Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kmfkewm

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 249
301
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 26, 2013, 08:39 am »
Put another way, I don't see how the number 4 is different when I write it on paper from when I type it into my computer. They are different instances of the number 4, but they both reference to the same information, they are conceptually identical to each other. If a pedophile molests a child and takes a picture of it, the resulting big number is conceptually identical to the equal big number that my PRNG outputs by sheer random chance. I do not see how it can be moral to view the randomly generated big number but immoral to view the identical big number that was derived by a pedophile taking a photograph of child molestation, they are the same number, just as 4 is 4 regardless of where it is written or how it comes to be. 4 is 4 on my computer and 4 is 4 on a piece of paper, I do not see the conceptual difference between any instance of 4. I think you are essentially saying that some instances of 4 are immoral and other instances of 4 are morally neutral, but I just don't see how this can possibly be. How is the immorality transferred with the exchange of the number? What marks an instance of 4 as tainted? That it was originally derived by the molestation of a child? But it was not originally derived any more than I originally derive 4 when I write it on paper, the number 4 exists independently of life itself, it exists independently of any symbol or word or instantiation.

302
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 26, 2013, 08:18 am »
Quote from: Railgun on August 26, 2013, 08:06 am
Dude, we're agreeing. I am saying that so long as no child is hurt in their direct physicality, I don't care. Unfortunately, such photorealism is not available to people to a satisfactory degree to quench their sexual appetite.

To make it clear: No, there is NO problem so long as the person takes no part in the hurting of a child. By viewing an actual, true-blue molestation, one is supporting them, even if in an indirect way.

If people want to get off to photorealistic children without it being, then so be it. If it happens to align with an actual child, then that's the unfortunate humiliation of them. Oh well.

But how can you possibly think someone is supporting molestation if they view a "true blue molestation" but not supporting molestation if they view an identical image that was derived by flipping a coin and random chance? They are the same image! The people viewing either image are engaging in identical behavior! I totally totally totally fail to see how the number 4 can be moral to look at in some cases, but the number 4 is immoral to look at in other cases. They are the same exact number, they produce the same exact pixel configuration! How exactly does this work? I honest to god just do not understand how somebody can think in this way. I can not distinguish the sum of 2 and 2 from the sum of 3 and 1, they both result in 4. How is it supporting molestation to look at a picture taken of a molestation, but not supporting molestation to look at an identical image derived by flipping a coin? The lesson you were supposed to take from this is that it doesn't matter if the CP is virtual or not because the result can be the same, and that the issue is with molestation not with looking at pictures. But I am unsure if that is what you have taken from this, you seem to say you agree with me but I don't think you are understanding my point.

303
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:58 am »
Quote
Ok bro, I'm sorry, but I have to say this: I think you are delving to deeply into philosophical meanderings rather than reading what people are saying here. For example, that whole block of text explaining binary sequences is pretty much the reason why I said that I don't have a problem.

Here I'll try this your way:
 Of course, somewhere even, some pile of dirt on some foreign planet could've had the atmospheric conditions, properly aligned magnetic moment, or some force (perhaps one unknown to us atm because particle theory has gaps in it) which, statistically, could have eventuated in a distinct image. The probability quickly approaches zero as you heighten the complexity of the organism, as it is inversely related to entropy. However, such is possible.

I don't see the point in all of that, however. Obviously most people accept that there's a chance of that all happening, even if they don't prefer verbosity The point is as long as no child was originally hurt in their physicality, there is little damage done. We aren't even disagreeing anymore.

The point is that no child is hurt by somebody looking at any image. If someone makes photorealistic virtual CP that is identical to real CP that comes to be, I don't see how you can differentiate between the real CP and the virtual CP. They are the same thing! How can you then say that looking at real CP is bad but looking at virtual CP is not bad? It is possible for virtual CP to be identical to real CP! There is no difference at all between virtual CP that is identical to real CP and real CP, they are the same number. How can you even tell them apart to say that looking at one is bad but not the other? It is like saying looking at the number from 2 + 2 is bad but looking at the number 4 is fine. They are the same number! Sure the probability of this situation coming to pass is very very low, although it is not theoretically impossible (unlike a child being molested all over again every time someone looks at an image depicting the child being molested, which is totally impossible). The point was as a thought experiment to demonstrate to you that it is not bad to look at CP be it "real" CP or CP derived from flipping a coin and random chance. If you flip a coin and record the heads and tails as 1 and 0, it is theoretically possible for you to end up with the same exact image file you would end up with if you downloaded CP off of the internet. I can not imagine how you are okay with having the image obtained by flipping a coin but not with having the image downloaded off the internet. What if you put the image you derived by flipping a coin on the internet, and someone downloads it? How can you even tell these images apart they are the same thing!

