice strawman fallacy though. The caveat that I think the people having sex should have to be proven as capable of being able to consent to sex inherently and definitively rules out the possibility that it would be abusive to have sex with them, and as far as CP goes are you telling me you are an educated person but you believe that photographs are magic? Because that seems like a contradiction to me! Yes, developing countries like GERMANY JAPAN RUSSIA. Not developing countries. Germany has legal sex with 14 year olds and also jailbait porn of 14+ is legal as well although younger porn is illegal, japan age of consent is 13 and CP is totally legal, russia CP is totally legal. Italy age of consent is 14. South Korea age of consent is 13 CP is totally legal. These are not developing countries and it doesn't do you any credit to pretend that only third world shit holes are allowing sex at a younger age than your country or allowing people to view CP. It isn't AT ALL dubious that attraction to young teenagers is hard wired into males via evolution. And nobody has shown an EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC WAY to distinguish the cognitive development of 13 year olds versus 18 year olds when it comes to ability to consent. I'm not talking theory, I'm talking a fucking test that you can do in a blind setting to be able to say hey look based on these results we can say this person is not capable of sexual consent. Guess what, I have a good filtering test, it's called a persons adult IQ score, on average 13 year olds are in the normal range for adults, on average they are in the normal range for adults in regards to sexual development too. If you loathe abuse of power and corporations why not loathe the multi billion dollar sex offender processing industry that is attempting (unsuccessfully) to rewrite human nature, corrupt science and (successfully) to imprison hundreds of thousands of people who did nothing wrong just so some fucking slave traders can make a profit?

Quote
...so was rubbing together sticks to make fire.

Threads like this give SR a bad name. Freedom of speech is for those who can exercise humanity. a dying virtue.

Ah yes, freedom to say things that you agree with you fucking scum fuck fascist.

Quote
I also agree with IshitBacon. If you are only attracted by the superficial aspects of a woman, something is still wrong. give me experience any day. Glad to hear some of us are attracted to mind over matter :S

Ah yes I'm sure you have deep conversations with the girls in your pornography over glasses of well aged wine. Also, 13 year olds are in the NORMAL RANGE OF ADULT INTELLIGENCE. Also you strike me as a religious person, and I wonder if you realize that God impregnated a 14 year old virgin and instructed Mohammed to have sex with a 9 year old and told Joesph Smith to have sex with multiple young teenage females?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 09:27:15 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #581 on: March 01, 2014, 09:24:19 pm »
Hm you got me there, young teenage girls have absolutely no curves at all http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGy02qfxtdc8.jpg (legal as always). But I actually disagree with you there, I prefer more subtle curves and a less filled out frame. In any case it doesn't matter since you are afraid to click on links because you will be forced to either blatantly lie to me or admit that you find them attractive.

might be because you don't want to admit that you like guys. It would be better for society if you sckd dicks instead of abusing the young.

I have some level of attraction to some males, but primarily to females.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #582 on: March 01, 2014, 09:30:02 pm »
Pedo bell- Ding.


Our species will go extinct. It is inevitable. Our capacity to shit up our planet is only eclipsed by your delusions.

When you get your neurobiology degree, and have been published by a respected journal, your incoherent ramblings and copy pasta might be worth taking note of, might.

You are ignorant, woefully so. Your brain isn't finished, and you consider yourself an adult. Just because you can get a hard on doesn't mean you are mature enough to use your penis responsibly. It is harmful to sexualize children. It is harmful to society at large to have a large segment of the population survivors of sexual abuse.

Societies that condone the abuse of children, animals, the elderly and infirm have not stood the test of time.

We are not our urges. You are not your penis. A girl is not her vagina or her breasts.

Your inability to comprehend the immensity of your cognitive distortions will have consequences you are incapable of foreseeing.

Pedo-bell Dong.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 09:32:07 pm by twatWaffle »
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #583 on: March 01, 2014, 09:40:03 pm »
Our species will go extinct. It is inevitable. Our capacity to shit up our planet is only eclipsed by your delusions.

Most likely the entire fucking universe and time itself will die and there will be eternal stasis. Has nothing to do with humans it has to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

Quote
When you get your neurobiology degree, and have been published by a respected journal, your incoherent ramblings and copy pasta might be worth taking note of, might.

Same to you! If you actually had a neurobiology degree maybe you could give some fucking INFORMATION instead of superficial words and quips from propagandists.

Quote
You are ignorant, woefully so. Your brain isn't finished, and you consider yourself an adult. Just because you can get a hard on doesn't mean you are mature enough to use your penis responsibly. It is harmful to sexualize children. It is harmful to society at large to have a large segment of the population survivors of sexual abuse.

You are a delusional radical feminist who thinks any girl who has ever been touched by a penis has been horribly sexually abused. Just FYI, penises don't have soul sucking vacuums in them. You say a lot of words with absolutely no substance at all. You are superficial! You say things that have no meaning.

Quote
Societies that condone the abuse of children, animals, the elderly and infirm have not stood the test of time.

First of all you think anything that stems from sex is abusive due to the fact that you were sexually abused and now see it everywhere you look. This is because you were damaged. I see the result of sexual abuse in your extreme paranoia about sex. But not every person who has sex at a young age is abused, and you just sound ridiculous to say otherwise. Also, pretty sure Russia Japan and Germany have all been around for a pretty damn long time with their age of consent and CP laws.

Quote
We are not our urges. You are not your penis. A girl is not her vagina or her breasts.

Your inability to comprehend the immensity of your cognitive distortions will have consequences you are incapable of foreseeing.

My cognitive perception is clear as day, you are the one with an extreme degree of distortion. I know you think that penises are going to lead to mothers eating their children and the death of humanity, but that is actually very unlikely to be accurate. (well I suppose in isolated cases penises will probably lead to mothers eating their children, in a sense).
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #584 on: March 01, 2014, 09:43:19 pm »
also, nature sexualizes "children" when it gives them sexually desirable characteristics. Do you think perhaps that people should wear burqas until they turn the magical age of consent in your country and the sexual awareness fairy smacks them with her magical wand?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #585 on: March 01, 2014, 10:57:24 pm »
Ding. m0rph salivates at the pedo bell
Dong. m0rph goes back in his crate

Dong.
Nature does not discriminate, nor does it bestow sexually desirable characteristics unto children. That is your distortions coloring your perceptions.

Btw, I love sex, with my wife, with my self, with puppets and two midgets in combat boots and tiaras. Still doesn't make your position any less indefensible.

Your immaturity, lack of formal education, lack of positive adult modeling has left you a mentally deficient, emotional cripple.

Dong.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #586 on: March 02, 2014, 06:17:41 am »
Nature does not discriminate, nor does it bestow sexually desirable characteristics unto children. That is your distortions coloring your perceptions.

Whew that is a relief then I guess I'm not attracted to children after all. Because I'm only attracted to girls like this (all legal images):

http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBG3j0c5t27k6.jpg (nice breasts)
http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGxd4cfmgkws.jpg (about as young as I would go)
http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBG2jg6ypbxsq.jpg (this girl is like right on the borderline. Probably my equivalent of 15 or 17, in that my dick says "maybe" but my mind says "probably not". The lowest I would go is probably the average of her and the previous girl)
http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGxyt2h3zksg.jpg (this girl definitely isn't ready to have sex)
http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGzq789bh500.jpg (what type of sick fuck finds this girl attractive?!)

and just for reference, this girl actually looks too young despite clearly being pubescent http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBGktcnxr35vw.jpg

Also it's pretty much impossible to say that the average 14.5 year old isn't sexually desirable, seeing as they have reached peak sexual maturity.
 
Quote
Your immaturity, lack of formal education, lack of positive adult modeling has left you a mentally deficient, emotional cripple.

Wow you sure think you know a lot about me.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 07:07:48 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #587 on: March 02, 2014, 06:24:59 am »
Ding.

lookie lookie m0rph wants some juvie nookie

back in your crate

Dong.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #588 on: March 02, 2014, 06:37:38 am »
Ding.

lookie lookie m0rph wants some juvie nookie

back in your crate

Dong.

That would be nice but I would be pretty satisfied with just some juvie porn.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #589 on: March 02, 2014, 07:22:40 am »
but seeing as I'm just as horrible if I jack off to jailbait as I am if I fuck young teenagers I might as well go for the real thing :D
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twonenathandjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
  • Karma: +57/-8
  • letshug Fanclub President
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #590 on: March 02, 2014, 07:44:06 am »
You might as well tell me that "all drug use is abuse". When I say I use drugs but don't have a problem. Then I can say "no really I just use them", and you can say "no really you are just-IFYing your addiction", and then I can say "No seriously I use drugs very responsibly" and you can tell me I'm a horrible addict who will end up sucking dick under a bridge unless I turn my life over to Jesus Christ, but I don't really want to turn my life over to Jesus because he is God and God fucked a 14 year old virgin to beget him and not only that but JesusGod also told Mohammed to fuck a 9 year old and Joesph Smith was told to fuck all kinds of underage girls by this same God and I just don't know what to do anymore because I'm horribly addicted to drugs and need Jesus to save me from them but Jesus is the leader of a child molestation conspiracy that has been ongoing for thousands of years and everyone hates me because I want to fuck 14 year olds like God and Mohammed and Joesph Smith but they also hate me because I am horribly addicted to drugs and the only cure is Jesus and i'm just so confused I don't even know what to do anymore!!!!

Really though you think a 14 year old girl can't choose to have multiple short term sex partners? It's just IMPOSSIBLE. It just defies the laws of the Lord who impregnated a 14 year old virgin?

I'm so confused. I don't comprehend this world. I'm just having an existential crisis. An existential crisis just like the existential crisis our species is having because 20 year olds jack of to naked pictures of 14 year olds and now the crowding of the cities and premature sexualization of the youth is analogous to us being crowded rats in a artificial environment and we are going to start eating our babies and the entire species is doomed. We are all doomed now omfg stop jacking off to 14 year old sluts the entire God Who Molested a Virgin 14 Year Old Damn species is coming to an end because of this you sick fucks. AHHH. AHHH. CUT A PEDOS HEAD OFF> AHAHAH&AUDGH789sHDF&*(sjf=90zasf fuck fuck fuck fuck BBUIIIIITCGH 9gfejw80gjue890-g hje=0g jer98vgt6hyuw3e45m9 tjywe45m98yuwe45r9-ytue5r9tjyie45r9tyj-e45vr gtj -er9ty[p45t94    I WILL DESTROY AND ASS RAPE AND MUR&DER A PEDOPHILE YUOU R*WUISO)RYO)_PV %JY_MU<R*(ry90-4b yt8ip4-6y0-eut 4rijo0[yb9usb-pty5i9o tjykg9 0e456jn8yp

Fucking 14 year olds is socially unacceptable in our culture, and since you were raised in this culture you obviously took a bum imprint somewhere. It's foreign to you, it isn't at all like the cultures that marry their girls off at 13-14. You're a devient through and through, and it translates to all your thought patterns. Consider also that since it is here not a part of our culture to be  couple 13-14 year olds with much older mates, the younger parties are by social design not emotionally ready for something like that. Could they be in another cultural setting? Probably, but not in this one.

Also notice how you compare your 'use' of these girls/boys to the 'use' of a drug. The difference here is the drug isn't sentient. You don't use people as if they were things, you interact with them.

And I don't want to kill all pedophiles, just the ones who have or plan on or are likely to violate the will of a creature unable to formulate clearly his or her own will.

No, I don't compare my "use" of them to the use of a drug, I compare twatwaffles thought terminating cliches to the thought terminating cliches of the brainwashed drug warriors. In our society sexualized 14 year olds are super common just look at some advertisements. Why do you think advertisers keep ripping girls pictures off from jailbaitgallery, you think it might be because of the response it gets? Really our culture isn't at all like Germany where the age of consent is 14? Are German girls just way superior to our girls in terms of development? Fuck your social design. By social design we do all kinds of bad shit. Social design puts Jews in death camps. But you probably like that seeing as you seem to believe in German Nationalism and Superiority! Are only the Aryan Germans superior to our females? Do you think they are the master race? If your social design is to emotionally stunt 14 year olds so they are not capable of having sex then isn't it your fault when people have sex with them anyway, as is bound to happen, and they are emotionally damaged by it? That's a popular argument of pedophiles, makes it strange to see someone who is against them essentially say it is the case that society is the one at fault.

Don't worry brah I am first of all not a pedophile as has been explained ad nauseam , and I will go to one of the superior cultures where they don't emotionally stunt their 14 year olds and leave you and your emotionally stunted 14 year olds behind to worship the Lord and try to enslave as many people as possible.

Honestly that's an age where a person begins to be able to make conscious decisions for him or herself, and so long as no form of physical or psychological coersion is employed I find it difficult to argue against. In this culture, however, most 'underage' couplings with of age adults tend to be forced, from older to younger. There are exceptions. But generally the older party is going to have a tendency toward a fetish for such young sexual partners. Fetish in the technical sense, as in they either can't get aroused without the younger party or are inordinately aroused by them.

I disagree that our young are emotionally crippled, it's just that we take a different route. Our women are raised to be psychologically singular and unified, and not dependant upon a stronger ego to identify with. I.e., they identify with themselves first and foremost. This identification DOES take longer, which is why in older cultures where the woman is made to identify with the ego of the man, the man is allowed to mature in a supportive environment first, until he is between 20-25 years old, while the female is coupled immediately at the sexual imprinting stage of 12-16, thus disallowing unique identification.
Join the letshug Fan Club today!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #591 on: March 02, 2014, 07:58:00 am »
You might as well tell me that "all drug use is abuse". When I say I use drugs but don't have a problem. Then I can say "no really I just use them", and you can say "no really you are just-IFYing your addiction", and then I can say "No seriously I use drugs very responsibly" and you can tell me I'm a horrible addict who will end up sucking dick under a bridge unless I turn my life over to Jesus Christ, but I don't really want to turn my life over to Jesus because he is God and God fucked a 14 year old virgin to beget him and not only that but JesusGod also told Mohammed to fuck a 9 year old and Joesph Smith was told to fuck all kinds of underage girls by this same God and I just don't know what to do anymore because I'm horribly addicted to drugs and need Jesus to save me from them but Jesus is the leader of a child molestation conspiracy that has been ongoing for thousands of years and everyone hates me because I want to fuck 14 year olds like God and Mohammed and Joesph Smith but they also hate me because I am horribly addicted to drugs and the only cure is Jesus and i'm just so confused I don't even know what to do anymore!!!!

Really though you think a 14 year old girl can't choose to have multiple short term sex partners? It's just IMPOSSIBLE. It just defies the laws of the Lord who impregnated a 14 year old virgin?

I'm so confused. I don't comprehend this world. I'm just having an existential crisis. An existential crisis just like the existential crisis our species is having because 20 year olds jack of to naked pictures of 14 year olds and now the crowding of the cities and premature sexualization of the youth is analogous to us being crowded rats in a artificial environment and we are going to start eating our babies and the entire species is doomed. We are all doomed now omfg stop jacking off to 14 year old sluts the entire God Who Molested a Virgin 14 Year Old Damn species is coming to an end because of this you sick fucks. AHHH. AHHH. CUT A PEDOS HEAD OFF> AHAHAH&AUDGH789sHDF&*(sjf=90zasf fuck fuck fuck fuck BBUIIIIITCGH 9gfejw80gjue890-g hje=0g jer98vgt6hyuw3e45m9 tjywe45m98yuwe45r9-ytue5r9tjyie45r9tyj-e45vr gtj -er9ty[p45t94    I WILL DESTROY AND ASS RAPE AND MUR&DER A PEDOPHILE YUOU R*WUISO)RYO)_PV %JY_MU<R*(ry90-4b yt8ip4-6y0-eut 4rijo0[yb9usb-pty5i9o tjykg9 0e456jn8yp

Fucking 14 year olds is socially unacceptable in our culture, and since you were raised in this culture you obviously took a bum imprint somewhere. It's foreign to you, it isn't at all like the cultures that marry their girls off at 13-14. You're a devient through and through, and it translates to all your thought patterns. Consider also that since it is here not a part of our culture to be  couple 13-14 year olds with much older mates, the younger parties are by social design not emotionally ready for something like that. Could they be in another cultural setting? Probably, but not in this one.

Also notice how you compare your 'use' of these girls/boys to the 'use' of a drug. The difference here is the drug isn't sentient. You don't use people as if they were things, you interact with them.

And I don't want to kill all pedophiles, just the ones who have or plan on or are likely to violate the will of a creature unable to formulate clearly his or her own will.

No, I don't compare my "use" of them to the use of a drug, I compare twatwaffles thought terminating cliches to the thought terminating cliches of the brainwashed drug warriors. In our society sexualized 14 year olds are super common just look at some advertisements. Why do you think advertisers keep ripping girls pictures off from jailbaitgallery, you think it might be because of the response it gets? Really our culture isn't at all like Germany where the age of consent is 14? Are German girls just way superior to our girls in terms of development? Fuck your social design. By social design we do all kinds of bad shit. Social design puts Jews in death camps. But you probably like that seeing as you seem to believe in German Nationalism and Superiority! Are only the Aryan Germans superior to our females? Do you think they are the master race? If your social design is to emotionally stunt 14 year olds so they are not capable of having sex then isn't it your fault when people have sex with them anyway, as is bound to happen, and they are emotionally damaged by it? That's a popular argument of pedophiles, makes it strange to see someone who is against them essentially say it is the case that society is the one at fault.

Don't worry brah I am first of all not a pedophile as has been explained ad nauseam , and I will go to one of the superior cultures where they don't emotionally stunt their 14 year olds and leave you and your emotionally stunted 14 year olds behind to worship the Lord and try to enslave as many people as possible.

Honestly that's an age where a person begins to be able to make conscious decisions for him or herself, and so long as no form of physical or psychological coersion is employed I find it difficult to argue against. In this culture, however, most 'underage' couplings with of age adults tend to be forced, from older to younger. There are exceptions. But generally the older party is going to have a tendency toward a fetish for such young sexual partners. Fetish in the technical sense, as in they either can't get aroused without the younger party or are inordinately aroused by them.

I disagree that our young are emotionally crippled, it's just that we take a different route. Our women are raised to be psychologically singular and unified, and not dependant upon a stronger ego to identify with. I.e., they identify with themselves first and foremost. This identification DOES take longer, which is why in older cultures where the woman is made to identify with the ego of the man, the man is allowed to mature in a supportive environment first, until he is between 20-25 years old, while the female is coupled immediately at the sexual imprinting stage of 12-16, thus disallowing unique identification.

So what you are saying is that by having sex with young teenage females I will actually be doing them a service as they will come to identify with my exceptionally rational ego and be spared from the possibility of turning into mindless twatwaffles? Shit, now I feel a moral obligation to fuck young teenagers.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twonenathandjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
  • Karma: +57/-8
  • letshug Fanclub President
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #592 on: March 02, 2014, 08:11:30 am »
Your reply very much indicates your state of mind, if I were to judge you I'd probably find you guilty of either trolling or manipulating (nefariously!) younger partners. In all honesty though I doubt you act on your impulses, I'm hearing echoes of shame which probably point to something slithering deep down which won't allow active participation, which is half of the mystique! The shame is the sickness, and if you were to allow yourself unrepressed sexual expression with willing partners I believe a lot of these knots would untie themselves and you'd be much less deviant. Maybe not. Really, I don't care, but be careful because not very many people who aren't pedophiles (you claim otherwise but in western culture by definition you are, lover of the younf!) carry the same thought process that I do. Of course, not many people would be willing to do the things I'm willing to do calmly, without pity or rage, only working to express the reaction of the Law (capital L, technical meaning) where the rightful actors in that case are unable to do so for wont of conscious appreciation of the facts.
Join the letshug Fan Club today!

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #593 on: March 02, 2014, 08:56:59 am »
Ding.

Indifferent to mildly amused swings my lack of regard for the m0rph thing.

I would terminate the m0rph without prejudice. With casual indifference, it would be dispatched.

I am a marksman, and have no morals.

Have you ever killed anything that could kill you back, if you fucked up?

My proficiency with ranged weaponry and hand to hand combat would make easy sport of the thing in m0rph skin.

The thing in m0rph flesh is a sad pathetic pimply faced scrawny pedo in a harsh harsh world of adults with no tolerance for those that would despoil the young.

And not to please the young, either, or to contribute  meaningfully to the life of the young, but out of selfish self gratification, at the expense of the young.

There is nothing that the m0rph thing could possibly offer a youngling, that would be beneficial to the young.

The m0rph thing has no inner compass, and by definition, is at the very least demonstrating sociopathic tendencies. They have to take their cues from the outside world, as they were born brain damaged. Their empathy prematurely truncated by their brain being a substandard model.

The thing in m0rph skin is a defective, and should be put down before it contaminates the gene pool, as well as ceasing its consumption of resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

back in your crate

Dong.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 08:57:32 am by twatWaffle »
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #594 on: March 02, 2014, 09:02:26 am »
Your reply very much indicates your state of mind

My reply was a joke. Your inability to understand humor indicates your state of mind. You are far too serious of a person. I'm not surprised.

Quote
if I were to judge you I'd probably find you guilty of either trolling or manipulating (nefariously!) younger partners.

I'm not trolling although my previous post was a joke. I'm definitely not manipulating younger partners! As previously mentioned, I try to be a good person and am also not much of an asshole. I wouldn't manipulate anybody to have sex with me. I might fantasize about doing so, but I have an impeccable ability to separate fantasy from ego. I actually enjoy having distorted thoughts when I jack off. Thoughts that would be indicative of pathology if I actually held them to be true. But I don't really believe them to be true, is the thing. If I fantasized about raping a girl I would perhaps think to myself she deserved it or similar distorted thoughts, because doing so is arousing. But I don't actually believe that anyone deserves to be raped. I wouldn't say that I have cognitive dissonance, because I don't hold conflicting beliefs. My belief is that nobody deserves to be raped. But I might fantasize that I am a rapist who has cognitive distortions such that he believes people do, because it's fun! I've fantasized that I am all kinds of bad people doing all kinds of bad things and having all sorts of cognitive distortions, but I am not a bad person nor do I do bad things nor do I actually have such cognitive distortions. But as far as hebephilia goes I don't feel bad about that at all or think my truly held beliefs on the matter are distorted or abnormal at all.   

Quote
In all honesty though I doubt you act on your impulses, I'm hearing echoes of shame which probably point to something slithering deep down which won't allow active participation, which is half of the mystique!

I suppose it depends on which impulse in particular. I definitely don't have shame for any of them though, why should I be ashamed for something I have no say in? It would be like being ashamed for the color of my skin or eyes. I don't think I could be ashamed of it even if I tried to be. Any impulse I have to take advantage of or hurt people I don't act on simply because it would be wrong to do so. Impulses to have sex with underage girls I don't act on because for one no situation has come up where I could, and for two it isn't worth the legal risk. I would have sex with countless underage girls if the opportunity arose and I knew I would face no legal consequences for doing so, provided of course that this wouldn't conflict with my previous statement in that I don't take advantage of or hurt people because it is wrong to do so, and not feel the slightest bit of shame or regret in doing so. I avoid looking at CP because I don't have any interest in it, but I wouldn't feel ashamed if I did look at it, because it doesn't actually hurt anybody to do so. I would look at much illegal jailbait other than for the fact that even though I think I could get away with it (well indeed I am certain I could if I went to great enough lengths to protect myself), there is no point in taking even the slightest risk in that regard when I can instead simply move to a country where I can look at it without even having to use security to do so. If every decent country to live in in the entire world made it illegal to look at jailbait porn I would go through the hassle of doing it securely in a country where it is illegal, because I find the thought of it to be incredibly appealing to the point that I have essentially lost most of my desire for all other types of pornography. If I look at adult pornography now I can't help but think "damn this would be much more enjoyable if that girl was 13 or 14".  If no country allowed me to have sex with young teenagers I would probably still refrain from doing so though, not out of any feeling of moral obligation whatsoever, but simply because I trust my technical capabilities more than I trust my ability to have sex with an underage teenager without being detected (and I don't have enough motivation to apply tradecraft to fucking underage teenagers).

Quote
The shame is the sickness,

The only sickness I feel I have is sadism, and I don't know that I quite meet the diagnostic criteria for that as I have never acted it out on anybody at all, and am largely beyond the point where I feel distressed by it. Certainly there is no sickness in being attracted to underage teenagers, as previously noted it is actually the normal state of being for human males, deny it as they may, it has been demonstrated with physiological tests.

Quote
but be careful because not very many people who aren't pedophiles (you claim otherwise but in western culture by definition you are, lover of the younf!)

By definition I am not a pedophile. Pedophile is a medical term. I don't meet any of the criteria.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 09:13:45 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twonenathandjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
  • Karma: +57/-8
  • letshug Fanclub President
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #595 on: March 02, 2014, 09:19:28 am »
Pedophile is more a social labeling than any medical term.

I thought I sensed some sarcasm there! Also, I don't find the fantasy of rape necessarily wrong. I've particiapated in simulated rape before. Afterall, by nature we are submissive/dominant, and the exploration of the two possibilities allows for a lot of psych fun! (I've been the raped party, too).

Regarding the shame, shame is often buried a little deeper than conscious appreciation will allow. If you're born into a christian western culture, you've been bred, albeit unconsciously, with an innate shame for sex, no matter how liberated you may be! (Of course sexual liberty requires one to acknowledge and confront these shames.)((Also you don't need to be born into a christian family to be bred with the instincts. Despite secular ideology, we are a 'christian' nation as far as our values are concerned. I aim to change a great deal of that, since the christian morality is perverted and destructive to mental health))

I truly and honestly don't judge, so long as the actions taken don't involve coercion, unless the other party has a psychological need to be coerced. Liberty of the individual will is my only concern.

Also, sadism itself isn't a sickness unless it manifests in a way beyond your control and with unwilling participants. Unless it hinders your own personal will, then it is a sickness. On the other hand, anything you're conscious of is a sickness. Any organ properly functioning does so without your notice, more often than not, The mind of man is diseased, and it is the disease of semen!

I've always thought pedophilia should mean lover of feet. Maybe that would be peddlephilia?

Join the letshug Fan Club today!

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #596 on: March 02, 2014, 09:50:25 am »
Two days ago, a 29 year old guy was arrested in my country for having sexual encounters with 14 to 15 year old girls. So whatever you might think is right or wrong, laws are made against it. How do you explain that? A witch hunt? Or could it be based upon the fact that the state tries to protect the young from people like you. And if so, why would it be necessary if you are perfectly healthy and categorized as a non pedophile?

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #597 on: March 02, 2014, 10:47:16 am »
Two days ago, a 29 year old guy was arrested in my country for having sexual encounters with 14 to 15 year old girls. So whatever you might think is right or wrong, laws are made against it. How do you explain that? A witch hunt? Or could it be based upon the fact that the state tries to protect the young from people like you. And if so, why would it be necessary if you are perfectly healthy and categorized as a non pedophile?

I explain it in a few ways. It appears that the initial age of consent reforms were to increase the age of consent to about the onset of puberty, and many European countries during this period raised their age of consent to about 12-14. Then we have another period in which age of consent changed that started out actually about 124 years ago in the 1890s in the UK and USA, which was spearheaded by feminist and religious organizations. I believe in one previous post I said it started in the 1850s but it looks like our current age of consent system is actually more recent than that, with origins in the 1890s rather than 1850's as I previously thought. In any case, the age of consent at the time in USA ranged from 7 to 12, depending on the state (which was actually low by world wide standards, which had generally set it at the average age of onset of puberty by this time).

https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230 gives a comprehensive history of age of consent reform but I will summarize it.

The initial reason for the age of consent changing in the USA was due to a religious feminist campaign against prostitution. This campaign tied children into it by saying that older men were getting naive freshly pubescent girls to turn into prostitutes, I assume by using their wealth disparity to their advantage but am not certain. So initially the goal of raising the age of consent, this time anyway, was to reduce prostitution rates. This campaign eventually led to an international movement to once again raise the age of consent. The goal of the campaigners was initially to raise the age of consent to 16, after which they planned to ultimately raise it to 18. As there was significant backlash to raising the age of consent past puberty, the campaigners started to incorporate other ideas into their reasoning, such as a disparity between physical and mental development. By 1920 most states in the USA had risen the age of consent to 16-18.

In the 1930's there was a cultural shift in which the idea of raising the age of consent to 16 and beyond seemed to have been a stupid idea, due to the fact that young women were gaining more independence, younger teenagers started to take on a unique role in society that was more differentiated from the subordinated children that the original religious feminist campaigners were trying to get to not become prostitutes. During this time period the term jailbait was coined in the USA, and some of the age of consent laws were slightly relaxed or modified to be less absolutely absurd. Unfortunately, they were not made reasonable, just less unreasonable ie: some lowered from 18 to 17 or 16, and others adopted close in age exceptions, etc).

In 1970's the feminist Nazis once again decided to fuck males over by strengthening age of consent laws. This time the issue was not prostitution but rather teenage pregnancy and rape. In the 1990s conservatives joined forces with the feminists to try to prevent teenagers from having sex before they were married, despite the fact that God himself impregnated a 14 year old virgin he wasn't married to. Primarily, it appears that they were mostly upset that black teenagers were popping out children left and right and putting them on welfare which the rich white conservatives had to support due to socialist taxation.


from this point I will give my interpretation of events, and stop paraphrasing the previously linked to article.

Today there are two driving forces behind the absurd age of consent laws. First is the fact that people have been enculturated into them much like a religion, they are raised their entire lives hearing that one age is moral to have sex with and anything below that is immoral, and it absorbs into them. The fact that this is enculturation is readily apparent when you note that the age of consent varies substantially between various geographic locations. Secondly, and most importantly, a massive industry has leeched on to this social phenomenon, namely the prison industrial complex / sex offender processing industry. They make money by locking people up, putting them on probation, arresting them, monitoring them, detecting them, managing them, etc. The more people who break the law the more money they get, the higher the age of consent is the more people who will break the law. So they have a very strong interest in keeping the age of consent high and preventing reasonable people from seeing that it should be lowered. This is very in parallel to what has been happening with the war on drugs. Thanks to an alliance from hell, namely Government, Media, Prison Industry, people have been riled up into an illogical mass hysteria in regards to whatever the puppet masters deem to be "sex offenders", in exactly the same way as they previously were with whatever the government deemed to be "harmful drugs". They will attempt to keep the age of consent how it is at the very least, but more likely they will continue to try to raise it higher and higher, because the higher it is the more people will violate the law and then the more people will be processed through the system and the more money they will make. They will continue to misrepresent the truth and brainwash people into thinking this is the correct thing to do, and as they have control of the media they have no problem doing this. Also, in an even more impressive feat than making people think anyone who questions drug laws is an addict, they have gotten it to the point that anyone who questions the age of consent laws in any country or region (even though they conflict greatly) is a horrible child molester rapist who wants to hunt your child down and rape him or her to death, thus silencing all dissent.

As far as child porn goes, the original reasons to ban it were much more applicable in the 80s prior to the internet, but the internet changed everything. It used to be that essentially anyone who got child porn paid someone for it, and eventually the money worked its way up to producers who then continued to molest children in order to produce more to make more profits. Today the opposite is true, the overwhelming majority of people who view CP do not pay for it or contribute to it in any way at all. One of the reasons the Supreme Court gave for why it should be illegal to view is because the government has an interest in protecting children and if CP is legal to view people will keep buying it (as at the time there was no internet and the only way to view it was to pay for it more or less) and more children will be molested. Today the case is actually the opposite, because CP is mostly freely available and traded, legalizing the viewing of it if it specifically isn't paid for will not only reduce the number of people paying for it (as why bother to break the law when you can get the same thing for free?), but studies have also shown that pedophiles who do view child porn are LESS LIKELY to molest children than the ones who don't, so it's actually good if pedophiles view child porn because in the world of today it will lead to LESS molestation. The original reasons for child porn being made illegal have no validity in the modern world and modern research has shown that these laws are counterproductive to their original goals!

And once again we have moral religious crusaders who are against CP viewing because they are against all porn and masturbation in general, and we have the ginormous prison industry spreading bullshit information through their stranglehold of the media, brainwashing people into thinking they are doing something good for society when all they are doing is being fucking slave traders as usual! The war on CP viewers is a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY do you really think these people are not trying to protect their interests? Do you really trust the people whose entire livelihood depends on child porn remaining illegal to view? They are just as objective as the DEA is about drugs, and it really bothers me that you guys have ALREADY SEEN this pattern but then when a few of the variables change it's like you are totally blind to the same fucking pattern. 101010 232323

Also, for a list of countries where that 29 year old would not have been arrested:

Austria
Bulgaria
Germany
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Argentina
Brazil
Ecuador
Chile
CANADA in 2007 but not today because USA made them raise their age of consent

and many many others. So do you REALLY think that guy is a horrible sex offender JUST BECAUSE HE LIVES WHERE YOU LIVE AND NOT IN DOZENS OF OTHER PERFECTLY FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD? Do you think if someone fucks a 16 year old in one state they are horrible sex offender but not in the next state that is a ten minute drive away over a border? Because if so you have absolutely ZERO brain of your own and are nothing short of an extension of the prison industrial complex due to the fact that they have brainwashed you into being more of a robotic drone than a human. How do you explain the fact that in all the countries I listed the age of consent is 14? Could it be based upon the fact that 14 year olds can consent to sex and the only reason your country says otherwise is because it is bought and paid for by slave traders? The same slave traders you know very well are imprisoning people for using drugs that they have convinced everybody are immoral but which you know better about ?

It isn't necessary to protect anybody from me! And in plenty of fine countries that have far more freedoms than bullshit countries that claim they do but don't, nothing I want to do is even illegal at all. Why would that be if I am an abnormal pedophile set on abusing children?!
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 10:57:24 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #598 on: March 02, 2014, 11:36:26 am »


I can only notice that many states, not all of them, have a quite high age ranking when it comes to sexual consent and having sexual intercourse with overage men. You can have all sorts of theories about it but the law is the law and if you live in a country like mine, yes, you can do nothing but fantasize about it. I have my personal opinion about it. And as a girl, I think my perceptions are different from yours. I can only respect your honesty, not many people would have the courage but I disagree with you on many points. You seem to have educated yourself well on this matter. I'm not quite sure why though and if that's a sign of you recognizing that your sexual desires are "different" from others. We can discuss the countries you mentioned before, however none of these countries will allow you to have sex with a 12 year old for example, with the exception of some third world countries. I wouldn't classify you as a pedophile, hence you don't fit the standard criteria but one can only recognize that this kind of behavior is somewhat deviant.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #599 on: March 02, 2014, 01:00:08 pm »


I can only notice that many states, not all of them, have a quite high age ranking when it comes to sexual consent and having sexual intercourse with overage men. You can have all sorts of theories about it but the law is the law and if you live in a country like mine, yes, you can do nothing but fantasize about it. I have my personal opinion about it. And as a girl, I think my perceptions are different from yours. I can only respect your honesty, not many people would have the courage but I disagree with you on many points. You seem to have educated yourself well on this matter. I'm not quite sure why though and if that's a sign of you recognizing that your sexual desires are "different" from others. We can discuss the countries you mentioned before, however none of these countries will allow you to have sex with a 12 year old for example, with the exception of some third world countries. I wouldn't classify you as a pedophile, hence you don't fit the standard criteria but one can only recognize that this kind of behavior is somewhat deviant.

The law is the law is such a strange thing to hear someone on an illegal drug forum say. Why appeal to the law instead of recognize that the law is bullshit?

I mean, technically I could jack off to jailbait porn and get away with it, but it's just such a hassle. I wouldn't feel secure doing that unless I like got a motel room with a fake ID and paid in cash and used hacked WiFi accessed with a long range amplified directional antenna (+ spoofed MAC address + Didn't bring my phone or any other broadcasting device with me, plus took a taxi there) plus Tor + physical isolation with a (throw away) OpenBSD Tor Router + mandatory access controls + full ASLR on both machines of course + used VM isolation to hide hardware serial numbers + hardened the shit out of my OS and browser (ie: disable JS),  plus had a dead man switch USB thumb drive hooked up to a bracelet on my wrist with a wire so I could yank my wrist to trigger a memory wipe and shutdown, and stored everything in multiple layers of encryption, with some layers of deniable encryption, and set up a tent to protect from covertly placed cameras + navigated with my mouse only to hide keystrokes from acoustic analysis when going to certain URL's + modified Tor to use a single entry guard and downloaded noise files in the background to try to protect from website fingerprinting attacks + only remained in one location for a few days max before leaving with my freshly obtained stash and burning my fake ID tossing my throw away laptop in a dumpster or seven after breaking it up into component parts after secure erasing and DBANing the drive (with everything of interest securely copied over to a multi layer encrypted thumb drive), and only ever actually loaded any images on a new laptop with a similar setup but air gapped from the internet. If I went to so much trouble I would feel pretty safe in my ability to jack off to jailbait all I wanted without getting busted for it. And nobody would be hurt by it or even know that it happened. But it's really just not worth the paranoia associated with it, fun as (I imagine anyway) it would be.

I would be worried one day I would be looking at hot young teenagers flashing their mirrors and taking pictures of it with their camera phones, and then BAM flash bang I'm stunned yank my wrist but the wire snaps bash down comes my door and next thing I know forensic team is rushing in with cans of compressed air to flash freeze my memory (if they can get it out of the encapsulation material I would have covered it with or not trigger the chassis intrusion detection switch I would make sure to have set to trigger an immediate memory wipe and power cut) and dump all of my mounted encryption keys (which would actually be stored in CPU registers because I would patch my kernel with Tresor, so that wouldn't even actually work for them lol) to a forensic laptop and recover everything (but I would store all images in a video file and make a custom program that could load any second of it so I could try to argue I only had one video, because videos are only charged as one file versus images which are charged as individual files, and having one file isn't so bad, so I would have one video file with tens of thousands of pictures making up the frames so my lawyer could try to get me a very light sentence) and then I would go to prison and be a sex offender and raped every single day, and it just isn't worth that very slight possibility, so I try to restrain myself from risking that happening even though I don't want to and don't see at all why anybody expects that I should. But why throw out a chance to move to Uruguay and be able to do it in much more pleasant conditions without the fear of the paramilitary declaring war on me and sending me to be actually raped and actually sexually abused for looking at pictures of people and having no interaction with them or abusing them or doing anything that is bad at all? Best security is tactical and legal, not technical. Plus there is still the issue of TEMPEST attacks, maybe they would just pull my screen from the next room over and then I am just as fucked anyway.

Plus most importantly of all, I have no idea if or when I will be raided for illegal things I may or may not have done in the past (none of which include actually having sex with anyone under the age of 18 or doing anything I consider to be immoral at all). If I knew that my slate was totally clean and I am not a suspect for any crime I have ever committed I would probably do it, but as of right now I just am too set on moving to Uruguay and not being a criminal for once so I don't want to fuck it up in the mean time, and have thus halted nearly all of my illegal activities short of using drugs very rarely, sanitized all evidence of any past "wrong doings" and decided to focus on getting rich and escaping from this shit hole prison country that pretends it is all about freedom but really is much less free than many other countries that don't even pretend they are they freest countries in the entire world even though they are!!

Actually I could probably consensually fuck underage teenagers and get away with it too, it would just require a bit of tradecraft: fake identities, long term covert surveillance (to identify police stings, perhaps a surveillance quadracopter controlled behind an anonymity network to gather a video feed of any potential rendezvous location and see if any police activity takes place there over a certain period of time...I could even try to arrange situations that would trigger police activity if I was a total asshole and willing to fuck someone else over), network analysis (to identify real people from decoys), standard OSINT, traffic analysis (to identify decoys) and hacking (to identify decoys). There is software that is used against pedophiles for being able to determine a persons age over the internet with samples of their text and typing speed, I wonder the accuracy it would have in identifying between undercover agents and real underage teenagers. That is too much work though and actually would be creepy as shit too. I wouldn't want to have to commit espionage against a person I wanted to have sex with. But just saying if I wanted to I bet I could. And I do want to have sex with young teenagers as I am sure has been made abundantly clear, but definitely not in that way. Plus the only way to do that securely would likely be to be misleading about my identity and probably exploitative in lying to various other extents, and that isn't something I would do. I think that a courtship procedure that involves multiple intelligence disciplines is probably pathological, although I haven't seen it listed in any diagnostic manuals. 

Also, I don't think my sexual desires are really different than the average males, in terms of attraction to young teenagers. And I have seen scientific studies that back this up. Maybe you just don't know because you are a girl, but it's very likely that most guys you know are actually sexually attracted to underage teenagers, maybe they just don't tell you. But I find it surprising you don't already know anyway, I would imagine the older guys oggling at you when you were a young teenager would have given it away.


Yemen - 9
Saudi Arabia - Marriage after consent of parents, no minimum age
Qatar - Marriage after consent of parents, no minimum age
Philipines - 18 on paper but no penalties unless below 12 so de facto 12
South Korea - 13
Japan - 13
Spain - 13
Uruguay - 12 with strong proof of consent
Chile - 12 according to some sources
Bolivia - Puberty regardless of age
Argentina - 13 with strong proof of consent
Angola - 12
Burkina Faso - 13
Comoros - 13
Niger - 13

I imagine many of the ones I saw with higher listed ages of consent allow lower with restrictions though. For example, Uruguay is 15 but if you read more you see it's really 12-15, with different restrictions for different age groups, but all being potentially able to consent to people of any age.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 02:02:38 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #600 on: March 02, 2014, 01:02:53 pm »
I still suggest individualized testing with some battery of evaluations. That is clearly the best system. Short of that I would say set it at 12 with heavy restrictions that slowly relax up to 16. I wouldn't feel very bad for someone who fucked an 11 year old and went to jail for it anyway. As you can see, with the exception of countries that set it at puberty or marriage, and the sick fucks in Yemen who set it at 9 which is in probably nearly if not (but most likely is) every single case too low, 12 is the lowest age of consent any other country has set, and so obviously there are enough people in the world that think 12 is fine that multiple nations have age of consent at 12, so it seems that most people in the world would say age of consent shouldn't be below 12, and 12 is the lowest age that has any substantial support for it in the international community, so I say if not individualized evaluation set it to 12 with heavy proof of consent and restrictions.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 01:10:53 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #601 on: March 02, 2014, 01:29:48 pm »
I agree that my statement about the law might not sound weird, especially on a site like this. But I wasn't talking about practices online. Everyone knows that there are enough jailbait sites out there and clever pedophiles don't get caught. But I also truly believe that pedophiles are such a different matter than drugs.

I don't wish to further discuss this matter. I truly hate pedophiles. Even though it's an illness, they destroy children's lives. We can keep on commenting, it won't make a difference. We just disagree.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #602 on: March 02, 2014, 01:35:52 pm »
I agree that my statement about the law might not sound weird, especially on a site like this. But I wasn't talking about practices online. Everyone knows that there are enough jailbait sites out there and clever pedophiles don't get caught. But I also truly believe that pedophiles are such a different matter than drugs.

I don't wish to further discuss this matter. I truly hate pedophiles. Even though it's an illness, they destroy children's lives. We can keep on commenting, it won't make a difference. We just disagree.

Women destroy the lives of children too, do you hate them as well then ?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #603 on: March 02, 2014, 01:44:47 pm »
I agree that my statement about the law might not sound weird, especially on a site like this. But I wasn't talking about practices online. Everyone knows that there are enough jailbait sites out there and clever pedophiles don't get caught. But I also truly believe that pedophiles are such a different matter than drugs.

I don't wish to further discuss this matter. I truly hate pedophiles. Even though it's an illness, they destroy children's lives. We can keep on commenting, it won't make a difference. We just disagree.

Women destroy the lives of children too, do you hate them as well then ?

Of course, why would you think I'd make a difference?

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #604 on: March 02, 2014, 01:46:05 pm »
I agree that my statement about the law might not sound weird, especially on a site like this. But I wasn't talking about practices online. Everyone knows that there are enough jailbait sites out there and clever pedophiles don't get caught. But I also truly believe that pedophiles are such a different matter than drugs.

I don't wish to further discuss this matter. I truly hate pedophiles. Even though it's an illness, they destroy children's lives. We can keep on commenting, it won't make a difference. We just disagree.

Women destroy the lives of children too, do you hate them as well then ?

Of course, why would you think I'd make a difference?

So you hate all classes of things that have instances that have destroyed the lives of children?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #605 on: March 02, 2014, 02:02:05 pm »
I agree that my statement about the law might not sound weird, especially on a site like this. But I wasn't talking about practices online. Everyone knows that there are enough jailbait sites out there and clever pedophiles don't get caught. But I also truly believe that pedophiles are such a different matter than drugs.

I don't wish to further discuss this matter. I truly hate pedophiles. Even though it's an illness, they destroy children's lives. We can keep on commenting, it won't make a difference. We just disagree.

Women destroy the lives of children too, do you hate them as well then ?

Of course, why would you think I'd make a difference?

So you hate all classes of things that have instances that have destroyed the lives of children?

I hate every single human being that abuses/takes advantage of/destroys children. Children are innocent and therefore should be protected. What more do you wish to hear from me?

 Once again. I said. I don't wish to comment anymore so this is the last one. Sorry!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #606 on: March 02, 2014, 02:14:55 pm »
I agree that my statement about the law might not sound weird, especially on a site like this. But I wasn't talking about practices online. Everyone knows that there are enough jailbait sites out there and clever pedophiles don't get caught. But I also truly believe that pedophiles are such a different matter than drugs.

I don't wish to further discuss this matter. I truly hate pedophiles. Even though it's an illness, they destroy children's lives. We can keep on commenting, it won't make a difference. We just disagree.

Women destroy the lives of children too, do you hate them as well then ?

Of course, why would you think I'd make a difference?

So you hate all classes of things that have instances that have destroyed the lives of children?

I hate every single human being that abuses/takes advantage of/destroys children. Children are innocent and therefore should be protected. What more do you wish to hear from me?

 Once again. I said. I don't wish to comment anymore so this is the last one. Sorry!

So when you said you hate pedophiles you meant some members of the class but not the entire class itself.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #607 on: March 02, 2014, 02:18:33 pm »
I know you said you are done, but I'm glad that you finally came around to hating the laws against child pornography possession. Because the laws against child pornography possession lead to children being molested. As has been observed, in every single country that has legalized child pornography possession, child abuse rates have fallen. So you actually are on my side! Because the things I would make happen if I ruled the world would actually lead to a dramatic drop in child abuse rates, although at first and maybe forever would lead to an outcry from the people who claim to want what I would cause to happen to happen. Just because you hate a person and he is bad does not mean it is a good idea then to kill him by shooting at him with a missile. Because the explosion could kill more than him and then you would be bad if you killed innocent people in killing the bad person who deserved to die. Because you didn't go about it correctly, because you were so angry at him you didn't think of anything other than killing him and so went about it in a stupid way and now you are no better than he was because of it.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #608 on: March 02, 2014, 04:23:46 pm »
Ding.

Come on, little pedo...time for your scooby snack of young tits, hairless pussies, and NO!! Hey little boy, yer going to hell!!

Little boy at peace
what is this place....beyond the stars?
Open up your eyes
what are these things....you're moving toward?
Head so full of wonder
worries in the past
Could it be that you are free at last?

NO!!!!

Little boy you're going to HELL!
You said bad words
threw rocks at the birds
and now this is your hotel!
You aint goin' back
this aint disneyland
it's HELL!

Little boy it's time for you to PAY!
For hurtin' that bird
not goin to church
and starin' at boobs everyday
Though you weren't bad
instead you're going to HELL!!

Hell isn't good
Hell isn't good
HELL!

ooh Hell isn't good
Hell isn't good
HELL!

(Adolf Hitler) Assorted german words
(George Burns) Hey Fuckface have you seen Gracie?
(Mohandas "Muhatma" Ghandi)Today, orderlyness in the universe

oh Hell isn't good
Hell isn't good
HELL!

back in your crate thing in m0rph skin
Dong.
Dong.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #609 on: March 02, 2014, 04:33:33 pm »
Ding.

Come on, little pedo...time for your scooby snack of young tits, hairless pussies, and NO!! Hey little boy, yer going to hell!!

Hey, in my defense, the pussies I prefer have adult quality pubic hair, it just hasn't spread to the inner thighs yet. Also, a forensic evaluation of adults determined that 26% of them or so had tits characteristic of those typically possessed by 13-15 year olds.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #610 on: March 02, 2014, 04:39:58 pm »
Ding.

You just can't fucking resist, gawd, no wonder you are so socially inept.

Your genetic donors must be so proud of their little bundle of pedo joy.

ah, sit up for panties....come on boy, on your hind legs for these, they are from NO, thats a bad thing in m0rph skin and I smack it on the hed.

No pedo treats for you today

back in your crate

Dong.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #611 on: March 02, 2014, 05:01:41 pm »
are you suffering from a bout of schizophrenia? I just wonder because your word salads, although typical of you, are becoming less and less coherent.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #612 on: March 02, 2014, 05:44:15 pm »
Ding.

Come on, little pedo...time for your scooby snack of young tits, hairless pussies, and NO!! Hey little boy, yer going to hell!!

Little boy at peace
what is this place....beyond the stars?
Open up your eyes
what are these things....you're moving toward?
Head so full of wonder
worries in the past
Could it be that you are free at last?

NO!!!!

Little boy you're going to HELL!
You said bad words
threw rocks at the birds
and now this is your hotel!
You aint goin' back
this aint disneyland
it's HELL!

Little boy it's time for you to PAY!
For hurtin' that bird
not goin to church
and starin' at boobs everyday
Though you weren't bad
instead you're going to HELL!!

Hell isn't good
Hell isn't good
HELL!

ooh Hell isn't good
Hell isn't good
HELL!

(Adolf Hitler) Assorted german words
(George Burns) Hey Fuckface have you seen Gracie?
(Mohandas "Muhatma" Ghandi)Today, orderlyness in the universe

oh Hell isn't good
Hell isn't good
HELL!

back in your crate thing in m0rph skin
Dong.
Dong.

Normally I think Ted Nugent is a stupid worthless piece of shit, but since we are now writing our posts in song, I will have to use one of his which is quite pertinent

Quote
Ive got no inhibitions
So keep your keys out of your ignition
I steal a car like I got the curse
I cant resist the old lady's purse

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait wont you set me free
Jailbait you look fine fine fine
I know Ive got to have you in a matter of time

Well I dont care if youre just thirteen
You look too good to be true
I just know that youre probably clean
Theres one lil' thing I got do to you

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait wont you set me free
Jailbait you look fine fine fine
I know Ive got to have you in a matter of time

So tell your mama that Im back in town
She likes us boys when its time to get down
Shes got this craving for the underage
I just might be your mama's brand new rage

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait wont you set me free
Jailbait you look fine fine fine
I know I got to have you in a matter of time

Honey you you you look so nice
Shes young shes tender
Wont you please surrender
She's so fine shes mine
All the time, all mine mine
Its all right baby
Its quite all right I asked your mama
Wait a minute officer
Dont put those handcuffs on me
Put them on her and Ill share her with you

Well that's all for today, I look forward to coming back some other time and seeing all the new retardation you retards can muster up!

of course there is also the rolling stones

Quote
I hear the click-clack of your feet on the stairs
I know you're no scare-eyed honey.
There'll be a feast if you just come upstairs
But it's no hanging matter
It's no capital crime

I can see that you're fifteen years old
No I don't want your I.D.
You look so rest-less and you're so far from home
But it's no hanging matter
It's no capital crime

Oh yeah, you're a strange stray cat
Oh yeah, don'tcha scratch like that
Oh yeah, you're a strange stray cat
Bet your mama don't know you scream like that
I bet your mother don't know you can spit like that.

You look so weird and you're so far from home
But you don't really miss your mother
Don't look so scared I'm no mad-brained bear
But it's no hanging matter
It's no capital crime
Oh, yeah
Woo!

I bet your mama don't know that you scatch like that
I bet she don't know you can bite like that.

You say you got a friend, that she's wilder than you
Why don't you bring her upstairs
If she's so wild then she can join in too
It's no hanging matter
It's no capital crime

Oh yeah, you're a strange stray cat
Oh yeah, don'tcha scratch like that
Oh yeah, you're a strange stray cat
I bet you mama don't know you can bite like that
I'll bet she never saw you scratch my back

wow so many references to fucking young teenagers in American popular culture, it's almost like it isn't really so heavily frowned upon as some would imply. Strangest thing really, people do tend to pretend it is but at the same time everyone knows it isn't.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 06:15:25 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
do you like jailbait?
« Reply #613 on: March 04, 2014, 04:52:10 am »
edit: This is now the official debate about anything to do with age of consent and porn legality thread, since there is no need to have two. For historical debate on the topic of child pornography this link takes you to the archived thread: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=1972.0

Keep in mind that this is an anonymous forum, nobody except the people running the forum can see what you voted for, and in many countries it is actually legal to have sex with young teenagers and to look at jailbait porn anyway, so you might as well be entirely honest, and you don't need to discuss your answer if you don't want to do so.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 11:15:54 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #614 on: March 04, 2014, 05:19:00 am »
Wow you really are passionate about this topic, huh?

I'm mostly just curious what the results of the poll will be. I wouldn't say I'm particularly passionate about it. No more so than people like Twatwaffle who keep making threads about it anyway. I've made a total of one thread about it now. This one.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #615 on: March 04, 2014, 05:56:21 am »
Can't keep a good pedo down, now can ya? Well, you can get one on its back, feebly waving its oh, who am I kidding, we all know m0rph is really the biggest bug bugger in the deepweb.

You have been exposed before your peers, for your pervy buggery ways.

This pedo shit is just a smoke screen to hide your true desires, to make it with the creepiest, crawliest, bunch of bugs you can find.

I am not "people like Twatwaffle who keep making threads about it anyway."

I have purposely contributed to your getting your jollies watching roach porn, since that is what really gets you off, the kid diddling shit none of us are buying, but the buggery of bugs, oh yeah, that is so you.

Bon Ape Tit.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #616 on: March 04, 2014, 09:50:40 am »
If we have the attitude "people who are attracted to the young"  are evil and should be exterminated. Then I see two ways for these people to react.

1. I am an evil being and should kill my self.
2. The world is evil and against me for reasons I don't understand. So I assume they're just stupid and my ways are the good ways, but I must hide my true self.

Of these two scenarios I'm quite sure 1 is most unlikely and 2 is the way most react. If we have a less hostile approach, these people wouldn't see everyone as an enemy and might listen when we say "please don't hurt the children/youth" (for the ones who actually consider hurting children/youth in some way due to their sexual desires).
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 09:51:36 am by SandStorm »

Mr. Beefy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Karma: +8/-40
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #617 on: March 04, 2014, 10:08:35 am »
most intricate poll ever.

so creepy.

#pedostache.

MorfizZ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +1/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #618 on: March 04, 2014, 12:47:07 pm »
Super creepy.

dark_prophet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Karma: +104/-50
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #619 on: March 04, 2014, 03:32:35 pm »
It is odd how hard you push this idea around here m0rph especially when nobody seems to want to go along with it. The only thing i can come up with is you are a LE agent and are trying to link the SR with child pornography by luring in other sick members and busting them, effectively tarnishing the name of our community, if not you are just one sick fuck and you need to get the fuck out and go to some skinner forum.

SandStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Karma: +58/-13
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #620 on: March 04, 2014, 06:32:55 pm »
So much craziness here, sure doesn't fail to be entertaining. :P

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #621 on: March 04, 2014, 07:49:32 pm »
M0rph it doesn’t mater how much you try to justify your case with us. You will never be able to sit at the cool kids table because you are just a big piece of shitz.


And yes… “youz a big ass BITCH" also
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

PillfirePharmacy

  • Vendor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Karma: +236/-63
  • Quality, Customer Service& Integrity are our goals
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #622 on: March 04, 2014, 10:36:44 pm »
M0rph it doesn’t mater how much you try to justify your case with us. You will never be able to sit at the cool kids table because you are just a big piece of shitz.


And yes… “youz a big ass BITCH" also

Yes agreed. No matter how you twist words you are still a sick fuck. Your debating and attempts to deceive people into thinking that being sexually attracted to children are futile.   No one agrees with you.   You just make yourself look like an even more desperate pedo wack job with your long and delirious, pedo fumed posts.  Your ignorance, or just plain denial, about your mental illness will allow for you to be easily discovered and punished accordingly.   You will get no chance to heal at that point, because you clearly have no interest in stopping your fucked up thoughts.  I look forward to that day that you are crushed like the dirty rock spider you are.  I've got my stomping boots on spider.  Come crawl out to play!!
SR's #1 TRUSTED Suboxone Vender. Top Shelf & Fire Fishscale cocaine listings now live (levamisole, ephedrine & amphetamine FREE)!
SR2:http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/pillfirepharmacy
Agora: vendor/PillfirePharmacy#
Evolution:http://k5zq47j6wd3wdvjq.onion/store/5368

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #623 on: March 05, 2014, 10:15:48 am »
It is odd how hard you push this idea around here m0rph especially when nobody seems to want to go along with it. The only thing i can come up with is you are a LE agent and are trying to link the SR with child pornography by luring in other sick members and busting them, effectively tarnishing the name of our community, if not you are just one sick fuck and you need to get the fuck out and go to some skinner forum.

It's weird you think nobody agrees with me since 37.5% of respondents indicated sexual interest in young teenagers, and 45% indicated that they think either young teenagers are in some cases capable of consent or jailbait porn isn't a big deal to view. Only 50.1% of poll respondents so far indicated they think that young teenagers are invariably incapable of consent and jailbait porn should be illegal to view, so this community seems to be almost perfectly split on the issue. I didn't realize you gave so much weight to the 0.1% lead your opinion has. I don't need to lure anybody anywhere, in almost any community you will find that the results are roughly equivalent to this I imagine. Conversely, if the poll was about prepubescents it would likely be very slightly more than 1% of votes indicating desire for or tolerance of sexual activity with them, although significantly more than 1% would express tolerance for viewing of pornography featuring them. If we controlled for female versus male voters the split would be much less even, in that the large majority of males would indicate desire for or acceptance of sexual interaction with, either physically or via pornography, young teenagers, and the large majority of females would would indicate disapproval of both of these things. It's because males are evolutionarily hardwired to be sexually attracted to young teenagers because of the fact that they have high fertility, and all of the features associated with that. Older females are hardwired to be resentful of this fact of life, as they can't compete for choice mates as well with younger females as they can with each other. I suppose it's also possible they are simply oblivious to it, although I find that hard to imagine given how poorly hidden of a fact it is. Females tend to be attracted to older males because older males tend to have more resources, and females are about as attracted to resources (to support children more adequately, and to have the capability to support more children, therefore resulting in more children who make it to the age of reproduction, and therefore increasing the probability that the mothers genes will spread further) as they are to signs of biological fitness (sexy son hypothesis, males that can give genetic benefit to their children will produce more sexually attractive children that will then produce more children with more genetically fit mates, and therefore the mothers genes will spread further than they would if she mated with a less biologically desirable father). 

I also fail to see what is creepy about having a selection of choices that allows for high accuracy?

Quote
Of these two scenarios I'm quite sure 1 is most unlikely and 2 is the way most react. If we have a less hostile approach, these people wouldn't see everyone as an enemy and might listen when we say "please don't hurt the children/youth" (for the ones who actually consider hurting children/youth in some way due to their sexual desires).

Yes I agree entirely with this. I already mentioned that I have no intention of hurting any children or youth, even if my sexual desire is to do so. If you want to convince me to vote for something other than "Fuck yeah, I usually prefer young teenagers, and would act on it in some cases / ways, if not for social / legal problems" (the only other thing I could possibly vote for being "Fuck yeah, I usually prefer young teenagers, but wouldn't act on it in any case or way, because I think they are incapable of consent and / or jailbait porn is evil for whatever reason") , you need to convince me that younger teenagers are invariably incapable of consent and that jailbait porn is evil for whatever reason. You will never do this by telling me I should kill myself or go and be ass raped to death in prison. All you tell me by saying that is that you are an idiot. You will also never do this by saying words that have no foundation, anybody can say anything but without foundation it will not stand in my mind. You could say enthusiastically that we must ban voodoo dolls because they have magical powers to harm others, you could say so very emotionally and sincerely, but it will not convince me in the slightest unless you can show proof of this in such a way that I cannot refute your proof. Not a single one of the people who have argued against me about anything have even attempted to do so in a reasonable way, they just tell me I am sick (and then I show them that I am not according to the mental health community and that it is normal to be this way according to various studies), they just tell me pieces of propaganda that they have heard but it is just more words without foundation (and I show them studies that have contradicted these propaganda snippets that have no studies of their own to be based upon but only the baseless claims of those who profit from the status quo). None of them even try to convince me all they do is condemn me, and they don't even condemn me for anything I have done but just for being different from what they claim to be.

So yes, they seem like nothing other than idiots to me. They use words incorrectly and think they can define things to be whatever suits them. They have no arguments but only threats and profanities. Nobody has even tried to debate me. The closest we have come to that is someone who posted links to studies he did not read, just to make it so I was not the only one who appeared to be basing my argument upon science and reason, but all he did was try to create an illusion of a rational debate because he had none at all, and admitted himself that he did not read the things he linked to, which was already obvious to anyone who did.  If you think that you do any favors at all for the position you try to "argue" you are more delusional than the most delusional pedophiles, because the only people you will convince are the people who have already agreed with you and wont be convinced of anything else in the same way a religious person is unlikely to convert from the religion of his nation, to any objective observers you have simply made yourselves look like fools and offered no challenge to me at all in convincing them that your position is baseless.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:02:31 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #624 on: March 05, 2014, 10:26:49 am »
M0rph it doesn’t mater how much you try to justify your case with us. You will never be able to sit at the cool kids table because you are just a big piece of shitz.


And yes… “youz a big ass BITCH" also

Yes agreed. No matter how you twist words you are still a sick fuck. Your debating and attempts to deceive people into thinking that being sexually attracted to children are futile.   No one agrees with you.   You just make yourself look like an even more desperate pedo wack job with your long and delirious, pedo fumed posts.  Your ignorance, or just plain denial, about your mental illness will allow for you to be easily discovered and punished accordingly.   You will get no chance to heal at that point, because you clearly have no interest in stopping your fucked up thoughts.  I look forward to that day that you are crushed like the dirty rock spider you are.  I've got my stomping boots on spider.  Come crawl out to play!!

You accuse me of twisting words in the same paragraph in which you call me a pedophile, something that I am not by the correct definition of the word. You claim that I am ignorant and in denial in the same sentence in which you say I have a mental illness, but I have already shown proof that the international mental health community does not consider hebephilia to be a mental illness, to the point that they have flat out publicly rejected it as being considered as such.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #625 on: March 05, 2014, 12:30:16 pm »
also, even if I happened to be a pedophile, I don't think it would be accurate to say I am ignorant about pedophilia. I probably know more about it than nearly anyone here. For starters, I know the definitions of it according to two different major mental health standards bodies. I also have a comprehensive understanding of it, ranging from theories of cause, common shared characteristics of those afflicted with it, multiple typologies those afflicted with it can be classified with, the histories of most of the organized communities of such people on the internet, and the way society at large has viewed it from ancient to contemporary times. In fact, I would say I am extremely well educated in regards to pedophilia, so much so that I feel it would be impossible for me to be in denial about being a pedophile, something I cannot be as I don't meet any of the diagnostic criteria to be considered a pedophile according to either the DSM or the ICD. I also have a strong understanding of hebephilia and ephebophilia, which allows me to be confident when I make the claim that the majority of males are likely either non-exclusive hebephiles or ephebophiles. If you were paying attention you could see that I can also back this claim up with a large amount of scientific evidence, but you don't pay attention to anything because you are an idiot.

You see, if you people who argued against me were not idiots there would be various positions you would try to argue from. I don't even believe you are correct but I could argue your positions better than you can, which is really sad and says a hell of a lot about your capabilities I'm sorry to say. Here is one thing you could have linked to. Note that this is what a smart person sounds like when he tries to argue against my position, see the attempt at using science and the lack of calls for death and castration?

http://scientopia.org/blogs/scicurious/2012/01/18/hebephilia-the-measurable-penile-response-and-psychological-damage-in-children/

Quote
   

Since I first saw a post by Jesse Bering, responding to a question by a “Deep Thinking Hebephile”, I have wished to write a response of my own, covering more of the literature on the subject, and clarifying some points. It’s taken a while to gather my sources. For starters, I do not think that Jesse intended to, explicitly or implicitly, condone hebephilia. But this is where taking risks in scientific writing can lead to unintended consequences, and where choosing the wrong words, failing to adequately define the right ones, and mixing it all up with a lack of context and a paucity of references can produce a very unfortunate result. So I’d like to tackle this issue a little bit myself, from all the angles that were questioned in the original piece, with a few more sources, and a lot more context. This topic dovetails quite nicely with my upcoming Science Online discussion section with Kate Clancy, on writing about sex, and the line between education and titillation.

To begin: I do NOT in any way condone the practice of hebephilia (sexual activity between adults and children, in this case girls, at puberty, ages 11-14). I feel very strong disgust and aversion regarding this topic personally, but I also think there are sound medical reasons WHY we should feel that disgust, and place a taboo against this practice. What I’m going to cover is the medical and psychological issues associated, in particular the harm done to young girls by adult sexual abuse, and the concept and issues of “the measurable penile response”.

The original letter:

    Dear Jesse,
    I am a non-practicing heterosexual hebephile—and I think most men are—and find living in this society particularly difficult given puritanical, feminist, and parental forces against the normal male sex drive. If sex is generally good for both the body and the brain, then how is a teen having sex with an adult (versus another teen) bad for their mind? I feel like the psychological arguments surrounding the present age of consent laws need to be challenged. My focus is on consensual activity being considered always harmful in the first place. Since the legal notions of consent are based on findings from the soft sciences, shouldn’t we be a little more careful about ruining an adult life in these cases?

    —Deep-thinking Hebephile

I think it’s clear that this letter comes with a large dose of bias (if the “...feminist, and parental forces against the normal male sex drive” aren’t enough of a clue). But we’ll take this point by point:

“I am a non-practicing heterosexual hebephile—and I think most men are—”

As Bering himself noted (though I think it was not strong enough, and I think Stephanie Zvan made a better point of this), wishing that most men are like you does not make them so. Most heterosexual men are not hebephiles, and do not explicitly demonstrate a preference for girls ages 11-14. The vast majority of hetereosexual men are attracted to women older than that, with an age range of late teens and early twenties to women of their own age. The original study which characterized the definition of a “hebephile” was a study by Blanchard et al, 2009, doing a study of measurable penile response in a group of convicted sex offenders. The results of the study with regard to hetereosexual men are below.

You can clearly see that the vast majority of sex offenders studied preferred adult women older than 17 years of age. The concept of “hebephile” extended only to a total of 10% of those studied. Keep in mind, of course, that these are specifically convicted sex offenders who were studied, and the percentage in the general population is probably substantially different (and I would guess lower) than that shown here. Indeed, a study in 214 control men known to be primarily attracted to females showed measurable penile response decreasing steadily as age decreased (Lykins, 2010). All penile reactions to naked bodies were larger than those in response to nature scenes, but by far the biggest response was to adult women, and preference decreased drastically when presented with very young girls. It is clear that pedophilia and hebephilia are very much in the minority.

The "Measurable penile response"

I would also like to take a moment to clarify the idea of ‘measurable penile response”, and the idea of “natural”. When you spend a lot of time in one particular field of study (in this case, psychology), phrases and words like these can lose one context (the one used by wider society), and gain another (used by the specialty).

First, to have a ‘measurable penile response’ is NOT to immediately have to hump the nearest item eliciting the response. It is quite clear that the human brain is much stronger than “a measurable penile response” elicited in the laboratory, and a person’s actions in the wider environment are going to take into account not just whether a person is physically developed (which presumably elicits the penile response), but other things, such as the child’s probable age and the person’s relationship with that child. While some men may have a “measurable penile response” to any female that is close to physically developed, they are not attracted to children. The fact that the person in question is a child will negate any motion toward a “measurable penile response” that is elicited in the lab by looking at naked pictures of kids.

Secondly, I would like to spend a moment on the idea of ‘natural’ in evolutionary psychology, as opposed to in the world at large. When evolutionary psychologists speak of something that is ‘natural’, it is a term that does not have a value judgement associated with it. Something is natural because it EXISTS in the human behavioral spectrum. In the wider world, however, the idea of “natural’ has a great deal more to it. We connect it with positivity, things that are “natural” are supposed to be ‘good’ or ‘useful’. This is why we have Whole Foods stores, they take advantage of our current belief that something ‘natural’ must be good. But just because something is ‘natural’ does not in fact mean that it is good. There are natural poisons, natural diseases, and there are natural behavioral responses which are not in any way positive. Wanting to kill someone for some reason may be natural, but I do not think the vast majority of people would condone the impulse as good. So just because a “measurable penile response” is “natural” does not mean it is good, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it is ok to act upon that impulse. As Bering himself stated very well:

    let me make it perfectly clear that a biologically based arousal to pubescent or post-pubescent females (or males) is not academically informed license to engage in illegal, harmful, or otherwise inappropriate sexual relationships with them.

“If sex is generally good for both the body and the brain, then how is a teen having sex with an adult (versus another teen) bad for their mind?”

The letter writer is making a couple of assumptions here which are not based on evidence. First off, sex is not necessarily good for the body and the brain in all cases. And sex between a young teenager and an older male is particularly fraught, for a variety of reasons.

We all know that sex, while pleasurable and useful for many things when performed between consenting adults, can be risky. To begin with, there are risks associated with pregnancy in women, which are important in all ages but particularly problematic in young adolescents, including premature labor and delivery, anemia, hypertension, and problems with the infant including low birth weight (both due to premature delivery and intrauterine growth restriction, where the the uterus and body cavity cannot expand enough to allow for growth of the fetus), and increased morbidity and mortality in the first year. The are only the immediate physical risks, there are a large number of studies showing that early sexual activity in girls increases risk for STDs, substance abuse, intimate partner violence and risky sexual activity such as decreased condom use. There is even increased risk for health problems including pulmonary, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, etc, etc. In Bering’s original response, he cited Browning, 1997 showing no association between childhood sexual activity and adverse outcomes in adulthood, but this finding is overshadowed by a large number of citations showing otherwise. And not just girls are at risk, men sexually abused as boys also have similar adverse health outcomes with regard to STDs, substance abuse, and risky sexual activity. Kate Clancy will be covering this aspect extensively in her post on the topic.

And this does not even begin to cover the psychological effects. It would be impossible in our society to have relationship between an older man and a young girl without a significant power imbalance. This exists even when a girl is having a relationship with a man only two years her senior, and the power differential associated with a fully grown male is truly vast. Adolescence is a very sensitive neurological time period, and there are many studies showing that victimization of men and women in adolescence is a risk factor for psychiatric problems in adulthood, including increased risk of suicide.

Finally, yes, older men did, and do, marry or have sexual relationships with extremely young girls in other countries and societies. But it should also be noted that, in those countries and time periods where this kind of relationship is acceptable, it is acceptable because women and girls in those time periods and societies have few to no rights or personal agency, increasing the power differential and creating many situations of untold suffering.

Thus, while there may be exceptions, it is obvious that in the majority of cases, there is a high risk of negative outcome associated with girls in young adolescence having sexual relations with adult men. there is no need to re-evaluation, the existing data are extremely strong and show negative physical and psychological outcomes. While Bering conveyed this strongly in his addendum to his original post, in the original post, there was a confusion of terms and a few references only for examples, resulting in outcries on several levels. So I want to highlight the extreme care that is necessary in talking about risky topics such as this one. It is important to define your terms in the scientific context as well as the context of wider society, and acknowledge where these differ. It is important to find a large number of references to determine the scientific consensus on the issue. And it is extremely important, as Janet Stemwedel notes, to draw a line between the display of certain opinions and studies, and moral justification. And in this case, there is no doubt. A measurable penile response, and a “natural” attraction, does not a healthy relationship make.

Acknowledgements:
I am very thankful to Dr. Kate Clancy and Dr. Janet Stemwedel, who provided me with a lot of discussion and helped me to outline this article, and particularly thankful to Stephanie Zvan, who’s original posts on this topic helped me begin my own source hunting and who provided excellent evidence and scholarship.

Now since I presented a half decent argument to myself, since I am apparently the only one capable of doing so, I will now refute it.

Quote
I am a non-practicing heterosexual hebephile—and I think most men are—and find living in this society particularly difficult given puritanical, feminist, and parental forces against the normal male sex drive.

Quote
I think it’s clear that this letter comes with a large dose of bias (if the “...feminist, and parental forces against the normal male sex drive” aren’t enough of a clue). But we’ll take this point by point:

First I will start by pointing out that his perception of bias is biased. The original campaign to increase the age of consent past puberty was spearheaded by religious (puritanical) feminist organizations, initially attempting to reduce prostitution rates by criminalizing the procurement of young teenage prostitutes via raising the age of consent.

citation: https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

Quote
At the end of 19th century, moral reformers drew the age of consent into campaigns against prostitution. Revelations of child prostitution were central to those campaigns, a situation that resulted, reformers argued, from men taking advantage of the innocence of girls just over the age of consent. W. T. Stead's series of articles entitled, "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon," published in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, was the most sensational and influential of these exposés.

The outcry it provoked pushed British legislators to raise the age of consent to 16 years, and stirred reformers in the U.S, such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the British Empire, and Europe to push for similar legislation. By 1920, Anglo-American legislators had responded by increasing the age of consent to 16 years, and even as high as 18 years.

and feminist and right wing religious political groups have been a driving factor behind increasing age of consent laws ever since:

Quote
By the 1970s, feminist rape law reform campaigns had helped to expand age of consent laws. Aiming to challenge stereotypes of female passivity and growing concern about male victimization, they made it clearer that the laws concerned all youth—male and female—and that the laws protected them from exploitation rather than ensuring their virginity. European nations in general did not follow suit. Only Britain, in 2003, revised its legislation, making an act committed by an individual under 18 with one under 16 a separate, lesser offense.

A more broadly adopted element of feminist rape law reform was the application of gender-neutral language: instead of referring to "females" the law referred to any "person." Unchanged, however, was the nature of the act addressed. Age of consent laws applied only to heterosexual intercourse. The new language criminalized acts between underage boys and women, but not those between boys and men. Promoted as a means of formalizing equality between men and women, gender-neutral language won support as a means of protecting boys. The treatment of such cases, however, was not gender neutral and drew upon gender stereotypes. In practice, boys were imagined as sexual agents, not victims, and as sexual agents, the prevailing assumption was that they would not be harmed by sexual acts with adult women.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to apply the age of consent only to girls. The ruling found a new, "modern" basis for the law: the consequences of pregnancy for females. Although out of line with a broad shift toward formal legal equality between males and females, the decision fit the circumstances of the small number of cases still being prosecuted. And despite this ruling, gender-neutral laws were still enacted around the country.

This debate foreshadowed a new link between the law and teenage pregnancy in the 1990s. Conservatives seeking to control adolescent sexuality joined with welfare reform activists. They promoted claims that the enforcement of the age of consent could prevent teenage motherhood (and rising welfare costs) that resulted from girls' exploitation by adult men. Few cases actually fit that pattern, but campaigns to publicize and enforce the law on that basis were implemented in at least 10 states.

but now to address the real arguments presented.

Quote
As Bering himself noted (though I think it was not strong enough, and I think Stephanie Zvan made a better point of this), wishing that most men are like you does not make them so. Most heterosexual men are not hebephiles, and do not explicitly demonstrate a preference for girls ages 11-14. The vast majority of hetereosexual men are attracted to women older than that, with an age range of late teens and early twenties to women of their own age. The original study which characterized the definition of a “hebephile” was a study by Blanchard et al, 2009, doing a study of measurable penile response in a group of convicted sex offenders. The results of the study with regard to hetereosexual men are below.

I find it impossible to argue with him on this point, I imagine the majority of males probably do not demonstrate a *preference* for girls ages 11-14, and this is indeed a necessity to be considered a hebephile according to most criteria. Lack of exclusive or preferential attraction to those 11-14 would rule a person out as being a hebephile. My argument has never been that the majority of males are true hebephiles though (to borrow from terminology used in relation to pedophilia, where a true pedophile is preferentially or exclusively attracted to prepubescents, whereas a non-exclusive pedophile is attracted to prepubescents as well as some who are not prepubescent). My argument is that the majority of males experience sexual attraction to pubescent females, and are thus properly considered as non-exclusive non-preferential hebephiles. I agree that the vast majority of heterosexual men are attracted to women older than that, hell I myself am attracted to females older than that, and although I do tend to prefer younger teenagers I would be weakly preferential, in that I am strongly aroused by many older females as well. It is important to note that this person is being very careful with the language he uses in order to paint a perception of reality that lines up with his own moral belief system, and although I cannot say he is strictly speaking incorrect, I can say he is being misleading.

The first thing I notice about the results of this study ( http://scientopia.org/blogs/scicurious/files/2012/01/hebephilia1.png ) is the strange grouping of the chronophilias. Attraction to 11 year olds is classified as pedophilia, but in reality this is misleading as hebephiles can be attracted to pubescent 11 year olds, whereas pedophiles would only be attracted to prepubescent 11 year olds. The majority of females today reach tanner stage II sexual traits in all areas, and are clearly pubescent, by 10 years old:

http://www.pediatricnews.com/conferences/conference-coverage/single-article/study-finds-early-onset-of-puberty-in-girls/defd81ac3d81796d1ca6682cb9c45201.html

Quote
DENVER – A majority of girls start puberty before age 10 years, according to researchers for a longitudinal study who found young ages for onset of breast and pubic hair development.

Tanner stage II breast development ranged from 9% of 7-year-old girls to 91% of 11-year-olds in this ongoing study of 444 healthy girls. Similarly, 10% of the 7-year-olds had Tanner stage II pubic hair development, as did 86% of the 11-year-olds. A total of 75% achieved Tanner stage II or greater breast development, and 57% achieved Tanner stage II or greater pubic hair development by age 10 years.

If anything, the ages of the study this person references should be adjusted for hebephilia to encompass attraction to ages 10 and 11, but I will allow for hebephilia to start at 11, but I will not allow for attraction to 11 year olds to be classified as pedophilia, and must point out that this study seems to be trying to artificially deflate the number of hebephiles by doing this. I also note a complete lack of ages 15 or 16, this would be classified as ephebophilia though and so is irrelevant to an argument about hebephilia. I do however notice that the ephebophiles in this study are said to have the same median "victim" age as hebephiles, and this seems to be further stretching out the group of hebephiles.

I would also at this time like to point out that the author of the mentioned study was part of the paraphilias subgroup for the DSM-V, and that his argument to classify hebephilia was REJECTED by the majority of the mental health community.

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/12/apa-rejects-hebephilia-last-of-three.html

Quote
Next time around, the APA might want to do a better job selecting committee members in the first place. The "paraphilias subworkgroup" was heavily biased in favor of hebephilia because of its domination by psychologists from the Canadian sex clinic that proposed the new disorder in the first place, and is the only entity doing research on it. But what a waste of time and energy to create a committee that comes up with wild and wacky proposals that are only going to end up getting shot down when the rubber meets the road.

Unfortunately, I cannot find an available copy of the mentioned study to critique it further, and will instead need to focus my efforts on the words of the person I argue against.

Quote
You can clearly see that the vast majority of sex offenders studied preferred adult women older than 17 years of age. The concept of “hebephile” extended only to a total of 10% of those studied. Keep in mind, of course, that these are specifically convicted sex offenders who were studied, and the percentage in the general population is probably substantially different (and I would guess lower) than that shown here. Indeed, a study in 214 control men known to be primarily attracted to females showed measurable penile response decreasing steadily as age decreased (Lykins, 2010). All penile reactions to naked bodies were larger than those in response to nature scenes, but by far the biggest response was to adult women, and preference decreased drastically when presented with very young girls. It is clear that pedophilia and hebephilia are very much in the minority.

Without direct access to the study I cannot attempt to find methodological flaws in the study, but as previously mentioned I find it strange how they distributed hebephilia in order to thin it out. Therefore I will instead present studies  supporting my own position, rather than attempt to find flaws in the presented study:

www.wisspd.org/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf

Quote
In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975)

Although this study didn't apparently assess the degree of arousal, it did show that the majority of studied males were sexually aroused by young teenagers. I cannot use this to demonstrate the the majority of males are true hebephiles, as for that to be the case they would need to have sexual arousal to young teenagers and lack sexual arousal to, or have less sexual arousal to, people ages 17 years or older. I can however claim that this indicates that the majority of males are at least non-preferential non-exclusive hebephiles, which is what my claim has always been.

Next I will provide a sort of proof that it is unlikely for male sexual arousal to decrease versus 17 year olds when compared to people ages 12.9 or older. This is because:

Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #626 on: March 05, 2014, 12:30:40 pm »
1. Tanner stage 4 is reached on average at 12.9 years old

http://www.fpnotebook.com/endo/exam/fmltnrstg.htm

Quote
IV. Stage: Tanner 4

    Height increases at 7 cm/year
    Breast
        Areolae forms secondary mound on the Breast
        Age: 12.9 years (10.5-15.3 years)
    Pubic Hair
        Hair of adult quality
        No spread to junction of medial thigh with perineum
        Age: 12.6 years (10.4-14.8 years)

2. more than 1/4ths of 17 year olds are in tanner stage 4

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/4/e978.full

Quote
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Forensic testimony in alleged child pornography cases commonly asserts that Tanner stage (TS) 4 breast development, characterized by secondary mounding of the areola that is obliterated in TS 5, is evidence of age <18 years. Clinical experience does not support this notion, but there are no relevant studies. We sought to estimate how frequently TS 4 might be interpreted from nonclinical images by individual forensic experts.

METHOD: Published images of 547 adult women were independently examined by the authors and classified as having TS 4 or TS 5 breast development.

RESULTS: There was concordance among all 4 of the examiners for 17 of the images, agreement of 3 of the examiners on another 36 images, of 2 examiners on 39 images, and 53 images were designated TS 4 by only 1 examiner, for a total of 153 (26.5%) images that could have been considered by a single forensic expert to represent TS 4.

CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of adults have persistent TS 4 breast development. This observation, and the frequent difficulty distinguishing TS 4 from TS 5, even by adolescent development specialists, especially in nonclinical images, renders testimony based on this distinction invalid. Without clinical relevance for distinguishing these advanced stages of breast development, they should both be considered indicative of full maturation. Testimony based on this inappropriate test of maturity should no longer be allowed.

3. average 12.9 year olds are in the normal range of height and weight for 17 year olds

http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

demonstrates that a 13 year old in the 75th percentile is taller and heavier than a 17 year old in the 25th percentile

Even if we assume males are typically attracted to tanner stage 5 characteristics, the age would simply move from 12.9 on average to 14.5 on average as to when going younger would not likely decrease male sexual arousal, and 14.5 is still in hebephilia.

Quote
The "Measurable penile response"

I would also like to take a moment to clarify the idea of ‘measurable penile response”, and the idea of “natural”. When you spend a lot of time in one particular field of study (in this case, psychology), phrases and words like these can lose one context (the one used by wider society), and gain another (used by the specialty).

First, to have a ‘measurable penile response’ is NOT to immediately have to hump the nearest item eliciting the response. It is quite clear that the human brain is much stronger than “a measurable penile response” elicited in the laboratory, and a person’s actions in the wider environment are going to take into account not just whether a person is physically developed (which presumably elicits the penile response), but other things, such as the child’s probable age and the person’s relationship with that child. While some men may have a “measurable penile response” to any female that is close to physically developed, they are not attracted to children. The fact that the person in question is a child will negate any motion toward a “measurable penile response” that is elicited in the lab by looking at naked pictures of kids.

And now he makes a very scientifically unsound appeal to the morality of his nation. Just because a human brain can override innate sexual desire does not mean that a person who experiences arousal when presented with a naked young teenager is not sexually attracted to her when they override their desire. Clearly, erections are obtained in response to sexual arousal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_arousal#Male_physiological_response

Quote
Male physiological response

It is normal to correlate the erection of the penis with male sexual arousal. Physical or psychological stimulation, or both, leads to vasodilation and the increased blood flow engorges the three spongy areas that run along the length of the penis (the two corpora cavernosa and the corpus spongiosum). The penis grows enlarged and firm, the skin of the scrotum is pulled tighter, and the testes are pulled up against the body.[10] However the relationship between erection and arousal is not one-to-one. After their mid-forties, some men report that they do not always have an erection when they are sexually aroused.[11] Equally, a male erection can occur during sleep (nocturnal penile tumescence) without conscious sexual arousal or due to mechanical stimulation (e.g. rubbing against the bed sheet) alone. A young man — or one with a strong sexual drive — may experience enough sexual arousal for an erection to result from a passing thought, or just the sight of a passerby. Once erect, his penis may gain enough stimulation from contact with the inside of his clothing to maintain and encourage it for some time.[12]

and sexual arousal in response to someone is a clear indicator of sexual attraction to them:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+attraction

Quote
sexual attraction - attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire
attractiveness, attraction - the quality of arousing interest; being attractive or something that attracts; "her personality held a strange attraction for him"

It is dishonest to claim that simply because a male will not act on his sexual arousal to a young teenager, due to cultural indoctrination or the fear of consequences, that he is not therefore attracted to young teenagers.