The point is that an image is not the event depicted in the image. An image of the holocaust is not the holocaust, an image of a child being molested is not child molestation, etc. A picture of a child is not a child, it is a series of 1's and 0's that causes your monitor to color pixels in a certain fashion. You can say in the case of the real CP a child is abused to produce it, but your problem is with the abuse of a child it is not with the resulting series of 1's and 0's, it cannot possibly be with the resulting series of 1's and 0's because the same series of 1's and 0's could be derived by flipping a coin and random chance and you already have said obtaining the image in such a way is morally acceptable. The series of 1's and 0's exist independently of how they are obtained, they are the same sequence if they are derived by the flip of a coin or by the molestation of a child, your issue is not with the CP and it is not with flipping a coin it is entirely with the molestation of children. I have always said molesting children should be illegal, but having a sequence of 1's and 0's should not be illegal, regardless of how the 1's and 0's originally were formed it doesn't matter because they are just a number and all numbers exist independently of even the existence of life itself much less life forms flipping coins or molesting children.

304
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:41 am »
Quote
I've made absolutely no comments about paedophiles attempting to circumvent laws and create 'virtual child porn' to any degree of photorealism, so I really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Fuck, if you're going to rant, at least fucking read what people type.

Did you not even read your own fucking post?

Quote
I have a son under 10.  If you knowingly and actively view child porn, OR VIRTUAL OR IMITATION child porn, or fucking squirrels dressed as schoolkids, I will hunt you the fuck down.

Quote
Your analogy of you watching TV where someone gets shot is completely invalid.  For starters, there is the issue of consent.  In a civilised society, society dictates to what degree we should protect our young.  Now, if your real issue is who should decided this, now that's an interesting topic and worthy of discussion....along with a discussion of paedophilia as a mental illness, and how that could be tackled.

So you think someone with who has a bomb dropped on them and has their corpse shown by the media has consented to this? Because I am pretty sure I have seen children killed by bombings on the news and in the media, including children killed by US bombs in Vietnam all the way to children killed by terrorist bombings. So I think perhaps that I should be concerned that SWAT is going to raid me and arrest my television. I have also seen movies where children are pretend killed by bombs, and according to you this is just as bad since you did say that you are against virtual and imitation CP as well as real CP. I see virtual crimes and imitation crimes almost any time I turn the television on, and if we apply your logic to all things instead of just CP I am one sick fuck to have seen so many people imitation killed in movies, let alone real people killed on the news. Society is neither intelligent nor rational enough to manage itself, it needs a benevolent dictator to take control of it, this is why I am a huge fan of totalitarian libertarianism.

Quote
But CP is the worst form of abuse, a completely degrading power play between the defenseless and the mentally insane, and frankly as a father I find your protectionist attitudes pretty fucking disgusting.

I find your insanity to be pretty fucking sad personally, and your actions against others to be totally disgusting. If you really think looking at a picture, hell especially but not limited to a virtual picture, is the worst form of abuse, then you are fucking insane! Plain and simple!

Quote
It's irrelevant how or when our levels of statutory child protection developed, or how many countries allow child slavery or child porn to exist in the current age, too.  Seriously, are you interested in advancing society, or just constructing it in your own image?

I am entirely interested in advancing society by constructing it in my own image. Also I do not argue that because CP is legal in some countries that it is moral, my argument for the moral neutralness of viewing CP is based on rational analysis not appeal to numbers. However, I was merely correcting people who made claims such as "CP will never be legal" (CP is legal in half of the world, some countries such as Japan have majority support for keeping it that way) as well as "Pedophiles have been hated for all of history" (by todays criteria of pedophilia, pedophilia was the norm through out much of human history). I also like to point out to people that when a behavior is not made illegal in huge sections of the world, that PERHAPS (but not for sure) their own strong opinions on it are influenced by CULTURAL CONDITIONING. It is always good for people to be aware of the fact that cultural conditioning exists, and to try to avoid being influenced by it when discussing things such as morality, which exists independently of cultural confines and universally (unless you are a moral relativist, in which case you are fucked in the head). Just because CP viewing is legal in half the world doesn't mean it is not immoral to view CP, it is not immoral to view CP for a large variety of other reasons, however because it is still legal to view CP in half of the world, and because some first world countries have large support against making it illegal to view, it is a sign that you need to analyze the possibility that your strong feelings toward CP viewers are the result of CULTURAL CONDITIONING, something that anyone who wishes to be rational should attempt to avoid being influenced by. 

Quote
Seriously, when I think of libertarianism, I'm mainly concerned with how society can be advanced when it's not strangled by bureaucracy....and all you feel compelled to talk about is how cool you are for being one of the first nerds to link RC's with the internet, and how everyone should be allowed to look at children being raped.

That is all I talk about? Also you are not a real libertarian if you are against the right for people to view CP. Censorship and pure libertarianism are mutually exclusive, you cannot claim to support them both at the same time. Also I only made a post about my history in the drug scene because a journalist asked me to talk about it and because I figured people might be interested in it.

Quote
I seriously don't understand your priorities or motivations.

I think understanding is something you generally have trouble with so I don't take it very personally.

305
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:27 am »
Quote from: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 10:54 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 08:31 pm
Quote from: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 07:15 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 11:25 am
Quote from: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 11:05 am
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 10:55 am
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.

Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:

You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)

I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.

My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.

My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.

Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.

I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child?

No, that is not what I am implying.

I used the analogy of the actors as an example. An actor may see themselves raped tons of times in movies, yet they don't bear the emotional scars of the rape at a clinical level because the event never actually took place. There's no personalization of the incident as there is with real, forced interourse.

That being said, if by chance there was a photorealistic looking version of a child that was not made a priori, I would imagine that they would be humiliated--but they would not bear the scars as if they were used in filming (i.e. ACTUALLY raped)

To be even clearer:
I don't see a problem as long as no child (i.e. their physical being) is involved at all during the acts in which are depicted. It's a sexual deviance that would be frowned upon by many, but that would nullify my main concern: children developing maladaptive from the actions in which their physicality was involved.

I think you are not understanding the point I am making. You are being very clear, you don't have a problem with photorealistic virtual child porn as long as no actual real child is involved in the production of it. My argument is, what if someone makes photorealistic child porn, and at some point in the future a real child is born who grows up to look identical to the virtual child, and this child is by chance molested and photographed in such a way that real child porn identical to the virtual child porn comes into existence. No real child was harmed in the making of the virtual child porn or even involved with it, but in the future an identical image was made via the abuse of a real child. Do you think looking at the virtual porn is still okay, since no child was abused to produce it, even though it is visually identical to a picture that had a child abused to make it? Or do you think the once acceptable virtual CP becomes immoral to look at after the real CP is produced in the future, even though in the past it was not immoral. Or do you finally realize that there is not a problem with looking at any picture, but it is the molestation itself that is wrong?

The child was never involved directly in this, so I don't see an issue with this photorealism that happened to chance be aligned with the looks of a real child.

So even though the virtual CP looks identical to the real CP you are okay with the virtual CP? What if they consist of the exact binary sequence? How can you even tell them apart? This essentially means that you are okay with child pornography, you just don't realize that this is what you are saying I think. You see, the binary sequence for any possible CP file already exists, even independently of the child it depicts being born. Two thousand years ago there was a binary sequence that would depict me being molested on camera, prior to my birth. This sequence is identical to the sequence that would be created by a digital camera if I was molested as a child and a digital camera took a picture of it. This sequence of binary digits has existed since the start of reality itself, indeed it has always existed and it always will exist, just as all numbers have always existed and will always exist, independent of even life itself. You essentially say that you are okay with people possessing this binary sequence so long as the binary sequence is not derived from a child actually being molested, but even after a child is molested you are okay with people having this binary sequence so long as the binary sequence existed prior to the child being molested. But all binary sequences exist and have existed for all time, just as all numbers exist and have existed for all time! This means that you are okay with all child pornography being viewed and distributed, because there is no such thing as a binary sequence that a camera brings into existence, just as there is not number that a human being has brought into existence, all numbers exist independently of any life at all, life only recognizes and names numbers but the numbers are not created by life.