Quote
Secondly, I would like to spend a moment on the idea of ‘natural’ in evolutionary psychology, as opposed to in the world at large. When evolutionary psychologists speak of something that is ‘natural’, it is a term that does not have a value judgement associated with it. Something is natural because it EXISTS in the human behavioral spectrum. In the wider world, however, the idea of “natural’ has a great deal more to it. We connect it with positivity, things that are “natural” are supposed to be ‘good’ or ‘useful’. This is why we have Whole Foods stores, they take advantage of our current belief that something ‘natural’ must be good.

I certainly have never made appeals to nature. Indeed, I have rejected appeals to nature in claiming that the majority of males are naturally inclined to be rapists, but that this is immoral behavior. The questioner this person is responding to never used the word natural either, and I find it odd that this responder is correctly showing that appeals to nature are invalid while simultaneously attempting to imply that it is not natural to be sexually aroused by young teenage females, although he is very careful to avoid being flat out wrong with his wording (due to the difference between true hebephilia and non-exlusive non-preferential hebephilia).

Quote
But just because something is ‘natural’ does not in fact mean that it is good. There are natural poisons, natural diseases, and there are natural behavioral responses which are not in any way positive. Wanting to kill someone for some reason may be natural, but I do not think the vast majority of people would condone the impulse as good. So just because a “measurable penile response” is “natural” does not mean it is good, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it is ok to act upon that impulse. As Bering himself stated very well:

    let me make it perfectly clear that a biologically based arousal to pubescent or post-pubescent females (or males) is not academically informed license to engage in illegal, harmful, or otherwise inappropriate sexual relationships with them.

More seemingly contradictory beliefs of this person. He goes from implying that it is not natural to be sexually attracted to young teenage females (although he cleverly never actually says this, by exploiting the definition of true hebephilia versus non-exclusive non-preferential hebephilia), to saying that just because a male has sexual arousal in response to a young teenage female doesn't mean he is sexually attracted to her (which is incorrect), to saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean it is morally sound (which is true), to implying that it may be natural after all to have a measurable penile response to young teenagers, but as previously mentioned just because it is natural doesn't mean it is moral to act on it.

Well, I agree with him that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it is moral. But I have not yet heard an argument from him or anybody else that convinces me that young teenage females are invariably incapable of consent. Nor have I heard an argument from him or anybody else that leads me to believe that it should be a crime to look at whatever images you want to, even if they feature naked young teenage females! Also, the person he quotes makes an appeal to law which is absolutely invalid to do, although his claim that we should avoid doing harmful things to people is valid. The primary thing I would like to do is find a system that accurately determines when it is harmful for a person to have sex, or when sexual activity would be inappropriate. Certainly this is not decided upon by the United States government, although many seem to think that it is. And indeed, in many nations around the world it is neither illegal nor culturally inappropriate for young teenagers to have sexual relationships with older people, and we are therefore left to consider the harmfulness of this activity, something which this person has not yet addressed, but which he now attempts to address:

Quote
“If sex is generally good for both the body and the brain, then how is a teen having sex with an adult (versus another teen) bad for their mind?”

The letter writer is making a couple of assumptions here which are not based on evidence. First off, sex is not necessarily good for the body and the brain in all cases. And sex between a young teenager and an older male is particularly fraught, for a variety of reasons.

We all know that sex, while pleasurable and useful for many things when performed between consenting adults, can be risky. To begin with, there are risks associated with pregnancy in women, which are important in all ages but particularly problematic in young adolescents, including premature labor and delivery, anemia, hypertension, and problems with the infant including low birth weight (both due to premature delivery and intrauterine growth restriction, where the the uterus and body cavity cannot expand enough to allow for growth of the fetus), and increased morbidity and mortality in the first year

First, and I cannot immediately find a citation for this but have heard it before, the increased risk of child birth is present in very young pubescent girls but decreases rapidly and is only present in the first few years after puberty. Considering puberty begins usually by age 10 in females, we can, assuming this is accurate, say that these increased risks are largely gone by age 12 or 13, which still falls within the hebephilic range of attraction. But I don't need this to argue against what he said. Certainly it is harmful for people to smoke crack, just as it is certainly harmful for freshly pubescent females to give birth, in that both of these activities put the partaker at substantial risk of problems. But we would not say that a person who can understand the risks of smoking crack should be prohibited from doing so! The real issue is the ability to understand risk, not the taking of risk in itself. If an 11 year old has the mind of a 30 year old I would not say that it is in our right to prevent her from becoming pregnant if she desires to do so, in exactly the same way I would not prevent someone from smoking crack if they desire to do so, despite the fact that it is not healthy and is fraught with risk.

Risk to the child of such a mother is another issue all together. Certainly I imagine those who are pro choice would claim that it is the mothers choice to put her unborn child at increased risk, because she can do whatever she wants with her body, including have a child inside of it that does not have enough room to expand to an appropriate size. But in any case, I imagine that even by 13 years old this risk is not present, as I have previously mentioned and shown proof of, an average 13 year old is in the normal range of physical stature for a 17 year old.

Additionally, there is the fact that humans have essentially mastered birth control. There are numerous ways in which to prevent unwanted pregnancies, ranging from condoms to regular birth control pills to morning after pills, and many other things. A properly educated pubescent female should know how to prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she does not desire to do so.

Quote
The are only the immediate physical risks, there are a large number of studies showing that early sexual activity in girls increases risk for STDs, substance abuse, intimate partner violence and risky sexual activity such as decreased condom use. There is even increased risk for health problems including pulmonary, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, etc, etc. In Bering’s original response, he cited Browning, 1997 showing no association between childhood sexual activity and adverse outcomes in adulthood, but this finding is overshadowed by a large number of citations showing otherwise. And not just girls are at risk, men sexually abused as boys also have similar adverse health outcomes with regard to STDs, substance abuse, and risky sexual activity. Kate Clancy will be covering this aspect extensively in her post on the topic.

And another argument with little real substance to it. Once again, this person seems to want to look after the health of others with the totalitarianesque motivation of a socialist. It doesn't matter if a 13 year old having sex will cause her head to explode, what matters is if she is capable of consenting to having sex resulting in her head exploding. Additionally, as the previous quote shows, if these risks are even present or not is controversial with studies indicating in either direction. There is also the issue of correlation versus causation. I cannot even be certain if these risks are real or not without doing substantially more research than I am currently willing to do, but I can already see that the risks are controversial, and I can already say that even if they are real risks it is irrelevant because the risk of having sex at a particular age isn't what is being debated it is the ability for people to consent to have sex which is being debated.

Also his use of the words "sexually abused" in relation to boys makes it impossible to derive meaning from his statement. Does he actually mean boys who are sexually abused? Or does he mean boys who are sexually active at all? It is ambiguous language due to the obvious biases of this person. I have no doubt that it is bad to sexually abuse boys and have little doubt that a sexually abused boy would be at risk of adverse health outcomes, but I am far less convinced (to the point that I am not at all convinced) that a young teenage male who has consensual sexual activity with an older female is at any substantial risk of an adverse health outcome. Maybe at increased risk of STD as an older female is more likely to have STD's than a younger one, but other than that I imagine the outcome is the same when having sex with older females or females in the same age range as the boy in question. 

Quote
And this does not even begin to cover the psychological effects. It would be impossible in our society to have relationship between an older man and a young girl without a significant power imbalance. This exists even when a girl is having a relationship with a man only two years her senior, and the power differential associated with a fully grown male is truly vast. Adolescence is a very sensitive neurological time period, and there are many studies showing that victimization of men and women in adolescence is a risk factor for psychiatric problems in adulthood, including increased risk of suicide.

So I wonder if this person thinks that humans in our culture should be put into castes, and forbidden from having inter-caste sexual relationships? What if a billionaire man decides he wants to have a sexual relationship with a woman making only tens of thousand of dollars a year? Should he be prohibitted from doing so due to the fact that there is a vast power imbalance between the two of them? And again he uses a very biased, emotionally charged and ambiguous word, "victimized". Is any adolescent who has sex with an older man victimized according to these studies, or are they only studies taking into account real victimization? If they are only taking into account real victimization then he is being misleading in citing them, if they consider any sexual activity between a younger teenager and an older man to be victimizing then I highly doubt they would have the results he implies that they do. If a 14 year old has a loving relationship with a 25 year old and it is fully consensual I find it extraordinarily unlikely that this relationship will lead to her being at increased risk of suicide. I also find it extraordinarily unlikely that a 15 year old boy banging his 26 year old math teacher is going to be at increased risk of suicide later in life for having done so.

Quote
Finally, yes, older men did, and do, marry or have sexual relationships with extremely young girls in other countries and societies. But it should also be noted that, in those countries and time periods where this kind of relationship is acceptable, it is acceptable because women and girls in those time periods and societies have few to no rights or personal agency, increasing the power differential and creating many situations of untold suffering.

First of all, yes, in historical times when it is common for men to have sexual relationships with and marry 12 year old females, females were generally treated as far inferior to men in general. Additionally, yes, in many countries where it is legal to have sex with very young females with marriage, the females are treated like shit still, primarily in Islamic countries. On the other hand, I would not say that females are particularly treated poorly in Germany, or in Italy, or in Uruguay, or in Spain, or in any of dozens of other countries where it is legal to have sexual relationships with girls aged 12-14 years old, and legal to view jailbait pornography. I wonder if this person realizes he is condemning the treatment of females in many first world European and South American countries!

Quote
Thus, while there may be exceptions, it is obvious that in the majority of cases, there is a high risk of negative outcome associated with girls in young adolescence having sexual relations with adult men. there is no need to re-evaluation, the existing data are extremely strong and show negative physical and psychological outcomes. While Bering conveyed this strongly in his addendum to his original post, in the original post, there was a confusion of terms and a few references only for examples, resulting in outcries on several levels. So I want to highlight the extreme care that is necessary in talking about risky topics such as this one. It is important to define your terms in the scientific context as well as the context of wider society, and acknowledge where these differ. It is important to find a large number of references to determine the scientific consensus on the issue. And it is extremely important, as Janet Stemwedel notes, to draw a line between the display of certain opinions and studies, and moral justification. And in this case, there is no doubt. A measurable penile response, and a “natural” attraction, does not a healthy relationship make.

I think this ending paragraph sums up his entire response quite accurately. Although he initially tried to refute the normalcy of sexual attraction to young teenagers, in the end he makes an argument to the moral superiority of his culture, which isn't at all shocking. I wonder what his thoughts are on the fact that hebephilia is not considered a mental disorder by either of the large mental health standards bodies! That seems to be a consensus! In fact, the researcher he made frequent references to was flat out rejected and ridiculed by the mental health community for his attempts to have hebephilia considered as a mental disorder. Additionally, his appeals to health are irrelevant for much the same reason they are irrelevant when it comes to drug use. We have no right to tell a mentally competent person that they are not allowed to use drugs and we are equally incapable of rightfully telling a person who is capable of consent that they cannot consent to have sex due to concerns for their health. We do not own people! We can protect people who are not capable of protecting themselves, but he completely has avoided the criteria by which we judge a person as capable of being able to consent to sex, he has referenced studies which he admits are controversial in regards to the health affects of young teenagers having sex (and the alleged negative health affects of young teenagers having sex is the entire basis of his argument), and he has given off a disgusting essence of cultural imperialism in his condemnation of the protections afforded to females in countries such as Germany and Italy.

I wonder why he thinks there is no need for re-evaluation of the negative outcomes associated with sexual activity between young adolescents and adult men, when he himself has admitted that there are conflicting results in studies? It sounds like it is indeterminate to me! I also find it hard to even follow his argument when he could very well be using "sexual activity with" and "abuse of" interchangeably, which is inappropriate, or appropriately, which is unlikely.

So even though we have Biologists who believe in Intelligent Design, I am glad that they are a minority, just as we have psychiatrists who think Hebephilia is a mental disorder, but they are mocked by their peers. It's unfortunate this person couldn't have given a convincing argument given his credentials, but it isn't surprising really. He completely neglected to address the abilities of young teenagers to consent to sex, or how he can differentiate their abilities from older females 17+ in blind studies. Until I am presented with a blind study that reliably shows a massive discrepancy between 14 year olds and 17 year olds cognitive capabilities I am not going to be convinced that a 17 year old can consent to sex but a 14 year old cannot. And again, I would avoid the entire idea of age of consent and instead focus on individualized evaluation and certification. 
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #627 on: March 05, 2014, 12:51:49 pm »
m0rph. Your obsession is not normal, not healthy. I mean, do you actually think anyone read all that? Time to get help, eh?
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #628 on: March 05, 2014, 01:14:16 pm »
Get help, m0rph. Take a step back and look at what you're doing; look how hard you're trying to justify yourself to others. Look how much effort you're pouring into this - it's very clear you really, really want other people to say oh you've convinced me, you're right, it's normal and it's healthy.

The trouble is that it isn't right, it isn't normal and it isn't healthy. Get help.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #629 on: March 05, 2014, 01:22:15 pm »
Get help, m0rph. Take a step back and look at what you're doing; look how hard you're trying to justify yourself to others. Look how much effort you're pouring into this - it's very clear you really, really want other people to say oh you've convinced me, you're right, it's normal and it's healthy.

The trouble is that it isn't right, it isn't normal and it isn't healthy. Get help.

Take a step back and look at what you are doing. You are telling me it isn't normal to be this way, but basing this off of nothing, and I am saying it is normal, and basing it off studies that you don't read when I link to them. You are saying it is wrong, but not basing this on anything, I am saying I don't really know if it's wrong to fuck young teenagers but that nobody has convinced me it isn't, and that we should have some individualized evaluation system that is based on *something* other than *tradition*, which can distinguish those who can and cannot consent to sex even without being able to look at them or know anything about them other than the ability of their minds. And as far as jailbait porn goes, I do know that it isn't wrong to look at that, because I am not a blithering idiot.

And as far as convincing others goes, well, I have already had multiple different people contact me privately and tell me that I have convinced them, so it seems like I am doing a pretty good job of convincing people, which isn't really that hard to do when your opponents are are bad at debate as you guys happen to be. Here is a hint: The first person to call for death and castration of his opponent loses in most debates.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #630 on: March 05, 2014, 01:29:14 pm »
If you feel the need to write thousands and thousands of words to justify your beliefs, you're clearly demonstrating that inside you know it's not okay but you're trying to tell yourself it is. What you write is not about convincing others. It's about convincing yourself. And you're trying very, very hard to do that. That's how I know you know something's wrong, even if you won't admit it now.

If you were totally okay with what you're thinking, you wouldn't be here writing out essays in response to a two or three line comment criticising your predilections.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #631 on: March 05, 2014, 01:41:35 pm »
If people were not going to prison and being ruined for life for doing things that I know are not bad I wouldn't give the slightest fuck about it. But as it stands, the difference between a deviant dangerous pedophile predator and a normal person is measured in inches,  and that simply should not be the case. I don't know how you can stand knowing that either around the world people are going to prison and being ruined forever for things that are not bad, or around the world nations ranging from Germany to Japan to Italy have legalized and normalized not only 'pedophilia' but also the hands on sexual exploitation of children and activities that 'lead' to 'child abuse' (and child abuse). One of those things absolutely must be true, and either is just as bad.

Hell, we don't even need to go so international. Which do you think it is, do you think that the state of Alaska has legalized and normalized pedophilia and sexual exploitation of minors by having an age of consent at 16, or do you think that Arizona has enslaved thousands of harmless people by having an age of consent at 18? And why is it that you don't seem to care that either children are being systematically exploited by the government of Alaska or normal people are being systematically enslaved by the government of Arizona?

Because most obviously there is a conspiracy happening, and it is either a conspiracy by many first world governments to normalize pedophilia and child sexual exploitation, or it is a conspiracy by  many other first world governments and the prison industry to enslave hundreds of thousands of people for profit. It's why I am so amazed to see people like you on a drug forum, who think it is a conspiracy of pedophiles across the world, when you have already witnessed and become aware of the EXACT SAME FUCKING CONSPIRACY as it played out by THE SAME EXACT FUCKING CONSPIRATOR in regards to drugs. It's like you are completely blind and you are right it is a waste of time to tell you this because no matter how much you tell a blind person what something looks like they simply cannot comprehend sight.

I'm really sorry I guess that I can see patterns so much better than you can. It's just the curse of being MUCH smarter than you are.

PS: You have one way out still! You could say that there is no conspiracy by pedophiles across the world AND no conspiracy of the prison industry to enslave people, by claiming that morality is relative to culture. But I wouldn't do that if I was you, because then you will be a Nazi apologist and also an apologist of slave holders in the early USA, and an apologist of all travesties throughout time that were judged by the societies that perpetrated them to be morally defensible.

So what is it, international conspiracy of pedophiles, international conspiracy of prison industrial complex, or are you a Nazi apologist?

I mean really, if you actually took two seconds to think about it, you would realize that when I say "We should have a system that individually evaluates peoples competency for sexual self determinism, and use this instead of an age of consent system" and you say "Blargh durh you are sick fuck and must die fucking pedophile rock spider cunt nonce blarhahrha!!!" what you are really saying is "I am okay with the sexual exploitation of people who do not possess the capacity for sexual self determinism, or I am okay with the enslavement of people who have done nothing wrong!" and in my opinion that makes *you* the sick fuck. And the problem is that you are totally willing to act on your sickness in ways that hurt others, and you are in denial that something is wrong with you, whereas I am not willing to do anything that would hurt somebody unjustly and I am not in denial about any of the things that are abnormal about me (and sexual attraction to young teenagers is not one of them!)
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:14:11 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #632 on: March 05, 2014, 02:58:44 pm »
tl;dr

I know you think you're tremendously smart. Not smart enough to realise that what you're trying to say can be expressed in no more than a couple of hundred words, however.

At the end of the day, you're basically a slightly more coherent version of letshug.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #633 on: March 05, 2014, 03:08:42 pm »
tl;dr

I know you think you're tremendously smart. Not smart enough to realise that what you're trying to say can be expressed in no more than a couple of hundred words, however.

At the end of the day, you're basically a slightly more coherent version of letshug.

A beautiful summarization of my interactions with people of your cognitive capacity! I give a well thought out response, and you lack the attentional aptitude to manifest the lack of cognitive aptitude to appreciate it. Instead you insult me, and hold the ill held belief that it is possible for me to be insulted by someone who is essentially a drooling retard by comparison. 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:11:02 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #634 on: March 05, 2014, 03:13:10 pm »
I read a line and a half and realised it wasn't worth my time. You are too immature to comprehend this. I understand. I also was once 22 and thought everyone else was a bit thick. You're young. Hopefully you will learn.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:14:40 pm by unforgiven »
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

TheJollyRogerr

  • Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 223
  • Karma: +60/-53
  • Ireland's First and Still Best Vendor!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #635 on: March 05, 2014, 03:13:39 pm »
What a fucking creep, i hope you don't or ever have children,

The like of these people should have a burning car tire put around them and leave them to burn to death like the fucking scum they are,

This shit shouldn't be tolerated on this board its only going to attract more negative gutter press media attention to associate us good people with predators like he OP.

There should be no platform for rasicm, sexism or this perverted creepy shit on here at all, ban the creeps.

-------------------------
The First and Still Best Irish Vendor on SR!

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/thejollyrogerr/items

- AAA+ & Discount Cannabis Strains, Hashish, Pure Speed, Shard Meth, ICE Pills, Valium, Xanax, Zimmo's, A-PVP, Pure Coke, 4-Aco-DMT, Adderall, Ritalin, LSD-25 blott's -

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #636 on: March 05, 2014, 03:16:06 pm »
I read a line and a half and realised it wasn't worth my time. You are too immature to comprehend this. I understand. I also was once 22 and thought everyone else was a bit thick. You're young. Hopefully you will learn.

So in answer to my previous question you are actually going with choice D. "I am a blithering fucking retard" , interesting but unsurprising choice. Also, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that my thoughts of cognitive superiority (double meaning implied if you were too slow to catch that) are the result of the naivety of youth. There is far too sharp of a difference.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 05:12:45 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #637 on: March 05, 2014, 03:19:26 pm »
What a fucking creep, i hope you don't or ever have children,

The like of these people should have a burning car tire put around them and leave them to burn to death like the fucking scum they are,

This shit shouldn't be tolerated on this board its only going to attract more negative gutter press media attention to associate us good people with predators like he OP.

There should be no platform for rasicm, sexism or this perverted creepy shit on here at all, ban the creeps.

Free speech?! Dissent!?! Truth?!?! NOT ON MY WATCH. What makes me a predator for thinking that there should be an age of consent system that individually evaluates a persons competency for sexual self determinism? I mean, I realize that I have the intrinsic inclination to be predatorial, but if I was actually a predator I think I would have starved myself to death by now. I don't do anything that I believe would benefit me at an unfair expense to others, and seeing as I am actually incredibly rational and clear headed, I find it very unlikely that anything I have done, regardless of how it is viewed by you, actually resulted in anyone being harmed to any extent at all. Do you have the attentional aptitude to answer the question I futilely asked unforgiven? What is it: has Alaska legalized the sexual exploitation of children by having an age of consent at 16, or has the government of Arizona been systematically enslaving thousands of harmless people? There are two alternative answers, one being that you are a Nazi apologist, and the other being that you are piss in your pants retarded.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:27:27 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #638 on: March 05, 2014, 03:29:45 pm »
m0rph, I actually think you are likely quite an intelligent person; however, you are not smart enough to have any insight into your obsessive condition. You spend your whole life trying to justify yourself, without ever taking a step back to look at your behaviour and consider why others find it abnormal.

It's also clear to me that you are rather immature because your triumphalist declarations of intellectual supremacy sound terribly adolescent.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #639 on: March 05, 2014, 03:46:33 pm »
m0rph, I actually think you are likely quite an intelligent person; however, you are not smart enough to have any insight into your obsessive condition. You spend your whole life trying to justify yourself, without ever taking a step back to look at your behaviour and consider why others find it abnormal.

It's also clear to me that you are rather immature because your triumphalist declarations of intellectual supremacy sound terribly adolescent.

And you never take a step back and realize that exactly 50% of the people who responded to this poll expressed that they think that young teenagers can sometimes consent and/or jailbait porn isn't a big deal to view. Just as many people who have voted agree with me as agree with you so far, but you think that everybody agrees with you, which in my opinion is a huge indicator of your own childlike behavior. If you don't want me to triumphantly declare my intellectual superiority over you try to not come across as such a dumb ass.

BTW: I already explained my obsessiveness regarding the issue, but it was too long for you to read
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:49:47 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #640 on: March 05, 2014, 03:56:25 pm »
And yet you're dumb enough to think that people are giving you honest answers. I myself clicked on the most extreme "hell yes!" just to get this kind of rise out of you.

Everything you're saying confirms my belief that you're a marginally less stupid version of letshug. You've designed some crappy poll to prove the point you so desperately want proven. And the results are inevitable because you'll interpret these to buttress your beliefs, regardless of how the chips fall.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:58:01 pm by unforgiven »
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

TheJollyRogerr

  • Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 223
  • Karma: +60/-53
  • Ireland's First and Still Best Vendor!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #641 on: March 05, 2014, 04:02:02 pm »
Impeccable grammar and usage of big words doesn't make you not a fucking creep morph, or deter anyone from saying so. You might be super articulate but its your only weapon and defense against what you actually are, im sure its out of years of practice of defending your perverted notions. But your still a dirtbag. You dont deserve a penis.
-------------------------
The First and Still Best Irish Vendor on SR!

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/thejollyrogerr/items

- AAA+ & Discount Cannabis Strains, Hashish, Pure Speed, Shard Meth, ICE Pills, Valium, Xanax, Zimmo's, A-PVP, Pure Coke, 4-Aco-DMT, Adderall, Ritalin, LSD-25 blott's -

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #642 on: March 05, 2014, 04:06:55 pm »
Quote
And you never take a step back and realize that exactly 50% of the people who responded to this poll expressed that they think that young teenagers can sometimes consent and/or jailbait porn isn't a big deal to view.

This sentence alone is demonstrative. Look at the ridiculously wide parameters you've set to justify your beliefs. Let's look at it another way. "50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be victim of rape due to their choice of outfit and/or deserved to be raped." That's pretty much the same kind of leeway you've granted yourself above.

You're only fooling yourself, letsy.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #643 on: March 05, 2014, 04:34:03 pm »
And yet you're dumb enough to think that people are giving you honest answers. I myself clicked on the most extreme "hell yes!" just to get this kind of rise out of you.

Everything you're saying confirms my belief that you're a marginally less stupid version of letshug. You've designed some crappy poll to prove the point you so desperately want proven. And the results are inevitable because you'll interpret these to buttress your beliefs, regardless of how the chips fall.

Bro I don't need a crappy poll to know that most men are attracted to young teenagers, they've already done phallometric studies to show this. Also have you ever seen the number of barely 18 porn sites? Do you SERIOUSLY think that if guys could legally jack off to pictures of 15 year olds that they would out of some sense of moral obligation avoid doing so? They are already jacking off to 18 year olds who are made up and dressed to look like they are freshmen, something tells me they would be jacking off to freshmen if they could. You seriously think you would never even look if you could? If there was some site dedicated to pictures of naked high school girls 14-17 years old you would never even go to it and look around, even if it was totally legal for you to do so?

Quote
This sentence alone is demonstrative. Look at the ridiculously wide parameters you've set to justify your beliefs. Let's look at it another way. "50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be victim of rape due to their choice of outfit and/or deserved to be raped." That's pretty much the same kind of leeway you've granted yourself above.

I definitely think that women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town make themselves more likely to be raped than women who wear less revealing clothes in less rough parts of town.

Seriously are you guys just incapable of constructing rational arguments? All you can do is attempt to insult me and rant and rave. You can't even answer my questions.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 04:46:33 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #644 on: March 05, 2014, 04:56:19 pm »
This is not a discussion of child pornography, but rather is a discussion of attraction to underage teenagers, so I don't believe it breaks the rules. I am really interested in seeing the opinions of the overall community on the title of this thread, and since I can't add a poll to the CP discussion thread making a new thread is my only option. Also, seeing as a bout a dozen people have made pseudo-CP threads talking shit about me, I figure that it is ok for me to make a thread this different from that one.

Keep in mind that this is an anonymous forum, nobody except the people running the forum can see what you voted for, and in many countries it is actually legal to have sex with young teenagers and to look at jailbait porn anyway, so you might as well be entirely honest, and you don't need to discuss your answer if you don't want to do so.

Wtf the makes you think that you stray out of the Childporno thread to start your own.

Are you trying to be the most famous child molester on the interwebs.

We don’t like your kind and you should get that threw your fcking child molesting mind. 

Oh yea “youz a BITCH”

sick fcker
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #645 on: March 05, 2014, 04:58:37 pm »
If I were as passionate about drugs that you are about fondling the youth then I would have to place myself in Rehab.


and..... youre a BITCH!!!
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #646 on: March 05, 2014, 05:02:34 pm »
Laughing to myself thinking of the porn sites you must go to.

"Our girls are WELL over the age of consent!!!"

"Sexy post graduate students just for you!"

"Introducing Sexxxxxy Susan, she just finished her Ph.D thesis and now she is ready to Ph. your D!"   

"Women in their mid thirties want to talk to *you* , RIGHT NOW!"

"We have the largest collection of slightly sagging breasts on the internet!!"

"Come watch our hot well experienced girls pleasure men for the very first thousandth time!"

"Meet Betty Boobs, a highly experienced dentist, she knows a thing or two about oral care, and now you can watch her take care of oral needs exclusively on our site!"
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 05:06:19 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #647 on: March 05, 2014, 05:03:34 pm »
This is not a discussion of child pornography, but rather is a discussion of attraction to underage teenagers, so I don't believe it breaks the rules. I am really interested in seeing the opinions of the overall community on the title of this thread, and since I can't add a poll to the CP discussion thread making a new thread is my only option. Also, seeing as a bout a dozen people have made pseudo-CP threads talking shit about me, I figure that it is ok for me to make a thread this different from that one.

Keep in mind that this is an anonymous forum, nobody except the people running the forum can see what you voted for, and in many countries it is actually legal to have sex with young teenagers and to look at jailbait porn anyway, so you might as well be entirely honest, and you don't need to discuss your answer if you don't want to do so.

Wtf the makes you think that you stray out of the Childporno thread to start your own.

Are you trying to be the most famous child molester on the interwebs.

We don’t like your kind and you should get that threw your fcking child molesting mind. 

Oh yea “youz a BITCH”

sick fcker

A. This isn't a child porn thread it's a jailbait thread
B. I can't add a poll to the child porn thread
C. A poll about attraction to young teenagers would be off topic in the child porn thread
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

xandermanreturns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
  • Karma: +81/-50
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #648 on: March 05, 2014, 05:11:25 pm »
Stay the fuck away from anyone under 18. Catch a charge and see what the people i know do to you in prision. " nice tv ya got there, Mine now punk" "Hey sexo get the fuck out of the day room" " fucking sex offender YOU now pay me rent on this tier or i will 1 fuck you up or 2 fuck you< your choice" " Let me see your paper work"  Get to sit at a special table just for punks and sex offenders in chow hall, get to hang out in the church or libary, get to not use the weight pile ever. Ohh the list goes on and on. 2 cents
Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?--The rest are merely humanity.--One must make one's self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,--in contempt.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #649 on: March 05, 2014, 05:15:55 pm »
Stay the fuck away from anyone under 18. Catch a charge and see what the people i know do to you in prision. " nice tv ya got there, Mine now punk" "Hey sexo get the fuck out of the day room" " fucking sex offender YOU now pay me rent on this tier or i will 1 fuck you up or 2 fuck you< your choice" " Let me see your paper work"  Get to sit at a special table just for punks and sex offenders in chow hall, get to hang out in the church or libary, get to not use the weight pile ever. Ohh the list goes on and on. 2 cents

But what if I am in Alaska or most of the USA where the age of consent is 16 and is actually 16 federally? So in response to my question "Is there a massive pedophile conspiracy in Alaska resulting in the age of consent being 16 there, or is there a massive conspiracy of the prison industrial complex in Arizona making the age of consent 18 there" your response is massive pedophile conspiracy in Alaska? Doesn't it make you sick to your stomach to know that the pedophile conspiracy is so powerful that it has set a federal age of consent at 16 in the USA and made the age of consent 16 in the majority of states in the USA? But it's even worse actually, the sick fuck pedophiles have completely overtaken the entire government of Germany and set the age of consent at 14!!!!!!
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

barbijuana

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +10/-1
  • Shit Got Real
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #650 on: March 05, 2014, 05:19:24 pm »
There is too much meth being done in this thread
It is the fault of stupid people that have given drugs a bad reputation. Educate yourself, be smart about your choices, listen to your body and do right to other people. It's fun to visit the candy shop, but don't ruin your life trying to stay there.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #651 on: March 05, 2014, 05:23:44 pm »
Laughing to myself thinking of the porn sites you must go to.

"Our girls are WELL over the age of consent!!!"

"Sexy post graduate students just for you!"

"Introducing Sexxxxxy Susan, she just finished her Ph.D thesis and now she is ready to Ph. your D!"   

"Women in their mid thirties want to talk to *you* , RIGHT NOW!"

"We have the largest collection of slightly sagging breasts on the internet!!"

"Come watch our hot well experienced girls pleasure men for the very first thousandth time!"

"Meet Betty Boobs, a highly experienced dentist, she knows a thing or two about oral care, and now you can watch her take care of oral needs exclusively on our site!"


Why the fck are you worried about my porn habits?

If you must know I like real woman of all racises so I like to change it up from time to time. Is that ok with you?

Its better than looking a little chicks that I have bigger pecks and their breast.

You’re a sick individual whether you want to admit it or not. I’m trying to explain to you, that no mater how much your little fingers type I will never agree with your sick ways. Even if it where legalized tomorrow I would still be against it.

You are a bitch because only bitches go after youngsters since you can’t seem to find a real date to bring home to moms and pops.

Cry yourself to sleep tonight knowing that you will always be a sick individual with no cure. Besides that of a noose.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #652 on: March 05, 2014, 05:31:43 pm »
Laughing to myself thinking of the porn sites you must go to.

"Our girls are WELL over the age of consent!!!"

"Sexy post graduate students just for you!"

"Introducing Sexxxxxy Susan, she just finished her Ph.D thesis and now she is ready to Ph. your D!"   

"Women in their mid thirties want to talk to *you* , RIGHT NOW!"

"We have the largest collection of slightly sagging breasts on the internet!!"

"Come watch our hot well experienced girls pleasure men for the very first thousandth time!"

"Meet Betty Boobs, a highly experienced dentist, she knows a thing or two about oral care, and now you can watch her take care of oral needs exclusively on our site!"


Why the fck are you worried about my porn habits?

If you must know I like real woman of all racises so I like to change it up from time to time. Is that ok with you?

Its better than looking a little chicks that I have bigger pecks and their breast.

You’re a sick individual whether you want to admit it or not. I’m trying to explain to you, that no mater how much your little fingers type I will never agree with your sick ways. Even if it where legalized tomorrow I would still be against it.

You are a bitch because only bitches go after youngsters since you can’t seem to find a real date to bring home to moms and pops.

Cry yourself to sleep tonight knowing that you will always be a sick individual with no cure. Besides that of a noose.

I was pointing out that in reality porn sites are more like:

"Our girls are BARELY 18"

"Sexy high school seniors just for you!"

"Introducing Sexxxxxxy Susan, freshly out of high school she is ready to suck your dick!"

"Hot teenagers want to fuck *YOU* , RIGHT NOW!"

"We have the largest collection of young perky breasts on the internet!"

"Come watch our hot innocent girls pleasure men for the very first time!"

"Meet Betty Boobs, a young dentist assistant who is ready to take care of YOUR oral needs"

and I was doing this to show that if the majority of men were not attracted to young teenagers pornography marketers wouldn't put such an emphasis on the barely legal, young, naive, inexperienced status of the girls in the content they produce. Which is a huge indication that males are attracted to young girls, because pornographers know how to market their products, because if they didn't other people would get in the business and do it correctly, and the free market would result in them taking over the business. So the free market indicates that males are attracted to younger girls who barely turned 18. But they put so much emphasis on their youth and make them appear to be younger and less experienced than they are because males are really attracted to young teenagers, but young teenage porn is illegal so most guys in countries where it is illegal need to settle for barely 18 year old porn. But if it wasn't illegal to look at jailbait shit tons of guys would be jacking off to younger than 18 year old females, and I really find it surprising that you don't realize this considering you are apparently a male.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #653 on: March 05, 2014, 05:44:41 pm »
bro you're just to much sometimes.

you're fcking sick ok.

you can try and sugar coat your case but it will not hold in a court of law.

sorry that I like the laws that fck people like you in the ass.

but leave the black and hispanic folk alone aready... Its just weeeeed man.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 05:46:52 pm by IshitBacon »
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #654 on: March 05, 2014, 05:54:05 pm »
In Germany I could fuck a 14 year old in the ass and not get in legal trouble for it. Do you think this is because of a pedophile conspiracy? Or do you think the reason why I can't do this in Alaska or Arizona is because of a conspiracy of the prison industrial complex?

I'm just trying to figure out where the prison industrial complex conspiracy ends and the pedophile conspiracy begins!
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 06:22:38 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #655 on: March 05, 2014, 09:50:15 pm »
alright, you made it very clear that you are a loser already. How much further do you need to explain this? If they're countries that let this sick shit slide well fcking move there, and leave Alaska and Arizona alone. They don't want to be associated with your sick fetishes.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

Chasire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +12/-8
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #656 on: March 05, 2014, 10:13:27 pm »
I "hate" to say it but m0rph actually did a really good job defending his point of view.
DEbates are all about backing up your points no matter how "wrong" it seems , a debate is a debate
Mind you the "" is to show normalization to societys stansa

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #657 on: March 05, 2014, 10:17:34 pm »
I "hate" to say it but m0rph actually did a really good job defending his point of view.
DEbates are all about backing up your points no matter how "wrong" it seems , a debate is a debate
Mind you the "" is to show normalization to societys stansa

nobody fcking asked you... so get his nuts off of your chin and his dck out of your mouth
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

TheJollyRogerr

  • Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 223
  • Karma: +60/-53
  • Ireland's First and Still Best Vendor!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #658 on: March 05, 2014, 11:18:01 pm »
I "hate" to say it but m0rph actually did a really good job defending his point of view.
DEbates are all about backing up your points no matter how "wrong" it seems , a debate is a debate
Mind you the "" is to show normalization to societys stansa

I think you'l find if you read over it again you will see its all absolute bullshit waffle but just written with better vocabulary and more articulately than most posts here, thus masquerading him and his argument as somewhat intelligent or normal, just because most people don't speak like this doesn't mean hes correct, it doesn't mean shit, dont politicians talk the same articulate trash everyday??

morph you also seem to think your superior to others SOLELY because you can speak English correctly, isn't that pathethic, that thats all you've got and your sick mind?!

But id say your thick as shit when it comes to anything else outside justifying child abuse. Probably a lazy good for nothing loner, a fat bastard virgin living with his mom whos about as "man" as a spotty fucking teenager who grew up with a chip on is shoulder because he didnt get enough, or maybe too much hugs off "mommy or daddy".
-------------------------
The First and Still Best Irish Vendor on SR!

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/thejollyrogerr/items

- AAA+ & Discount Cannabis Strains, Hashish, Pure Speed, Shard Meth, ICE Pills, Valium, Xanax, Zimmo's, A-PVP, Pure Coke, 4-Aco-DMT, Adderall, Ritalin, LSD-25 blott's -

takayama

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: +8/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #659 on: March 06, 2014, 02:21:13 am »
m0rph is not a pedophile, he is a hebephile. I can understand being attracted to teenagers who are maybe 16 or 17, but young teenagers are definitely not as develpoed as m0rph makes them out to be. none of them look at all like adult women, they look more like a child, and also think more like a child than an adult. you would basically be fucking a child with make-up. m0rph is probably like 13 and has an atrraction to people his own age.

takayama

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: +8/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #660 on: March 06, 2014, 02:26:41 am »
and FUCK YOU m0rph for saying that women can damage children just as much as pedophiles! i have a friend who has post traumatic stress after being fucked by a pedophile over 20 years ago. so fuck you if you truly think that women can hurt a child as much as a pedophile because while it may be true in some situations, almost 100% of children who are raped get fucked up because of it. honestly anyone who defends pedophiles deserves to fucking die

takayama

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: +8/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #661 on: March 06, 2014, 02:31:45 am »
fuck you m0rph there is a big difference between 18 and fucking 12. 12 year olds have barely any body, no tits, no ass and most of them are pretty fucking stupid if you ask me. it is fucked up that you think it is ok to fuck 12 and 13 year olds. so fuck you, you are a fucking piece of shit!

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #662 on: March 06, 2014, 04:37:03 am »
He acts as if he were the smartest person in the world. But when it comes down to it, he can only handle conversations with that of a 12 yro. Pretty damn weak and pathetic if you were to ask me. Well you don’t have to ask because I will just tell you… m0rph=BITCH
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #663 on: March 06, 2014, 05:10:40 am »
And yet you're dumb enough to think that people are giving you honest answers. I myself clicked on the most extreme "hell yes!" just to get this kind of rise out of you.

Everything you're saying confirms my belief that you're a marginally less stupid version of letshug. You've designed some crappy poll to prove the point you so desperately want proven. And the results are inevitable because you'll interpret these to buttress your beliefs, regardless of how the chips fall.

Bro I don't need a crappy poll to know that most men are attracted to young teenagers

So why write one? Don't act as though you don't care about your poll and its results - it's abundantly clear that you do. Firstly by the intricacy of it, and secondly by the fact you've quoted its results several times to make your points. You're ignoring the fact that it's not really a very scientific way to collect opinions.



, they've already done phallometric studies to show this. Also have you ever seen the number of barely 18 porn sites? Do you SERIOUSLY think that if guys could legally jack off to pictures of 15 year olds that they would out of some sense of moral obligation avoid doing so? They are already jacking off to 18 year olds who are made up and dressed to look like they are freshmen, something tells me they would be jacking off to freshmen if they could. You seriously think you would never even look if you could? If there was some site dedicated to pictures of naked high school girls 14-17 years old you would never even go to it and look around, even if it was totally legal for you to do so?

You need to get a new hobby. This one consumes your entire life. And what is it? Convincing others that your predilection with 13 year old girls is a-ok. I mean, it's not even acting on your desires. Just talking and talking and talking and talking about them.  It's sad and more than a bit lame.
Quote
This sentence alone is demonstrative. Look at the ridiculously wide parameters you've set to justify your beliefs. Let's look at it another way. "50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be victim of rape due to their choice of outfit and/or deserved to be raped." That's pretty much the same kind of leeway you've granted yourself above.

I definitely think that women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town make themselves more likely to be raped than women who wear less revealing clothes in less rough parts of town.

Seriously are you guys just incapable of constructing rational arguments? All you can do is attempt to insult me and rant and rave. You can't even answer my questions.

You have totally missed the point. Think about it some more, and get back to me. If you still haven't figured it out, I'll explain.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 05:19:31 am by unforgiven »
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #664 on: March 06, 2014, 09:57:01 am »
alright, you made it very clear that you are a loser already. How much further do you need to explain this? If they're countries that let this sick shit slide well fcking move there, and leave Alaska and Arizona alone. They don't want to be associated with your sick fetishes.

Why can't you answer me? Is the reason the age of consent is 16 in Alaska because of a pedophile conspiracy to abuse children who are not capable of consent? Or is the reason the age of consent is 18 in Arizona a conspiracy of the prison industrial complex to profit off the processing through the legal system of people who have sex with those who are capable of consent? You can't have people being labeled predatorial sex offenders for things in Arizona that are totally legal in Alaska without being able to explain it. I already pointed out that you only have two ways out of this. You can claim moral relativism and therefore be a Nazi apologist, or you can be piss in your pants retarded and fail to comprehend my question or lack the capacity to answer it. So which is it?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #665 on: March 06, 2014, 10:51:32 am »
Quote
I think you'l find if you read over it again you will see its all absolute bullshit waffle but just written with better vocabulary and more articulately than most posts here, thus masquerading him and his argument as somewhat intelligent or normal, just because most people don't speak like this doesn't mean hes correct, it doesn't mean shit, dont politicians talk the same articulate trash everyday??

Even if I didn't speak clearly the content of my posts would be just as meaningful. "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -Juliet, Romeo & Juliet

I imagine it is the logic of my argument that is convincing rather than the words with which I present it.
 
Quote
morph you also seem to think your superior to others SOLELY because you can speak English correctly, isn't that pathethic, that thats all you've got and your sick mind?!

Actually I never once claimed this, you are the one who seems to be hung up on my speech mannerisms. I think I am superior to others because I can see the sun and all you can see are shadows.

Quote
But id say your thick as shit when it comes to anything else outside justifying child abuse. Probably a lazy good for nothing loner, a fat bastard virgin living with his mom whos about as "man" as a spotty fucking teenager who grew up with a chip on is shoulder because he didnt get enough, or maybe too much hugs off "mommy or daddy".

I'm pretty handy with computers. I also have an above average understanding of psychology, although I'm entirely self taught in both of these areas (as well as all others). I would say that I have a hell of a lot of factoid information about a wide range of fields, but am not particularly competent in any of them other than computer science, which I am actually quite skilled in. I'm pretty good at most anything I try to do. Actually, I've never not been able to do something I set my mind to, given enough time in which to do it anyway. I do have some motivational issues though, and could probably properly be classified as being lazy. I think I'm good for a variety of things, like I said I'm pretty handy with computers at least. I don't consider myself to be fat and don't exactly see the pertinence of my body weight, but I understand that primitive beings such as yourself need to resort to logical fallacies (argumentum ad hominem) as your mastery of logic is such that you cannot utilize it against me. The previous sentence applies to the rest of your previous quotation as well. 

Quote
He acts as if he were the smartest person in the world. But when it comes down to it, he can only handle conversations with that of a 12 yro. Pretty damn weak and pathetic if you were to ask me. Well you don’t have to ask because I will just tell you… m0rph=BITCH

Actually you would have realized that I said I probably wouldn't have sex with most 12 year olds even if I could. They are usually tanner stage III which is only mildly appealing to me in the first place, and they on average have adult IQ's that are borderline retarded, and although I wouldn't strictly speaking say borderline retards are not capable of consent (I'm sure you guys have consented plenty of times and came to no harm from it) I don't think I would want to have sex with someone so close to being retarded. Some 12 year olds are sexually appealing though, and I imagine some of them are capable of consent, and I might consider it if they were somehow certified as capable of consent and tanner stage 4 or close to it anyway. 13 year olds are much more tempting though, seeing as they are on average in the normal range of adult intelligence and stature and sexual maturity. By 14 I am certainly fully tempted though.   

Quote
So why write one? Don't act as though you don't care about your poll and its results - it's abundantly clear that you do. Firstly by the intricacy of it, and secondly by the fact you've quoted its results several times to make your points. You're ignoring the fact that it's not really a very scientific way to collect opinions.


The intricacy of it is to be able to get accurate results. Does something about accuracy perturb you? I quoted the results when people told me that nobody agrees with me. To show them that actually about 50% of people who responded agree with me. I'm certainly not ignoring the fact that it isn't a strictly controlled scientific experiment, but I think the results will approximate the overall opinion of this community, and that they could likely be largely extrapolated to the overall communities we live in. I don't need this poll though, there is an abundance of evidence that males are usually attracted to young female teenagers, much of it is scientific and essentially conclusive by any fair definition of attraction.

Quote
You have totally missed the point. Think about it some more, and get back to me. If you still haven't figured it out, I'll explain.

I fully comprehended your point. Your point was that just because a lot of people might say something "bad" is okay doesn't mean that it is. Believe me, I would never resort to argumentum ad populum. I don't need to, because I can appeal to logic. If you can convince me that 13 or 14 or 15 or whatever year olds are too young to be able to consent to sex maybe I will change my mind. But you can't convince me because you have no argument, and you lack the capacity to form one. The only way you can convince me is if you can derive a test that can blindly differentiate between age X and age Y with perfect accuracy, and then argue for the ability of a person to consent to map to the passing of the test, and be able to convince me of this. But nobody other than me has even attempted to do this. I showed that adult IQ would on average put 12 in the gray area and 13 as the minimum age. But I think that best of all is if people are individually evaluated.


You also seem to think that just because a person is capable of consenting that they will. If the age of consent was 12 do you really think a lot of 12 year olds would start fucking 50 year olds or whatever? I don't think so, the overwhelming majority of them wouldn't even attempt to become certified as capable of consenting to sex, and without having attempted to become certified as capable it would remain a crime to have sex with them as they wouldn't have certification. The biggest impact this would have is not a huge number of sexually active 12 year olds but rather a restriction on the techniques used by the police to arrest hebephiles and ephebophiles. If they posed as 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17 year olds on the internet and older people arranged to have sex with them, it wouldn't work anymore, because with the possibility that someone that age could be certified as sexually capable, it would be no crime to attempt to have sex with them, provided they made no claim that they lacked certification that they were capable of consent. And if the police agents claimed to be younger people with such certification then it would not work, because there would be no crime in trying to have sex with a person who had proven themselves capable of doing so of their own free and informed will. And if some people of these ages did become certified as capable of consenting to sex, why would you even care if some older person had consensual sex with them? In being certified as capable of consenting it would definitively dismiss any claims you could make of exploitation.

So really not much would change. The only thing that would change is we would have definitive proof if a person was a sexual predator or not, instead of the current probabilistic system that only makes sense if you want to have more people in prison for nothing. Right now there is no doubt that there are people in prison for sex crimes who shouldn't be, and this is made abundantly clear by the fact that age of consent varies significantly across geographic locations. Do you think people in Madagascar going to prison for having consensual sex with 20 year olds are sex predators? Just because your country has a high age of consent it isn't actually the highest, and some countries imprison people for having sex with people who are older than 18. Don't you feel bad for those people? Don't you wonder how it can be that someone is a pedophile sex predator for doing something in Madagascar that is totally legal in the entire United States? Don't you wonder how it can be that someone in Arizona is a pedophile sex predator for doing something that is totally legal in Alaska? Don't you wonder how someone can be a pedophile sex predator in Alaska for doing something that is totally legal in Germany? Don't you wonder how someone can be a pedophile sex predator for doing something in Germany that is totally legal in Japan? Don't you wonder how someone can be a pedophile sex predator for doing something in Japan that is totally legal in Uruguay? Doesn't it strike you then as obvious that either child abuse is legalized in countries throughout the world and has been normalized then apparently by a pedophile illuminati which has infiltrated first world governments across the world, or that across the world people are being ruined and imprisoned for things that are not actually bad?

Again, you have four choices, and it would be nice if you finally reply.

1. There is a global pedophile conspiracy that has infiltrated dozens of first world governments, they have lowered the age of consent and in some cases even legalized the viewing of child pornography, creating untold thousands of victims in the process
2. There is a global conspiracy of the prison industrial complex to criminalize behaviors which are not bad, creating untold thousands of victims in the process
3. Morality is dependent upon culture, or all humans are not equal across culture, and the morality of a culture determines the age at which a person is capable of consent, or the superiority of a culture allows them to be capable of consent at earlier ages (warning: if you select this you are a Nazi sympathizer)
4. Durh I piss my pants retarded lolol FUCK PEDOPHILES WAAAHAHYRHAHRHERA

Quote
fuck you m0rph there is a big difference between 18 and fucking 12. 12 year olds have barely any body, no tits, no ass and most of them are pretty fucking stupid if you ask me. it is fucked up that you think it is ok to fuck 12 and 13 year olds. so fuck you, you are a fucking piece of shit!
Report to moderator 

Actually, although not the norm, younger 12 year olds are fully capable of being in the normal range of adult stature, sexual development, and intelligence. By 12.9 they are on average in the normal range of adult sexual development, stature and intelligence, although that is close enough to 13 that I will allow you to round it up.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #666 on: March 06, 2014, 10:53:08 am »
and FUCK YOU m0rph for saying that women can damage children just as much as pedophiles! i have a friend who has post traumatic stress after being fucked by a pedophile over 20 years ago. so fuck you if you truly think that women can hurt a child as much as a pedophile because while it may be true in some situations, almost 100% of children who are raped get fucked up because of it. honestly anyone who defends pedophiles deserves to fucking die

Women drown their children in bathtubs.

(legal as always)
http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/1208736089689_anonib.jpg is probably 15-16 , https://lh3.ggpht.com/-A3_jh5igDIU/UOeGy28WR9I/AAAAAAAAEZE/N2EQO6cmN-E/s1600/alexis_cleavage.jpg is probably like laters 20's early 30's maybe kind of hard to tell, but in any case I can tell you which I would pick between the two!

http://jailbaitgallery.com/resized/JBG5mph9d1k78.jpg probably 14-15
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 12:27:59 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

sweettganjababe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Karma: +15/-16
  • never give up and never back down
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #667 on: March 06, 2014, 12:40:58 pm »
is this still going on , can the fucking mods ban or delete this fucking thread , cp is wrong , doing it should be punnishged by death and only FUCKING DEATH , WHATCHING OR JUST BROWSING PICS OR WHAT EVER YOUR STILL SUPPORTING CP IN TERN MAKING SICK FUCKS DO MORE CP WITH INNOCENT CHILDREN , YOU SHOULD SHOT WITH A SHOT GUN STRAIGHT TO THE HEAD , ANYONE WHO WATCHES ,SELLS OR DOES CP DOSENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUCKING BREATH AND SHOULD BE FUCKING KNOCKED OFF IN THE MOST PAINFULL WAY POSSIBLE
hydro hybrid
master kush  in supply
http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/sweettganjababe

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #668 on: March 06, 2014, 12:47:42 pm »
is this still going on , can the fucking mods ban or delete this fucking thread , cp is wrong , doing it should be punnishged by death and only FUCKING DEATH , WHATCHING OR JUST BROWSING PICS OR WHAT EVER YOUR STILL SUPPORTING CP IN TERN MAKING SICK FUCKS DO MORE CP WITH INNOCENT CHILDREN , YOU SHOULD SHOT WITH A SHOT GUN STRAIGHT TO THE HEAD , ANYONE WHO WATCHES ,SELLS OR DOES CP DOSENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUCKING BREATH AND SHOULD BE FUCKING KNOCKED OFF IN THE MOST PAINFULL WAY POSSIBLE

Defcon already said we can have this thread. Also, why do you want to censor people do badly?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #669 on: March 06, 2014, 02:10:40 pm »
M0rph it doesn’t mater how much you try to justify your case with us. You will never be able to sit at the cool kids table because you are just a big piece of shitz.


And yes… “youz a big ass BITCH" also

Yes agreed. No matter how you twist words you are still a sick fuck. Your debating and attempts to deceive people into thinking that being sexually attracted to children are futile.   No one agrees with you.   You just make yourself look like an even more desperate pedo wack job with your long and delirious, pedo fumed posts.  Your ignorance, or just plain denial, about your mental illness will allow for you to be easily discovered and punished accordingly.   You will get no chance to heal at that point, because you clearly have no interest in stopping your fucked up thoughts.  I look forward to that day that you are crushed like the dirty rock spider you are.  I've got my stomping boots on spider.  Come crawl out to play!!

You accuse me of twisting words in the same paragraph in which you call me a pedophile, something that I am not by the correct definition of the word. You claim that I am ignorant and in denial in the same sentence in which you say I have a mental illness, but I have already shown proof that the international mental health community does not consider hebephilia to be a mental illness, to the point that they have flat out publicly rejected it as being considered as such.

This
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #670 on: March 06, 2014, 02:12:18 pm »
1. Tanner stage 4 is reached on average at 12.9 years old

http://www.fpnotebook.com/endo/exam/fmltnrstg.htm

Quote
IV. Stage: Tanner 4

    Height increases at 7 cm/year
    Breast
        Areolae forms secondary mound on the Breast
        Age: 12.9 years (10.5-15.3 years)
    Pubic Hair
        Hair of adult quality
        No spread to junction of medial thigh with perineum
        Age: 12.6 years (10.4-14.8 years)

2. more than 1/4ths of 17 year olds are in tanner stage 4

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/4/e978.full

Quote
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Forensic testimony in alleged child pornography cases commonly asserts that Tanner stage (TS) 4 breast development, characterized by secondary mounding of the areola that is obliterated in TS 5, is evidence of age <18 years. Clinical experience does not support this notion, but there are no relevant studies. We sought to estimate how frequently TS 4 might be interpreted from nonclinical images by individual forensic experts.

METHOD: Published images of 547 adult women were independently examined by the authors and classified as having TS 4 or TS 5 breast development.

RESULTS: There was concordance among all 4 of the examiners for 17 of the images, agreement of 3 of the examiners on another 36 images, of 2 examiners on 39 images, and 53 images were designated TS 4 by only 1 examiner, for a total of 153 (26.5%) images that could have been considered by a single forensic expert to represent TS 4.

CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of adults have persistent TS 4 breast development. This observation, and the frequent difficulty distinguishing TS 4 from TS 5, even by adolescent development specialists, especially in nonclinical images, renders testimony based on this distinction invalid. Without clinical relevance for distinguishing these advanced stages of breast development, they should both be considered indicative of full maturation. Testimony based on this inappropriate test of maturity should no longer be allowed.

3. average 12.9 year olds are in the normal range of height and weight for 17 year olds

http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

demonstrates that a 13 year old in the 75th percentile is taller and heavier than a 17 year old in the 25th percentile

Even if we assume males are typically attracted to tanner stage 5 characteristics, the age would simply move from 12.9 on average to 14.5 on average as to when going younger would not likely decrease male sexual arousal, and 14.5 is still in hebephilia.

Quote
The "Measurable penile response"

I would also like to take a moment to clarify the idea of ‘measurable penile response”, and the idea of “natural”. When you spend a lot of time in one particular field of study (in this case, psychology), phrases and words like these can lose one context (the one used by wider society), and gain another (used by the specialty).

First, to have a ‘measurable penile response’ is NOT to immediately have to hump the nearest item eliciting the response. It is quite clear that the human brain is much stronger than “a measurable penile response” elicited in the laboratory, and a person’s actions in the wider environment are going to take into account not just whether a person is physically developed (which presumably elicits the penile response), but other things, such as the child’s probable age and the person’s relationship with that child. While some men may have a “measurable penile response” to any female that is close to physically developed, they are not attracted to children. The fact that the person in question is a child will negate any motion toward a “measurable penile response” that is elicited in the lab by looking at naked pictures of kids.

And now he makes a very scientifically unsound appeal to the morality of his nation. Just because a human brain can override innate sexual desire does not mean that a person who experiences arousal when presented with a naked young teenager is not sexually attracted to her when they override their desire. Clearly, erections are obtained in response to sexual arousal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_arousal#Male_physiological_response

Quote
Male physiological response

It is normal to correlate the erection of the penis with male sexual arousal. Physical or psychological stimulation, or both, leads to vasodilation and the increased blood flow engorges the three spongy areas that run along the length of the penis (the two corpora cavernosa and the corpus spongiosum). The penis grows enlarged and firm, the skin of the scrotum is pulled tighter, and the testes are pulled up against the body.[10] However the relationship between erection and arousal is not one-to-one. After their mid-forties, some men report that they do not always have an erection when they are sexually aroused.[11] Equally, a male erection can occur during sleep (nocturnal penile tumescence) without conscious sexual arousal or due to mechanical stimulation (e.g. rubbing against the bed sheet) alone. A young man — or one with a strong sexual drive — may experience enough sexual arousal for an erection to result from a passing thought, or just the sight of a passerby. Once erect, his penis may gain enough stimulation from contact with the inside of his clothing to maintain and encourage it for some time.[12]

and sexual arousal in response to someone is a clear indicator of sexual attraction to them:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+attraction

Quote
sexual attraction - attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire
attractiveness, attraction - the quality of arousing interest; being attractive or something that attracts; "her personality held a strange attraction for him"

It is dishonest to claim that simply because a male will not act on his sexual arousal to a young teenager, due to cultural indoctrination or the fear of consequences, that he is not therefore attracted to young teenagers.

Quote
Secondly, I would like to spend a moment on the idea of ‘natural’ in evolutionary psychology, as opposed to in the world at large. When evolutionary psychologists speak of something that is ‘natural’, it is a term that does not have a value judgement associated with it. Something is natural because it EXISTS in the human behavioral spectrum. In the wider world, however, the idea of “natural’ has a great deal more to it. We connect it with positivity, things that are “natural” are supposed to be ‘good’ or ‘useful’. This is why we have Whole Foods stores, they take advantage of our current belief that something ‘natural’ must be good.

I certainly have never made appeals to nature. Indeed, I have rejected appeals to nature in claiming that the majority of males are naturally inclined to be rapists, but that this is immoral behavior. The questioner this person is responding to never used the word natural either, and I find it odd that this responder is correctly showing that appeals to nature are invalid while simultaneously attempting to imply that it is not natural to be sexually aroused by young teenage females, although he is very careful to avoid being flat out wrong with his wording (due to the difference between true hebephilia and non-exlusive non-preferential hebephilia).

Quote
But just because something is ‘natural’ does not in fact mean that it is good. There are natural poisons, natural diseases, and there are natural behavioral responses which are not in any way positive. Wanting to kill someone for some reason may be natural, but I do not think the vast majority of people would condone the impulse as good. So just because a “measurable penile response” is “natural” does not mean it is good, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it is ok to act upon that impulse. As Bering himself stated very well:

    let me make it perfectly clear that a biologically based arousal to pubescent or post-pubescent females (or males) is not academically informed license to engage in illegal, harmful, or otherwise inappropriate sexual relationships with them.

More seemingly contradictory beliefs of this person. He goes from implying that it is not natural to be sexually attracted to young teenage females (although he cleverly never actually says this, by exploiting the definition of true hebephilia versus non-exclusive non-preferential hebephilia), to saying that just because a male has sexual arousal in response to a young teenage female doesn't mean he is sexually attracted to her (which is incorrect), to saying that just because something is natural doesn't mean it is morally sound (which is true), to implying that it may be natural after all to have a measurable penile response to young teenagers, but as previously mentioned just because it is natural doesn't mean it is moral to act on it.

Well, I agree with him that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it is moral. But I have not yet heard an argument from him or anybody else that convinces me that young teenage females are invariably incapable of consent. Nor have I heard an argument from him or anybody else that leads me to believe that it should be a crime to look at whatever images you want to, even if they feature naked young teenage females! Also, the person he quotes makes an appeal to law which is absolutely invalid to do, although his claim that we should avoid doing harmful things to people is valid. The primary thing I would like to do is find a system that accurately determines when it is harmful for a person to have sex, or when sexual activity would be inappropriate. Certainly this is not decided upon by the United States government, although many seem to think that it is. And indeed, in many nations around the world it is neither illegal nor culturally inappropriate for young teenagers to have sexual relationships with older people, and we are therefore left to consider the harmfulness of this activity, something which this person has not yet addressed, but which he now attempts to address:

Quote
“If sex is generally good for both the body and the brain, then how is a teen having sex with an adult (versus another teen) bad for their mind?”

The letter writer is making a couple of assumptions here which are not based on evidence. First off, sex is not necessarily good for the body and the brain in all cases. And sex between a young teenager and an older male is particularly fraught, for a variety of reasons.

We all know that sex, while pleasurable and useful for many things when performed between consenting adults, can be risky. To begin with, there are risks associated with pregnancy in women, which are important in all ages but particularly problematic in young adolescents, including premature labor and delivery, anemia, hypertension, and problems with the infant including low birth weight (both due to premature delivery and intrauterine growth restriction, where the the uterus and body cavity cannot expand enough to allow for growth of the fetus), and increased morbidity and mortality in the first year

First, and I cannot immediately find a citation for this but have heard it before, the increased risk of child birth is present in very young pubescent girls but decreases rapidly and is only present in the first few years after puberty. Considering puberty begins usually by age 10 in females, we can, assuming this is accurate, say that these increased risks are largely gone by age 12 or 13, which still falls within the hebephilic range of attraction. But I don't need this to argue against what he said. Certainly it is harmful for people to smoke crack, just as it is certainly harmful for freshly pubescent females to give birth, in that both of these activities put the partaker at substantial risk of problems. But we would not say that a person who can understand the risks of smoking crack should be prohibited from doing so! The real issue is the ability to understand risk, not the taking of risk in itself. If an 11 year old has the mind of a 30 year old I would not say that it is in our right to prevent her from becoming pregnant if she desires to do so, in exactly the same way I would not prevent someone from smoking crack if they desire to do so, despite the fact that it is not healthy and is fraught with risk.

Risk to the child of such a mother is another issue all together. Certainly I imagine those who are pro choice would claim that it is the mothers choice to put her unborn child at increased risk, because she can do whatever she wants with her body, including have a child inside of it that does not have enough room to expand to an appropriate size. But in any case, I imagine that even by 13 years old this risk is not present, as I have previously mentioned and shown proof of, an average 13 year old is in the normal range of physical stature for a 17 year old.

Additionally, there is the fact that humans have essentially mastered birth control. There are numerous ways in which to prevent unwanted pregnancies, ranging from condoms to regular birth control pills to morning after pills, and many other things. A properly educated pubescent female should know how to prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she does not desire to do so.

Quote
The are only the immediate physical risks, there are a large number of studies showing that early sexual activity in girls increases risk for STDs, substance abuse, intimate partner violence and risky sexual activity such as decreased condom use. There is even increased risk for health problems including pulmonary, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, etc, etc. In Bering’s original response, he cited Browning, 1997 showing no association between childhood sexual activity and adverse outcomes in adulthood, but this finding is overshadowed by a large number of citations showing otherwise. And not just girls are at risk, men sexually abused as boys also have similar adverse health outcomes with regard to STDs, substance abuse, and risky sexual activity. Kate Clancy will be covering this aspect extensively in her post on the topic.

And another argument with little real substance to it. Once again, this person seems to want to look after the health of others with the totalitarianesque motivation of a socialist. It doesn't matter if a 13 year old having sex will cause her head to explode, what matters is if she is capable of consenting to having sex resulting in her head exploding. Additionally, as the previous quote shows, if these risks are even present or not is controversial with studies indicating in either direction. There is also the issue of correlation versus causation. I cannot even be certain if these risks are real or not without doing substantially more research than I am currently willing to do, but I can already see that the risks are controversial, and I can already say that even if they are real risks it is irrelevant because the risk of having sex at a particular age isn't what is being debated it is the ability for people to consent to have sex which is being debated.

Also his use of the words "sexually abused" in relation to boys makes it impossible to derive meaning from his statement. Does he actually mean boys who are sexually abused? Or does he mean boys who are sexually active at all? It is ambiguous language due to the obvious biases of this person. I have no doubt that it is bad to sexually abuse boys and have little doubt that a sexually abused boy would be at risk of adverse health outcomes, but I am far less convinced (to the point that I am not at all convinced) that a young teenage male who has consensual sexual activity with an older female is at any substantial risk of an adverse health outcome. Maybe at increased risk of STD as an older female is more likely to have STD's than a younger one, but other than that I imagine the outcome is the same when having sex with older females or females in the same age range as the boy in question. 

Quote
And this does not even begin to cover the psychological effects. It would be impossible in our society to have relationship between an older man and a young girl without a significant power imbalance. This exists even when a girl is having a relationship with a man only two years her senior, and the power differential associated with a fully grown male is truly vast. Adolescence is a very sensitive neurological time period, and there are many studies showing that victimization of men and women in adolescence is a risk factor for psychiatric problems in adulthood, including increased risk of suicide.

So I wonder if this person thinks that humans in our culture should be put into castes, and forbidden from having inter-caste sexual relationships? What if a billionaire man decides he wants to have a sexual relationship with a woman making only tens of thousand of dollars a year? Should he be prohibitted from doing so due to the fact that there is a vast power imbalance between the two of them? And again he uses a very biased, emotionally charged and ambiguous word, "victimized". Is any adolescent who has sex with an older man victimized according to these studies, or are they only studies taking into account real victimization? If they are only taking into account real victimization then he is being misleading in citing them, if they consider any sexual activity between a younger teenager and an older man to be victimizing then I highly doubt they would have the results he implies that they do. If a 14 year old has a loving relationship with a 25 year old and it is fully consensual I find it extraordinarily unlikely that this relationship will lead to her being at increased risk of suicide. I also find it extraordinarily unlikely that a 15 year old boy banging his 26 year old math teacher is going to be at increased risk of suicide later in life for having done so.

Quote
Finally, yes, older men did, and do, marry or have sexual relationships with extremely young girls in other countries and societies. But it should also be noted that, in those countries and time periods where this kind of relationship is acceptable, it is acceptable because women and girls in those time periods and societies have few to no rights or personal agency, increasing the power differential and creating many situations of untold suffering.

First of all, yes, in historical times when it is common for men to have sexual relationships with and marry 12 year old females, females were generally treated as far inferior to men in general. Additionally, yes, in many countries where it is legal to have sex with very young females with marriage, the females are treated like shit still, primarily in Islamic countries. On the other hand, I would not say that females are particularly treated poorly in Germany, or in Italy, or in Uruguay, or in Spain, or in any of dozens of other countries where it is legal to have sexual relationships with girls aged 12-14 years old, and legal to view jailbait pornography. I wonder if this person realizes he is condemning the treatment of females in many first world European and South American countries!

Quote
Thus, while there may be exceptions, it is obvious that in the majority of cases, there is a high risk of negative outcome associated with girls in young adolescence having sexual relations with adult men. there is no need to re-evaluation, the existing data are extremely strong and show negative physical and psychological outcomes. While Bering conveyed this strongly in his addendum to his original post, in the original post, there was a confusion of terms and a few references only for examples, resulting in outcries on several levels. So I want to highlight the extreme care that is necessary in talking about risky topics such as this one. It is important to define your terms in the scientific context as well as the context of wider society, and acknowledge where these differ. It is important to find a large number of references to determine the scientific consensus on the issue. And it is extremely important, as Janet Stemwedel notes, to draw a line between the display of certain opinions and studies, and moral justification. And in this case, there is no doubt. A measurable penile response, and a “natural” attraction, does not a healthy relationship make.

I think this ending paragraph sums up his entire response quite accurately. Although he initially tried to refute the normalcy of sexual attraction to young teenagers, in the end he makes an argument to the moral superiority of his culture, which isn't at all shocking. I wonder what his thoughts are on the fact that hebephilia is not considered a mental disorder by either of the large mental health standards bodies! That seems to be a consensus! In fact, the researcher he made frequent references to was flat out rejected and ridiculed by the mental health community for his attempts to have hebephilia considered as a mental disorder. Additionally, his appeals to health are irrelevant for much the same reason they are irrelevant when it comes to drug use. We have no right to tell a mentally competent person that they are not allowed to use drugs and we are equally incapable of rightfully telling a person who is capable of consent that they cannot consent to have sex due to concerns for their health. We do not own people! We can protect people who are not capable of protecting themselves, but he completely has avoided the criteria by which we judge a person as capable of being able to consent to sex, he has referenced studies which he admits are controversial in regards to the health affects of young teenagers having sex (and the alleged negative health affects of young teenagers having sex is the entire basis of his argument), and he has given off a disgusting essence of cultural imperialism in his condemnation of the protections afforded to females in countries such as Germany and Italy.

I wonder why he thinks there is no need for re-evaluation of the negative outcomes associated with sexual activity between young adolescents and adult men, when he himself has admitted that there are conflicting results in studies? It sounds like it is indeterminate to me! I also find it hard to even follow his argument when he could very well be using "sexual activity with" and "abuse of" interchangeably, which is inappropriate, or appropriately, which is unlikely.

So even though we have Biologists who believe in Intelligent Design, I am glad that they are a minority, just as we have psychiatrists who think Hebephilia is a mental disorder, but they are mocked by their peers. It's unfortunate this person couldn't have given a convincing argument given his credentials, but it isn't surprising really. He completely neglected to address the abilities of young teenagers to consent to sex, or how he can differentiate their abilities from older females 17+ in blind studies. Until I am presented with a blind study that reliably shows a massive discrepancy between 14 year olds and 17 year olds cognitive capabilities I am not going to be convinced that a 17 year old can consent to sex but a 14 year old cannot. And again, I would avoid the entire idea of age of consent and instead focus on individualized evaluation and certification.

And this
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #671 on: March 06, 2014, 02:13:58 pm »
m0rph lacks the emotional intelligence to perceive how fucking strange the two responses above are to others.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #672 on: March 06, 2014, 02:27:07 pm »
Quote
So why write one? Don't act as though you don't care about your poll and its results - it's abundantly clear that you do. Firstly by the intricacy of it, and secondly by the fact you've quoted its results several times to make your points. You're ignoring the fact that it's not really a very scientific way to collect opinions.

The intricacy of it is to be able to get accurate results.

Ah, so you do care about it. Thank you for admitting your error.

Quote
You have totally missed the point. Think about it some more, and get back to me. If you still haven't figured it out, I'll explain.

I fully comprehended your point. Your point was that just because a lot of people might say something "bad" is okay *snip* (thank christ!!)

Nope, you completely missed the point. The point was that you classified a not-especially-controversial perspective alongside your own very controversial perspective and declared that the holders of the not-so-controversial perspective were your fellow travellers. No, they aren't. You dumb shit.

It's no wonder you're 22 and still a virgin. Wake up to yourself, for christ's sake.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #673 on: March 06, 2014, 05:08:58 pm »
Quote
So why write one? Don't act as though you don't care about your poll and its results - it's abundantly clear that you do. Firstly by the intricacy of it, and secondly by the fact you've quoted its results several times to make your points. You're ignoring the fact that it's not really a very scientific way to collect opinions.

The intricacy of it is to be able to get accurate results.

Ah, so you do care about it. Thank you for admitting your error.

I mean, I obviously care enough about it to have made it, but I don't care as much about it as you imply that I do.

Quote
Nope, you completely missed the point. The point was that you classified a not-especially-controversial perspective alongside your own very controversial perspective and declared that the holders of the not-so-controversial perspective were your fellow travellers. No, they aren't. You dumb shit.

What are you talking about? What is my perspective and what is the not-so-controversial perspective? Currently my perspective, as in, the thing I voted for, has more votes than any other perspective. I don't know how closer to fellow traveler a person could get than for having voted for the same thing as me. Maybe they don't want to legalize all child porn possession, but they clearly voted that they think some young teenagers can consent to sex, or that viewing jailbait porn isn't a big deal, and that they prefer younger teenagers. At worst they are a stones throw away from holding my belief, the only possible room for argumentation is if younger than jailbait child porn should be legal to view.

Quote
It's no wonder you're 22 and still a virgin. Wake up to yourself, for christ's sake.

Wow I got a double dose of loser not only am I a virgin but I'm also a sex predator, shit it's a triple of dose of loser actually because I must be pretty horrible at being a sex predator too.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 05:14:21 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #674 on: March 06, 2014, 05:10:50 pm »
You lack the academic intelligence to argue against any of my comments
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #675 on: March 06, 2014, 05:15:27 pm »
Wow you really are passionate about this topic, huh?

I personally am really sick about this topic. This isn't some freaking jailbait site either. Would you please leave! Thank you

« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 05:19:08 pm by r0guebubbles »

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #676 on: March 06, 2014, 05:30:31 pm »

Why can't you answer me?

You don’t have enough of my respect to give a fck about your questions. because I don't really read what you post because its just bullshit trying to excuse your actions which are inexcusable
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #677 on: March 06, 2014, 05:51:30 pm »

Why can't you answer me?

You don’t have enough of my respect to give a fck about your questions. because I don't really read what you post because its just bullshit trying to excuse your actions which are inexcusable

I think you don't answer because you can't answer without sounding like an idiot or admitting that I am right.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #678 on: March 06, 2014, 05:54:40 pm »

Why can't you answer me?

You don’t have enough of my respect to give a fck about your questions. because I don't really read what you post because its just bullshit trying to excuse your actions which are inexcusable

I think you don't answer because you can't answer without sounding like an idiot or admitting that I am right.

Morph wrong site, check out the hidden wiki if you need it, you have a real jailbait issue and I'm sick of reading about it too. I'll even pm you some links if you are unable to find them, I'm sure you'll make a lot of friends there. I often ask myself this huge passion about jailbait, are you LE?

« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 05:55:56 pm by r0guebubbles »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #679 on: March 06, 2014, 05:58:40 pm »

Why can't you answer me?

You don’t have enough of my respect to give a fck about your questions. because I don't really read what you post because its just bullshit trying to excuse your actions which are inexcusable

I think you don't answer because you can't answer without sounding like an idiot or admitting that I am right.

Morph wrong site, check out the hidden wiki if you need it, you have a real jailbait issue and I'm sick of reading about it too. I'll even pm you some links if you are unable to find them, I'm sure you'll make a lot of friends there. I often ask myself this huge passion about jailbait, are you LE?

First of all I try not to break the law with jailbait before I can move to Uruguay and not break the law with jailbait. Also, I hear that the jailbait sites on Tor are loaded with disgusting (to me anyway, seeing as they are just pictures though I don't care if others look at them) child and infant rape, and that the average person on Tor CP sites thinks jailbait means 9 years old.

if you give me a link to a site like jailbaitgallery but with nude girls I will keep it stored until I can move to a free country though!
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 06:02:55 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #680 on: March 06, 2014, 06:01:37 pm »

Why can't you answer me?

You don’t have enough of my respect to give a fck about your questions. because I don't really read what you post because its just bullshit trying to excuse your actions which are inexcusable

I think you don't answer because you can't answer without sounding like an idiot or admitting that I am right.

ohhh my shit ballz.... I thought I was delusional.

Listen here guy, worrying about looking like an idiot to you is the farthest thing from my mind. I have come to not care about what or how you think anymore because you are a chomo from the depths of your soul it seems.

I rather cut my fingers off than ever type anything close to saying that you ,being my first openly chomo contact, are right
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

moonbear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Karma: +174/-209
  • Use more LSD
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #681 on: March 06, 2014, 06:02:16 pm »
If a girl was on my level emotionally and she was mature, id go for her, but not because of her body. Any body under 30 years is good enough. Sometimes women in their early 30s are sexy too.

But yeah, if you go for teenage girls because of their undeveloped bodies, your fucked up. But its not nearly as bad as going for children, its sort of in a gray area imo. Keep in mind that 200 years ago it was socially accepted in many places for a grown man to fuck a 13 year old if she consented to it. Still, its not normal or healthy to do that.
Maybe there can be too much of a good thing. Theres a time and place for everything.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #682 on: March 06, 2014, 06:07:20 pm »
If a girl was on my level emotionally and she was mature, id go for her, but not because of her body. Any body under 30 years is good enough. Sometimes women in their early 30s are sexy too.

But yeah, if you go for teenage girls because of their undeveloped bodies, your fucked up. But its not nearly as bad as going for children, its sort of in a gray area imo. Keep in mind that 200 years ago it was socially accepted in many places for a grown man to fuck a 13 year old if she consented to it. Still, its not normal or healthy to do that.

moonbear, do you think this girls body is underdeveloped ?
 
[Redacted]

PS: It is still socially acceptable in many places for a grown man to fuck a 13 year old if she consents to it. South Korea comes to mind.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 06:27:09 pm by V »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #683 on: March 06, 2014, 07:03:14 pm »

[Redacted]


aaaaaaahhhah its good to know "others" read this crazy shit also.

m0rph your whole life should be redacted
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #684 on: March 06, 2014, 07:15:15 pm »

[Redacted]


aaaaaaahhhah its good to know "others" read this crazy shit also.

m0rph your whole life should be redacted

Right now I'm just in the process of figuring out the rules. First I thought we could link to completely legal images, but apparently that wasn't the case. Seeing as people are allowed to link to the hidden wiki, which links to baby rape, I figured that the difference must be that it is okay to link to sites that link to images, but not directly to images. So I made a pastebin and put my link in it then linked to the pastebin. But in this process I had written a PM to the moderators asking about it, and they said there is a difference between linking to a site that links to images and other resources and posting a link to a site that links just to an image, so then I updated the pastebin to include a link to google as well as to the original image I questioned moonbear about. Hopefully now it is in line with the rules, but I PM'ed a moderator and asked him about it so I guess we will see.

Also be careful saying my life should be redacted, that sounds close to a death threat and I almost got banned for saying something like that!

In any case I don't plan to keep reposting this, and if they decide it for some reason continues to break the rules I will stop attempting to post it, but I do hope they at least clarify the exact nature of the rules so that I can make sure to follow them in the future. I've never actually tried to break the rules here, but it's apparently hard for me to avoid doing so when they are not specified exactly, because in trying to come in line with the stated rules I apparently continue to break them.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 07:39:52 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

mary666

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2378
  • Karma: +505/-92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #685 on: March 06, 2014, 07:38:09 pm »
If any members wish to debate the ethics, punishment, morals or whatever else related to child pornography, please do so below as it is becoming tedious for moderators to now keep topics in line and prevent every other topic becoming the battlegrounds for this debate.

I would also like to clarify the stance of Silk Road on these matters. The discussion of child porn centered debates is allowed, you are free to debate the morals, ethics, punishment, perception and evidence of the issue. However, the sharing or distribution of actual child pornography (such as images, videos or graphic literature) is prohibited. Whilst we are open for as much freedom as our circumstances allow, we are a drugs market and as such that is what we would like to stay orientated towards.

I feel there will be some who will not like this ruling. However, consider that your right to discuss drug usage on this forum is given the same protection as ultimately, there are also people against even discussing the usage of drugs. I will not be reviewing this decision unless there are extenuating circumstances surrounding it so please use this thread for all future discussion to prevent the rest of the forums becoming littered with the debates.

So much for there being only 1 pedo thread on here, c'mon mods, get this shit gone!!  :-\
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness, I am kind to everyone but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

-Al Capone

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #686 on: March 06, 2014, 07:42:24 pm »
If any members wish to debate the ethics, punishment, morals or whatever else related to child pornography, please do so below as it is becoming tedious for moderators to now keep topics in line and prevent every other topic becoming the battlegrounds for this debate.

I would also like to clarify the stance of Silk Road on these matters. The discussion of child porn centered debates is allowed, you are free to debate the morals, ethics, punishment, perception and evidence of the issue. However, the sharing or distribution of actual child pornography (such as images, videos or graphic literature) is prohibited. Whilst we are open for as much freedom as our circumstances allow, we are a drugs market and as such that is what we would like to stay orientated towards.

I feel there will be some who will not like this ruling. However, consider that your right to discuss drug usage on this forum is given the same protection as ultimately, there are also people against even discussing the usage of drugs. I will not be reviewing this decision unless there are extenuating circumstances surrounding it so please use this thread for all future discussion to prevent the rest of the forums becoming littered with the debates.

So much for there being only 1 pedo thread on here, c'mon mods, get this shit gone!!  :-\

There was to be only one child porn thread due to the fact that in off topic threads people other than myself continued to rant at me about child porn in them. I have always tried to follow the rules by keeping such discussions in the appropriate thread, which is more than I can say for most of my opponents. This is not a child pornography thread but rather is a jailbait thread. One solution I would find acceptable is the locking of the child porn thread while allowing this thread to stay open, I think everything has been said in the child porn thread that needs to be. We could make this new thread a discussion of child porn to some extent and age of consent / jailbait etc, that is what the CP thread turned into anyway it didn't strictly focus on CP. The primary reason I made this thread was to be able to make a poll on it. So please if you lock one thread lock the CP thread and allow this new thread with a poll to become the new "all topics related to underage anything thread".

We could include a link to the locked CP thread in the original post of this thread for people who want historical data. Also PLEASE clarify the rules on linking to LEGAL PICTURES of underage females. I'm sorry I was a bit facetious to keep reposting it while technically being in line with the rules stated to me (no link to image, no link to sites with links to images without other resources, adding google to my pastebin) but I find it extremely annoying that a moderator censored my link seeing as there are no rules against it as it isn't doxing or illegal and also seeing as it is pertinent to the topic at hand, I was going somewhere by posting it and waiting for moonbear to make a response, and I feel like the moderator who redacted it just let his personal opinions get in the way of the objectivity and freedom of speech of the forum. But if the moderators and admins are all hell bent on me not linking to legal images of underage females, please just make a rule about it (preferably one that is consistent, although I doubt that will happen since you allow links to the hidden wiki), or tell me to knock my shit off and I will stop doing it, but at least make a statement about it and don't just censor me and leave it at that please.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 07:50:48 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #687 on: March 06, 2014, 07:49:59 pm »
If any members wish to debate the ethics, punishment, morals or whatever else related to child pornography, please do so below as it is becoming tedious for moderators to now keep topics in line and prevent every other topic becoming the battlegrounds for this debate.

I would also like to clarify the stance of Silk Road on these matters. The discussion of child porn centered debates is allowed, you are free to debate the morals, ethics, punishment, perception and evidence of the issue. However, the sharing or distribution of actual child pornography (such as images, videos or graphic literature) is prohibited. Whilst we are open for as much freedom as our circumstances allow, we are a drugs market and as such that is what we would like to stay orientated towards.

I feel there will be some who will not like this ruling. However, consider that your right to discuss drug usage on this forum is given the same protection as ultimately, there are also people against even discussing the usage of drugs. I will not be reviewing this decision unless there are extenuating circumstances surrounding it so please use this thread for all future discussion to prevent the rest of the forums becoming littered with the debates.

So much for there being only 1 pedo thread on here, c'mon mods, get this shit gone!!  :-\

+1 mary

mary666

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2378
  • Karma: +505/-92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #688 on: March 06, 2014, 07:54:32 pm »
@m0rph, well 1 of them can go, dpr stated there would be just 1 thread, which tbh is more than enough.

This is supposed to be a drug forum. Other threads which are about funny, amusing, informative etc. are welcomed but I think this subject has no place here. Are there not forums where you can discuss this subject with like minded people or at least people that want to debate it with you??

It has no place here imo.

Thanks for the neg karma btw, I won't be so immature as to return it!