The main point to take from this is that a picture of a child is not a child, it is a really large number, a really large number that has existed since the start of time and which will continue to exist for eternity. Your issue has never been with really big numbers of any sort, your issue is with child molestation, and I agree with you it is wrong for people to molest children. But there is not such a tie between the molestation of a child and an image of CP, because if a photorealistic image of a child is created prior to the depicted child being born and molested on camera to obtain the same exact number, the same exact picture exists independently of the child, and there is no differentiation between the two pictures, they are the same number. Your anger has always been at the person who molests the child it has never been at the people looking at the pictures, but your emotions cloud your ability to see this.

306
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:16 am »
Quote from: abitpeckish on August 25, 2013, 10:30 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 08:26 pm
Quote
Look, this is definitely a complicated issue. Humans are complicated organisms. I submit, however, that as a general rule you don't need to expend this much effort every time you think of CP. CP is wrong. That's enough to say for now, at this point in our history.

So, don't think about the issue and just say no? Doesn't that ring a fucking bell ???

Again drawing illegitimate comparisons. Your reasoning capabilities have clearly been corrupted by your motivations.

It is not an illegitmate comparison at all. It isn't even a comparison. Not thinking about a subject and not talking about a subject and "Just say no" is ALWAYS wrong, it doesn't matter what the subject in reference is, the idea of mental self censorship and censorship of verbal expression of opinion and the idea that we should blindly hold to a belief without rational analysis exists independently of drugs and of CP and it is ALWAYS bad. You should not even stop thinking about serial killing and stop talking about serial killing and just say no to serial killing, you should think about serial killing and why it is wrong, you should talk about serial killing and how it is wrong and debate with anyone who thinks it is right, you should not just say no to serial killing you should be able to say why serial killing is wrong. There is no comparison, "just say no" exists independently of anything and it is always wrong.



Quote
Quote
What is the *general intent* behind the existence/propagation of photographs of the Holocaust? Does this match up with the general intent behind the existence/propagation of child pornography? Of course not. Intent *matters*, and neatly dismantels your attempted equivalence of the two.

That means you want to criminalize feelings and makes you the thought police.

What I said means no such thing. If you cannot parse the idea that intent draws a clear distinction between these two things, that is your failure and people need to realize that your opinion can be safely ignored in this category of discussion. You have forfeited your opinion from a serious discussion about this real problem that is happening today in the space of our shared reality.
[/quote]

Why not put my entire quote?

Quote
That means you want to criminalize feelings and makes you the thought police. Do you think if a neo nazi looks at a picture of the holocaust and it makes him happy to know so many Jews have been killed, do you think he should go to prison then? The equivalence is not attempted by me, it is something that exists in reality, you just decide to ignore it and pretend it does not exist so you can avoid cognitive dissonance.

If the intent of a Nazi looking at images of the holocaust is to derive pleasure from the extermination of the Jews, using your logic it should be highly illegal for said Nazi to look at the image, because of his intent. Having one set of rules for people who enjoy pictures of the holocaust and one set of rules for people who find such images to be disgusting means you want to be the thought police, plain and simple. If someone looks at pictures of the holocaust and they think "This is horrible!" you think it should not be illegal, but if they look at pictures of the holocaust and think "This is awesome!" then it should be illegal. You want to make the thoughts people have about external stimuli illegal, and this indeed means you are the fucking thought police.

Quote
You are deluding yourself. You are the primary cause of the emotional responses in this topic.

I am not the primary cause, the things I am saying are the primary cause. People cannot even bother to think about what I am saying because their emotional response to the subject is too strong, it clouds their mind and turns them into creatures hardly better than wild animals.

307
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:04 am »
Quote from: Kozmik on August 25, 2013, 08:58 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 08:23 pm
CP is already legal in half of the world.

So? Female circumcission is legal in certain countries; child slave labour is legal in certain countries; If you had kids would you be in favour of legalising cp everywhere because its not illegal in some other places? It is tempting to say, and this will make sense to a lot of people on sr, that because certain places have legalised some drugs we in the west should be doing the same, and I ofc would agree with that. But getting high is not the same as abusing vulnerable young persons. Theres as much chance of cp being legalised here in the uk as there is of us living in a democratic state, ie practically none.

If you note the person I replied to claimed that CP will never be legal, and I was merely informing him that CP is already legal in half of the world to view. I don't argue that because it is legal in half the world that it should be, I have other good logical reasons for why it should be, read the thread to hear them! However it is worth pointing out that in many developed countries it is legal to view CP, and that this should at least cause you to think that perhaps it is merely cultural conditioning that makes you so against the notion. For example, in Japan, CP being legal to view has popular support. If you were born in Japan, you would probably think it should be legal to view CP.

308
Off topic / Re: my PM to OZ about my history in the drug scene
« on: August 26, 2013, 06:40 am »
I am going to try to dig up some other old timers to share their stories as well, I am still in partial contact with a few of the core people from back in the day including one of the original members of Hive, they will have good stuff to share as well if I can get in touch with them in time and they want to.

309
Off topic / Re: HackBB, Tormail... Um Everyone READ THIS!!!
« on: August 25, 2013, 08:38 pm »
The feds didn't crack GPG unless you made a tiny key, your story sounds highly suspect to me but if it is really happened the first thing I would ask myself is "Did I actually send a private key via tormail?" and the second thing I would wonder if "I wonder if they MITM a public key exchange over tormail?!"

310
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 25, 2013, 08:31 pm »
Quote from: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 07:15 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 11:25 am
Quote from: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 11:05 am
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 10:55 am
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.

Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:

You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)

I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.

My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.

My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.

Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.

I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child?

No, that is not what I am implying.

I used the analogy of the actors as an example. An actor may see themselves raped tons of times in movies, yet they don't bear the emotional scars of the rape at a clinical level because the event never actually took place. There's no personalization of the incident as there is with real, forced interourse.

That being said, if by chance there was a photorealistic looking version of a child that was not made a priori, I would imagine that they would be humiliated--but they would not bear the scars as if they were used in filming (i.e. ACTUALLY raped)

To be even clearer:
I don't see a problem as long as no child (i.e. their physical being) is involved at all during the acts in which are depicted. It's a sexual deviance that would be frowned upon by many, but that would nullify my main concern: children developing maladaptive from the actions in which their physicality was involved.

I think you are not understanding the point I am making. You are being very clear, you don't have a problem with photorealistic virtual child porn as long as no actual real child is involved in the production of it. My argument is, what if someone makes photorealistic child porn, and at some point in the future a real child is born who grows up to look identical to the virtual child, and this child is by chance molested and photographed in such a way that real child porn identical to the virtual child porn comes into existence. No real child was harmed in the making of the virtual child porn or even involved with it, but in the future an identical image was made via the abuse of a real child. Do you think looking at the virtual porn is still okay, since no child was abused to produce it, even though it is visually identical to a picture that had a child abused to make it? Or do you think the once acceptable virtual CP becomes immoral to look at after the real CP is produced in the future, even though in the past it was not immoral. Or do you finally realize that there is not a problem with looking at any picture, but it is the molestation itself that is wrong?

311
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 25, 2013, 08:26 pm »
Quote
Look, this is definitely a complicated issue. Humans are complicated organisms. I submit, however, that as a general rule you don't need to expend this much effort every time you think of CP. CP is wrong. That's enough to say for now, at this point in our history.

So, don't think about the issue and just say no? Doesn't that ring a fucking bell ???

Quote
What is the *general intent* behind the existence/propagation of photographs of the Holocaust? Does this match up with the general intent behind the existence/propagation of child pornography? Of course not. Intent *matters*, and neatly dismantels your attempted equivalence of the two.

That means you want to criminalize feelings and makes you the thought police. Do you think if a neo nazi looks at a picture of the holocaust and it makes him happy to know so many Jews have been killed, do you think he should go to prison then? The equivalence is not attempted by me, it is something that exists in reality, you just decide to ignore it and pretend it does not exist so you can avoid cognitive dissonance.