+1 RB
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 07:56:52 pm by mary666 »
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness, I am kind to everyone but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

-Al Capone

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #689 on: March 06, 2014, 07:55:23 pm »
I don't care if the CP thread is locked. There is no point talking about this with like minded people, they already agree with me.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 08:04:28 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

takayama

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: +8/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #690 on: March 07, 2014, 12:07:59 am »
m0rph, have you ever even seen a 13 year old? I have a cousin who is 13, and neither she nor any of her friends look anywhere near being sexually developed. i dont know know much about the tanner scale, and i have not done too much research upon this subject, but im pretty sure the tanner scale is bullshit. go look at a young teenage girl who isn't in  jailbait, and then ponder the things you have said on this thread. you are honestly one of the dumbest motherfuckers i have ever seen.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #691 on: March 07, 2014, 02:56:50 am »
You lack the academic intelligence to argue against any of my comments

I read a few of your posts a while ago, and you just kept repeating yourself. No point wasting my time going over your bizarre obsession again.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

Wiley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Karma: +2/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #692 on: March 07, 2014, 04:46:46 am »
Could be DPR number 2 started this thread as a favor to possibly expose those in favor of child porn so the feds can move in

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #693 on: March 07, 2014, 11:11:35 am »
Could be DPR number 2 started this thread as a favor to possibly expose those in favor of child porn so the feds can move in

Yeah that has about a zero percent probability.

Quote
m0rph, have you ever even seen a 13 year old? I have a cousin who is 13, and neither she nor any of her friends look anywhere near being sexually developed. i dont know know much about the tanner scale, and i have not done too much research upon this subject, but im pretty sure the tanner scale is bullshit. go look at a young teenage girl who isn't in  jailbait, and then ponder the things you have said on this thread. you are honestly one of the dumbest motherfuckers i have ever seen.

Smart enough to know that over 25% of adult females never develop beyond what would be expected of the average 13 year old.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #694 on: March 07, 2014, 11:13:19 am »
then again it looks like roughly half of the people here agree with me too.

PS: contacted a mod about locking CP thread
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: do you like jailbait?
« Reply #695 on: March 07, 2014, 01:22:56 pm »
No, 50% of people don't agree with you on your principal assertion. That's what I was getting at before - the point you singularly misunderstood. Which doesn't say a lot about your intelligence.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

V

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
  • Karma: +230/-33
  • Ideas are bulletproof.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #696 on: March 07, 2014, 02:21:57 pm »
After a brief discussion with staff, it was decided that the Jailbait discussion thread should be merged with the child pornography thread.

Although it is true that Child Pornography could be separated into different age groups, the discussion within both of these threads still falls under the wider umbrella of child pornography.

While this is a topic that causes much controversy and that many disagree with, we have continued to allow a single thread to catch the discussion of the topic and keep it all contained, as this prevents content that many people do not want to read from spreading through more areas within the forum.

If you must discuss this topic, please keep it all within this single thread.

V
Who? Who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #697 on: March 07, 2014, 03:18:19 pm »
Thanks V, maybe you could also change the title of the thread to "discussion of age of consent and pornography" since it isn't strictly speaking related to child pornography anymore. Also please clarify the rules on linking to legal pictures of underage people, or sites that link to them like the hidden wiki. Thanks for keeping the poll that's the only reason I made a new thread in the first place. Also there are multiple other links to jailbaitgallery images in this thread, I'm not going to hunt them all down but I will stop posting them since you guys definitively told me to stop, although I find the lack of a consistent rule to be troubling (ie: people link to hidden wiki which links to baby rape and it is okay, but if I link to pastebin that links to multiple resources and legal pictures of underage people it is not okay).

unforgiven you keep making that baseless claim but much like all of your other baseless claims you can't seem to elaborate on it or clarify it. How is it that over 50% of people voting and saying they think either young teenagers are sometimes capable of consent, or that jailbait porn isn't evil to view, not agreeing with my principal assertion, which is that young teenagers are sometimes capable of consent and jailbait porn isn't evil to view?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 03:22:04 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #698 on: March 07, 2014, 03:43:24 pm »
I did clarify it. You just failed to understand.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #699 on: March 07, 2014, 03:45:22 pm »
I will happily walk you through it blow by blow tomorrow, because your inferior intellect clearly requires a simple concept to be explained to you as one would a three year old. However, now I'm off for some shut eye. Tomorrow, however, I'll be back.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #700 on: March 07, 2014, 03:48:18 pm »
I am really excited to hear exactly how it is that over 50% of people voting that they think young teenagers can sometimes consent to sex, or that jailbait porn isn't evil to view, does not mean that over 50% of people who have voted agree with my assertion that young teenagers can sometimes consent to sex, and that jailbait porn isn't evil to view. Over 34% of people who responded to this poll indicated they would have sex with young teenagers and/or look at jailbait porn if they wouldn't be at risk of legal trouble or social stigmatization from doing so. over 57% indicated they are at least on occasion sexually attracted to young teenagers, 26.3% indicated they are true ephebophiles or hebephiles, and an additional over 23% indicated that they are non-exlusive non-preferential ephebophiles or hebephiles (not counting the uncommonly attracted to young teenager voters, as even those who are called teliophiles can have occasional attraction to young teenagers) . Only 42.2% indicated that it should always be illegal to have sex with young teenagers and view jailbait pornography, and only 15.8% felt there was no difference between acting on pedophilia versus hebephilia and/or ephebophilia.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 04:00:22 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #701 on: March 07, 2014, 04:17:17 pm »
letshug I know its you....

I'm on to you
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #702 on: March 08, 2014, 12:28:28 pm »
still waiting for your clarification unforgiven
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #703 on: March 08, 2014, 01:24:23 pm »
Firstly, it's not a clarification. It's having to puppy walk you through the fallacious assertion you made, namely:

Quote
realize that exactly 50% of the people who responded to this poll expressed that they think that young teenagers can sometimes consent and/or jailbait porn isn't a big deal to view.

Your assertion that young teenagers are capable of consent is highly controversial. Jailbait porn; controversial but significantly less so. However, you're lumping in those who might agree with the not-so-controversial statement about jailbait porn alongside the small number who support the highly controversial statement regarding a 13 year old's ability to consent, and counting this as a single perspective.

My initial point, which you misunderstood in spite of your self-proclaimed genius, is as follows. I made up the fictional statistic that
 
"50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be victim of rape due to their choice of outfit and/or deserved to be raped."

The clear inference being that 50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes deserved to be raped. However, parse that carefully and we actually have no idea what percentage of people believe women who wear sexy clothes deserve to be raped. And, seeing as though the 50% of people included those who agreed with the rather less controversial statement that "women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be rape victims due to their choice of outfit", it's a safe bet that the vast majority of those people agreed with the less controversial statement whilst disagreeing with the very controversial statement. But your method would lump them together as if they both had identical opinions. Hence your claim that 50% of people think young teen girls are capable of giving consent. This is fallacious.


Incidentally, I just had a look at the result of your poll and your claim that "50% of the people who responded to this poll expressed that they think that young teenagers can sometimes consent and/or jailbait porn isn't a big deal to view." is bullshit. For a start, the poll is so badly written that you could not possibly derive the number you did. Stop lying, m0rph. I know you desperately want fellow travellers, but sooner or later you're going to have to deal with the harsh reality that you're in a tiny, despised minority and that's not going to change any time soon.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #704 on: March 08, 2014, 01:47:52 pm »
Quote
Your assertion that young teenagers are capable of consent is highly controversial. Jailbait porn; controversial but significantly less so. However, you're lumping in those who might agree with the not-so-controversial statement about jailbait porn alongside the small number who support the highly controversial statement regarding a 13 year old's ability to consent, and counting this as a single perspective.

Ah I see, so the problem was that my overly intricate poll was not intricate enough? I just can't seem to win.

Quote
My initial point, which you misunderstood in spite of your self-proclaimed genius, is as follows. I made up the fictional statistic that
 
"50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be victim of rape due to their choice of outfit and/or deserved to be raped."

The clear inference being that 50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes deserved to be raped. However, parse that carefully and we actually have no idea what percentage of people believe women who wear sexy clothes deserve to be raped. And, seeing as though the 50% of people included those who agreed with the rather less controversial statement that "women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be rape victims due to their choice of outfit", it's a safe bet that the vast majority of those people agreed with the less controversial statement whilst disagreeing with the very controversial statement. But your method would lump them together as if they both had identical opinions. Hence your claim that 50% of people think young teen girls are capable of giving consent. This is fallacious.

Ah now I see. I would have picked up on it if I paid closer attention. I did think it was strange that you had that and/or there but I figured you must just be a radical feminist who thinks that women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town have nothing to do with their own selves being raped if it comes to pass. In any case, thanks for finally clarifying your point, see how easy that was? But now I get to make my come back.

If these people think that viewing jailbait porn is acceptable, but that the girls featured in jailbait porn are not capable of consent, then they think that it is is ok to view porn of people who did not consent to be in it. Considering young children cannot consent to be in the child porn in which they are featured, it would then lead one to imagine that these voters must be in favor of decriminalizing the viewing of child pornography, if they did not vote in the way they did due to thinking young teenagers are capable of consent. So it stands to reason then that they either think that young teenagers are capable of consent in some cases and/or that all child pornography is not inherently immoral to view, because if they don't think young teenagers are capable of consent but they do think that it is acceptable to view pornography of young teenagers, then they hold the belief that it is not immoral to view pornography of those who, due to their lack of age, were incapable of consenting to be in it. So in any case the majority of people agree with at least one of my two "controversial" opinions, either they agree with me that young teenagers are sometimes capable of consent, or they agree with me that all child pornography is not inherently immoral to view. 

Quote
Incidentally, I just had a look at the result of your poll and your claim that "50% of the people who responded to this poll expressed that they think that young teenagers can sometimes consent and/or jailbait porn isn't a big deal to view." is bullshit. For a start, the poll is so badly written that you could not possibly derive the number you did. Stop lying, m0rph. I know you desperately want fellow travellers, but sooner or later you're going to have to deal with the harsh reality that you're in a tiny, despised minority and that's not going to change any time soon.

My creepily intricate poll wasn't intricate enough and therefore discredits the apparent results gathered from it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

laura w

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #705 on: March 08, 2014, 03:07:12 pm »
In general, children should not be having sexual intercourse.  The reason it's a bad idea is because the purpose of sex is procreation and people should not be raising children until they are mature enough to do so.  However, I do not rule out the possibility that there are some rare circumstances where it would be okay.
It also brings up a larger issue.  Where do we draw the line as to when someone is fit to raise a child?  Should mentally handicapped people be permitted to have sexual intercourse? 

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #706 on: March 08, 2014, 03:09:00 pm »
In general, children should not be having sexual intercourse.  The reason it's a bad idea is because the purpose of sex is procreation and people should not be raising children until they are mature enough to do so.  However, I do not rule out the possibility that there are some rare circumstances where it would be okay.
It also brings up a larger issue.  Where do we draw the line as to when someone is fit to raise a child?  Should mentally handicapped people be permitted to have sexual intercourse?

The purpose of sex is whatever people use it for. I would say far more sex is for recreation than anything else. Also, children is ambiguous, what do you consider a child to be?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

laura w

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #707 on: March 08, 2014, 03:18:08 pm »
In general, children should not be having sexual intercourse.  The reason it's a bad idea is because the purpose of sex is procreation and people should not be raising children until they are mature enough to do so.  However, I do not rule out the possibility that there are some rare circumstances where it would be okay.
It also brings up a larger issue.  Where do we draw the line as to when someone is fit to raise a child?  Should mentally handicapped people be permitted to have sexual intercourse?

The purpose of sex is whatever people use it for. I would say far more sex is for recreation than anything else. Also, children is ambiguous, what do you consider a child to be?

I do not think that the purpose of sex is recreation any more than the purpose of eating food is recreation.  Yes, you can take enjoyment in eating food but the fundamental reason that people eat food is not recreation.  A child is someone around the age of 13 or under.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #708 on: March 08, 2014, 03:37:15 pm »
Oh. Well then we pretty much agree. I don't think people under the age of about 13 should be having sex either. Much younger than that and they wont even have any desire to have sex in the first place. Really I am a huge fan of individualized evaluation and testing, because it has the potential to remove all ambiguity on the matter. I really don't understand why anyone is against this, the only thing I can think of is they work for the prison industry and want more people to go to jail. I wouldn't ever suggest an age of consent below 12 though, if we for whatever reason need to stick to probabilistic solutions. I think 12 is when you will start to find some people who are capable of consent, but they will still be in a minority, just not far outliers. I really like how Uruguay does age of consent. Minimum age is 12, but up to 15 you can still be tried as a sex predator, but then you can argue that there was consent and that the person under 15 was capable of giving consent, and if you can prove this then you are not in legal trouble. Uruguay is really in many ways a bastion of freedom, it's amazing how rational and well thought out so many of their current policies are. It's almost like they want to protect people from harm while simultaneously not harming others unless absolutely necessary. More countries should be like that.

The fundamental reason people eat food is so that they can stay alive. The fundamental reason people have sex is because it's fun. Procreation is more often than not a hassle related to the recreation of sex. This is abundantly obvious, birth control methods are widely utilized and there has been a lot of research and massive industries rising around the goal of letting people have sex while intentionally avoiding any risk of procreation.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 03:40:05 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #709 on: March 08, 2014, 05:55:20 pm »
Quote
sooner or later you're going to have to deal with the harsh reality that you're in a tiny, despised minority and that's not going to change any time soon.

I imagine age of consent will be lowered and CP legal to view within my lifetime. There are already movements to make these changes, and not from groups like NAMBLA but by groups in the legal system and mental health communities etc. Just look around and you can already see people starting to question the age of consent, especially younger more liberal people and of course libertarians. And they question the harshness of CP laws if not why CP is illegal to view in the first place. People are starting to realize how fucked up the current situation is, and especially as younger more liberal and libertarian people start growing up and getting into political power the entire house of cards is going to start crumbling just like the war on drugs is starting to. Honestly I don't think any of my friends give a flying fuck if people fuck young teenagers or look at jailbait at least. It isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when. In hundreds of years people will look at the treatment of pedophiles today as similar to the Salem Witch Trials, beyond any doubt at all. The oppression of hebephiles and ephebophiles will been seen as even more horrendous as both practices will be much more common and open in the future (unlike pedophilia, which will be seen as a disease that isn't immoral unless acted on in ways that harm others, ie: viewing CP nobody will give a shit about but pedophiles who molest kids will be viewed as schizophrenics who think God tells them to kill people are viewed today). You are on the wrong side of history.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 05:59:41 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #710 on: March 09, 2014, 07:25:42 am »
Quote
Your assertion that young teenagers are capable of consent is highly controversial. Jailbait porn; controversial but significantly less so. However, you're lumping in those who might agree with the not-so-controversial statement about jailbait porn alongside the small number who support the highly controversial statement regarding a 13 year old's ability to consent, and counting this as a single perspective.

Ah I see, so the problem was that my overly intricate poll was not intricate enough? I just can't seem to win.

No, your overly intricate poll was so poorly written that it yielded a bunch of useless data. You still made a number of unsupportable inferences from the gibberish results your crappy poll gleaned.
Quote
My initial point, which you misunderstood in spite of your self-proclaimed genius, is as follows. I made up the fictional statistic that
 
"50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be victim of rape due to their choice of outfit and/or deserved to be raped."

The clear inference being that 50% of people think women who wear sexy clothes deserved to be raped. However, parse that carefully and we actually have no idea what percentage of people believe women who wear sexy clothes deserve to be raped. And, seeing as though the 50% of people included those who agreed with the rather less controversial statement that "women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town and are subsequently raped made themselves more likely to be rape victims due to their choice of outfit", it's a safe bet that the vast majority of those people agreed with the less controversial statement whilst disagreeing with the very controversial statement. But your method would lump them together as if they both had identical opinions. Hence your claim that 50% of people think young teen girls are capable of giving consent. This is fallacious.

Ah now I see. I would have picked up on it if I paid closer attention.

Yes, I did suggest you do that, but you were too smart to realise how uncomprehending you were being. God, it's tiresome dealing with arrogant little turds who aren't a quarter as smart as they think they are.

I did think it was strange that you had that and/or there but I figured you must just be a radical feminist who thinks that women who wear sexy clothes in rough parts of town have nothing to do with their own selves being raped if it comes to pass.
Yes, because you have the reading comprehension of a Downs Syndrome patient.

In any case, thanks for finally clarifying your point, see how easy that was?

Don't try to shirk responsibility because you didn't understand my point. You just admitted above that you weren't paying attention. Actually, I suspect it had more to do with a deficiency in your ability to follow a not-especially-complex line of logic. My point was perfectly clear as it stood. I clarified it in that I broke it down into pieces digestible for a four year old. Which is evidently your level.

But now I get to make my come back.


Oh goody.

If these people think that viewing jailbait porn is acceptable, but that the girls featured in jailbait porn are not capable of consent, then they think that it is is ok to view porn of people who did not consent to be in it. Considering young children cannot consent to be in the child porn in which they are featured, it would then lead one to imagine that these voters must be in favor of decriminalizing the viewing of child pornography, if they did not vote in the way they did due to thinking young teenagers are capable of consent. So it stands to reason then that they either think that young teenagers are capable of consent in some cases and/or that all child pornography is not inherently immoral to view, because if they don't think young teenagers are capable of consent but they do think that it is acceptable to view pornography of young teenagers, then they hold the belief that it is not immoral to view pornography of those who, due to their lack of age, were incapable of consenting to be in it. So in any case the majority of people agree with at least one of my two "controversial" opinions, either they agree with me that young teenagers are sometimes capable of consent, or they agree with me that all child pornography is not inherently immoral to view. 

Define the genre 'jailbait porn'. Jailbait porn is actors and actresses of an age whereby they're willing to consent to being photographed and videoed in pornographic actions, and are selected, dressed, made up and required to act in an innocent, childish manner (think Japanese girls in school uniforms, for example). It is NOT 13 year old girls (or boys) being raped on camera. You think jailbait porn =  pics and footage of13 year olds being fucked. Most people call that child pornography. So you might find a large number of respondents who are into "jailbait porn" - barely teen/twink's first time etc kind of thing, which is totally legal - but would completely disagree with your belief that a young teenager - a 13 or 14 year old - is capable of consent, particularly in regards to going with a much older individual of say...well...your age. But you decided these two opinions - one held by a small group that is rightly marginalised from society, the other by a large segment of the pornography market - are identical as based on the way you structured your poll, and you claim the latter as your fellow travellers. THEY. ARE. NOT. (or at least most of them aren't)

Quote
Incidentally, I just had a look at the result of your poll and your claim that "50% of the people who responded to this poll expressed that they think that young teenagers can sometimes consent and/or jailbait porn isn't a big deal to view." is bullshit. For a start, the poll is so badly written that you could not possibly derive the number you did. Stop lying, m0rph. I know you desperately want fellow travellers, but sooner or later you're going to have to deal with the harsh reality that you're in a tiny, despised minority and that's not going to change any time soon.

My creepily intricate poll wasn't intricate enough and therefore discredits the apparent results gathered from it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Stupid, foolish child. Your poll is creepy because it shows just how much time you spend justifying to yourself and others your desire to rape children. Getting beyond that, just because a poll is intricate doesn't mean it isn't shoddily written and constructed. In fact, it's written so badly that the results it produced are useless and certainly do not support the assertions you've made in light of them. Your poll is a classic example of GIGO.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #711 on: March 09, 2014, 07:33:50 am »
Right, I'm done here. That's enough bludgeoning m0rph with his rampant idiocy and pointing out his busted moral compass. He'd happily keep going for the rest of the year - and beyond - but frankly I have much better things to do with my life. The only help available to m0rph is medical intervention. Go get help, m0rph. It's far preferable to a legal intervention. And you surely don't want to spend your last moments lying on the ground with a boot over your throat, staring into the hateful, pitiless eyes of the father or brother of a girl you raped. They're not going to be the slightest bit interested to hear about how some young teens might be able to give consent, I promise you that.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #712 on: March 09, 2014, 08:07:13 am »
Quote
Define the genre 'jailbait porn'. Jailbait porn is actors and actresses of an age whereby they're willing to consent to being photographed and videoed in pornographic actions, and are selected, dressed, made up and required to act in an innocent, childish manner (think Japanese girls in school uniforms, for example). It is NOT 13 year old girls (or boys) being raped on camera. You think jailbait porn =  pics and footage of13 year olds being fucked. Most people call that child pornography. So you might find a large number of respondents who are into "jailbait porn" - barely teen/twink's first time etc kind of thing, which is totally legal - but would completely disagree with your belief that a young teenager - a 13 or 14 year old - is capable of consent, particularly in regards to going with a much older individual of say...well...your age. But you decided these two opinions - one held by a small group that is rightly marginalised from society, the other by a large segment of the pornography market - are identical as based on the way you structured your poll, and you claim the latter as your fellow travellers. THEY. ARE. NOT. (or at least most of them aren't)

You really are grasping at straws in light of the poll demonstrating that the majority of people here hold the belief that young teenagers are sometimes capable of consent and/or jailbait porn isn't a big deal to view. I think we all know that even if the poll could have been broken down better, it is very clear that if people were very against this they would have voted for the bottom option and if they were very for it they would have voted for the top option. And more people voted for the top option than any other. Do you think the people who voted for the bottom option think that people should be tortured in prison for looking at porn of young 18 year olds dressed to look like they are high school girls? Because that is the conclusion we would reach following your logic that the people who voted for the top option intended to say that they think 18 year olds are capable of consent and that 18 year olds made up as high school girls are okay to look at naked. Obviously you are simply wrong and the majority of people hold a different belief than you do, which seems to be too much for your fragile ego to be able to take. Child pornography is pornography of prepubescents, jailbait pornography is pornography of pubescents about 12-17, barely legal porn is porn of those about 18 or 19 years old. Why would you call it jailbait porn if the people featured in it are not jailbait?

Absolutely nobody calls that jailbait porn. That is called barely legal porn. Jailbait porn is pornography of those who are under the age of consent but old enough to be sexually developed. That is what everyone calls jailbait porn. Pics and footage of anyone approximately 12 to 17 years old being fucked would be considered jailbait porn. Pics of 18 year olds being fucked would be called barely legal porn. Also notice that young teenagers was specified. That would imply 13-17 years old, as 18-19 years old would be considered older teenagers.

A large segment of the pornography market would be looking at jailbait porn if there was no risk involved in doing so. People looking at pictures of naked 18 year olds made up to look like 14 year olds would be looking at the real thing if they knew they couldn't get in trouble for it. It's like saying you think someone on methadone wouldn't use heroin if they could get it and not risk legal trouble for doing so. That is convincing to absolutely nobody. People use methadone because they want to use heroin but can't use it for legal and/or social reasons. Remove the legal and/or social reasons and a huge percentage of them are going to start using heroin. Same reason people look at barely legal porn. They look at barely legal porn because they want to look at jailbait porn, but can't do it for legal and/or social reasons. Remove the legal and/or social reasons and they are going to be flocking to jailbait.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 08:46:43 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #713 on: March 09, 2014, 08:41:40 am »
Didn't you tell me a looooonnngg time ago you were going to write a book about the truth behind CP or something like that m0rph? I may not agree, but I'd be super interested and maybe I can make draw illistrations (not gross ones :P ) for you and you can publish it as an e-book either on SR or as an opensource copy :)! Sound cool dude???
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #714 on: March 09, 2014, 08:48:29 am »
merge wrote this before he changed his password to something he doesn't know and left the scene forever: http://sexcrimetruths.wordpress.com/
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #715 on: March 09, 2014, 08:56:33 am »
Wow! That is amazing! I always respect a man who is so faithful to their beliefs, even if I cant accept them fully. Bravo merge! Nice science!
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #716 on: March 09, 2014, 09:02:03 am »
If you can't fully accept beliefs backed by science I suggest you join a church.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

calcium345

  • Barkeep, Green Camel Night Club
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Karma: +302/-49
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #717 on: March 09, 2014, 10:35:00 am »
If you can't fully accept beliefs backed by science I suggest you join a church.
Does the church of scientology work ;) ???? What the fuck are those guys all about anyway?
************ Depression Hotline: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=12804.0 *************

Visit The Hub...
http://thehub7dnl5nmcz5.onion

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #718 on: March 09, 2014, 03:32:09 pm »
I should also point out that in many countries where child porn is illegal jailbait porn is totally legal. Germany comes to mind immediately, they have two categories, child porn and youth porn. Youth porn is essentially jailbait, but they put the cut off at 14, and don't have laws against it, even production is legal. Many European countries have no laws against jailbait porn (ie: young teenagers, or mid teenagers at least) even the ones with laws against child porn.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Velix

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: +4/-5
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #719 on: March 09, 2014, 04:51:44 pm »
Someone needs to change the title of this topic to:

People who sell drugs to children calling people who masturbate to children: inhuman

Or, since that's probably too long:

The pot and the kettle
-----\(*(i)*)/-----
torchat: mnergxcklw2velix

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #720 on: March 09, 2014, 07:06:43 pm »
I’m not sure the kids buying drugs are forced to perform sexual acts.

If anything drugs might help deal with pains caused from child sex abuse.

My pot makes me feel better unlike kids having to give or receive bjs.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #721 on: March 10, 2014, 08:53:25 pm »
When it comes down to it there is little difference between morphine and endorphins. 
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #722 on: March 10, 2014, 08:56:01 pm »
I just threw up a little bit in my mouth just reading your name...


oh I mean good day to you sicko down the blocko
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #723 on: March 10, 2014, 11:55:40 pm »
people who masturbate to children: Cause absolutely no harm to children from the act of doing so, though they may cause harm to children in other ways

people who sell drugs to children: Inherently cause direct harm to children, as it isn't very good for children to use drugs, including marijuana

In the grand scheme of things it is much better for children if all of the people who currently sell them drugs stop doing so and instead masturbate to pictures of naked children that they don't pay for or produce.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #724 on: March 11, 2014, 12:38:55 am »
beat a child severely: get probation and nobody knows about it
look at picture of 15 year old showing off her breasts: get raped in prison and live the rest of your life as sex offender nobody hire you nobody likes you and you are listed as child sex predator for rest of your life and everyone knows


knock the heads off of and kill two 15 year olds drunk driving: go to prison for 12 years, get released and go on with your life
get head from two 15 year olds consensually: go to prison for 20 years and get raped and beaten up every day, if you live to get released live rest of life as sex offender

Why is it better to negligently kill two teenagers (drunk driving) than to negligently have sex with them (thought two 15 year olds were 16 and didn't check IDs)?

Why can people go to prison for less time if they murder a 14 year old and fuck her corpse than if they consensually fuck her while she is alive?

Alabama: Murder 10 years to life, necrophilia 1 - 10 years
Alabama: Consensual sex with 14 year old, 2-20 years

Don't you feel bad for the 18 year old who consensually fucks a 14 year old in Alabama and goes to prison for almost twice as long as the 18 year old who murders a 14 year old and fucks her dead body? I feel bad for him anyway, but it's probably because I am such a sick fuck.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #725 on: March 11, 2014, 12:49:03 am »
Arizona: Sex with 12 year old = 35 years to life, no parole before 35 years

Arizona: Murder of 12 year old = 25 years to death, no parole before 25 years, or life without parole
Arizona: Necrophilia = 1.5 to 3 years

so if you plan to have sex with a 12 year old in Arizona make sure to blow her brains out first, it could save you 15 years of imprisonment and lifetime as a registered sex offender
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #726 on: March 11, 2014, 01:00:01 am »
How about you just shove your head up your own ass for a while, get that up close n personal inspection you so desperately need.

Once you remove the tonka truck you crammed up there, the dead hamster, that croquet mallet, and finally, your brains, come up for a breath of fresh air, and reconnoiter your new surroundings. 
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #727 on: March 11, 2014, 01:08:10 am »
Twatwaffle can you explain to me why it is potentially worthy of less time in prison to shoot a 14 year old girl in the head and then fuck her dead body than it is to have consensual sex with her? That doesn't make sense to me, but I am a sick fuck and have all kinds of cognitive distortions, so would love if a clear headed rational person such as yourself explained it to me.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #728 on: March 11, 2014, 01:12:33 am »
I already gave you my suggestion. Shove your head up your ass, and get your answers.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #729 on: March 11, 2014, 01:15:09 am »
Just saying, when I was 14 I would have much preferred an 18 year old girl fucked me than blew my brains out and raped my corpse. Maybe it's just different for girls?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #730 on: March 11, 2014, 01:20:31 am »
When I was 14, I would have preferred not to be pregnant, not to be raped every day, repeatedly by my perpetrator, that my mom had been present, that a whole shit pile of things in my miserable misbeggoten 14yr old life were different.

Butcha know what, my 14yr old self was a survivor, she went batshit crazy, her consciousness split, turning her into a documented case of DID, and she also went seriously homicidal. Well, one of her personalities went all stabby homicidal.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #731 on: March 11, 2014, 01:40:28 am »
just because you were raped when you were 14 doesn't mean every 14 year old who has sex with someone older than 17 is raped.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #732 on: March 11, 2014, 02:40:47 am »
Alabama:

For a conviction of---->

Possession of 10 pictures of 14 year old flashing: 99 years mandatory minimum, maximum is 99 years
Consensual sex with 14 year old: 2 years mandatory minimum, maximum is 20 years
Murder 14 year old and rape her dead body: 11 years mandatory minimum, maximum is life (not death unless other circumstances)

In Alabama it is ALWAYS better for you if you are convicted of raping the dead body of the 14 year old you just murdered than if you are convicted of possessing 10 pictures of her that she took of herself flashing her mirror.

In Uruguay it is not illegal to have 10 pictures of a 14 year old flashing her mirror, having consensual sex with her is legal if you have strong proof she consented and was capable of consent, and you will go to prison for a very very long time if you murder her and rape her dead body.

Please tell me why it is Uruguay that is a sick country and not USA?

How is it even possible that on the same day three 18 year olds are arrested, one for having 10 pictures of a 14 year old flashing, one for having sex with a 14 year old, and one for murdering a 14 year old and raping her dead body, and the first to be released is the one who murdered a 14 year old and raped her dead body, the second to be released is the one who had sex with a 14 year old and the one who had 10 pictures of a 14 year old flashing will certainly die in prison? It doesn't even need to be a 14 year old flashing, it could be a drawing of a 14 year old flashing! How the fucking fuck can you be certain to go to prison for as long or longer than a person who murders a 14 year old and rapes her dead body if you have 10 drawings of someone in tanner stage 4 flashing? What type of horrible sickness you must have to not be disgusted by that, to me that is infinitely more disgusting than a person who jacks off looking at naked children.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 03:29:10 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #733 on: March 11, 2014, 02:46:04 am »
just because you were raped when you were 14 doesn't mean every 14 year old who has sex with someone older than 17 is raped.

It also doesnt mean every 14yr old that agrees to sex with someone over 17 wasnt forced, conditioned or convinced into it, it was concensual but they didnt really want to
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #734 on: March 11, 2014, 02:59:30 am »
just because you were raped when you were 14 doesn't mean every 14 year old who has sex with someone older than 17 is raped.

You are such a juvenile. Obviously you have not been traumatized. I was not just "raped" fucktard. I was impregnated twice by my perpetrator. Forced to carry to term the spawn of my abuser. You are an ignorant, spoiled, troll.

What makes you think that its appropriate in any society, in any circumstances, to inflict the kind of memories I have on any child?

 Because you have read perpetrators speaking about their victims?

You don't know fuck all.

I have lived. I am a living, breathing survivor of trauma that would leave you a feeble, drooling wreck. Shut your stupid yap, perv.

When its your daughter or son who has been sexualized by a perv, come tell me that you are ok with it. I will know you are a lying piece of shit

You would never want your 12 or 14 yr old daughter raped by a 20+ yr old adult. You would lose your fucking mind if it were YOUR child.

Fucking moron. Get out of the basement, and spend some time with survivors. Tell them what you think. Hell, tell their parents.

Then we will read about your timely demise.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #735 on: March 11, 2014, 03:09:37 am »
You only minimize your own claims of abuse when you equate them to 14 year olds having consensual sex.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

takayama

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: +8/-2
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #736 on: March 11, 2014, 03:27:19 am »
m0rph, seriously just shut the fuck up. you are obviously a sheltered piece of shit who learned everything he knows about pedophiles from wikipedia. go meet some kids who got fucked when they were 12 or 13, and then come tell the thread what you think. i highly doubt you have even laid eyes upon a 13 year old since you were 13.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #737 on: March 11, 2014, 03:30:40 am »
Dur dur dur 14yr old males n females are INCAPABLE OF CONSENT.

They are barely functional, much less capable of entering into a binding covenant. There is a reason 14yr olds don't go to war, don't buy houses, don't work full time, aren't trusted with credit accounts.

They are barely expected to be responsible for their actions and reactions, much less anything remotely involving life long choices that will form either a foundation of quicksand, or of concrete and steel.

There is no way in hell any 14 yrold human is ready for sex. They may be ready to explore their sexuality on their terms, learning about THEIR boundaries. Do you know what a boundary is, fucknut? No, you don't do you.

Boundaries mean NO, that's a bad pedo, and I smack em on da hed.

You are delusional, retarded, and incapable of refuting my statements. You lose.

DING DONG THE MORPH IS PWNED.

Back in your crate.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #738 on: March 11, 2014, 03:38:50 am »
Dur dur dur 14yr old males n females are INCAPABLE OF CONSENT.

Show me a cognitive test that can invariably differentiate between 14 year olds and 18 year olds, and argue as to why the ability to pass this test maps to ability to consent to sex. Then I will agree with you. But when you just make claims without anything backing them at all, I will not agree with you.

Quote
They are barely functional, much less capable of entering into a binding covenant. There is a reason 14yr olds don't go to war, don't buy houses, don't work full time, aren't trusted with credit accounts.

14 year olds are on average in the normal range of adult intelligence. Also, 14 year olds can be charged as adults and executed, since you want to base their inability to consent on some cultural norms.

Quote
They are barely expected to be responsible for their actions and reactions, much less anything remotely involving life long choices that will form either a foundation of quicksand, or of concrete and steel.

They are executed if they commit serious crimes.

Quote
There is no way in hell any 14 yrold human is ready for sex. They may be ready to explore their sexuality on their terms, learning about THEIR boundaries. Do you know what a boundary is, fucknut? No, you don't do you.

Boundaries mean NO, that's a bad pedo, and I smack em on da hed.

I think a big problem is that you seem to think I am arguing that it is open season on 14 year olds and we should hunt them down and rape them. That isn't what I have ever said. I don't think it should be legal to rape 14 year olds. I just don't think it should be illegal for me to fuck a 14 year old in the extremely unlikely event that one walks up to me out of the blue and is like "omg let's fuck!". And I definitely don't think you or anyone else has any right to tell me that I can't look at pictures of 14 year olds flashing their damn mirrors. And the fact that I could go to prison for longer, and certainly not for less time, for doing this than for murdering a 14 year old and raping her corpse is quite telling.

Quote
You are delusional, retarded, and incapable of refuting my statements. You lose.

DING DONG THE MORPH IS PWNED.

Back in your crate.

Project much?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 03:40:59 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #739 on: March 11, 2014, 03:50:19 am »
Welcome to USA, land of the free home of the brave. In good old USA, we think 14 year olds are old enough to be strapped down and injected with chemicals, put in gas chambers and forced to breathe poisonous gas, shoved up against walls and shot by firing squads, and strapped down to chairs and electrocuted. They are, however, CERTAINLY not old enough to decide that they want to suck the dick of someone 4 years older than they are or have pictures of their breasts viewed by someone 4 years older than they are. If you are 4 years older than these people who are old enough to be killed in a variety of ways, you better not have sex with them, because if you do we will send you to prison for less time than we would if you looked at a picture of them flashing, which is possibly more time than we would if you murdered one of them (like we do) and raped their cold dead bodies. Because ******FREEDOM*****
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #740 on: March 11, 2014, 03:54:57 am »
Flash their mirrors? What the fuck kind of euphemism is that?

You can say its ok to fuck a 13 yr old, but you won't say "flash her pussy or flash her vagina"?

How immature are you?

Can you say "Donkey Raping Shit Eater"?

Damn you are fun, fucknut, but real life beckons, my lovely wife is done studying, and we are off for the evening.

DONG

Back in your crate, pimple pedo. 
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #741 on: March 11, 2014, 03:59:31 am »
Dur dur dur 14yr old males n females are INCAPABLE OF CONSENT.

They are barely functional, much less capable of entering into a binding covenant. There is a reason 14yr olds don't go to war, don't buy houses, don't work full time, aren't trusted with credit accounts.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. I was consenting to, and often initiating, sexual activities long before I was fourteen. My faint memories of my first teen years suggest that this wasn't uncommon for people in their early teens, if only mostly with others of a similar age. Indeed, sexual relations within the twelve to sixteen group were largely legal in the Netherlands until quite recently and currently exceptions to the minimum age of sixteen are permitted if a couple are similar in age.

Similar-age relations, of course, may be very different to relations with people significantly older, especially as this often involves at least an unconscious power imbalance. Such relationships in most of our societies often, but not always, lead to severe and lasting trauma in later life.

I'm also afraid that many people of fourteen or under around the world do work full time and do go to war :(
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #742 on: March 11, 2014, 04:01:43 am »
In this thread I argue that it is better to look at pictures of children being raped than to rape children, and that it should be more of a crime to murder a 14 year old and rape her cold dead body than it should be to look at a drawing of Lisa Simpson flashing. My opponents assure me that it is just the same to rape a child as it is to look at a picture of a child being raped, and in their appeals to the law they implicitly claim that it is better to murder a 14 year old and rape her cold dead body than it is to look at a picture of Lisa Simpson flashing. Although one could ostensibly and at surface value interpret this thread as me being a pedophile and my opponents condemning me for it, a deeper more thoughtful look at the thread will reveal that I am actually arguing in the interest of children against a group of delusional people who both minimize and justify the rape and murder of children.

Quote
Flash their mirrors? What the fuck kind of euphemism is that?

You can say its ok to fuck a 13 yr old, but you won't say "flash her pussy or flash her vagina"?

How immature are you?

Can you say "Donkey Raping Shit Eater"?

Damn you are fun, fucknut, but real life beckons, my lovely wife is done studying, and we are off for the evening.

DONG

Back in your crate, pimple pedo. 

It isn't a Euphemism , it is a reference to the fact that huge amounts of jailbait pornography consists of pictures of young teenagers flashing their mirrors and taking pictures of it with their cellphones, pictures which they then share with their young teenage boyfriends, who promptly upload them to the internet for all to enjoy. Young teenagers are huge producers of jailbait pornography, if you count males too then the numbers are even higher young teenage boys take pictures of their dicks like it's going out of style (I actually took a picture of my dick when I was 17, just because I wanted to be able to break the law by taking a picture of my dick before I was too old to break the law by taking a picture of my dick). Young teenage males are also huge distributors of jailbait pornography, both male and female varieties. There is some adult production of it as well, especially in the 11-13 range, some of it professionally in Eastern Europe though they mostly stick to child porn they have produced some younger jailbait porn too (usually legally in their countries, with consent of parents and young teenagers involved). Of course some rape jailbait as well, very often in the 11-13 range, same for molestation stuff. I hear that a new trend is blackmail, which is unfortunate and should of course remain illegal, and a lot of male jailbait is produced with trickery (older guys pretending to be teenage girls). Once you get to the 14-17 range though huge amounts are self produced and distributed, or self produced and distributed by boyfriends who can't keep a secret.

And the law right now in Alabama says if you are convicted of possessing 10 pictures of a 15 year old boy who decided to take 10 pictures of his dick and upload them to the internet, that you deserve to go to prison for at least as long as if you broke into his house, shot him in the head with a gun, and sodomized the asshole of his  corpse. Possibly much longer. And many people in this thread have said that there is no difference between having those 10 pictures or raping him, and they have made appeals to the law and therefore implicitly claimed that they agree that it is actually worse to have those pictures than to murder him and rape his corpse. Which is why *you* are dangerous sick fucks, whereas I am a completely self controlled sick fuck and not actually dangerous. Actually I take that back, I'm actually horribly dangerous seeing as I have raped thousands upon thousands of pretend people, and since in the USA pretend make believe people are afforded the same protections as real people I am actually a serial rapist and probably deserve to be electrocuted like a 14 year old black kid who shoots a white cop.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 05:41:09 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #743 on: March 11, 2014, 04:47:08 am »
Welcome to USA, land of the free home of the brave. In good old USA, we think 14 year olds are old enough to be strapped down and injected with chemicals, put in gas chambers and forced to breathe poisonous gas, shoved up against walls and shot by firing squads, and strapped down to chairs and electrocuted. They are, however, CERTAINLY not old enough to decide that they want to suck the dick of someone 4 years older than they are or have pictures of their breasts viewed by someone 4 years older than they are. If you are 4 years older than these people who are old enough to be killed in a variety of ways, you better not have sex with them, because if you do we will send you to prison for less time than we would if you looked at a picture of them flashing, which is possibly more time than we would if you murdered one of them (like we do) and raped their cold dead bodies. Because ******FREEDOM*****

and how many 14yr old have been executed in the last 40 yrs? 

How many minors for that matter, as many as has been sexualized? raped, taken advantage of by a person in a position of power/trust

Your argument that it doesnt hurt a child to look at naked photos of them..ask yourself how did this photo come into your possession, did the 14yr old girl take it herself and upload it to the internet? unlikely, it does happen but not as often as an ex boyfriend does, sites dedicated to this "revenge" or the worse she was forced to have the pics taken. So do you research every photo?
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #744 on: March 11, 2014, 04:52:27 am »
Welcome to USA, land of the free home of the brave. In good old USA, we think 14 year olds are old enough to be strapped down and injected with chemicals, put in gas chambers and forced to breathe poisonous gas, shoved up against walls and shot by firing squads, and strapped down to chairs and electrocuted. They are, however, CERTAINLY not old enough to decide that they want to suck the dick of someone 4 years older than they are or have pictures of their breasts viewed by someone 4 years older than they are. If you are 4 years older than these people who are old enough to be killed in a variety of ways, you better not have sex with them, because if you do we will send you to prison for less time than we would if you looked at a picture of them flashing, which is possibly more time than we would if you murdered one of them (like we do) and raped their cold dead bodies. Because ******FREEDOM*****

and how many 14yr old have been executed in the last 40 yrs? 

How many minors for that matter, as many as has been sexualized? raped, taken advantage of by a person in a position of power/trust

Your argument that it doesnt hurt a child to look at naked photos of them..ask yourself how did this photo come into your possession, did the 14yr old girl take it herself and upload it to the internet? unlikely, it does happen but not as often as an ex boyfriend does, sites dedicated to this "revenge" or the worse she was forced to have the pics taken. So do you research every photo?

I feel no obligation to not look at pictures that are made available to me, and seeing as I have never forced anybody to do anything I don't particularly see why it matters if somebody else did without me telling them to or supporting them in doing so. Also I have no illegal porn of any sort in my possession, like I already mentioned it dawned on me that it would be stupid to possess illegal porn when I can instead get rich and go live in a country where there is no such thing as illegal porn.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #745 on: March 11, 2014, 05:08:54 am »
The reason this shit is produced is so sicko's can rub one out looking at or watching it. If there were no sickos it wouldnt be produced and therefore no children would be subject to the horrors they are soooo to sum up you are responsible for it happening and therefore are hurting the children if not directly then certainly indirectly
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #746 on: March 11, 2014, 05:16:31 am »
The reason it's produced is because young teenage girls want to show off to their young teenage boyfriends who want to show off their young teenage girlfriends to the internet. Alternatively, it is produced because young teenage males get a rush by uploading pictures of their dicks to the internet. At least that is true of a lot of jailbait porn. Child porn and more coercive jailbait porn is produced for a wide variety of reasons, none of which consist of the fact that I might look at it.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #747 on: March 11, 2014, 05:40:07 am »
it is only very recently that teens upload their own pics and still the lesser amount. The one and only reason childporn is produced is because sickos want to see it. Take the demand away and the production stops that is a fact of all money making schemes
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #748 on: March 11, 2014, 05:48:38 am »
it is only very recently that teens upload their own pics and still the lesser amount. The one and only reason childporn is produced is because sickos want to see it. Take the demand away and the production stops that is a fact of all money making schemes

I think this was already covered toward the start of the thread, but

A. For profit child porn pretty much doesn't exist anymore
B. The number of not for profit child porn distributors is something like eight orders of magnitude more than the number of for profit child porn distributors
C. I never said it should be legal to pay for child porn

And yeah of course it is only recently teens upload their own pics, it's only recently that every teen in a developed country carries a camera and video recorder with them everywhere they go, and only recently that everyone grew up on the internet. I was probably in like the first generation of teenagers who took pictures of their dicks and uploaded them to the internet. I'm a fucking pioneer! But seriously these days a huge amount of jailbait porn is self produced. Why does recently matter?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 05:49:30 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #749 on: March 11, 2014, 05:58:18 am »
I'm just really glad I didn't keep ten copies of the picture I took of my dick with my cell phone when I was 17 and happen to get caught with them in Alabama, because if that happened to me today I would go to prison for at least as long as , and possibly longer than, someone who broke into the house of a 14 year old girl shot her to death and fucked the bullet wounds of her corpse.

Because freedom.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #750 on: March 11, 2014, 06:08:57 am »
Welcome to USA, land of the free home of the brave. In good old USA, we think 14 year olds are old enough to be strapped down and injected with chemicals, put in gas chambers and forced to breathe poisonous gas, shoved up against walls and shot by firing squads, and strapped down to chairs and electrocuted. They are, however, CERTAINLY not old enough to decide that they want to suck the dick of someone 4 years older than they are or have pictures of their breasts viewed by someone 4 years older than they are. If you are 4 years older than these people who are old enough to be killed in a variety of ways, you better not have sex with them, because if you do we will send you to prison for less time than we would if you looked at a picture of them flashing, which is possibly more time than we would if you murdered one of them (like we do) and raped their cold dead bodies. Because ******FREEDOM*****

and how many 14yr old have been executed in the last 40 yrs? 

How many minors for that matter, as many as has been sexualized? raped, taken advantage of by a person in a position of power/trust



care to answer these questions?

whats the obssession with alabama? 

i think earlier you said it should be more of a crime to murder and then have rape a 14yr old, than to just rape a 14yr old.. i know i would have prefered to be murdered then raped  instead of just raped
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #751 on: March 11, 2014, 06:19:20 am »
Welcome to USA, land of the free home of the brave. In good old USA, we think 14 year olds are old enough to be strapped down and injected with chemicals, put in gas chambers and forced to breathe poisonous gas, shoved up against walls and shot by firing squads, and strapped down to chairs and electrocuted. They are, however, CERTAINLY not old enough to decide that they want to suck the dick of someone 4 years older than they are or have pictures of their breasts viewed by someone 4 years older than they are. If you are 4 years older than these people who are old enough to be killed in a variety of ways, you better not have sex with them, because if you do we will send you to prison for less time than we would if you looked at a picture of them flashing, which is possibly more time than we would if you murdered one of them (like we do) and raped their cold dead bodies. Because ******FREEDOM*****

and how many 14yr old have been executed in the last 40 yrs? 

How many minors for that matter, as many as has been sexualized? raped, taken advantage of by a person in a position of power/trust



care to answer these questions?

whats the obssession with alabama? 

i think earlier you said it should be more of a crime to murder and then have rape a 14yr old, than to just rape a 14yr old.. i know i would have prefered to be murdered then raped  instead of just raped

22 people have been executed for crimes they committed as underage teenagers, since 1976.

Alabama was just the first state on a list of states when I looked up pertinent laws, I am sure plenty of other states would be more than happy to give you more time in prison for having ten pictures of a 17 year olds dick than they would give you for shooting a 17 year old and fucking the bullet wounds. The USA is a very sick country and all of the states in it are very sick, I just went with the first one.

Wow someone who explicitly gives credence to the idea that it may be better to have stricter laws against having sex with minors than murdering minors and raping their corpses. How about this, since you prefer eternal oblivion to living after having been raped, how about you kill yourself? Because until you kill yourself, I am going to have to call bullshit on your claim.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #752 on: March 11, 2014, 06:38:10 am »
In Wyoming

A conviction for ------->

possession of 10 pictures of a 17 year olds dick = 50 years mandatory minimum, 120 years maximum

Murder of 17 year old and sodomizing of 17 year olds corpse = life without parole or death

so it looks like it is actually worse in Wyoming to murder a 17 year old and fuck his corpse than it is to have 10 pictures he took of his dick, although it is is possible in either case that you would spend the same amount of time in prison. At least it isn't as bad as Alabama though, where you would have much better odds of being released from prison if you were convicted of murdering a 17 year old and fucking his corpse than if you were convicted of having ten pictures he took of his dick.

Oh, but guess what! The age of consent in Wyoming is 17!

so

possess ten pictures of 17 year olds dick ------> mandatory minimum 50 years in prison, maximum 120 years in prison

suck the dick of a 17 year old consensually and then fuck him in the ass ------> get high fives from all of your gay friends

I went with the first and the last, let's pick a random one in the middle now! :

In Iowa:

A conviction for------->

possession of ten pictures of 17 year olds dick = maximum 20 years no minimum
Murder of 17 year old and sodomizing his corpse = mandatory life without parole
fucking 16 year old in the ass consensually = high fives from your gay buddies

wow Iowa is strikingly more sane than Alabama, how nice that some states in the USA guarantee you will go to prison longer for fucking the bullet wounds in the 17 year old you shot to death than you will for having ten pictures of his dick.

Maryland is actually much better, they have a maximum penalty of ten years for any number of pictures and no minimum sentence. That's what I love about Maryland, they make it abundantly clear that they would rather you look at as many pictures of a 17 year olds dick as you want rather than shooting a 17 year old in the head and fucking the asshole of his corpse.


Wow looks like New Jersey doesn't even have laws against possession of pictures of 16 or 17 year olds in pornographic situations. So in New Jersey feel free to have all the pictures of 17 year old dicks that you want, but if you have ten of them in Alabama you would be better off to have shot a 17 year old and sodomized his corpse.

Missouri up to 70 years for 10 pictures of a 17 year olds dick, no minimum.

Florida up to 50 years, no minimum.

So it looks like Alabama is actually pretty much the worst state to get caught with child porn in, and not entirely representative of the entire USA.

But the problem is that in most (but apparently not all) states child porn charges stack. Having one picture of a 17 year olds dick in Florida is punished by up to 5 years, but every additional picture is an additional up to 5 years. So if you have twenty pictures of a 17 year olds dick you can be sentenced to up to 100 years in prison, without mandatory minimum. When you add stacking + mandatory minimum, like in Alabama, it gets absurd fast. If there is a mandatory minimum of 10 years for having one child porn image, like in Alabama, having ten pictures suddenly is mandatory 100 years in prison (Alabama maxes out at 99 years though). But it is even more absurd than this because in addition to stacking possession charges they also will charge for multiple related offenses. If you possess child porn you must have received it, and possession and receipt are separate charges, so now your 10 charges of possession are actually 10 charges of possession and 10 charges of receipt and they are all stacked, and they all have mandatory minimums of say 1 year and now you are facing twenty years mandatory minimum for having 10 pictures of a 17 year olds dick, and there isn't shit you can do in court about it because it is MANDATORY MINIMUM and there is NO DEFENSE if you possess the pictures you are fucked and that is pretty much all these is to it unless you can prove someone else put them on your computer. But really you will not only get possession and receipt but since you are a dumb fuck who used P2P software not even knowing how it works you probably distributed it too, and since the police downloaded all 20 of your images from your shared folder now you also have 20 counts of distribution which is pretty much game over in any state. These days it is safe to say that the majority of people who possess child porn distribute it without even realizing that they are distributors, but the courts already said that a persons lack of knowledge of how the P2P software they downloaded CP with works is not a defense. So in states that stack, which most do, you are just absolutely fucked if there is a mandatory minimum and you get convicted. Most people with CP have at least a few dozen pictures, if there is a mandatory minimum and they are in a state that stacks they are going to get life in prison if they are convicted. Next thing you know you have people who downloaded 10 pictures of a 16 year old flashing her mirror off of a P2P network, and they are being charged with 10 counts of possession of child porn, 10 counts of receipt of child porn, 10 counts of distribution of child porn, 10 counts of advertising child porn, and they all have at least two year mandatory minimums and now they are going to prison for 80 years for having downloaded pictures of someone they could have probably legally fucked in the first place! And the feds and police PRETEND that this never happens (just like NOBODY goes to prison for possessing marijuana), but it is ON THE LAW BOOKS and people have gone to prison for having CARTOONS.

But the real problem is that it is illegal at all!
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 08:01:52 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #753 on: March 11, 2014, 06:45:05 am »
I did try and kill myself after and also used large amounts of drugs to mask my feeling it wasnt until i was well into my 20's i became able to seek help to deal with what happened. For ages i wished I would have died instead but when it came down to it I didnt want to hurt my family like that, sorry for being compassionate towards others, where as if i had been an orphan or just homeless etc i would have tried until i succeeded. Honestly you have no idea of the pain shit like this causes to so many youths the world over and your callous remarks clearly show how cold and heartless towards your fellow man, it is starting to make sence now why you can advocate such things.... I feel sorry for you

22 not really close to the amount abused etc, so not a very good comparison   
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #754 on: March 11, 2014, 06:47:19 am »
In Wyoming

A conviction for ------->

possession of 10 pictures of a 17 year olds dick = 50 years mandatory minimum, 120 years maximum

Murder of 17 year old and sodomizing of 17 year olds corpse = life without parole or death

so it looks like it is actually worse in Wyoming to murder a 17 year old and fuck his corpse than it is to have 10 pictures he took of his dick, although it is is possible in either case that you would spend the same amount of time in prison. At least it isn't as bad as Alabama though, where you would have much better odds of being released from prison if you were convicted of murdering a 17 year old and fucking his corpse than if you were convicted of having ten pictures he took of his dick.

Oh, but guess what! The age of consent in Wyoming is 17!

so

possess ten pictures of 17 year olds dick ------> mandatory minimum 50 years in prison, maximum 120 years in prison

suck the dick of a 17 year old consensually and then fuck him in the ass ------> get high fives from all of your gay friends

sorry that doesnt make sence if the age of concent is 17 than how is it illigal to have photos of a 17yr old
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #755 on: March 11, 2014, 07:31:31 am »
In Wyoming

A conviction for ------->

possession of 10 pictures of a 17 year olds dick = 50 years mandatory minimum, 120 years maximum

Murder of 17 year old and sodomizing of 17 year olds corpse = life without parole or death

so it looks like it is actually worse in Wyoming to murder a 17 year old and fuck his corpse than it is to have 10 pictures he took of his dick, although it is is possible in either case that you would spend the same amount of time in prison. At least it isn't as bad as Alabama though, where you would have much better odds of being released from prison if you were convicted of murdering a 17 year old and fucking his corpse than if you were convicted of having ten pictures he took of his dick.

Oh, but guess what! The age of consent in Wyoming is 17!

so

possess ten pictures of 17 year olds dick ------> mandatory minimum 50 years in prison, maximum 120 years in prison

suck the dick of a 17 year old consensually and then fuck him in the ass ------> get high fives from all of your gay friends

sorry that doesnt make sence if the age of concent is 17 than how is it illigal to have photos of a 17yr old

Wow could it be you are starting to wake up?! IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE AT ALL. The age of consent in Alabama is 16. You can have consensual sex with a 16 year old girl. But if she gives you ten pictures of her flashing her mirror, and you get caught with them, you will get a MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE OF 99 YEARS IN PRISON, WHICH IS 88 YEARS MORE THAN THE MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE YOU WOULD GET IF YOU BLEW HER FUCKING BRAINS OUT AND FUCKED HER CORPSE IN THE ASS.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 08:52:45 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #756 on: March 11, 2014, 08:32:25 am »
btw guess what, if someone kills you and rapes your corpse you don't get to get over it.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #757 on: March 11, 2014, 09:06:55 am »
3000 counts, better hope there are not minimum sentences or he is getting something like 6,000 to 60,000 years in prison. He should of just raped an 8 year old I guess, he would have probably gotten less time and we all know it's just as bad to rape 8 year olds as it is to look at pictures, right? Isn't that what you guys keep telling me?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/queens-man-charged-with-3000-child-pornography-counts/

Quote
A 35-year-old Queens man was arraigned Tuesday on more than 3,000 counts of child pornography after the authorities found more than 1,500 graphic photos and videos of young girls on his computer, prosecutors said.

The man, Elvis Infante, was caught after the networking Web site Ning notified the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that 12 pornographic images of children had been uploaded in 2009 from an e-mail address used by Mr. Infante, according to court papers.

In November 2010, a detective went to Mr. Infante’s home on Granger Street in Corona,  where he lives with his parents and siblings, and found 80 images on his computer of naked girls between 2 and 11 years old, some of them engaging in sex acts, prosecutors said. Mr. Infante, who works as a product designer, told the detective that he had been sent the images by other people, according to court documents.

Further investigation turned up more than 1,000 still photos and 500 videos of child pornography on Mr. Infante’s computer, the Queens district attorney’s office said. He was charged with 1,544 counts of possessing child pornography and 1,544 counts of promoting it by uploading the material, prosecutors said.

A judge set Mr. Infante’s bail at $100,000, the district attorney’s office said. It was not immediately clear whether he had posted it. His lawyer, Thomas McCullough, did not immediately return a call on Tuesday evening.

With 1000 counts this guy is lucky he lives in a state without mandatory minimums, though he is facing up to 5,000 years in prison

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/st-petersburg-man-accused-of-having-more-than-1000-images-of-child-porn/1267985

Quote
ST. PETERSBURG — More than 1,000 images of child pornography were found on a St. Petersburg man's computer Thursday morning after police executed a search warrant at his home, authorities said.

Arthur Ray Taylor, 61, was arrested at about 8 a.m. after officers carried out the warrant. He was booked in the Pinellas County Jail on 15 counts of possession of child pornography, but police said additional charges could come later.

It was not immediately clear what led police to request the warrant at Taylor's home at 6609 32nd Way S. He has no criminal record in Florida.
Address records indicate that Taylor has lived in St. Petersburg for a little more than a year and previously lived in Illinois and California.

Taylor was being held in jail on $300,000 bail.

Welp this guy is fucked 10,000 counts in Mississippi I think they had mandatory minimum  so he will get out in probably 20,000 or so years if he is convicted of all of them

http://www.thv11.com/story/news/crime/2014/02/20/1762728/
Quote
PINE BLUFF, Ark. (KTHV) - Pine Bluff Police said they have found child pornography on a man's computer.

According to public information representative Regina VonTungeln, David Boyd, 42, was charged with 10,000 counts of Computer Child Pornography after police found just as many files on his computer and other digital media that he owned.

VonTungeln said the evidence against Boyd started stacking up when the state of Mississippi's Attorney General's Office initiated an investigation over a suspicious IP address. That address turned out to be Boyd's, and the investigation was turned over to the Pine Bluff Police Department.

Several items were taken for evidence from the residence and more charges are pending further investigation, according to VonTungeln.


I'm glad they are finally starting to crack down on the major producers and distributors of jailbait porn though

http://www.dailydot.com/news/teenager-nude-selfies-child-pornography-charges/

Quote
Ever since hormone-fueled teens got their hands on smartphones, authorities have been trying to prevent their sexts from being widely disseminated on the Internet.

In their efforts to dissuade teens from taking naughty selfies and posting them online, the police department in James City County, Va. is taking a rather aggressive approach: they’re charging a local 16-year-old who posted nude selfies on Twitter with child pornography distribution.

Police in James City County, Va. say that the 16-year-old posted the nude pictures on Twitter around Jan. 30, and that the photos were also distributed to a handful of male classmates. After police received an anonymous tip about the photos, they notified the girl’s school and charged her with one count of child pornography distribution, due to what police refer to as the “lewdness” of the photos.

According to James City County Police representative Stephanie Williams-Ortery, who spoke to local news station WAVY 10, the girl will most likely be forced to attend a court-mandated sexting education program, and will not be registered as a sex offender due to her juvenile status.

But it’s possible that she could face charges in criminal court for distributing the photos, and might even be forced to serve jail time (the mandatory minimum sentence for distribution of pornography in the United States is 5 years jail time).

This is not the first time a teen’s sexting habits have led to child pornography charges. Last month, a Canadian teenager was convicted of child pornography possession and distribution after posting a nude photo of her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend on Facebook, and a Halifax 14-year-old was arrested last year for posting a video of himself having (consensual) sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend.

Due to the harsh penalties of child pornography laws, as well as the youth of the defendants, many critics have argued that prosecuting minors for sexting is an “overzealous and inappropriate application of the criminal law,” as one civil rights attorney in Harrisburg Pa., where eight middle and high school students were charged with child porn possession last year, puts it. Advocates for stringent child pornography laws argue that prosecuting minors acts as a deterrent for other kids to avoid sexting themselves.

H/T WAVY | Photo by Pro Juventute/Flickr


What a sick and twisted little bitch I hope they cut her fucking ovaries out and set her on fire. Sending her to prison for 5 years is not nearly enough, every time someone views that picture she took of herself she is going to be abused all over again and it will ruin her fucking life, she definitely needs to go to prison for the rest of her life imo.


AWESOME more of those sick fucks producing jailbait porn and getting the prison sentences they deserve for it ! Thank God we have moral crusaders looking out for the childrenz.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/surge-in-children-charged-over-child-porn-as-more-kids-get-involved-in-sexting/story-fni6uo1m-1226817114627

Quote
THE number of children and teenagers charged with child pornography offences has tripled over the past five years and police say the vast majority are related to the "sexting" of images on phones and other digital devices.

Children as young as 11 have been charged, prompting Attorney-General John Rau to consider legislative changes to child-pornography laws to reflect the true nature of such the offending.

The increase, from 15 offences in 2008/09 to 44 offences last financial year, has also prompted Mr Rau to raise the issue with interstate counterparts and federal Attorney-General George Brandis to explore possible solutions to the growing problem.

Mr Rau said that under existing laws the practice of sexting - sending or receiving sexually explicit images - falls within the definition of child pornography and a conviction for a teenager has "long-lasting, severe consequences'' that would follow them through their later life.

"Facing a child pornography charge is a very serious matter, particularly given a conviction for a child pornography offence may lead to the young person being placed on the Child Sex Offender Register,'' he said.

"The current law is a blunt instrument when it comes to dealing with sexting type behaviours.''

Mr Rau said if a teenager convicted of such an offence ended up on the register, any future employer would be likely to become aware of it.

"They are potentially going to be, on the face of it, people who are difficult to differentiate from paedophiles until you explore in depth how they got on the register,'' he said.

"That is a pretty dramatic outcome.''

The register is designed as a record of adult offenders, but convicted minors can be placed on it under a specific order from a court if this is applied for by the prosecution. There are presently no minors on the register.

Mr Rau said one possible legislative change could involve finding a way of "discreetly separating this particular part of behaviour'' and providing a "different stream of managing these cases'' so they were dealt with in a court-based intervention program, rather than through formal prosecution.

He said the figures were alarming and clearly corresponded with the availability of smartphones and the "questionable wisdom'' of parents who provided them to their children.

"You are combining young people, zero supervision and very powerful technology,'' he Mr Rau said.

"We have 10 and 11-year-olds completely unsupervised and with no idea of the consequences, either in the short, medium or long term, of this sort of behaviour. It is frightening.''

Mr Rau says education for both children and parents should be part of a strategy to counter the problem and that schools would be involved.

He plans to put the issue on the agenda for the next state and territory attorneys-general meeting and COAG justice council meeting.

Deputy Police Commissioner Grant Stevens said police were concerned at the increase in sexting and particularly teenagers who did not understand the long-term ramifications of their actions.

"Young people need to be aware that the consequences of sexting have the potential to surface unexpectedly in their adult lives,'' he said.

He said police believed the increase in sexting was directly related to the explosion in the number of teenagers now owning smartphones.

Under existing child pornography laws, it is an offence for any person anyone to transmit or possess sexually explicit pictures of a person aged under 17. Penalties can include up to 10 years in jail.

TELL US: What advice do you have for parents to deal with kids sexting?

"For young people this includes taking and sending images of their own body,'' Mr Stevens said.

"We While the law is very specific on this issue, police use discretion at all times when investigating complaints or concerns over sexting. "However, we won't hesitate to take action against those who had deliberately ... attempted to obtain inappropriate pictures for the purpose of wider distribution.

"For victims, particularly teens, there can be long-term damage and permanent consequences. Once these images are out there, you have no control as to who will access them or when.''

He said police have taken a collaborative approach with schools, parents and teenagers, presenting workshops and presentations on the topic.

An Education Department spokeswoman said a review of the child protection curriculum taught in public schools, which covers internet and mobile phone safety and the risks associated with sexting, will be completed in time for term two. Teachers will receive extra training to teach the updated course.

Unley High School principal Susan Cameron said five students were involved in sexting incidents last year. She said police visits, where officers talk to students about the legal ramifications of sexting, was one of the many measures used to successfully raise awareness of the issue.

Sonya Ryan, who started the Carly Ryan Foundation in 2010 after internet predator Garry Newman killed her 15-year-old daughter, will speak at St Andrew's School at Walkerville today.

Principal Deb Dalwood said it was the latest initiative the school has used to help upper primary students, parents and staff tackle social media issues.

Kangaroo Inn Area School principal Annie Matthews last year arranged for cyber safety expert Susan McLean to visit her small school in the state's South East to talk to students, teachers, parents and the wider community about the dangers of the internet.

"A lot of the discussion was around the apps, things like SnapChat, that young students had on their phones," and iPods," she said.

University of SA academic Dr Lesley-Anne Ey, who has published research papers on cyber safety for children, the risks associated with internet usage and sexting, said the police figures represented only a small portion of children who would be sexting.

"They are the ones where the parents or others have taken it further. There would certainly be way more than that that go undetected. Parents may feel like they have done a poor job and not take it further or children might be humiliated and not want to take it further,'' she said.

"There would certainly be a huge underlying group of children doing it and nothing is being done about that," she said.

Dr Ey said any changes to legislation should be carefully considered and each incident of sexting involving children should be reviewed on a "case by case'' basis. She and agreed there needed to be more community awareness of the issue. in the community.

"It needs to be taken into educational institutions so that they are actually taught about this,'' she said.


Damn wonder what the mandatory minimums would have gotten this sick fuck 72 charges of child porn for sharing nude pictures of his 16 year old girl friend right after he turned 18. If he lived in Alabama instead of Florida he would have gotten mandatory life.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/phillip-alpert-sexting-teen-child-porn/story?id=10252790

Quote
Two years ago, following a fight with his 16-year-old girlfriend, Phillip Alpert, then 18, did something really stupid.

"It was 3:28 in the morning, I think it was, and I got up and I went to my computer, and I sent a couple of pictures that she had sent to me to her contact list," Alpert told ABC News. "And I went back to sleep."

Because of that single action, Alpert, now 20, is a registered sex offender, Florida Department of Corrections No. x61836. For sending the images, Alpert was arrested on charges of child pornography.

Teen Sex Gone Viral
null

"I forgot I did it," Alpert said. "I was barely awake when I did it and I didn't even remember and ... then a few days later, my mother called and says, 'Why are there police officers at the house?' I went -- 'Oh no!' And it came back the same way a dream does."

"When I got home, the police were waiting for me," Alpert continued. "They were going through everything that was electronic in my house. My computer, my discs, my MP3 player, just everything. Looking for any other kind of nude photographs, evidence, whatever.

"I was charged with everything. I was charged with lewd and lascivious battery. They charged me with child pornography, they charged me with distributing child pornography, I mean just an incredible amount of charging."

null
null

Alpert faced 72 charges in all.

Note that Alpert didn't take the pictures, but he was in possession of them, he distributed them -- and he had just turned 18. He pleaded guilty... and that began Alpert's nightmare.

"I was forced to register as a sex offender, and that is wherein lies the big problems," Alpert said. "Being a registered sex offender means ... I can't live like near a school or a playground or a park. There's a whole lot of stuff I can't live near -- bus stops, stuff like that ... so basically, I just can't live in a city. It means every six months I have to register as a sex offender."

Sexting: 'Technically It Is Child Pornography'

NYU law professor Amy Adler says "sexting" -- teens sending and receiving pictures of themselves in sexually suggestive poses -- wasn't even on the Supreme Court's radar when justices made their pornography ruling 28 years ago.

"Technically, it is child pornography," said Adler. "But I don't think it's the kind of case where child pornography law is the right legal framework to use to judge it."

"It's a particularly bad kind of sexting, because it really is a malicious embarrassment of another person," Adler continued, referring to Alpert's case. "So while there may be some sort of criminal sanction that's appropriate in this scenario, to me child pornography law is simply inappropriate here. Again, because it's not the case of a pedophile exploiting a child and sexually abusing that child in order to take a picture. It's more of an invasion of privacy."

A recent survey said one in five U.S. teens had participated in sexting. Forty-four percent of teens surveyed said they knew risque messages or pictures get shared, and a whopping 75 percent said they know sexting was a bad idea with "serious negative consequences."

Florida attorney Lawrence Walters took Alpert's case pro bono -- not just for Alpert, he said, but for other teens.

"I think it's an important case and Phillip is a good person," said Walters. "He's also a perfect spokesperson for this issue because terrible things happened to him and he can make a difference in people's lives by showing that the law is serious and bad things will happen if you engage in this behavior, but also, maybe show the lawmakers that the law needs to be changed."

Walters acknowledged that Alpert had distributed images of an underage girl.

"Phillip did something that about 20 or 30 percent of high school students do, and it is a mistake, it is something that shouldn't be done, nobody condones," said Walters. "On the other hand, we have a legal system that treats this behavior as something horrendous, on par with child molestation -- and it simply isn't ... the law simply hasn't recognized this unique phenomenon of children texting, or sexting each other, in high school."

Vanessa Hudgens of "High School Musical" fame and "Hannah Montana"'s Miley Cyrus apologized a couple of years ago for sexy pictures of them that came out. It's the kind of thing that may enhance a star's career -- or at least not impede it -- but can land everyday ordinary teens in trouble with the law.

"One thing is I think we may be sending mixed messages to teens right now, because mainstream culture is showing teens in all sorts of sexual scenarios," said Adler. "Mainstream television with "Gossip Girl," showing teens hooking up, Miley Cyrus engaging in what many people thought was pole dancing at the "Teen Choice Awards." So on the one hand we have mainstream sexual depiction of teens, and on the other hand we're telling teens that if they do that themselves, they can go to jail."

Sexting: 'It's an Odd Situation'

Plenty of teens are finding that out. In Iowa, Jorge Canal had to register as a sex offender, like Alpert, for sending a nude picture of himself to a 15-year-old girl. He was 18 at the time. In separate cases in Pennsylvania and Ohio, kids who've sent or received and distributed sexy photos have agreed to curfew, community service, or no cell phone or Internet usage for a few months.

"Child pornography law was crafted to protect children from pedophiles, that's the idea behind it," said Adler. "But now what we have is the law applying to situations where the child himself or herself is making the pornography. So it's this odd situation where suddenly the pornographer and the victim are one in the same person. And in my view that's not the kind of scenario that child pornography law should cover."

Three states -- Nebraska, Utah and Vermont -- have already changed their laws. Fourteen other states, including Florida, where Alpert lives, are considering changes.

"We have a House bill, 1335, that is -- has been proposed," said Walters. "It would treat sexting as a non-criminal offense. In other words, a child or a teenager who sent these pictures or created the pictures would get a $25 fine and be forced to do community service. That would wake them up to the fact that this is an illegal activity and they shouldn't be doing this, this is wrong. And then if they do this a second or a third time, the punishments go up. That, in my view, is an appropriate way to approach this."

Adler talked about how the cases might be tried.

"Depending on the facts of the case, I would say a lot of these cases shouldn't be heard in court at all," Adler said. "These are cases where teens are engaging in bad judgment, which teens have always done, and suddenly finding themselves caught in the web of the criminal law because, whereas previously they may have engaged in inappropriate sexual banter on the telephone, now there's a photographic record of that sexual banter, and that is what triggers the scrutiny of child pornography law."

For Alpert, it means he's on a sex offender registry until the age of 43.

"This will follow me around for the rest of my life," said Alpert. "My probation is up, that'll be three years. I then have 20 years on the sex registry, and then I can petition to be taken off of it, and then can be approved or denied. When I am a 20-year-old kid and I explain that I am a sex offender, it's bad. When I am a 40-year-old man and I explain that I am a sex offender, it's going to look a lot worse."

Sexting: Charge Girlfriend, Too?

Technically, Alpert's ex-girlfriend also could have been charged for taking the pictures and sending them to Alpert, but she wasn't. And he's glad.

"I always say that I can't say it to my ex-girlfriend specifically, but I want to reiterate that I am sorry," said Alpert. "I really am, and it's not because I'm a sex offender, because I got kicked out of school, because I'm on probation, I can't go to the beach, whatever. It's because what I did and I'm sorry for it. And I mean, I said it. I can't do anything else besides say I'm sorry over and over and over, and I don't think it's enough, but it's all I've got right now."

On the day he met with "Nightline," Alpert was preparing for a college interview. He needed to convince administrators he's not a danger to other students in order to be admitted.

"It was a 16-year-old girl who sent me pictures when I was 17," said Alpert. "What I did was stupid, and it was mean and it was angry and it was deviant. But it was not sexual in my mind. I wasn't thinking clearly. Well, the argument could be made, 'if he wasn't thinking clearly once, he could not be thinking clearly again.' But I have certainly matured enough and I have worked hard trying to understand why I did what I did."

He and his lawyer hope the change in law -- if passed -- will be retroactive for Alpert. But until that time, he will be the face, at 20 years old, of a sex offender.

The Florida prosecutor's office didn't feel the same way. In a statement to "Nightline," the prosecutors defended their position, saying "in the criminal prosecution of defendant Phillip Alpert, we were bound to follow legislative intent of the law. That means Phillip Alpert remains a registered sex offender until he's 43 years old."

Another busted jailbait production ring! Way to go cops!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ten-teenage-boys-face-child-pornography-charges-in-quebec/article15439548/

Quote
Child pornography, peddled by children. That’s the serious accusation levelled at 10 adolescents arrested Thursday in the Montreal area.

The boys allegedly coaxed their friends and girlfriends into posing for pictures they later shared among themselves.

Aged between 13 and 15 years old, they were arrested in a sweep early Thursday in Laval, a suburb just north of Montreal.

They face various charges – including the production, possession and distribution of child pornography – and are expected to appear in youth court later Thursday.

A Laval police spokeswoman said they are hopeful the myriad files, at least one of them a video, were not widely distributed.

“We think that we intervened quickly enough to limit the spread of these pictures,” said Constable Nathalie Lorrain, a police spokeswoman.

The arrests come as the issue of “sexting,” and sharing sexually explicit images, has been front-and-centre across the country with the high-profile deaths of two teenage girls within months of each other after they were victims of bullying and harassment.

Amanda Todd, 15, took her own life last October after allegedly being the target of online sexual exploitation, bullying and harassment. Her story drew international attention after she went public on YouTube with the harassment she had been subjected to.

Halifax teen Rehtaeh Parsons, 17, hanged herself in April after months of bullying following an alleged sexual assault in 2011. An image of the assault was allegedly captured and widely distributed.

So far, police say they have identified seven victims – with all of the girls in the same age bracket as the accused. Police have met with the girls and their parents.

Lorrain said police have yet to go through a number of devices they seized Thursday. Other victims might be identified once police go through smart phones, laptop computers and tablets that were all seized as part of Operation Magma.

“The study of these items will allow us to know who received these images and if there were any more victims,” Lorrain said.

Police said the network included students attending three English-language high schools in Laval. The schoolboard overseeing those schools says they are co-operating with authorities and are sending a letter home to parents to explain the situation and offer assistance to students that need it.

“I want to take an opportunity to implore parents to be vigilant in regards to their children’s use of technology,” said Stephanie Vucka, director general of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier school board.

“Many of the incidents we end up dealing with at school occur off-premises and off school hours but come back into the school setting once students are together.”

Vucka said she couldn’t say if any further sanctions were coming for the students arrested Thursday, saying the matter was in the police’s hands for now.

She said issues of sexting and bullying are widely discussed at school.

“It’s certainly not just prevalent at Sir Wilfrid Laurier, this is an endemic issue and it’s being discussed in Quebec and Canada-wide,” Vucka said.

The Laval investigation began in earnest in October after a staff member at one Laval high school noticed that kids were huddled around a phone, looking at an image of a girl that was clearly sexually explicit.

“This teen was taken to school administrators and the parents were also contacted,” Lorrain said. “An investigation was triggered.”

Police say the first images were found within that teen’s phone. The victims were identified and said they had sent photos, but not to the teen in question. Over the course of the investigation, police identified more teen boys as part of the so-called network.

Some victims posed willingly and were in relationships with the accused.

“That’s what made them confident,” Lorrain said.

“Because they were actually sending the picture to their boyfriend, but of course this boyfriend was sending it to one friend and then another.”

Others had to be coaxed into posing.

Apparently none of them knew, however, that the images were being shared.

Lorrain said there were no threats or intimidation or money exchanging hands.

But in certain cases the boys were insistent. In one case, one of the accused is alleged to have sent a picture of himself to push the girl to do the same.

Police frequently discuss the issue at schools – with the message being one of respect for oneself and one’s friends.

The consequences of such images can be dramatic and create life-long problems, she said.

“It can do a lot of damage, actually,” Lorrain said.

Lorrain said the 10 accused and their parents were aware that a police investigation was underway, but were not informed they were going to be arrested Thursday.

Lorrain said some of the boys’ parents were not happy with police.

“Some of them were almost mad at police for even thinking about charging their boy with something like that,” Lorrain said.

“They’re minors, too, but it doesn’t excuse the fact they could have ruined someone’s life with that.”

Thursday’s arrests and seizures involved 40 police officers, half of them specialized investigators.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 09:32:29 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #758 on: March 11, 2014, 09:39:22 am »
I have to say though I am super grateful to teenagers for two reasons

1. They produce loads of hot jailbait porn which I will be jacking off to regularly when I move to a free country

2. They keep getting sent to prison and forced to register as sex offenders for doing so, and it is starting to piss people off, and some states are starting to consider just flat out legalizing jailbait porn because of it, and over enough time it will lead to the legalization of jailbait porn at least for young teenagers at first, but that is just a foot in the door, and it will eventually be flat out just legalized, and that will set the groundwork required for lowering the age of consent and the legalization of all child pornography possession
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 09:41:13 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #759 on: March 11, 2014, 09:55:51 am »
hmm about one out of every four teenagers in USA has taken and shared pornographic photographs of themselves now (it was 1 out of 5 but numbers have been growing rapidly)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/one-in-four-teens-admit-to-sexting-study-finds/

Quote
(CBS News) It may come as no surprise that teens who "sext" may be more likely to engage in sexual behaviors. However, new research is showing that teens who are asked to sext - regardless if they agree to or not - are more likely to have had sex.

According to new research published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine in July 2012, one-fourth of teens admitted to having sent a sext. And, 76.2 percent of teens who were asked to send a sext, even if they don't agree to do it, admitted to having had sexual intercourse, compared to only 38.2 percent of teens who had not been propositioned.

Teens keen on sexting racy photos? What new studies show

"Given its prevalence and link to sexual behavior, pediatricians and other tween-focused and teen-focused health care providers may consider screening for sexting behaviors. Asking about sexting could provide insight into whether a teen is likely engaging in other sexual behaviors (for boys and girls) or risky sexual behaviors (for girls)," the authors wrote.

Rates on the amount of teens who participate in sexting - which the study defines as the practice of electronically sending sexually explicit messages or images from one person to another - have ranged from 1 percent to 31 percent in various studies.

Researchers asked 948 teens - 55.9 percent of which were female - who were enrolled at seven public high schools in Texas and were between the ages of 14 to 19 if they ever sent naked pictures of themselves, if they had ever been asked to send a naked picture, if they asked someone to send a naked picture and how bothered they were by the request.

The results showed that over one-fourth of the teens admitted to sending a sext, but more girls (68.4 percent) were asked to send a sext more than boys (42.1 percent). Teens between the ages of 16 and 17 were more likely to be propositioned for a sext, and the requests declined in those 18 and older.

Boys were more than twice as likely to ask for a sext than girls, and girls were nine times more bothered by someone asking them for a sext than their male counterparts.

Overa;;. Ninety-three percent of girls and 90 percent of the boys said they had started dating, and 51.1 percent of girls and 54.6 percent of boys said they had sexual intercourse. Boys were slightly more likely to have sex with more than one partner in the last year than girls. In addition to the finding that those being propositioned were more likely to have sex, 95.7 percent of the sexually active teens were not bothered with being asked for a sext. About 77 percent of girls who reported having sent a sext also admitted to having sex, compared to 42 percent of girls who hadn't sexted. When it came to boys, 81.8 percent who had sexted said they had had sex, compared to 45.4 percent of boys who hadn't.

"Based on several informal conversations with counselors, teachers, parents, and students, I was actually surprised it wasn't a bit higher," Dr. Jeff R. Temple, a psychologist and assistant professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, told HealthDay.

He stopped short of making a judgment of whether or not sexting is bad for minors.

"Other than the potential for harassment when the pictures are disseminated or the potential for legal troubles, I don't think we have an answer," Temple said. "While we found that sexting may be a reliable indicator of sexual behavior, we cannot say if sexting preceded or followed sexual behavior, and we definitely cannot say it caused a teen couple to have sex."

 (innocent poor little asexual victims that they are) about 21,000,000 teenagers in USA, let's say only 15,000,000 of them are 13-17, so 3,750,000 teenagers in the USA producing and distributing jailbait porn. If 1% of it makes it to the internet that means there are 37,500 different teenagers aged 13-17 who have nekkid pictures available of them online. Probably they would have at least five different pictures in circulation, so something like 187,500 self produced jailbait porn pics in general circulation. Yum yum can't wait to move to Uruguay and hunt them all down :D.

Of course this isn't counting all the teenagers in the UK, Western Europe, etc. Of course this phenomenon will be isolated to more well to do countries where every kid has a camera phone and/or webcam, but let's get a really rough estimate here. Hard to find even estimates, but it looks like maybe there are about 3.3 billion teenagers in the world. Well if they are equally distributed into subsections that would be about 2,357,142,857 are 13-17. Let's cut that into 16ths and say one 16th live in countries where they are likely to have phones with cameras or webcams, no idea the accuracy of this but seems fair enough. So about 147,321,428 , let's say that American teenagers are particularly promiscuous and the world teenagers who have smart phones and webcams only produce and distribute jailbait porn at a rate of 1:10 , giving us 14,732,142 producers/distributors of jailbait. Let's say that 1% makes it to the internet, so 147,321 different teens and if we go with the 5 pictures per from before, 736,605 or so self produced jailbait porn pics in general circulation.

But more likely 1/4th of teens in most developed countries are sexting, and the numbers are higher than I suggested. In Ireland studies show about 1/4th are, same as in USA

http://www.independent.ie/tablet/technology/one-in-four-irish-children-has-taken-part-in-sexting-29931190.html

Quote
Clodagh Sheehy – Updated 20 January 2014 07:07 AM
THE spiralling problem of children "sexting" has prompted a leading psychologist to call for guidance on this issue in a new sex education programme planned for schools next autumn.

Forensic psychologist Dr Maureen Griffin says one in four children in this country send or receive these sexually explicit photograph and text messages, and children as young as 10 are involved.

The Department of Education has confirmed it is developing a programme for junior and senior second-level students on "personal safety".

Now Dr Griffin wants to ensure that sexting is included in the programme.

She says it is extremely important that this issue is covered in the lesson plan.

Her call follows moves in the UK, where Education Secretary Michael Gove has bowed to pressure from teachers, parents and sexual health experts to update sex education in schools to include the dangers of online pornography and sexting.

Dr Griffin stressed that while parents have a primary role in monitoring their children's phone use, schools are increasingly being faced with the problems.

Sexting, along with phone and internet pornography, is "rife among school children from third class upwards and sometimes even younger," said Dr Griffin, whose company, Internet Safety for Schools, delivers programmes covering the whole area of cyber-bullying.

She said that children and teenagers using social media like Snapchat "don't understand the wider implications of what they are doing.

"They think once they send the picture it's gone and don't understand that someone can take a screenshot ... and send it on.

CONSEQUENCES

"They are distanced from sending these pictures because they are only pushing buttons on their phone and it removes them from thinking about the consequences".

She added: "Everyone knows what to do if a man with a bag of sweets comes up and asks you to get into his car -- but we need to break down the distance technology creates."

The psychologist emphasises that "education is key" in helping young people to deal with peer pressure, giving them the tools to block and deal with sexting when it happens, but also reassuring them that they have the right to say "No".

So in summary, I have no problems not raping people (even though I think it would be enjoyable, I know it is wrong and it isn't something I even wish I thought would be enjoyable), not blackmailing people for porn (even though I know I could get away with it, I just wouldn't do it because it is wrong, even though I have no doubt that the FBI nor anybody else would ever be able to stop me but I can stop myself), and not being a general jackass.....but asking me to look the other way when there are millions of hot teenagers in a rush to upload pictures of their tits and pussies is just asking far too much. And if they grow up and decide they wish they didn't post their pictures all over the internet, I honest to god just don't give a fuck or see how it is my problem or fault. I'm not the keeper of your slutty teenage daughter, sister, or niece, and though I'm not going to manipulate her into posting noodz, I'm also not going to feel the slightest bit bad about it when I jack off to them when she does. And if I am at no risk of legal trouble from doing so, you can be certain that I would fuck her if the opportunity arose, because really why the hell wouldn't I fuck a hot young teenager, I've wanted to fuck hot young teenagers since I was like 12 and as far as I can determine absolutely nothing has changed about them other than the fact that they are even more sexually developed at that age than they were when I was! And I think it's absurd you expect me to have suddenly stopped wanting to fuck hot young teenagers when I turned 18, because sexual attraction has no special theory of relativity, it's straight fucking classical Newtonian. And if I ever have a daughter who can't keep her shirt on, I promise I wont try to get you sent to prison or kick your teeth in if you don't squeeze your eyes shut, plug your ears with your fingers, and scream "LALALA I CAN'T SEE YOU" when she takes it off, because expecting you to do that would be just as absurd IRL as it is on the internet.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 12:21:45 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #760 on: March 11, 2014, 04:09:25 pm »
I swear every time I come back they’re like 5 new pages of what you must consider evidence to support your case. Well I will be the self elected “judge”

I sentence you to a harsh punishment… not just for your child sex abuse crimes but for the diarrhea of information you shove down our throats.

1. I order you to being covered in honey… but only your torso not to include the hands.

2. I order you to having your hands, feet, and prized sex organs covered with a burlap sack that has been soaked in a rotting meat juice.

3. I order the release of thousands of fire ants ( no more than ten thousand by estimation)

4. I order the release of “new york” style super rats (no more than 8)

Good luck son… sometimes we have to pay for our crimes. I suggest you run off like a little bitch because I wouldn’t want to live threw that.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #761 on: March 11, 2014, 06:24:40 pm »
this is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because....

Look, m0rph is never going to give up. Sure, his logic is fucked. But frankly those that are not hyper-obsessive over a 22 year old's god given right to rape a 13 year old is never going to prevail in his silly little internet war of attrition.

Of course, if it ever came to real life and he came near a 13 year old daughter of mine who he unilaterally decided was capable of consent and thus thought he and her were going to make passionate love together, he'd find I was capable of coming up with infinite ways to snuff the life right out of him.

So rationalise your beliefs to yourself at exorbitant length here all you like, m0rphy. But be aware that if you try to branch out into the real world and apply your fucked up rationale to the daughter of an upstanding father, prepare to die. Painfully.

Hell. I would kill you without even thinking if you raped a 13 or 14 year old daughter of mine and the cops didn't get you first. And it wouldn't be a clean kill, either. It'd be nice and slow. I was going to say I'd stay and enjoy watching you die, but no. I'm not an animal. I wouldn't enjoy it. But I wouldn't regret it, either.

At the very least I'd make some rudimentary physiological adjustments to ensure you could never apply your fucked up rationale to another innocent child. You might also have significant troubles using a urinal in future, too.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #762 on: March 11, 2014, 06:26:05 pm »
Quote
I swear every time I come back they’re like 5 new pages of what you must consider evidence to support your case. Well I will be the self elected “judge”

What's kind of funny is that he thinks people read it.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #763 on: March 11, 2014, 08:42:07 pm »
wow you are such a bad ass. I'm just shaking in my boots. 1/4th of US teenagers have taken naked pictures of themselves with their phones, I wonder if your daughters are in circulation.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #764 on: March 11, 2014, 09:25:54 pm »
first they will legalize sexting between teens

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/04/13/vermont-considers-legalizing-teen-sexting/

Quote
The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called "sexting" between teenagers.

Sexting refers to the exchange of explicit photos and videos via mobile phone. Under current laws, participants can be charged with child pornography, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.

Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don't want to condone the behavior but they don't think teenagers should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.

The bill passed the state Senate earlier this month. The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on it this week.

http://www.examiner.com/article/should-sexting-be-legalized-for-teens

Quote
Vermont’s House Judiciary committee will hear arguments this week to legalize “sexting,” or the “consensual exchange of graphic material between two people 13 to 18 years old.”   This information was reported by Adam Silverman, Staff Writer for the Burlington Free Press. Vermont’s Senate already approved this proposal earlier this month.
 
          Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, told the reporter “This isn’t an issue of whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing — I think it’s wrong — but the question is, do we want kids to be prosecuted, called sex offenders, etc., etc., for consensual conduct? No.”
 
          While prosecuting a teen who has “sexted” as a distributor of child pornography or as a sex offender certainly over exaggerates their crime, shouldn’t the government have some type of consequence to help dissuade teens from exchanging graphic material? Or, is this a sexual issue, a private matter that should handled by teens and their parents?
 
          As the parent of two teenagers, I would argue that two people exchanging private pictures (though not a good idea) does not constitute a crime. However, the distribution of those pictures (e.g., forwarding a picture text to hundreds of people) should still be punishable by law.
 
          We know that teens make mistakes, and that the legal system has overreacted to “sexting.” (Remember Phillip, the young man who was prosecuted as a child pornographer?) Nevertheless, simply legalizing “sexting” is not the answer. We still need laws that protect the victims of “sexting,” while punishing the perpetrators, without condemning them for the rest of their lives.
 
          What do you think about legalizing “sexting?”


haha look at the moral crusaders sweating bullets over this (and may they burn in hell for wanting to label teenagers taking pictures of themselves as sex offenders)

http://www.fullnessoftimes.com/writings/default.aspx?i=46

Quote
A recent survey commissioned by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and Cosmogirl.com found that nearly 1 in 6 teens and young adults have engaged in sexting, a fairly new phenomenon of sending illicit pictures or videos of oneself—ei¬ther nude or in sex acts—to others using a digital device such as a cell phone.
With its growing popularity among teenagers, FBI special agent Dan Vierthaler calls sexting "a big problem that has become epidemic."
ACLU defends teen sexting
Despite the many dangers of the practice, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Pennsylvania girls who engaged in sexting illicit pictures of themselves to male students, claiming they have a Constitutional, First Amendment right to both produce and distribute what is legally classified as child pornography.
Sexting illegal
Teens describe sexting as a means of "flirtation" or for a "joke." But it is no laughing matter; sexting is a serious crime despite feelings to the contrary. State and federal laws targeting sexual predators and pedophiles make no distinctions regarding the age or condition of someone charged with possessing, producing, or distributing child pornography.
Beyond expulsion from school, those caught sexting face child pornography laws and being registered as sex offenders. Sexting places future employment and educational opportunities in jeopardy. It can also brand a teen as sexually promiscuous which can lead to unwanted sexual attention and even date rape.
And while teens frequently fail to comprehend that after leaving their hands sext messages are out of their control and often widely circulated, they have even less understanding that deleting the messages from their phones does not completely remove them. Digital forensics investigators can typically recover "deleted" data from digital devices (including computers, cell phones, iPods, and PDAs) months, even years later.
Vermont lawmakers seek to legalize teen sexting
With the recent legalization of same-sex marriage behind them, Vermont lawmakers have turned their sights to decriminalizing child pornography.
Vermont Senator Richard Sears, D-Bennington and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee says sexting is "not something we want to give our OK to," but worries about kids going to jail or being required to register as sex offenders over sexting.
Senate Bill 125, "An Act Relating to Sex Offender Registration," passed the Senate with a vote of 29:0, 1 absent. Mixed with other sex offense legislation is a unique and dangerous exemption which reads:
This section shall not apply if the person is less than 19 years old, the child is at least 13 years old, and the child knowingly and voluntarily and without threat or coercion used an electronic communication device to transmit an image of himself or herself to the person. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit a prosecution under section 2605 of this title (voyeurism).
This language carves out an unprecedented exemption for consenting teens involved in sexting from prosecution under child pornography laws. In reality, it legalizes child pornography for this group.
Actions speak louder than words. While voicing non-approval, the lawmakers have their rubber stamp in hand, poised to decriminalize child pornography for teens. Many are even calling this a "fad"—as if to say it will go away on its own in time.
Legalizing teen sexting is unwise
There are several problems with the direction Vermont lawmakers are taking:

    Immoral behavior is not a "fad" but a trend. No one ever drifts to the right. This, and all immoral behavior, will never go away without the preaching of, and adherence to gospel principles—especially the law of chastity.
    If this were a fad, there would be no reason to legislate an exemption. In fact, there is no reason. The history of other morality laws, such as sodomy laws (before they were federally overturned several years back), and prostitution laws, show us that choices are made to simply not enforce those law.
    What happens in the case of sexual harassment—where the recipient is offended by the illicit message?
    Not taking a hard stance on this issue can be viewed as condoning the behavior and encouraging its continuance.
    An exception creates a legal loophole for child pornography.
    An exemption legislates immorality onto the books.
    An exception legalizes the production and distribution of child pornography.
    An exemption creates an untouchable group, free to peddle child pornography without fear of prosecution.
    Being untouchable, teens are more likely to produce and distribute even more explicit content.
    A new network of underground businesses will emerge to take advantage of this legal loophole. Predators will hire these untouchable teens as recruiters of other teens to produce and peddle child pornography.

Also important, as Pat Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, explains, "even if Vermont legalizes the production of child pornography by sexting, those same kids who think they're safe can be prosecuted by the federal government."
Addressing the problem
The Vermont legislators are making some very poor decisions with long-term repercussion that haven't been adequately addressed.
While prosecution ensures that the message gets through about seriousness of the crime, as an alternative to jail time teens could be assigned compulsory service to assist organizations that work with abused children. This, along with counseling, can help teens truly understand the long-term consequences of their actions, including outside their sphere of friends.
Parents need to protect their children and themselves by being carefully and fully involved in all forms of connected media used by their children.



Of course this will open up all kinds of legal problems. On the one hand it will shit on the argument that we don't all have freedom of speech to be able to possess noods of hot high school girls. But more importantly it will introduce problems like, oh well this 16 year old boy had a nude photo of his 16 year old girlfriend legally, but he just turned 18 and still has it, but he tried to delete it from his phone even, but oh noez our forensic people pulled it off his phone after we busted him selling pot. What do we do now? Oh it must be legal still or else the law legalizing teen sexting is little more than a trap and a charade. Oh so now it is legal for 18 year olds to have in their possession nude pictures of teenagers? So I guess it is legal for adults then. It will swing the doors wide open and after states start legalizing it for young teenagers to produce and distribute and possess nudes of young teenagers, it will be in very short order legal for adults to. And the alternative option is labeling every single fucking kid in the USA as a sex offender, because first 1/6ths then 1/5ths and at last check 1/4ths of teenagers in USA produce distribute and possess nude photographs of each other. So in time we will come to one of two conclusions, either jailbait porn will be legal for everybody to possess, or every single kid in the USA will be on the sex offenders registry.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-21/news/45419841_1_offenders-maureen-kanka-parole-officers

Quote
TRENTON A bill that would exempt New Jersey teenagers caught sexting with their peers from registering as sex offenders stalled in the Assembly on Thursday.

The measure was scheduled for a vote by the full Assembly but hit a last-minute snag, said Wayne P. D'Angelo (D., Mercer), one of its sponsors.

"It was a done deal," D'Angelo said, adding that he was "highly disappointed" by the setback, which stemmed from a provision that would impose a $30 monthly fee on sex offenders to pay for increased oversight by parole officers.

A similar version cleared the full Senate by a 35-0 vote this year.

The bill would make changes to Megan's Law that lawmakers say are needed to address a growing problem with minors who "sext" explicit photos, videos, or texts from one cellphone to another.

Under the current law, teens caught "sexting" must receive the same treatment as sex offenders convicted under the law, first adopted in 1994. They must register, and the community must be notified.

"Essentially, they're branded for life as sex offenders," said Sen. Linda R. Greenstein (D., Middlesex), one of the bill's Senate sponsors.

"We're not justifying sexting. We're only saying that it should not be a Megan's Law offense," she said.

Maureen Kanka, whose daughter, Megan, 7, was raped and killed by a neighbor who was a convicted sex offender in Hamilton Township, told lawmakers at a committee hearing last month that she wanted to keep teens who were not serious predators off the registry.

New Jersey became the first state in the country to adopt Megan's Law, and many states and the federal government followed suit.

Under the proposed changes, minors who share nude photos of themselves with other minors could be adjudicated as delinquent in Family Court, but would no longer be subject to the offender registry.

Other provisions would toughen penalties for adult offenders and for those who fail to notify authorities when they move.

In a compromise to avoid a possible conditional veto by Gov. Christie, a provision that would have set a 40-caseload maximum for parole officers who supervise offenders was struck from the bill, D'Angelo said.

But the bill ran into trouble when Democrats balked at the $30 fee, he said.

D'Angelo said the bill may come up again Jan. 6.

Look at what your stupid child pornography laws really are. You claim you are protecting children with them but what you really did is criminalize 1 out of every 4 teenagers in the entire United States. And now you sick fucks in the name of the children fight tooth and nail any attempt to prevent them from being forced to register as sex offenders and fucked for life, in the name of the children. Tell me how it got to the point that to protect the children you stupid fuck moral crusaders decided you needed to make them all registered sex offenders? You say you protect them from ruining their lives by ruining their lives for them, you are no better than drug warriors. And the reason you are so set on fucking over teenagers is because you want to make sure that older people don't look at pictures of your slutty daughters, and I can't wait for the day that the police come to your house and tell you that she is facing five years in prison for the photo she took of herself flashing her mirror that she then posted on the internet.

I think the issue is that you people are old fucks and completely out of touch with the modern world. It really makes me pity you. Your little backwards culture is coming to an end, you are getting old and dying, and young people are getting old and taking political power. I really wont shed any tears for the death of your oppressive backwards religious indoctrinated policies though!
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 09:40:22 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #765 on: March 11, 2014, 09:49:46 pm »
Great news guys! A huge CP production ring has been busted! I hope they all fry!

http://poststar.com/news/local/local-sexting-case-involves-dozens-of-teens-police-say/article_190eb1c6-6444-11e3-be71-001a4bcf887a.html


Quote


WHITEHALL -- Whitehall Police and State Police are investigating a widespread teen “sexting” case centered in Whitehall, in which officers have discovered that at least 20 underage girls sent sexually explicit photos to at least 30 boys, officials said.

Most of the students involved are Whitehall High School students, but police did find that some students at other area school districts had been sharing the photos as well, Whitehall Police Detective Frank Hunt said.

The investigation began with a parent discovering that a girl had sent an inappropriate photo to her boyfriend via a cellphone, and he shared it with others. The practice is known as “sexting,” a play on the word “texting,” for sending a text message.

Hunt said police found that boys were exchanging numerous photos of girls.

“The photos became like trading cards, they were sent all over in exchange for other photos,” Hunt said.

Whitehall Police Chief Matt Dickinson said criminal charges may be filed against some of those involved and the investigation is ongoing.

It is a felony to take, share or possess an explicit photo of a person who is younger than 17. Those over age 16 who were involved could be prosecuted as adults.

“There are potential charges, but we’re going to see how it goes with intervention programs first,” Hunt said.

Police and Sexual Trauma and Recovery Services of Washington County has been assisting the young women who sent photos of themselves that have been spread via electronic devices.

Hunt said many of the teens just grasp that the practice is illegal and the photos can go anywhere in the world, circulate for years and wind up in the hands of pedophiles or posted on websites.

“Once you hit send, that photo can wind up anywhere,” Hunt said.

School Superintendent Elisabeth Legault said the school district plans to host in the coming weeks an educational assembly for students about the issue that will involve the FBI, local police and counselors.

High school Principal Kelly McHugh said Whitehall Police, State Police, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, FBI and the Sexual Trauma and Recovery Services will be taking part in the assembly, tentatively set for Jan. 14 in Whitehall Central School.

“I’d like to open it up to other districts as well as have parents attend,” McHugh said.

Weeks before the sexting investigation began, a young Whitehall man who allegedly sent an explicit photo of himself to a 12-year-old girl and tried to set up a sexual encounter with her was arrested and charged as an adult by Whitehall Police.

Cody M. Fitzpatrick, 17, of Whitehall was charged with disseminating indecent material to a minor, a felony, in connection with the photo he sent, court records show. He has been released, pending further court action.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #766 on: March 11, 2014, 09:54:28 pm »
Wheeew look at the size of this child exploitation enterprise!


http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/2-sexting-investigations-may-involve-hundreds-of-students-in-Madeira/19102884

Quote

MADEIRA, Ohio —Police said hundreds of Madeira High School students may have been involved in a sexting case.

Chief Frank Maupin said his department was investigating whether students circulated photos of nude or sexually involved students on their cellphones.

Students, who spoke to WLWT News 5 on the condition of anonymity, said the activity happens more frequently than people talk about.

“I didn't really know that it was that much of an issue until police were at the school every day and everyone was getting questioned,” one junior told WLWT News 5.

Officers said they confiscated eight cellphones from students last month that had videos on them made by a male student who has since been expelled.

"They were pretty, uh, unusual videos," Maupin said.

Maupin declined to describe the contents of the video, but he said police initially became involved in the case after officers were called to the school when that same student was accused of exposing himself to female students.

“Nobody sends those things thinking they're (going to) get out,” a student said.

Investigators then said hundreds of Madeira students and possibly others outside the school had received or circulated images depicting nude female students.

In a separate incident, police said eight to 10 girls took pictures of themselves and shared the photos with other students on cellphones.

In the January case, the student has been charged with a felony count of disseminating sexually explicit material to minors. His attorney says he's not guilty.

Madeira Principal Tom Olson said school officials have been explaining to students that their "digital footprint" lasts forever, and he said they would be meeting with students in small groups over the coming days to discuss the issue.

“I think definitely a lot of students (have) learned a lesson from it,” a student said.



another ring of disgusting hebephiles and ephebophiles pwnt

Quote
School officials are denying allegations that Solon High School students are spreading nude photos of freshman girls.

Claims like these have been popping up at high schools across the country, since more teens have cell phones. Pew Research Center said in 2013 that 78 percent of teens have a cell phone and 47 percent of them have smartphones.

A 2013 study by the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston examined data from more than a thousand 10th graders at a large school district in Texas. The research found that more than 20 percent of students admitted sending a nude or semi-nude photos or videos, or sexts. More than 30 percent said they received a sext message.

Research from the Internet Watch Foundation reported as much as 88 percent of sexually-explicit pictures and videos were “stolen” or uploaded to another website. The organization warns teenagers that inappropriate pictures you send to one person could be seen by many more pairs of eyes.

And Northeast Ohio isn’t immune to these sexting cases. Two 16-year-olds at North Ridgeville High School took pictures of their genitalia and shared the images, The Chronicle-Telegram reported on Friday.

“These kids were basically engaging in a case of ‘show me yours and I’ll show you mine’ kind of behavior,” North Ridgeville police Officer Calvin Cross told the newspaper.

Just this fall, a mother of a Cleveland Heights seventh grader told school officials she found nude photos of a girl on her son’s phone. Reports said she also discovered her son sent a naked photo of himself and the students exchanged sexually-explicit texts.

Last year, police said hundreds of students were involved in sending and receiving nude photos of a student at Madeira High School in Cincinnati. A student was charged with disseminating sexually explicit material to minors, which is a felony.

Ohio is home to the Jessica Logan Act, which requires schools to educate students on sexting and set up anti-bullying programs. Logan, an 18-year-old student at another Cincinnati high school, sent naked photos to her boyfriend in 2008. When the two broke up, he sent them to other teens, who harassed Logan. She hanged herself in her bedroom.

Texting and social media aren’t just the ways teens disseminate the explicit photos. That’s also how alleged rape victims continue to be harassed.

In 2012, a Missouri high school senior had sex with a 14-year-old girl while another student took video of the incident. The prosecutor said the video couldn’t be found, but it was supposedly being passed around school. The boys were charged, but eventually the case was dropped.

But the abuse continued. Students at Marysville High School took to social media to threaten the alleged victim and her family. The brother of one of the teens involved posted on Twitter that he hoped the girl “gets whats comin."

In the Steubenville rape case, a photo of two football players holding the passed-out victim circulated the Internet. Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond were found guilty of raping a 16-year-old girl after a night of drinking in 2012 and sentenced to time in a youth prison.

"No one will really know what happened that night. No one," said Walter Madison, Richmond’s attorney. He referred to the photo, adding, “This picture tells a thousand words… “It does not tell the whole story.”

That picture actually helped fuel social media attention in the case and drew the involvement of hacking group Anonymous.

Do you believe the spreading of sexual photos happens at your child’s school? What do you do to stop them from participating? Tell us in the comments section below.

BAM another secret pedophile organization PWNT by the moral crusaders for Jesus ... er I mean the police

http://www.wthr.com/story/24917667/2014/03/07/bloomington-police-uncover-20-victims-in-high-school-sexting-case

Quote
Police are investigating a sexting scandal involving students at a central Indiana high school.

What started with one student at Bloomington High School North has spread to 20 kids exchanging nude photos of themselves and others.

Lifelong lessons of embarrassment and humiliation are being learned at the high school, where police uncovered 20 cases of cell phone sexting and what is legally considered dissemination of child pornography.

"It was a much bigger problem than we had anticipated. We have identified nearly 20 people who have (been) victimized as a result of this. And in many cases, what happened was a photo that was shared with someone they thought they could trust," explained Bloomington Police Capt. Joe Qualters.

The text messages included girls and boys, some as young as 14 years old.

"As disturbing as it may be, it not only involves high school students, but even dips down into the middle school," revealed Qualters.

"Oh, if it happened to her, I'd hunt them down," said Jean Burdine, a Bloomington parent who was picking up her daughter Friday afternoon.

Burdine heard about phones confiscated at Bloomington North just like they were weeks ago at Avon High School when similar sexting concerns came to light.

"Hopefully, it gets stopped. Kids have to learn that it's not okay to post naked pictures. Something has to be done, I mean, it's porn. It's a crime," said Burdine in disbelief.

"Flirting electronically with someone else is how I would describe their attitude towards it," said Bloomington North Principal Jeff Henderson.

According to Henderson, the first case of what he calls "electronic flirting" came to light when a female student reported her ex-boyfriend was sharing the nude photo she texted him prior to their break-up.

"That investigation led us to uncover a significantly larger number of images that had been circulated among students. So we immediately contacted the Bloomington Police Department," he said.

While Henderson says none of the photos were taken at school, an undisclosed number of students have been disciplined for using the photos for intimidation and bullying.

"Not only is it illegal, but also it can have long-term ramifications," cautioned Qualters.

While Bloomington Police say there will likely be no charges, there's plenty of embarrassment to go around. The school says it will continue to try to educate students about the danger of "flirting electronically."

Classes on Internet safety are already included in the health curriculum at Bloomington North. Henderson told Eyewitness News the school will have a school-wide educational event with experts from Indiana University.

Internet and mobile safety experts say it's important parents understand their child's digital world.

First, they say to make sure you're familiar with the numbers on your child's cell phone. Be suspicious if your kids hide their phones or computers around you, and be familiar with all the functions your child uses on their phone including social media, chat sites and gaming systems.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 10:04:56 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #767 on: March 11, 2014, 10:09:48 pm »
more busted jailbait production organizations

http://www.examiner.com/article/sexting-scandal-exposed-30-teen-girls-7-san-diego-schools-felony-charges (sorry, but I just got an erection reading this headline. 30 teen girls exposed?! Sounds awesome!)

Quote
A sexting scandal which began when a dozen San Diego teen girls sent nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends is a rude awakening that sending nude pictures on the internet is considered a criminal offense. “Police say possessing and distributing these types of images is considered child pornography and is against the law,” reported San Diego’s 10News on Oct. 30, 2013.

"The individuals took pictures of themselves in very compromising positions, exposing various parts of their bodies, and very, you know, unflattering," said Lt. Chuck Haye of the San Diego Police Department.

Once the pictures made it onto the internet, the photos quickly made the rounds to several friends at seven different schools in northern San Diego.

San Diego’s 10News has identified Carmel Valley Middle School, Canyon Crest Academy, and Cathedral Catholic High School to be three of the schools involved in the sexting scandal.

At least 30 students have been involved in the sexting scandal and could be facing felony charges for distribution of child pornography. “Those students are accused of sending sexually explicit photos of themselves to others, which is something investigators say amounts to child pornography.”

Possession and distribution of child pornography is a felony and San Diego police are saying that they are planning to file criminal charges soon. All of the students who are being investigated and who are facing criminal charges are minors.

"SafetyNet, a program of the San Diego Police Foundation, www.SmartCyberChoices.org offers additional resources for parents. Anyone with information about this case can call the San Diego Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force at (858) 715-7100 or Crime Stoppers at (888) 580-8477."

Lt. Chuck Haye of the San Diego Police Department emphasized that teens and parents need to be aware of the consequences of sending or posting nude photos on the internet even if those pictures were originally meant to be just between two teens.

"I think a lot of the kids don't realize and they think it's funny and innocent. Next thing you know, anything you do ends up on the World Wide Web and leaves a digital footprint that can scar them for the rest of their lives."

Damn so many secret pedophile rings these days

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-12-24/news/0912230943_1_cell-phones-sexting-school-district-spokesman

Quote
Plainfield police said they have seized nine cell phones after a 16-year-old high school honors student took a nude photograph of herself and sent it to a male student.

The picture quickly went viral on campus, and a Plainfield East High School official contacted authorities last week, prompting what police are calling their largest-ever sexting investigation. In one sign of how quickly the photo spread, some of the original senders told police they had received it from other people last week, according to court documents.

Viewing the photograph and forwarding it are technically violations of child pornography statutes, though police and the Will County state's attorney's office say they typically handle such cases through juvenile probation. No one has been charged.

"It's something that's starting to become more and more of a problem," said Plainfield police Sgt. Anthony Novak, who supervises the department's four school-based officers.

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 4 percent of teen cell phone owners ages 12 to 17 reported sending a "nude or nearly nude" image of themselves to one another and 15 percent reported receiving such a photo. The survey found that students whose parents paid their cell phone bill were less likely to send or receive such images.

It's not clear how many of Plainfield East's roughly 1,300 students received or forwarded the photo, but it could easily number in the hundreds, police said.

Police also aren't sure why the girl sent the photo, but they hope to retrieve text messages the two exchanged before and after it was sent, Novak said.

He described the girl and boy as acquaintances.

After a Plainfield East official contacted police Dec. 16, the girl told a detective she sent the "fully nude" photo of herself to a boy at the school this month, according to court documents. The boy told police he sent the photo to four other students, three of whom reported forwarding it.

Nine cell phones -- including two that were already found to contain the photo -- have been turned over to computer forensic specialists at the Will County Sheriff's Department.

A school district spokesman declined to comment Wednesday, citing student privacy concerns. School board Vice President Roger Bonuchi said only that parents should warn their children against "doing immoral acts."

Russell Sabella, a Florida professor who is past president of the American School Counselors Association, said even bright teens can be overly trusting. He advises students not to write or send anything they wouldn't want shared on stage.

Even if the person you're sexting doesn't forward the photo, he or she could lose their phone and someone else could distribute the images, Sabella said.

http://www.10news.com/news/3-of-7-schools-exposed-in-teen-sexting-scandal-10292013

Quote
SAN DIEGO - Team 10 was tipped off to the names of three of the seven schools involved in a sexting scandal which could lead to charges against dozens of students.

Those students are accused of sending sexually explicit photos of themselves to others, which is something investigators say amounts to child pornography.

The schools are in the North County. They include Carmel Valley Middle School, Canyon Crest Academy and Cathedral Catholic High School.

It started with a dozen local teenage girls sending nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends. Soon, those photos made the rounds to several friends at seven different schools.

Lt. Chuck Haye of the San Diego Police Department says it is considered a criminal offense.

"The individuals took pictures of themselves in very compromising positions, exposing various parts of their bodies, and very, you know, unflattering," he said.   

At least 30 students from six high schools and one middle school are involved. Police say possessing and distributing these types of images is considered child pornography and is against the law.

"Sometimes these go to places these young women had no idea they were going to go," he said.

Gordon Cooke's 14-year-old daughter attends Canyon Crest, one of the schools being investigated.

"I think I need to sit down and talk with my kids so they understand what's going on and that this is pretty serious stuff and it could wreak havoc on their lives," he said.

Cooke says while it may have just seemed like fun between friends, he says teens and parents need to be aware of the consequences of sending or posting nude photos.

"I think a lot of the kids don't realize and they think it's funny and innocent," he said. "Next thing you know, anything you do ends up on the World Wide Web and leaves a digital footprint that can scar them for the rest of their lives."

San Diego police say they will file criminal charges soon. They have not said when that will happen. All those being investigated are minors.

Cathedral Catholic High School officials released the following statment regarding the report:

"The news media reported that several students from various schools around San Diego County, including Cathedral Catholic High School, are under investigation for a sexting scandal. We are unaware of any of our students involved in this investigation.

We have asked our school community to refrain from speculating and engaging in rumors that could hinder the investigation or erroneously identify innocent students.

During the past year we have provided our students, parents and faculty numerous Wellness education programs including a Town Hall Forum about Keeping Kids Safe with expert panelists including doctors, lawyers, members of law enforcement, and social media experts.  We will continue to offer these types of educational programs for our community. We invite our families to attend our next Wellness program for students and parents on Thursday, Nov.14th, M3 Rock & Talk, 6:30-8pm at The CCHS, Claver Center."

Possession and distribution of child pornography is a felony.

The Internet task force warns that inappropriate pictures can haunt a teenager for years, if not forever. Here is a list of recommendations issued by the task force to help parents keep their children safe:

- Understand the technology that your child is using. Know about your child's phone, as well as social network sites, gaming systems and chat sites. Some of these could have messaging and photo-sharing options.

- Remind your kids, once the image is sent, it can never be retrieved. They will lose control of it. Talk to your kids about how they would feel if their teachers, parents, friends and the entire school saw the picture. Discuss your expectations and the potential legal and social ramifications of sending inappropriate pictures or spreading them online.

- Talk about the pressures to send revealing photos. Let your children know that you understand how they can be pushed or dared into sending something. Tell them that no matter how big the social pressure is, the potential social humiliation can be hundreds of times worse.

- Communicate house rules. A child should have pre-established house rules before they receive a phone.

    Phone will be charged at night in parents room (Parents can review contents and keeps kids from texting all night)
    Must maintain grades at a certain level
    Must be a productive member of the family

- Check your phone bill and make sure you recognize all numbers on it. Kids text all the time. Ask children about any number that you don’t recognize.

- You are the Parent. You pay the bill. You own the phone. Therefore, you have the right and responsibility to be a good watchdog.  Privacy has to do with changing clothes and going to the bathroom, not ignoring all of their tech communication.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 10:15:29 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

BioGen

  • CURRENTLY SUSPENDED - INACTIVITY
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 722
  • Karma: +94/-65
  • CURRENTLY SUSPENDED - INACTIVITY
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #768 on: March 11, 2014, 10:12:14 pm »
FUCKING SICK!

LOOK UP STINSTON HUNTER UK! THIS GUY IS A FUCKING LEGEND!

PLEASE VISIST THE GREEN CAMEL 2.0

bg
http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/items/diazepam-10mg-x-50-pills

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/items/valium-10mg-x100pills

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/items/valium-10mg-1000-pills

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/items/fentanyl-injection-50ug-1ml-10ml

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/items/uk-xanax-next

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #769 on: March 11, 2014, 10:14:21 pm »
haha no more filth on the hidden wiki thanks to doxbin, cop that loser
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #770 on: March 11, 2014, 10:18:41 pm »
more jailbait rings pwnt

Quote
A smartphone prank by some local high school students was actually child porn, according to prosecutors.  Now, a whole town is having a collective frank discussion about personal discretion, internet use and privacy.

“I feel bad,” said a Ridgewood High School senior girl about fellow students who had exchanged naked photographs over two popular applications, Snapchat and Instagram.  ”They’re like, our friends.  We’re close to some of these people.”

“Everyone had the pictures.  Everyone had seen the pictures,” another student, a sophomore boy, said to PIX11 News.

“It’s almost like people think, ‘This’ll never happen to me,’” said Stephanie Weston, a Ridgewood High School senior.

What happened, however, ended up being big.  Now, police investigators prepare to file charges of possession of child pornography and endangering the welfare of a child against anyone who does not delete from their phones or computers the photos that some freshman girls took of themselves on the Snapchat app.

Snapchat is a popular image sharing app because it deletes pictures almost immediately after they’re sent from one Snapchat user to another.  In the case of the Ridgewood High School freshman girls, however, the images went viral.

The girls snapped the photos of themselves naked, and sent them to a boy they know via Snapchat.  The girls had assumed the images would be deleted about two seconds after they had sent them.

However, the boy knew how to screen grab Snapchat images before they disappeared.  He captured the naked images, and uploaded them to his Instagram photo sharing app.  From that point on, the pictures were online for anybody to see.

That was last fall, near the beginning of the school year, according to some students who had seen the pictures.  ”They’d been going around school for awhile,” a sophomore boy told PIX11 News.  ”People had seen them for awhile.”

School administrators, however, weren’t completely aware of the problem until last week.  The schools superintendent sent out a letter to parents Wednesday that said the posted images were “of real or simulated sexual acts… of naked or semi-naked persons.”

The letter called for parents to “promptly speak to their children about this behavior and to ensure that if their children are in possession of this type of material that it be deleted from their phones and other electronic devices immediately.”

If the images are not deleted by Monday at 7:00 A.M., the letter warned, anyone possessing them risked being arrested on child porn charges.

One mother, Jean Muchel, told PIX11 News that she had checked her 16 year-old son’s smartphone to ensure that it was free of the pictures of the girls. It was those girls, Muchel said, that she was most concerned about.

“They must be embarrased, humiliated.  These things can last a long time.”

The girls and the boy involved could face in-school disciplinary action, according to the school superintendent.

and more http://www.wbtw.com/story/24841352/sexting-scandal-has-police-involved-in-ma


Quote
A sexting scandal has erupted in Walpole, Massachusetts involving several students at the high school. The police and the school have opened investigations.

Walpole Schools Superintendent Lincoln D. Lynch III confirmed there have been several alleged cases of inappropriate texting among students.

Students tell WBZ-TV that a group of about 15 girls sent naked photos of themselves to boys and those pictures were widely shared.

The incidents have drawn a mix of anger and embarrassment.

"Every school does it. We just happen to be the one school that gets caught doing it," Brian Jackowski, a junior, told WBZ-TV.

"It's kind of ridiculous how the girls are just that willing to send out pictures of themselves," said Walpole High senior Colton Mitchell. "It's kind of sad; they send one to one guy and they just keep passing them around, and before you know it the whole school has seen them."

In a written statement, Superintendent Lynch said he wanted to, "assure the entire Walpole Public Schools' community that this matter is being dealt with appropriately and with the best interests of our students in mind."

and some more http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Arrests-High-School-Sexting-Scandal-207901801.html

Quote
A 16-year-old boy was arrested and a 14-year-old girl was cited on Friday in connection with a high school sexting scandal in San Bernardino County, authorities said.

The 16-year-old boy was held at juvenile hall on a felony charge of obscene matter depicting a minor engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, police said. The 14-year-old girl was cited with a misdemeanor for allegedly distributing obscene matter, officials said.

The investigation began two weeks ago, when police were alerted to tweets and texts of nude photos of at least four underage girls from Etiwanda and Rancho Cucamonga high schools.

The boy, who attends Etiwanda High School, allegedly tweeted nude photos of the girls, who attend Rancho Cucamonga High School, according to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.

The female students took the pictures of themselves and distributed them via text messages, according to investigators.

The male student then posted the images on Twitter, according to authorities.

The male student was suspended, according to school officials.

It was not immediately clear whether the boy obtained the images via text or some other method.

Federal law prohibits the "production, distribution, reception, and possession of an image of child pornography."

The legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that the image depict a minor engaging in sexual activity.

The investigation is continuing.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 10:21:27 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #771 on: March 11, 2014, 10:23:30 pm »
another pwnt CP production ring

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/22287379/sexting-scandal-at-etiwanda-high-school-leads-to-arrest-of-16-year-old-student

Quote
An unidentified 16-year-old male student at Etiwanda High School in Rancho Cucamonga has been arrested and booked on a felony charge of distributing obscene material depicting a minor engaging in, or simulating, sexual conduct.

The arrest follows a two-week investigation by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department into how nude photos of two female teenagers ended up on the suspect's Twitter account. According to Sheriff's Deputies, the nude photos were texted to the suspect by the girls themselves.

One of the girls – a 14-year-old girl -- received a misdemeanor citation for distributing obscene material. Sexting – texting sexual photos and messages -- is nothing new, but many of the students FOX 11 News spoke to say they had no idea sending and receiving naked photos, even of themselves, is illegal. Under the law, it is classified as child pornography if the photos are of someone under the age of 18. Some of the parents we spoke with were surprised, too.

Parent Stephanie Sheraton said, "I think that's a little extreme. I mean, they're all kids that are involved. Kids make mistakes and it stays with them forever." Other students question why only the 16-year-old boy was arrested when the girls allegedly sent him the naked photos. Still, San Bernardino County Sheriff's investigators say they don't anticipate any more arrests. They say there are two suspects and 4 victims.

Matthew Holton, The Superintendent for the Chaffey School District said he hopes this sends a clear message to other students that sexting is dangerous.  "Be careful what you send via cell phone and computer, because it's long term and it doesn't go away," said Holton.

Read more: http://www.myfoxla.com/story/22287379/sexting-scandal-at-etiwanda-high-school-leads-to-arrest-of-16-year-old-student#ixzz2vhBUlZrr

massive jailbait porn production ring bites the dust

https://samobar.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/sexting-scandal-at-walpole-high/

Quote
Walpole police and school officials have confirmed that they are investigating a massive sexting scandal at Walpole High School. Several major news outlets are actively covering the story.

180′s sources indicate that as many as 200 students, or more, might be involved, including athletes on various teams. Several phones were confiscated. The scandal originated with a girl who allegedly had sent a racy photo through Snapchat, an iPhone app that allows a user to send a picture to someone else for 10 seconds. The receiver of the photo can take a screenshot of the picture. The photo reportedly showed the girl’s nude lower body, with a caption saying “What’s the password?” The picture was apparently sent earlier in February, before school vacation week, and was widely distributed among the student body.

A student told 180 that “sexting has been occurring at Walpole High as well as both middle schools for quite some time.”
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #772 on: March 11, 2014, 10:25:33 pm »
good lord there are a lot of jailbait production rings.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/education/Sexting-triggers-police-probe-at-Midlothian-High-School-150682415.html

Quote
MIDLOTHIAN — With cell phones and Facebook, the rumors spread faster than the photos at Midlothian High School.

"It is high school" said Alexander Jordan, a senior. "You are going to hear about stuff like that, but not on a big scale like this."

Seniors say it started with a freshman girl who texted an explicit photo to a boy, who then shared it with friends.

"You think you send it to someone you trust, and you can't trust anybody," said Hannah Sargent, a senior. "I don't know why you would want to do that."

Midlothian ISD confirmed to News 8 that it learned of the "sexting" message on Friday. The high school immediately suspended 12 students; two of them were placed in alternative education.

"It was a lot more than that. Way more than 12," Jordan said.

Midlothian police told News 8 at least 13 students are part of an ongoing investigation.

"We are talking to students and getting the parents involved and letting them know what's going on," said Midlothian police Capt. Don Cole.

If not for a change in the law, police said the students would have faced felony child pornography charges and would qualify for sex offender registration.

But as of September 2011, sexting between students is now a misdemeanor. But this incident has Midlothian students thinking before they text.

"You get a picture? Why would you do that and have it go on your record?" asked Ryan Wagoner. "It ruins everything you have."
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #773 on: March 11, 2014, 10:29:09 pm »
I for one am glad these dangerous sex predators are off the street

http://www.ktbs.com/story/22336349/fifth-graders-arrested-in-school-sex-scandal

Quote
Fifth Graders Arrested In School Sex Scandal
Five fifth-graders were arrested today after an investigation into allegations that students had sex in an unsupervised classroom in Spearsville.Four students at the North Louisiana school -- two 11-year-old girls, a 12-year-old boy and a 13-year-old boy -- were arrested on felony charges of obscenity. Union Parish Sheriff Bob Buckley said an 11-year-old boy who was the alleged lookout while their teacher was at an assembly was charged with being an accessory.The incident happened last Tuesday during an assembly for sixth- through 12th-graders. The assembly was called to discuss a stabbing death in which a 15-year-old Spearsville student was accused. The fifth-grade class of about 15 students had not been invited to the assembly and the class was inadvertently left unsupervised while their teacher attended the assembly, Buckley said. The investigation showed that two boys and two girls had sex in the classroom while the 11-year-old boy acted as a lookout. The incident came to light the next day when a student who had been in the classroom told a high school student, who then informed a teacher. The students were booked and then released to their parents' custody. (From The Associated Press)

more jailbait rings getting pwnt

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/10/mountain_brook_police_probe_se.html

Quote
MOUNTAIN BROOK,  Alabama - Mountain Brook police have launched an investigation into sexting at the high school, police confirmed today.

Lt. Michael Herren said police were advised by Mountain Brook High School officials two weeks ago that they had "developed issues with sexting." Sexting is the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photographs, primarily between cell phones.

"We were notified this had gone on,'' Herren said.

He declined to elaborate on the specifics of what went on at the high school, but said it involved juveniles. He said it is the first time he can recall where police there have investigated sexting at one of the Mountain Brook schools.

"It's too early to comment on the content, or the investigation," Herren said.

School officials declined to say much about the situation.

"One of the goals of the Mountain Brook Schools system is to provide a climate that encourages respect for all persons. This includes a focus on a positive behavioral environment,'' Dale Wisely, director of student services, said in a prepared statement. "On the occasions when we do have disciplinary issues in our schools, it is our practice not to comment on such matters, which is consistent with our goal of respecting all members of the school community."

It wasn't clear whether any school disciplinary action  is underway or has already been taken. Herren said possible crimes would include production and possession of child pornography, but said no arrests have been made and there's no way yet to predict whether that will happen.

"It's still early in the investigation,'' he said.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #774 on: March 11, 2014, 10:31:27 pm »
the thought of innocent catholic teenage high school girls sending naked pictures of themselves all over the place makes me DISGUSTED. Such VILE FILTH.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Sexting-Allegations-Emerge-at-Catholic-High-School-in-Fairfax-203369621.html

Quote
Allegations surfaced online last week that a female student at Paul VI Catholic High School in Fairfax, Va., was forced to withdraw from the school after allegedly sending inappropriate photos of herself to boys in the school.

The website Jezebel first published the allegations. They claim that the girl texted a topless photo of herself to two boys on a dare. She later heard that one of the boys had sent the image to everyone on the lacrosse team, Jezebel said.

The administration at Paul VI will not release specific details on the case.

However, a statement from Principal Virginia Colwell reads in part, "It is my hope that our alumni have learned many lessons as they have left us, two [of those lessons] being not to believe everything they read (especially on the Internet); and that there are always two sides to every story."

The girl's mother wrote in a letter to superintendent Sr. Bernadette McManigal that she didn't feel her daughter and the boys in the case were treated equally, Jezebel reported.

"Perhaps the biggest problem I have is that there was no compassion shown to my daughter," she allegedly wrote. "...Why weren't the children brought in all together and asked what happened? Why were the boys called to the [athletic director]'s office with their coach while my daughter was in with the Dean of Students?"

Michael Donohue, spokesperson for the Diocese of Arlington, wrote in an email, "The story hyped in Jezebel does not accurately reflect the actual event."

Several parents who did not want to go on camera said they felt confident in how the school handled the incident, and that the online reports were overblown.

Fairfax County Police would not comment whether they're investigating, saying it's a juvenile matter.

http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/story/sexting-scandal-at-harwood-union-hs-advice-for-parents/d/story/rG4o7sk2uUCHK9GXyCqt0g

god I would love to be the lawyer in this case, 2,000 pages of evidence of high school girls sending naked pictures of themselves? That would be a fun case to review!

Quote
The Superintendent of Harwood Union High School says more than 30 students were caught sexting.

The year-long investigation led to more than 2,000 pages of evidence.

Sexting is rampant in grades seven through 12 - all across the country.

The Superintendent says the kids at Harwood were sharing the naked pictures, trading and collecting them. That’s why she says she's speaking out. The students aren't even aware of the consequences.

"I think the students are horrified, they had no understanding of how widespread it was, or how much it had been shared, so on and so forth - and as I said in the op-ed piece, this is a safety issue, students are just completely naive and unaware of how serious this can be," Brigid Scheffert said.

Scheffert says none of the students are facing criminal charges. But we know, snapping just one picture can come back to haunt you.

With an increase in technology came the spike in sexting - and while to some extent, it's kids being kids - there can be some serious consequences.

Around the country, kids - some as young as ten, are taking and sending naked pictures of themselves - completely unaware of the potential consequences.

"It can be used and abused and shared literally throughout the world within moments," Waterbury Police Chief Joby Feccia said.

That’s why experts say having that albeit uncomfortable conversation with your kids needs to happen.

"Don’t do it, encourage your kids not to do it, if you're getting pressured to do it, let an adult know," Chief Feccia said.

In this digital age - the level of exploitation can be long term. Aside from the initial shame and humiliation if the nude photograph is shared in the high school halls - that one picture can impact your ability to get into college, or land a job.

"Certainly in law enforcement career, we do extensive background checks - you want to be viewed as someone who has had good judgment in their life," Vermont State Police Lieutenant Ingrid Jonas said.

Now about 20 students in the Harwood Union sexting scandal were suspended, but the consequences can be far worse.

"Court diversion and fines, as the lowest consequence to probation and jail time in some cases, extreme cases," Lieutenant Jonas said.

Police say first offenses are rarely prosecuted, but for those extreme cases - sexting could lead to child porn charges - and your name on the sex offender registry. There’s also the emotional toll.

We know this can be a hard conversation to have with your kids, so if you need some extra advice, try:
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 10:34:56 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #775 on: March 11, 2014, 10:38:30 pm »
http://www.tauntongazette.com/x710890653/Taunton-school-officials-parents-stunned-by-sexting-scandal

Quote
Taunton Schools Superintendent Julie Hackett and school officials will meet with Taunton police detectives next week to discuss a criminal investigation into the alleged posting of nude photographs of students by other students.

School Committee members and parents reacting to the allegations say they’re stunned at the recklessness of students who participated.

    Taunton Schools Superintendent Julie Hackett and school officials will meet with Taunton police detectives next week to discuss a criminal investigation into the alleged posting of nude photographs of students by other students.

    School Committee members and parents reacting to the allegations say they’re stunned at the recklessness of students who participated.

    "I would think they would be embarrassed. They need to start thinking about their future and ask themselves, ‘Do I really want stuff like this out there about me?’” Christine Fagan, a member of the Taunton School Committee, said Friday.

    Police have remained tight-lipped about the ongoing investigation.

    Hackett on Friday reiterated an earlier statement that Taunton police detectives are handling the case. “There’s nothing new at this time to report,” Hackett said.

    She did, however, say school officials, including herself, will meet next Tuesday with police to discuss the probe.

    A request seeking comment from Taunton Police Chief Edward Walsh was not returned Friday. On Thursday Walsh would only say that “the investigation is ongoing.”

    A girl or boy under the age of 18 in Massachusetts cannot give legal consent for someone to post nude photos of them on the Internet. Adults and minors who entice a minor to do so can be charged under state child pornography laws. An adult, or defendant charged as an adult, under the state’s statute faces the possibility of at 10 years or more in prison.

    Neither school officials nor police have publicly stated the ages of the students involved.

    Taunton parent Carol LaCourse, who has a son in the eighth grade at Taunton High, said it’s unfortunate that “a few bad apples” can tarnish the image of what remains “a very good school.”

    She’s also convinced that the girls who allowed themselves to be photographed, as well as their boyfriends, have to be held at least somewhat accountable.

    “Children at some point have to be responsible for their actions,” she said.

    Her son, she said, was oblivious to the story until it hit the newspapers and airwaves this week. “He was clueless, but I’m not surprised; he concentrates on other things,” she said.

    A limited number of eighth-graders participated in a pilot program at Taunton High School in 2010, then school officials moved the entire eighth-grade to the high school the following year.

    School Committee chairman Joseph Martin said students constantly need to be aware of the pitfalls of today’s online social media outlets.

    “The dark side is awful, it really is,” said Martin, referring specifically to the potential criminal charges that could result from the investigation.

    Martin, a former Taunton educator who until the mid-1990s created computer classes and programs at Taunton High, said students should know how easily images can spread online.


Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #776 on: March 11, 2014, 10:58:46 pm »
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/kamloops-students-could-face-child-porn-charges-for-sharing-explicit-material-1.1651901

Quote
A sweeping RCMP investigation has been launched involving a “significant” number of Kamloops high school students suspected of sharing inappropriate material through social media.

Police say several students in the Kamloops area were involved and could face charges including distribution of child pornography – but won't say how many were victimized, or the nature of what was posted online.

But students at South Kamloops Secondary School – one of the schools under investigation – told CTV News that a number of South Kamloops Secondary School students are being accused of sharing nude photos of female classmates.

 “Tons and tons of guys have distributed it,” Owen Coty said. “They should be nailing half the other boys.”

Police won't confirm how many potential victims there could be but students say investigators have been on scene all week at several schools across the Kamloops-Thompson district.

“No one’s happy about the situation and they’re pretty disappointed with the people involved,” said student Emily O’Laney. “That stuff doesn’t go away, it’s out there forever.”

Kamloops-Thompson School District said the problem isn’t just confined to one high school – and even more students could be implicated.

“It goes across a number of our high schools in the Kamloops-Thompson school district, not just the City of Kamloops, so there are a significant number of students involved,” said Terry Sullivan.

It's the latest case involving teens and damaging behaviour online that crosses the line from cruel to criminal.

Earlier this month, a 17-year-old Victoria girl was convicted of distributing child porn after sharing explicit photos of her boyfriend’s ex online.

“I am not surprised and this is not going away and this is going to get worse,” said Anita Roberts, founder of Safe Teen, a Vancouver anti-bullying organization. “It’s a wakeup call and parents and educators need to really wake up about it.”

Roberts said kids can feel heavily victimized by the spreading of rumours and explicit photos online, equating a smartphone to a loaded weapon in the hands of a ten-year-old.

“When people are victimized in this way, they are cut out of the tribe and for a teenager that is hugely impactful and terrifying,” she said.

The RCMP in their release say parents need to be vigilant and engaged with their kids and their social media activity, which can lead to uncomfortable but necessary conversations with your kids about bullying.

So far, no charges have been laid in the case – though some students have been disciplined by the school board.


http://globalnews.ca/news/1094810/laval-teens-charged-with-child-porn-after-sexting/

Quote
LAVAL, Que. – Nine teens facing possession and distribution of child pornography charges were in youth court in Laval on Monday.

The boys were among the 10 young men aged between 13 and 15 arrested during police raids last November in a shocking sexting case.

READ MORE: 10 Laval teens face child pornography charges; girls unaware photos shared

The case against the teens has been delayed until March, as Laval police had not gathered all the necessary evidence.

According to Laval police, the boys persuaded seven girls – some whom were their girlfriends – to send them sexy photos and videos, which they then shared.

RELATED: ‘Sexting’ – what is it and should parents be worried?

The investigation began after an employee at an English high school in the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board noticed that a group of boys were looking at pornography on a cellphone.

Police said that the boys, who attended three different high schools in Laval: Mother Theresa Junior High School, Laval Liberty High School and Laurier Senior High School, were using laptops, cell phones and iPads to take pictures of girls in sexual poses or performing sexual acts.

WATCH: Does ‘sexting’ by minors constitute child pornography?

The 10th teen is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday and his case is also expected to be delayed to the spring.

As a condition of their bail release, the young men are not allowed to use the Internet (except for supervised school work), and they are not permitted to speak to one another or to the victims.


http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_22603066/sexting-can-produce-child-porn-charges

I have to admit this guy is right that strangers can hurt them, they have no idea who he is but he is set on fucking them over. What a pathetic life form, I hope he has a heart attack.

Quote
LENOX -- The perils of "sexting" -- sending sexually explicit messages and photographs by cellphone -- include potential criminal prosecution, according to Berkshire Second Assistant District Attorney Robert W. Kinzer III.

As the head of the DA’s computer crime unit, which includes several state troopers, Kinzer cited "kids, young adults, even adults who think it is a good idea to take nude or semi-nude photos of themselves on their cellphones and send them to other people via text message."

Youngsters who are under 18 fail to realize that they have created and manufactured child pornography, Kinzer warned a group of parents during an informational session at Lenox Memorial Middle and High School this past week.

"When you send that text message, you have disseminated child pornography" and when it is shared and shown to others, they are in possession of child pornography, he pointed out.

"We do not have any exceptions in our law for kids who are really in love, for girls who wanted to do it and for guys who promised they wouldn’t share it, or for two kids who are dating," Kinzer said. "A nude photo of [a minor’s] exposed genitalia is child pornography."

The prosecutor explained that he has spread the word at schools throughout Berkshire County.

"I’m done telling what the law is," Kinzer said. "When they start sharing photos like this, we are going to start charging people with the manufacturing, dissemination and possession of child pornography, and they’re going to go to court.

"They’re going to face [prosecution], probably not jail time unless they’ve got bad records. But that’s OK. They’ll just be put on probation and they’ll get to register as a sex offender, and that’s a great box to check off on any job application," he continued. "You’re going to lose jobs and relationships, and you’ll spend the rest of your life as a registered sex offender."

Kinzer listed new programs and applications that promote the sharing of explicit photos and messages -- including one that allows users to select Facebook "friends" as sex partners for casual "hook-up" encounters.

He told parents that "kids as young as 13 or 14 are using Facebook and getting access to information like this, and they’re taking photos like that, not appreciating the dangers, the short-term and long-term consequences.

"Strangers can definitely hurt them, but [young people] have the biggest potential to hurt themselves. We need to make sure they understand what is out there and what can happen. Let’s educate ourselves so we can communicate meaningfully with them and let’s set clear, firm boundaries that we adhere to."
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 11:03:18 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #777 on: March 11, 2014, 11:13:06 pm »
Good someone needs to stop them sending these photos so sick pedos cant get their hands on them ie YOU
No problem with teenagers being teens but this is bad because of so many sickos in our society
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #778 on: March 11, 2014, 11:15:24 pm »
We need to stop prosecuting teenagers and focus limited police resources on going after the REAL sick fucks, like this guy who victimized the living fuck out of Lisa Simpson

http://comicsalliance.com/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/

Quote
After the recent seizure of comics at the Canadian border from creators on their way to the Toronto Comics Art Festival — and an official advisory from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund on the aggressive searches of comics fans at Canadian customs — ComicsAlliance posted a series of tips on how to protect yourself when crossing the border into Canada with either printed comics or digital versions of comics on laptops and other devices. Given the escalating and broad nature of the Canadian border searches, it seemed like only a matter of time before someone was arrested for the crime of owning comics deemed “obscene” — and now it has happened.

A U.S. citizen, identified as a computer programmer and comic book fan, recently flew from his home in America to visit a friend in Canada, and upon his arrival, his iPhone, iPad and laptop were searched by Canadian customs who discovered digital manga images on the laptop. Presumably based on Canadian statutes that treat any sexual images of characters that appear to be under 18 as actual child pornography, the images they discovered were deemed child porn and the man was charged accordingly.

If convicted, the U.S. man, whose name is being withheld, faces a minimum of one year in prison for owning comic book illustrations, in a case that Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Charles Brownstein says “could have far reaching implications for comic books and manga in North America.”There are several things important to remember, the first being the dangerously broad definition of child pornography that Canada is using, as Brownstein explains:

    Customs agents frequently use overly broad and inaccurate definition of “child pornography” in order to justify intrusive searches of materials that are fully protected by the United States Constitution. Under U.S. law “child pornography” is the record and product of child sexual abuse… The depiction of such child abuse in the form of “child pornography” can only involve real children – cartoons of fictionalized characters cannot be subjected to “child abuse.” In such cases, the [Supreme] Court noted [in a 2002 case], “there is no underlying crime at all.”

Illustrations are not photographs or video of children being sexually abused, and treating them as the same thing not only potentially criminalizes art — an illustrated version of Romeo and Juliet, for example, could likely earn itself a “child pornography” label under this definition — it also diminishes the crime of actual child pornography and the real abuse that it documents.

Second, when you extend the definition of child pornography from sexual images of children (who are real people, and have ages) to drawings (which are not real, and do not have ages), suddenly that definition becomes very subjective. How exactly can you tell if a drawing is sixteen years old, or seventeen, or eighteen? Suddenly the determination about whether or not someone is in possession of child pornography — a deeply horrific and often ruining accusation to make — changes from clear cut to frighteningly ambiguous.

The issue becomes even more complicated when dealing with manga, as this case specifically does, since Japanese comics have a very different visual aesthetic that frequently depicts adult characters in a way that would seem more “child-like” to a pair of American (or Canadian) eyes unfamiliar with the style.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit U.S. group devoted to protecting free speech in comics, has agreed to assist in the case, and has formed a coalition with the Canadian Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund to donate both funds and legal expertise. Brownstein emphasized the potential impact of this case on comic book fans all over North America:

    Although the CBLDF can’t protect comic fans everywhere in every situation, we want to join this effort to protect an American comic fan being prosecuted literally as he stood on the border of our country for behavior the First Amendment protects here, and its analogues in Canadian law should protect there.

The cost for the man’s defense is currently estimated at $150,000, and if you would like to make a tax-deductible contribution to the CBLDF to support their work for free speech in comics and their assistance in this case, you can find more information here.


Read More: U.S. Citizen Charged in Canada for Manga on Laptop, Faces Minimum 1 Year in Prison | http://comicsalliance.com/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/?trackback=tsmclip



http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-02/australian-sentenced-for-cartoon-child-pornography

Quote
The Queensland Times newspaper reported on January 26 that 28-year-old Kurt James Milner of Leichhardt, Australia stood trial for possession of 64 sexually explicit images of child characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls animated television series, as well as The Incredibles animated movie.

Milner pleaded guilty to charges of child exploitation material and using a carriage service to access the material. He was sentenced to 12 months in jail but the sentence was wholly suspended for five years. Milner was also given a AU$1,000 (about US$900) good behavior bond for five years. A conviction was recorded, and Milner is now a registered sex offender.

According to The Queensland Times, the sentence was harsh because Milner had previously been convicted in 2003 of possessing 59 sexual images of actual children on his computer. At that time, Milner was sentenced to two years probation, and no conviction was recorded.

This is not the first time an Australian citizen was punished for possessing cartoon child pornography. In 2008 an appeal was denied for a man who was convicted of possessing child pornography and accessing child pornography on his computer. In this case as well the materials depicted pictures of child characters from The Simpsons engaging in sexual acts. In that case, the man received a AU$3,000 (US$2,600) fine and two years of court supervision.

The Australian government is currently proposing legislation that will require all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to filter overseas websites that contain "Refused Classification" content. "Refused Classification" content is defined as: "child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28319199/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/child-porn-cartoon-conviction-upheld/#.Ux-XoFPLd6I

Quote
RICHMOND, Va. — Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation's first conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons.

Dwight Whorley of Richmond is serving 20 years in prison, convicted in 2005 of using a public computer for job-seekers at the Virginia Employment Commission to receive 20 Japanese cartoons, called anime, illustrating young girls being forced to have sex with men. Whorley also received digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexual conduct and sent and received e-mails graphically describing parents sexually molesting their children.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld his conviction.

Among the arguments in his appeal was that cartoons are protected under the First Amendment because they do not depict real children. He also claimed the statute is unconstitutional because text-only e-mails cannot be obscene.

Two judges rejected those arguments. A third agreed with Whorley on those issues but joined the majority in affirming his convictions on the counts pertaining to photographs.

Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted in the majority opinion that the statute under which Whorley was convicted, the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists."

Appeals to continue
Rob Wagner, the federal public defender who represented Whorley, said he was "very disappointed" with the ruling and that he would ask the full appeals court to reconsider. If that fails, Wagner said he will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

A Virginia jury convicted Whorley of 74 counts including receiving obscene materials, receiving obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, receiving child pornography and sending and receiving obscene e-mails describing the sexual abuse of children.

Whorley, 55, is serving his sentence at the Gilmer Federal Correction Institution in Glenville, W.Va.

He previously was sentenced to 46 months in prison for a 1999 child pornography conviction.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 11:21:16 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #779 on: March 11, 2014, 11:16:29 pm »
Good someone needs to stop them sending these photos so sick pedos cant get their hands on them ie YOU
No problem with teenagers being teens but this is bad because of so many sickos in our society

Absolutely right! To protect teenagers from sex offenders we need to force all of them to register as sex offenders. God, I can't wait to move to a country with an average IQ in the triple digits.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #780 on: March 11, 2014, 11:24:18 pm »
You just know that if a massive meteorite hit and obliterated every living thing on the surface of the earth, but for some unknown reason m0rph was the last human alive, stuck deep in one of those 1960s missile silos with its own intranet, he'd spend the rest of his days posting shit like this.

The result would be the same, really. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of words all making the same small handful of debunked points that no one reads anymore.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #781 on: March 11, 2014, 11:30:16 pm »
Uh last I checked nobody even attempted to debunk a single thing I said. Unless you consider describing the ways in which they desire to kill me being the same thing as debunking anything I have said.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #782 on: March 11, 2014, 11:37:09 pm »
Oh i know the reason he would survive...because all cockroaches survive
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #783 on: March 11, 2014, 11:42:33 pm »
Oh i know the reason he would survive...because all cockroaches survive

You think it is more serious of a crime to have consensual sex with a 14 year old than to blow her brains out and fuck her corpse in the ass.
You think the best way to protect teenagers from sexual predators is to make all of them register as sex offenders.
You think that the best policy to protect children is one that has been demonstrated to increase child sex abuse rates in every country it is implemented in.
You think that photographs have magic powers and that if observed they can lead to sexual abuse across space and time, through some sort of perverted quantum entanglement.
You think that cartoons are real people and that pictures have living things in them like we are in a Harry Potter story.

You, my friend, are a disturbed, mentally challenged little shit, who could not on your best of days even come close to me on my worst of days. Compared to me you are a primitive life form, and I look at you with little more respect than that which I afford to a cow. The fact that we are in the same species is nothing short of shocking.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #784 on: March 12, 2014, 12:12:55 am »
I would eat a cow, m0rph. In fact, I have et wut I killed many times over.

You, will NEVER amount to shit, until you are consumed by microbes.

yer a grammer nazi now, fucknut? howza yowza doozie doo, stick your head in donkey doo
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 12:21:54 am by twatWaffle »
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #785 on: March 12, 2014, 12:15:16 am »
you have eaten it.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #786 on: March 12, 2014, 12:37:41 am »
We are not the same species im human you're a degenerate. The reason child abuse rates rose is because they made it illegal numb nuts, ive explained how the production of the photos harms the child you are just to ignorant to understand. I never said anything cartoon porn because thats a cartoon but cartoon childporn is still desgusting as is still children who are not sexually atractive to"norms".  Little shit haha dont make me laugh im older then you think and have seen what happens to cunts like you in gaol...remember that pedo
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #787 on: March 12, 2014, 01:17:37 am »
you have eaten it.

That's the kind of zinger you'd expect from an intellect such as m0rph's.

What a loser. So lacking in self-awareness that he doesn't realise how dumb he is.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #788 on: March 12, 2014, 01:20:14 am »
We are not the same species im human you're a degenerate. The reason child abuse rates rose is because they made it illegal numb nuts, ive explained how the production of the photos harms the child you are just to ignorant to understand. I never said anything cartoon porn because thats a cartoon but cartoon childporn is still desgusting as is still children who are not sexually atractive to"norms".  Little shit haha dont make me laugh im older then you think and have seen what happens to cunts like you in gaol...remember that pedo

I can tell you are pretty old I don't think I have ever met someone my own age who gives as much a fuck about people wanting to fuck young teenagers as you seem to.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #789 on: March 12, 2014, 01:50:16 am »
I thought the same when i was 18 all the way to now you pedo creeper
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #790 on: March 12, 2014, 01:52:02 am »
it has to do more with cultural shift than with age per-se.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #791 on: March 12, 2014, 01:54:49 am »
i was unaware filthy pedo was a culture, ill keep my eye out for that country  pedonia, pedoistan?
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #792 on: March 12, 2014, 02:07:12 am »
Uruguay is pretty good, possible to legally fuck 12 year olds and CP is totally legal to posses.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #793 on: March 12, 2014, 02:33:22 am »
12 is an age with a large range to it. Some of them are still child like, others could pass for adults. In any case I don't think I would particularly be drawn to 12 year olds. It's hard to exactly determine the age I am most attracted to. I'd say it's probably before 15 because I associate 15 with a filled out frame that I find less than ideal although still acceptable. It's probably a bit older than 12 too though, because too many of them still look like little kids. I like tanner stage four characteristics, which seems to start on average at 12.9 years old.

Quote


    Height increases at 7 cm/year
    Breast
        Areolae forms secondary mound on the Breast
        Age: 12.9 years (10.5-15.3 years)
    Pubic Hair
        Hair of adult quality
        No spread to junction of medial thigh with perineum
        Age: 12.6 years (10.4-14.8 years)


I've seen precocious ten year olds and have to say even if they are in tanner stage four they strike me as more confusing than attractive. I imagine the same is true up to at least early 12. So probably I find the appearance of those about 12.9 through 15.3 to be preferential. But I would go ahead and round the early age up to 13 and the later age down to 15. So most likely I prefer the appearance of 13 to 15 year olds. On the other hand, if someone else did fuck a 12 year old, I wouldn't immediately think he should be put to death. If it's determined she knew what she was doing and it was a fine relationship I wouldn't be judgmental about it. And I would like to live in a country that says if an exceptional case happens and no harm was done by an older person fucking a 12 year old, then we are not going to introduce harm into the situation by our rigid application of the law. That sort of flexibility is essentially required of a free country, and I would love to live in a free country, so I am happy that Uruguay has 12 as their minimum age of consent, although I typically would say I am more attracted to 13 year olds.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 02:35:03 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #794 on: March 12, 2014, 03:33:20 am »
oh yes Uruguay is a free country dont make me laugh..just because they allow putrid acts doesnt make them free it means they care about getting rich instead of caring about their people
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #795 on: March 12, 2014, 03:59:10 am »
uh, how do you come to the conclusion that they care about getting rich? Uruguay is free as shit, it would be absurd to think otherwise. Guns are legal, taxes are very low, drugs are legal for personal use amounts of anything, marijuana is sold by the government, CP of all sorts is totally legal to possess, the minimum age of consent is 12 (with protections up to 15 which is like 18 in USA), etc. It's pretty much a neolibertarian country, the only exception being that there isn't really a free market. I don't think any other country is nearly as libertarian as Uruguay is on social issues though, and on financial issues they lean left libertarian.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #796 on: March 12, 2014, 04:14:57 am »
are the citezens free to do, say and think anthing they want
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

Cornelius23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Karma: +219/-56
  • On the whole, I'd rather be part of the problem
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #797 on: March 12, 2014, 04:34:12 am »
are the citezens free to do, say and think anthing they want

Ooh... I think you might be on dodgy ground with that one ;)
Connect at The Hub: http://thehubaoydxrommh.onion

QoinPro referral: http://www.qoinpro.com/a15a9244da423d15119457abb4040f1c

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
[Albert Einstein]

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #798 on: March 12, 2014, 02:27:26 pm »
are the citezens free to do, say and think anthing they want

They are free to do more, say more, and think more than the people of any other country. Their freedom of speech is more so than the USA. The USA censors the internet. Going to the wrong website will get you sent to prison for possibly the rest of your life in parts of the USA. Not so in Uruguay. No websites are censored, they have strong protection on freedom of speech and freedom of thought. In USA drawing the wrong picture or even writing the wrong story can get you sent to prison, possibly for the rest of your life. Not so in Uruguay, they are free to draw whatever they want and to possess whatever drawings they want, and they are free to have whatever stories they want as well as to make whatever stories they want. Since drawings and written stories are the physical manifestation of the thoughts of a persons mind, it is clear then that the people of Uruguay are free to have thoughts that are highly criminal in the UK, Australia and the USA. And they are free to do far more than people in USA, UK, or Australia as well! They can legally use drugs, and if the police find that they have small amounts of say LSD or MDMA nobody gives a shit, they have never once made it illegal to possess personal use amounts of recreational drugs. Furthermore, marijuana is so legalized that the government sells it to the people, and also the people are free to grow their own etc. They are free to have guns etc too. Really there is no way you can look at it where the people of Uruguay are not free to do, say, and think far more than the people of other countries, including countries that scream about how amazingly free they are, while simultaneously imprisoning more of their people than any other country on earth, for the horrid crimes of experiencing reality in different ways, or drawing pictures, or writing stories, or going to websites on the internet.

Also, gay marriage is legal in all of Uruguay, in huge parts of the USA people are not free to marry those of the same sex. The government also does not restrict academic drug research nearly as much as the UK/USA/Australia do. Prostitution is legal for those 18 and older. Owning guns is legal and extremely common. Looks like abortion is legal. Religious freedom and tolerance is very high, but it is the most secular country in South America.

It looks like they did recently make it illegal to use the media to incite people to violence against racial/ethnic/religious groups, which is a restriction of freedom of speech and unfortunate.


http://internationalliving.com/2012/06/privacy-and-freedom-in-uruguay/

Quote
A recent poll on government revealed that more than half the population of Uruguay feels that the country is being run “for the good of all the people.”

You can guess how most Americans would answer that question…

True, these types of surveys can often be taken with a grain of salt. But in this case, as I traveled throughout Uruguay, the taxi drivers, farmers, bankers and real estate agents all echoed the same sentiment.

I’ve traveled all over the world and visited scores of countries. But I do have a shortlist of places that meet my high expectations of privacy, security, and freedom. What I found in Uruguay puts it among my favorites.

Plenty of U.S. expats live in Uruguay. I can see why. The laws and the government welcome foreigners as immediate residents and citizenship can follow after three to five years. The seven licensed banks welcome Americans as clients, hold more than half of their cash in dollars or euros, pay more interest than U.S. banks and enforce strict financial privacy that only a court can waive. And Uruguay offers a zero tax rate on offshore income.

If you had packed up and moved there a decade ago, you would have missed a lot—including the U.S. housing bubble and the property-market crash. You also would have missed the world recession—which passed Uruguay by.

Unlike North and South America’s supposed economic powerhouses, the U.S., Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina, the Uruguayan economy expanded during the global recession.

I toured ZoneAmerica, a huge, tax-free, financial, business, high tech, distribution, consulting and call center flourishing under Uruguay’s free market, business-friendly laws and government. Here the evidence of the country’s prosperity is obvious.

The huge free-zone campus boasts acres of eye-pleasing, ultra-modern, environmentally “green” buildings, up-to-the-minute Internet, digital and microwave telecommunications protected by redundant high security systems. There are training and conference centers and turnkey offices.

And you aren’t likely to find a better country for personal freedom. Forbes magazine last year surveyed more than 100 countries and rated Uruguay number one in the world for personal freedom. I found the people informed and vocal—both personally and in the media. And they like Americans!

Uruguay combines everything that makes an ideal haven: Great quality of life, good infrastructure, profitable investments, beautiful beaches, personal safety, friendly banking, and a sincere welcome for foreigners, both as new residents and eventual citizens.

Each year ever more of them are coming to settle down, along with many second-home buyers and investors. And—after seeing the “Europe of South America” for myself—who knows, I just might join them.

God I can't wait to go to Uruguay and start living the American dream.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/18/united-states-falls-to-46th-in-the-world-for-press-freedom-n1796607

Quote
According to new data released by Reporters Without Borders, the United States as fallen to 46th place in the world when it comes to freedom of the press. The ranking shows the U.S. behind countries like South Africa, Cyprus, Uruguay, Canada, Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom and many other European countries. RWOB uses the presence of "conflict" as a way to determine press freedom.

 This ranking comes after news last year the Department of Justice was (and probably still is) tapping the phones and monitoring emails of reporters from the Associated Press, Fox News and other news outlets. In the case of Fox News, the Department of Justice went so far as to monitor the phone lines of Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen and his parents. Fox News executives were also monitored.

« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 03:12:14 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #799 on: March 12, 2014, 05:28:31 pm »
ps: Twatwaffle, I hate to leak personally identifying information on myself, but did you know I was actually recruited to work for the government in an intelligence capacity fresh out of high school? I turned the offer down though. Looks like I could have probably worked directly for them after all.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #800 on: March 12, 2014, 07:33:40 pm »
Did you know, m0rph, that I scored in the 99 percentile on the ASVAB, was commander of my female drill team my senior year, as well as commander of my own company? Huh, didja?

Questions is it ya want, questions ya got. Answers will cost ya. Dumb looks are free.

Are you curious about who was actively recruiting me? Did you also know that I graduated in the top 4% of my class, with a full semester of college credits already completed? Didja know that?

Didja know that I am king poobah supreme mucketty muck and would skull fuck you with your own dick after making you cut if off yourself? Hmmm didja?

Do you think that any of this shit we do and say will matter 90 years from now?

Just how much disposable income do you think it would take for me to find you and have you removed like a carpet spot? Off the top of yer head?

 Now, be honest, its not like yer a drug kingping on a darkmarket site. You are a nasty little pedo in the 'rents basement.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 09:13:20 pm by twatWaffle »
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #801 on: March 12, 2014, 11:22:43 pm »
Quote
Questions is it ya want, questions ya got. Answers will cost ya. Dumb looks are free.

If you charged people for looking dumb you would be sipping margaritas on a beach.

Quote
Are you curious about who was actively recruiting me? Did you also know that I graduated in the top 4% of my class, with a full semester of college credits already completed? Didja know that?

Wow a full semester. I was already in college before I was set to graduate from high school. When my senior class graduated from high school I was starting my second year of college.
Quote
Do you think that any of this shit we do and say will matter 90 years from now?

If you are using we to mean && then no, if you are using it to mean || then maybe.

Quote
Just how much disposable income do you think it would take for me to find you and have you removed like a carpet spot? Off the top of yer head?

Over a quarter million dollars.

Quote
Now, be honest, its not like yer a drug kingping on a darkmarket site. You are a nasty little pedo in the 'rents basement.

My contributions to the cause of freedom are more so than yours.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 11:38:29 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #802 on: March 12, 2014, 11:34:15 pm »
ps: Twatwaffle, I hate to leak personally identifying information on myself, but did you know I was actually recruited to work for the government in an intelligence capacity fresh out of high school? I turned the offer down though. Looks like I could have probably worked directly for them after all.
Oh OK. Sure. ;)

Like,  I don't have a problem with this discussion, but I don't understand why this thread is still active; this quote/unquote debate is pretty one-sided.

So, my question to you is this: Why the fuck don't you emigrate to Uruguay? Or Czech Republic? Or Germany? Or any of the countries you've mentioned?

In other words: Why are you still here?

PS Vaffanculo!
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 11:50:04 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #803 on: March 12, 2014, 11:40:59 pm »
ps: Twatwaffle, I hate to leak personally identifying information on myself, but did you know I was actually recruited to work for the government in an intelligence capacity fresh out of high school? I turned the offer down though. Looks like I could have probably worked directly for them after all.
Oh OK. Sure. ;)

Like,  I don't have a problem with this discussion, but I don't understand why this thread is still active; this quote/unquote debate is pretty one-sided.

So, my question to you is this: Why the fuck don't you emigrate to Uruguay? Or Czech Republic? Or Germany? Or any of the countries you've mentioned?

In other words: Why are you still here?

In due time I will emigrate.

My question to you is: Why don't you want your country to be as free as Uruguay is?

In other words: Why do you hate freedom ?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #804 on: March 12, 2014, 11:48:06 pm »
ps: I've already traveled around the world and have been to multiple countries with relatively low ages of consent, and in several countries without laws against possessing CP. Hypothetically I've even already legally looked at porn that would have been illegal for me to look at in your Naziesque countries. I noted a shocking lack of deterioration of society in these countries, it was almost like even when it's legal to fuck young teenagers and legal to look at CP the world doesn't actually come crashing down around you.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #805 on: March 13, 2014, 12:03:04 am »
ps: Twatwaffle, I hate to leak personally identifying information on myself, but did you know I was actually recruited to work for the government in an intelligence capacity fresh out of high school? I turned the offer down though. Looks like I could have probably worked directly for them after all.
Oh OK. Sure. ;)

Like,  I don't have a problem with this discussion, but I don't understand why this thread is still active; this quote/unquote debate is pretty one-sided.

So, my question to you is this: Why the fuck don't you emigrate to Uruguay? Or Czech Republic? Or Germany? Or any of the countries you've mentioned?

In other words: Why are you still here?

In due time I will emigrate.

My question to you is: Why don't you want your country to be as free as Uruguay is?

In other words: Why do you hate freedom ?
Um, do you know anything about Uruguay? ??? It's not exactly a bastion of freedom and liberty that you are describing. Weed is legal and so is jailbait. So what?

Just go already! You know what?: I'll buy you a ticket.

PS Do you live here? You're the Lord of the Child Pornography. Congratulations.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #806 on: March 13, 2014, 12:16:33 am »
How is modern Uruguay not the bastion of freedom and liberty I am describing, since you imply that you know that isn't? Why is it consistently rated as the country with the most personal freedom?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #807 on: March 13, 2014, 12:39:59 am »
Ding...come out of your crate nasty little  pimple pedo

GO TO FUCKING URUGUAY. GET ROGERED BY THE BACK DOOR BOYS YOU SO LOVE. COME CRAWLING HOME WITH YOUR ASSHOLE IN SHREDS. Then sob a fat tear in that bottle of Colt45 after you smoked your last handjob rock.

Oh, you don't wanna brag about your psuedo military accomplishments? Did you also make PEOPLE while you were in high school? DID YOU? My body made two of them, what the fuck did you do that is remarkable other than taking up space, wiping your boogers on your pants, and jacking off in class?

MY DICK WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER, BITCH BOI!!

Nobody really gives a shit about you, little pedo stain, this is just amusement until
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

joenamath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Karma: +329/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #808 on: March 13, 2014, 12:42:10 am »
Ding...come out of your crate nasty little  pimple pedo

GO TO FUCKING URUGUAY. GET ROGERED BY THE BACK DOOR BOYS YOU SO LOVE. COME CRAWLING HOME WITH YOUR ASSHOLE IN SHREDS. Then sob a fat tear in that bottle of Colt45 after you smoked your last handjob rock.

Oh, you don't wanna brag about your psuedo military accomplishments? Did you also make PEOPLE while you were in high school? DID YOU? My body made two of them, what the fuck did you do that is remarkable other than taking up space, wiping your boogers on your pants, and jacking off in class?

MY DICK WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER, BITCH BOI!!

Nobody really gives a shit about you, little pedo stain, this is just amusement until

+1 Playa..... Leave the kids alone. PERIOD.  Joe
I guarantee a win in SuperBowl III.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #809 on: March 13, 2014, 12:51:38 am »
how old do you consider someone to be when they stop being a kid?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

joenamath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Karma: +329/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #810 on: March 13, 2014, 12:54:27 am »
leagal age in US.... 18
I guarantee a win in SuperBowl III.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #811 on: March 13, 2014, 01:00:15 am »
leagal age in US.... 18

Joe, you are one of my childhood heroes, so I'm gonna level with ya, the thing in m0rph skin is really a replicant. Here to steal your time and attention with meaningless copy pasta justifying murdering the souls of children. When the wife is busy, or I've had a shit day, I come here, ring the bell, the pedo comes out its crate, then let the fun begin.

Just don't feed it unless you want to clean up its copy pasta messes...gets em all over the floor, it does.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #812 on: March 13, 2014, 01:02:47 am »
In this thread

I:

1. Demonstrate that multiple studies have shown that when pedophiles have access to child pornography, child molestation rates fall
2. Demonstrate that the financial market theory of child pornography is inapplicable to modern times
3. Demonstrate that the typical male is sexually attracted to pubescent teenagers
4. Demonstrate that huge swaths of jailbait pornography is self produced and distributed by high school students, not by shady underground jailbait production rings
5. Show the laws regarding CP are so absurd that people can get longer sentences for looking at pictures than for murder
6. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries it is legal to have sex with young teenagers
7. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries, including much of Europe, it is legal to possess pornography of young teenagers
8. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries, especially countries with other freedoms, it is legal to possess child pornography
9. Demonstrate that the world mental health community has conclusively stated that they do not consider attraction to young teenagers as a mental disorder

My opponents:

1. Claim the best way to protect children is to have policies that have been empirically demonstrated as increasing child abuse rates
2. Continue to make references to propaganda snippets produced by the people who profit the most from the war on child pornography consumption
3. Claim that science is pedophile voodoo and not worthy of taking into consideration
4. Claim that the government of Germany has been infiltrated by a pedophile Illuminati set on legalizing the rape of their children
5. Claim that pictures are really magical items capable of causing sexual abuse across space and time, apparently through some strange manifestation of quantum entanglement
6. Claim that it is better to blow the brains out of a 17 year old and rape her cold dead body than it is to possess ten pictures she took of herself flashing her mirror
7. Claim that the best way to protect teenagers from sexual predators is to make 25% of the teenagers in developed countries to register as sex offenders
8. Claim that the world mental health community has been infiltrated by the same secret pedophile Illuminati that infiltrated Germany, and that they are much better educated on matters of sexuality
9. Claim that cartoons are real people and need to be protected from imaginary sexual abuse
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 01:08:31 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

joenamath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Karma: +329/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #813 on: March 13, 2014, 01:04:00 am »
You are in need of professional help........too many 20 something things out here!
I guarantee a win in SuperBowl III.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #814 on: March 13, 2014, 01:04:24 am »
leagal age in US.... 18

Wow that is super fortunate that you were born in the country with the One True Age Of Consent. But oh noes the legal age of consent in the US is actually 16, and only some states have set it higher. So you are actually an idiot.

PS: Did you hit a double jackpot and happen to be born in a country that practices the One True Religion as well? Something tells me you were. People like you are SUPER lucky.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

joenamath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Karma: +329/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #815 on: March 13, 2014, 01:07:49 am »
No...I am not lucky, It is you. Come round here and you will see how we deal this issue in NY....... 45 or 12G ?  Let me know your choice.Joe
I guarantee a win in SuperBowl III.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #816 on: March 13, 2014, 01:12:38 am »
No...I am not lucky, It is you. Come round here and you will see how we deal this issue in NY....... 45 or 12G ?  Let me know your choice.Joe

In NY the age of consent is 17 and getting a handjob from a 14 year old is a misdemeanor. You made it illegal to view child porn on the internet like 2 years ago.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 01:12:59 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #817 on: March 13, 2014, 01:14:29 am »
but that said I will go with 12, G
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #818 on: March 13, 2014, 02:09:50 am »
Im 100% sure I could get you doxxed for a damn sight less than 250k, you have any idea how many hacker hate filthy pedo's? ever wonder why they are constantly attacking pages/servers with that content? is it because no matter what criminal element you are in from petty theif all the way up to international drug smuggling mafia don they all have kids and loath those who think the way your kind do..
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #819 on: March 13, 2014, 02:11:00 am »
How is modern Uruguay not the bastion of freedom and liberty I am describing, since you imply that you know that isn't? Why is it consistently rated as the country with the most personal freedom?
Oh yeah; I hear the tri-border area is lovely.

It's not that bad, but at the same time, it's not so great. It's meh.

You're better off in Europe. Either way, let me know; I'll get that ticket for ya ;)

What is the fucking point of this thread? This shit is fuckin retarded.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #820 on: March 13, 2014, 02:15:58 am »
leagal age in US.... 18

Wow that is super fortunate that you were born in the country with the One True Age Of Consent. But oh noes the legal age of consent in the US is actually 16, and only some states have set it higher. So you are actually an idiot.

PS: Did you hit a double jackpot and happen to be born in a country that practices the One True Religion as well? Something tells me you were. People like you are SUPER lucky.

He's not an idiot. there isn't one uniform age of consent in the US.

I told you this before; many states have age limitations. In some states, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, even though the age of consent is 16.

He's not wrong.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 02:21:44 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #821 on: March 13, 2014, 02:25:25 am »
Im 100% sure I could get you doxxed for a damn sight less than 250k, you have any idea how many hacker hate filthy pedo's? ever wonder why they are constantly attacking pages/servers with that content? is it because no matter what criminal element you are in from petty theif all the way up to international drug smuggling mafia don they all have kids and loath those who think the way your kind do..

Do you have any idea how hard it is to do remote code execution against a browser without javascript or images on a hardened OS and then do remote code execution against Tor running on an OpenBSD router with 64 bit ASLR, and then send field agents to the geographic proximity of the IP address recovered to do a live WiFi trace?

Any of your hacker friends who can deanonymize me would rather sell their multiple high value 0days to an intelligence agency for a quarter million bucks than give them to your stupid ass.

Or maybe you have mad connects. What are you paying for remote code execution 0days in firefox HTML engine? Is it more or less than you pay for Tor 0days or OpenBSD 0days that get around ASLR?

Or maybe......just MAYBE.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue how much money it would cost to get two remote code execution 0days against two extremely high value targets (Tor, Tor Browser, OpenBSD). I'm thinking an intelligence agency would pay at least $100,000 for each of them, then you need a payload of some sort too, not to mention you need to pay field agents to do a WiFi trace, so something like $250,000 sounds right.

It's cute you think I'm afraid of your script kiddie brigade though, but I don't think a sub7 binary will execute on my system.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 02:38:48 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #822 on: March 13, 2014, 02:26:31 am »
In this thread

I:

1. Demonstrate that multiple studies have shown that when pedophiles have access to child pornography, child molestation rates fall
2. Demonstrate that the financial market theory of child pornography is inapplicable to modern times
3. Demonstrate that the typical male is sexually attracted to pubescent teenagers
4. Demonstrate that huge swaths of jailbait pornography is self produced and distributed by high school students, not by shady underground jailbait production rings
5. Show the laws regarding CP are so absurd that people can get longer sentences for looking at pictures than for murder
6. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries it is legal to have sex with young teenagers
7. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries, including much of Europe, it is legal to possess pornography of young teenagers
8. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries, especially countries with other freedoms, it is legal to possess child pornography
9. Demonstrate that the world mental health community has conclusively stated that they do not consider attraction to young teenagers as a mental disorder

My opponents:

1. Claim the best way to protect children is to have policies that have been empirically demonstrated as increasing child abuse rates
2. Continue to make references to propaganda snippets produced by the people who profit the most from the war on child pornography consumption
3. Claim that science is pedophile voodoo and not worthy of taking into consideration
4. Claim that the government of Germany has been infiltrated by a pedophile Illuminati set on legalizing the rape of their children
5. Claim that pictures are really magical items capable of causing sexual abuse across space and time, apparently through some strange manifestation of quantum entanglement
6. Claim that it is better to blow the brains out of a 17 year old and rape her cold dead body than it is to possess ten pictures she took of herself flashing her mirror
7. Claim that the best way to protect teenagers from sexual predators is to make 25% of the teenagers in developed countries to register as sex offenders
8. Claim that the world mental health community has been infiltrated by the same secret pedophile Illuminati that infiltrated Germany, and that they are much better educated on matters of sexuality
9. Claim that cartoons are real people and need to be protected from imaginary sexual abuse

1. The only policy should be anyone caught looking at, in possesion of child porn, touching grooming violating any child. castration and life in prison, in general pop. non of this protection shit for them
2. Refer to item 1
3. Refer to item 1
4. Really come on because everything Germany has ever done is right?
5. Clearly explained yesterday about how the pictures are produced hurts the child, your answer you didnt force the kid so doesnt matter someone else did...
6. No it was better to murder someone and have sex with their dead body then to just rape them, wish you could have been raped when young so you could know the feeling
7. I disagree with the extent they go, but there has to be something done to stop the pics getting out so filthy old pedo's(you) dont get their hands on them, if you do refer to item 1
8. Because there is no evidence that alot of rich old men are the ones who abuse children aye
9. No one said that, you brought up cartoons, cartoon porn is not illegal in alot of countrys, but drawn childporn is still sad and disgusting its like the losers cartoon incest pics and alike there is something wrong with them, but let me guess child porns ok but incest no thats bad?  what about beastiality like that too?
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #823 on: March 13, 2014, 02:33:36 am »
leagal age in US.... 18

Wow that is super fortunate that you were born in the country with the One True Age Of Consent. But oh noes the legal age of consent in the US is actually 16, and only some states have set it higher. So you are actually an idiot.

PS: Did you hit a double jackpot and happen to be born in a country that practices the One True Religion as well? Something tells me you were. People like you are SUPER lucky.

He's not an idiot. there isn't one uniform age of consent in the US.

I told you this before; many states have age limitations. In some states, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, even though the age of consent is 16.

He's not wrong.

He is wrong. The age of consent in the US is 16. Some states set it higher. No state with an age of consent at 16 would make it illegal for a 25 year old to fuck the 16 year old. In states with close in age exceptions it is only applicable to those BELOW the age of consent.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #824 on: March 13, 2014, 02:34:28 am »
You are in need of professional help........too many 20 something things out here!

The shear fact is he's one of those guys who got picked on all through school, got to Uni same thing no friends girls wouldnt look/talk to him, sits at home alone only people who could/would are young girls who are impressed with the fact he can drive or has money from a job, to buy them stuff or booze, I've seen it multiple times loser in society has to go to younger and younger age groups as when people hit say 16 they realise they are sad fucking losers

When I was 15 there was this guy who used to hang out with our group, he was 19 as we got older we told him to fuck off and guess what he went to the next group, saddest thing is I saw this chat excuse for a human the other week and sure enough still hanging out with high school kids what a sad life
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #825 on: March 13, 2014, 02:43:22 am »
It's pretty ironic that you hate pedophiles so much you are willing to fuck kids to hurt them.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #826 on: March 13, 2014, 02:51:40 am »
what?
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #827 on: March 13, 2014, 02:55:43 am »
leagal age in US.... 18

Wow that is super fortunate that you were born in the country with the One True Age Of Consent. But oh noes the legal age of consent in the US is actually 16, and only some states have set it higher. So you are actually an idiot.

PS: Did you hit a double jackpot and happen to be born in a country that practices the One True Religion as well? Something tells me you were. People like you are SUPER lucky.

He's not an idiot. there isn't one uniform age of consent in the US.

I told you this before; many states have age limitations. In some states, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, even though the age of consent is 16.

He's not wrong.

He is wrong. The age of consent in the US is 16. Some states set it higher. No state with an age of consent at 16 would make it illegal for a 25 year old to fuck the 16 year old. In states with close in age exceptions it is only applicable to those BELOW the age of consent.

Jesus Christ! Wikipedia? ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States

You'll note that you are, in fact, wrong.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #828 on: March 13, 2014, 03:04:54 am »
leagal age in US.... 18

Wow that is super fortunate that you were born in the country with the One True Age Of Consent. But oh noes the legal age of consent in the US is actually 16, and only some states have set it higher. So you are actually an idiot.

PS: Did you hit a double jackpot and happen to be born in a country that practices the One True Religion as well? Something tells me you were. People like you are SUPER lucky.

He's not an idiot. there isn't one uniform age of consent in the US.

I told you this before; many states have age limitations. In some states, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, even though the age of consent is 16.

He's not wrong.

He is wrong. The age of consent in the US is 16. Some states set it higher. No state with an age of consent at 16 would make it illegal for a 25 year old to fuck the 16 year old. In states with close in age exceptions it is only applicable to those BELOW the age of consent.

Jesus Christ! Wikipedia? ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States

You'll note that you are, in fact, wrong.

Oh joy I get to argue with Jesus H. Christ , the guy who wastes peoples time by making false claims that they then need to spend time correcting despite the fact that he continues to claim that he is right despite the fact that they repeatedly and conclusively show him that he is wrong.

federal law:

Quote
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.

state laws

Quote
ach U.S. state (and the District of Columbia) has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17, or 18. The most common age is 16.[46]

    age of consent 16 (31): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
    age of consent 17 (8): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming
    age of consent 18 (12): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin[47]

These state laws are discussed in detail below.

close in age exceptions

Quote
The age of consent in Washington is 16.

It is also illegal to engage in sexual acts with someone younger than 18 under three different sets of circumstances, enumerated in RCW 9A.44.096. Foster parents with their foster children; school teachers and school administration employees over their students (including, as interpreted by the Washington State Supreme Court, students up to age 21[92]); The third set of circumstances require all of the following situations occur in tandem: The older person is 60 months or more older than the 16- or 17-year-old, the person is in a significant relationship as defined by RCW 9A.44.010, and such older person abuses the relationship to have sexual contact.

There are also three exceptions for people close in age.

    RCW 9A.44.079 "A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim. Rape of a child in the third degree is a class C felony."
    RCW 9A.44.076 "A person is guilty of rape of a child in the second degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least twelve years old but less than fourteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim. Rape of a child in the second degree is a class A felony."
    RCW 9A.44.073 "A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim. Rape of a child in the first degree is a class A felony."

significant relationship is defined as:

Quote

     (a) A person who undertakes the responsibility, professionally or voluntarily, to provide education, health, welfare, or organized recreational activities principally for minors;

     (b) A person who in the course of his or her employment supervises minors; or

     (c) A person who provides welfare, health or residential assistance, personal care, or organized recreational activities to frail elders or vulnerable adults, including a provider, employee, temporary employee, volunteer, or independent contractor who supplies services to long-term care facilities licensed or required to be licensed under chapter 18.20, 18.51, 72.36, or 70.128 RCW, and home health, hospice, or home care agencies licensed or required to be licensed under chapter 70.127 RCW, but not including a consensual sexual partner.

so in normal cases it is not illegal for anyone to have sex with a 16 year old consensually in Washington, the only exceptions are for teachers etc. I'm not going to go through the entire list of states and waste my time, instead why don't you for once read something you link to and show me a clear example of a state that has an age of consent set at X but makes it illegal for normal people who are of age Y > X to have sex with them? PS: It's illegal to have sex with a severely retarded 20 year old too, so some edge case exception doesn't count.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 03:07:35 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #829 on: March 13, 2014, 03:12:30 am »
what?

In order to hurt pedophiles your are in favor of policies that have been shown to increase child sexual abuse rates (criminalizing the possession of child pornography), and in order to "protect kids" you are in favor of policies that would result in 25% of US teenagers being registered sex offenders if the law was perfectly enforced. Therefore, in order to hurt or otherwise inconvenience pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles, you are more than willing to (as a figure of speech) fuck kids, which is hilariously ironic. It's really almost an oxymoron: Fuck kids to prevent pedophilia.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #830 on: March 13, 2014, 03:53:19 am »
Oh joy I get to argue with Jesus H. Christ , the guy who wastes peoples time by making false claims that they then need to spend time correcting despite the fact that he continues to claim that he is right despite the fact that they repeatedly and conclusively show him that he is wrong.

OK. I read the page that I linked. You didn't have to paste the whole fucking thing dickface.

And, you're so fucking stupid; you made my argument for me. You said you refuse to look at individual state laws, and I'm telling you: you're fucking wrong. You'll also note that there is no federal age of consent; each state has it's own policies.

I'm not going to argue with you. Honestly, you're just a retarded tweeker. Tell your mom I said hi!

Quote
federal law:
Each U.S. state (and the District of Columbia) has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17, or 18. The most common age is 16.[46]

These state laws are discussed in detail below.

I'm not going to go through the entire list of states and waste my time, instead why don't you for once read something you link to and show me a clear example of a state.

First of all, I don't have to show you dick. But check the East Coast. There are at least 2, maybe 3 states.. You refuse to get into individual states because you're fucking wrong.

I'm not retarded enough to reveal my location in the forums. Sorry. No Thanks.

PS I hate the way you fucking quote douchebag. Vaffanculo!
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #831 on: March 13, 2014, 03:56:34 am »
I'm not wasting my time. Show proof of your claims or just shut the fuck up. PS: Federal age of consent is 16 you dumb fuck

Quote
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.

done wasting my time with you, I'm not going to go on any more "Show Jesus H. Christ he is wrong" scavenger hunts, how about for once in your entire fucking life you just prove that you are right.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #832 on: March 13, 2014, 04:14:30 am »
I'm not wasting my time. Show proof of your claims or just shut the fuck up. PS: Federal age of consent is 16 you dumb fuck.

Suck my fucking cock. How do you not understand that there's no Federal age of consent? For Christ's sake, you even pointed out that states have there own laws. I'm not fucking telling you where I live. This isn't that serious to me.

The Federal government does not have jurisdiction unless you're engaged in some sort of interstate, um,  whatever ...

You're talking about 4 different circumstances: molestation,  statutory rape, pornography possession, and the production and distribution of pornography. That's pretty broad. Which are we discussing? I ask this because you talk about this as if they're all the same, and they're not.


done wasting my time with you, I'm not going to go on any more "Show Jesus H. Christ he is wrong" scavenger hunts, how about for once in your entire fucking life you just prove that you are right.

Um, this time, it's you that's wrong. I hope you enjoy Butner ;)
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #833 on: March 13, 2014, 05:20:04 am »
In this thread

I:

1. Demonstrate that multiple studies have shown that when pedophiles have access to child pornography, child molestation rates fall
2. Demonstrate that the financial market theory of child pornography is inapplicable to modern times
3. Demonstrate that the typical male is sexually attracted to pubescent teenagers
4. Demonstrate that huge swaths of jailbait pornography is self produced and distributed by high school students, not by shady underground jailbait production rings
5. Show the laws regarding CP are so absurd that people can get longer sentences for looking at pictures than for murder
6. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries it is legal to have sex with young teenagers
7. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries, including much of Europe, it is legal to possess pornography of young teenagers
8. Demonstrate that in multiple first world countries, especially countries with other freedoms, it is legal to possess child pornography
9. Demonstrate that the world mental health community has conclusively stated that they do not consider attraction to young teenagers as a mental disorder

My opponents:

1. Claim the best way to protect children is to have policies that have been empirically demonstrated as increasing child abuse rates
2. Continue to make references to propaganda snippets produced by the people who profit the most from the war on child pornography consumption
3. Claim that science is pedophile voodoo and not worthy of taking into consideration
4. Claim that the government of Germany has been infiltrated by a pedophile Illuminati set on legalizing the rape of their children
5. Claim that pictures are really magical items capable of causing sexual abuse across space and time, apparently through some strange manifestation of quantum entanglement
6. Claim that it is better to blow the brains out of a 17 year old and rape her cold dead body than it is to possess ten pictures she took of herself flashing her mirror
7. Claim that the best way to protect teenagers from sexual predators is to make 25% of the teenagers in developed countries to register as sex offenders
8. Claim that the world mental health community has been infiltrated by the same secret pedophile Illuminati that infiltrated Germany, and that they are much better educated on matters of sexuality
9. Claim that cartoons are real people and need to be protected from imaginary sexual abuse

1. The only policy should be anyone caught looking at, in possesion of child porn, touching grooming violating any child. castration and life in prison, in general pop. non of this protection shit for them
2. Refer to item 1
3. Refer to item 1
4. Really come on because everything Germany has ever done is right?
5. Clearly explained yesterday about how the pictures are produced hurts the child, your answer you didnt force the kid so doesnt matter someone else did...
6. No it was better to murder someone and have sex with their dead body then to just rape them, wish you could have been raped when young so you could know the feeling
7. I disagree with the extent they go, but there has to be something done to stop the pics getting out so filthy old pedo's(you) dont get their hands on them, if you do refer to item 1
8. Because there is no evidence that alot of rich old men are the ones who abuse children aye
9. No one said that, you brought up cartoons, cartoon porn is not illegal in alot of countrys, but drawn childporn is still sad and disgusting its like the losers cartoon incest pics and alike there is something wrong with them, but let me guess child porns ok but incest no thats bad?  what about beastiality like that too?
what?

In order to hurt pedophiles your are in favor of policies that have been shown to increase child sexual abuse rates (criminalizing the possession of child pornography), and in order to "protect kids" you are in favor of policies that would result in 25% of US teenagers being registered sex offenders if the law was perfectly enforced. Therefore, in order to hurt or otherwise inconvenience pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles, you are more than willing to (as a figure of speech) fuck kids, which is hilariously ironic. It's really almost an oxymoron: Fuck kids to prevent pedophilia.

please refer to item 7
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #834 on: March 13, 2014, 06:07:00 am »
I'm not wasting my time. Show proof of your claims or just shut the fuck up. PS: Federal age of consent is 16 you dumb fuck.

Suck my fucking cock. How do you not understand that there's no Federal age of consent? For Christ's sake, you even pointed out that states have there own laws. I'm not fucking telling you where I live. This isn't that serious to me.

I find it absolutely appalling that somebody could have a COLLEGE DEGREE and have an understanding of US government that one would expect of somebody too young to consent to sex. Of course states have their own laws, and that is not mutually exclusive with there being federal laws, you fucking primitive little retard. Federal law trumps state law. If states set their age of consent to 15 federal law still makes it illegal, because federal law applies to everybody in the country and state laws only apply to those in a state. States can create MORE RESTRICTIVE laws than the federal government does, but if they make less restrictive laws then federal law comes into play. Just because there is no law against looking at photographs of naked 16 year olds in New Jersey doesn't mean that someone there can therefore download as much 16 and 17 year old jailbait as they want and not end up in prison. If the federal police, such as the FBI, decided they wanted to fuck them, then the FBI could raid them and charge them federally, then send them to federal prison. Because federal law trumps state law. Now I hope you understand how the American governance system works, and realize that there is a federal law against having sex with anyone under the age of 16 and so federally the age of consent is 16, and some states can and have HIGHER ages of consent but if they have LOWER ages of consent it can still be prosecuted by the FBI if it meets any of the qualifications for being charged as a federal crime, and the current way the law is interpreted EVERYTHING is a federal crime. Did you call your legal 15 year old girlfriend on her cell phone? Did the packets cross state lines? Oh, now you are charged federally, sorry federal age of consent is 16, you lose. 

Quote
The Federal government does not have jurisdiction unless you're engaged in some sort of interstate, um,  whatever ...

Clarified this point for you. EVERYTHING IS CONSIDERED TO BE INTERSTATE. This is interpreted so broadly that it means that the feds have total jurisdiction. Did you use a car that was made in Detroit to transport your legal 15 year old girlfriend to your house? Wow sounds like interstate commerce played a role, feds going to charge you.

Quote
You're talking about 4 different circumstances: molestation,  statutory rape, pornography possession, and the production and distribution of pornography. That's pretty broad. Which are we discussing? I ask this because you talk about this as if they're all the same, and they're not.

I've discussed all, feel free to ask specific questions if you need specific answers.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 06:09:46 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #835 on: March 13, 2014, 03:33:37 pm »
I'm not dissecting that entire rant. I'll provide you with some of the legal background and a limited response. This topic is by far more important to you than me.

I find it absolutely appalling that somebody could have a COLLEGE DEGREE and have an understanding of US government that one would expect of somebody too young to consent to sex.

I have a JD. I understand how the Federal government is organized.

Of course states have their own laws, and that is not mutually exclusive with there being federal laws, you fucking primitive little retard. Federal law trumps state law

<sigh> No, it does not in this case. This falls under the 9th and 10th Amendments. The US government may set a minimum age, but the States are free to set more restrictive laws. For Christ's fucking sake, that's what you quoted:

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.
You fucking quoted that, moron. What does it say about the States and their age of consent laws? ???

If states set their age of consent to 15 federal law still makes it illegal, because federal law applies to everybody in the country and state laws only apply to those in a state.
The US government cannot prosecute individuals who molest children in one jurisdiction if no pornography is involved (that would bring it under the Commerce Clause). Who prosecuted Jerry Sandusky? The Feds? No.

Speaking of Sandusky, here's what the PA statutes are:
Quote from: 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6318
§ 6318.  Unlawful contact with minor.
a)  Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
     intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
     officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
     the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
     activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
     person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
     within this Commonwealth...
(c)  Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
     words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
     subsection:...
"Minor."  An individual under 18 years of age.
     (Dec. 19, 1997, P.L.615, No.62, eff. imd.; Nov. 20, 2002,
     P.L.1104, No.134, eff. 60 days; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1391, No.172,
     eff. 60 days; Nov. 29, 2006, P.L.1567, No.178, eff. Jan. 1,
     2007)

Anyway:

States can create MORE RESTRICTIVE laws than the federal government does, but if they make less restrictive laws then federal law comes into play. Just because there is no law against looking at photographs of naked 16 year olds in New Jersey doesn't mean that someone there can therefore download as much 16 and 17 year old jailbait as they want and not end up in prison.

Oh good. You want to talk about New Jersey? Here:

Quote from: N.J.S.A.
2C:14-2. Sexual assault.

     2C:14-2. Sexual assault ...

     b.     An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual contact with a victim who is less than 13 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.

     c.     An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:

     (1)     The actor uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain severe personal injury;

     (2)     The victim is on probation or parole, or is detained in a hospital, prison or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional or occupational status;

     (3)     The victim is at least 16 but less than 18 years old and:

     (a)     The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree; or

     (b)     The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power of any nature or in any capacity over the victim; or

     (c)     The actor is a resource family parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;

     (4)     The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.

     Sexual assault is a crime of the second degree.
Quote from: State of NJ Law Review Commission
Sexual assault law in New Jersey is applied in the court system using the New Jersey Supreme Court’s interpretation of N.J.S. § 2C:14-2 in the case State in Interest of M.T.S., 129 N.J. 422 (1992). In M.T.S., the issue was whether penetration without consent and without force beyond penetration, satisfied the elements for conviction under § 2C:14-2. Id. at 425. The Court held that the only requirement for conviction under the sexual assault statute is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sexual penetration and that it was accomplished without the affirmative and freely-given permission of the alleged victim. The Court applied a reasonable person standard to determine what constitutes affirmative and freely-given consent, holding that“[p]ermission may be inferred either from acts or statements reasonably viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances. Id. at 444-45. Such permission “may be physical actions rather than words.” Id. at 445. The Court held that the term physical force “qualif[ies] the nature and character of the ‘sexual penetration,’” and all that is necessary for force is unpermitted touching. Ibid. Thus, the court redefined rape law as a violation of autonomy, privacy, and bodily control. Id. at 446. The fact finder must decide “whether the defendant’s belief that the alleged victim had freely given affirmative permission was reasonable.” Id. at 448."
***Clearnet*** http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/sexual%20offenses/sexualoffensesTR061112.pdf

New Jersey is not the only state to have such penalties. My state does as well. So that's 3 states for you.

If the federal police, such as the FBI, decided they wanted to fuck them, then the FBI could raid them and charge them federally, then send them to federal prison. Because federal law trumps state law.
You are wrong. The US Attorney's Office and the DOJ (because that's who would be involved) cannot prosecute in the example above.

First of all, let's say you're fucking a 17 year old in New Jersey: the Federal government would have no jurisdiction in that it is not in violation of any Federal law. Same thing with PA (and possibly DE; not sure, but their laws are similar).

And second, the only Federal law on this matter involves children under age 16 and pornography for those under 18. There are a whole host of offenses that could fall outside of that statute. If it doesn't violate Federal law, the Feds can't prosecute.

Third, look up the US Attorney's Office and their requirements to bring charges.

BTW, if a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, then the more restrictive law is the one that applies. Sometimes, in fact, State law trumps Federal law as it does in my NJ and PA examples.

Now I hope you understand how the American governance system works, and realize that there is a federal law against having sex with anyone under the age of 16 and so federally the age of consent is 16, and some states can and have HIGHER ages of consent but if they have LOWER ages of consent it can still be prosecuted by the FBI if it meets any of the qualifications for being charged as a federal crime, and the current way the law is interpreted EVERYTHING is a federal crime.
No it isn't. And it's you that doesn't understand the US government's organization. Show me a decision that interprets all sex offenses are Federal crimes. I'll wait ...

The Feds don't have the resources (i.e. manpower, funding, etc.) to police these laws. They focus on pornography.

You've got a very poor understanding of the organization of the government; you can't even name the agency that would file charges.

Did you call your legal 15 year old girlfriend on her cell phone? Did the packets cross state lines? Oh, now you are charged federally, sorry federal age of consent is 16, you lose.
There is no legal contact in any State with a 15 year old---unless you're 19; are you in fact 19?---according TO YOU! You lose. You could be charged by either the State or the Feds in that case, but it's most likely going to be the State that files charges. You see, you wish that the Feds would prosecute you; Club Fed is a lot better than rotting away in a State correctional facility for sex offenders.

Quote
The Federal government does not have jurisdiction unless you're engaged in some sort of interstate, um,  whatever ...
Clarified this point for you. EVERYTHING IS CONSIDERED TO BE INTERSTATE. This is interpreted so broadly that it means that the feds have total jurisdiction. Did you use a car that was made in Detroit to transport your legal 15 year old girlfriend to your house? Wow sounds like interstate commerce played a role, feds going to charge you.
No. That's not how law's are interpreted. Sorry. That's so stupid that I'm not even going to bother; a 1st year law student could tell you that.

BTW, Again, there is no such thing as a legal 15 year old partner (for you). Try again. The Fed's could prosecute you, but I guarantee they would not. They don't have the budget to do so, and the Federal court system has such a backlog that they couldn't possibly handle all statutory rape cases.

Anything else, dickface? ???
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 03:42:00 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #836 on: March 13, 2014, 03:39:02 pm »
I think your poll says a lot about this discussion and it's futility.

¡Buen viaje a uruguay!  O, y también ... Vaffanculo ;)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 03:45:58 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #837 on: March 13, 2014, 04:59:27 pm »
Holy shit, massive kudos to our lord the saviour for having the stamina to out-m0rph m0rph.

Time to retreat, m0rph. He's MUCH better at this than you are. You could ask him to be your guru. You might be able to learn a lot from him. But I suspect he thinks you're the disgusting piece of shit most others do, so no dice.

Well, that's it. Game over. m0rph loses. Epically.

That was fun, particularly because I can see how m0rph's sense of intellectual arrogance and superiority that buttressed his ego has been bludgeoned into a bloody, lifeless pulp.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 05:12:20 pm by unforgiven »
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #838 on: March 13, 2014, 05:18:04 pm »
Quote
I have a JD. I understand how the Federal government is organized.

Did you order it online from India?

Quote
The US government may set a minimum age, but the States are free to set more restrictive laws. For Christ's fucking sake, that's what you quoted:

Yeah I know, that's what I said.

Quote
You fucking quoted that, moron. What does it say about the States and their age of consent laws? ???

Nothing. It says the federal age of consent is 16.

Quote
The US government cannot prosecute individuals who molest children in one jurisdiction if no pornography is involved (that would bring it under the Commerce Clause). Who prosecuted Jerry Sandusky? The Feds? No.

They can if they can show any way at all in which activity related to the act involved anything that crossed state lines. De facto the feds have essentially country wide jurisdiction, not much is entirely contained to a single state these days.

Quote
Speaking of Sandusky, here's what the PA statutes are:
Quote from: 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6318
§ 6318.  Unlawful contact with minor.
a)  Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
     intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
     officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
     the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
     activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
     person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
     within this Commonwealth...
(c)  Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
     words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
     subsection:...
"Minor."  An individual under 18 years of age.
     (Dec. 19, 1997, P.L.615, No.62, eff. imd.; Nov. 20, 2002,
     P.L.1104, No.134, eff. 60 days; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1391, No.172,
     eff. 60 days; Nov. 29, 2006, P.L.1567, No.178, eff. Jan. 1,
     2007)

That doesn't contradict a single thing I have said.

Quote
Oh good. You want to talk about New Jersey? Here:

Quote from: N.J.S.A.
2C:14-2. Sexual assault.

     2C:14-2. Sexual assault ...

     b.     An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual contact with a victim who is less than 13 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.

     c.     An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:

     (1)     The actor uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain severe personal injury;

     (2)     The victim is on probation or parole, or is detained in a hospital, prison or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional or occupational status;

     (3)     The victim is at least 16 but less than 18 years old and:

     (a)     The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree; or

     (b)     The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power of any nature or in any capacity over the victim; or

     (c)     The actor is a resource family parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;

     (4)     The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.

     Sexual assault is a crime of the second degree.

That doesn't contradict a single thing I said. The age of consent is 16 in NJ. It isn't illegal for a 25 year old to fuck a 16 year old. Close in age exceptions only apply to people below the age of consent. Just like I said.

Quote
New Jersey is not the only state to have such penalties. My state does as well. So that's 3 states for you.

Three states with laws inline with what I said they would be like?

Quote
You are wrong. The US Attorney's Office and the DOJ (because that's who would be involved) cannot prosecute in the example above.

They can if anything happened that involved anything that crossed state lines. Which is everything.

Quote
First of all, let's say you're fucking a 17 year old in New Jersey: the Federal government would have no jurisdiction in that it is not in violation of any Federal law. Same thing with PA (and possibly DE; not sure, but their laws are similar).

Yeah I know. So?

Quote
And second, the only Federal law on this matter involves children under age 16 and pornography for those under 18. There are a whole host of offenses that could fall outside of that statute. If it doesn't violate Federal law, the Feds can't prosecute.

Yeah I know. So?

Quote
BTW, if a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, then the more restrictive law is the one that applies. Sometimes, in fact, State law trumps Federal law as it does in my NJ and PA examples.

Yeah, I know. So?

Quote
No it isn't. And it's you that doesn't understand the US government's organization. Show me a decision that interprets all sex offenses are Federal crimes. I'll wait ...

Any sex with someone under the age of 16 is an extra-jurisdictional crime. If you go to a country like Uruguay and fuck a 15 year old legally you still broke US law if you are a US citizen (which is why you need to renounce your US citizenship first). If you fuck a 15 year old in a state where it is hypothetically legal, I don't know if federal law automatically applies still due to the extra-jurisdictional nature of federal age of consent, but I do know that if anything involved crossed state lines it is under federal jurisdiction anyway, and in the modern world fucking everything crosses state lines.

Quote
The Feds don't have the resources (i.e. manpower, funding, etc.) to police these laws. They focus on pornography.

They focus on guys jacking off to 15 year olds flashing their mirrors instead of on guys fucking 15 year olds. Which makes sense when you consider that they think it is worse to have 10 pictures of a naked 15 year old flashing her mirror than it is to blow her brains out and sodomize her corpse. But we are not arguing about what they will enforce blah blah blah, and it's funny you just went from they can't do it legally to they don't have the resources. Which is it?

Quote
There is no legal contact in any State with a 15 year old---unless you're 19; are you in fact 19?---according TO YOU! You lose. You could be charged by either the State or the Feds in that case, but it's most likely going to be the State that files charges. You see, you wish that the Feds would prosecute you; Club Fed is a lot better than rotting away in a State correctional facility for sex offenders.

I was presenting something which was less than what I would claim to be a theory supported by arguments.

Quote
No. That's not how law's are interpreted. Sorry. That's so stupid that I'm not even going to bother; a 1st year law student could tell you that.

http://lipsonoshea.com/2011/02/13/more-on-federal-criminal-jurisdiction-and-the-interstate-commerce-clause/

in case you didn't realize, the federal government won the civil war.

Quote
On January 9, 2010, we discussed what is necessary for the federal government to prosecute crimes – specifically that the crime have an effect on “interstate commerce.” This interstate commence requirement is in play in the Federal District Court here in Cleveland, Ohio – in a deadly arson case where 9 people died in a house fire. It is unusual for federal prosecutors to prosecute arson cases – even ones that involve an arson where people have died. Nevertheless, the Federal Government is currently prosecuting (and is in trial against) a man who, they allege, intentionally set a fire that killed nine people. If they are successful in convincing a jury that he intentionally set the fire, they will seek (in a separate phase of the proceedings) the death penalty.

However, just proving that the defendant intentionally set the fire will not be enough for a conviction. The Government will also have to prove that the crime affected “interstate commence.” So, how does a fire in a building in Cleveland, Ohio affect interstate commence? The building was located in Cleveland. The defendant lived in Cleveland, and all of the people who died lived in Cleveland. No one crossed state lines, and the things that were used to start the fire were all obtained in the Cleveland area. Nevertheless, this “interstate commerce” issue has already been decided by the United States Supreme Court – where they held that a fire in a 2-unit apartment building affected interstate commence because “the rental of real estate is unquestionably” an activity affecting interstate commerce. The fact that the residence in question was “rented” was enough to trigger the application of the “interstate commence” clause of the US Constitution. So, it may not be too difficult for the Government to prove that a rental house where 9 people were residing or staying has an affect on interstate commence.

Depending on the circumstances, the federal courts are often willing to expand the coverage of the “interstate commence” clause. In the next couple of years, there will be a number of big fights in the federal courts over what does or does not affect “interstate commerce” – including whether or not parts or all of the so-called ObamaCare health law is constitutionally related (enough) to “interstate commence.” Stay tuned.

Quote
BTW, Again, there is no such thing as a legal 15 year old partner (for you). Try again. The Fed's could prosecute you, but I guarantee they would not. They don't have the budget to do so, and the Federal court system has such a backlog that they couldn't possibly handle all statutory rape cases.

Anything else, dickface? ???

I already explained hypothetical in another thread, I'm not going to do it again. PS: You seem unsure if the feds can prosecute or not.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 05:38:08 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #839 on: March 13, 2014, 05:31:39 pm »
Holy shit, massive kudos to our lord the saviour for having the stamina to out-m0rph m0rph.

Time to retreat, m0rph. He's MUCH better at this than you are. You could ask him to be your guru. You might be able to learn a lot from him. But I suspect he thinks you're the disgusting piece of shit most others do, so no dice.

Well, that's it. Game over. m0rph loses. Epically.

That was fun, particularly because I can see how m0rph's sense of intellectual arrogance and superiority that buttressed his ego has been bludgeoned into a bloody, lifeless pulp.

There can be no doubt at all that Jesus H. Christ is far better at being wrong than I am.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #840 on: March 13, 2014, 05:44:12 pm »
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/amish-prosecuted-because-scissors-crossed-state-lines/

Quote
What does the federal hate crimes law inspired by the murders of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. have to do with an internal dispute among the Amish in which the beards of men and the hair of women were forcibly sheared?

“The scissors used to cut the hair were manufactured in one state and used in another,” explained Edward Bryan, defense lawyer for Amish bishop Samuel Mullet Sr., who was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.

Bryan, in an interview with radio host Michael Savage Thursday night, said the Commerce Clause is one of the federal government’s primary justifications for intervening in the dispute in eastern Ohio among members of the Christian sect.

U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach, of the Northern District of Ohio, argued in the indictment that the “Wahl battery-operated hair clippers” used in the assaults “were purchased at Walmart and had travelled in and affected interstate commerce in that they were manufactured in Dover, Delaware.”

The 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act stipulates any crime prosecuted under the law must involve crossing state lines or using “an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce.”

In a September trial, Mullet was convicted of organizing a series of raids in 2011 against religious enemies and disobedient family members in which the men’s beards were forcibly sheared and women’s hair was cut. Fifteen other Amish members were sentenced to prison terms of two to seven years. Mullet lost his request Tuesday to be released from prison in Texas while he appeals his conviction and sentencing.

Prosecutors argue the 16 Amish men and women were justly convicted under the hate crimes law because hair has spiritual significance to them.

Savage told WND he’s astonished not only by the prosecution of the religious dispute but by the lack of attention paid by fellow conservatives.

“The indifference of the Christians and so-called conservative media both revolts and shocks me,” he said. “They’ve learned nothing from history and are so trapped in their doxies they cannot see injustice unless it is broadcast for them in talking points from the Republican establishment.”

Savage has established a legal defense fund for the convicted Amish men and women.

Calling Mullet’s 15-year sentence “the most disproportionate I’ve ever seen,” Savage said Obama’s nominee for Labor secretary, Thomas Perez, bears responsibility for the prosecution in his current capacity as assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Perez, he said, is “a radical’s radical” who has made carrying scissors across state lines a federal hate crime.

“If we do not come to the aid of the Amish, they can trump up a case against anyone for any reason,” Savage said.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, pointed out in a column last fall that Dettelbach argued Mullet chose his victims because of their “actual or perceived religion.”

“They are effectively being punished for their religious beliefs, since they would not have been prosecuted under federal law if their motivation had been nonreligious,” he wrote.

Since the law applies to offenses involving actual or attempted “bodily injury,” prosecutors had to argue that shorn whiskers and hair qualify for that description, Sullum noted, calling it “a bit of a stretch.”

The defendants, Dettelbach said in the indictment, also used “a pair of 8 [inch] horse mane shears which were manufactured in the State of New York and sent via private, interstate postal carrier to [a retailer] in Ohio for resale.”

The defendants took pictures of their victims with “a Fuji disposable camera from Walmart” that “travelled in and affected interstate commerce in that it was manufactured in Greenwood, South Carolina.” They used “an instrumentality of interstate commerce” (i.e., a highway) to reach victims in Trumbull County, Ohio.

The indictment also mentions a letter – carried by the U.S. Postal Service – was used to lure one of the victims.

‘Abuse of power’

Mullet’s attorney, Bryan, considers the prosecution an unconstitutional abuse of federal power.

He pointed to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last summer that found the individual insurance mandate at the heart of President Obama’s health care law was not enforceable under the Commerce Clause.

The case against the Amish, he said, represents a narrowing of congressional authority over interstate commerce.

The hate crimes law, he insisted, was never meant to prosecute a religious group’s dispute among its own members.

‘Most radical Cabinet member’

Meanwhile, Obama’s choice for Labor secretary, Perez, will face a Senate confirmation hearing next week.

Former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams, in a column last month, said Perez, if confirmed, “would be the most radical cabinet Secretary since Henry Wallace headed the Department of Agriculture for President Roosevelt.”

Adams, who served in the Civil Rights Division under George W. Bush, said Perez is “a radical progressive” who “has amassed a record demonstrating contempt for the rule of law, hostility toward the private sector and an aversion to telling the truth under oath.”

“If the GOP Senators cannot stop Tom Perez, they cannot stop anyone,” he said.

Adams noted 41 Senators has sent a letter to the White House urging that the nomination be withdrawn.

He presented what he called an “abbreviated list of Perez’s misdeed which render him unqualified to serve in any government position, much less as Secretary of Labor”:

    Perez launched a series of “harassing court fights” against peaceful pro-life clinic protesters;
    He was “dishonest under oath about what he knew about racialist rot inside the Justice Department.” An Inspector General report documents a pervasive attitude “that laws are only meant to protect black victims from white defendants in cases like the voter intimidation lawsuit I brought against the New Black Panther Party”;
    He has “twisted the rule of law to bring a lawsuit against Mohawk Central School District in New York to ensure 8th grade students can dress in drag”;
    Perez “waged war against voter photo identification laws”;
    He has “attacked states like Alabama, Arizona and South Carolina over state immigration laws;
    He has “defiantly ignored the Supreme Court by continuing to advance racial hiring preferences”;
    He has sued the New York City Fire Department “to force them to hire black applicants who failed the employment tests even if white applicants passed the test.”
    Perez has “attacked business using the same rotted disparate impact theory, including banks for not lending enough money to ‘people of color’”;
    Perez also blocked the release of a new version of an Amazon Kindle “because the button to make it talk was not in Braille”;
    He also was behind the threats to delay pool openings across the nation for any pool that did not install a chair lift costing many thousands of dollars;
    He’s behind the Justice Department’s refusal to enforce the National Voter Registration Act’s requirement that voter rolls be cleaned up of dead and ineligible voters.
    His Civil Rights Division has ignored hate crimes such as the racially motivated beatings at the Wisconsin state fair.

Meanwhile, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa, R-Calif., has subpoenaed the private emails of Perez as part of an investigation into an agreement Perez brokered last year to withdraw a lending discrimination lawsuit before it could be heard by the Supreme Court.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 05:50:23 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #841 on: March 13, 2014, 08:40:49 pm »
Look, we've already discussed this matter at length; neither of us is going to be swayed at this point. i'm not going to continue engaging you by sorting through these ridiculously long posts. I'm about to smoke some weed and relax. You should do the same.

If you can't be concise, then I'm going to ignore you. These posts are ridiculously fucking long. No one wants to read them. And most folks---based on your own fucking poll---don't fucking agree with you.

Quote
I have a JD. I understand how the Federal government is organized.

Did you order it online from India?

LMFAO! No.

Quote
The US government may set a minimum age, but the States are free to set more restrictive laws. For Christ's fucking sake, that's what you quoted:

Yeah I know, that's what I said.
Clearly you don't, because you've contradicted yourself several times.

Quote
You fucking quoted that, moron. What does it say about the States and their age of consent laws? ???

Nothing. It says the federal age of consent is 16.
Quote it directly please. It does not say that.

Quote
The US government cannot prosecute individuals who molest children in one jurisdiction if no pornography is involved (that would bring it under the Commerce Clause). Who prosecuted Jerry Sandusky? The Feds? No.

They can if they can show any way at all in which activity related to the act involved anything that crossed state lines. De facto the feds have essentially country wide jurisdiction, not much is entirely contained to a single state these days.
Jesus fucking Christ! Seriously? Didn't you take Civics in elementary school? ???

No. That's not how it works. Apparently, you've not only drunk the Kool-Aid, but you've spiked it as well.

You sound paranoid; you should see someone for that. ;)

Quote
Speaking of Sandusky, here's what the PA statutes are:
Quote from: 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6318
§ 6318.  Unlawful contact with minor.
a)  Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
     intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
     officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
     the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
     activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
     person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
     within this Commonwealth...
(c)  Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
     words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
     subsection:...
"Minor."  An individual under 18 years of age.
     (Dec. 19, 1997, P.L.615, No.62, eff. imd.; Nov. 20, 2002,
     P.L.1104, No.134, eff. 60 days; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1391, No.172,
     eff. 60 days; Nov. 29, 2006, P.L.1567, No.178, eff. Jan. 1,
     2007)

That doesn't contradict a single thing I have said.
Um, yes it does. It defines a minor as being 18. You don't get to decide if it was coerced, forced, unwanted, etc.; that's for a fucking judge to determine retard.

I hope that you never have to appear in court pro se.

And OK, but here's what you left out:    .
Quote from: State of NJ Law Review Commission
    Sexual assault law in New Jersey is applied in the court system using the New Jersey Supreme Court’s interpretation of N.J.S. § 2C:14-2 in the case State in Interest of M.T.S., 129 N.J. 422 (1992). In M.T.S., the issue was whether penetration without consent and without force beyond penetration, satisfied the elements for conviction under § 2C:14-2. Id. at 425. The Court held that the only requirement for conviction under the sexual assault statute is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sexual penetration and that it was accomplished without the affirmative and freely-given permission of the alleged victim.The Court applied a reasonable person standard to determine what constitutes affirmative and freely-given consent, holding that“[p]ermission may be inferred either from acts or statements reasonably viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances. Id. at 444-45. Such permission “may be physical actions rather than words.” Id. at 445. The Court held that the term physical force “qualif[ies] the nature and character of the ‘sexual penetration,’” and all that is necessary for force is unpermitted touching. Ibid. Thus, the court redefined rape law as a violation of autonomy, privacy, and bodily control. Id. at 446. The fact finder must decide “whether the defendant’s belief that the alleged victim had freely given affirmative permission was reasonable.” Id. at 448."

That doesn't contradict a single thing I said. The age of consent is 16 in NJ. It isn't illegal for a 25 year old to fuck a 16 year old. Close in age exceptions only apply to people below the age of consent. Just like I said.
Who said that it was illegal for a 25 year old to fuck a 16 year old in The State of New Jersey? ??? I don't recall claiming that.

I'm trying to tell you that, at best, given the way these cases are handled, you are extremely naive.

First of all, there's no such thing as statutory rape in NJ. It's Aggravated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault, or Criminal Sexual Contact (BTW, Same for PA re: statutory rape --- most States have removed the word rape from their criminal codes).

And second, more to the point, it expressly states that the legal precedent (aka common law --- Fun fact: 49 out of 50 States are common law jurisdictions) is that, when filing sexual assault charges, the standard is that the Defendant must have explicit affirmative permission. And again, a judge will be the one to decide that.

So, you fuck a teen; her parents find out; charges are filed, and this goes before a judge (it would never make it to a jury unless you're very wealthy or have an iron clad defense), whom do you think is the more sympathetic and compelling witness when the victim is under 18? Why not test NJ out and see what happens? ???

Quote
New Jersey is not the only state to have such penalties. My state does as well. So that's 3 states for you.

Three states with laws inline with what I said they would be like?
See above: my home State (which you can keep fucking asking, but I'm not going to tell you), NJ, PA, and possibly DE (I don't care enough to look that up, but DE was originally part of PA, so there codes are similar).

You don't understand: while in common parlance, the term statutory rape is thrown around, it's non-existent in State law. The charge is sexual assault. Period.

Do you get it now? If it comes down to a he said/she said with a minor, again, who's more sympathetic? The charge that you'll be facing is sexual assault, not statutory rape.

Rape is fucking rape, whether it's statutory or not (legally speaking).

Quote
You are wrong. The US Attorney's Office and the DOJ (because that's who would be involved) cannot prosecute in the example above.

They can if anything happened that involved anything that crossed state lines. Which is everything.
Did you even bother to look up the US Attorney's Office/DOJ policies on prosecution? No need to answer, I already know. ;)

The Federal government does not have the resources to police the entire United States. They would only prosecute the most egregious offenses. If they didn't charge Sandusky---and they did not; he's currently in a PA State prison---then they're not all that interested, or capable for that matter.

I mean, come on. Regardless of what you are, that man is an convicted child rapist. It was a slam-dunk conviction. The Feds could have pursued him. The States are much more capable/efficient in these types of crimes. And you're understanding of the issue simply does not square with reality. I'm sorry.

Quote
First of all, let's say you're fucking a 17 year old in New Jersey: the Federal government would have no jurisdiction in that it is not in violation of any Federal law. Same thing with PA (and possibly DE; not sure, but their laws are similar).

Yeah I know. So?
That was in answer to your quote/unquote Federal age of consent theory. I did get that wrong though. Sorry (at least I'm grown enough to admit when I make a mistake. I've not been admitted to the NJ Bar Association).

Change NJ to New York, and change the age to 16. Now what? ???

The Feds can't prosecute you, but The State of New York would be happy to oblige. That was my point, douchebag.

Quote
And second, the only Federal law on this matter involves children under age 16 and pornography for those under 18. There are a whole host of offenses that could fall outside of that statute. If it doesn't violate Federal law, the Feds can't prosecute.

Yeah I know. So?
See above, cuntrag.

Quote
BTW, if a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, then the more restrictive law is the one that applies. Sometimes, in fact, State law trumps Federal law as it does in my NJ and PA examples.

Yeah, I know. So?
No. You don't fucking know, because that's not what you said douchebag. You explicitly stated that Federal law always trumps State law. In fact, it's often the other way around.

Tell me: is gambling legal at the Federal level? ??? No. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe every State from MA to VA has established casino gambling (except for maybe RI).

Quote
No it isn't. And it's you that doesn't understand the US government's organization. Show me a decision that interprets all sex offenses are Federal crimes. I'll wait ...

Any sex with someone under the age of 16 is an extra-jurisdictional crime.

Are you going to answer my question? Because you did not.

If it occurs in another country, and it's brought to the attention of the Federal government, I guess they could charge you. I mean, it does happen, but it's rare and usually involves famous folks or people who fuck lots of kids.

How do you think the matter would be brought to the attention of the US government? ??? As long as you didn't try to re-enter with her/photos of her nude, they'd never find out. And Uruguay would not extradite you if you had citizenship there. No need to renounce if you're never going to re-enter.

And---I could be wrong about this---but I believe there's an exception for married couples, so if  you married them, you'd be good. But that's not what you're interested in.

You're going to have a very lonely life when you get to be 45-50. good luck finding teens still willing to fuck you.

Quote
The Feds don't have the resources (i.e. manpower, funding, etc.) to police these laws. They focus on pornography.

They focus on guys jacking off to 15 year olds flashing their mirrors instead of on guys fucking 15 year olds.
Yes, I believe that's exactly what I said.

Quote
There is no legal contact in any State with a 15 year old---unless you're 19; are you in fact 19?---according TO YOU! You lose. You could be charged by either the State or the Feds in that case, but it's most likely going to be the State that files charges. You see, you wish that the Feds would prosecute you; Club Fed is a lot better than rotting away in a State correctional facility for sex offenders.

I was presenting something which was less than what I would claim to be a theory supported by arguments.
Oh OK. So in other words: you were wrong?

Quote
No. That's not how law's are interpreted. Sorry. That's so stupid that I'm not even going to bother; a 1st year law student could tell you that.

http://lipsonoshea.com/2011/02/13/more-on-federal-criminal-jurisdiction-and-the-interstate-commerce-clause/
That's your evidence? ??? LOL! See above.

in case you didn't realize, the federal government won the civil war.
Sorry, I'm not following you here. Are you familiar with Federalism/The Federalist Papers? Granted, the Federal government has expanded it's role since the Reconstruction Era, but there are at least 4 Supreme Court Justices that take those documents at their word (aka Originalists).

Anyway:
Quote from: BS unrelated, off-topic criminal defense site based on Arson and Murder provided by m0rph
This interstate commence requirement is in play in the Federal District Court here in Cleveland, Ohio – in a deadly arson case where 9 people died in a house fire. It is unusual for federal prosecutors to prosecute arson cases – even ones that involve an arson where people have died. Nevertheless, the Federal Government is currently prosecuting (and is in trial against) a man who, they allege, intentionally set a fire that killed nine people. If they are successful in convincing a jury that he intentionally set the fire, they will seek (in a separate phase of the proceedings) the death penalty.
However, just proving that the defendant intentionally set the fire will not be enough for a conviction. The Government will also have to prove that the crime affected “interstate commence.” So, how does a fire in a building in Cleveland, Ohio affect interstate commence? The building was located in Cleveland. The defendant lived in Cleveland, and all of the people who died lived in Cleveland. No one crossed state lines, and the things that were used to start the fire were all obtained in the Cleveland area. Nevertheless, this “interstate commerce” issue has already been decided by the United States Supreme Court – where they held that a fire in a 2-unit apartment building affected interstate commence because “the rental of real estate is unquestionably” an activity affecting interstate commerce. The fact that the residence in question was “rented” was enough to trigger the application of the “interstate commence” clause of the US Constitution. So, it may not be too difficult for the Government to prove that a rental house where 9 people were residing or staying has an affect on interstate commence.
So we're comparing arson and the murder of 9 people to sexual assault? GTFO. That's why I don't read your links.

Also, the italicized clause beginning with If they are successful ... is the crux of that entire opinion piece.

One: I did say that in Capital offenses, the Feds do sometimes get involved; and two: The District Court may not agree. This is a pending trial being discussed. It still has the chance to go through the Appelate court (for whatever Circuit OH is).

Depending on the circumstances, the federal courts are often willing to expand the coverage of the “interstate commence” clause. In the next couple of years, there will be a number of big fights in the federal courts over what does or does not affect “interstate commerce” – including whether or not parts or all of the so-called ObamaCare health law is constitutionally related (enough) to “interstate commence.” Stay tuned.
The thing with common law is this: it's ever-evolving; it's always subject to interpretation; and these rulings are always subject to---not only interpretation---but legislation as well.

That's why I hate common-law. It's grossly unfair to common folks. And it's technically not constitutional, but i can't erase Marbury v. Madison. That's the undisputed law of the land for over 200+ years. (Fun fact: Hamilton always thought the Judicial Branch would be extremely weak and have limited powers. That case was a shock to everyone)

Are you anti-government healthcare? I ask because I believe that Uruguay has centralized government healthcare. You think the fucking US Federal Government is overarching and overreaching, then you're going to fucking hate Uruguay.

Quote
BTW, Again, there is no such thing as a legal 15 year old partner (for you). Try again. The Fed's could prosecute you, but I guarantee they would not. They don't have the budget to do so, and the Federal court system has such a backlog that they couldn't possibly handle all statutory rape cases.

Anything else, dickface? ???

I already explained hypothetical in another thread, I'm not going to do it again. PS: You seem unsure if the feds can prosecute or not.
Look, if you think I took  the time to read from page 28 (which is where I think I left off) and here, you are sorely mistaken.

The fact of the matter is this: if you're over the age of 19, and you fuck a 15 year old, you're going to be prosecuted if a complaint is filed.

Since you concede it's illegal in all 50 states, as well as Federally, it's illegal under Federal law. Prosecution is at the discretion of the State and the Feds. Obviously you can't be tried by both.

The Feds are only going to bring charges in the most extreme cases. Probably not in this example if it's only one victim.

PS I am unsure if they can bring charges. You know why? I'm not a US District Court or Appellate Division Judge. Because common-law is by nature highly subjective, I can't say whether a Federal judge would allow charges to move forward (because that's required).

Lawyers can argue all they like, but it's up to the judge ultimately. I'm not a mind reader, and I'm not actually trying a case here.

Anything else, dickface? ???
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #842 on: March 13, 2014, 08:41:37 pm »
tl;dr

PS I don't read news sources with an ideological bias., regardless of whether it's to the left or to the right. WND is a right-wing, nut-job site, with a clear bias, and with a not-so-good reputation re: reporting facts. That's reason number 2 that I didn't read this.

Next time, a link along with a cogent summary---i.e. if you're capable---is more than sufficient.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/amish-prosecuted-because-scissors-crossed-state-lines/

Quote
What does the federal hate crimes law inspired by the murders of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. have to do with an internal dispute among the Amish in which the beards of men and the hair of women were forcibly sheared?

“The scissors used to cut the hair were manufactured in one state and used in another,” explained Edward Bryan, defense lawyer for Amish bishop Samuel Mullet Sr., who was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.

Bryan, in an interview with radio host Michael Savage Thursday night, said the Commerce Clause is one of the federal government’s primary justifications for intervening in the dispute in eastern Ohio among members of the Christian sect.

U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach, of the Northern District of Ohio, argued in the indictment that the “Wahl battery-operated hair clippers” used in the assaults “were purchased at Walmart and had travelled in and affected interstate commerce in that they were manufactured in Dover, Delaware.”

The 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act stipulates any crime prosecuted under the law must involve crossing state lines or using “an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce.”

In a September trial, Mullet was convicted of organizing a series of raids in 2011 against religious enemies and disobedient family members in which the men’s beards were forcibly sheared and women’s hair was cut. Fifteen other Amish members were sentenced to prison terms of two to seven years. Mullet lost his request Tuesday to be released from prison in Texas while he appeals his conviction and sentencing.

Prosecutors argue the 16 Amish men and women were justly convicted under the hate crimes law because hair has spiritual significance to them.

Savage told WND he’s astonished not only by the prosecution of the religious dispute but by the lack of attention paid by fellow conservatives.

“The indifference of the Christians and so-called conservative media both revolts and shocks me,” he said. “They’ve learned nothing from history and are so trapped in their doxies they cannot see injustice unless it is broadcast for them in talking points from the Republican establishment.”

Savage has established a legal defense fund for the convicted Amish men and women.

Calling Mullet’s 15-year sentence “the most disproportionate I’ve ever seen,” Savage said Obama’s nominee for Labor secretary, Thomas Perez, bears responsibility for the prosecution in his current capacity as assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Perez, he said, is “a radical’s radical” who has made carrying scissors across state lines a federal hate crime.

“If we do not come to the aid of the Amish, they can trump up a case against anyone for any reason,” Savage said.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, pointed out in a column last fall that Dettelbach argued Mullet chose his victims because of their “actual or perceived religion.”

“They are effectively being punished for their religious beliefs, since they would not have been prosecuted under federal law if their motivation had been nonreligious,” he wrote.

Since the law applies to offenses involving actual or attempted “bodily injury,” prosecutors had to argue that shorn whiskers and hair qualify for that description, Sullum noted, calling it “a bit of a stretch.”

The defendants, Dettelbach said in the indictment, also used “a pair of 8 [inch] horse mane shears which were manufactured in the State of New York and sent via private, interstate postal carrier to [a retailer] in Ohio for resale.”

The defendants took pictures of their victims with “a Fuji disposable camera from Walmart” that “travelled in and affected interstate commerce in that it was manufactured in Greenwood, South Carolina.” They used “an instrumentality of interstate commerce” (i.e., a highway) to reach victims in Trumbull County, Ohio.

The indictment also mentions a letter – carried by the U.S. Postal Service – was used to lure one of the victims.

‘Abuse of power’

Mullet’s attorney, Bryan, considers the prosecution an unconstitutional abuse of federal power.

He pointed to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last summer that found the individual insurance mandate at the heart of President Obama’s health care law was not enforceable under the Commerce Clause.

The case against the Amish, he said, represents a narrowing of congressional authority over interstate commerce.

The hate crimes law, he insisted, was never meant to prosecute a religious group’s dispute among its own members.

‘Most radical Cabinet member’

Meanwhile, Obama’s choice for Labor secretary, Perez, will face a Senate confirmation hearing next week.

Former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams, in a column last month, said Perez, if confirmed, “would be the most radical cabinet Secretary since Henry Wallace headed the Department of Agriculture for President Roosevelt.”

Adams, who served in the Civil Rights Division under George W. Bush, said Perez is “a radical progressive” who “has amassed a record demonstrating contempt for the rule of law, hostility toward the private sector and an aversion to telling the truth under oath.”

“If the GOP Senators cannot stop Tom Perez, they cannot stop anyone,” he said.

Adams noted 41 Senators has sent a letter to the White House urging that the nomination be withdrawn.

He presented what he called an “abbreviated list of Perez’s misdeed which render him unqualified to serve in any government position, much less as Secretary of Labor”:

    Perez launched a series of “harassing court fights” against peaceful pro-life clinic protesters;
    He was “dishonest under oath about what he knew about racialist rot inside the Justice Department.” An Inspector General report documents a pervasive attitude “that laws are only meant to protect black victims from white defendants in cases like the voter intimidation lawsuit I brought against the New Black Panther Party”;
    He has “twisted the rule of law to bring a lawsuit against Mohawk Central School District in New York to ensure 8th grade students can dress in drag”;
    Perez “waged war against voter photo identification laws”;
    He has “attacked states like Alabama, Arizona and South Carolina over state immigration laws;
    He has “defiantly ignored the Supreme Court by continuing to advance racial hiring preferences”;
    He has sued the New York City Fire Department “to force them to hire black applicants who failed the employment tests even if white applicants passed the test.”
    Perez has “attacked business using the same rotted disparate impact theory, including banks for not lending enough money to ‘people of color’”;
    Perez also blocked the release of a new version of an Amazon Kindle “because the button to make it talk was not in Braille”;
    He also was behind the threats to delay pool openings across the nation for any pool that did not install a chair lift costing many thousands of dollars;
    He’s behind the Justice Department’s refusal to enforce the National Voter Registration Act’s requirement that voter rolls be cleaned up of dead and ineligible voters.
    His Civil Rights Division has ignored hate crimes such as the racially motivated beatings at the Wisconsin state fair.

Meanwhile, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa, R-Calif., has subpoenaed the private emails of Perez as part of an investigation into an agreement Perez brokered last year to withdraw a lending discrimination lawsuit before it could be heard by the Supreme Court.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 08:45:27 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #843 on: March 13, 2014, 09:34:15 pm »
Quote
Quote
That doesn't contradict a single thing I have said.
Um, yes it does. It defines a minor as being 18. You don't get to decide if it was coerced, forced, unwanted, etc.; that's for a fucking judge to determine retard.

Yeah. In that state. So what? I already said some states have higher ages of consent than federal. None have lower though.

Quote
Who said that it was illegal for a 25 year old to fuck a 16 year old in The State of New Jersey? ??? I don't recall claiming that.

You claimed there are states where the age of consent is 16 but where 25 year olds are not allowed to fuck 16 year olds. You have failed to show a single such state.

Quote
First of all, there's no such thing as statutory rape in NJ. It's Aggravated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault, or Criminal Sexual Contact (BTW, Same for PA re: statutory rape --- most States have removed the word rape from their criminal codes).

And second, more to the point, it expressly states that the legal precedent (aka common law --- Fun fact: 49 out of 50 States are common law jurisdictions) is that, when filing sexual assault charges, the standard is that the Defendant must have explicit affirmative permission. And again, a judge will be the one to decide that.

So, you fuck a teen; her parents find out; charges are filed, and this goes before a judge (it would never make it to a jury unless you're very wealthy or have an iron clad defense), whom do you think is the more sympathetic and compelling witness when the victim is under 18? Why not test NJ out and see what happens? ???

If you fuck a 16 year old in a state where the age of consent is 16, there is nothing for a judge to figure out. Her parents can't do shit. She can't do shit if she gave consent and regretted it later. It's completely legal to consensually fuck 16 year olds in the majority of the USA.

Quote
You don't understand: while in common parlance, the term statutory rape is thrown around, it's non-existent in State law. The charge is sexual assault. Period.

Yeah, I know that. It's irrelevant. If you get to call hebephiles pedophiles I get to call some lesser forms of sexual assault statutory rape.

Quote
Do you get it now? If it comes down to a he said/she said with a minor, again, who's more sympathetic? The charge that you'll be facing is sexual assault, not statutory rape.

The same could be said of females in general.

Quote
Rape is fucking rape, whether it's statutory or not (legally speaking).

They have different degrees.

Quote
Change NJ to New York, and change the age to 16. Now what? ???

The Feds can't prosecute you, but The State of New York would be happy to oblige. That was my point, douchebag.

And my point was if a state theoretically set an age of consent at 15, the feds would be more than happy to prosecute you for fucking 15 year olds still.

Quote
No. You don't fucking know, because that's not what you said douchebag. You explicitly stated that Federal law always trumps State law. In fact, it's often the other way around.

Federal law always trumps state law if it is more restrictive. The more restrictive law wins.

Quote
And---I could be wrong about this---but I believe there's an exception for married couples, so if  you married them, you'd be good. But that's not what you're interested in. You're going to have a very lonely life when you get to be 45-50. good luck finding teens still willing to fuck you.

I don't think I would lose so much interest in a person that I would never be able to enjoy a relationship with someone older than the age range which I find most attractive, just as I don't see many people who are 60 ditching their wives for 20 year olds, but if I have no commitment to anybody and have possibilities arise in which I can consensually fuck 13 year olds I don't particularly see why I shouldn't do so, and all other things made irrelevant I would usually go with a younger version of an otherwise identical girl than with an older version of her, after the point at which she is sexually desirable. Pretty much I prefer the youngest possible girls who are old enough that I wont become more sexually attracted to them as they get older. And again, that isn't to say I couldn't make due with older girls, it's just to say that given a choice between the two I would go with the younger one if I had no currently established relationship. 

Quote
Quote
They focus on guys jacking off to 15 year olds flashing their mirrors instead of on guys fucking 15 year olds.
Yes, I believe that's exactly what I said.

It's actually completely inaccurate though. The feds will never even get around to giving you a second glance if you download all the self produced 15 year old porn that you want, provided that you are not one of a very small number of extremely unlucky people, and don't have your possession of the images discovered in other ways. They can't even bust all the people jacking off to babies being mutilated, do you think they are really spending time going after guys jacking off to jailbait porn? Soft jailbait is nearly legal as far as enforcement goes, the only people who get screwed over for jailbait porn are the high school kids taking pictures of themselves and each other and sharing them with the internet. You are far more likely to get fucked over for jailbait porn if you are under the age of consent than if you are some 40 year old guy just grabbing it off the internet. In much of the damn world it isn't even illegal to have or produce porn of young teenagers, even in countries where CP is illegal. On the other hand, fucking 15 year olds is much more likely to result in you getting caught up in a sting operation or found out and busted.

It's technically true that if you get busted with 10 pictures of a 15 year old flashing in Alabama that you would have a mandatory minimum sentence of 99 years in prison, but

A. You wouldn't get prosecuted for this if you were a normal CP consumer, though you might if you were an 18 year old senior at high school and the principal heard you had such pictures, because then the hands of LE are much more tied than if you are just an IP address on a list of millions of others detected with much more deviant CP than you have

B. If you did get prosecuted a prosecutor who wasn't a feminist Nazi or a conservative christian would let you plea guilty to one picture or maybe even something less in exchange for dropping the other charges, so even though at first you will be facing a mandatory minimum of 99 years through plea bargains they will be able to lower it to something less unreasonable.

So even though it would support my position much better to pretend that there is a huge war on jailbait consumers, there is really mostly just a big war on jailbait producers and distributors, namely high school kids. But I have no problems using technically correct but misleading arguments like this when my opponents claim that the average man is not a hebephile because he is also attracted to 15 year olds, implicitly stating that the average man is not attracted to 14 year olds despite the fact that penile response studies have indicated otherwise. See, I am good with words too. And it's also fun to abandon this argument just to be able to show you how truly ignorant and pathetic you are. I want all CP to be legalized to possess, there is in a free country no legal difference between looking at a picture of a baby being raped or a picture of a 15 year old flashing her mirror or a picture of a 50 year old flashing her mirror.

Quote
Quote
There is no legal contact in any State with a 15 year old---unless you're 19; are you in fact 19?---according TO YOU! You lose. You could be charged by either the State or the Feds in that case, but it's most likely going to be the State that files charges. You see, you wish that the Feds would prosecute you; Club Fed is a lot better than rotting away in a State correctional facility for sex offenders.

I was presenting something which was less than what I would claim to be a theory supported by arguments.
Oh OK. So in other words: you were wrong?

I specifically made a lack of claim to my factual accuracy.

Quote
So we're comparing arson and the murder of 9 people to sexual assault? GTFO. That's why I don't read your links.

I forget that neurotypical people have trouble to see trees when presented with forests.

Quote
Are you anti-government healthcare? I ask because I believe that Uruguay has centralized government healthcare. You think the fucking US Federal Government is overarching and overreaching, then you're going to fucking hate Uruguay.

I like government healthcare more than I like government run pedophile death camps.

edit: PS I am done fixing your fucked up quotes so either start doing it right or fuck off
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 09:43:42 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #844 on: March 13, 2014, 10:00:42 pm »
m0rph

Why the fck are you posting so much about the same shit?

Will you never understand that NOONE has your back on this one. Give it up already.

You well never amount to much because no mater how smart you think you are. You’re still just a chomo deep down and you know it!
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #845 on: March 13, 2014, 10:46:37 pm »
Quote from: m0rph link=topic=1972.msg596654#msg596654 date=13947464z746455

Quote
Who said that it was illegal for a 25 year old to fuck a 16 year old in The State of New Jersey? ??? I don't recall claiming that.

You claimed there are states where the age of consent is 16 but where 25 year olds are not allowed to fuck 16 year olds. You have failed to show a single such state.
I never said anything about the laws of The State of New Jersey (i.e. in terms of my knowledge. In fact, I've refused, several times, to reveal my location. The onus is on you here.


Quote
First of all, there's no such thing as statutory rape in NJ. It's Aggravated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault, or Criminal Sexual Contact (BTW, Same for PA re: statutory rape --- most States have removed the word rape from their criminal codes).

And second, more to the point, it expressly states that the legal precedent (aka common law --- Fun fact: 49 out of 50 States are common law jurisdictions) is that, when filing sexual assault charges, the standard is that the Defendant must have explicit affirmative permission. And again, a judge will be the one to decide that.

So, you fuck a teen; her parents find out; charges are filed, and this goes before a judge (it would never make it to a jury unless you're very wealthy or have an iron clad defense), whom do you think is the more sympathetic and compelling witness when the victim is under 18? Why not test NJ out and see what happens? ???

If you fuck a 16 year old in a state where the age of consent is 16, there is nothing for a judge to figure out. Her parents can't do shit. She can't do shit if she gave consent and regretted it later. It's completely legal to consensually fuck 16 year olds in the majority of the USA.
Oh no; you're definitely mistaken here. You think s/he (what's your orientation so that I know the right pro-nouns to use?) can't accuse you of rape? That's alarming. If you think you're--or fuck it, a 30 year old---going to look sympathetic to either a judge or a jury, you are severely mistaken. Her parents find out, or she gets knocked up; she says she didn't give consent; her parents file charges; and it's up to a judge to green-light it.  Depending on the severity of the consequences---if not criminally, then civilly---you may end up in this situation. It all depends on the available evidence, but your age and the nature of your relationship is not going to look good. That's how lawyers think; they stitch together a narrative based on the evidence before them. You'd better have some good evidence, or you're going to have trouble here.

Assuming you're of modest means, the prosecutor will overcharge you---like, say, with aggravated sexual assault---and they'll force you to cop a plea to criminal sexual contact. It's fucked up, but that's how it goes down in reality.

Quote
You don't understand: while in common parlance, the term statutory rape is thrown around, it's non-existent in State law. The charge is sexual assault. Period.

Yeah, I know that. It's irrelevant. If you get to call hebephiles pedophiles I get to call some lesser forms of sexual assault statutory rape.

From a legal perspective, that's not reality. Fair enough, but the thing with hebephilia---well two things---it's imprecise, and it's a rather modern term. It hasn't made it's way into the legal system. And it's impossible to define based on a wide range of age when you're talking about post-pubescence.

Quote
Do you get it now? If it comes down to a he said/she said with a minor, again, who's more sympathetic? The charge that you'll be facing is sexual assault, not statutory rape.

The same could be said of females in general.
Um, fine, but for same-sex, it's even more severe (in the view of the general public---also known as a jury of your peers).

Quote
Rape is fucking rape, whether it's statutory or not (legally speaking).

They have different degrees.
They're all felonious, and they all require registration as a sex-offender.

Quote
Change NJ to New York, and change the age to 16. Now what? ???

The Feds can't prosecute you, but The State of New York would be happy to oblige. That was my point, douchebag.

And my point was if a state theoretically set an age of consent at 15, the feds would be more than happy to prosecute you for fucking 15 year olds still.
No. They can't. I'm sure there's some precedence here (it's not my area of expertise), but surely that's been challenged, tested, and established as precedence. That's inherited from the UK; that's where 16 comes from: British common-law.

I don't think I would lose so much interest in a person that I would never be able to enjoy a relationship with someone older than the age range which I find most attractive, just as I don't see many people who are 60 ditching their wives for 20 year olds ...


Shit, are you fucking kidding me? Male or female, money actually can, in spite of what The Beatles tried to tell you, buy you love LOL. Seriously, two things:
1. If you're in your 20s, that may change. I found teens a lot more attractive in my early-to-mid 20s (I'm between 25-35 for reference). Now, they look like kids, and they call them jailbait for a reason. By extension, you may be arguing against something you could come to understand. I mean, hey, you never know, right?
2. You've never seen a man in his 50s or 60s leave their wife for a hot young piece of ass? ??? Seriously? ???

Quote
Quote
They focus on guys jacking off to 15 year olds flashing their mirrors instead of on guys fucking 15 year olds.
Yes, I believe that's exactly what I said.

It's actually completely inaccurate though. The feds will never even get around to giving you a second glance if you download all the self produced 15 year old porn that you want, provided that you are not one of a very small number of extremely unlucky people, and don't have your possession of the images discovered in other ways.
I'm going to cut you off here---I read the rest, I swear. If the studio produced those images is in compliance with US Federal law, then they have the age of the teen well-documented. Nine times out of ten, those so-called teens are in reality EIGHTteen, NINEteen, or in their early 20s. That's the reason that it's common parlance in the industry.

In that case, you're not fucking guilty of anything, Say nothing, and get a good lawyer. They can't prosecute you for role-playing. That's bullshit. I'd like to see a conviiction on those exact grounds.

As I said months ago, this all comes down to the age of majority, in that, minors can't enter into contracts. Therefore, they are unable to consent to be featured in pornography, and their parents can't consent for that even.

Quote
So we're comparing arson and the murder of 9 people to sexual assault? GTFO. That's why I don't read your links.

I forget that neurotypical people have trouble to see trees when presented with forests.

Listen, I'm sorry, but if you think that those offenses---9 counts of murder (they're trying them sepaerately; or at least are attempting to), plus arson---are on par with a sex crime with one victim and one occurrence, then you might be a sociopath. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.

I don't give a fuck if that's Constitutional (nor do most judges; they can just make shit up if their rationale can convince Appellate judges); in that particular case, as much as the Federal death penalty bothers me, that mother fucker deserves to die.

Quote
Are you anti-government healthcare? I ask because I believe that Uruguay has centralized government healthcare. You think the fucking US Federal Government is overarching and overreaching, then you're going to fucking hate Uruguay.

I like government healthcare more than I like government run pedophile death camps.

They don't put people to death for that; stop it. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't like Uruguay, particularly if you're conservative.

edit: PS I am done fixing your fucked up quotes so either start doing it right or fuck off

Look, I don't like the way you quote either; it doesn't bother me enough to correct them though. Feel free to ignore it, or stop fucking quoting so much. I type very fast, and I'm not worried about editing here.

PS Much better.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 11:52:08 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #846 on: March 13, 2014, 11:00:08 pm »
Like, I'm really trying hard to put this thread to bed; it's very tired; it's very lopsided; and there's nothing to add; so it deserves to be retired, no? ???

At least wait for someone else to chime in.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

lashesxo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • Karma: +89/-60
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #847 on: March 13, 2014, 11:13:51 pm »
I find it disturbing that one would even argue that it should be legal.

There are no tangible words in any language that would even begin to express the disgust.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 11:14:50 pm by lashesxo »
"I always find beauty in things that are odd or imperfect. They are much more interesting" - Marc Jacobs

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #848 on: March 13, 2014, 11:16:05 pm »
You should take up acting, I really can't tell if you are trolling me or just retarded.

Quote
I'm going to cut you off here---I read the rest, I swear. If the studio produced those images is in compliance with US Federal law, then they have the age of the teen well-documented. Nine times out of ten, those so-called teens are in reality EIGHTteen, NINEteen, or in their early 20s. That's the reason that it's common parlance in the industry.

In that case, you're not fucking guilty of anything, Say nothing, and get a good lawyer. They can't prosecute you for role-playing. That's bullshit. I'd like to see a conviiction on those exact grounds.

As I said months ago, this all comes down to the age of majority, in that, minors can't enter into contracts. Therefore, they are unable to consent to be featured in pornography, and their parents can't consent for that even.

I never refer to jailbait porn any porn which is legal. Porn that is barely legal is called barely legal porn. Very few people go to prison for barely legal porn, though some have been charged as if it were child porn due to the fact that some particularly zealous retards will charge you for having porn of anyone in tanner scale 4 despite the fact that 25% of adult females are. But these cases are exceptional. Cases for true jailbait porn are exceptional too, especially when it is soft core self produced stuff (ie: girls flashing their mirrors ending up on motherless or primeassteens, versus some 13 year olds step dad raping her and posting the videos on lolita city). But even a video of a 13 year old being raped would be unlikely to be prosecuted if it were downloaded with a P2P application, if it were downloaded from a centralized site it would stand a chance of being prosecuted though. There are too many cases of people with younger and harder porn so the intelligence is completely stale and worthless by the time the police get to small cases, USUALLY but not always some unlucky people do get fucked. In reality though you are highly unlikely to go to jail for looking at illegally underage high school girls taking nude pictures of themselves, if they are all 15 or older it's almost certainly not going to happen. I'd say it's more likely a 15 year old who takes a topless picture of herself is put on the sex offenders registry than some random person who views the resulting image.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

lashesxo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • Karma: +89/-60
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #849 on: March 13, 2014, 11:21:03 pm »
You should take up acting, I really can't tell if you are trolling me or just retarded.

Quote
I'm going to cut you off here---I read the rest, I swear. If the studio produced those images is in compliance with US Federal law, then they have the age of the teen well-documented. Nine times out of ten, those so-called teens are in reality EIGHTteen, NINEteen, or in their early 20s. That's the reason that it's common parlance in the industry.

In that case, you're not fucking guilty of anything, Say nothing, and get a good lawyer. They can't prosecute you for role-playing. That's bullshit. I'd like to see a conviiction on those exact grounds.

As I said months ago, this all comes down to the age of majority, in that, minors can't enter into contracts. Therefore, they are unable to consent to be featured in pornography, and their parents can't consent for that even.

I never refer to jailbait porn any porn which is legal. Porn that is barely legal is called barely legal porn. Very few people go to prison for barely legal porn, though some have been charged as if it were child porn due to the fact that some particularly zealous retards will charge you for having porn of anyone in tanner scale 4 despite the fact that 25% of adult females are. But these cases are exceptional. Cases for true jailbait porn are exceptional too, especially when it is soft core self produced stuff (ie: girls flashing their mirrors ending up on motherless or primeassteens, versus some 13 year olds step dad raping her and posting the videos on lolita city). But even a video of a 13 year old being raped would be unlikely to be prosecuted if it were downloaded with a P2P application, if it were downloaded from a centralized site it would stand a chance of being prosecuted though. There are too many cases of people with younger and harder porn so the intelligence is completely stale and worthless by the time the police get to small cases, USUALLY but not always some unlucky people do get fucked. In reality though you are highly unlikely to go to jail for looking at illegally underage high school girls taking nude pictures of themselves, if they are all 15 or older it's almost certainly not going to happen. I'd say it's more likely a 15 year old who takes a topless picture of herself is put on the sex offenders registry than some random person who views the resulting image.

m0rph, could you address my question in the SR Shitlist thread?  :)
"I always find beauty in things that are odd or imperfect. They are much more interesting" - Marc Jacobs

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #850 on: March 13, 2014, 11:46:03 pm »

Quote
Change NJ to New York, and change the age to 16. Now what? ???

The Feds can't prosecute you, but The State of New York would be happy to oblige. That was my point, douchebag.

And my point was if a state theoretically set an age of consent at 15, the feds would be more than happy to prosecute you for fucking 15 year olds still.

Quote
No. You don't fucking know, because that's not what you said douchebag. You explicitly stated that Federal law always trumps State law. In fact, it's often the other way around.

Federal law always trumps state law if it is more restrictive. The more restrictive law wins.

Quote

What about the gambling? isnt that against federal law but legal in some states?

I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #851 on: March 13, 2014, 11:52:00 pm »
RETARD FIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #852 on: March 13, 2014, 11:56:00 pm »

Quote
Change NJ to New York, and change the age to 16. Now what? ???

The Feds can't prosecute you, but The State of New York would be happy to oblige. That was my point, douchebag.

And my point was if a state theoretically set an age of consent at 15, the feds would be more than happy to prosecute you for fucking 15 year olds still.

Quote
No. You don't fucking know, because that's not what you said douchebag. You explicitly stated that Federal law always trumps State law. In fact, it's often the other way around.

Federal law always trumps state law if it is more restrictive. The more restrictive law wins.

Quote

What about the gambling? isnt that against federal law but legal in some states?
Um, I wasn't speaking to you. I thought you were arguing against this, no? ???
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 11:59:57 pm by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #853 on: March 14, 2014, 12:02:18 am »
RETARD FIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like, seriously? ???
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #854 on: March 14, 2014, 12:54:57 am »
seriously.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #855 on: March 14, 2014, 12:56:32 am »
seriously.
LOL. OK nice bump. Please stop.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 12:56:56 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #856 on: March 14, 2014, 12:59:05 am »
nice bump of your own there retard
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #857 on: March 14, 2014, 01:14:43 am »
nice bump of your own there retard

You're very bad at sock-puppetry. Perhaps you should pursue something else in life aside from methamphetamine?
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #858 on: March 14, 2014, 01:24:43 am »
in my quoting it somehow fucked up the bottom part asking if federal laws always trumps then why do some states allow gambling even though against federal law, like earlier pointed out by our lord and savior but ignored by m0rph

Yes jesus im def on your side in this one...we dont see eye to eye on much but m0rph is a common bond
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #859 on: March 14, 2014, 01:29:09 am »
in my quoting it somehow fucked up the bottom part asking if federal laws always trumps then why do some states allow gambling even though against federal law, like earlier pointed out by our lord and savior but ignored by m0rph

Yes jesus im def on your side in this one...we dont see eye to eye on much but m0rph is a common bond

Whatever, I'm not a dick like that. I'm fine to agree to disagree on any point other than this :D

PS What do we disagree on? Just curious.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #860 on: March 14, 2014, 01:40:16 am »
the state law can override federal as in illegal to gamble federally but legal in some states

plus the fact m0rph is wrong
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #861 on: March 14, 2014, 01:46:42 am »
I'm glad I finally brought you to the sun.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #862 on: March 14, 2014, 01:53:02 am »
the state law can override federal as in illegal to gamble federally but legal in some states

plus the fact m0rph is wrong

In what sense is he not wrong if we agree?

Without question, without regard to age of consent laws, it's up to the States. The text that m0rph has quoted agrees. That's a matter of fact.

I'll leave casino gambling out, because outside of NV and NJ, it's a relatively new thing.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #863 on: March 14, 2014, 01:57:27 am »
I think cryngie and Jesus H Christ are both too retarded to consent to sex.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #864 on: March 14, 2014, 01:58:46 am »
I think cryngie and Jesus H Christ are both too retarded to consent to sex.

I've got no problem getting ass. I'm sorry if you do.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #865 on: March 14, 2014, 06:36:39 am »
I think every time you get ass you are sexually abused, because someone of such limited intelligence clearly is incapable of giving informed consent.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #866 on: March 14, 2014, 06:42:20 am »
I think every time you get ass you are sexually abused, because someone of such limited intelligence clearly is incapable of giving informed consent.

<sigh> Is that the best you've got? Would you mind trolling harder please? Thanks ;)
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #867 on: March 14, 2014, 06:43:43 am »
There isn't much left to say at this point. We had a nice branch going in the shit list thread, but then unforgiven decided that we shouldn't continue. A clever tactic actually, so it must have been a coincidence.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #868 on: March 14, 2014, 06:46:24 am »
There isn't much left to say at this point. We had a nice branch going in the shit list thread, but then unforgiven decided that we shouldn't continue. A clever tactic actually, so it must have been a coincidence.

He/She had a point.

But if there's nothing left to say, why are you still talking? I mean, feel free, but I'm just curious.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #869 on: March 14, 2014, 06:49:16 am »
There isn't much left to say because unforgiven made a new thread and the train of thought in this thread was redirected to it, and then he crashed the train by invoking the "one underage discussion thread only" rule. Had it been an intentional maneuver intended to disrupt the progression of this thread I would have been impressed with its skillfulness, but seeing as I know unforgiven is incapable of such complexities I suppose it is just a coincidence that it worked out in such a way. 
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

lashesxo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • Karma: +89/-60
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #870 on: March 14, 2014, 08:50:19 am »
I think every time you get ass you are sexually abused, because someone of such limited intelligence clearly is incapable of giving informed consent.

Says the man who would have sex with a 12 year old 6th grade child. She is certainly intelligent enough and well educated on sex to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent to an adult male wanting to act on his pedophile tendencies, right?

Get out.
"I always find beauty in things that are odd or imperfect. They are much more interesting" - Marc Jacobs

joenamath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Karma: +329/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #871 on: March 14, 2014, 11:35:17 pm »
I think every time you get ass you are sexually abused, because someone of such limited intelligence clearly is incapable of giving informed consent.

Says the man who would have sex with a 12 year old 6th grade child. She is certainly intelligent enough and well educated on sex to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent to an adult male wanting to act on his pedophile tendencies, right?

Get out.


Got your back..... 24/7 on this.
I guarantee a win in SuperBowl III.

lashesxo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • Karma: +89/-60
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #872 on: March 15, 2014, 02:11:27 am »
I think every time you get ass you are sexually abused, because someone of such limited intelligence clearly is incapable of giving informed consent.

Says the man who would have sex with a 12 year old 6th grade child. She is certainly intelligent enough and well educated on sex to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent to an adult male wanting to act on his pedophile tendencies, right?

Get out.


Got your back..... 24/7 on this.

Well, thanks!  :D
"I always find beauty in things that are odd or imperfect. They are much more interesting" - Marc Jacobs

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #873 on: March 15, 2014, 02:50:38 am »
I don't imagine I would have sex with a 6th grade 12 year old, but could theoretically imagine myself having sex with a 12 year old who was about to turn 13, if I thought she was capable of consent. Such people may be very rare, but so is any particular grain of sand on a beach, it doesn't mean I wouldn't pick it up if I came across it. There are likely more attractive 12 year olds than there are 12 year olds who are attractive and capable of consent. But I would jack off to pictures of any 12 year old who was sexually attractive.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 03:04:43 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

fentanyl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Karma: +14/-16
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #874 on: March 15, 2014, 04:53:32 am »
your a sick fuck. go kill yourself creap.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #875 on: March 15, 2014, 05:07:45 am »
your a sick fuck. go kill yourself creap.

Did you huff paint as a child?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

DoctorMischief

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +16/-17
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #876 on: March 15, 2014, 06:53:53 am »
Men are designed to find sexually developed women attractive.

If a 13 year old happens to be sexually developed then men will find her attractive.

If you do not find a girl with tits and curves attractive, you are gay, regardless of her age. Your sex drive was not created by the same people as consent laws, your body does not recognise a 13 year old titty versus an 18 year old titty, it just sees tits.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying or suffering from a crazy amount of societal conditioning (probably a jehovas witness or mormon etc)

If you find undeveloped children attractive you're a paedo.


m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #877 on: March 15, 2014, 08:20:32 am »
Men are designed to find sexually developed women attractive.

If a 13 year old happens to be sexually developed then men will find her attractive.

If you do not find a girl with tits and curves attractive, you are gay, regardless of her age. Your sex drive was not created by the same people as consent laws, your body does not recognise a 13 year old titty versus an 18 year old titty, it just sees tits.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying or suffering from a crazy amount of societal conditioning (probably a jehovas witness or mormon etc)

If you find undeveloped children attractive you're a paedo.

Mostly accurate, but the average 13 year old has tits that are of a different form than about 75% of 18 year old females. I actually would say I prefer younger tits, they have an extra firm appearance. Tanner stage 4 can be really fun, it's like the tits have tits and then you get four tits instead of two, which is roughly twice as good. Tits tend to vary substantially, and not all young teenagers have tits that are absolutely amazing, but I can think of a few instances where I have (legally) seen young teenager tits that figuratively made me say "DAMN!", whereas with 18 year old tits I only immediately have "Nice!"s coming to mind.

I really think tanner stage four is proof that God likes memes. "Yo dawg, I heard you like tits, so I put some tits on her tits so you can jack off to tits while you jack off to tits"

just for reference, here is a medical diagram that is less inaccurate than many seem to be. It should be entirely legal, seeing as it is a drawing and not even a real person, I hope it doesn't break the rules.

https://rojosonmedicalclinic.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/images.jpg?w=640

Pedophiles are attracted only to the first stage, by some definitions, but you can go ahead and say first and second. Hebephiles are potentially attracted to the second to the fourth stage, but I'd say predominately they will be to third and fourth. Ephebophiles are attracted to the fourth and fifth stage. Historically the government has argued that teleiophiles are only attracted to the fifth stage, but a fairly recent forensic evaluation of adult females showed that about 25% of them never get to that stage, which casts serious doubt on the claim that teleiophiles are not attracted to fourth stage, though in younger girls the secondary mounding might tend to be a bit more pronounced than it usually is in adults who retain breasts that would still be classified as in the fourth stage. Fifth stage is reached on average at 14.5 years old, for the 75% of females who will ever reach it. Fourth stage is reached on average at 12.9 years old. I'd say I can find three to five to be appealing, but tend to prefer four the most, followed by five, followed by three. One and two hold no real appeal to me at all.

this diagram tries to capture it better but it exaggerates it a bit imo. I swear medical diagrams fucking suck when it comes to this, they always either over or under exaggerate, or they focus on one distinguishing characteristic while neglecting others. Also, I find it isn't uncommon for stage four breasts to sort of appear to curve upwards, something I almost never see captured in the medical diagrams.

http://www.cemcor.ubc.ca/files/uploads/TannerStages.jpg
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 09:17:21 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

The Jigsaw Puzzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Karma: +618/-188
  • Original 1st Generation Silk Roader - Old School.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #878 on: March 15, 2014, 08:44:39 am »
just for reference, here is a medical diagram that is less inaccurate than many seem to be. It should be entirely legal, seeing as it is a drawing and not even a real person, I hope it doesn't break the rules.

https://rojosonmedicalclinic.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/images.jpg?w=640

Pedophiles are attracted only to the first stage, by some definitions, but you can go ahead and say first and second. Hebephiles are potentially attracted to the second to the fourth stage, but I'd say predominately they will be to third and fourth. Ephebophiles are attracted to the fourth and fifth stage. Historically the government has argued that teleiophiles are only attracted to the fifth stage, but a fairly recent forensic evaluation of adult females showed that about 25% of them never get to that stage, which casts serious doubt on the claim that teleiophiles are not attracted to fourth stage, though in younger girls the secondary mounding might tend to be a bit more pronounced than it usually is in adults who retain breasts that would still be classified as in the fourth stage.

Fuck me kmf, go to bed and give it a rest! It's like you're a bot with the continuous posting of these long, boring, painful posts filled with quoted links and references surrounded by copious amounts of your gratuitous ramblings.  You are seriously fucked up with all the RC's and acid you've taken. Your parents must be so proud of you. What a son!
PGP encrypt ALL COMMUNICATION & STOP using Windows to access Tor.

Plain text PM's will be IGNORED. Disable Javascript & use an updated Unix/Linux OS with FDE.

Rain (MSB) can you please contact me. ;D I miss you dearly. :-*
 
Just because you can,  doesn't mean you should.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #879 on: March 15, 2014, 09:21:27 am »
I'm just trying to explain what tanner stage 4 breasts look like the best I can, since I got to legally look at them in a free country, whereas the countries of many people here censor the internet like China does, so they can't go look for themselves.

But I'm sure there are greeeeeaaaaat reasons why you guys can't do that where you live. Because ever since I legally checked out all the CP sites in a country that had no laws against it (true story, I'm not even making this shit up. I'm not at all worried about it because it's documented I've been in such countries), fuckloads of children have been abused because of it. It's really horrible, I know. I was just picturing it in my head as it happened, I clicked the link and all these pictures came up, and I knew that there must be some sick fuck watching server logs as it happened. He saw the images had been loaded, and then he was like O.M.F.G. and then he ran out and raped a bunch of kids. Also, I observed quantum entanglement take place, because as the first hundred images loaded (including many I didn't want to see really, in the process) I just knew that all of the depicted children were writhing in pain as they were magically re-molested. But I'm a cold heartless bastard, and if I need to cause hundreds of kids to be magically re-molested, and cause pedophiles to run out and rape kids, well god damn it it's worth it to be able to see perky young high school girls flashing their mirrors. 

« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 10:46:21 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #880 on: March 16, 2014, 02:19:18 am »
Guys I have had a total change of heart. We must erase all evidence of anyone under 18 ever being naked. I propose that everyone is subjected to the following:


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910140941.htm

Quote
The human brain is exquisitely adept at linking seemingly random details into a cohesive memory that can trigger myriad associations -- some good, some not so good. For recovering addicts and individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), unwanted memories can be devastating. Former meth addicts, for instance, report intense drug cravings triggered by associations with cigarettes, money, even gum (used to relieve dry mouth), pushing them back into the addiction they so desperately want to leave.

Now, for the first time, scientists from the Florida campus of The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have been able to erase dangerous drug-associated memories in mice and rats without affecting other more benign memories.

The surprising discovery, published this week online ahead of print by the journal Biological Psychiatry, points to a clear and workable method to disrupt unwanted memories while leaving the rest intact.

"Our memories make us who we are, but some of these memories can make life very difficult," said Courtney Miller, a TSRI assistant professor who led the research. "Not unlike in the movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, we're looking for strategies to selectively eliminate evidence of past experiences related to drug abuse or a traumatic event. Our study shows we can do just that in mice -- wipe out deeply engrained drug-related memories without harming other memories."

Changing the Structure of Memory

To produce a memory, a lot has to happen, including the alteration of the structure of nerve cells via changes in the dendritic spines -- small bulb-like structures that receive electrochemical signals from other neurons. Normally, these structural changes occur via actin, the protein that makes up the infrastructure of all cells.

In the new study, the scientists inhibited actin polymerization -- the creation of large chainlike molecules -- by blocking a molecular motor called myosin II in the brains of mice and rats during the maintenance phase of methamphetamine-related memory formation.

Behavioral tests showed the animals immediately and persistently lost memories associated with methamphetamine -- with no other memories affected.

In the tests, animals were trained to associate the rewarding effects of methamphetamine with a rich context of visual, tactile and scent cues. When injected with the inhibitor many days later in their home environment, they later showed a complete lack of interest when they encountered drug-associated cues. At the same time, the response to other memories, such as food rewards, was unaffected.

While the scientists are not yet sure why powerful methamphetamine-related memories are also so fragile, they think the provocative findings could be related to the role of dopamine, a neurotransmitter involved in reward and pleasure centers in the brain and known to modify dendritic spines. Previous studies had shown dopamine is released during both learning and drug withdrawal. Miller adds, "We are focused on understanding what makes these memories different. The hope is that our strategies may be applicable to other harmful memories, such as those that perpetuate smoking or PTSD."


we need to purge our minds of all the CP we have. Remember what you looked like naked when you were under the age of 18? That memory is child pornography and we need to selectively destroy neurons in your brain until you can't recall it. Remember what your girlfriend looked like naked when you were 14? Omg, can't allow that, time to selectively kill neural networks in your brain until you can't remember. Let's not spare any weapon in our war against people knowing what naked people under the age of 18 look like, we must mandate the complete erasure of neural networks that result in visual information of minors in sexual situations. Right now the police are focusing almost exclusively on digital images, but sneaky fucking pedophiles have been storing child pornography in the neural networking of their brains. Those sneaky fucks are always one step ahead, but thanks to science we can now selectively kill parts of the brain that have encoded anything to do with visual child nudity, and we can now rid the world of CP in all of the forms it takes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-may-have-found-a-way-to-erase-traumatic-memories-2013-11

Quote
Roadside bombs, childhood abuse, car accidents — they form memories that can shape (and damage) us for a lifetime. Now, a handful of studies have shown that we’re on the verge of erasing and even rewriting memories. The hope is that this research will lead to medical treatments, especially for addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Researchers have known for decades that memories are unreliable. They’re particularly adjustable when actively recalled because at that point they’re pulled out of a stable molecular state.

Last spring, scientists published a study performed at the University of Washington in which adult volunteers completed a survey about their eating and drinking habits before age 16. A week later, they were given personalized analyses of their answers that stated — falsely — that they had gotten sick from rum or vodka as a teen. One in five not only didn’t notice the lie, but also recalled false memories about it and rated that beverage as less desirable than they had before.

Studies like these point to possible treatments for mental health problems. Both PTSD and addiction disorders hinge on memories that can trigger problematic behaviors, such as crippling fear caused by loud noises or cravings brought about by the sight of drug paraphernalia. Several studies have found chemical compounds that can be used to subdue or even delete memories in mice (and maybe someday in people). In June, a report led by an Emory University researcher showed that SR-8993, a drug that acts on the brain’s opioid receptors, can prevent a fear memory from forming. Researchers strapped mice to a wooden board for two hours — a stressful experience that later gave them a heightened sense of fear similar to PTSD. But mice given SR-8993 before or after the stressful incident were less likely to end up this way.

Another study identified a drug, Latrunculin A, that can erase memories days later. The researchers trained rodents to consume methamphetamine in an environment with distinctive visual, tactile, and scent cues such as black walls, gridded floors, and the scent of vanilla or peppermint. Rodents that were injected with Latrunculin A two days later didn’t seek out meth when returned to that environment, but others did. Latrunculin A is known to mess up scaffolding that supports connections between neurons. Considering how broadly these two drugs affect the brain, there’s a possibility of serious side effects.

To make more targeted treatments, researchers will ultimately need to understand how the brain’s neurons encode each memory. Last year, Susumu Tonegawa at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that individual memories in mice leave telltale molecular signatures in the brain’s hippocampus region. In July, his group caused mice to falsely associate an old memory with a new context — essentially creating a false memory.

First, they genetically engineered a mouse so that when its hippocampal cells were activated, they would be tagged with a protein that the researchers could switch on later. Then, they put the mouse in an unfamiliar cage. The next day, they moved it to a strikingly different cage (smelly with black walls). Then, at precisely the same time, they gave it an uncomfortable shock and switched on the tagging protein to briefly activate cells that had been active in the old cage. When they put the mouse back in the old cage, it froze as if afraid — as if it had a false memory of being shocked there.

The idea of scientists manipulating memory does, naturally, sound a bit creepy. But it also points to some possible good: treatment for millions of people tormented by real memories. And that’s something worth remembering.

I propose the formation of a new police agency, we can call them the Thought Police Freedom Task Force. Their motto can be "Freeing you from your damaging thoughts". They are to randomly read peoples minds with the following technology:

http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity

Quote
UC Berkeley scientists have developed a system to capture visual activity in human brains and reconstruct it as digital video clips. Eventually, this process will allow you to record and reconstruct your own dreams on a computer screen.

I just can't believe this is happening for real, but according to Professor Jack Gallant—UC Berkeley neuroscientist and coauthor of the research published today in the journal Current Biology—"this is a major leap toward reconstructing internal imagery. We are opening a window into the movies in our minds."

Indeed, it's mindblowing. I'm simultaneously excited and terrified. This is how it works:

They used three different subjects for the experiments—incidentally, they were part of the research team because it requires being inside a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging system for hours at a time. The subjects were exposed to two different groups of Hollywood movie trailers as the fMRI system recorded the brain's blood flow through their brains' visual cortex.

The readings were fed into a computer program in which they were divided into three-dimensional pixels units called voxels (volumetric pixels). This process effectively decodes the brain signals generated by moving pictures, connecting the shape and motion information from the movies to specific brain actions. As the sessions progressed, the computer learned more and more about how the visual activity presented on the screen corresponded to the brain activity.
An 18-million-second picture palette

After recording this information, another group of clips was used to reconstruct the videos shown to the subjects. The computer analyzed 18 million seconds of random YouTube video, building a database of potential brain activity for each clip. From all these videos, the software picked the one hundred clips that caused a brain activity more similar to the ones the subject watched, combining them into one final movie. Although the resulting video is low resolution and blurry, it clearly matched the actual clips watched by the subjects.

Think about those 18 million seconds of random videos as a painter's color palette. A painter sees a red rose in real life and tries to reproduce the color using the different kinds of reds available in his palette, combining them to match what he's seeing. The software is the painter and the 18 million seconds of random video is its color palette. It analyzes how the brain reacts to certain stimuli, compares it to the brain reactions to the 18-million-second palette, and picks what more closely matches those brain reactions. Then it combines the clips into a new one that duplicates what the subject was seeing. Notice that the 18 million seconds of motion video are not what the subject is seeing. They are random bits used just to compose the brain image.

Given a big enough database of video material and enough computing power, the system would be able to re-create any images in your brain.

 In this other video you can see how this process worked in the three experimental targets. On the top left square you can see the movie the subjects were watching while they were in the fMRI machine. Right below you can see the movie "extracted" from their brain activity. It shows that this technique gives consistent results independent of what's being watched—or who's watching. The three lines of clips next to the left column show the random movies that the computer program used to reconstruct the visual information.

Right now, the resulting quality is not good, but the potential is enormous. Lead research author—and one of the lab test bunnies—Shinji Nishimoto thinks this is the first step to tap directly into what our brain sees and imagines:

    Our natural visual experience is like watching a movie. In order for this technology to have wide applicability, we must understand how the brain processes these dynamic visual experiences.

The brain recorders of the future

Imagine that. Capturing your visual memories, your dreams, the wild ramblings of your imagination into a video that you and others can watch with your own eyes.

This is the first time in history that we have been able to decode brain activity and reconstruct motion pictures in a computer screen. The path that this research opens boggles the mind. It reminds me of Brainstorm, the cult movie in which a group of scientists lead by Christopher Walken develops a machine capable of recording the five senses of a human being and then play them back into the brain itself.

This new development brings us closer to that goal which, I have no doubt, will happen at one point. Given the exponential increase in computing power and our understanding of human biology, I think this will arrive sooner than most mortals expect. Perhaps one day you would be able to go to sleep wearing a flexible band labeled Sony Dreamcam around your skull.


they can in this way look for hidden child pornography neural networks. Upon discovery of the child pornography stashed away in our minds, they can then use the previously mentioned techniques to erase it from our memories.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 02:32:29 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #881 on: March 16, 2014, 03:35:06 am »
I mean, technically I could jack off to jailbait porn and get away with it, but it's just such a hassle. I wouldn't feel secure doing that unless I like got a motel room with a fake ID and paid in cash and used hacked WiFi accessed with a long range amplified directional antenna (+ spoofed MAC address + Didn't bring my phone or any other broadcasting device with me, plus took a taxi there) plus Tor + physical isolation with a (throw away) OpenBSD Tor Router + mandatory access controls + full ASLR on both machines of course + used VM isolation to hide hardware serial numbers + hardened the shit out of my OS and browser (ie: disable JS),  plus had a dead man switch USB thumb drive hooked up to a bracelet on my wrist with a wire so I could yank my wrist to trigger a memory wipe and shutdown, and stored everything in multiple layers of encryption, with some layers of deniable encryption, and set up a tent to protect from covertly placed cameras + navigated with my mouse only to hide keystrokes from acoustic analysis when going to certain URL's + modified Tor to use a single entry guard and downloaded noise files in the background to try to protect from website fingerprinting attacks + only remained in one location for a few days max before leaving with my freshly obtained stash and burning my fake ID tossing my throw away laptop in a dumpster or seven after breaking it up into component parts after secure erasing and DBANing the drive (with everything of interest securely copied over to a multi layer encrypted thumb drive), and only ever actually loaded any images on a new laptop with a similar setup but air gapped from the internet. If I went to so much trouble I would feel pretty safe in my ability to jack off to jailbait all I wanted without getting busted for it. And nobody would be hurt by it or even know that it happened. But it's really just not worth the paranoia associated with it, fun as (I imagine anyway) it would be.

I would be worried one day I would be looking at hot young teenagers flashing their mirrors and taking pictures of it with their camera phones, and then BAM flash bang I'm stunned yank my wrist but the wire snaps bash down comes my door and next thing I know forensic team is rushing in with cans of compressed air to flash freeze my memory (if they can get it out of the encapsulation material I would have covered it with or not trigger the chassis intrusion detection switch I would make sure to have set to trigger an immediate memory wipe and power cut) and dump all of my mounted encryption keys (which would actually be stored in CPU registers because I would patch my kernel with Tresor, so that wouldn't even actually work for them lol) to a forensic laptop and recover everything (but I would store all images in a video file and make a custom program that could load any second of it so I could try to argue I only had one video, because videos are only charged as one file versus images which are charged as individual files, and having one file isn't so bad, so I would have one video file with tens of thousands of pictures making up the frames so my lawyer could try to get me a very light sentence) and then I would go to prison and be a sex offender and raped every single day, and it just isn't worth that very slight possibility, so I try to restrain myself from risking that happening even though I don't want to and don't see at all why anybody expects that I should. But why throw out a chance to move to Uruguay and be able to do it in much more pleasant conditions without the fear of the paramilitary declaring war on me and sending me to be actually raped and actually sexually abused for looking at pictures of people and having no interaction with them or abusing them or doing anything that is bad at all? Best security is tactical and legal, not technical. Plus there is still the issue of TEMPEST attacks, maybe they would just pull my screen from the next room over and then I am just as fucked anyway.

How the fuck do cops and shit catch advocates/viewers of CP and stuff if they employ the above counter-measures?

I'm more interested in the technical side of this argument rather than the morals of @m0rph vs. the likes of @twatWaffle etc...

Have a break from the politics guys for a just minute, and elaborate how any CP offender etc. can be caught if they employ the above OPSEC? I think @m0rph's estimate of $250k is rather accurate for such a dox, if the user does as mentioned there. Anyone care to argue this point?

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #882 on: March 16, 2014, 04:25:55 am »
If somebody did the above + set up alarm systems throughout the motel set to wipe RAM if triggered + had laptop with no power hooked up to wall so if power was cut to try to disable alarms memory would decay....they would not be caught unless they had intelligence agencies after them. The attacker would have a few days to utilize the two required high value zero days to trace them to rough geographic location, then they would need to send field agents to do a live WiFi trace. Their only option at that point would be to do TEMPEST attacks to try to get enough evidence that someone in the room was looking at CP prior to raiding them, because they would never recover shit off the laptop except for the transient electromagnetic pulses that leaked from the screen. Though they could also try to do timing attacks if they can observe the other end of the Tor circuit, but usually traffic analysis is not enough for evidence only for intelligence. If you used a shielded laptop that prevented TEMPEST attacks you would not be at any significant risk of them gathering anything that has been used in any case I am aware of as evidence, though they could get enough intelligence to be pretty close to certain what you were doing. FBI doing this for someone looking at jailbait is a hilarious joke though. You would have absolutely nothing at all to worry about.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #883 on: March 16, 2014, 04:30:33 am »
but almost nobody will go to such lengths. I have the capability to be an extremely sophisticated criminal. Most people are not anywhere near me. They use P2P applications with no protection at all. Most of them don't get busted either because there are so many of them.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #884 on: March 16, 2014, 04:36:11 am »
Anyone care to argue this point?

Not really. I'm curious why you do though.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #885 on: March 16, 2014, 07:59:09 am »
but srsly FBI's already patched exploit against a month old version of firefox that required javascript to work and only targeted Windows users was super impressive.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #886 on: March 16, 2014, 04:12:11 pm »
YAWN!

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #887 on: March 16, 2014, 06:30:00 pm »
Anyone care to argue this point?

Not really. I'm curious why you do though.

I'm just technically interested in OPSEC. I have no interest in CP -- despite m0rph's arguments. I wouldn't put it past him to be able to convince a gay to turn straight, given how well he justifies his points. He might be able to even 'show u the light', @Jesus H Christ? Who knows... :)

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #888 on: March 16, 2014, 06:41:38 pm »
but srsly FBI's already patched exploit against a month old version of firefox that required javascript to work and only targeted Windows users was super impressive.

As in, this exploit does not exist in the newest Firefox ESR v24.x is what you're saying?
I remember this happening, pretty sure it was a version pre v24.x though... I do wonder the possibility of another similar exploit to compromise newer builds of Firefox, again targeting JS/Windows, since many people use this combination.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #889 on: March 16, 2014, 07:44:46 pm »
Quote
I'm just technically interested in OPSEC. I have no interest in CP -- despite m0rph's arguments. I wouldn't put it past him to be able to convince a gay to turn straight, given how well he justifies his points. He might be able to even 'show u the light', @Jesus H Christ? Who knows... :)

I don't argue that you should be into CP. I argue that you shouldn't want to put people in prison for looking at pictures.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #890 on: March 16, 2014, 09:02:07 pm »
I don't argue that you should be into CP. I argue that you shouldn't want to put people in prison for looking at pictures.

Yes, I did spend hours reading your thread. Despite the general consensus around here, you did raise some well thought-out points -- even if I may not agree with this topic in general.
You did have me fully laughing at your rebuttal of those against you more than a few times. lol :) It was all very well devised, I must acknowledge.

Lets see if anyone is game enough to step back into your domain with some more fuel to add to your fire. Asshats like "Jesus H Christ" & "twatWaffle" really didn't do themselves justice, and brought nothing to the table, except for futile attempts to make noises. This isn't because I'm taking any sides here, but they incoherently failed to bring any facts or basis to the raging debate.

I do also find it unbelievable the scope of which you were able to justify your position on this subject though, @m0rph. I had no idea anyone existed, who was so passionate about such a topic. Sure, there are scummy kiddie pr0n fags out there who are just sick and would likely live by it in CP-only boards etc., but with you being right on the borderline of what mainstream society can accept, it sure does "touch a few nerves" and spark quite a few fires.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #891 on: March 16, 2014, 09:41:38 pm »
Quote
I'm just technically interested in OPSEC. I have no interest in CP -- despite m0rph's arguments. I wouldn't put it past him to be able to convince a gay to turn straight, given how well he justifies his points. He might be able to even 'show u the light', @Jesus H Christ? Who knows... :)

 for looking at pictures.

I really hope you know what youre doing, if youre not. This sure isn't the place to put your sexual deviant behavior into public. You must be the type of guy, I'm running tor so nooooobody can ever find me. Guess again!

And we both know not all pictures are the same. You seem to be well educated, speak fluent english, native I guess. I'm not so forgive me for any mistakes. But let me tell you this. As a girl, I might have different ideas but I truly think you are putting yourself at risk by putting a huge debate online about it and especially here. What did you expect from this anyway? To enlighten our minds? To know that young girls can be attractive? What exactly is it that frustrates you? Can't find a girlfriend? What was it? 13, 14? I think I'm about 5 years over that now so I'm way past that and too old now to help you out. What exactly do you wish to accomplish now? I'm thinking maybe you chose the wrong place, could I be wrong?

« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 10:05:37 pm by r0guebubbles »

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #892 on: March 16, 2014, 10:00:03 pm »
Another point, when you say "looking at pictures", what kind of pictures are we talking about? Mutual consent? What age? Legal?

If you bothered to read the thread properly, he's already mentioned on several occasions exactly what he means and what pictures... You can even find links to legal pictures he's posted in case you have difficulty understanding his writing.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #893 on: March 16, 2014, 10:11:24 pm »
Another point, when you say "looking at pictures", what kind of pictures are we talking about? Mutual consent? What age? Legal?

If you bothered to read the thread properly, he's already mentioned on several occasions exactly what he means and what pictures... You can even find links to legal pictures he's posted in case you have difficulty understanding his writing.

I have the read the posts, not all of them. Please god, forgive me for not reading everything. By all means. Girls like me dont exactly go looking for guys like him. As I have stated above and multiple times, go check what I have responded to his posts some pagesssss before that. We were talking twelve, or as he put it, 12.5 to whatever age he found attractive. You guys can all go easy on that. I personally don't. Personal experience might have something to do with it and I must admit this does make it difficult to read some of the things written here with a clear view, human beings tend to relate personal experiences and I know that's not the right way to think. But still I have never made any statement here about him and have corrected myself once I noticed. Then again. Why am I even in this thread. I promised myself not to look at it again, it's painful and I wish you could see the pain behind some of these underage girls on those pictures. So why don't you try to read and allow me to correct myself and have a chance to explain. Thank you
 

As for now. I'm really staying away from here. I have no interest in this debate whatsoever. Nor am I here to judge, only to see that it's only human nature to judge and to do just that what we are taught not too. So I best stay away. Keep on discussing whatever you were. I choose to have no part of it. I merely meant to warn a person about the fact that he might draw attention to him. If he's fine with that, than sure, please go ahead but from my understanding he lives in a country where his preference is illegal. This means one should think about staying private, however passionate you may be about bringing this out in the open. There are perfect legal ways to do so if you are not an offender, which he claims he isn't. Don't see the problem?

Conclusion, got myself in here again, and sure as hell hope you DO NOT reply so I don't see this thread popping op. Because the poll has proven it's point hasn't it?

From a personal viewpoint, I have my opinions and I have stated them clearly, and I'm sure he remembers me. He knows where that line is and it's thin. Where does CP start or where does it end. We had this discussion, he replied. I was satisfied with his answer, not completely agreed, which I'm allowed to as an individual, just as much as he has his ideas.

I thought maybe he wants to see it from the perspective of the opposite sex. Since we are talking about it. I thought maybe, he would like to hear my story. Obviously he didn't, kept going on and on. I didn't take it as an offense even. I can only clearly see that he is determined to bring out this entire debate about it, have even outed respect for that. Not a lot of people would have the courage.



« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 10:47:15 pm by r0guebubbles »

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #894 on: March 16, 2014, 10:41:29 pm »
You must be the type of guy, I'm running tor so nooooobody can ever find me. Guess again!

He isn't. Read the quote in this link to see the sort of OPSEC he practices: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=1972.msg603035#msg603035

But still I have never made any statement here about him and as you might noticed I corrected myself once I noticed. Then again. Why am I even in this thread. I promised myself not to look at it again, it's painful and I wish you could see the pain behind some of these underage girls on those pictures. So why don't you try to read and allow me to correct myself and have a chance to explain. Thank you

So, you've changed your post completely after I pointed that out, how convenient... How did I know u were gonna "correct yourself" after I responded?

Also, those (legal) pictures that he posted are basically just jailbait taking 'selfies' of itself using mirrors and stuff. They seem to be enjoying themselves and look happy enough whilst doing it (they are fully clothed BTW), but not that I would go there lol... I do agree with "why am I even in this thread", but the @m0rph guy is allowed to 'promote' his beliefs (Defcon is OK with it) and has a compelling argument to support his agenda.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #895 on: March 16, 2014, 10:44:42 pm »
... What exactly do you wish to accomplish now? I'm thinking maybe you chose the wrong place, could I be wrong?

I think he's doing it here because he knew there would be heaps of people who wouldn't agree with him, and he seems to enjoy the debate, mostly...

It made us read it, right?

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #896 on: March 16, 2014, 10:56:11 pm »
You must be the type of guy, I'm running tor so nooooobody can ever find me. Guess again!

He isn't. Read the quote in this link to see the sort of OPSEC he practices: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=1972.msg603035#msg603035

But still I have never made any statement here about him and as you might noticed I corrected myself once I noticed. Then again. Why am I even in this thread. I promised myself not to look at it again, it's painful and I wish you could see the pain behind some of these underage girls on those pictures. So why don't you try to read and allow me to correct myself and have a chance to explain. Thank you

So, you've changed your post completely after I pointed that out, how convenient... How did I know u were gonna "correct yourself" after I responded?

Also, those (legal) pictures that he posted are basically just jailbait taking 'selfies' of itself using mirrors and stuff. They seem to be enjoying themselves and look happy enough whilst doing it (they are fully clothed BTW), but not that I would go there lol... I do agree with "why am I even in this thread", but the @m0rph guy is allowed to 'promote' his beliefs (Defcon is OK with it) and has a compelling argument to support his agenda.

Selfies aren't the pictures I was referring too. So I stand corrected. Wouldn't call it convenient. Just as I typed it all out, you already quoted me. Full stop and that's the truth. I think we spoke in a different topic about it. I think morph will probably be able to point it out. As to selfies. One can argue that it's due to negligent and naive behavior but not at all abuse. At least not in my book. I see them too. I'm not blind. Most of the links he posted got redacted btw.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #897 on: March 16, 2014, 11:37:36 pm »
... Wouldn't call it convenient. Just as I typed it all out, you already quoted me. Full stop and that's the truth.

I can only suggest you "Preview" before you "Post" in future.

... Most of the links he posted got redacted btw.

Actually, only one did (the one he tried to show some guy named 'moon' something). The rest are still there.
See: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=1972.msg562509#msg562509

He has actually 'reviewed' each pic, and that should allow you to see "what kind of pictures" he refers to, if you're so interested...

No wonder they're called "jailbait". They are indeed proper bait for jail time lol... I mean, if you didn't know the age of some of them, you'd be hard-pressed once you found out they were that young. Like some of them appear easily legal to fuck. That is the scary part, imo.

* * * Note: I do not endorse or condone any of the arguments stated before me, I am just here for the sake of a good, heated debate. :P

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #898 on: March 16, 2014, 11:55:43 pm »
... Wouldn't call it convenient. Just as I typed it all out, you already quoted me. Full stop and that's the truth.

I can only suggest you "Preview" before you "Post" in future.

... Most of the links he posted got redacted btw.

Actually, only one did (the one he tried to show some guy named 'moon' something). The rest are still there.
See: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=1972.msg562509#msg562509

He has actually 'reviewed' each pic, and that should allow you to see "what kind of pictures" he refers to, if you're so interested...

No wonder they're called "jailbait". They are indeed proper bait for jail time lol... I mean, if you didn't know the age of some of them, you'd be hard-pressed once you found out they were that young. Like some of them appear easily legal to fuck. That is the scary part, imo.

* * * Note: I do not endorse or condone any of the arguments stated before me, I am just here for the sake of a good, heated debate. :P

Guys wearing wigs have been mistaken for women, so yes pretty sure young girls can be mistaken for young women. Personally I think anything above 16 is pretty legal and shouldn't be illegal. That's my personal viewpoint. I had trouble when I was reading ages like 12. I could have read it between lines but morph tends to write above my standard capacity of the English language. Which I don't think is too bad? Well, I can only say, he leaves me with some sense of why why why. I get him, then some things I don't follow him anymore, then I lose him when he starts pointing out the difference between pedophilia and .. some word. Twist, turn, age, accepted or not. Social pressure, you know. It's all so passionate. Which I find quite uhm weird, in a positive way, don't get me wrong. But it's peculiar. Like I said before and will say, not many have the balls, then again we are on a forum where don't exactly fit in with the general public right? He did correct me there. What makes this website different from others that don't follow the law in certain countries. What do you answer? Anyone who chooses so should be able to do so. But at what age? I can remember me being 12. I had an entire different idea of the world, in ten years, I might look back at this and think what the hell was I doing. That boyfriend was no good and that SR was way bad. Who is to say? In the end. I just get so tired of reading all of the arguments put forward that I give up. Which I had done. And will do again now. By all means, feel free to enjoy yourself, I'm NOT the sex police :P  Please, I know young guys. I know hormones can do crazy shit, yes even to us girls. So no, don't feel judged. The title made it disturbing. Not so much the content.

Your preview before post was noted. Thanks :)



« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 11:58:24 pm by r0guebubbles »

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #899 on: March 17, 2014, 12:27:46 am »
Anyone care to argue this point?

Not really. I'm curious why you do though.

I'm just technically interested in OPSEC. I have no interest in CP -- despite m0rph's arguments. I wouldn't put it past him to be able to convince a gay to turn straight, given how well he justifies his points. He might be able to even 'show u the light', @Jesus H Christ? Who knows... :)

I've seen the light: in the backseat of a car that is. And there was no one underage present. I won't be converting to anything in this lifetime. Do you suck dick as well as you talk shit? You never know, it's an oral skill, right? DSLs? Bet you're great at eating ass ;)

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #900 on: March 17, 2014, 12:35:06 am »
GTFO of it. We don't need this thread turning into the CP/fag thread now do we? I would of thought it's enough just being the jailbait thread, without hearing your queer tendencies.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #901 on: March 17, 2014, 12:49:46 am »
GTFO of it. We don't need this thread turning into the CP/fag thread now do we? I would of thought it's enough just being the jailbait thread, without hearing your queer tendencies.

call it freedom of speech? :P

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #902 on: March 17, 2014, 01:10:28 am »
call it freedom of speech? :P

There should be no such thing for people like @Jesus H Christ... lol

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #903 on: March 17, 2014, 01:30:49 am »
GTFO of it. We don't need this thread turning into the CP/fag thread now do we? I would of thought it's enough just being the jailbait thread, without hearing your queer tendencies.

Baby, we can turn this into whatever you like. If you wanna learn how to suck dick, I'll be happy to teach you :)

call it freedom of speech? :P

There should be no such thing for people like @Jesus H Christ... lol

Any time you'd like to lick my ass, feel free ;) Get your tongue right up in that shit ::)

You think I would have posted that I was queer if I were sensitive about it?

« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 01:32:14 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #904 on: March 17, 2014, 01:44:57 am »
lol, what a jizz-guzzler.  ???

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #905 on: March 17, 2014, 01:46:44 am »
lol, what a jizz-guzzler.  ???

Anytime you like baby ;) If you've actually got a penis that is. Or testicles. :D
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #906 on: March 17, 2014, 01:53:42 am »
lol, what a jizz-guzzler.  ???

Ok now all I need is thread for single girls who like boys and we can call it a day. Anti, any particular reason why you resent gay people?

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #907 on: March 17, 2014, 02:11:43 am »
... Anti, any particular reason why you resent gay people?

I just view them as "natures mistakes". I find them as equally immoral as a kiddie pr0n queers. If I had to choose one, I'd rather be like @m0rph than be as gay as @Jesus H Christ.

I can at least see why @m0rph finds some of those ~12 year old jailbaitgallery.com photos he linked to were hot. Whereas, @Jesus H Christ as no ground to stand on. He's just completely fucked up, and unfixable -- beyond repair.

That's why in my country, fags were allowed to marry for a couple of days and then were invalidated, because people thought "oh noes wtf did we let them do that for?". Thank fuck.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/australia-gay-marriage-overturned_n_4429434.html

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #908 on: March 17, 2014, 02:54:29 am »
... Anti, any particular reason why you resent gay people?

I just view them as "natures mistakes". I find them as equally immoral as a kiddie pr0n queers. If I had to choose one, I'd rather be like @m0rph than be as gay as @Jesus H Christ.

I can at least see why @m0rph finds some of those ~12 year old jailbaitgallery.com photos he linked to were hot. Whereas, @Jesus H Christ as no ground to stand on. He's just completely fucked up, and unfixable -- beyond repair.

That's why in my country, fags were allowed to marry for a couple of days and then were invalidated, because people thought "oh noes wtf did we let them do that for?". Thank fuck.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/australia-gay-marriage-overturned_n_4429434.html

Well this isnt about morph. I can't judge those pics, I don't find girls attractive because I am one. Plain and simple.  You state gay people are "a mistake of nature", this is probably because the fact that they are unable to create offspring? I'm not quit sure, lots of behavioral patterns found in humans won't be able to be traced back to animals. Did you know that? Our brain has evolved. We aren't animals, so the entire nature rule doesn't really count anymore. Because in nature, there is no equality, no love (apart from the love that one receives from the caretaker, briefly, sometimes longer in animals). All of these things we have adapted as human being, respect, love, feelings that go beyond the comprehension, a sense of identity and soul. I could classify all of these as a mistake as well. Survival of the fittest, yet you have democracy? Can't you see you can't always apply the rules of nature to the structural patterns of human behavior?

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #909 on: March 17, 2014, 04:22:57 am »
Quote
I'm just technically interested in OPSEC. I have no interest in CP -- despite m0rph's arguments. I wouldn't put it past him to be able to convince a gay to turn straight, given how well he justifies his points. He might be able to even 'show u the light', @Jesus H Christ? Who knows... :)

 for looking at pictures.

I really hope you know what youre doing, if youre not. This sure isn't the place to put your sexual deviant behavior into public. You must be the type of guy, I'm running tor so nooooobody can ever find me. Guess again!

Look, I can say this. If you use Tor and an up to date browser with javascript disabled + isolate your browser in a VM, and preferably use WiFi too just for retroactive unlinkability in case you decide to quit and don't want to worry about it....you are not going to get busted looking at whatever porn you want to. Especially if you use encryption and can destroy all evidence in two seconds. It's just not going to happen. If you are really worried I already spelled out how to protect yourself so well that only an intelligence agency would have a snowballs chance in hell of busting you. And as for myself, well, I'm not worried about anyone finding me really. I can manage to avoid breaking laws in my country, and there is nothing that can show I have broken laws, I have looked at underage porn in countries without laws against it and I have documentation of having been in such countries, so I can openly discuss this and not worry about legal trouble over it. You are not worrying me with your little threats that I am going to end up in legal trouble, because I already know I'm not going to, even if I do get doxed police can't do shit to me as long as I keep not breaking the law, and I don't plan to break the law because I can just eventually go to a free country where I can be a free person without having to even have the faintest worry of the police. People can threaten to kill me or whatever, but I highly doubt anyone would even if my dox were leaked. Why kill me? There is a huge sex offender registry of people you already know have molested kids and are walking around freely, why would you track me down and kill me but not just start killing those people? It wouldn't make any sense, so I know your threats are empty, because if they were not empty you would be out killing people right now instead of making empty threats on the internet.

Quote
And we both know not all pictures are the same. You seem to be well educated, speak fluent english, native I guess. I'm not so forgive me for any mistakes. But let me tell you this. As a girl, I might have different ideas but I truly think you are putting yourself at risk by putting a huge debate online about it and especially here. What did you expect from this anyway? To enlighten our minds? To know that young girls can be attractive? What exactly is it that frustrates you? Can't find a girlfriend? What was it? 13, 14? I think I'm about 5 years over that now so I'm way past that and too old now to help you out. What exactly do you wish to accomplish now? I'm thinking maybe you chose the wrong place, could I be wrong?

Pretty much all pictures are the same. I mean, literally they might not be pictures of the same thing, and literally they might not be the same instantiation of the same thing. But all pictures are the same in terms of being totally moral to look at. Just because someone has fantasies that would be bad to act on is no reason to lock them up. Like I already said, possibly the majority of men have fantasized about raping somebody, should they all be locked up? Just because someone has some horribly deviant fantasy that would be horribly victimizing to act on is no reason to hurt them so long as they don't plan to act on it. I didn't choose this place, people just kept talking about pedophiles on SR1 and how horrible they are for looking at pictures, and I believe kmfkewm was the one who disagreed with them, and then it spiraled into a huge debate that has gone on for years now. But it was actually people arguing for death sentences for people caught with child porn that sparked the debate, nobody came to your drug forum and started to argue for decriminalization of possession of CP and sane age of consent laws without others provoking it by arguing in the other direction.

Quote
We were talking twelve, or as he put it, 12.5 to whatever age he found attractive. You guys can all go easy on that. I personally don't.

And why do you care? Because I already said I wouldn't fuck a 12 year old legally even if I found her attractive if I thought it would be horribly damaging to her or that she couldn't consent to sex. You always ignore that very important qualifier. If I was attracted to 1 year olds I would fuck a 1 year old if I thought she was capable of consent. But I don't think any 1 year olds are capable of consent, so I never would. I don't think a lot of 12 year olds are capable of consent, especially the youngest ones. Maybe some of them are though. I have no idea really. There needs to be some objective way to determine if a person is capable of consent or not. You wont find that answer in a law book. Uruguay seems to think some 12 year olds might be capable of consent. So maybe they are. South Korea thinks some 13 year olds are. Germany thinks some 14 year olds are. I would fuck anyone I found attractive who I thought was capable of consent. I would look at porn of anyone I found attractive regardless of if they were capable of consent or not. Because a picture isn't a person.

Quote
Personal experience might have something to do with it and I must admit this does make it difficult to read some of the things written here with a clear view, human beings tend to relate personal experiences and I know that's not the right way to think. But still I have never made any statement here about him and have corrected myself once I noticed. Then again. Why am I even in this thread. I promised myself not to look at it again, it's painful and I wish you could see the pain behind some of these underage girls on those pictures. So why don't you try to read and allow me to correct myself and have a chance to explain. Thank you
 

Do you think that the people killed in the holocaust had no pain? Should we ban those images then? Or should we just ban committing war crimes? Do you think if we erase all references to the holocaust that it will make it better for the people who went through it?

Quote
Also, those (legal) pictures that he posted are basically just jailbait taking 'selfies' of itself using mirrors and stuff. They seem to be enjoying themselves and look happy enough whilst doing it (they are fully clothed BTW), but not that I would go there lol... I do agree with "why am I even in this thread", but the @m0rph guy is allowed to 'promote' his beliefs (Defcon is OK with it) and has a compelling argument to support his agenda.

Soft jailbait is very similar to the legal pictures I linked to but has females (or very frequently males, they self produce fuck tons, but male JB usually doesn't end up on the clearnet sites for some reason, maybe because the difference between underage females and underage males is a lot more obvious, and instead need to go to darkweb to find their shit) who are completely naked. It is a huge portion of all jailbait. But I don't want it to seem like I think only that should be legal. I think all pictures and videos should be legal, regardless of the age of the people in them or anything else. There is certainly a lot of jailbait and especially CP where the subjects are not happy or enjoying themselves.

Quote
Guys wearing wigs have been mistaken for women, so yes pretty sure young girls can be mistaken for young women. Personally I think anything above 16 is pretty legal and shouldn't be illegal. That's my personal viewpoint. I had trouble when I was reading ages like 12. I could have read it between lines but morph tends to write above my standard capacity of the English language.

Pretty much it boils down to this:

1. There should be no hard age of consent because it depends entirely on a persons ability to consent, which doesn't map perfectly to age. Maybe a hybrid system is best. Have a default age of consent, but let people get individually evaluated if they pay for it themselves and want to. If a person reaches the age of 16 or whatever they are by default assumed as capable of consenting to sex, if someone under that age wants to have sex then they can be evaluated and if deemed capable then they are licensed. It's kind of like Uruguay has, with an age of consent that is default at 15, but with possibility to have sex with people as young as 12 if you can provide strong proof of consent. But the key difference between systems like Uruguay's and Germany's is that instead of being retroactive (after you have sex with someone under age X it can be determined by court if they were capable of consent at the time) it is proactive (it isn't legal to have sex with someone under age X unless they have already been evaluated and determined as capable of consent). That way there is still for most people a standard age of consent system, but ephebophiles and hebephiles who want to have sex with younger people can do so still, they just have a lot more restrictions on them (like the person needing to be pre-evaluated as capable of consent) to protect people from harm. It could even be better doing this, because maybe there are some 14 year olds who want to fuck older guys and are capable of doing so, and some who could be manipulated into it but don't really have the capacity, if it is always illegal to fuck 14 year olds then a lot of hebephiles and ephebophiles who would otherwise have found a 14 year old truly capable of consenting might just fuck any 14 year old instead and then harm is caused to people that didn't need to be.

2. Visual information should not be illegal. I don't care if someone wants to look at pictures of babies being raped. Why should I care? Maybe he has no plans to rape a baby. Why should I treat him like he has raped a baby just because he looked at such a picture? If I treated females as if they wanted what they fantasize about I would feel justified in raping them, but I don't rape them any more than I condemn someone who fantasizes about raping babies.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 05:53:13 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #910 on: March 17, 2014, 04:26:40 am »
... You state gay people are "a mistake of nature", this is probably because the fact that they are unable to create offspring?

Prolly the fact that 2 guys fucking each other in the ass is just disgusting. I forgot to mention that it's OK to be bi-lesbian, providing they are smoking hot.

... lots of behavioral patterns found in humans won't be able to be traced back to animals.
... Can't you see you can't always apply the rules of nature to the structural patterns of human behavior?

I'm saying they're more of a "defect of nature", as in the way they think/act on their homo tendencies.

I disagree, since you have homo monkeys and dogs etc. out there, as well as humans...

... We aren't animals, so the entire nature rule doesn't really count anymore.

According to science, technically, we are in fact animals:

Quote
Yes, humans are animals. The human's phylum is Chordata (vertebrate). The human's class is mammalia. It's order is primate (the same as apes). It's family is Hominidae (apes that have no tail and can gather food with their hands.) The Human's sub-family is Homininae. It's tribe is Hominini. It's genus is Homo and it's specie is scientifically named Homo Sapiens.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #911 on: March 17, 2014, 06:07:54 am »
... Anti, any particular reason why you resent gay people?

I just view them as "natures mistakes". I find them as equally immoral as a kiddie pr0n queers. If I had to choose one, I'd rather be like @m0rph than be as gay as @Jesus H Christ.

I can at least see why @m0rph finds some of those ~12 year old jailbaitgallery.com photos he linked to were hot. Whereas, @Jesus H Christ as no ground to stand on. He's just completely fucked up, and unfixable -- beyond repair

Gee, that sounds vaguely familiar ::)

So basically you like to fuck middle school kids, huh? I guess I can't have you then  :'(

Damn. What a shame; I so wanted to suck your dick  :-*

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #912 on: March 17, 2014, 06:13:02 am »
... You state gay people are "a mistake of nature", this is probably because the fact that they are unable to create offspring?

Prolly the fact that 2 guys fucking each other in the ass is just disgusting. I forgot to mention that it's OK to be bi-lesbian, providing they are smoking hot.

I'd bet the last time you ever came anywhere near a vagina was your mother's when you came out of it.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #913 on: March 17, 2014, 06:49:35 am »
I really just don't at all understand what issue anybody has with my position. Nobody can even explain to me they just swear at me and condemn me to death, or repeat propaganda or potential issues that I have already addressed. I honestly have no idea why you care if I want to look at pictures of naked high school girls. How is that hurting anybody? You act like I am the worst person alive because of it, like I am just the same as a person who blackmails a high school girl into being his sex slave. I mean, I don't have the slightest doubt that this is not true, but I can't even comprehend how anybody could even think it is true. So what if I would fuck a developed 12 year old who was objectively capable of consenting to it? Why do you care what people who are capable of consent do? And you can say that no 12 year old is capable of consent, and if that is objectively true then I wouldn't fuck any 12 year old, so there is still nothing for you to be upset about. I don't understand why you would want to waste time and resources to fuck people like me over, when there are people who don't care if the 12 year olds they want to fuck are capable of consent. Why do you want to waste time and resources trying to fuck me over when there are people forcing young teenagers to produce JB? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the time and resources trying to stop people who actually abuse children? Why don't you want to be rational and actually prevent people from being hurt through smart policies instead of just being pissed off and scared and angry? You really have no legitimate reason to be upset with me. You should wish more people were like me and unwilling to hurt others just to get what they want. But really, when it comes down to it, I don't particularly care, because I know that no matter how pissed off or angry you get, you can't harm me at all. And I forgive you for hating me, because I know that you really are simple creatures, and maybe you just are not even capable of knowing any better.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #914 on: March 17, 2014, 07:42:58 am »
I really just don't at all understand what issue anybody has with my position. Nobody can even explain to me they just swear at me and condemn me to death, or repeat propaganda or potential issues that I have already addressed. I honestly have no idea why you care if I want to look at pictures of naked high school girls.

I technically don't give a fuck what you do. You're the one making an issue of it; I wouldn't know anything otherwise.

And I've tried to explain to you, at least from a legal POV, what the problem is. You refuse to entertain that someone other than yourself might actually have a point (and before you say anything, I have conceded a point or two to you).

How is that hurting anybody? You act like I am the worst person alive because of it, like I am just the same as a person who blackmails a high school girl into being his sex slave.

Well, it's the girl that may (or may not) be hurt. If you can't understand that, then I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

Do I think that makes you the worst person in the world? No. Of course not.

I mean, I don't have the slightest doubt that this is not true, but I can't even comprehend how anybody could even think it is true.

You're the only person here that knows you. Try looking at it from an outsider's POV.

So what if I would fuck a developed 12 year old who was objectively capable of consenting to it? Why do you care what people who are capable of consent do? And you can say that no 12 year old is capable of consent, and if that is objectively true then I wouldn't fuck any 12 year old, so there is still nothing for you to be upset about. I don't understand why you would want to waste time and resources to fuck people like me over, when there are people who don't care if the 12 year olds they want to fuck are capable of consent. Why do you want to waste time and resources trying to fuck me over when there are people forcing young teenagers to produce JB? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the time and resources trying to stop people who actually abuse children? Why don't you want to be rational and actually prevent people from being hurt through smart policies instead of just being pissed off and scared and angry? You really have no legitimate reason to be upset with me. You should wish more people were like me and unwilling to hurt others just to get what they want. But really, when it comes down to it, I don't particularly care, because I know that no matter how pissed off or angry you get, you can't harm me at all. And I forgive you for hating me, because I know that you really are simple creatures, and maybe you just are not even capable of knowing any better.

I think you're making too much of it. People wouldn't be attacking you if you weren't:
a. so aggressive; and
b. so nasty.

If the discussion seems overly heated to you, it's because you're the one who's extremely passionate about it. And then you attack others and call them names, yet wonder why people do the same to you? Kind of like for every action, there's an equal and opposite attraction?

You're getting back what you're giving. Do you see the diffeerence in how I talk to you when you adopt a reasonable tone versus when you're being insulting and condescending?

Nobody wants to physically harm you (well, at least I don't think so).

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #915 on: March 17, 2014, 08:10:41 am »
Quote
And I've tried to explain to you, at least from a legal POV, what the problem is. You refuse to entertain that someone other than yourself might actually have a point (and before you say anything, I have conceded a point or two to you).

So why do you use drugs again? People who make appeals to the law need to stop using drugs. Or go turn themselves in. Or shut the fuck up and stop making appeals to the law. Your choice.

Quote
Well, it's the girl that may (or may not) be hurt. If you can't understand that, then I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

And by what mechanism of action do you propose that my looking at a picture is going to cause the person depicted in it to be hurt?

Quote
I think you're making too much of it. People wouldn't be attacking you if you weren't:
a. so aggressive; and
b. so nasty.

If the discussion seems overly heated to you, it's because you're the one who's extremely passionate about it. And then you attack others and call them names, yet wonder why people do the same to you? Kind of like for every action, there's an equal and opposite attraction?

It seems overly retarded to me. I'm not asking people to be nicer, I'm asking them to be less retarded (and forgiving them for lacking the capacity for this, since it really isn't their fault that they are retarded), I think you misunderstood me.

Quote
You're getting back what you're giving. Do you see the diffeerence in how I talk to you when you adopt a reasonable tone versus when you're being insulting and condescending?

Nobody wants to physically harm you (well, at least I don't think so).

If people don't want me to be insulting and condescending then they should stop being fucking retards, that would take care of both problems.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

PillfirePharmacy

  • Vendor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Karma: +236/-63
  • Quality, Customer Service& Integrity are our goals
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #916 on: March 17, 2014, 11:31:24 am »
mOrph you are even more disgusting than I previously mentioned. I went to the link you provided to see the teen porn you keep referring to and saying they are hot, and was abhorently repulsed.  80% of the pics there are stolen from 10-13 year old girls Facebook pages, and are absolutely unwilling victims and are being exploited without their permission.  How can you possibly think that those girls aren't being wrongfully exploited?  If I found a picture of a daughter of mine on that site, I'd go ballistic.   The sad thing is the 99% of society won't go there, so the young girls in the pictures will remain unwilling victims. The argument that just looking at the pictures doesn't harm anyone is an ignorant and SOCIOPATHIC. It's fucking disgusting that men like you view ANY 12 year old as sexually attractive.  Like I've said before, even if you go to another country to prey on young prepubescent girls, 99% of society knows that you are an evil monster and you will be snuffed out accordingly. The more you talk the sicker you look. All you've established is that you're totally out of touch with reality.  I suspect you have serious sociopathic mental illness and/or also autism.   That may explain your complete lack of regard for these young girls victimization.  You belong in jail getting ass raped or 6 feet under.
SR's #1 TRUSTED Suboxone Vender. Top Shelf & Fire Fishscale cocaine listings now live (levamisole, ephedrine & amphetamine FREE)!
SR2:http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/pillfirepharmacy
Agora: vendor/PillfirePharmacy#
Evolution:http://k5zq47j6wd3wdvjq.onion/store/5368

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #917 on: March 17, 2014, 09:46:11 pm »
Quote
And I've tried to explain to you, at least from a legal POV, what the problem is. You refuse to entertain that someone other than yourself might actually have a point (and before you say anything, I have conceded a point or two to you).

So why do you use drugs again? People who make appeals to the law need to stop using drugs. Or go turn themselves in. Or shut the fuck up and stop making appeals to the law. Your choice.

God you're fucking annoying. There are only three areas of this discussion that I'm qualified to weigh in on: law, sexuality, and sexual activity. Of those, law is the most fitting.

If you want to effectuate change, then the burden as on you. As you can see, most of the people (ahem --- who aren't you) here are opposed to you.

Quote
Well, it's the girl that may (or may not) be hurt. If you can't understand that, then I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

And by what mechanism of action do you propose that my looking at a picture is going to cause the person depicted in it to be hurt?

Who took it and how did you get it?

Quote
I think you're making too much of it. People wouldn't be attacking you if you weren't:
a. so aggressive; and
b. so nasty.

If the discussion seems overly heated to you, it's because you're the one who's extremely passionate about it. And then you attack others and call them names, yet wonder why people do the same to you? Kind of like for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction?

It seems overly retarded to me. I'm not asking people to be nicer, I'm asking them to be less retarded (and forgiving them for lacking the capacity for this, since it really isn't their fault that they are retarded), I think you misunderstood me.

Oh good, you quoted this. I was hoping to fix the typo (Freudian slip?) above. I don't think I've misunderstood you; you sound like you're having a poor me, poor me, pour me another party.

The lack of depth of your vocabulary is what makes this doubly challenging for you. This is not an insult. The fact of the matter is, you retreat into meaningless/baseless insults (e.g. retard/ retarded) when others don't agree with you.

Quote
You're getting back what you're giving. Do you see the difference in how I talk to you when you adopt a reasonable tone versus when you're being insulting and condescending?

Nobody wants to physically harm you (well, at least I don't think so).

If people don't want me to be insulting and condescending then they should stop being fucking retards, that would take care of both problems.

See above.

To sum up what you've said: I am m0rph, and I'm always right. Everyone who doesn't agree with me and who can't understand my position is a retarded fucking retard. I am smarter than everyone else here, which is why no one agrees with me. I am the enlightened one; they are retards, et cetera, et cetera. Get me?

Essentially, this is what you're presenting to the rest of us. If you want to deal in realities, then we can talk; if you want to talk in could-be, should-be, what-ifs, and other non-realities worthy of science fiction, then I'm not your man.

As of right now, I'm the only person here who will actually have a discussion with you (or attempt to). You refuse to let the discussion go, and you refuse to acknowledge that others see things differently than you.

I'm not sure what you want me to say here.

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #918 on: March 17, 2014, 09:58:22 pm »
mOrph you are even more disgusting than I previously mentioned. I went to the link you provided to see the teen porn you keep referring to and saying they are hot, and was abhorently repulsed.  80% of the pics there are stolen from 10-13 year old girls Facebook pages, and are absolutely unwilling victims and are being exploited without their permission.  How can you possibly think that those girls aren't being wrongfully exploited?  If I found a picture of a daughter of mine on that site, I'd go ballistic.   The sad thing is the 99% of society won't go there, so the young girls in the pictures will remain unwilling victims. The argument that just looking at the pictures doesn't harm anyone is an ignorant and SOCIOPATHIC. It's fucking disgusting that men like you view ANY 12 year old as sexually attractive.  Like I've said before, even if you go to another country to prey on young prepubescent girls, 99% of society knows that you are an evil monster and you will be snuffed out accordingly. The more you talk the sicker you look. All you've established is that you're totally out of touch with reality.  I suspect you have serious sociopathic mental illness and/or also autism.   That may explain your complete lack of regard for these young girls victimization.  You belong in jail getting ass raped or 6 feet under.

+1

Also @morph. Say one day you have a daughter about twelve and she meets a guy like you who would say, look I like to fuck kids and she gave her consent? how would that make you feel?

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #919 on: March 17, 2014, 10:22:54 pm »
mOrph you are even more disgusting than I previously mentioned. I went to the link you provided to see the teen porn you keep referring to and saying they are hot, and was abhorently repulsed.  80% of the pics there are stolen from 10-13 year old girls Facebook pages, and are absolutely unwilling victims and are being exploited without their permission.  How can you possibly think that those girls aren't being wrongfully exploited?  If I found a picture of a daughter of mine on that site, I'd go ballistic.   The sad thing is the 99% of society won't go there, so the young girls in the pictures will remain unwilling victims. The argument that just looking at the pictures doesn't harm anyone is an ignorant and SOCIOPATHIC. It's fucking disgusting that men like you view ANY 12 year old as sexually attractive.  Like I've said before, even if you go to another country to prey on young prepubescent girls, 99% of society knows that you are an evil monster and you will be snuffed out accordingly. The more you talk the sicker you look. All you've established is that you're totally out of touch with reality.  I suspect you have serious sociopathic mental illness and/or also autism.   That may explain your complete lack of regard for these young girls victimization.  You belong in jail getting ass raped or 6 feet under.

Uhm, almost all of the girls on JBG are 14-17, though some might be 12 or 13. I don't think I have seen any who are 10 years old, and probably nearly none are 12. You seem to have a serious inability to estimate peoples ages, the girls in the pictures I linked to were almost certainly all 13 or older, and that is being conservative more likely they were 14. If you were abhorrently repulsed by those pictures you must be the most sheltered person in the world, how the fuck did you end up on a drug forum? 80% of them are scrapped from the internet, so what? They were taken and uploaded and thrown on the internet by the people depicted in them like 99% of the time. I really start to think you want people to wear burqas until they are 18 years old. Are you just abhorrently disgusted when you go to the store and see a 14 year old? Or when you go to the beach are you just like "Ewwwwww, how gross" when you see the young teenagers in their swimsuits ? If not then I don't understand why the fuck you would be when you seem pictures of them, except maybe it has to do with pictures, pictures seem to be magic artifacts and I have not yet been able to comprehend their mysterious powers.

99% of society wont go there lol. Please don't go to motherless dude I think you might end up killing yourself. Picture JBG except full of actually fully nude girls of that age, or girls of that age flashing their mirrors with shit like "DATE ME!!!" written on their tits. I heard they have been somewhat cracking down on the huge jailbait traffic through their site, but historically they were primarily a jailbait site with other shit mixed in but that was always the focus. And guess what, they are in the top 200 most popular websites in the entire fucking world.

The argument that just looking at pictures DOES harm anyone is RETARDED AND SCHIZOPHRENIC! You are seriously a retard if you think looking at pictures causes anything to happen to the people depicted in them. Really. If you really believe that you are retarded. Why the fuck would I prey on young prepubescent girls you stupid retard I am not a pedophile and have no attraction to prepubescents at all.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #920 on: March 17, 2014, 10:31:09 pm »
Quote
If you want to effectuate change, then the burden as on you. As you can see, most of the people (ahem --- who aren't you) here are opposed to you.

Actually it is close to a 50-50 split.

Quote
Who took it and how did you get it?

Do you have trouble with the arrow of time? Look, a serial rapist murderer could have taken it right before he cut her fucking head off, and I could have gotten it from serial-murder-jailbait-rape-fuck-porn.info and it still wouldn't have caused any harm to the person in the picture, because IT IS A FUCKING PICTURE AND PICTURES DO NOT HAVE MAGICAL POWERS.

Quote
Quote
It seems overly retarded to me. I'm not asking people to be nicer, I'm asking them to be less retarded (and forgiving them for lacking the capacity for this, since it really isn't their fault that they are retarded), I think you misunderstood me.

Oh good, you quoted this. I was hoping to fix the typo (Freudian slip?) above. I don't think I've misunderstood you; you sound like you're having a poor me, poor me, pour me another party.

The lack of depth of your vocabulary is what makes this doubly challenging for you. This is not an insult. The fact of the matter is, you retreat into meaningless/baseless insults (e.g. retard/ retarded) when others don't agree with you.


LOL. Poor me, I can look at whatever porn I want and disregard the law, and I can go to other countries and renounce my citizenship and fuck teenagers, and I can really do pretty much whatever the fuck I want to do. What is so poor about that? Truthfully, I am not feeling bad for myself. If anything I feel bad for the less intelligent people that you rabid retards do manage to fuck. But I also feel bad for you for being retards. And yeah my lack of vocabulary haha that is a funny joke. Retard is the most appropriate word to call you people. People don't agree with me because they have intellectual disabilities.

Quote
To sum up what you've said: I am m0rph, and I'm always right. Everyone who doesn't agree with me and who can't understand my position is a retarded fucking retard. I am smarter than everyone else here, which is why no one agrees with me. I am the enlightened one; they are retards, et cetera, et cetera. Get me?

This is an accurate summary.

Quote
Essentially, this is what you're presenting to the rest of us. If you want to deal in realities, then we can talk; if you want to talk in could-be, should-be, what-ifs, and other non-realities worthy of science fiction, then I'm not your man.

See it all goes back to my intellectual superiority over you again. You can't see reality because it is too complicated for you to understand it, and when I talk in terms of what is real you perceive it as science fiction. When you talk in terms of what you think is real I think it is often indistinguishable from the babbling of a retarded person.

Quote
As of right now, I'm the only person here who will actually have a discussion with you (or attempt to). You refuse to let the discussion go, and you refuse to acknowledge that others see things differently than you.

I'm not sure what you want me to say here.

I'd just love if someone had a decent argument against me, but of course they don't. Appeals to the law, appeals to propaganda, and swearing. It's really pathetic.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 10:38:41 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #921 on: March 17, 2014, 10:32:59 pm »
mOrph you are even more disgusting than I previously mentioned. I went to the link you provided to see the teen porn you keep referring to and saying they are hot, and was abhorently repulsed.  80% of the pics there are stolen from 10-13 year old girls Facebook pages, and are absolutely unwilling victims and are being exploited without their permission.  How can you possibly think that those girls aren't being wrongfully exploited?  If I found a picture of a daughter of mine on that site, I'd go ballistic.   The sad thing is the 99% of society won't go there, so the young girls in the pictures will remain unwilling victims. The argument that just looking at the pictures doesn't harm anyone is an ignorant and SOCIOPATHIC. It's fucking disgusting that men like you view ANY 12 year old as sexually attractive.  Like I've said before, even if you go to another country to prey on young prepubescent girls, 99% of society knows that you are an evil monster and you will be snuffed out accordingly. The more you talk the sicker you look. All you've established is that you're totally out of touch with reality.  I suspect you have serious sociopathic mental illness and/or also autism.   That may explain your complete lack of regard for these young girls victimization.  You belong in jail getting ass raped or 6 feet under.

+1

Also @morph. Say one day you have a daughter about twelve and she meets a guy like you who would say, look I like to fuck kids and she gave her consent? how would that make you feel?

I don't know, would she actually be capable of consent? If so I wouldn't give a fuck. I am not the goal keeper of my hypothetical daughters pussy.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #922 on: March 17, 2014, 10:34:56 pm »
mOrph you are even more disgusting than I previously mentioned. I went to the link you provided to see the teen porn you keep referring to and saying they are hot, and was abhorently repulsed.  80% of the pics there are stolen from 10-13 year old girls Facebook pages, and are absolutely unwilling victims and are being exploited without their permission.  How can you possibly think that those girls aren't being wrongfully exploited?  If I found a picture of a daughter of mine on that site, I'd go ballistic.   The sad thing is the 99% of society won't go there, so the young girls in the pictures will remain unwilling victims. The argument that just looking at the pictures doesn't harm anyone is an ignorant and SOCIOPATHIC. It's fucking disgusting that men like you view ANY 12 year old as sexually attractive.  Like I've said before, even if you go to another country to prey on young prepubescent girls, 99% of society knows that you are an evil monster and you will be snuffed out accordingly. The more you talk the sicker you look. All you've established is that you're totally out of touch with reality.  I suspect you have serious sociopathic mental illness and/or also autism.   That may explain your complete lack of regard for these young girls victimization.  You belong in jail getting ass raped or 6 feet under.

+1

Also @morph. Say one day you have a daughter about twelve and she meets a guy like you who would say, look I like to fuck kids and she gave her consent? how would that make you feel?

I don't know, would she actually be capable of consent? If so I wouldn't give a fuck. I am not the goal keeper of my hypothetical daughters pussy.

And as to your reply about your security being all tight. Sure, I believe you. Why not? But you are human and people make mistakes. Even the best. And it wasn't even meant as a threat! Stop seeing everyone as your enemy because they disagree. Really!

« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 10:35:37 pm by r0guebubbles »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #923 on: March 17, 2014, 10:40:53 pm »
I have never made a mistake that can fuck me, and before I do anything illegal besides small time personal use drugs I will be in a country where I wont even need to worry about making mistakes.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #924 on: March 17, 2014, 11:55:01 pm »
I'd bet the last time you ever came anywhere near a vagina was your mother's when you came out of it.

Even if that were true, we can't say the same for you since your species was born out of some guy's asshole.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #925 on: March 18, 2014, 12:15:05 am »
Actually it is close to a 50-50 split.

First of all, you're looking to change the status quo; the people  whom you're arguing with want to keep it as is. That means the burden is on you to bring about change.

And second, no, if you're talking about the legality of the action, it's not even close to 50-50. And that's ignoring the fact that you've got multiple identities. Of all those who voted in support of your position, why have none of them commented?

Do you have trouble with the arrow of time? Look, a serial rapist murderer could have taken it right before he cut her fucking head off, and I could have gotten it from serial-murder-jailbait-rape-fuck-porn.info.

I'm going to wade from the rational to the emotional to say that that poor girl deserves better. Did she ask to be murdered, dismembered, and violated by a stranger? No. Did she consent to have her likeness (in her disembodied state) featured in pornography? No.

But OK, I'm an atheist, so I'll say that she doesn't know the difference anyway. But that brings me to another victim: her family. Your willingness to exploit their pain isn't exactly endearing.

There are two tracks that you could take here: you can take the track of a consumer of underage porn; or you can instead allign yourself with producers and say that there's nothing wring with the act itself. If this is something you just like to beat off too, then it's the former. Do you ever think about how these girls might feel after sex with you? What they might think, look like, or say? No, because there's no fantasy after the fact. I just becomes real.
 
LOL. Poor me, I can look at whatever porn I want and disregard the law,

Most people would prefer having sex. So lucky you: you get to stay home alone and touch it all day by yourself while you look at 2 dimensional pictures. Congrats on that.

Look, I've already told you (several times over) that I don't give a fuck what you do with your life.

and I can go to other countries and renounce my citizenship and fuck teenagers,

So go. Lucky you ;)

If anything I feel bad for the less intelligent people that you rabid retards do manage to fuck. But I also feel bad for you for being retards. And yeah my lack of vocabulary haha that is a funny joke. Retard is the most appropriate word to call you people. People don't agree with me because they have intellectual disabilities.

Thank you for making my argument for me. You may be of high intelligence, but that intelligence isn't verbal in nature. You may be a mathematical genius, but your vocabulary is lacking.

I can, however see that I've touched a nerve. Tell me, oh wise verbal one, was it your plan to show me how angry my (one) statement made you? Because that's what you've done.

See it all goes back to my intellectual superiority over you again.

No, it all goes back to the fact that you're trolling. I can see that, because this conversation hasn't moved anywhere in the last 30 or so pages, except for when the occasional sock puppet pops up, which gets the thread going again.

If we're all retarded, then what does it say about you for arguing with a bunch of retards? ??? And under multiple nyms at that LOL.

Quote
As of right now, I'm the only person here who will actually have a discussion with you (or attempt to). You refuse to let the discussion go, and you refuse to acknowledge that others see things differently than you.

I'm not sure what you want me to say here.

I'd just love if someone had a decent argument against me, but of course they don't. Appeals to the law, appeals to propaganda, and swearing. It's really pathetic.

My propaganda is the law, which you asked about specifically, and you're poorly equipped to change it. Do you really think that's going to help you change anything? Do you really think that I believe---for even a second---that you have the capability to relocate to any of these countries you've talked about? ???

I don't need propaganda.

I don't. Good-bye little boy. Troll someone else for a while.

BTW I may be gay, but I'm still male. If you think I don't know what it's like to think with my cock, then you are mistaken. Your current life === My adolescence. I've seen this movie before.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #926 on: March 18, 2014, 12:16:41 am »
I'd bet the last time you ever came anywhere near a vagina was your mother's when you came out of it.

Even if that were true, we can't say the same for you since your species was born out of some guy's asshole.

Did you read that back to yourself before you posted it? ???

Sure, I'm sure you've seen a ton of pussy. On TV that is ::)

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #927 on: March 18, 2014, 12:17:23 am »
There are only three areas of this discussion that I'm qualified to weigh in on: law, sexuality, and sexual activity.

What he really meant to say: "There are only three areas of this discussion that I'm qualified to weigh in on: law, BEING SOOOOOOOO GAYY, and TAKINGS AIDS INFECTED LOADS STRAIGHT TO THE ANUS."

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #928 on: March 18, 2014, 12:18:57 am »
There are only three areas of this discussion that I'm qualified to weigh in on: law, sexuality, and sexual activity.

What he really meant to say: "There are only three areas of this discussion that I'm qualified to weigh in on: law, BEING SOOOOOOOO GAYY, and TAKINGS AIDS INFECTED LOADS STRAIGHT TO THE ANUS."

LOL. Please continue. You know what? I've never heard such a thing before. I'm so offended ::)

Excuse me, my feet are cold; I think I'll go get some socks now. ;)

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #929 on: March 18, 2014, 12:35:27 am »
Quote
First of all, you're looking to change the status quo; the people  whom you're arguing with want to keep it as is. That means the burden is on you to bring about change.

And second, no, if you're talking about the legality of the action, it's not even close to 50-50. And that's ignoring the fact that you've got multiple identities. Of all those who voted in support of your position, why have none of them commented?

I only voted once with any identity on this poll. If anything I wouldn't be surprised if someone voting for the bottom option has voted a bunch of times since the top option was in the clear lead and then suddenly the bottom one doubled in size. I would love for the mods to remove votes from anyone with less than 75 posts. But I can see it as reasonable and that nobody cheated. I sure as fuck didn't cheat. And I think any cheating would have been done to a slight extent by both sides if there was any, and that the results will still be mostly accurate. And yeah not even close to 50-50 bro why would you say something that is refuted by scrolling to the top of the fucking thread you are posting in? Do you think the people who would act on their attraction to young teenagers if not for social and legal reasons wouldn't change the legality of the action to be able to do so? That is such a tiny leap it's obvious. They probably haven't commented because they don't want the retard brigade to dox them and threaten to kill them! Give a man a mask and he will tell you the truth.

Quote
I'm going to wade from the rational to the emotional to say that that poor girl deserves better. Did she ask to be murdered, dismembered, and violated by a stranger? No. Did she consent to have her likeness (in her disembodied state) featured in pornography? No.

But OK, I'm an atheist, so I'll say that she doesn't know the difference anyway. But that brings me to another victim: her family. Your willingness to exploit their pain isn't exactly endearing.

Absolutely fucking ridiculous. The family will be in pain regardless of if I look at the picture or not. It is seriously the thought process of a primitive being that thinks otherwise, and this is why I call you a retard. I call you a retard because I am so certain that I am able to perceive reality better than you are that I question if I am even the same thing as you. How is it possible for me to be so capable of seeing reality and you to be so incapable of it if we are the same type of creature? It is really mind boggling to me.

Quote
There are two tracks that you could take here: you can take the track of a consumer of underage porn; or you can instead allign yourself with producers and say that there's nothing wring with the act itself. If this is something you just like to beat off too, then it's the former. Do you ever think about how these girls might feel after sex with you? What they might think, look like, or say? No, because there's no fantasy after the fact. I just becomes real.

I mean I would say predominately I would just be a consumer, though I certainly would align myself with the teenagers producing naked pictures of themselves in saying that 25% of the teenagers in the USA should not be forced to register as sex offenders. 

Quote
Most people would prefer having sex. So lucky you: you get to stay home alone and touch it all day by yourself while you look at 2 dimensional pictures. Congrats on that.

I imagine I could arrange to have sex with an underage teenager if I really wanted to go through the trouble of it. If I was willing to be as sociopathic as people claim I could probably fuck nearly any teenager I wanted and get away with it. But it's too much hassle and in any case I am not so sociopathic.

Quote
Look, I've already told you (several times over) that I don't give a fuck what you do with your life.

So go. Lucky you ;)

Look, you can stop with your "just go" argument because even when I am gone I will continue to argue that your shit hole country should change the law. It doesn't matter where I am.

Quote
Thank you for making my argument for me. You may be of high intelligence, but that intelligence isn't verbal in nature. You may be a mathematical genius, but your vocabulary is lacking.

I can, however see that I've touched a nerve. Tell me, oh wise verbal one, was it your plan to show me how angry my (one) statement made you? Because that's what you've done.

You just look like an idiot to me I already know my verbal intelligence is in the very gifted to genius range.

Quote
If we're all retarded, then what does it say about you for arguing with a bunch of retards? ??? And under multiple nyms at that LOL.

I have no other nyms here currently and have not for a long time.

Quote
My propaganda is the law, which you asked about specifically, and you're poorly equipped to change it. Do you really think that's going to help you change anything? Do you really think that I believe---for even a second---that you have the capability to relocate to any of these countries you've talked about? ???

Look, I don't need to hear a drug user tell me about the law, it just makes you look like a hypocrite. When you stop breaking the law you can start making appeals to it. Wasn't it you who said let he who has not sinned cast the first stone? I don't give the slightest fuck that you are gay I am not anti-hero. Of course you should think I have the capability to relocate. I've already lived in foreign countries before, why do you think I couldn't do it again? I might not be able to right this moment, but I can hold off on breaking the law (in any serious way) long enough to get to do everything I want without breaking the law.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #930 on: March 18, 2014, 01:02:24 am »
Quote from: m0rph
I could probably fuck nearly any teenager I wanted



Oh I believe that! Thanks for the laugh!



« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 01:03:00 am by r0guebubbles »

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #931 on: March 18, 2014, 01:06:32 am »
I only voted once with any identity on this poll. If anything I wouldn't be surprised if someone voting for the bottom option has voted a bunch of times since the top option was in the clear lead and then suddenly the bottom one doubled in size.

Just stop.

Absolutely fucking ridiculous. The family will be in pain regardless of if I look at the picture or not.

Your pleasure at everyone else's expense, right? This is why I'm not a libertarian and what turns me off about libertarianism.

I mean I would say predominately I would just be a consumer.

I know exactly which one you are, which is  why I said it.

Quote
Most people would prefer having sex. So lucky you: you get to stay home alone and touch it all day by yourself while you look at 2 dimensional pictures. Congrats on that.

I imagine I could arrange to have sex.

No comment.

Look, you can stop with your "just go" argument because even when I am gone I will continue to argue that your shit hole country should change the law. It doesn't matter where I am.

The question on every single commentator's lips is this: If it's so great, and so much better than here, then why don't you just go and leave everyone else alone?

You're not doing this to be egalitarian. And if you think I love the US, then I really should stop, because you're not paying attention.

You just look like an idiot to me I already know.

That about says it all.

Quote
My propaganda is the law, which you asked about specifically, and you're poorly equipped to change it. Do you really think that's going to help you change anything? Do you really think that I believe---for even a second---that you have the capability to relocate to any of these countries you've talked about? ???

Look, I don't need to hear a drug user tell me about the law, it just makes you look like a hypocrite.

I'll be that then. It helps me sleep better at night. Well, that, and all these drugs. ;)

If you don't want a drug user to explain the law to you, then ask someone else? Oh wait; that's right: this is a drug forum, not a jailbait forum, so you can't And if you've never met a drug using lawyer, then you're lying, don't get out much, or you live in a hole. Which is it please? ???
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #932 on: March 18, 2014, 01:12:46 am »
Quote from: m0rph
I could probably fuck nearly any teenager I wanted



Oh I believe that! Thanks for the laugh!

I mean, if I was a sociopath I would just hack a teenager and get naked pictures of her and then blackmail her for more explicit ones and eventually threaten to release them if she didn't rendezvous with me to fuck, at which point I would use intelligence tactics to ascertain that she had not contacted the police, and perhaps use various techniques to conceal my identity from her, but after fucking her I would tell her I would hold on to the pictures and release them if I ever found out she told anybody about it. Most likely she would be too worried of having her reputation ruined and would keep it a secret, and in any case she wouldn't know anything other than what I looked like since I would get a motel with a fake ID or something, hell maybe I would even use theatrical makeup and a wig to hide my appearance. But I wouldn't actually do this because I am not actually a sociopath, despite what people may think.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #933 on: March 18, 2014, 01:19:25 am »
Quote from: m0rph
I could probably fuck nearly any teenager I wanted



Oh I believe that! Thanks for the laugh!


That is hilarious. I was going to let that one go, but that was priceless. :D
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #934 on: March 18, 2014, 01:39:49 am »
... if I was a sociopath I would just hack a teenager and get naked pictures of her and then blackmail her for more explicit ones and eventually threaten to release them if she didn't rendezvous with me to fuck, at which point I would use intelligence tactics to ascertain that she had not contacted the police ...

Say if u did this, how would u know she didn't organise have her dad and/or brothers etc. waiting in the bushes nearby, ready to bust yo' ass? What are u gonna do, confiscate her phone so she can't keep her contacts updated with the location of this rendezvous point, even if you were to change it? I think that plan has bullet holes all over it...
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 01:49:47 am by Anti-Hero »

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #935 on: March 18, 2014, 01:43:02 am »
Quote
Just stop.

Stop what? I didn't make this poll for any other reason than to see the honest results, so did not game it.

Quote
Your pleasure at everyone else's expense, right? This is why I'm not a libertarian and what turns me off about libertarianism.

If I was concerned with my pleasure at the expense of everyone else do you think I would be on a forum saying the things I am? I would be blackmailing girls and being a true monster, and very likely not getting caught. But I am fine with taking pleasure in things when there is nobody who is made to suffer from it. Look at the shoes you wear, I wonder if they were made in a sweat shop. Are you responsible for the suffering of the child slaves in the sweat shop then? Certainly you have done more to contribute to their misery than I have done to contribute to the misery of anybody by looking at a picture, you financed the sweat shop by buying the shoes. As long as I do not contribute to the expense of others I have no issue in taking pleasure in it, and I think this is a perfectly reasonable position to take, and far better than hurting people to take pleasure in it.

Quote
I know exactly which one you are, which is  why I said it.

Uhm, you actually asked a question that I then proceeded to answer.

Quote
The question on every single commentator's lips is this: If it's so great, and so much better than here, then why don't you just go and leave everyone else alone?

You're not doing this to be egalitarian. And if you think I love the US, then I really should stop, because you're not paying attention.

The thing is, even after I leave I will still be arguing that countries should have policies more similar to Uruguay's. Where I am is irrelevant.

Quote
I'll be that then. It helps me sleep better at night. Well, that, and all these drugs. ;)

If you don't want a drug user to explain the law to you, then ask someone else? Oh wait; that's right: this is a drug forum, not a jailbait forum, so you can't And if you've never met a drug using lawyer, then you're lying, don't get out much, or you live in a hole. Which is it please? ???

Look, the thing is I already know what the law is. If you couldn't tell, I don't give a fuck. I am not asking people to tell me what the law is, I am asking them why it should be that way. Perhaps you fall victim to the is-ought fallacy, you have quite a collection of logical fallacies and I wouldn't be surprised if this is your latest addition.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #936 on: March 18, 2014, 01:47:49 am »
Quote
Just stop.

Stop what?

Carrying on like a baby. I'm sorry that most people don't agree with you. Get over it.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #937 on: March 18, 2014, 01:48:38 am »
... if I was a sociopath I would just hack a teenager and get naked pictures of her and then blackmail her for more explicit ones and eventually threaten to release them if she didn't rendezvous with me to fuck, at which point I would use intelligence tactics to ascertain that she had not contacted the police ...

Say if u did this, how would u know she didn't organise have her dad and/or bothers etc. waiting in the bushes nearby, ready to bust yo' ass? What are u gonna do, confiscate her phone so she can't keep her contacts updated with the location of this rendezvous point, even if you were to change it? I think that plan has bullet holes all over it...

Look, I am not going to spell out how to do it because it would be bad for someone to actually do it and I don't want to help people do bad things. But I would covertly watch her leave from her house with a surveillance quadracopter to make sure she didn't bring people with her, and perhaps I would scan for her cellphone signal from the quadracopter to make sure she left it.

Quote
Oh you mean you couldn't get her just because of your amazing good looks?

I could not fuck any teenager I want based upon my looks alone.

Quote
Carrying on like a baby. I'm sorry that most people don't agree with you. Get over it.

I'm happy with the nearly 50% who do.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 01:51:34 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #938 on: March 18, 2014, 01:49:23 am »
Quote from: m0rph
I could probably fuck nearly any teenager I wanted



Oh I believe that! Thanks for the laugh!

I mean, if I was a sociopath I would just hack a teenager and get naked pictures of her and then blackmail her for more explicit ones and eventually threaten to release them if she didn't rendezvous with me to fuck, at which point I would use intelligence tactics to ascertain that she had not contacted the police, and perhaps use various techniques to conceal my identity from her, but after fucking her I would tell her I would hold on to the pictures and release them if I ever found out she told anybody about it. Most likely she would be too worried of having her reputation ruined and would keep it a secret, and in any case she wouldn't know anything other than what I looked like since I would get a motel with a fake ID or something, hell maybe I would even use theatrical makeup and a wig to hide my appearance. But I wouldn't actually do this because I am not actually a sociopath, despite what people may think.

You just proved NOT to be quite the genius you claim to be.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #939 on: March 18, 2014, 01:52:38 am »
Quote from: m0rph
I could probably fuck nearly any teenager I wanted



Oh I believe that! Thanks for the laugh!

I mean, if I was a sociopath I would just hack a teenager and get naked pictures of her and then blackmail her for more explicit ones and eventually threaten to release them if she didn't rendezvous with me to fuck, at which point I would use intelligence tactics to ascertain that she had not contacted the police, and perhaps use various techniques to conceal my identity from her, but after fucking her I would tell her I would hold on to the pictures and release them if I ever found out she told anybody about it. Most likely she would be too worried of having her reputation ruined and would keep it a secret, and in any case she wouldn't know anything other than what I looked like since I would get a motel with a fake ID or something, hell maybe I would even use theatrical makeup and a wig to hide my appearance. But I wouldn't actually do this because I am not actually a sociopath, despite what people may think.

You just proved NOT to be quite the genius you claim to be.

hm why do you think that?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #940 on: March 18, 2014, 01:55:31 am »
Quote
Carrying on like a baby. I'm sorry that most people don't agree with you. Get over it.

I'm happy with the nearly 50% who do.

And just who are they again? And are you sure that that number adds up to 50? ??? For your exact position? ???

Perhaps I gave you too much credit in suggesting that you may (or may not) be a mathematical genius. Addition is pretty basic.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #941 on: March 18, 2014, 01:58:11 am »
Quote from: m0rph
I could probably fuck nearly any teenager I wanted



Oh I believe that! Thanks for the laugh!

I mean, if I was a sociopath I would just hack a teenager and get naked pictures of her and then blackmail her for more explicit ones and eventually threaten to release them if she didn't rendezvous with me to fuck, at which point I would use intelligence tactics to ascertain that she had not contacted the police, and perhaps use various techniques to conceal my identity from her, but after fucking her I would tell her I would hold on to the pictures and release them if I ever found out she told anybody about it. Most likely she would be too worried of having her reputation ruined and would keep it a secret, and in any case she wouldn't know anything other than what I looked like since I would get a motel with a fake ID or something, hell maybe I would even use theatrical makeup and a wig to hide my appearance. But I wouldn't actually do this because I am not actually a sociopath, despite what people may think.

You just proved NOT to be quite the genius you claim to be.

hm why do you think that?

Because that's the most ridiculous thing that anyone has ever heard. That shows me more of a window into your mind than anything else you've said. I can see that none of that action has taken place anywhere outside of your mind.

Like, I can't believe you don't get how obvious that is to the rest of us. I'm sorry. Truly.

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #942 on: March 18, 2014, 02:00:18 am »
... if I was a sociopath I would just hack a teenager and get naked pictures of her and then blackmail her for more explicit ones and eventually threaten to release them if she didn't rendezvous with me to fuck, at which point I would use intelligence tactics to ascertain that she had not contacted the police ...

Say if u did this, how would u know she didn't organise have her dad and/or bothers etc. waiting in the bushes nearby, ready to bust yo' ass? What are u gonna do, confiscate her phone so she can't keep her contacts updated with the location of this rendezvous point, even if you were to change it? I think that plan has bullet holes all over it...

Look, I am not going to spell out how to do it because it would be bad for someone to actually do it and I don't want to help people do bad things.

True, there 'might be' *real*, practicing pedo's reading...

But I would covertly watch her leave from her house with a surveillance quadracopter to make sure she didn't bring people with her, and perhaps I would scan for her cellphone signal from the quadracopter to make sure she left it.

Smart-ass :P Sounds almost like a military operation... lol

So, it would be a requirement for her to leave her phone behind to meet you? You'd have more luck winning jackpot lotto.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #943 on: March 18, 2014, 02:06:07 am »
... But I would covertly watch her leave from her house with a surveillance quadracopter to make sure she didn't bring people with her, and perhaps I would scan for her cellphone signal from the quadracopter to make sure she left it.

LOL -- just after this was posted, a new thread just appeared titled: "anyone know anything about cellphone hacking" Ref: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=32524.0

Funny that, coincidence?! :o

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #944 on: March 18, 2014, 02:08:38 am »
Quote
Carrying on like a baby. I'm sorry that most people don't agree with you. Get over it.

I'm happy with the nearly 50% who do.

And just who are they again? And are you sure that that number adds up to 50? ??? For your exact position? ???

Perhaps I gave you too much credit in suggesting that you may (or may not) be a mathematical genius. Addition is pretty basic.

44.9% of people who voted indicated that they would be ok with lowering age of consent laws, or having some different age of consent system that would not completely exclude the possibility of having sex with young teenagers, or legalizing the viewing of jailbait pornography. It has been roughly 50-50 for the duration of the poll, though it has gone back and forth between who has the slight lead.

Quote


Because that's the most ridiculous thing that anyone has ever heard. That shows me more of a window into your mind than anything else you've said. I can see that none of that action has taken place anywhere outside of your mind.

Like, I can't believe you don't get how obvious that is to the rest of us. I'm sorry. Truly.

I mean, I am not going to actually do it so I haven't spent much resources thinking of how to securely do it. But I probably could do it. But I'm never going to find out if I can do it or not. I bet the FBI agents reading this thread think I might be able to do it. They deal with people that do similar things all the time, but none of them have the potential to be as sophisticated in how they go about it as I do, at least none of the ones they manage to bust do. Wouldn't it be horrible if I was actually a complete sociopath? I could hurt so many people for my own pleasure and not get in trouble for it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/online-sextortion-of-teens-on-rise-feds-say/

Quote
The nightmare began with a party: three teenage girls with a webcam, visiting an Internet chatroom and yielding to requests to flash their breasts.

A week later, one of the girls, a 17-year-old from Indiana, started getting threatening e-mails. A stranger said he had captured her image on the webcam and would post the pictures to her MySpace friends unless she posed for more explicit pictures and videos for him. On at least two occasions, the teen did what her blackmailer demanded. Finally, police and federal authorities became involved and indicted a 19-year-old Maryland man in June on charges of sexual exploitation.

Federal prosecutors and child safety advocates say they're seeing an upswing in such cases of online sexual extortion. They say teens who text nude cell phone photos of themselves or show off their bodies on the Internet are being contacted by pornographers who threaten to expose their behavior to friends and family unless they pose for more explicit porn, creating a vicious cycle of exploitation.

One federal affidavit includes a special term for the crime: "sextortion."

No one currently tracks the numbers of cases involving online sexual extortion in state and federal courts, but prosecutors and others point toward several recent high-profile examples victimizing teens in a dozen states:

- In Alabama, Jonathan Vance, 24, of Auburn was sentenced to 18 years in prison in April after he admitted sending threatening e-mails on Facebook and MySpace extorting nude photos from more than 50 young women in Alabama, Pennsylvania and Missouri.

- In Wisconsin, Anthony Stancl, 18, received 15 years in prison in February after prosecutors said he posed as a girl on Facebook to trick male high school classmates into sending him nude cell phone photos, which he then used to extort them for sex.

- A 31-year-old California man was arrested in June on extortion charges after authorities said he hacked into more than 200 computers and threatened to expose nude photos he found unless their owners posed for more sexually explicit videos. Forty-four of the victims were juveniles, authorities said. Federal prosecutors said he was even able to remotely activate some victims' webcams without their knowledge and record them undressing or having sex.

The cases have prompted law enforcement officials and advocates to caution teens about their activities. Privacy is nonexistent on the Internet, and once indiscretions appear online, they are virtually impossible to take back. A nude photo sent to a boyfriend's cell phone can easily be circulated through cell phone contacts and wind up on websites that post sexting photos. Once there, it's available for anyone who wants to trace it back to the person who made it.

"Kids are putting their head in the lion's mouth every time they do this," said Parry Aftab, an attorney and online child safety advocate.

Teens can be more vulnerable to blackmail because they're easy to intimidate and embarrassed to seek help. And the extortionists are often willing to make good on their threats, said Steve DeBrota, an assistant U.S. attorney in Indianapolis who has been involved in sextortion investigations.

"You are blackmailable," said Aftab, " ... and you will do anything to keep those pictures from getting out."

In the Indiana case, the teenage girl's mother called police when she found out about the threats. Authorities subpoenaed Internet service providers to track the chats and e-mails to their source, a computer in Mechanicsville, Md., according to court documents.

According to court documents, the computer's owner, Trevor Shea, told agents he had engaged in similar schemes with about 10 girls, most of them 17 or 18 years old.

His trial is set for Aug. 30. He has pleaded not guilty and his attorney, Michael Donahoe, said he is working on a possible settlement.


« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 02:10:21 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #945 on: March 18, 2014, 02:12:10 am »
... But I would covertly watch her leave from her house with a surveillance quadracopter to make sure she didn't bring people with her, and perhaps I would scan for her cellphone signal from the quadracopter.

LOL -- just after this was posted, a new thread just appeared titled: "anyone know anything about cellphone hacking" Ref: http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=32524.0

Funny that, coincidence?! :o

Damn I feel really bad piling on m0rph like this---at heart, if you can find his heart, m0rph isn't such a bad guy---but ROLF! Holy Fucking Shit: scan for the fucking cell phone signal from the fucking quadracopter!

I didn't get that far into the paragraph. I scanned it very quickly. Thanks for pointing that out.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 02:19:20 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #946 on: March 18, 2014, 02:17:57 am »
Quote
Carrying on like a baby. I'm sorry that most people don't agree with you. Get over it.

I'm happy with the nearly 50% who do.

And just who are they again? And are you sure that that number adds up to 50? ??? For your exact position? ???

Perhaps I gave you too much credit in suggesting that you may (or may not) be a mathematical genius. Addition is pretty basic.

44.9% of people who voted indicated that they would be ok with lowering age of consent laws.

I count 19%. 31% if I'm being generous.

Quote
Because that's the most ridiculous thing that anyone has ever heard. That shows me more of a window into your mind than anything else you've said. I can see that none of that action has taken place anywhere outside of your mind.

Like, I can't believe you don't get how obvious that is to the rest of us. I'm sorry. Truly.

I mean, I am not going to actually do it so I haven't spent much resources thinking of how to securely do it.

Please stop. I'm getting embarrassed for you. I don't think you're as stupid as you're making yourself sound.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/online-sextortion-of-teens-on-rise-feds-say/

I only skimmed, but wasn't the person in the article in custody awaiting trial? That's where you want to be? ???
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #947 on: March 18, 2014, 02:22:37 am »
Smart-ass :P Sounds almost like a military operation... lol

So, it would be a requirement for her to leave her phone behind to meet you? You'd have more luck winning jackpot lotto.

That's what you get when you watch too many unrealistic action movies :D

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #948 on: March 18, 2014, 02:32:34 am »
... it would be a requirement for her to leave her phone behind to meet you? You'd have more luck winning jackpot lotto.

That's what you get when you watch too many unrealistic action movies :D

I knew u'd understand how much that scenario would be not happening/bullshit, @bubbles, lol.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #949 on: March 18, 2014, 02:37:16 am »
Quote
I only skimmed, but wasn't the person in the article in custody awaiting trial? That's where you want to be?

The difference between him and me is that he did it and got busted, and I wouldn't do it or get busted if I did. I don't care if you believe me or not.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #950 on: March 18, 2014, 02:40:31 am »
I suppose another option would be hacking the phone and making it appear to work while preventing it from broadcasting a signal.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #951 on: March 18, 2014, 02:43:19 am »
I suppose another option would be hacking the phone and making it appear to work while preventing it from broadcasting a signal.

So, an undercover "airplane mode" if you will?

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #952 on: March 18, 2014, 02:44:49 am »
Quote
I only skimmed, but wasn't the person in the article in custody awaiting trial? That's where you want to be?

The difference between him and me is that he did it and got busted, and I wouldn't do it or get busted if I did. I don't care if you believe me or not.

No one ever believes they will get caught.

Good god. Whose dick do I have to suck to stop being notified of new replies to this thread?

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #953 on: March 18, 2014, 02:46:53 am »
I suppose another option would be hacking the phone and making it appear to work while preventing it from broadcasting a signal.

That's actually much more doable, if not elaborate.

Ask yourself this: is it worth it? Wouldn't you rather she be willing (in a non-role playing way --- Oh god, just don't tell me)?
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #954 on: March 18, 2014, 02:51:09 am »
... Ask yourself this: is it worth it?

These are more hypothetical suggestions I think he's relaying, i.e. the viability if one was to attempt to do it.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #955 on: March 18, 2014, 02:53:28 am »
Maybe nobody ever believes they will get caught, but I know I would be far more sophisticated than any of the people I have ever heard of getting caught.

Quote
That's actually much more doable, if not elaborate.

Ask yourself this: is it worth it? Wouldn't you rather she be willing (in a non-role playing way --- Oh god, just don't tell me)?

Either is doable, the problem is that maybe she wouldn't leave her phone behind in any case, whereas she would be more likely to come if she brought it with her, but it could still be protected from.

Look man, I wouldn't ever actually do anything like this to a person. I could probably get some sick sense of enjoyment out of it, but that is because something is obviously wrong with me in that regard. But it really doesn't matter, because I know that, and I couldn't bring myself to cause so much harm to another person just for a thrill. That's what I keep saying in this thread. Just because somebody wants to do something that would be bad to do is not a reason to punish them. Why should I be upset with a person who wants to rape a baby if he doesn't plan to do it or even want to want to do it? I will save my condemnations for the people who do bad things instead of wasting them on the people who want to.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #956 on: March 18, 2014, 02:57:46 am »
... Ask yourself this: is it worth it?

These are more hypothetical suggestions I think he's relaying, i.e. the viability if one was to attempt to do it.

Oh, I know that it is of course hypothetical. That's what makes it so laughable.

It's like DHS knocking on Ross Ulbricht's door about fake IDs and having him respond "well, hypothetically anyone could go on Silkroad and have them shipped anywhere." Oh wait. That did happen.

I've seen that play before (like a million times over LOL)
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #957 on: March 18, 2014, 02:59:26 am »
Maybe nobody ever believes they will get caught, but I know I would be far more sophisticated than any of the people I have ever heard of getting caught.

Quote
That's actually much more doable, if not elaborate.

Ask yourself this: is it worth it? Wouldn't you rather she be willing (in a non-role playing way --- Oh god, just don't tell me)?

Either is doable, the problem is ...

I was being kind. The problem is ... the police. Even if you pull it off.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #958 on: March 18, 2014, 03:04:00 am »
... the problem is that maybe she wouldn't leave her phone behind in any case, whereas she would be more likely to come if she brought it with her, but it could still be protected from.

If she had an up-to-date, latest patched OS, again you would need to fork out big bucks for a zero-day exploit to compromise that system. I still find holes all over that route, in many cases.

Maybe you'll be a proper hacker soon and will be selling zero-days?

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #959 on: March 18, 2014, 03:06:35 am »
Quote
I was being kind. The problem is ... the police. Even if you pull it off.

The police are only a problem to people who don't know how to be secure.

Quote
Maybe you'll be a proper hacker soon and will be selling zero-days?

That's my goal! I am getting really close.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #960 on: March 18, 2014, 03:09:55 am »
Quote
I was being kind. The problem is ... the police. Even if you pull it off.

The police are only a problem to people who don't know how to be secure.

What makes you a fool is that you are only one man. Period. And you are not infallible. I don't give a fuck how much Kool-Aid you've drunk, you are not a deity. You can't pull off something that large. Period.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #961 on: March 18, 2014, 03:17:25 am »
Quote
I was being kind. The problem is ... the police. Even if you pull it off.

The police are only a problem to people who don't know how to be secure.

What makes you a fool is that you are only one man. Period. And you are not infallible. I don't give a fuck how much Kool-Aid you've drunk, you are not a deity. You can't pull off something that large. Period.

Think whatever makes you feel better, but you don't need to worry about me anyway because I can control myself and do the right thing without a Bible or a Law Book telling me what it is.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #962 on: March 18, 2014, 03:20:53 am »
Quote
I was being kind. The problem is ... the police. Even if you pull it off.

The police are only a problem to people who don't know how to be secure.

What makes you a fool is that you are only one man. Period. And you are not infallible. I don't give a fuck how much Kool-Aid you've drunk, you are not a deity. You can't pull off something that large. Period.

Think whatever makes you feel better, but you don't need to worry about me anyway because I can control myself

You can't do anything that doesn't involve:
1. Simulation; or
2. Being behind a computer screen.

What happens when you're in a situation where #2 isn't helpful?

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #963 on: March 18, 2014, 03:37:36 am »
I don't plan to be in situations where I need to worry about it. I'm going to get rich and move to Uruguay where I can live the rest of my life using drugs, possibly fucking young teenagers if I think they can consent, looking at jailbait porn, and selling zero days to the highest bidders (or maybe I will just sell them to free countries intelligence agencies, I don't particularly want to support any nation that is not libertarian). I am not going to live the rest of my life as a criminal when I can go and be a normal person some other place. Your countries are sick and stupid, and in being stupid they lead to so much more harm even to completely innocent people than needs to happen. If you could just use your reason instead of your emotions you could actually fix the problems that make you upset, or at least ameliorate them a lot more than you currently have. But you are more beasts than men and in the same way I cannot reason with any other beast I can not reason with you. And even if I could reason with you and convince you of the truth you are only one other person, and there are millions and millions of others who don't even know I exist, so nothing I say will likely change your country, but I will continue to tell anyone who listens why you should change, but it wont be for my sake because I will be in a country that is already rational.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #964 on: March 18, 2014, 03:57:19 am »
I don't plan to be in situations where I need to worry about it. I'm going to get rich and move to Uruguay where I can live the rest of my life using drugs, possibly fucking young teenagers

Are you high? ??? Well, I am, and you sound it too. :D This is supposed to be my fun time. Thanks for making it a little less fun ;)

I must therefore take my leave Good Sir. Until tomorrow. Parting is such sweet sorrow, blah, blah, blah.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

FriendOfTheDevil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +79/-22
  • -Our thoughts create reality-
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #965 on: March 18, 2014, 05:09:40 am »

Think whatever makes you feel better, but you don't need to worry about me anyway because I can control myself and do the right thing without a Bible or a Law Book telling me what it is.

Yes, but, theres people out there (billions) who will try and control you using pretense of 'laws' or 'sins'
I, like you, believe what i do is right or wrong and my responsibility. But others, bound by bibles or the law or simply 'following orders' may and do control you despite your own self-control.
"The written laws of the United States of America do not supersede the natural laws of economics (supply & demand)." -[vendor]brownpurple
Proof of knowledge of the contents of a package is absolutely necessary to convict. -DrMDA http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=3509.0

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #966 on: March 18, 2014, 05:43:57 am »
they obviously suck at controlling me considering i've looked at probably like 2,000+ different 12-17 year old girls flashing their mirrors, spreading their legs, sucking dick, and getting fucked, and can't get in trouble for it since I have been in countries where it is legal and there is absolutely no evidence left of it (except for all the pictures in my brain, and believe me I think of them frequently!). I've seen more high school pussy than a football player by a couple orders of magnitude, it's pretty bad ass :D.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #967 on: March 18, 2014, 06:40:57 am »
Haha zero days, sure! What's next? You turn out to be MacGyver? Get a life you dumb scriptkiddie

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #968 on: March 18, 2014, 06:51:35 am »
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int age_to_fuck(int your_age);

int main(){
    int your_age, her_minimum_age;
    pussy_struct *vagina;

   scanf("%i", &your_age);

   her_minimum_age = age_to_fuck(your_age);

   if( her_minimum_age < 0)
      {
          while( your_age < 12 )
          {
              sleep(31536000);
              ++your_age;
          }
        her_minimum_age = age_to_fuck(your_age);
      }   

    goto fuck;


   fuck:{
          vagina = malloc( sizeof(pussy_struct) );
          vagina->buffer = calloc(1,1);
          strcpy(vagina->buffer, "my dick");
   }
   
    return 0;
}

int age_to_fuck(int your_age){

    if(your_age < 12) goto error;

    return 12 % (your_age + 1);

    error:{
        printf("You are too young to fuck! anybody");
        return -1;
    }

}

« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 08:10:05 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #969 on: March 18, 2014, 07:03:36 am »
#include <stdio.h>

int age_to_fuck(int your_age);

int main(){
    int your_age;

   scanf("%i", &your_age);

    int her_minimum_age = age_to_fuck(your_age);
    return 0;
}

int age_to_fuck(int your_age){

    int her_age;
   
    if(your_age < 12) goto error;

    return 12 % your_age;

    error:{
        printf("You are too young to fuck! anybody");
        return -1;
    }

}


Surprised to see you have made it beyond the "hello world" :P

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #970 on: March 18, 2014, 07:13:03 am »
psh I've been programming for years now and had a substantial background in theoretical security before that.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #971 on: March 18, 2014, 07:33:17 am »
there was actually a bug letting 12 year olds fuck anybody they wanted to, fixed it up now and added some more :D.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #972 on: March 18, 2014, 08:30:45 am »
there was actually a bug letting 12 year olds fuck anybody they wanted to, fixed it up now and added some more :D.

I seen that rofl...

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #973 on: March 18, 2014, 08:42:54 am »
alternatively:

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

void fuck(char* my_dick, int her_age);

int main(){

    char * my_dick = malloc(13);
   
    strcpy(my_dick, "a big dick!!!"');
    int her_age = 13;

    fuck(my_dick, 13);
    return 0;
}

void fuck(char* my_dick, int her_age){
    char *her_pussy = calloc(1, her_age);   
    strcpy(her_pussy, my_dick);                 //putting my_dick in her_pussy doesn't cause corrupted memory if her_age is at least 13
}
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #974 on: March 18, 2014, 09:05:56 am »
New version released (v0.0.1.1-a1)

Features added/bugs fixed:

- Ability to fuck 13 year olds without corrupting memory

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #975 on: March 18, 2014, 09:14:36 am »
New version released (v0.0.1.1-a1)

Features added/bugs fixed:

- Ability to fuck 13 year olds without corrupting memory

I don't know why everybody thinks they removed that feature in v0.0.1.8
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #976 on: March 18, 2014, 09:17:19 am »
but it's all fine because I can use v0.0.1.3 ESR in Uruguay
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #977 on: March 18, 2014, 04:46:49 pm »

Think whatever makes you feel better, but you don't need to worry about me anyway because I can control myself and do the right thing without a Bible or a Law Book telling me what it is.

Yes, but, theres people out there (billions) who will try and control you using pretense of 'laws' or 'sins'

My quote/unquote bible (and I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in organized religion) are the laws that set the age of consent at 16. Somehow, being knowledgeable about existing law puts me in some kind of herd of sheep?

M0rph would like to have that number lowered specifically so that he may have sex with 12-13 year old girls. Um, I'm not judging, and he can't help what he's attracted to, but that doesn't mean that the age of consent should be lowered so that grown men can have sex with barely teenage girls and boys.

He is mad because existing US law won't permit him to do so. I did not write that law, but I do believe it is a just law nonetheless. We can talk about reducing penalties for CP possesion, we can stop making cartoons and drawings illegal, but we can't give adults the power to have sex with all adolescent boys and girls. If that makes me beholden to my law bible, then I'm more than comfortable with that.

I'm not trying to shame him at all. In fact, even though he's too much of a jerk to admit, I've even agreed with him on some points. The problem is, he won't accept anything short of having it exactly his way. He doesn't realize that he doesn't need everyone to agree to win the debate.


I, like you, believe what i do is right or wrong and my responsibility. But others, bound by bibles or the law or simply 'following orders' may and do control you despite your own self-control.

Yeah, me too. That doesn't mean I think it's OK for grown men to have sex with 12-13 year old boys and girls. Do you think that's OK?

That's a genuine question; I'm not saying that to shame you, I'm just curious as to what your feelings about that are when it comes to law?

At what age does one acquire the personal responsibility that you speak of? Is a 12 year old personally responsible for his-/herself? Or are their parents responsible for them? Do 12 year olds have freedom of choice? ??? If so, then there are probably a bunch of other things that we should be letting kids do.

 
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #978 on: March 18, 2014, 04:57:21 pm »
they obviously suck at controlling me considering i've looked at probably like 2,000+ different 12-17 year old girls flashing their mirrors, spreading their legs, sucking dick, and getting fucked, and can't get in trouble for it ...

Good for you; who cares? All you're trying to do is troll by stoking people's emotions. I'm not falling for that dumb-ass bullshit. I don't even believe that you've done half of what you've said. You're just saying this to be provocative. Lame.

... since I have been in countries where it is legal and there is absolutely no evidence left of it (except for all the pictures in my brain, and believe me I think of them frequently!).


Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. With each post, I get to know you even better (the more you write, the more insight you give me). You're not half of what you say you are. And I'm going to stop here and leave it at that.

I've seen more high school pussy than a football player by a couple orders of magnitude, it's pretty bad ass :D.

LOL I'm gay and I've seen more pussy than you ever will. That's a pretty stereotypical statement BTW. ::)

I can get laid whenever I want. I don't have to trick teens into letting me fuck them. FWIW, I've seen more cock, balls, and ass than everyone in a football lockerroom combined LOL.

Go out and get some ass fool. :D
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

unforgiven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • Karma: +216/-150
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #979 on: March 18, 2014, 05:31:00 pm »
No, he talks talks talks talks. Possibly peeps. Never fucks. Probably can't get it up.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Owed 0.0161 worth-strut - delinquent
0.1, smity1020 - delinquent

Repaid (with thanks!):
Cornelius23 
Venemous

astridricadona

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: +2/-9
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #980 on: March 18, 2014, 09:22:48 pm »
My question is, if homosexuality was taken off the shrink manuals (after years). Do you think pedophile will not be consider as a mental disease after a couple of years? what would you think if that comes to happen?

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #981 on: March 18, 2014, 09:32:55 pm »
its been awhile since I've been in this part of the forum...

m0rph you honestly make me fcking sick... I hate that you post on the same shit as me.

I would be willing to pay to have your ass busted. but I know I couldn't afford it on my own.

youre a fcking bitch and you know it. !!!

I guess its good that some people are actually taking the time to read your shit and bust your chops... I can't do it, My brain might pop from all this wisdom of child prono with rules and laws of other places.

you could cure cancer but people would still call you a chomo and not a hero!!!
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #982 on: March 18, 2014, 09:52:28 pm »
they obviously suck at controlling me considering i've looked at probably like 2,000+ different 12-17 year old girls flashing their mirrors, spreading their legs, sucking dick, and getting fucked, and can't get in trouble for it ...

Good for you; who cares? All you're trying to do is troll by stoking people's emotions. I'm not falling for that dumb-ass bullshit. I don't even believe that you've done half of what you've said. You're just saying this to be provocative. Lame.

I think you have trouble differentiating between what I say I have done and what I say I can do. I will keep this deficit in mind and try to be extremely specific with you. I have, in actuality, seen probably 2,000+ different 12-17 year old girls in porn. I have, in reality, lived in and traveled through countries where it is not illegal to look at CP. I have not blackmailed people to do anything for me, I have not made cell phone sniffing quadracopters, etc. I have no reason to lie to you.

Quote
... since I have been in countries where it is legal and there is absolutely no evidence left of it (except for all the pictures in my brain, and believe me I think of them frequently!).


Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. With each post, I get to know you even better (the more you write, the more insight you give me). You're not half of what you say you are. And I'm going to stop here and leave it at that.

Call bullshit all you want I already know it is true.

Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #983 on: March 18, 2014, 09:57:35 pm »
My question is, if homosexuality was taken off the shrink manuals (after years). Do you think pedophile will not be consider as a mental disease after a couple of years? what would you think if that comes to happen?

It's theoretically possible. Society changes a lot over a lot of time. Maybe in the future it will be considered not a mental disease. But that wont happen without probably hundreds of years of time and unforeseen events. I mean, I think it is pretty weird that we almost ritualistically cut off part of the penis of males in many cultures, but it is just normal practice and not many people think twice about it. If it were not for religion I don't know that we would feel the same way about that, even with the medical benefits taken into account. Maybe there will be some pedophile religion that happens to spread like wild fire and next thing you know pedophilia is considered normal after a generation of kids is indoctrinated into it.

But ephebophilia and hebephilia have never been considered mental illnesses.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #984 on: March 18, 2014, 10:15:27 pm »
Quote
My quote/unquote bible (and I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in organized religion) are the laws that set the age of consent at 16. Somehow, being knowledgeable about existing law puts me in some kind of herd of sheep?

Being dedicated to the law makes you a sheep. Being dedicated to some laws makes you a hypocrite.

Quote
M0rph would like to have that number lowered specifically so that he may have sex with 12-13 year old girls. Um, I'm not judging, and he can't help what he's attracted to, but that doesn't mean that the age of consent should be lowered so that grown men can have sex with barely teenage girls and boys.

But you are wrong. I can already have sex with barely teenage girls and boys by moving to Uruguay and renouncing my citizenship. It might take a bit but it is totally within the realm of possibility. I want the age of consent lowered specifically so that people who didn't do anything wrong will stop going to prison. There are lots of other benefits to having a sane age of consent system too. Do you think it is better for ephebophiles and hebephiles to fuck whichever young teenagers they want, or better if they only fuck the ones who have been licensed as capable of consent? Without a system that lets people get licensed as capable of consent, all young teenagers are the same as far as a hebephile or ephebophile cares. If you really want to protect young teenagers you would let the ones who can consent to sex have sex to divert the hebephiles and ephebophiles away from the ones who cannot consent to sex.

Quote
He is mad because existing US law won't permit him to do so. I did not write that law, but I do believe it is a just law nonetheless. We can talk about reducing penalties for CP possesion, we can stop making cartoons and drawings illegal, but we can't give adults the power to have sex with all adolescent boys and girls. If that makes me beholden to my law bible, then I'm more than comfortable with that.

You believe it is just to send people to prison and label them as sex offenders for doing things that are completely legal in Germany, Italy, China, Japan, etc? Yeah that's totally fine, someone did something nobody would give a fuck about in a country that is widely known to be first world and normal, but oh my God if they do that here we need to ruin their lives. How is that just again? The only way you can construe that as being just is by saying "the law is the law" and that is why you are a sheep, and the reason why you are a hypocrite is because despite saying "the law is the law" you continue to use drugs. So you are a sheep and a hypocrite.

reducing penalties for CP uhm how about reduce them to nothing. How about strike them from your fucking Bible because they are retarded and unconstitutional. Why don't you make an appeal to the fucking constitution that is supposed to contain your law, it specifically gives people the right to the freedom of speech, but your government has bastardized and disregarded the constitution as they see fit. Thank God there are countries that still have real freedom of speech and not the bastardized pretend freedom of speech your prison country has. You know what I hate the most about the USA? I hate how they act like they are so free. They scream about their freedoms but oh they have more people in prison than any other country? They have freedom of speech as long as people are not offended by it? Just stop acting like your country has freedom, start being proud that your country is a Religious Christian Theocracy, because that is something you can truthfully take pride in. Also, your country is full of fucking retards. It's a brain dead country full of retards who wave their flags and thump their bibles. But I can take comfort in knowing that the entire thing is destined to crash and burn, because you don't stay in charge of the world when the majority of your people think that a magic man in the sky created the universe, and you don't stay in control of the world when your draconian laws cause all of the intelligent people left in your country to flee it to countries that are free in practice instead of in words, and all of the surveillance and reinterpretation of the law and propaganda in the world isn't going to stop that from happening.

Quote
I'm not trying to shame him at all. In fact, even though he's too much of a jerk to admit, I've even agreed with him on some points. The problem is, he won't accept anything short of having it exactly his way. He doesn't realize that he doesn't need everyone to agree to win the debate.

I will not accept anything less than the way things should be.

Quote
Yeah, me too. That doesn't mean I think it's OK for grown men to have sex with 12-13 year old boys and girls. Do you think that's OK?

DO you think it is okay to have sex with people who can consent to have sex? Then age doesn't even matter does it? We then need some way to determine if a person is capable of consenting to sex right? And why not have a default age of consent but let people be evaluated and licensed at younger ages if they want to. What concern do you have about that? When I said everyone should be licensed you said omg too hard omg taxes omgomgomg. Well why not have a default age of consent at like 15 then and let people younger than that be licensed to have sex if they go through an evaluation and are determined as capable? What possible fucking issue could you have with that?

Quote
No, he talks talks talks talks. Possibly peeps. Never fucks. Probably can't get it up.

Are you making fun of me for not fucking young teenagers?
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 10:23:33 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #985 on: March 18, 2014, 11:59:05 pm »
I think you have trouble differentiating between what I say I have done and what I say I can do.


No. I get you. Completely.

Call bullshit all you want I already know it is true.

I know it's not true. I can tell from your fantasies that you've never done half of that shit. Do you really think we're all  fucking stupid? Because I understand you completely.

PS On the whole, you're not really a bad person; but you are annoying as fuck. I swear to Christ.



You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #986 on: March 19, 2014, 12:08:49 am »
I mean, I guess I don't care if you think it is true or not. Considering I know it is true. It just results in you once again looking like a retard to me. Like when you said I obviously have a low verbal intelligence, even though I already know it is very high. It doesn't bother me so much when people say things that I absolutely know are incorrect. And as usual, you think you know something, but in reality I already am beyond a doubt certain that you are wrong about what you think you know. It's turned out to be a common pattern.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #987 on: March 19, 2014, 12:09:45 am »
And to answer your other question, yes, yes I really do think you are all fucking stupid.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #988 on: March 19, 2014, 12:10:48 am »
I mean, I guess I don't care if you think it is true or not. Considering I know it is true.


Why? Because you said so? LOL.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #989 on: March 19, 2014, 12:13:02 am »
Quote
My quote/unquote bible (and I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in organized religion) are the laws that set the age of consent at 16. Somehow, being knowledgeable about existing law puts me in some kind of herd of sheep?

Being dedicated to the law makes you a sheep.

Nigga, it makes me employed. You should try it. :)

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #990 on: March 19, 2014, 12:15:29 am »
I mean, I guess I don't care if you think it is true or not. Considering I know it is true.


Why? Because you said so? LOL.

Because I lived it you stupid fuck.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #991 on: March 19, 2014, 12:28:15 am »
btw why can't you answer my question? What is wrong with this?

1. Default age of consent at 15
2. People under the age of 15 can be evaluated individually if they so choose and it is paid for not by taxes, and if the evaluation determines they are capable of consent then they are licensed and able to consent to sex
3. Minimum age of consent at 12

what do you dislike about that?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #992 on: March 19, 2014, 04:37:17 am »
looks like a big JB site on Tor just got busted

http://www.startribune.com/local/250836201.html

Quote

A dozen juveniles from Minnesota are among the 251 victims in what is being described as one of the largest online child exploitation investigations in the history of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Victims who were sexually exploited on Internet websites were identified in five countries and 39 states, including North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa.

A 33-year-old Minneapolis man, Sean Jabbar, has been charged with receiving child pornography as part of the wide-ranging federal inquiry.

In many cases, the children were enticed to perform sexual acts on common Internet webcam services such as Skype, authorities said.

The operators are accused of running a digital child exploitation enterprise that routinely preyed on young boys, producing and distributing pornographic videos of minors and coaching others on strategies to coerce underage boys into participating in sexual acts. They are accused of tapping into social networking sites and sometimes impersonating females online to initiate conversation.

Jabbar is among 14 men arrested and indicted as part of a conspiracy to operate a child exploitation enterprise through a child porn website on the Darknet’s Onion Router, also known as Tor.

Shawn Neudauer, a local ICE spokesman, said Jabbar, who was indicted on receipt of child pornography, was arrested at his residence in Minneapolis late last year. An indictment against him says he received the materials from September 2012 to April 2013.

If convicted, Jabbar could face a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Neudauer said the 12 Minnesota victims came from all parts of the state. In addition, there were 12 victims from North Dakota, two from South Dakota, and six from Iowa.

While the investigation is continuing, Neudauer said there is no evidence to suggest any of the victims actually met the perpetrators.

The final results of the investigation, which included arrests over several months, were announced Tuesday.

The website’s primary administrator, Jonathan Johnson, 27, of Abita Springs, La., has been charged with operating the enterprise. He admitted to creating multiple fake female personas on popular social networks to target and sexually exploit children. Johnson has been in federal custody since his arrest June 13, 2013, and faces 20 years to life in prison.

Authorities said the underground website was a hidden service board on the Tor network and operated from about June 2012 until June 2013. At that time, ICE said in a release, the site contained more than 2,000 videos and had more than 27,000 members. The website shared webcam-captured videos of mostly juvenile boys enticed by the operators of the site to produce sexually explicit material. Tor enables online anonymity, directing Internet traffic through a volunteer network consisting of thousands of relays to conceal a user’s location.

The investigation was dubbed “Operation Round Table” and began with Johnson’s arrest. Eleven men have been federally charged in the Eastern District of Louisiana and three in other districts. All are in federal custody.

Federal authorities suggest parents should be wary of the Internet usage of their children, particularly if they play online games such as World of Warcraft, which can involve thousands of anonymous players. They also suggest parents should warn children about revealing too much information online, including passwords, home addresses or school locations.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 09:32:57 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #993 on: March 19, 2014, 04:43:30 am »
here is a better article on it: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/5-dallas-boys-among-dozens-of-child-victims-idd-by-feds-in-massive-child-porn-bust.html/

given all the receipts without possession charges it looks like we will have a lot of encryption cases soon. It should be an interesting case due to that fact alone, I have never heard of a case where someone was convicted without forensically recoverable evidence but if they actually found CP on these guys systems they would have charged them with receipt and possession I imagine. Looks like they only arrested 25 out of 27,000 members though, and are trying to find 300 others, so the 14 primary ones are probably moderators and admins, the remainder of the 25 are probably producers, and the 300 they try to find are probably uploaders. Usually LE doesn't care much about jailbait, and has it as a low priority, but obviously production of anything they take pretty seriously, and male jailbait seems to be less tolerated than female jailbait for some reason (which is why it is almost entirely on Tor and such, whereas the female variety has a large number of clearnet distribution sites).

I think it's pretty fucked up to trick young boys into producing jailbait porn. I mean, my general inability to give a shit about anything comes into play and I don't particularly feel outraged by what they did, but I can imagine it is fairly bad. Not on the level of raping a kid bad, but on the level of should probably not be legal bad. It brings up an interesting problem though. I imagine it isn't illegal to get video of a super hot 18 year old and pretend to be her on a cam site while talking with 18 year old males, in order to get them to produce pornography of themselves. Also, it's pretty certainly not illegal to distribute such pornography of 18 year olds, just look at the revenge porn sites. So then there is a problem if we say that it shouldn't be legal to do this to people who are under the age of 18, even if we say the age of consent should be under 18 and the possession of CP should be legal. It's a hard thing to think about, especially considering I immediately reject the idea that it requires CP to be illegal and the age of consent to be 18. Maybe there should be a law against distributing pornography of a person who does not consent to have it distributed, regardless of their age. Or maybe it should be illegal to use deceit to get a person to produce pornography of themselves. The second option is particularly troublesome, people use deceit in sexual situations all the time is the impression I get, embellishing the truth to seem more impressive to potential sexual partners. How then could you differentiate that from pretending to be someone who you are not, to a more extreme degree? And the first option seems to be a restriction of freedom of speech, and I really find it to be distasteful.

I think it's a good example of why CP should be legal to view too. I wonder how many of those 27,000 people would have been doing this themselves if they didn't have a supply of videos that other people were tricking young teenagers into producing (in most cases anyway, it seems in some cases they produced them voluntarily and knowing the situation at hand). Even if we would prefer that nobody exploited people like this, isn't it better if ~25 people who are going to exploit people anyway do it up to the point they are busted for it, and they are able to satiate the desires of 27,000 other people, versus 27,000 people engaging in the same behavior to satiate themselves? Because this guy who master minded the operation is only facing 20 years to life, and in many states that is not more than he would face if he were just one of the people on the site who downloaded videos but never tricked anybody into producing them. Isn't it probably much worse to trick people into producing CP of themselves than it is to look at the videos the other person has created in this way? And isn't it much worse to produce videos in such a way than it would be to consensually have sex with someone in the same age range (it looks like nearly 100% of the videos were of 13-17 year olds). But I bet if he had statutory raped someone in that age range he would have only a slightly better sentencing range.

I really just can't see anything wrong with the people who just went to the site and looked through the videos without actually causing any of them to be created through trickery. If one of them decided to not do so when he otherwise would have, do you really think anything would have changed? Do you think that one person going or not going to that site caused any change in the number of people who were tricked into producing videos, or anything else at all? I really doubt it, in fact I doubt it so much I am certain of it. You could say if nobody wanted to look at the videos then none would be produced, but in reality if nobody wanted to look at the videos the people producing them wouldn't have wanted to look at them and so wouldn't have made them in the first place. So the problem is not with people wanting to look at them causing them to be made through their desire, so much as it is with people wanting to look at them causing them to be made through their action. And if you tell me that it should be criminal to engage in malicious actions which through deceit cause videos like this to be produced, I will not put up much argument to you at all, although I will say it is not the same thing as raping the same person, to trick them into producing such videos voluntarily (though through deceit). But I still think that it should not be criminal to view whatever you like so long as you did not contribute to any thing you view which is bad to come to pass. So although I don't really feel like I care much about this, I don't complain that the people who tricked these teenagers into producing CP got busted and will go to prison for it, but I am glad that most of the 27,000 people who looked at the produced content did not get busted.   
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 10:38:03 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #994 on: March 19, 2014, 08:43:30 pm »
btw why can't you answer my question? What is wrong with this?

1. Default age of consent at 15
2. People under the age of 15 can be evaluated individually if they so choose and it is paid for not by taxes, and if the evaluation determines they are capable of consent then they are licensed and able to consent to sex
3. Minimum age of consent at 12

what do you dislike about that?

It has nothing to do with me. That's what society has agreed to. And people don't want that to change. Since we live in a republic, that's all there is to say.



You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #995 on: March 19, 2014, 08:44:10 pm »
I mean, I guess I don't care if you think it is true or not. Considering I know it is true.


Why? Because you said so? LOL.

Because I lived it you stupid fuck.

I don't believe you. Sorry.

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #996 on: March 19, 2014, 08:50:34 pm »
here is a better article on it: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/5-dallas-boys-among-dozens-of-child-victims-idd-by-feds-in-massive-child-porn-bust.html/

You should treat these articles as case studies. That's all they're good for here.

No one wants to read these articles, and your posts are too damn long to read.

But just because your posts are way too long, doesn't mean you should post 3-5 smaller ones in response to nothing. How many consecutive posts did you make on this thread without receiving a response. Can you stop bumping yourself? I've never seen someone do that so shamelessly before.

You are very transparent, and this discussion is dead. You've lost the debate, so stop acting like a baby. I'm sorry that people don't agree with your way of life. Welcome to my world.




You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

FriendOfTheDevil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +79/-22
  • -Our thoughts create reality-
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #997 on: March 19, 2014, 10:20:29 pm »
btw why can't you answer my question? What is wrong with this?

1. Default age of consent at 15
2. People under the age of 15 can be evaluated individually if they so choose and it is paid for not by taxes, and if the evaluation determines they are capable of consent then they are licensed and able to consent to sex
3. Minimum age of consent at 12

what do you dislike about that?

Just a side note for that thought.

I think it would cause tensions and problems within the teenage generation. A very fragile age, as it is.

For Example: My best friend or significant other has a 'license to fuck' but i am deemed in capable (for whatever reason) well WTF! Now i feel embarrassed or pissed or just plain helpless because i cant do what feels natural(sex). Again, laws, and morals controlling the population either by brainwashing or forcing individuals to do something, or not do something that is completely natural and infact necessary.

And i think 12 y/o is way too young.

Where did you even get the ages of 15 and 12 from? All individuals reach sexual maturity at a different point.
Maybe one day the law may allow for personal care physicians to 'OK' their young patients for sex. This, would need to be based on something though. i am not experienced enough to delve furthur, nor do i like to speculate too much about what society "could" be like; because we would be here all day discussing the countless possible outcomes.

I am much more interested instead, in what makes someone like m0rph think/act the way he does and why those whom are considered normal, think/act the way they chose to.

Or for example, why certain countries (as m0rph has pointed out many times) have lax or no laws regarding CP etc. What makes the people of that particular country allow CP or at least not persecute those who do use CP? and dont say government or religion.


 
"The written laws of the United States of America do not supersede the natural laws of economics (supply & demand)." -[vendor]brownpurple
Proof of knowledge of the contents of a package is absolutely necessary to convict. -DrMDA http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=3509.0

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #998 on: March 19, 2014, 11:07:28 pm »
btw why can't you answer my question? What is wrong with this?

1. Default age of consent at 15
2. People under the age of 15 can be evaluated individually if they so choose and it is paid for not by taxes, and if the evaluation determines they are capable of consent then they are licensed and able to consent to sex
3. Minimum age of consent at 12

what do you dislike about that?

It has nothing to do with me. That's what society has agreed to. And people don't want that to change. Since we live in a republic, that's all there is to say.

You are part of society. You should want that to change. Making appeals to what is or to the law is a sure sign of a weak minded drone. If you can only make appeals to the law and what is instead of what should be, don't even waste your time responding to me, if I wanted to know what the law is I would look it up in a fucking law book.

Quote
I don't believe you. Sorry.

Ok then it is totally your right to not believe me even when I am telling the truth, and it seems that you very much enjoy being wrong.

Quote
You should treat these articles as case studies. That's all they're good for here.

No one wants to read these articles, and your posts are too damn long to read.

Uh don't you want to know how the FBI busted a hidden service and deanonymized Tor users? It's really worthy of a thread of its own, but since it is CP related it needs to stay here.

Quote
But just because your posts are way too long, doesn't mean you should post 3-5 smaller ones in response to nothing. How many consecutive posts did you make on this thread without receiving a response. Can you stop bumping yourself? I've never seen someone do that so shamelessly before.

I would have made a new thread for that but it is CP related.

Quote
You are very transparent, and this discussion is dead. You've lost the debate, so stop acting like a baby. I'm sorry that people don't agree with your way of life. Welcome to my world.

I won the debate you are just too stupid to realize it. Nobody has made a single argument against me because they are utterly incapable of it. But feel free to feel like you have just run circles around me, whatever makes you feel better. You think you are much smarter than you are, but you are really just an idiot who can speak more decently than other idiots. Enjoy being the most educated of the retards.

Quote
Just a side note for that thought.

I think it would cause tensions and problems within the teenage generation. A very fragile age, as it is.

For Example: My best friend or significant other has a 'license to fuck' but i am deemed in capable (for whatever reason) well WTF! Now i feel embarrassed or pissed or just plain helpless because i cant do what feels natural(sex). Again, laws, and morals controlling the population either by brainwashing or forcing individuals to do something, or not do something that is completely natural and infact necessary.

First of all there would still be close in age exceptions. So that argument is null and void.

Quote
And i think 12 y/o is way too young.

Where did you even get the ages of 15 and 12 from? All individuals reach sexual maturity at a different point.

I got the entire set of laws from what is currently practiced in Uruguay. The default age of consent is 15, people as young as 12 can consent to sex if the older person can provide strong proof of consent, you are not going to find stronger proof of consent than a psychological evaluation showing they are capable of consent prior to having sex with them. The system I proposed is the current law of Uruguay. It's similar to the current law of Germany too, but their minimum age is 14 and I believe their default age is 16.

Quote
Maybe one day the law may allow for personal care physicians to 'OK' their young patients for sex. This, would need to be based on something though. i am not experienced enough to delve furthur, nor do i like to speculate too much about what society "could" be like; because we would be here all day discussing the countless possible outcomes.

Yes so better to just be happy with how it is. Why change anything for the better when we can just be placated right?

Quote
I am much more interested instead, in what makes someone like m0rph think/act the way he does and why those whom are considered normal, think/act the way they chose to.

Or for example, why certain countries (as m0rph has pointed out many times) have lax or no laws regarding CP etc. What makes the people of that particular country allow CP or at least not persecute those who do use CP? and dont say government or religion.

Education and a society that promotes liberty and tolerance. Lack of a campaign by prison industries trying to get more slaves. Lack of sensationalist entertainment disguised as journalism.

« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 11:15:14 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twonenathandjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
  • Karma: +57/-8
  • letshug Fanclub President
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #999 on: March 19, 2014, 11:24:59 pm »
12, even 15 is too young. This is the time when sexual imprints are formed, and imprinting done by a predatory (even if not a malicious predator, a human seeking an entire class of humans for sexual fulfillment is a predator) person is just unacceptable. Allow imprints to form naturally, then dance the dance like the rest of us.
Join the letshug Fan Club today!

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1000 on: March 19, 2014, 11:28:47 pm »
Uh don't you want to know how the FBI busted a hidden service and deanonymized Tor users? It's really worthy of a thread of its own, but since it is CP related it needs to stay here.

Yes and no. I'll find out it eventually. No one is going to read it here.

I would have made a new thread for that but it is CP related.

I think that topic deserves it's own thread. You're not making an argument with it, and it is related to SR.


I won the debate you are just too stupid to realize it.

Yeah, no. Particularly given that statement.

First of all there would still be close in age exceptions. So that argument is null and void.

I don't think you know what that means. It in no way helps you.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1001 on: March 19, 2014, 11:38:18 pm »
12, even 15 is too young. This is the time when sexual imprints are formed, and imprinting done by a predatory (even if not a malicious predator, a human seeking an entire class of humans for sexual fulfillment is a predator) person is just unacceptable. Allow imprints to form naturally, then dance the dance like the rest of us.

[citation needed]

a quick search indicates sexual imprinting happens in early childhood and is based on the appearance of the opposite sex parent

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691703/

Quote
Animal and human studies have shown that individuals choose mates partly on the basis of similarity, a tendency referred to as homogamy. Several authors have suggested that a specific innate recognition mechanism, phenotypic matching, allows the organism to detect similar others by their resemblance to itself. However, several objections have been raised to this theory on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Here, we report that homogamy in humans is attained partly by sexual imprinting on the opposite-sex parent during childhood. We hypothesized that children fashion a mental model of their opposite-sex parent's phenotype that is used as a template for acquiring mates. To disentangle the effects of phenotypic matching and sexual imprinting, adopted daughters and their rearing families were examined. Judges found significant resemblance on facial traits between daughter's husband and her adoptive father. Furthermore, this effect may be modified by the quality of the father-daughter relationship during childhood. Daughters who received more emotional support from their adoptive father were more likely to choose mates similar to the father than those whose father provided a less positive emotional atmosphere.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1002 on: March 19, 2014, 11:51:41 pm »
[citation needed]

Oh god, I'm not even trying anymore. I fucked up the previous post and I don't even care enough to fix it. What's the difference, you'll spill on to the next page within 10 minutes anyway.

I've got to stop coming here high.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1003 on: March 20, 2014, 12:17:22 am »
[citation needed]

Oh god, I'm not even trying anymore. I fucked up the previous post and I don't even care enough to fix it. What's the difference, you'll spill on to the next page within 10 minutes anyway.

I've got to stop coming here high.

It might help you to come here sober for a change maybe you wont sound so dumb.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

escape1000

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • Karma: +6/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1004 on: March 20, 2014, 09:43:07 pm »
14-18 very sexy in my opinion but I am 19 so I think it's legit ;)

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1005 on: March 20, 2014, 10:28:21 pm »
14-18 very sexy in my opinion but I am 19 so I think it's legit ;)

Yeah, um, I don't think that's quite the same. You're good :)

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1006 on: March 21, 2014, 12:27:58 am »
14-18 very sexy in my opinion but I am 19 so I think it's legit ;)

Yeah, um, I don't think that's quite the same. You're good :)

Lol how is it all good for him but not all good for me when I said I am in my early 20's. When precisely did I start to be a sick fuck I'm just wondering.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

twonenathandjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
  • Karma: +57/-8
  • letshug Fanclub President
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1007 on: March 21, 2014, 12:34:50 am »
Probably the way you defend it. Also the fact that you find 12 year olds to be fair game.
Join the letshug Fan Club today!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1008 on: March 21, 2014, 12:43:43 am »
I find people who are capable of consent to be fair game. 12 is the youngest I can imagine finding someone to be sexually attractive, I have seen some hot 12 year olds and some that look like little kids. I can't think of seeing any hot 11 year olds, even precocious ones just look like little kids with boobs. Given free ability to look at whatever porn I want, it would likely predominately consist of 13 to 15 year olds, with some 12, 16 and 17+ year olds thrown in. I don't imagine any 11 or younger would be involved.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1009 on: March 21, 2014, 12:48:18 am »
14-18 very sexy in my opinion but I am 19 so I think it's legit ;)

Yeah, um, I don't think that's quite the same. You're good :)

Lol how is it all good for him but not all good for me when I said I am in my early 20's. When precisely did I start to be a sick fuck I'm just wondering.

25 is not early 20s. 23 is pushing it.

I never called you a sick fuck. I told you, I kinda like you in some  respects (in a non-gay way). That doesn't mean that I have to advocate lowering age of consent laws below 15 so that you can not feel conflicted for jerking-off to 12-14 year olds.

I know you've got no intention of fucking jailbait. But the only way (in your mind) that you can get people to support you is to convince them that you should be able to actually have sex with teens (as opposed to just beating-off to their pics). I mean, just because you're an identifiable victim, should that matter?

Oh, and BTW you never answered me: is it OK if I beat-off every night to creep shots of you every night? Rub my cock all over your face using pics of you wanking to jailbait snapped through your bedroom window. What's the harm (to you)?

Besides, it goes to those close in age exceptions that you keep referring to. They don't apply to you now. I don't take issue with anything that happens between a 15 year old and someone under 20 as long as it's not rape.

And they wouldn't apply to either of you for a 12 year old.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1010 on: March 21, 2014, 01:58:34 am »
14-18 very sexy in my opinion but I am 19 so I think it's legit ;)

Yeah, um, I don't think that's quite the same. You're good :)

Lol how is it all good for him but not all good for me when I said I am in my early 20's. When precisely did I start to be a sick fuck I'm just wondering.

25 is not early 20s. 23 is pushing it.

I don't believe I have ever said my exact age, but it is really irrelevant, because if a 14 year old is hot to a 19 year old do you really think she wont be to a 25 year old or a 70 year old? And if she can consent to have sex with a 19 year old do you really think she cannot to a 40 year old or a 100 year old?
Quote
I never called you a sick fuck. I told you, I kinda like you in some  respects (in a non-gay way). That doesn't mean that I have to advocate lowering age of consent laws below 15 so that you can not feel conflicted for jerking-off to 12-14 year olds.

But why wouldn't you advocate lowering the age of consent by saying if people are evaluated as capable of consent then they are considered as capable of consent? That is what I don't get. Failure to agree that that would be a good system just shows the lack of rationality to your position, because you claim to want to protect people who cannot consent to sex but then you make it clear you really just find age gaps to be distasteful by refusing to advocate for a system that ensures people can have sex if they are capable of consent regardless of their age.

Quote
I know you've got no intention of fucking jailbait. But the only way (in your mind) that you can get people to support you is to convince them that you should be able to actually have sex with teens (as opposed to just beating-off to their pics). I mean, just because you're an identifiable victim, should that matter?

I guess that entirely depends on what the word intention means. Certainly if I was not legally restricted from doing so and had opportunity to do so I would fuck shit tons of 14 year olds, and maybe some 13 year olds, and maaaaybe some 12 year olds too. I don't think that the age of consent needs to be lowered for me to not at all feel conflicted to jerking it to pictures of 12-14 year olds. I certainly don't think it should be legal to rape babies, but I don't think it should be illegal to jerk off to pictures of babies being raped. They are really very unrelated things with only a minor degree of overlap. I should be able to actually have sex with teens AND beat off to their pictures. And what am I an identifiable victim of ?

Quote
Oh, and BTW you never answered me: is it OK if I beat-off every night to creep shots of you every night? Rub my cock all over your face using pics of you wanking to jailbait snapped through your bedroom window. What's the harm (to you)?

Do you really think that I would give the slightest fuck at all if you beat off to a picture of me? How would I even know that you did? That is like asking me if I would care if somebody spit on my grave after I am dead. I would be completely oblivious to this happening so how could I even possibly care about it? Maybe I wouldn't want my picture to be put up on some website, especially not with my identifying information coupled with it, but that is really the most I will grant. If somebody got my picture off such a website I really wouldn't give the slightest fuck about what they did with it. And I certainly wouldn't think someone should be treated as if they had raped me for distributing my picture even, maybe they should be fined or something but definitely they should not go to prison for a decade and then be socially isolated and ruined. It's really not such a big deal, there are infinitely more horrible things a person could do to me than publicly share pictures of me jacking off.

Quote
Besides, it goes to those close in age exceptions that you keep referring to. They don't apply to you now. I don't take issue with anything that happens between a 15 year old and someone under 20 as long as it's not rape.

Really close in age exceptions are stupid. If a person is old enough to consent to have sex with someone their own age, and it is not an exceptional case of naivety like when 9 year olds play doctor or some shit, they are old enough to consent to fuck whoever they want. I think the majority of people are totally able to consent to fuck whoever they want by the time they are 14, and that minorities are at 13 and 12, particularly for males at ages below 14 but some females as well probably. I certainly don't give the slightest shit if a 12 year old boy fucks an 18 year old girl, or really even if he fucks an 18 year old male if he does so willingly and is convinced he is gay. And it's funny to argue this to a gay person! Very commonly I find that people would be okay with lowering the age of consent to as low as 12 for males, provided it is for heterosexual relationships only, but the thought of doing that for homosexual relationships makes them just as horrified if not more so than the thought of doing it for any girls at all. 

Quote
And they wouldn't apply to either of you for a 12 year old.

I think it is insane that you think it is fine for a 19 year old to fuck a 14 year old but that it would be the most horrible thing in the world if I did.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 02:03:32 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1011 on: March 21, 2014, 02:55:16 am »

you guys are right!! I'm just a little bitch and I can't change it. Its true I use my tears as lube when I beat off to the little girl pics. I know that I'm wrong, I just wish someone would just put a bullet in my head!!


damn man its ok. I'm sure someone around here could help you out. people seem to be really nice on here.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1012 on: March 21, 2014, 03:01:04 am »
I don't believe I have ever said my exact age, but it is really irrelevant

Yeah sorry, you're not under 25.

But why wouldn't you advocate lowering the age of consent by saying if people are evaluated as capable of consent.

Because the testing you propose is not practical, no one wants it other than you, and we don't have to make laws to accommodate your fantasies.

I guess that entirely depends on what the word intention means.

Once again, you only want the age of consent laws lowered in order to change CP laws. You don't want to, and likely never will, fuck anyone.


Do you really think that I would give the slightest fuck at all if you beat off to a picture of me?
[/quote]

Yes I do.

Really close in age exceptions are stupid.

So then you're always mentioning them because ...?

I think it is insane that you think it is fine for a 19 year old to fuck a 14 year old but that it would be the most horrible thing in the world if I did.

You're not even close to 19.

PS The things that you don't say tell me more about you than what you do say.

Anything else? ::)
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1013 on: March 21, 2014, 03:09:19 am »
Pretty much I can just imagine a situation in which I am naked and a line of females ranging in age from say 1 years to 80 years old or so come into my room one at a time and offer to fuck me, in a situation in which I know nothing bad could happen to me from it. Well, anybody below the age of roughly 2 will probably not even be able to communicate that to me, and even if they could I wouldn't fuck them anyway. If a 5 year old offered to fuck me I would be surprised and probably be like uhm that's not really appropriate, and probably think she had been molested. If a 10 year old offered to fuck me, and we assume she was precocious and therefore had developed sexual features, I might be fleetingly tempted to take her up on the offer, but would think to myself man that girl is only 10 that's not right for me to do and she looks like a little kid for the most part even with developed sexual features, and I have pretty much no doubt I would politely decline. The same is true for 11 year olds as well. When it comes to 12 year olds it's really hard for me to say with certainty. I mean, if she wasn't developed to at least stage 3 I would decline, but if she was stage 3 or 4 I would definitely be tempted. I might think to myself that is too young or override my desire, but I could just as easily picture myself being like fuck it is it really such a big deal, and honestly just the fact that she is so young would be a turn on to me, but at the same time I might feel a little bad about it like I probably wouldn't want anybody to know If I did it and that is a sign that I probably shouldn't do it even if another part of me really would want to. I would feel conflicted about fucking a 12 year old, but I would have a really hard time condemning somebody who did because I can understand how tempting it could be, especially if you knew nobody would know and it was in some magic box in a thought experiment from which no information of the internal state could ever leak to the external state. I think the best solution to this is to let 12 year olds be evaluated to see if they are capable of consent if they want to have sex, because I would feel way less conflicted about fucking a 12 year old if some objective psychologists evaluated her and were like yeah it isn't going to ruin her life if you fuck. 13 year old would be even more tempting, but I would still honestly have some slight reservations and could see myself going either way, though I definitely would be insanely tempted to fuck a 13 year old right now if I absolutely knew I couldn't even theoretically get in trouble for it. But 14 is high school age, and I wouldn't even feel conflicted about fucking high school girls, and I wouldn't even particularly give a shit if people I know IRL knew I fucked a high school girl as long as they couldn't do shit to me about it (though I really don't think I have many if any friends who wouldn't be at least tempted to fuck a 14 year old).
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 03:37:14 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1014 on: March 21, 2014, 03:11:15 am »
I just threw up in me mouth. thanks for that dck weed.
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1015 on: March 21, 2014, 03:20:59 am »
Quote
Yeah sorry, you're not under 25.

Sorry but you have no idea how old I am short of what I tell you.

Quote
Because the testing you propose is not practical, no one wants it other than you, and we don't have to make laws to accommodate your fantasies.

Germany and lots of other countries disagree with you. YOU SHOULD WANT IT. Even if you don't want older people to fuck 14 year olds what would you prefer, an older person fucks a random 14 year old who might be incapable of really consenting, or an older person fucks a 14 year old who is evaluated as being capable of consent? It's just a fucking harm reduction strategy, why don't you want to reduce harm? Do you think that your prohibition is going to work, or do you think that older people are going to continue fucking 14 year olds if it is illegal or not? So isn't the best option then to say hey you can fuck whoever you want legally if you can prove they can consent? Because now there is a third option, instead of only option one being people don't fuck 14 year olds if they are much older (never going to happen) and option two being they haphazardly fuck 14 year olds because it is just as illegal in all cases, now there is option three people can fuck 14 year olds if they can prove that they are capable of consent. That is the law in Germany right now, exactly. That is the law in Uruguay right now, except they go as low as 12, exactly. Lots of first world countries think it is practical to evaluate people and see if they are capable of consenting to sex, and everybody should want it because it benefits everybody. It benefits 14 year olds who can't consent to sex because then the people who would otherwise fuck them will instead fuck the ones who can, and it benefits people who want to fuck 14 year olds because now they can do it if they can prove they don't hurt anybody in the process, and it benefits society as a whole because hey now there are less people being taken advantage of and less people going to prison etc. It's a win for everybody in the entire society so if nobody wants it other than me then maybe I should just be the fucking dictator.

Quote
Once again, you only want the age of consent laws lowered in order to change CP laws. You don't want to, and likely never will, fuck anyone.

Once again, you have no idea what I want. Why do you think you can speak for me when I can speak for myself and clearly say what it is that I want? If I only wanted CP laws to change then I would say that. I want age of consent AND cp laws to change. And I want it to be legal to look at pictures of babies being raped, does that mean I want to lower the age of consent to newborn then?

Quote
Yes I do.

You are 100% wrong. I am not in any single way affected by you looking at a picture of me jacking off that I don't know you have. I don't believe in magic. I don't believe you doing something that has no affect on my mind or body that I have no awareness of is even potentially capable of affecting me short of some obscure butterfly effect and in that case anything is capable of affecting me for better or worse. It just seriously wouldn't bother me at all. Honestly I would send you a fucking picture of me naked as shit if not for security reasons, and you could jack off all over it for all I care. Why would I care? I just don't understand why I should care about that and especially cannot understand why you think I would care about it, I wouldn't.

Quote
So then you're always mentioning them because ...?

Ok, close in age exceptions are okay if they are used to avoid the need for evaluation. Maybe two 12 year olds can have sex without needing to be evaluated. But if someone is capable of consenting to sex with someone in the same age range as them, then there is enough possibility that they are capable of consenting to sex with older people that they should be within the minimum age of consent with restrictions due to youth, like Germany and Uruguay and other countries do it. I don't think we should send a bunch of 12 year olds to prison for fucking each other just because the age of consent at 12 requires evaluation and they did not get it or something.

Quote
You're not even close to 19.

PS The things that you don't say tell me more about you than what you do say.

Anything else? ::)

You have absolutely no idea how old I am.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 03:28:48 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1016 on: March 21, 2014, 03:26:30 am »
Just imagine a situation in which I am naked

Damn that sounds hot as fuck. I'm touching myself now. Can I come over? Or can I peek in your window big sexy?

PS I don't read text walls.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1017 on: March 21, 2014, 03:28:03 am »
I can't wait to see m0rph on "To catch a predator" ahahah
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1018 on: March 21, 2014, 03:32:49 am »
I can't wait to see m0rph on "To catch a predator" ahahah

A. I wouldn't fuck a teenager if I would be even at theoretical risk of getting in trouble for it
B. I wouldn't be at practical risk of being busted in such a sting because I am not a fucking retard. Those things would be easy as hell to avoid with even a little intelligence + counterintelligence.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1019 on: March 21, 2014, 03:33:45 am »
I can't wait to see m0rph on "To catch a predator" ahahah

A. I wouldn't fuck a teenager if I would be even at theoretical risk of getting in trouble for it
B. I wouldn't be at practical risk of being busted in such a sting because I am not a fucking retard. Those things would be easy as hell to avoid with even a little intelligence + counterintelligence.

You're posts get awfully brief when you're working two accounts. That's out of character for you ;)

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

IshitBacon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Karma: +207/-247
  • What's that smell? Is that me?
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1020 on: March 21, 2014, 03:35:04 am »
I can't wait to see m0rph on "To catch a predator" ahahah

A. I wouldn't fuck a teenager if I would be even at theoretical risk of getting in trouble for it
B. I wouldn't be at practical risk of being busted in such a sting because I am not a fucking retard. Those things would be easy as hell to avoid with even a little intelligence + counterintelligence.

And we have our winner for the “best linez from a chomo”

And this award goes to m0rph!!


You know how to get away if being scammed by a fake 14 yro!! You’re the best
“Arise, brave warrior, as a knight of Trollalot!”  -NordicShrooms

I only accept negative karma, please... thank YOU for your service!!

I’m just a version of  “Defcon’s” split personality… I am Defcon!

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1021 on: March 21, 2014, 03:40:26 am »
B. I wouldn't be at practical risk of being busted in such a sting because I am not a fucking retard.

Jury's still out on that one ...

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1022 on: March 21, 2014, 03:41:39 am »
I can't wait to see m0rph on "To catch a predator" ahahah

A. I wouldn't fuck a teenager if I would be even at theoretical risk of getting in trouble for it
B. I wouldn't be at practical risk of being busted in such a sting because I am not a fucking retard. Those things would be easy as hell to avoid with even a little intelligence + counterintelligence.

You're posts get awfully brief when you're working two accounts. That's out of character for you ;)

I don't know why you have this persistent idea that I am posts, I am actually a hypersentientneosapien. And I sure as fuck am not ishitbacon!

Quote
And we have our winner for the “best linez from a chomo”

And this award goes to m0rph!!

You know how to get away if being scammed by a fake 14 yro!! You’re the best

Awesome glad I won a prize. But to be a chomo I think you need to actually molest a child, and seeing as I have never done that I think I pretty conclusively am not a chomo.

Quote
Jury's still out on that one ...

Dude they have one person after another go to the same sting location. Surveillance with a quadracopter would detect police activity quickly. Just basic OSINT would probably prevent a sting like that from working, the guys they bust are seriously to the left of the intelligence bell curve.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1023 on: March 21, 2014, 03:45:16 am »
Your posts get awfully brief when you're working two accounts. That's out of character for you ;)

And I sure as fuck am not ishitbacon!

You are in fact retarded, because I never accused you of being IshitBacon.

Quote
Jury's still out on that one ...

You said that you weren't retarded. I said that the jury was still out on that. I stand by that statement.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 04:29:33 am by Jesus H Christ »
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1024 on: March 21, 2014, 03:51:08 am »
1. I don't see which other account you would think I was working, you seemed to imply I am ishitbacon
2. I know what you meant, but I just thought I would demonstrate one of various techniques I could use to avoid such an operation (though in honesty I have no plans to attempt to fuck teenagers while it is illegal for me to do so)
3. You fucking suck at quoting
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1025 on: March 21, 2014, 03:51:47 am »
... Once again, you only want the age of consent laws lowered in order to change CP laws. You don't want to, and likely never will, fuck anyone.

... Once again, you have no idea what I want. Why do you think you can speak for me when I can speak for myself and clearly say what it is that I want? If I only wanted CP laws to change then I would say that.

Once again, the "Resident Chief Faggot" has had his ass handed to him in an argument. @Jesus H Christ: While I may or may not agree with the content of the argument at hand, it is very clear that time and time again, you manage to make yourself look like a blithering idiot, in pretty much every reply you make.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1026 on: March 21, 2014, 03:56:49 am »
... Once again, you only want the age of consent laws lowered in order to change CP laws. You don't want to, and likely never will, fuck anyone.

... Once again, you have no idea what I want. Why do you think you can speak for me when I can speak for myself and clearly say what it is that I want? If I only wanted CP laws to change then I would say that.

Once again, the "Resident Chief Faggot" has had his ass handed to him in an argument. @Jesus H Christ: While I may or may not agree with the content of the argument at hand, it is very clear that time and time again, you manage to make yourself look like a blithering idiot, in pretty much every reply you make.

Oh OK LOL. Hi m0rph ;)
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

TheJollyRogerr

  • Vendor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 223
  • Karma: +60/-53
  • Ireland's First and Still Best Vendor!
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1027 on: March 21, 2014, 04:15:14 am »
Where the fuck are the mods???


This vulgar shit thread should be deleted, just press the delete button for ALL of Morph's child predatory threads please and grow a pair, its fucking disgusting and we shouldnt have to see it on our screens now and then, it shouldn't be a topic of debate here, especially an illegal dark net site where you can buy nearly anything ffs, thats some good negative attention to be getting right? there a huge amount of websites im sure out there for similar dirty slimeballs like morph.

Its not free speech either its straight up disgusting and predatory. Its not like the thread is anti paedo, its being debated positively and as if its fucking normal, or even a fetish, its not. Your dick and balls should be left up on a rock and bashed off with another real dull edged one, yes, your words deserve it,

Now give me your ever so swanky grammar filled reply, with those big words full of waffle!!!

My reply back is, YOU are a predator, possibly even a pedophile, i imagine your grammar is so good and your very well read because chances are, you've you learned all of this nd that from being locked up for being a nonse and kept seperate from the ODC, your an apologist for child molestation and really should still get your genitals bashed off by a pair of rocks (note the puns :) and burned in the fire like a piece of shit ya creep.

Mods? Are you reading his posts ffs.
-------------------------
The First and Still Best Irish Vendor on SR!

http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/thejollyrogerr/items

- AAA+ & Discount Cannabis Strains, Hashish, Pure Speed, Shard Meth, ICE Pills, Valium, Xanax, Zimmo's, A-PVP, Pure Coke, 4-Aco-DMT, Adderall, Ritalin, LSD-25 blott's -

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1028 on: March 21, 2014, 04:27:21 am »
Jury's still out on that one ...

You said that you weren't retarded. I said that the jury was still out on that. I stand by that statement.

... 3. You fucking suck at quoting

You got that right! He's still quoting me as saying things other people have written. Such dumbass. It takes so fucking long to fix his quotes to make a post, all he does is get everything mixed up and turn everything into a mess.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1029 on: March 21, 2014, 04:31:42 am »
... Once again, you only want the age of consent laws lowered in order to change CP laws. You don't want to, and likely never will, fuck anyone.

... Once again, you have no idea what I want. Why do you think you can speak for me when I can speak for myself and clearly say what it is that I want? If I only wanted CP laws to change then I would say that.

Once again, the "Resident Chief Faggot" has had his ass handed to him in an argument. @Jesus H Christ: While I may or may not agree with the content of the argument at hand, it is very clear that time and time again, you manage to make yourself look like a blithering idiot, in pretty much every reply you make.

Oh OK LOL. Hi m0rph ;)

I really am not anti-hero.

Quote
This vulgar shit thread should be deleted, just press the delete button for ALL of Morph's child predatory threads please and grow a pair, its fucking disgusting and we shouldnt have to see it on our screens now and then, it shouldn't be a topic of debate here, especially an illegal dark net site where you can buy nearly anything ffs, thats some good negative attention to be getting right? there a huge amount of websites im sure out there for similar dirty slimeballs like morph.

I don't understand how a person can be so against something they want to restrict the right of others to talk about it. I really have no interest in associating with most pedophiles and such. You think that I sound delusional apparently, but really most of the real ones are far more so than I am (well, I am actually entirely rational, but in your irrationality you see what I say as being delusional). I do associate with a significant number of non-exclusive possibly-non-preferential hebephiles and ephebophiles though, but that is just because they are so common it's impossible not to, I never really set out to do that at all it just happened. I do know one pedophile from a hacker IRC though, he is actually a sadistic pedophile who gets off on thoughts of torturing young prepubescent girls, but seems like a pretty rational and decent person. He doesn't even look at CP short of cartoons, and realizes that something is wrong with him and appears to have no intention of ever acting on it. I've run into a few other seemingly non-delusional pedophiles, but they are pretty rare and I don't really seek them out or have regular contact with them. And in any case, what is the point of preaching to the choir?

Quote
Its not free speech either its straight up disgusting and predatory. Its not like the thread is anti paedo, its being debated positively and as if its fucking normal, or even a fetish, its not. Your dick and balls should be left up on a rock and bashed off with another real dull edged one, yes, your words deserve it,

Oh I am glad the judge of what is free speech has shown up. How shocking that someone who wants to censor pictures also wants to censor words. How strange a person who thinks looking at a picture is predatory thinks that saying things is predatory as well. Why do you hate information so much, did information beat you up when you were a kid? This thread is largely anti-pedo, although a few people seem to be coming around to the idea that pedophilia is not inherently bad but rather acting on it in ways that CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY victimize others is bad, which is great I'm glad I managed to open a few people their eyes. Mostly I think the best course for this thread now is to discuss harm reduction strategies and really think of what is the best system, which works out the best for everybody. Doing that will require you to control your sadistic sentiments and try to think clearly, because the best solution is not "do whatever Jolly Rogers country is currently doing", and really is very probably "Do what Uruguay is doing" although some seem to contest this still for some reason.

Quote
My reply back is, YOU are a predator, possibly even a pedophile, i imagine your grammar is so good and your very well read because chances are, you've you learned all of this nd that from being locked up for being a nonse and kept seperate from the ODC, your an apologist for child molestation and really should still get your genitals bashed off by a pair of rocks (note the puns :) and burned in the fire like a piece of shit ya creep.

Mods? Are you reading his posts ffs.

What is your definition of a predator? Shouldn't I have actually victimized somebody before I am considered such? I'm definitely not a pedophile according to the DSM seeing as I am exclusively attracted to people who have reached puberty. I would say I am not a pedophile according to the ICD either, seeing as really early stages of puberty are not really attractive to me either. My motto is definitely not the fairly commonly said "if there is grass on the field play ball", because I have seen grassed fields that are not ready for sports yet.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 04:49:42 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1030 on: March 21, 2014, 04:33:53 am »
... Once again, you only want the age of consent laws lowered in order to change CP laws. You don't want to, and likely never will, fuck anyone.

... Once again, you have no idea what I want. Why do you think you can speak for me when I can speak for myself and clearly say what it is that I want? If I only wanted CP laws to change then I would say that.

Once again, the "Resident Chief Faggot" has had his ass handed to him in an argument. @Jesus H Christ: While I may or may not agree with the content of the argument at hand, it is very clear that time and time again, you manage to make yourself look like a blithering idiot, in pretty much every reply you make.

Oh OK LOL. Hi m0rph ;)

I really am not anti-hero.

I don't believe you.

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1031 on: March 21, 2014, 04:38:25 am »
Where the fuck are the mods???

The mods don't give a shit about this when a former site admin actually started the thread lol.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1032 on: March 21, 2014, 04:45:15 am »
Oh OK LOL. Hi m0rph ;)

I really am not anti-hero.

I don't believe you.

And I'm not fucking @m0rph, you dipshit dumbfuck. This is why it's so clear you are blatantly retarded, as well as being the gayest fag I've ever talked to.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1033 on: March 21, 2014, 04:53:14 am »
Oh OK LOL. Hi m0rph ;)

I really am not anti-hero.

I don't believe you.

And I'm not fucking @m0rph, you dipshit dumbfuck. This is why it's so clear you are blatantly retarded, as well as being the gayest fag I've ever talked to.

I don't really care either way. You're both pricks and you both like to look at pictures of naked adolescents. That's close enough for me.

Um, and for like the millionth time, I'm gay, I'm happy to be gay, and I have lots of freaky gay sex. I'm good with that; thanks for asking ;)

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1034 on: March 21, 2014, 05:04:34 am »
I don't really care either way. You're both pricks and you both like to look at pictures of naked adolescents. That's close enough for me.

The only pics of adolescents I looked at were the ones @m0rph posted on here from "jailbaitgallery.com" (legal). I never knew that website existed prior to reading about it here. How the fuck would you know anyway? You and your "all seeing crystal ball" that magically deanonymises everyone who posts here and allows you to know what everyone is/does.

The only thing we can conclusively know here is the fact you are super gay, and only because you have yourself stated this fact many times. I would shoot myself if I was you and I believe there should be a law that allows certain gay fags to be 'culled' for the better of society and to reduce the instances of AIDS and other STD's spreading.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 05:34:24 am by Anti-Hero »

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1035 on: March 21, 2014, 05:15:27 am »
I don't really care either way. You're both pricks and you both like to look at pictures of naked adolescents. That's close enough for me.

The only pics of adolescents I looked at were the ones @m0rph posted on here from "jailbaitgallery.com" (legal). I never new that website existed prior to reading about it here. How the fuck would you know anyway? You and your "all seeing crystal ball" that magically deanonymises everyone who posts here and allows you to know what everyone is/does.

The only thing we can conclusively know here is the fact you are super gay, and only because you have yourself stated this fact many times. I would shoot myself if I was you and I believe there should be a law that allows certain gay fags to be 'culled' for the better of society and to reduce the instances of AIDS and other STD's spreading.

Oh god, you're like the worst troll ever.  I'm gay. So what?

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1036 on: March 21, 2014, 05:29:18 am »
I think it's really strange how much hostility people show me on this thread. I figured I made it pretty clear that I never have actually had sex with anyone under the age of consent, or molested anyone etc. Really it is impossible for anything I have done to be construed as such. I did admit to looking at some jailbait (well, quite a bit of it, lol), but I looked at jailbait in a country with no laws against it, so it wasn't like I did anything illegal. I suppose that could piss people off regardless, but really they appeared to hate me long before that. I just can't imagine why anything I have done would make somebody think that I should have my genitals smashed off with dull rocks and then be cast into a fire to burn to death. Seriously even if you really hate me because of things I have said, shouldn't you save your most intricate tortures for people doing worse things? Like really, if I actually thought I was half as bad as you make me seem I would just go on a fucking rampage and have no regard for anybody hurt in the process. I mean, I think I do a pretty good job of not hurting anybody (actually I would argue I do a perfect job of this), and I'm pretty strongly dedicated to continuing in not hurting others, and nothing I have said would seem to indicate otherwise, so I don't really know where your deep seated rage against me stems from.

I just think the best system would be one which minimizes the damage to all people. Neither extreme is good for this. If you have an age of consent at 18 well lots of people are going to go to prison who probably didn't really do anything worthy of being sent to prison for. The same thing is true if you make it illegal for people to look at pictures. I mean, I definitely don't feel as if I deserve to go to prison for anything I have done, but had I gone to sites I have gone to in countries without laws against it while in countries with laws against it, I would be theoretically at risk of going to prison probably for the rest of my life. It seems like that would be a huge waste of a life, and also incredibly unfair, seeing as I have never actually caused any harm to anybody at all, and have no intention of doing so.

On the other hand, I definitely don't think that we should like completely abolish all systems that determine if consent is possible. Lots of pedophiles will argue that even a 2 year old is capable of consenting to sex, and that there shouldn't be any laws against this. There should also be laws against things that clearly lead to children being molested, so obviously it should remain illegal to actually pay people to produce child porn, which is what usually is happening when people pay for CP regardless of if they realize it or not. So I think paying for CP is more serious a crime than distributing it. And maybe there should even be laws against distributing CP if the depicted person continues to say they don't want it to be distributed after a certain age, but I don't think sharing pictures of people without their consent is such a serious crime that it warrants a ruined life as punishment. A hefty fine or maybe community service or something like that seems more appropriate to me, especially for less severe cases (like an individual posting a picture versus an individual running a massive CP distribution site, which might warrant a bit more of a punishment, but again probably not something as insane as life in prison like Freedom Hosting dude is facing).

I just think we can really liberalize the shit out of most countries age of consent / CP laws etc. If teenagers want to take naked pictures of themselves who really cares why are police even getting involved in that? If some 14 year old is capable of consent and decides to fuck a 60 year old why does anybody really care? Why not focus on harm reduction like by letting younger people be evaluated to see if they can consent and then letting them consent to sex, and not punishing people for having sex with people who are determined capable of consent? Wouldn't that not only not be bad, but be good in giving people a way that they can have sex with younger people if they want, without the risk of harm coming to them via their inability to consent, and diverting these older people away from younger people who are not capable of consenting? Right now how can I say that I condemn a person who fucked a 13 year old if I think some 13 year olds can probably consent to sex? I am left to trust his judgement or to not condemn him at all due to uncertainty. But if there is a legal system through which he could go, to evaluate the ability of the younger person to consent, then I can condemn him if this has not happened because he had an opportunity to see if harm would come from it but did not take this opportunity, or if he did perhaps it was determined the younger person could not consent to sex and then he disregarded it.

It just seems like it's way better to not just scream and yell and get pissed off, and better to be calm and analytical, and think how can we make this so less people are harmed by the laws while still accomplishing our goal of protecting vulnerable people and such. But that only works if your goal is really to reduce harm to vulnerable people, it doesn't work if you goal is to kill all the pedophiles or to stop young people from being sexually active regardless of their capability.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1037 on: March 21, 2014, 05:37:59 am »
... I just can't imagine why anything I have done would make somebody think that I should have my genitals smashed off with dull rocks and then be cast into a fire to burn to death.

ROFLMAO!!! Cracking up here!!!  :D

Prestige

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Karma: +21/-14
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1038 on: March 21, 2014, 06:44:23 am »
*Queue all the trolls coming out*

With new reg's locked and the deletion of numerous troublemakers over the past few days, I'd say there aren't too many left. 

Props to Dread Pirate Roberts for being proactive and trying to keep what is sure to be an emotional topic contained in one thread and making clear as to where the line is drawn in regards to what can stay and what has to go to the cho-mo forums further down .onion lane.

+1
you can find me at:
AGORA
BLUESKY
The HUB
***Prefered method of comunication***
SR2: http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/prestige

escape1000

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • Karma: +6/-6
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1039 on: March 21, 2014, 09:21:21 pm »
LOL I received -2 karma for saying that I think a '99 can be attractive, do you really think it's sick for a '95 finding a '99 sexy?? have you ever seen some '99 picks? they look childish in some way ok but they aren't so different from '98 and '98-'97 are the most common GF of a '95 here in my country.
BTW Morph isn't saying right, 3 years ago I found attractive a lot of younger teenies, now they seems to me too much young and if one of my friend fuck with a 12 years old children I would call him 'sick pedo', my idea of sex has very changed from 3 years ago, if you are a 40 and like a 14 you are pedophilie, there aren't doubt.  If you like a 16 I think that she has developed some sexual and mental things that have to be considered adult (even if a 16 is a very young age), if i like a 14 it's because i'm also not completely developed, in my opinion I wouldn't fuck a 14 but if some of my friends do I wouldn't criticize them, the most beatiful girl for a 19yo are the girls in the 16-25 range and this range must change during life or i will not fuck any 40+ woman that at the present moment i find unattractive :(

FriendOfTheDevil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +79/-22
  • -Our thoughts create reality-
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1040 on: March 22, 2014, 12:01:50 am »
well....m0rph...you just have an answer for everything.....
"The written laws of the United States of America do not supersede the natural laws of economics (supply & demand)." -[vendor]brownpurple
Proof of knowledge of the contents of a package is absolutely necessary to convict. -DrMDA http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=3509.0

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1041 on: March 22, 2014, 04:17:29 am »
LOL I received -2 karma for saying that I think a '99 can be attractive, do you really think it's sick for a '95 finding a '99 sexy?? have you ever seen some '99 picks? they look childish in some way ok but they aren't so different from '98 and '98-'97 are the most common GF of a '95 here in my country.
BTW Morph isn't saying right, 3 years ago I found attractive a lot of younger teenies, now they seems to me too much young and if one of my friend fuck with a 12 years old children I would call him 'sick pedo', my idea of sex has very changed from 3 years ago, if you are a 40 and like a 14 you are pedophilie, there aren't doubt.  If you like a 16 I think that she has developed some sexual and mental things that have to be considered adult (even if a 16 is a very young age), if i like a 14 it's because i'm also not completely developed, in my opinion I wouldn't fuck a 14 but if some of my friends do I wouldn't criticize them, the most beatiful girl for a 19yo are the girls in the 16-25 range and this range must change during life or i will not fuck any 40+ woman that at the present moment i find unattractive :(

shut the fuck up you stupid pedophile. You are 19 and want to fuck 14 year olds which is illegal and immoral. You will still want to fuck 14 year olds in five years and only an idiot would think otherwise. I'm not more than 5 years older than you and can tell you that I have not had in the previous 5 years the magical fairy come down and smack me with the wand that makes young teenagers no longer attractive. And if one of my friends fucked a 14 year old I wouldn't criticize him either. People in our age range don't give a fuck about this don't try to make excuses for yourself when you don't need to. It's never pedophilia to be attracted to 14 year olds and the only people who say they are not are liars or pedophiles. It's legal to fuck 14 year olds all over the world, and isn't considered a mental disorder by any professional organization no matter how old you are. Don't let these fucking retards plug you into their matrix world.

wow 3 years ago you found a lot of younger teens than 14 attractive? I'm really glad you got over your thing for 13 year olds bro. lol.

Quote
i will not fuck any 40+ woman that at the present moment i find unattractive :(

Something tells me they wont be more attractive when you are 40. And also I highly doubt 14 year olds will be any less attractive.

sick fucks like you deserve to go to prison forever, I can't even believe a 19 year old would fuck a 14 year old that is just GROSS

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/03/harrisburg_man_charged_with_ha.html

Quote

A 19-year-old Harrisburg man is in Dauphin County Prison following his arrest Sunday on charges he had sex with a 14-year-old girl. Harrisburg city police said Lawerence Foltz and the girl had sex between May and September, when Foltz found out the girl, who had told him she was 17, was 14. Police said Foltz stopped seeing the girl after finding out her age.

Police said they were notified after the girl became pregnant. Foltz is charged with statutory sexual assault, indecent contact, corruption of a minor and illegal contact with a minor. He was arraigned in night court and held in lieu of $50,000 bail.


god even female pedophiles are just corrupting the shit out of the youth

http://www.wfsb.com/story/15081938/pd-babysitter-had-sex-with-14-year-old

Quote
Clinton police have arrested a 19-year-old babysitter, accused of having sex
with a 14-year-old boy she was hired to care for.

Police said Loni Bouchard and the boy had a sexual relationship that was consensual and lasted half a year.

Charges were brought against Bouchard after the boy's mother learned about the relationship.

She was charged on Tuesday with second-degree sexual assault,  two counts of impairing the morals of a child, and permitting a minor to possess alcohol.

I feel so bad for that boy he must be horribly scarred. Parents who get babysitter for their 14 year old boy are probably the ones campaigning to keep age of consent where it is lol.

omfg a 19 year old fucked a 15 year old? what is this world coming to

http://www.kcci.com/news/19yearold-charged-with-sexual-abuse/24921182

Quote
Pella police said a 19-year-old man has been charged in a sexual abuse case.

Nyran Chohan is charged with three counts of third-degree sexual abuse.

Police said the charges were filed after a series of events over the course of eight months.  Chohan is accused of having sexual contact with a 15 year old.

Chohan had his initial appearance last weekend.

If convicted, he could serve up to a 10 year sentence.

The case remains under investigation.


http://www.wsmv.com/story/23175324/police-19-year-old-charged-with-statutory-rape

Quote
GREENWOOD, SC (FOX Carolina) -

A 19-year-old man from Ninety Six has been charged after having consensual sex with a 14-year-old girl, according to Greenwood police.

James Maroney, 19, was charged with second-degree criminal sexual conduct, police said.

Police said the incident happened back in March of this year but was reported to police on Aug. 6.

omg this 17 year old fucked a 15 year old how horrible

http://www.annarbor.com/news/a-young-man-struggles-with-the-sex-offender-label/

Quote
Matthew Freeman is struggling to move on with his life, six years after being convicted of having sex with a high school girlfriend who was one year below the legal age of consent.

Freeman, who is required to register as a sex offender, is facing a new criminal charge that accuses him of illegally living within 1,000 feet of a school.

His latest trouble started as Freeman was shooting hoops in his Pittsfield Township driveway Aug. 3.

According to a police report, a state trooper pulled up to Freeman's house across the street from Ann Arbor's Carpenter Elementary School, where children were on the playground at 7:30 p.m.

Freeman told the trooper Pittsfield Township police told him “it shouldn’t be a problem” to live near the school. He had registered with Pittsfield police 27 days earlier using his family's Dalton Avenue address.

Freeman told the trooper he was on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry because he had “sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 17.” He also said his girlfriend’s mother got “upset with him and pressed charges.”

The trooper aimed a laser gun at the school building and determined Freeman was living 326 feet away, the report said, breaking the law.

Freeman, 23, is charged with a school safety zone residency violation, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. He was arraigned Dec. 4 and is scheduled to return to court Friday.

“I’m outside sweating hard, playing basketball, working on my drills,” he said. “I ain’t looking at no kids. I can’t even go outside and play basketball on my own hoop?”

Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller said he couldn't comment on Freeman’s case because it's pending. But prosecutors take into account the facts and circumstances surrounding each case, Hiller said.

“We view these as public safety issues,” Hiller said. “That’s the paramount concern we have when dealing with sex offender registry cases. This particular law is in place to protect children, so that’s obviously a very serious matter.”

Freeman's attorney, county Assistant Public Defender Ronald Brown, declined to comment.

Freeman has registered at the address of a family friend while the case is pending.

A criminal conviction

Freeman pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct involving force or coercion and was sentenced to probation in September 2003, court records show. By pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charge, he admitted to having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who was two years younger. In Michigan, the legal age of consent is 16.

Freeman violated his probation by going near his girlfriend and stealing some video games from a store, records show. As a result, he was sentenced to 90 days in jail in January 2004. The two are no longer dating.

Freeman will remain on the registry until Aug. 17, 2028, according to the registry’s Web site. Had he successfully completed his probation, he could have petitioned the court to be removed from the registry after 10 years and also wouldn't have been subject to the school safety zone violation.

His mother, Yolanda Freeman, moved the family - Matthew and his five younger siblings - to the four-bedroom house near Carpenter Elementary in June because they needed more space.

She also said the house is convenient to the school, which her 6-year-old daughter attends. She fears the latest charge may set her son back.

“Matthew is just uptight all the time,” she said. “He don’t trust nobody. He’s upset all the time because he has this over his head. How many 17-year-olds have had a relationship with a girl a couple years younger than them? Come on.”

Prior to moving, Yolanda Freeman told the trooper she checked with Pittsfield police.

Gordy Schick, Pittsfield Township’s deputy director of police services, said it’s Matthew Freeman’s responsibility to abide by the law.

“The fact that he’s a convicted sex offender, there are conditions and stipulations that he has to follow,” Schick said. “If he’s living in close proximity to the school, he’s in violation.”

A high school relationship

Freeman met his ex-girlfriend when they were freshmen at Huron High School. He was 16, and she was 14. They were introduced by a mutual friend and immediately hit it off, talking for hours that night on the phone, he said.

Freeman was focused on basketball and was looking for a steady girlfriend, a 2003 Pittsfield police report shows. Their relationship became more serious after a month, and he got her name tattooed on his arm.

Matt_Freeman2.jpg

Matthew Freeman was accused of state sex offender registry violations after a resident saw him playing basketball outside.

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

The two began having sex in March 2003 - about five months after they started dating. Her mother, Evelyn Scott, said she found out and told Freeman he could no longer see her daughter.

“I didn’t think they could make adult decisions,” Scott said.

But Freeman didn’t listen. Twelve days after his 17th birthday, Scott filed a complaint with Pittsfield police, records show, requesting Freeman be criminally charged. As a single, working mother, she said, it was the only way she could think of to end the relationship.

Freeman, who had no criminal record, pleaded guilty to the fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct with force or coercion charge on the advice of his public defender, he said.

While he broke the law by having sex with an underage girl, the police report says the victim was “not forced to commit any act” nor “did she ask him not to commit any act.”

“My daughter was a willing participant,” Scott said.

Moving forward

Freeman never returned to high school after going to jail.

He’s been employed for about six years at Burger King and is studying at Washtenaw Community College to obtain his G.E.D., records show. Freeman is on a recreational basketball team and has been dating a woman for three years.

He said he enjoys making rap music and playing video games, but often keeps to himself because of his status as a sex offender. While he only earns about $130 a week, he chips in to help his mother pay rent.

Freeman admits he’s not perfect. Four years ago, he was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of malicious destruction of a building, state police records show.Â

But he isn’t a child molester, he said, and shouldn’t be treated like one.

“I’m getting labeled as a rapist and a pedophile,” he said. “I’m not a pedophile. That stuff is sickening. After all this, I don’t know if I can have kids. They may wanna take them away, you know what I’m saying?”

Freeman must register quarterly, notify police when he travels and constantly fears he’s “being watched,” he said. He’s been rejected from jobs and housing. And people give him strange looks, he said.

"I just have to deal with it,” he said.

Scott, his ex-girlfriend’s mother, has written a letter on Freeman’s behalf asking that he be removed from the registry.

“He’s a young man,” she said. “He made his mistake. He paid for it. This should be squashed. This should be expunged from his record. He’s not given a chance to live and become an upstanding citizen.”

The sex offender label

The state trooper visited Freeman’s home that August night after being forwarded an anonymous tip, submitted through the Michigan State Police Public Sex Offender Registry Web site.

The tipster was a mother who lived in the neighborhood. She wrote that a sex offender of a “child under the age of 13” was living in front of the school.

“I can’t let my children play at this school anymore because he is always outside playing basketball, watching the kids that are playing,” she wrote. “How creepy, how disgusting…please help us get rid of him.”

Freeman said the accusation he sexually assaulted a child under age 13, “just kills me.”

The registry lists the charge for which someone was convicted, but doesn’t give background on a case. It’s up to the public to pull court records to find out more.

Sex offenders face a particularly tough time becoming productive members of society, said Miriam Aukerman, re-entry law project coordinator for Legal Aid of Western Michigan.

Aukerman provides legal assistance to low-income people with criminal records, helping them find employment and housing. The group has worked with hundreds of sex offenders.

“When people see sex offender, they think rapist, they think pedophile and there are certainly dangerous people on the registry who are those things,” she said. “But there are also lots of people on the registry who are not.”

Aukerman recently successfully argued before the Michigan Court of Appeals to have a Muskegon man’s name removed from the registry. He had sex with his nearly 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 18. He ultimately married her, but remained on the registry.

“If you have individuals who are involved in teenage relationships, those are not the people who belong on the registry,” Aukerman said. “Hopefully, the legislature will see that.”

When AnnArbor.com told five of Freeman’s neighbors a sex offender was living on the street and showed his information from the registry, all expressed concerns for young children or the possibility he molested them.

Their worry lessened when given details about his case.


no two ways about it man you are a sick fuck and should probably just be shot.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 05:59:55 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1042 on: March 22, 2014, 06:16:25 am »
I don't see how anybody can not see that these laws are absurd. People go to prison for looking at pictures. high school students get investigated in major police operations for sharing naked pictures of themselves with each other, and hundreds of them at a time get put under investigation for it. 17 year olds get put on sex offender registry for decades for fucking their 15 year old girl friends. It's all just as stupid really. Who the fuck are you even trying to help? It's pretty much Christian morality enforced via law. Forced chastity of the youth with no other basis other than people don't like it because they think it is immoral. And it is made so apparent that this is the case when they charge teenagers for taking naked pictures of themselves. You can disagree with them when they do that, but you should use the fact that they do that to see what they are really all about. The reason they do that is because they are using guns controlled by Christian politicians to enforce the morality of their religion. It is not to protect teenagers, if they wanted to protect teenagers from harm then why would they be locking them up for expressing their sexuality? They want to hide their sexuality and they don't care how many people of whatever age need to be destroyed in the process. They don't care what lies they need to tell you or anything else. And it's really actually kind of funny since the god that they worship incestuously fucked a 12-14 year old virgin and impregnated her. If they really wanted to protect children why wouldn't they do things that SCIENCE has shown reduces child molestation rates? Why wouldn't they think of a SANE policy using LOGIC instead of EMOTION? It's because they don't really care about protecting children, they care about destroying people who have the only crime of having a sexual desire that they find to be abominable according to their interpretation of their religious scriptures (ignoring the part that God fucked a virgin 12-14 year old). Or they care about making money from the slaves that they imprison. They are religious fanatics and slave traders!   

You make looking at pictures illegal for no reason at all other than you think it is immoral. The reasons given are absurd and ridiculous and anybody who isn't a mindless drone knows it. It's probably because of their fucking Christian enculturation. And even if you are not a Christian it is still the Christian enculturation of your society that has poisoned your mind even if you don't realize it. It's fucking sharia law in the west. In the Islamic countries you can fuck young teenagers, but if you draw a socially unacceptable picture of Mohammed you will be severely punished. In the Christian countries you can draw pictures of Mohammed, but if you draw a picture of a naked young teenager being fucked you will be severely punished.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 06:33:07 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1043 on: March 22, 2014, 07:09:36 am »
I don't see how anybody can not see that these laws are absurd.

Of course you don't, because you violate those laws regularly (sorry, I don't believe you've ever traveled outside of the US).

Maybe if you weren't so high all of the time, you'd realize that many of us acknowledged that some reform was necessary. You can't accept that though because no one is willing to take it as far as you want it to go.

You said yourself that not all teens are capable of consent, but you have no problem beating-off to pics of those same teens. That's why you want the age of consent lowered, so that you don't look like a complete sleaze.

I suppose you haven't noticed that the more you write, the less of your writing people read. We don't care what you have to say on the topic.

BTW How many people died in cartel violence for you to get the drugs you use? ;)



You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1044 on: March 22, 2014, 07:23:28 am »
I don't see how anybody can not see that these laws are absurd.

Of course you don't, because you violate those laws regularly (sorry, I don't believe you've ever traveled outside of the US).

Maybe if you weren't so high all of the time, you'd realize that many of us acknowledged that some reform was necessary. You can't accept that though because no one is willing to take it as far as you want it to go.

You said yourself that not all teens are capable of consent, but you have no problem beating-off to pics of those same teens. That's why you want the age of consent lowered, so that you don't look like a complete sleaze.

I suppose you haven't noticed that the more you write, the less of your writing people read. We don't care what you have to say on the topic.

BTW How many people died in cartel violence for you to get the drugs you use? ;)

You are a person who thinks he knows much more than he does. Believe whatever you want. If I had not traveled outside of my country to countries in which it did not violate the law to look at naked teenagers, I would have never admitted to doing such. But believe what you want, you love to believe things that are false and you are so dedicated to believing falsities that I cannot spare the effort trying to get you to be less wrong on such trivial matters that I do not give the slightest fuck about. I am not high all the time, I have not even used drugs for months. I barely use drugs at all any more. The past 12 months I have used drugs like 4 times. How does it feel to be wrong yet again??  And once again you are wrong.  I want the age of consent lowered because it should be lowered. It should be like it is done in many other countries! And I don't CARE if the people in the porn I watch can consent or not. I really don't give a fuck at all. Look. This is really hard for your simple mind to understand. I don't know how I can get this through to you. I DO NOT THINK PICTURES OF PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. I DO NOT ASK PICTURES OF PEOPLE TO CONSENT TO ME VIEWING THEM. IS that loud and clear enough for you? And speak for yourself, I love how people just love to speak for others. Guess what, we don't care what you have to say.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1045 on: March 22, 2014, 07:32:50 am »
I don't see how anybody can not see that these laws are absurd.

Of course you don't, because you violate those laws regularly (sorry, I don't believe you've ever traveled outside of the US).

Maybe if you weren't so high all of the time, you'd realize that many of us acknowledged that some reform was necessary. You can't accept that though because no one is willing to take it as far as you want it to go.

You said yourself that not all teens are capable of consent, but you have no problem beating-off to pics of those same teens. That's why you want the age of consent lowered, so that you don't look like a complete sleaze.

I suppose you haven't noticed that the more you write, the less of your writing people read. We don't care what you have to say on the topic.

BTW How many people died in cartel violence for you to get the drugs you use? ;)

You are a person who thinks he knows much more than he does.

Not really. Your the type of person who believes that people can only know about you what you tell them. You don't understand that you're beyond easy you are to profile.

Since you chose not to answer the question, I'll ask again: How many people died as a result of cartel-related violence so that you can get high? ???



You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1046 on: March 22, 2014, 07:42:24 am »
I don't see how anybody can not see that these laws are absurd.

Of course you don't, because you violate those laws regularly (sorry, I don't believe you've ever traveled outside of the US).

Maybe if you weren't so high all of the time, you'd realize that many of us acknowledged that some reform was necessary. You can't accept that though because no one is willing to take it as far as you want it to go.

You said yourself that not all teens are capable of consent, but you have no problem beating-off to pics of those same teens. That's why you want the age of consent lowered, so that you don't look like a complete sleaze.

I suppose you haven't noticed that the more you write, the less of your writing people read. We don't care what you have to say on the topic.

BTW How many people died in cartel violence for you to get the drugs you use? ;)

You are a person who thinks he knows much more than he does.

Not really. Your the type of person who believes that people can only know about you what you tell them. You don't understand that you're beyond easy you are to profile.

Since you chose not to answer the question, I'll ask again: How many people died as a result of cartel-related violence so that you can get high? ???

Honestly you just look ridiculous to me when you make all these claims about all the things you know about me that I know you are wrong about, and then act smug like you are really right, but really you are really wrong and I have absolute certainty of it, so you just look like an idiot to me and then talk about how great you are at profiling people even though the profile you have constructed of me is completely inaccurate.

I can't identify any victims, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. And they would be real victims too. People who my actions contributed to hurting. As opposed to say, people who were victimized by others who had absolutely no support from me. I just don't really care. I am not responsible for the cartels using the money I provide them to kill people, and I am CERTAINLY not responsible for the slutty high school girls flashing their mirrors in any of the pictures I have seen, any more than anyone would be responsible for the child predators producing any of the photographs they have seen. You see, the arrow of time really fucks you on this.

1. You use drugs
2. The money you spend on them goes to cartels
3. The cartels use that money to fund violence against innocents

1. A child predator rapes a kid
2. He posts pictures of it on the internet
3. Someone looks at those pictures

see the big difference there?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1047 on: March 22, 2014, 07:59:27 am »
just in case you couldn't get it, the difference is this:

1. By using drugs, you do things that cause bad things to happen

2. By doing bad things, child predators cause people to look at CP
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1048 on: March 22, 2014, 11:27:15 am »
haha awesome website: http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/watching-child-pornography-victimizes-child-voodoo-science

oh my God I love whoever made this website:

http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/irrational-drug-policy

people who agree with me on everything !!!!
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 11:38:32 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1049 on: March 22, 2014, 11:31:00 am »
... Anti, any particular reason why you resent gay people?

I just view them as "natures mistakes". I find them as equally immoral as a kiddie pr0n queers. If I had to choose one, I'd rather be like @m0rph than be as gay as @Jesus H Christ.

I can at least see why @m0rph finds some of those ~12 year old jailbaitgallery.com photos he linked to wer hot. Whereas, @Jesus H Christ as no ground to stand on. He's just completely fucked up, and unfixable -- beyond repair.

Sorry, I just wanted to quote this one for posterity. Just to make clear that you find 12 year olds hot and find m0rph to be normal.

That tells everyone all they need to know about you.


You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1050 on: March 22, 2014, 11:40:09 am »
that he is a normal male as confirmed by scientific studies and probably of above average intelligence as confirmed by his lack of irrational emotional denialism?

just so it lasts

Quote
haha awesome website: http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/watching-child-pornography-victimizes-child-voodoo-science

oh my God I love whoever made this website:

http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/irrational-drug-policy

people who agree with me on everything !!!!
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1051 on: March 22, 2014, 11:41:55 am »
I wonder if they are hypersentientneosapiens too, their website is called human-stupidity and I think that humans are indeed very stupid but I wouldn't classify myself as one of them. Fuck yeah a dedicated site just for hypersentientneosapiens where we can go and talk about all the stupid human behaviors we have identified, how cool. It's kind of like a hate site though, like stormfront or something, but instead of hating black humans we just hate all humans. And instead of being the superior race we are the superior species.

god this site is hilarious : http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/25-hottest-sex-offenders-boys-want2become-victims


http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/gorgeous-24-year-old-meredith-powell-rapes-children-age-15-17-who-begged-to-be-raped

lol

Quote
A young man got arrested for possession of child porn, depicting a 12 year boy old masturbating. It is his own video: he recorded himself when he was 12 years old. Mandatory minimum jail sentence: 2 years.

Think hard: maybe you took some indecent photos of yourself. Or your family album contains nunde photos mom took when you were a toddler.  Burn your childhood pictures while you still are out of jail!

   

Around Thanksgiving while my cousin was at work, his girlfriend decided to snoop around his house. She found videos in his closet and watched them. They were of a 12 year old boy masturbating. The girlfriend, understandably, freaked out and brought one of the tapes to the police and they promptly arrested my cousin and charged him with possession of child porn. Minimum mandatory sentence: 2 years, no tolerance.

So as it turns out, the kid in those videos, it was my cousin. Yeah. He had taped himself masturbating multiple times as a kid and for whatever reason he held on to the tapes. He said he didn’t even remember having them but i doubt it. At any rate, creepy but innocent. Right?

But guess what, the state where we live has a zero tolerance policy for child porn and despite the fact that they tore his house and computer apart and found nothing, there is still a minimum mandatory sentence of 2 years. We will soon find out what happens, but it is very possible that a man is about to go to jail for possessing porn videos of himself.

This and hundreds of comments at: reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/f567y/my_cousin_might_go_to_jail_for_child_porn_charges/
Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

    This is one of the extreme cases of the child porn witch hunt.
        Totally uselessly causing trauma in innocent people,
        huge expenses in legal fees,
        bogging up police and law enforcement capacity for nonsensical persecution
    Of course, the child porn prosecutions are meant to protect an innocent child “victim” from abuse. So 25 year old John Doe gets jailed to protect 12 year old John Doe from abusing himself? Or 12 year old John Doe gets protected from being re-victimized when 25 year old John Doe watches his own movie? Or 25 year old John Doe might have totally forgotten his old movie and not have watched it for a decade. Still, he needs to be jailed to be protected from victimization!? And of course, as a child abuser, he will most likely be raped in prison. How far has our logic and our legal system sunk.
    Most normal people would agree that this is excessive zeal. Of course, then the question arises: where should the limit be drawn?
        what kind of child porn should be punished?
        should possession of depictions of legal acts really be punished?
        Should people be punished for a video of child sexual activity that by all definitions was not abuse?
        And does the possession of computer files, that are nothing but 0′s and 1′s really get people into jail for years? The USA has a tradition of freedom of expression that are getting more encroached upon. Human Stupidity analyzes this on other posts.
        “Sticks and stones may break my bones (but words will never hurt me)”.  Should we not, in analogy, say: Sexual abuse may hurt me, but 0′s and 1′s in computer files will never hurt me. All this trauma could be avoided by scrapping all laws for possession. Punish abusers, not people who possess the photos.
        Almost all so called “child porn” in reality is “adolescent nudity” or consensual “sexual activities” of sexually active teenagers. We are not not aware of any deaths due to child porn production. Most child porn is totally harmless, like adolescents taking their own photos, or formerly legal 16 year old sex films made legally in Holland 30 years ago.
        On the other hand there was a death in the production of the following documentary:  Beating Death Of Derrion Albert,16,Caught On Video as described in Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV. Possession, production, and distributions are perfectly legal.
    I wish to get confirmation of this story from a reputable news agency or newspaper, instead of a hearsay report.  But even if it were untrue, it could happen. It rings true. Similar things have happened, 15 year old girls get traumatized with sexting charges for harmless nude photos. So prosecuting an adult for the movies he took of himself 15 years ago, looks convincing and true

   

My cousin’s lawyer described it like this. The law is designed to chill and prevent the existence and purveyance of all child pornography. By merely possessing images of such things, the law argues, it is perpetuating the culture and ubiquity of child pornography. Hence, zero tolerance.

My cousin would by no means be the first victim of these draconian laws. The lawyer said teenagers are routinely charged with the same laws for sending nude pics of themselves over their phones. He also said people have gone to jail for creating drawings of underage sex. reddit comment

Some commentators at reddit remarked that he is stupid for still being with that girl. But by conventional wisdom she acted correctly. She found heinous child porn of a 12 year old masturbating and reported it to police.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 12:32:27 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1052 on: March 22, 2014, 12:42:34 pm »
that he is a normal male as confirmed by scientific studies and probably of above average intelligence as confirmed by his lack of irrational emotional denialism?

just so it lasts

Quote
haha awesome website: http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/watching-child-pornography-victimizes-child-voodoo-science

oh my God I love whoever made this website:
That comment had nothing to do with you m0rph; it wasn't directed at you (and I know that you know that).

And you and I do for the most agree on drug policy (when you're being sincere).

And on some CP reforms (you seem to ignore that). Change usually involves compromise.

You seem to miss that when I do argue with you, I'm using current law and criminal procedure to argue why you can't do certain things right now. And that's usually because you've just commented on your interpretation of current US law.

You really don't understand my position. And I also explained to you that no one lives their entire life without some degree of hypocrisy. No one. Telling people they're hypocritical is not helpful to you.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1053 on: March 22, 2014, 12:53:35 pm »
I'm not trying to show you are hypocritical, I am trying to show you why you are wrong in a way you will be able to understand. If you think that it is good to legalize drugs for all these reasons, then why shouldn't you think the age of consent and CP reforms are good for the same reasons? But you can't even think that in your mind because of various reasons. Because with drugs it bypasses the part of your brain that you can think of a victim for, because your brain is not designed to think of abstract victims far removed from you, but when you think of CP you think of more concrete victims and then your brain shuts down when it is flooded with emotions. You have a disability that prevents you from thinking about this directly, I try to use language that bypasses this disability by routing around the emotion part of your brain and trying to get to the logic part without triggering it.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1054 on: March 22, 2014, 12:54:31 pm »
I wonder if they are hypersentientneosapiens too, their website is called human-stupidity and I think that humans are indeed very stupid but I wouldn't classify myself as one of them.
Fuck yeah a dedicated site just for hypersentientneosapiens where we can go and talk about all the stupid human behaviors we have identified, how cool. It's kind of like a hate site though, like stormfront or something, but instead of hating black humans we just hate all humans. And instead of being the superior race we are the superior species.

god this site is hilarious :
[redacted]

It's a site for pro-CP that is pointing out the what they consider the utter lack of logic in drug policy vs CP.

You understand m0rph, we don't was you to wack-off to pictures of or have sex with our children. Even those of us who do not have children yet feel that. I can't imagine being OK with you touching my daughter. I would fuck you up if I found out.

You  can say that's emotion blinding reason  and rationality, and that very well may be true. Most people are comfortable with that/

I told you that it's impossible for someone to live their entire lives with out ever being hypocritical, and I told you that everyone falls victim to a logical fallacy every now and then. I'm comfortable with that.  :D



You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1055 on: March 22, 2014, 01:07:32 pm »
Quote
It's a site for pro-CP that is pointing out the what they consider the utter lack of logic in drug policy vs CP.

You understand m0rph, we don't was you to wack-off to pictures of or have sex with our children. Even those of us who do not have children yet feel that. I can't imagine being OK with you touching my daughter. I would fuck you up if I found out.

You  can say that's emotion blinding reason  and rationality, and that very well may be true. Most people are comfortable with that/

You have absolutely no right to tell me what pictures I am allowed to look at. And I don't really give a shit what you want. And stop talking for everybody. Almost half of the people who responded to the poll said that they think young teenagers can sometimes consent to sex, or that jailbait porn isn't a big deal. You think you have the most support but you just have the most vocal support. Because anybody who disagrees is immediately attacked by the mob squad, threatened with death and doxing etc. If your daughter was 14 I would fuck her without a seconds hesitation and feel absolutely no guilt at all. The only reason I wouldn't is because of the law. Most people are fucking stupid. If you are comfortable being a stupid person and don't want to be a smart person there is nothing that can be done to help you. But when your stupidity starts to hurt people who do not deserve to be hurt, that is when we have a problem. But thankfully you guys tend to be so stupid you can only hurt other stupid people. Thankfully we have the smart people on our side, the people making things like Freenet and Tor, and letting people look at the pictures they want to and do the drugs they want with protection from the police and stupid people. There are far fewer of us but our intellects are so much more advanced than yours that it makes up for it. I'm sorry you didn't get to be able to be a smart person.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1056 on: March 23, 2014, 02:51:36 am »
... Anti, any particular reason why you resent gay people?

I just view them as "natures mistakes". I find them as equally immoral as a kiddie pr0n queers. If I had to choose one, I'd rather be like @m0rph than be as gay as @Jesus H Christ.

I can at least see why @m0rph finds some of those ~12 year old jailbaitgallery.com photos he linked to wer hot. Whereas, @Jesus H Christ as no ground to stand on. He's just completely fucked up, and unfixable -- beyond repair.
... Just to make clear that you find 12 year olds hot and find m0rph to be normal.

You cannot even read or comprehend anything besides ramming guy's dicks in your ass. Read it again; it says: "I can at least see why @m0rph finds some of those ~12 year old jailbaitgallery.com photos he linked to were hot". It doesn't say anywhere that *I* thought they were hot or that @m0rph was normal. Get those AIDS infested fag's cocks out of your ass and you might be able to understand simple statements.
You need to stop sucking heaps of cocks and spreading AIDS everywhere and go back to school and learn comprehension again, you clearly fail in all arguments as has been pointed out to you several times, by several different people. No wonder you're the "Resident Chief Faggot", you're so retarded and such a poofter you think everything you say is right, twisting shit around in arguments just like you do in boy's assholes. Sooooooooooooooo gayyy.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1057 on: March 23, 2014, 03:13:09 am »
... I can't imagine being OK with you touching my daughter. I would fuck you up if I found out.

... If your daughter was 14 I would fuck her without a seconds hesitation and feel absolutely no guilt at all. The only reason I wouldn't is because of the law. Most people are fucking stupid. If you are comfortable being a stupid person and don't want to be a smart person there is nothing that can be done to help you. But when your stupidity starts to hurt people who do not deserve to be hurt, that is when we have a problem. But thankfully you guys tend to be so stupid you can only hurt other stupid people. Thankfully we have the smart people on our side, the people making things like Freenet and Tor, and letting people look at the pictures they want to and do the drugs they want with protection from the police and stupid people. There are far fewer of us but our intellects are so much more advanced than yours that it makes up for it. I'm sorry you didn't get to be able to be a smart person.

Only problem with your argument once again @Jesus H Christ is that you are a full-blown faggot who will *NEVER* get the opportunity to impregnate a human female with your AIDS ridden 'seed'... Therefore, your statement about your hypothetical daughter is just that, infinitely hypothetical.

The majority of your replies sound like a dumbass kid with Down Syndrome (no offence to those poor guys) and you still can't quote people properly you're that retarded. You are one messed up mofo @Jesus H Christ ass-bandit, suss cunt.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1058 on: March 23, 2014, 04:59:20 am »
Quote
And on some CP reforms (you seem to ignore that). Change usually involves compromise.

The only thing I would compromise on is maybe age of consent could be like in Germany instead of Uruguay, so minimum age 14 and requiring evaluation for below 16. But I think penalties for statutory rape of 12 or 13 should be much lower than they are for 8 or 9. The only thing I would compromise on with CP is saying maybe only legalize possession but not distribution, but make penalties for distribution much lower than they currently are, and let people of any age produce porn of themselves and distribute it amongst themselves if they want, with a 3 year age gap (so 15 year old can share pictures of 12 year old but if 19 year old distributes it it is some misdemeanor crime or something). And have a 3 year close in age exception that goes as low as 12, but make people 12 and below immune to statutory sex charges.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 05:05:01 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1059 on: March 23, 2014, 05:02:33 am »
... Anti, any particular reason why you resent gay people?


I can at least see why @m0rph finds some of those ~12 year old jailbaitgallery.com photos he linked to were hot.
... Just to make clear that you find 12 year olds hot and find m0rph to be normal.
Read it again; it says: "I can at least see why @m0rph finds some of those ~12 year old jailbaitgallery.com photos he linked to were hot. Whereas, @Jesus H Christ as no ground to stand on.

He's just completely fucked up, and unfixable -- beyond repair.It doesn't say anywhere that *I* thought they were hot or that @m0rph was normal.

That's how I read it, freak. I call you one of nature's mistakes. At least that what your dad says about you when he cums by ;)

Keep on suckin on m0rph's cock.

I don't need a leg to stand on. That you think I do and m0rph does not says a lot about you. And that you both find him to be "smart" and his arguments compelling says it all.

I don't need to stretch the truth to make you look like a fuckin weirdo.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1060 on: March 23, 2014, 05:04:38 am »
... I can't imagine being OK with you touching my daughter. I would fuck you up if I found out.

... If your daughter was 14 I would fuck her without a seconds hesitation and feel absolutely no guilt at all. The only reason I wouldn't is because of the law. Most people are fucking stupid. If you are comfortable being a stupid person and don't want to be a smart person there is nothing that can be done to help you. But when your stupidity starts to hurt people who do not deserve to be hurt, that is when we have a problem. But thankfully you guys tend to be so stupid you can only hurt other stupid people. Thankfully we have the smart people on our side, the people making things like Freenet and Tor, and letting people look at the pictures they want to and do the drugs they want with protection from the police and stupid people. There are far fewer of us but our intellects are so much more advanced than yours that it makes up for it. I'm sorry you didn't get to be able to be a smart person.

Only problem with your argument once again @Jesus H Christ is that you are a full-blown faggot who will *NEVER* get the opportunity to impregnate a human female with your AIDS ridden 'seed'... Therefore, your statement about your hypothetical daughter is just that, infinitely hypothetical.

It's called artificial insemination retard. You sound stressed. Is there anything I can do for you sexy?
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1061 on: March 23, 2014, 05:32:03 am »
Really my opinions are not held by such a small minority as you think. I think a lot of people think it is stupid that you can go to prison for 20 years for having consensual sex with a girl who is pretty much the same as she will be when she is 18. And shitloads of people realize the CP laws are way too harsh, and quite a few seem to think that they are stupid all together as far as possession goes. Don't you ever go to sites that link to news stories and people leave comments on them? There are usually significant number of people arguing in both directions. I don't see anyone arguing to legalize having sex with babies on mainstream news sites. But I see people saying it is stupid someone went to prison for having pictures. And I see people saying "why did this guy go to prison for fucking that girl who would have been legal in Germany". And I see people saying why are we sending teenagers to prison for taking and sharing pictures of themselves. And I see people saying all kinds of things that agree with me. And then I see the people who disagree coming and talking about magic etc. But they are just looking stupider and stupider to the mainstream. Maybe they are still a majority but they are dwindling in number. And then there are a LOT of law drones, who say that it is good these things happen because the LAW said so, and they see the law as a Bible that must be always followed. These same people would tell the Jews in Nazi Germany to petition the government for change, but in the mean time to turn themselves in to be gassed. They are broken people.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1062 on: March 23, 2014, 05:38:25 am »
And even more would say these things publicly or in more mainstream channels, but they are afraid to say what they think. Because they will be labeled as pedophiles automatically, and people will attack them and shun them, hell people may even report them to the police for disagreeing. So they are either silent or they add caveats to try to protect themselves, but you can tell what they really believe usually even if they are too afraid to say it directly.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1063 on: March 23, 2014, 05:50:27 am »
And even more would say these things publicly or in more mainstream channels, but they are afraid to say what they think. Because they will be labeled as pedophiles automatically, and people will attack them and shun them, hell people may even report them to the police for disagreeing. So they are either silent or they add caveats to try to protect themselves, but you can tell what they really believe usually even if they are too afraid to say it directly.

Man, I come on here high as fuck (I suspect I'm not alone in that). Half the time, I'm drunk to boot.

Smaller paragraphs please (well, or paragraphs in general). I'm talking about the previous post, not this one.

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1064 on: March 23, 2014, 05:56:50 am »
Man, I come on here high as fuck (I suspect I'm not alone in that). Half the time, I'm drunk to boot.

It shows, blatantly. Not only do you take everything out of context and mix it around in your ass before you spew paragraphs of incoherent, falsely quoted bullshit but you make yourself out to be completely retarded and some fag who sucks boy's off and walks around the house with shit all over his knob all day long..

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1065 on: March 23, 2014, 06:05:05 am »
what do you think of this jesus? I will make it as small as possible so you can fit it in your verbal working memory, sorry I always forget most people have very limited capacity for information.

1. Minimum age of consent 14
2. Evaluation required and other protections for under 16
3. Remove mandatory minimum for statutory rape of 12 or 13, but keep maximum the same or even raise it
4. Have 3 year close in age exceptions for all ages, so 12+15 is ok and 13+16 is ok
5. Legalize possession of CP
6. Lower penalties for non-commercial CP distribution, misdemeanor for small amounts of distribution (like fine and probation), way lower maximum for large scale organized distribution (like 10 years maximum sentence, instead of like 20 years to life)
7. 3 year close in age exception for distribution
8. legalize self production for any age

that is the most I would compromise.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1066 on: March 23, 2014, 06:27:12 am »
what do you think of this jesus? I will make it as small as possible so you can fit it in your verbal working memory, sorry I always forget most people have very limited capacity for information.

LOL I love you too m0rph :-* It's more my contact lenses and the liquor I've drunk/weed I've smoked rather than my working memory :)

1. Minimum age of consent 14
2. Evaluation required and other protections for under 16
3. Remove mandatory minimum for statutory rape of 12 or 13, but keep maximum the same or even raise it
4. Have 3 year close in age exceptions for all ages, so 12+15 is ok and 13+16 is ok
5. Legalize possession of CP
6. Lower penalties for non-commercial CP distribution, misdemeanor for small amounts of distribution (like fine and probation), way lower maximum for large scale organized distribution (like 10 years maximum sentence, instead of like 20 years to life)
7. 3 year close in age exception for distribution
8. legalize self production for any age

that is the most I would compromise.

OK, before I indulge  you  here, I'd like to remind you that you are not in a position to demand compromise, and that if you want social change, you have to take it in increments. But here ya go:

1. Because it's impossible to determine the age at which all males and females exit puberty, and because, at this point, people aren't (for the most part) requesting change, I'm going to call this unlikely. And 14 is too young on average.
2. Too expensive. Too many different types of testing. And probably not a lot of parents willing to take their kids to be certified, which would keep them illegal. Plus I'm not comfortable with having parents consent to sex on their teens behalfs.
3. This is State law, so I'll leave it to the people of those States. No comment.
4. We have this already in many States, Only really fucked up States don't. No argument here.
5. Let's talk reducing penalties first. I fully support legalizing cartoons and drawings in private.
6. On distribution, I won't budge.
7. No pornography distribution featuring anyone under the age of 18 for (for the millionth time) contractual reasons. However, erotic pictures and movies between teens who are close in age should not be treated as pornography, even if one of the parties is underage (like say a 15 and an 18 year old).
8. I'm totally fine with that. The only problem with it is the lack of property rights involved and the difficulty in getting it back if a stupid teen gives it away without thinking.

OK? That's probably the best you'll get out of me.
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1067 on: March 23, 2014, 06:51:56 am »
Quote
OK, before I indulge  you  here, I'd like to remind you that you are not in a position to demand compromise, and that if you want social change, you have to take it in increments. But here ya go:

I am in a position to demand change, I just did.

Quote
1. Because it's impossible to determine the age at which all males and females exit puberty, and because, at this point, people aren't (for the most part) requesting change, I'm going to call this unlikely. And 14 is too young on average.
2. Too expensive. Too many different types of testing. And probably not a lot of parents willing to take their kids to be certified, which would keep them illegal. Plus I'm not comfortable with having parents consent to sex on their teens behalfs.
3. This is State law, so I'll leave it to the people of those States. No comment.
4. We have this already in many States, Only really fucked up States don't. No argument here.
5. Let's talk reducing penalties first. I fully support legalizing cartoons and drawings in private.
6. On distribution, I won't budge.
7. No pornography distribution featuring anyone under the age of 18 for (for the millionth time) contractual reasons. However, erotic pictures and movies between teens who are close in age should not be treated as pornography, even if one of the parties is underage (like say a 15 and an 18 year old).
8. I'm totally fine with that. The only problem with it is the lack of property rights involved and the difficulty in getting it back if a stupid teen gives it away without thinking.

OK? That's probably the best you'll get out of me.


It's not acceptable. And please, assume we are starting from a BLANK SLATE. Not starting with any of the current legal infrastructure. I don't want you to make any reference to what currently is. What is has absolutely no relation to what ought to be, and thinking otherwise is a logical fallacy. 

1. I'm not going to budge on this at all. If a 14 year old wants to have sex with someone older it just isn't going to be damaging at all. It really has nothing to do with puberty, though most girls are out of puberty before they turn 15. I will grant that 13 and especially 12 could be too young even if some of them are sexually attractive, but I wont grant that 14 is too young, and I will never be satisfied with an age of consent system that prevents me from fucking 14 year olds.

2. The cost could be carried by the people being evaluated. Also it isn't too expensive for Germany to do it. Germany is already following point 1 and 2 of my proposal, which is actually less liberal than Italy and South Korea and various other countries. You could have it so the age of consent is 14 minimum, but if a 14 year old or her parents complain then there is retroactive evaluation to determine consent, that is how Germany does it, but proactive evaluation seems to make more sense.

3. I am not asking you to think in the constructs of the current legal system, I am asking you to think of a new system that has absolutely no basis in what currently is. This seems really hard for you to do for some reason, but just try to clear your mind of everything that is and think about what ought to be instead.

4. Okay, we both agree on 4 then so can stop debating it.

5. I am not ever going to accept it being illegal for a person to look at whatever they want. Nobody who isn't worthy of being put in an insane asylum thinks cartoons should be illegal anyway, that is already pretty much mainstream belief though the law doesn't reflect it. I will never change my mind on this, people need to be entirely unrestricted in the pictures they look at, nobody has a right to tell a person he can not look at a picture of something.

6.

The biggest issue is that the huge majority of distributors don't even know they are distributors because they don't understand how P2P works. There is a huge difference between someone who downloads pictures on a P2P network and inadvertently distributes them, and someone who runs a site like lolita city. A person who inadvertently distributes CP should not get in much trouble at all, even if they intentionally possessed it. Someone who shares a few pictures shouldn't really get in much trouble at all either, even if they intended to, so long as they didn't do it in a hugely public way. There is a big difference between pedophiles privately sharing pictures with each other, and somebody throwing up a huge website with millions of pictures that gets visited by thousands and thousands of people.

I think the inadvertent distributors and the small time distributors who keep it low key shouldn't risk getting more than probation and a fine, and the big distributors like the guy who ran Freedom Hosting should absolutely not be facing life in prison just for running a website. Sure, I can understand, if I had naked pictures of me and didn't want maybe my friends or family to find them, I wouldn't want them posted on a site like that, so even though I am really against criminalizing distribution that is not for profit at all and would love if Eric Marques was just set free, I can see some logic to not allowing people to distribute such pictures. But it shouldn't be the end of a persons life if they do. So for small time or inadvertent I say it should be a really small penalty, and for larger scale stuff I think 10 years maximum.

7. Stop making reference to what is. I will never be okay with locking teenagers up for sharing naked pictures or even pornography of each other or  themselves.

8. Stop thinking of what is. I don't care about getting it back, because it needs to be legal for anybody to possess it anyway. But it seems we kind of agree on this.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1068 on: March 23, 2014, 07:00:10 am »
Also, what happened to compromise? I think my compromise was a hell of a lot bigger than yours, which consisted of essentially nothing.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1069 on: March 23, 2014, 07:11:48 am »
I am in a position to demand change, I just did.

LOL Well, you can demand it from me all you want. Try starting with your State legislature, your Congressmen, and Senators, OK?

It's not acceptable. And please, assume we are starting from a BLANK SLATE. Not starting with any of the current legal infrastructure. I don't want you to make any reference to what currently is.

Where I can best be of service to this discussion is to point out current law and the rationale behind it; and also to weigh-in on whether or not you've got a valid legal argument and which avenues should be avoided (like, that a judge will buy, because that's your only other avenue of change).

If you want to have the philosophical why you "should/shouldn't" debate purely in theory, then fine. But make your points succint. Like no more than 10 sentences please (I'm very drunk lol, and I'm not reading text walls)

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1070 on: March 23, 2014, 07:18:36 am »
I am in a position to demand change, I just did.

LOL Well, you can demand it from me all you want. Try starting with your State legislature, your Congressmen, and Senators, OK?

I see that you primarily fall into the "Law Drone" category. How unfortunate. And how strange from a drug user.

Quote
Where I can best be of service to this discussion is to point out current law and the rationale behind it; and also to weigh-in on whether or not you've got a valid legal argument and which avenues should be avoided (like, that a judge will buy, because that's your only other avenue of change).

I do not share your fixation with the law. The current law has no rationale behind it, its primary purpose is keeping Jesus happy and sending slaves to prison for the profit of the slave trade industry. I am not interested in changing the system through the system, that is a fools errand. I am interested in determining what the best system is, I am not talking yet about how we reach the point that the best system is the one that is used. The system that ought to be is not bound at all by the system that is, and thinking otherwise would be to fall victim to the is-ought fallacy. So please, stop thinking in terms of the current law, stop thinking in terms of your prior indoctrination, stop thinking in terms of what society wants, and create a total blankness in your mind. You don't know anything at all, and now from the nothing that you know think in your own mind fully self contained from the external world, and derive the system that would be the best.

Quote
If you want to have the philosophical why you "should/shouldn't" debate purely in theory, then fine. But make your points succint. Like no more than 10 sentences please (I'm very drunk lol, and I'm not reading text walls)

My previous post was not a text wall, and I can't hold a conversation with a person who can't manage to read a short list of points.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 07:25:37 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1071 on: March 23, 2014, 07:34:23 am »
Man, I come on here high as fuck (I suspect I'm not alone in that). Half the time, I'm drunk to boot.

It shows, blatantly. Not only do you take everything out of context and mix it around in your ass before you spew paragraphs of incoherent, falsely quoted bullshit but you make yourself out to be completely retarded and some fag who sucks boy's off and walks around the house with shit all over his knob all day long..

LOL All you do is follow me around and talk shit about nothing. You like think you're intimidating or something. :) What's that say about you? ::)

I got a blow job tonight; when I was about to bust, I pulled out and busted all over dude's face. I just wanted to let you know I was thinkin of you the whole time stud :)
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1072 on: March 23, 2014, 07:43:43 am »
I am in a position to demand change, I just did.

LOL Well, you can demand it from me all you want. Try starting with your State legislature, your Congressmen, and Senators, OK?

I see that you primarily fall into the "Law Drone" category. How unfortunate. And how strange from a drug user.

Right, because I know the law, I'm a drone. What I am is a realist, and you're not exactly Che (yet).

I do not share your fixation with the law. The current law has no rationale behind it, its primary purpose is keeping Jesus happy and sending slaves to prison for the profit of the slave trade industry.

Good god, you can't be serious. Everyone involved with the legal system is not of that persuasion. Some lawyers are defense attorneys, some lawyers are activists, and most lawyers aren't legislators. Some lawyers do good work that you fail to acknowledge.

My previous post was not a text wall, and I can't hold a conversation with a person who can't manage to read a short list of points.

It's just that this has been discussed so much already; I don't really want to get very heavy at this point. If you have some new points to make in light of anything I've said tonight, then be my guest.

Just go easy on it.

 
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1073 on: March 23, 2014, 08:29:03 am »
If you have any points to make in regards to my previous list of points, so long as they do not involve you telling me what the law currently is, be my guest.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

TheGreatOwlGod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Karma: +23/-24
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1074 on: March 23, 2014, 09:20:37 am »
This conversation is always weird to me. My girlfriend looks underage, and we are constantly scowled at by judgmental old women - and others, too, but mostly old/fat women - that seem to be doing nothing more than trying to make me ashamed of what we're doing; even though we are doing NOTHING wrong. This reminds me of drug use. The ignorant scowl, try to make you feel bad, try to communicate to you that you are doing wrong, try to feign moral high-ground that they in no way have, while they attempt to look down their noses at you.
It makes me wonder what the difference would be if she were a little younger. We still might be in love, she would look/act pretty-much the exact same, I would still have the same intentions, I would still treat her the same way. Would it really be wrong if she were a few years younger? If we were in love under those circumstances, would it be a terrible thing, would it be 'wrong', would I be *evil*? I really don't think so.
Cultural convention often seems like the only way, but the older I get, the more familiar I become with the species, and the world at large, the more I know every normative standard that exists in any society is simply made up; and entirely arbitrary.
If I encountered my now girlfriend several years earlier, and our relationship developed in a similar fashion as it did in the real world, would it be much different than it is now, beside being haunted with the stigma of culturally contingent taboo? I think not.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1075 on: March 23, 2014, 11:01:31 am »
old and fat women love the age of consent laws because it increases their value by limiting the market. Pretty much any unmarried female would prefer the age of consent is how old they are. And why wouldn't they? Females prefer older males because they have more resources, males prefer younger females because they have more youth and higher fertility, so to increase the amount of resources they can get females prefer higher ages of consent. And it doesn't cost them anything really, because they overwhelmingly don't want to fuck younger than they are anyway. I really haven't given feminists the contempt they deserve in blaming the current horrible age of consent system on religious people and slave traders. Certainly religious people and slave traders are huge players, but conniving females play a significant role as well.

Lowering the age of consent would actually be beneficial even for males who don't want to fuck younger females. Because enough of the males who would otherwise fuck attractive older females would instead fuck the more attractive younger females, leading to a higher availability of attractive older females. That by itself should make you want to side with ephebophiles and hebephiles, you can fuck hotter girls of any age if the age of consent is lowered ;). (I'm being facetious on this last part, this isn't the real reason you should want to lower the age of consent. You should want to lower it because it is bullshit and sends tons and tons of completely normal harmless people to prison for nothing).
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

r0guebubbles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Karma: +223/-46
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1076 on: March 23, 2014, 12:22:47 pm »
You're still at it I see. What do I have to do to stop having to read your crap?

Why aren't you busy selling your famous exploits? Fool. If you are able to get rich, why waste your damn time here? Can't get a sexual partner can we? Seems more likely.

You know they like your kind in jail so good luck! Hope you never get caught in that third world country of yours. I seriously mean that. So don't take it as a threat again Superman.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1077 on: March 24, 2014, 04:19:00 am »
... What do I have to do to stop having to read your crap?

Try not click the topic that says "Child Pornography" at the top; it's hard not to huh, lol?!

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1078 on: March 24, 2014, 05:12:03 am »
old and fat women love the age of consent laws because it increases their value by limiting the market. Pretty much any unmarried female would prefer the age of consent is how old they are. And why wouldn't they? Females prefer older males because they have more resources, males prefer younger females because they have more youth and higher fertility, so to increase the amount of resources they can get females prefer higher ages of consent. And it doesn't cost them anything really, because they overwhelmingly don't want to fuck younger than they are anyway. I really haven't given feminists the contempt they deserve in blaming the current horrible age of consent system on religious people and slave traders. Certainly religious people and slave traders are huge players, but conniving females play a significant role as well.

Lowering the age of consent would actually be beneficial even for males who don't want to fuck younger females. Because enough of the males who would otherwise fuck attractive older females would instead fuck the more attractive younger females, leading to a higher availability of attractive older females. That by itself should make you want to side with ephebophiles and hebephiles, you can fuck hotter girls of any age if the age of consent is lowered ;). (I'm being facetious on this last part, this isn't the real reason you should want to lower the age of consent. You should want to lower it because it is bullshit and sends tons and tons of completely normal harmless people to prison for nothing).

Well prey tell, when was the age of consent laws brought in?
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

cryngie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +135/-31
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1079 on: March 24, 2014, 06:11:42 am »
HEY M0RPH THERE'S SOME CHICK POSTING PICS RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY IN THE NOOB SECTION QUICK QUICK RUN YOU'LL MISS IT
I'd rather be carried by 6
Then judged by 12

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1080 on: March 24, 2014, 07:11:21 am »
lol -- don't encourage him by givin' him 'ammo' AHAHHAHAHHHAH

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1081 on: March 24, 2014, 10:18:52 am »
You're still at it I see. What do I have to do to stop having to read your crap?

Why aren't you busy selling your famous exploits? Fool. If you are able to get rich, why waste your damn time here? Can't get a sexual partner can we? Seems more likely.

You know they like your kind in jail so good luck! Hope you never get caught in that third world country of yours. I seriously mean that. So don't take it as a threat again Superman.

You may not realize this seeing as you are to all appearances a bit on the slow side, but:

Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, Uruguay, Albania, Argentina, Brazil, Estonia, Hungary, Peru, Puerto Rico, Serbia, South Korea, Spain, China

Are not third world countries. I think Germany is doing pretty good! South Korea seems pretty modernized seeing as it is a huge source of technology and seems to have a rich standard of living. Japan too! China may have shitty parts but it is certainly a world power and hardly a third world country. I never realized Italy and Austria were in such desperate times. You know what all these countries have in common? An age of consent that falls somewhere from 12 to 14.

So I don't think I will get caught if I like, renounce my citizenship and move to Italy and fuck 14 year olds. Since it isn't illegal. See the thing about the law is that if you don't break it you don't go to jail. Is that too hard a concept for you to understand? So there is nothing to get caught for. I will just go to one of the countries that has no CP laws too. Germany has no jailbait porn laws and 14 is legal, sounds nice but no drugs. Japan age of consent is 13 and all porn is legal but no drugs. Uruguay really hits the fucking trifecta of porn teens and drugs so it's looking like my number one choice. It seems first world enough, not quite up to par with Germany and such but pretty decent.

Yeah to stop reading this you can stop clicking the thread. It's really not that hard but you seem to be mentally challenged. So I will try to help you. I'm sorry that you are terrified that hot young girls are going to take all the guys who would otherwise fuck you, and you will get screwed out of your feeling of entitlement that your feminist indoctrination put into you. But you don't get to send millions of guys to prison just so you can marry up, sorry.

Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1082 on: March 24, 2014, 10:26:21 am »
@m0rph ;

Did u check out the chick posting in the n00b's section yet ??

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1083 on: March 24, 2014, 10:48:48 am »
I'd prefer to avoid having illegal pictures on my computer, seeing as I don't want to have to secure erase my drive. I'm pretty determined to avoid fucking up my ability to fuck hot young teens, jack off to jailbait, and get high as a kite, by doing any of those things while still living under Nazi rule. It's hard to avoid temptation (well, it's actually pretty easy to avoid actually fucking young teenagers), but I keep in mind at all times that in the future I will be free to do all of these things, and it gives me the motivation to continue.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1084 on: March 24, 2014, 01:45:42 pm »
I wrote a song for the haters :).

Quote
trollin, you motherfuckaz  - don't know how I rollin
controllin - makin motherfuckaz like "oh man!"
you pissy -  cuz you haters can't hit me -
I'm shifty - makin these bitches get miffy
cuz I don't want they pussy cuz they pushin on 50
that's 5 oh and I don't give no fuck about the 5 oh
I'd rather go way to west like fiev-el
I'd rather be a biblical man, like I'ma preacha
you fuckin freaks are straight up leave it to beaver
believe - a - quick motherfuka - gon leave ya
and y'all don't give a fuck but I wont give  no fucks neither
I'd rather be savin my fucks for younger bitches
slavishly stack up my bucks , get plane tickets
then I'll be - chillin - smokin, gettin high as hell
and you'll get busted and be raped in a prison cell
and it's just as well, motherfucka

Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1085 on: March 24, 2014, 07:15:33 pm »
This conversation is always weird to me. My girlfriend looks underage, and we are constantly scowled at by judgmental old women - and others, too, but mostly old/fat women - that seem to be doing nothing more than trying to make me ashamed of what we're doing; even though we are doing NOTHING wrong.

Unless your girlfriend is underage and unless you're also featuring her in pornography, then it's not the same.

I mean, I believe you, but why would anyone care who you're out with in public?

This reminds me of drug use. The ignorant scowl, try to make you feel bad, try to communicate to you that you are doing wrong, try to feign moral high-ground that they in no way have, while they attempt to look down their noses at you.
It makes me wonder what the difference would be if she were a little younger. Would it really be wrong if she were a few years younger?

Can you at least provide an age here? What's "a little younger" and how old are you? How am I supposed to know?

Otherwise, I'm reluctant to call it the same as how people react to drug users.

Cultural convention often seems like the only way, but the older I get, the more familiar I become with the species, and the world at large, the more I know every normative standard that exists in any society is simply made up; and entirely arbitrary.

It's arbitrary by consensus. It's that way because it has to be.

There is no blanket way of determining when a teen has become old enough to consent to sex. You all may be having a philosophical discussion, but this is very impractical.

You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

Jesus H Christ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Karma: +57/-41
  • and so it goes.
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1086 on: March 24, 2014, 07:16:47 pm »
... What do I have to do to stop having to read your crap?

Try not click the topic that says "Child Pornography" at the top; it's hard not to huh, lol?!

Wow, you have the personality of my asshole.

 
You know, I think the main purpose of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is to get poor Americans into clean, pressed, unpatched clothes, so rich Americans can stand to look at them.

Get free bitcoins: http://qoinpro.com/d05b0c75cba6b3f32925df504fc7d1e8

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1087 on: March 25, 2014, 02:39:09 am »
This conversation is always weird to me. My girlfriend looks underage, and we are constantly scowled at by judgmental old women - and others, too, but mostly old/fat women - that seem to be doing nothing more than trying to make me ashamed of what we're doing; even though we are doing NOTHING wrong.

Unless your girlfriend is underage and unless you're also featuring her in pornography, then it's not the same.

I mean, I believe you, but why would anyone care who you're out with in public?

This reminds me of drug use. The ignorant scowl, try to make you feel bad, try to communicate to you that you are doing wrong, try to feign moral high-ground that they in no way have, while they attempt to look down their noses at you.
It makes me wonder what the difference would be if she were a little younger. Would it really be wrong if she were a few years younger?

Can you at least provide an age here? What's "a little younger" and how old are you? How am I supposed to know?

Otherwise, I'm reluctant to call it the same as how people react to drug users.

Cultural convention often seems like the only way, but the older I get, the more familiar I become with the species, and the world at large, the more I know every normative standard that exists in any society is simply made up; and entirely arbitrary.

It's arbitrary by consensus. It's that way because it has to be.

There is no blanket way of determining when a teen has become old enough to consent to sex. You all may be having a philosophical discussion, but this is very impractical.

People should not have their entire fucking lives ruined because of some arbitrary law. It's utter fucking bullshit. If we for some unknown reason need an arbitrary age of consent (I already offered several better systems) then the age should be as low as fucking possible to limit the number of INNOCENT people who did NOTHING WRONG going to prison. So if you are dead set on an arbitrary age of consent it should be fucking 12 or 13, or 14 at the very most, it sure as fuck should not be 16 or 18. What happened to it being better to free ten guilty people than to make an innocent person go to prison? People should not go to prison for the crime of breaking an arbitrary rule that a brainwashed brain dead society pulled out of its paranoid religious asshole. Do you think that Germany is just going to shit and falling apart? Why not, it's legal to fuck 14 year olds! You people who think it is good someone who fucks a 14 year old goes to prison are pieces of shit. That is really what you are. You are pieces of stupid fucking shit and are not even worthy of being considered human.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 02:42:40 am by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

Anti-Hero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
  • Karma: +12/-36
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1088 on: March 25, 2014, 02:56:41 am »
Wow, you have the personality of my asshole.

Says the 'law drone' "Resident Chief Faggot" who thinks the law is correct in every instance, yet trolls the fuck out of a illegal drug forum and takes illegal drugs himself... Confused much?

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1089 on: March 31, 2014, 03:37:31 pm »
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/28/sunday-preview-du-pont-heir-stayed-prison/7016769/

Quote
A Superior Court judge who sentenced a wealthy du Pont heir to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter noted in her order that he "will not fare well" in prison and needed treatment instead of time behind bars, court records show.

Judge Jan Jurden's sentencing order for Robert H. Richards IV suggested that she considered unique circumstances when deciding his punishment for fourth-degree rape. Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards was a rare and puzzling rationale, several criminal justice authorities in Delaware said. Some also said her view that treatment was a better idea than prison is a justification typically used when sentencing drug addicts, not child rapists.

Richards' 2009 rape case became public this month after attorneys for his ex-wife Tracy filed a lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the abuse of his daughter.

The fact that Jurden expressed concern that prison wasn't right for Richards came as a surprise to defense lawyers and prosecutors who consider her a tough sentencing judge. Several noted that prison officials can put inmates in protective custody if they are worried about their safety, noting that child abusers are sometimes targeted by other inmates.

"It's an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well," said Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O'Neill, whose office represents defendants who cannot afford a lawyer. "Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn't proven to be true in most circumstances."

O'Neill said he and his deputies have often argued that a defendant was too ill or frail for prison, but he has never seen a judge cite it as a "reason not to send someone to jail."

Richards was no frail defendant, court records show, listing him at 6 feet, 4 inches tall and between 250 and 276 pounds. Nor do court records cite any physical illnesses.

O'Neill said the way the Richards case was handled might cause the public to be skeptical about "how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system."

Richards, who is unemployed and supported by a trust fund, owns a 5,800-square-foot mansion in Greenville he bought for $1.8 million in 2005. He also lists a home in the exclusive North Shores neighborhood near Rehoboth Beach, according to the state's sex abuse registry. His great-grandfather is du Pont family patriarch Irenee du Pont, and his father is Robert H. Richards III, a retired partner in the Richards Layton & Finger law firm.

Jurden, who has been a judge since 2001, and Superior Court President James T. Vaughn Jr. did not respond to questions last week about the case.

Deputy State Court Administrator Amy Quinlan said in an email that judges must consider the charges, state sentencing guidelines and "any mitigating or aggravating factors and recommendations" from prosecutors, defense lawyers, corrections officials and others. "That procedure was followed in this case as well."

The lawsuit filed by Richards' ex-wife accuses him of admitting to sexually abusing his infant son between 2005 and 2007, the same period when he abused his daughter starting when she was 3.

Police said they investigated allegations involving the boy in 2010 after his mother filed a complaint, but said they did not have sufficient evidence to justify charges. Investigators will take another look at the allegations included in the lawsuit, which are based on reports by probation officers.

The plea offer

Attorney General Beau Biden's office had initially indicted Richards on two counts of second-degree rape of a child – Class B violent felonies that carry a mandatory 10-year prison term for each count.

According to the arrest warrant filed by a New Castle County Police Detective JoAnna Burton in December 2007, the girl, then 5, told her grandmother, Donna Burg, that Richards sexually abused her.

Burg said the child reported that her father told her it was "our little secret" but said she didn't want "my daddy touching me anymore." The girl said her father molested her in the bedrooms of her mother and brother in the mansion at 10 Summit Lane near Winterthur Museum, the arrest warrant said.

Tracy Richards, who confronted her then-husband, told police he admitted abusing his daughter but said "it was an accident and he would never do it again," the warrant said.

Richards was free on $60,000 secured bail while awaiting trial on the charges that could have put him behind bars for years.

But in June 2008, just days before a scheduled trial, prosecutor Renee Hrivnak offered Richards a plea to a single count of fourth-degree rape, which carries no mandatory time, and he accepted, admitting in court that he abused his child.

"It was more than reasonable, an enlightened plea offer," Richards attorney Eugene J. Maurer Jr. said.

Probation offered

Fourth-degree rape is a Class C violent felony that by law can bring up to 15 years in prison, though guidelines suggest zero to 2½ years in prison.

At his February 2009 sentencing, Hrivnak recommended probation, Biden's chief deputy Ian R. McConnel said, adding that in retrospect he wished she would have sought prison time. Hrivnak would not comment.

Biden spokesman Jason Miller said the attorney general – who routinely hails the prosecution of child predators as a top priority for his office – did not know about the case.

Miller said only Hrivnak and her supervisor, Allison Texter, were part of the decision on how to resolve the case. Texter, who is now in private practice in Wilmington, did not return calls for comment.

State Prosecutor Kathleen M. Jennings could not discuss the case, McConnel said, because she had represented Richards while he was on probation. Jennings, a former chief deputy attorney general, rejoined the office in November 2011 after about 15 years in private practice. She would not say when she represented Richards.

McConnel would not discuss the rationale behind the Richards' plea deal and Hrivnak's recommendation of probation for the fourth-degree rape conviction.

He noted, however that prosecutors handling child sex cases routinely have difficulty relying on the testimony of youngsters, especially if the defendant is their father. The well-being of the child is paramount in such cases and parents and prosecutors are often reluctant to put children through the trauma of testifying and being cross-examined, he said.

"These cases are extremely complicated and difficult and we strive to do justice in each and every case to the best of our ability given the facts and circumstances presented," McConnel said. "That sometimes results in a resolution that is less than what we would want."

'Will not fare well'

While judges have the latitude to sentence defendants within legal parameters, they are urged to follow more lenient guidelines established by the Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission, a panel of judges and other top officials in the criminal justice system. The panel, known as SENTAC, has a policy that prison should be reserved for violent offenders, including rapists.

Jurden gave Richards, who had no previous criminal record, an eight-year prison term, but suspended all the prison time for probation.

"Defendant will not fare well in Level 5 setting," said the final line of her sentencing order. In Delaware's correctional system, Level 5 is prison.

Joseph S. Grubb, chief New Castle County prosecutor, said he was not involved in the case, but stressed that whether Richards' might suffer or thrive in prison was not something prosecutors considered.

"It's not a concern for us," Grubb said. "We try to do the right thing in each case. Absent that equation is the physical condition of the defendant."

Grubb said he did not know "how the judge gathered" that Richards might have trouble in prison, but assumed the presentence report included information she used. That report was not available in the court file.

O'Neill, the public defender, said that while Jurden's rationale surprised him, "I commend her for making such a courageous ruling. When I find the appropriate place, I'm going to make that argument."

Defense lawyer Michael W. Modica said he has argued that clients should be spared prison because of medical or mental issues, but judges routinely reject the suggestion. He said he recently persuaded a prosecutor not to recommend prison for a client who had cardiac bypass surgery while awaiting sentencing for a DUI, and the judge sentenced the man to home confinement.

"I've never heard of the judge saying in general that he is not going to do well," Modica said. "Who thrives in jail?"

Treatment sentence

Jurden also ordered Richards to "participate in a sex offenders" treatment program after his lawyer provided her with an evaluation from a clinic in Massachusetts. Her order stipulated that he undergo inpatient treatment followed by outpatient treatment. The judge also ordered him to have no contact with children under 16 and prohibited him from possessing pornography.

Jurden's order also included other mitigating circumstances considered before sentencing, citing his "strong family support" and "significant treatment needs which must be met." The order noted, "Treatment needs exceed need for punishment," which the SENTAC manual lists as a factor for judges to consider.

Attorneys said a treatment sentence is more common for first-time drug offenders, drunk drivers and the mentally ill, but is not unheard of for sex offenders. "It's not completely out of left field that a judge would say that," Grubb said.

Prosecutor Josette Manning, who spent six years in the sex crimes unit, said juvenile offenders in Delaware are often sent to out-of-state treatment facilities rather than a detention center. Some adults can get sex treatment in prison, she said, but when an offender can afford to pay the cost of inpatient treatment themselves, judges sometimes make that part of the sentence instead of prison.

"It's absolutely appropriate for a judge to consider a defendant's treatment needs during sentencing" for sex crimes, Manning said.

Modica, who has represented numerous sex offenders, said he has seen the need for treatment as a factor in reduced sentences for defendants in child porn cases but not for sex crimes. "I can't think of a case like that," he said.

Richards spent eight months on Level 3 probation, which requires weekly contacts with a probation officer, before Jurden moved him down to Level 2, which requires only monthly visits with a probation officer.

'Right on'

County police chief Elmer Setting said that while police can't control how attorneys and a judge resolve a case, "In serious situations where we have a guilty plea, we hope for prison time."

Kendall Marlowe, executive director of National Association for Counsel for Children, said the bottom line is that individuals who abuse youngsters deserve to be punished.

"Child protection laws are there to safeguard children, and adults who knowingly harm children should be punished," said Marlow, whose nonprofit agency assists lawyers who handle child welfare cases.

"Our prisons should be more rehabilitative environments, but the prison system's inadequacies are not a justification for letting a child molester off the hook."

Defense lawyer Joseph A. Hurley said it makes sense to him that the judge would be concerned about Richards' time in prison.

"Sure, they have protective custody, but that is solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. We're not a third-world society," Hurley said.

"Sex offenders are the lowest of the low in prison," Hurley said. "He's a rich, white boy who is a wuss and a child perv. The prison can't protect them, and Jan Jurden knows that reality. She is right on."


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/us/life-sentence-for-possession-of-child-pornography-spurs-debate.html?_r=0

Quote
Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder?

 A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.

“To me, a failure to distinguish between people who look at these dirty pictures and people who commit contact offenses lacks the nuance and proportionality I think our law demands,” said Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University, who highlighted Mr. Vilca’s case on his blog, Sentencing and Law Policy.

Sexual offenses involving children enrage most Americans, and lawmakers have not hesitated to impose lengthy prison terms for offenders. In Florida, possession of child pornography is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. Mr. Vilca was charged with 454 counts of possession, each count representing one image found on the computer.

Steve Maresca, the assistant state attorney in the case, said that in his view, Mr. Vilca “received a sentence pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.”

“Too many people just look at this as a victimless crime, and that’s not true,” he said. “These children are victimized, and when the images are shown over and over again, they’re victimized over and over again.”

But Lee Hollander, Mr. Vilca’s lawyer, called the sentence ridiculous.

“Daniel had nothing to do with the original victimization of these people; there is no evidence that he’s ever touched anybody improperly, adult or minor; and life in prison for looking at images, even child images, is beyond comprehension,” he said.

Mr. Hollander said Mr. Vilca had consistently said he did not know the images were on his computer. He refused a plea bargain of 20 years in prison, after which the state attorney increased the charges. The sentence will be appealed, Mr. Hollander said.

Troy K. Stabenow, an assistant federal public defender in Missouri’s Western District, noted that most people assume that someone who looks at child pornography is also a child molester or will become a child molester, a view often mirrored by judges.

But a growing body of scientific research shows that this is not the case, he said. Many passive viewers of child pornography never molest children, and not all child molesters have a penchant for pornography.

“I’m not suggesting that someone who looks at child pornography should just walk,” he said. “But we ought to punish people for what they do, not for our fear.”

State and federal laws, which generally increase penalties based on the number of pornographic images, reflect the idea that acquiring child pornography requires extensive time and effort and thus is a measure of a defendant’s involvement and interest. But with the rise of the Internet, it is possible to download hundreds of images in a matter of minutes, making the size of a stash a less than reliable indicator, Mr. Stabenow and other criminal justice experts said. It is now a rare case that does not involve the possession of hundreds, or even thousands, of images.

As a result, many federal judges have issued sentences lower than those called for by federal guidelines, which add months for multiple images and other aggravating factors. And even when such sentencing enhancements are enforced, the sentences — which can sometimes be 18 or 20 years — are often well below what Mr. Vilca received. The federal guidelines, for example, recommend a minimum of 57 to 71 months in prison for possession of 600 or more images of very young children.

Paul Cassell, a former federal judge who is now a law professor at the University of Utah, said there was no question that “consumers of child pornography drive the market for the production of child pornography, and without people to consume this stuff there wouldn’t be nearly as many children being sexually abused.”

Mr. Cassell is involved in efforts to get restitution for victims of child pornography, and has filed a petition in one case with the Supreme Court. But he said that while he was not familiar with Mr. Vilca’s case and did not know what other facts might be involved, “in the abstract, a life sentence for the crime of solely possessing child pornography would seem to be excessive.”

“A life sentence is what we give first-degree murderers,” he said, “and possession of child pornography is not the equivalent of first-degree murder.”
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1090 on: March 31, 2014, 04:06:53 pm »
it makes perfect sense though. The first guy only raped an infant and a toddler. That's just two people. Probation seems like a good fit for that. The second guy looked at pictures of a few hundred kids being raped. And every time you look at a picture of a kid being raped, they are magically raped all over again. So he pretty much raped hundreds of kids, probably dozens of times each or more. Clearly that is far worse.

I think we need to make it clear, if you are thinking about looking at pictures of kids being raped, you need to stop. A good alternative to looking at pictures of kids being raped is raping kids. If only everyone who thought about looking at pictures of kids being raped instead raped kids, we could majorly reduce the number of kids being raped. I'm glad the law reflects this reality. It's a shame that third world countries like Uruguay would have given the first guy decades in prison and the second guy wouldn't have even broken the law at all so would get no time in prison. I'm so glad we have rational countries like the USA still, it gives me comfort knowing that not all countries are barbaric third world shit holes.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 04:07:37 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1091 on: March 31, 2014, 04:18:06 pm »
another great example

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/28/you-can-have-sex-with-them-jus

Quote
You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don't Photograph Them

In the spring and summer of 2006, Eric Rinehart, at the time a 34-year-old police officer in the small town of Middletown, Indiana, began consensual sexual relationships with two young women, ages 16 and 17. One of the women had contacted Rinehart through his MySpace page. He had known the other one, the daughter of a man who was involved in training police officers, for most of her life. Rinehart was going through a divorce at the time. The relationships came to the attention of local authorities, and then federal authorities, when one of the girls mentioned it to a guidance counselor.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart's judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren't illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart's sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents' consent, although it's unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)

"You can certainly conceive of acts of producing actual child pornography, the kind that does real harm to children, for which a 15-year sentence would be appropriate," says Mary Price, general counsel for the criminal justice reform group Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "But this is a single-factor trigger, so it gets applied in cases like this one, where the sentence really doesn't fit the culpability."

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart's sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million." (You might also compare Rinehart's punishment to the treatment given former Elkhart, Indiana, police officer William Lee. Lee, who had a history of "inappropriately touching" women while on the job, was recently fired for using the threat of an arrest warrant to coerce a woman into having sex with him. He was never criminally charged.)

Hamilton is not the first federal judge to express frustration over federal child porn sentencing laws. In May 2010, The New York Times profiled U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, who after 43 years on the bench has essentially gone rogue, twice throwing out convictions of a man convicted of receiving child pornography because of the five-year mandatory minimum sentence attached to the offense. Weinstein has also indicated that in future child porn cases he will disregard the federal rules of criminal procedure and inform his juries of the sentences defendants will get if convicted.

Rinehart was convicted of producing child pornography. But in cases where a suspect is charged with receiving child pornography, prosecutors need not even show intent. The mere presence of the images on the defendant's computer is enough to win a conviction. "Each image can be a separate count, so these sentences can add up pretty quickly," Price says. "And with a video, each frame can count as a separate image. So if you accidentally or unknowingly download a video that's later discovered on your computer, you could be looking at a really long sentence."

In a 2010 survey (PDF) by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 71 percent of the 585 federal judges who responded thought the five-year mandatory minimum for receiving child pornography was too harsh. Just 2 percent thought it was too lenient. Only the mandatory minimum for crack cocaine, which has since been reduced, met with wider disapproval.

"When judges don't abide by sentencing guidelines, the logical conclusion would be that the guidelines are flawed, that they should be revised to better reflect culpability," Price says. "Instead, the reaction from Congress is too often to make the guidelines mandatory, or to make the sentences even harsher."

It could actually have been worse for Rinehart. Under federal law, he could have faced up to 25 years in prison. In exchange for a guilty plea, prosecutors agreed to seek only the minimum sentence. Unfortunately for Rinehart, that plea agreement also prevents him from challenging his conviction or sentence. His only hope for early release is executive clemency. Given the clemency records of the last two administrations, that does not seem likely.

Rinehart's case also illustrates the advantages of federalism. Traditionally, criminal law has been left to the states. Age of consent in particular is an issue that is best decided at the state or local level, where lawmakers can set boundaries that reflect local values. The 1984 federal law that Rinehart was charged with breaking, which raised the federal age of consent for explicit images from 16 to 18, was passed under the authority of the Commerce Clause. According to the prevailing interpretation of the clause, the federal government has a legitimate interest in regulating the interstate sale and distribution of child pornography (by prohibiting it) to prevent the exploitation of children.

But the women Rinehart photographed were not children. Under Indiana (and federal) law, they were adults. Furthermore, Rinehart not only was not a producer of actual child pornography; he was not even a consumer. His decision to photograph and upload to his computer photos and video of the two women had no effect whatsoever on the interstate market for child pornography.

You could argue that it makes sense to have a higher age of consent for sexually explicit photos than for sexual activity because photos can be preserved and distributed. That means one bad decision can cause lasting harm, something a 16- or 17-year-old disoriented by love or passion may not be mature enough to consider.

But as Hamilton points out in his sentencing statement, there is no indication that Congress had this rationale in mind when it raised the age of consent in 1984. Instead the congressional record indicates the reason for the change was that prosecutors usually are not able to track down the women depicted in explicit photos to verify their ages. With the cutoff at 16, prosecutors were having problems winning convictions if the girls depicted in the images showed any signs of puberty. Raising the age to 18, a House committee reported, "would facilitate the prosecution of child pornography cases and raise the effective age of protection of children from these practices probably not to 18 years of age, but perhaps to 16."

In Rinehart's case, however, there is no question about the age or identity of the "victims." So why did Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven DeBrota—who has won awards for his efforts to break up actual child pornography rings—decide to turn Rinehart's questionable judgment into a federal felony?

"This seemed like it was all going to be sorted out locally," says Stacy Rinehart, Eric Rinehart’s sister. "They had a deal worked out where they were going to charge Eric for some sort of misconduct, and he'd do time in a local jail away from other inmates. Police officers don’t tend to do very well in prison. But then the FBI got involved. And no one really knows why. I can only guess it was because Eric was a police officer when all this happened, and maybe they thought that made what he did worse. But he had a good record, and they never put on any evidence that he abused his position."

DeBrota didn't return my call requesting comment. But the fact that a federal prosecutor would pursue a case like this one demonstrates the problem of taking sentencing discretion away from judges. It is true that, technically, Rinehart violated federal law. But no reasonable person would call him a child pornographer, and it seems unlikely that Congress was thinking of people like him when they raised the federal age of consent for sexually explicit images. Putting him away for 15 years hardly feels like justice.

I don't understand people like this. He was perfectly fine and moral law abiding person fucking 16 year olds, which I certainly agree with. But then he had to go and victimize the shit out of them by taking pictures of them naked! When he aimed camera at his girlfriends naked chest he was just normal person, but as soon as he hit the button I can just imagine she writhe on the floor in pain from all the victimization hitting her like a speeding fucking train. Doesn't this guy know that looking at pictures of naked teenagers abuses the shit out of them every single time forever across space and time?! We need to make it clear to people, if you must do something with kids rape them instead of look at pictures of them being raped, as soon as you add photographs it's just a full different ball game. Fuck all the teens you want but if you photograph them or look at pictures wtf is wrong with you.

We need to end child abuse now. Let's make a campaign

"Frick em, don't click em" can be our motto. We need all pedophiles to know that their urges to look at pictures are absolutely horrible and that they need to instead settle for just raping kids, which is much better for society.

Just remember pedophiles:

Rape infant and toddler? Probation.
Look at small number of pictures of young kids? Life in prison , no parole.
Fuck 16 year old girls? Not a problem.
Have picture of naked 16 year old girls? Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison.

It's the American Way.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 04:23:24 pm by m0rph »
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1092 on: March 31, 2014, 06:00:37 pm »
hey look I found place for you guys to move where they firmly agree with your beliefs! Sweet, now I can go to Uruguay and you can go hang out with these guys:

http://left.mn/2013/07/maybe-a-photograph-will-steal-your-soul/

Quote
It is a primitive idea that having a photograph taken of yourself will steal your soul:

Ancient  peoples, tribal animists often have the belief that capturing images of a person gives you a magical control of them just like knowing their ‘real’ name.  Others believe that it somehow steals the soul, captures the spirit. This is why some are quite worried about being photographed.

hey look I found the mechanism of action for how looking at pictures of people horribly abuses them across space and time!

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-voodoo-doll.htm

Quote
Voodoo dolls are an often misunderstood tradition associated with the Voodoo religion and forms of Hoodoo magic. They are popularly portrayed as revenge items, used to cause pain to an enemy. Instead of stemming from the traditional Voodoo rituals as found in Haiti and nearby areas, the dolls originated in part from the New Orleans, Louisiana area in the early 20th century.

In fictional portrayals, a Voodoo doll is used to curse an enemy. According to popular fictional lore, wherever someone pokes the doll with a pin or needle, the focus object will feel pain or have an illness. For the most part, these portrayals are misconstrued or completely invented.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1093 on: March 31, 2014, 06:24:23 pm »
I can just imagine the articles what they will be like in a few hundred years.

Quote
It is a primitive idea that having a photograph taken of you naked will make it so people can abuse you across space and time:

Ancient peoples, mainly from USA, UK, Australia, often had the belief that having pictures of naked people under the age of 18 gave you a magical control of them. This is why some people were quite worried about those with pictures of naked people under 18.

In fictional portrayals, a picture of a naked person under 18 can be used to curse them. According to ancient popular fictional lore, whenever a person touches their penis while looking at such a picture, the person in the picture will be victimized or molested all over again. These portrayals are misconstrued or completely invented.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1094 on: March 31, 2014, 09:38:57 pm »
omg you guyz look at this news flash

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_the_Harry_Potter_books_fiction_or_non-fiction

Quote
The Harry Potter series is fiction.

Non-fiction is something that has happened in real life. All the books, characters and events are fiction. If any of the characters are similar to real people it is simply coincidental.

holy shit maybe there not really people living in photographs after all! I know this shocks the shit out of you. It's a huge revelation.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

joenamath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Karma: +329/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1095 on: March 31, 2014, 10:24:37 pm »
omg you guyz look at this news flash

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_the_Harry_Potter_books_fiction_or_non-fiction

Quote
The Harry Potter series is fiction.

Non-fiction is something that has happened in real life. All the books, characters and events are fiction. If any of the characters are similar to real people it is simply coincidental.

holy shit maybe there not really people living in photographs after all! I know this shocks the shit out of you. It's a huge revelation.


Ok ...Here I go.  Too bad you can't keep your preferences to yourself, as you appear smart, sharp and with it. Try letting this go, keep it to yourself, as you will not convert others, and share other attributes that appear obvious. Not Judgin, Just Sayin....Joe

And leave my Karma alone, I have enough wars going on with some dumb ass trolls, of which I do not consider you either.
I guarantee a win in SuperBowl III.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1096 on: April 01, 2014, 12:58:24 pm »
Did you ever stop and think maybe I don't care what people who are too stupid to realize the truth of what I have said have to say?
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1097 on: April 01, 2014, 08:41:12 pm »
still waiting for someone with an actual argument ....
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.

joenamath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Karma: +329/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1098 on: April 01, 2014, 09:43:51 pm »
still waiting for someone with an actual argument ....
Refer to my above stated post. You are too smart to continue down this path. Your posts show you have no female children. Use all this energy to make the dark web better!   PS...hard to ignore the 15 year olds my daughter brings over to swim, but it is a DISIPLINE !   Not a weakness.Joe
I guarantee a win in SuperBowl III.

twatWaffle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Karma: +298/-71
  • Cogito ergo spud; I think, therefore I yam
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1099 on: April 03, 2014, 07:33:43 pm »
Been away dealing with three deaths in my family over the last two weeks, but roflmaoshiapms thinking of all the pussy I have been in, vs just looking at pussy online.

Now, m0rph, ya rat faced little fuckwad waste of food n space, how much ACTUAL willing, of age pussy has been yours for the lickin, suckin, and fucking?

NONE, I state as of right now and online underage porn is your little corner of the seedy underbelly, keep at it.

Don't reproduce, don't make more little shits for me to dispose of in the bayou.

Thank you, and come again in your hankie.
Quote of the day from the g0dfather;
"Next time you place an order with me space turkey I will make sure to send you a fat ass nigger dick (free of charge) that way every time you think of me you can sit on that dick and take the fucking like the man you are!"

m0rph

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: +52/-170
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Discussion of Child Pornography
« Reply #1100 on: April 03, 2014, 09:39:19 pm »
Been away dealing with three deaths in my family over the last two weeks, but roflmaoshiapms thinking of all the pussy I have been in, vs just looking at pussy online.

Now, m0rph, ya rat faced little fuckwad waste of food n space, how much ACTUAL willing, of age pussy has been yours for the lickin, suckin, and fucking?

NONE, I state as of right now and online underage porn is your little corner of the seedy underbelly, keep at it.

Don't reproduce, don't make more little shits for me to dispose of in the bayou.

Thank you, and come again in your hankie.

Uh, I already said in this thread that I've never fucked anybody. Am I supposed to be offended? Really I'm predominately into the drugs and anarchist/security sections of the underbelly. I mean, I'm not against going to some jailbait sites and checking out the latest teenage twats, but I'd hardly consider it to be a community I have anything to do with in particular. Really fail to see why I'm not supposed to look at pictures of hot naked teenagers. It's a weird sense of morality that makes a person think it is bad to do that. I can't even imagine being one of the people who said they like or even prefer young teenagers but wouldn't even look at naked pictures of them even if they couldn't get in trouble for it. If I couldn't get in trouble for it I'd be grabbing as much teenager porn as I could find, I'd probably stop even looking at adult porn at all because it's fucking boring by comparison. I can't imagine a situation where I would rather watch someone 18+ in porn when there is an otherwise equivalent porn with someone ~13-17 in it. I could imagine fucking someone older than 18 even if there were younger people available though, but that would only be if I had a relationship with them already or just had more interest in them than their appearance. But none of that comes into play at all with porn, it's pure visual pleasure and younger teenagers have a near monopoly on being super fucking hot.
Women congregate to alpha males shockingly disproportionately, they are only attracted to the top 20% of males. After top males select mates, there is massive female fan out. By now, males are perceived as alpha by younger more attractive females. Age of consent is "old bitch" insurance.