Quote
This discussion in which you continue to bloviate uselessly. Do you think it's oriented toward promoting understanding and solving the problems presented? To me it appears you're basically navel-gazing.

I think is oriented toward educating people, but they are so emotional and angry that they cannot even think.

312
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 25, 2013, 08:23 pm »
Quote from: Kozmik on August 25, 2013, 03:12 pm
People who get turned on by kids cant help the way they feel. Just like if you get turned on by goats, or washing machines or whatever. But they do have the choice whether to act on those feelings or not. We should not censure people for what they feel, only for what they do. It is truly sad that apparently many adults can not relate to sex other adults, and it is a real tragedy to see the innocence of kids being traduced for the pleasure of adults. Sex (really good sex) has a lot to do with intimacy, and surely people who get off on kids are missing a great human experience. Perhaps someone will one day figure out how and why people come to regard kids as sex objects. Maybe they will also discover exactly what it is about domestic appliances too. I have to say I have a stunning vac.....all curves and a wonderful vaginal pink colour   not to mention the noises it makes when its sucking   wow

Cant see cp being legal any time soon if ever.

CP is already legal in half of the world.

313
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 25, 2013, 12:34 pm »
Quote from: Locker on August 25, 2013, 12:29 pm
Are there even any child porn sites left on the darkweb? I believe that most of them got removed, most of them were hosted on FreedomHosting.

Freenet is a massive cache of CP and it is distributed over 20,000 computers across the world and all of its nodes are protected with plausible deniability and encryption and a lot of it is in darknet mode so it resists total enumeration.

314
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 25, 2013, 12:27 pm »
Quote from: TheYowie on August 25, 2013, 12:11 pm
Seriously, this topic needs 20 mother-fucking pages of discussion?

I have a son under 10.  If you knowingly and actively view child porn, or virtual or imitation child porn, or fucking squirrels dressed as schoolkids, I will hunt you the fuck down.

Any questions?

So you want to put people in prison for looking at virtual child porn as well? Jesus fucking christ dude what the hell is wrong with you?! Do you think that Bart Simpson is abused all over again every time someone looks at cartoons with him in it? But really I can respect you to an extent, because you are essentially just coming right out and saying you want to be the thought police, without trying to make some shit up about protecting children from being abused all over again when their CP is viewed. Or do you think cartoons are abused? Or do you only mean photorealistic virtual CP? So you think photorealistic children have rights but not cartoon children they don't, but of course real children do.

Good God I am not cut out for this world at all I can not keep track of your insanities to even try to blend in if I wanted to. I don't know anything about the rights of cartoon characters, or the magical voodoo properties of photography, or how photorealistic a depicition of a fictional child needs to be before we treat it as a real child. In fact, I am kind of scared right now because I just watched an action movie, and someone shot a guy, and I am seriously concerned that SWAT is about to bust in my house and arrest my TV and send me to prison for harboring a fugitive. Jesus Christ it is the fucking twilight zone or something.

315
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 25, 2013, 11:25 am »
Quote from: Railgun on August 25, 2013, 11:05 am
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 25, 2013, 10:55 am
I am also going to take off after this post, but I will clarify my point for you.

Assuming that "virtual child porn" means a visual depiction that is totally photorealistic but generated via 3D rendering or painting, and "real child porn" is a photograph of molestation:

You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using real child porn as a reference. (CP A)
You are not okay with somebody making virtual child porn using a real child as a reference, even if the real child has never been molested. (CP B)
You are okay with somebody making virtual child porn without using a real child as a reference. (CP C)

I wonder then, what if by chance in the future a person is born who grows up to a certain age, and they look identical to the person in CP C? What if they are then molested in the same manner as depicted in CP C, such that if a photograph of the molestation is made, it is to the human eye identical to CP C? Does this retroactively make it immoral for CP C to have been created and viewed by pedophiles? Because in the past you said it was not, but now it is visually identical to real child pornography of a real child being molested.

My argument is that this shows that it has always been the production of real CP that you have an issue with and not the viewing of CP, your mind is just struggling to realize this.

My point is that there needn't be any real child involved because of the emotional damages that being in the act may involve. Actors can watch themselves be killed and fucked multiple times over yet not have a sincere break down at watching themselves in these acts. The reason being is that the person has not actually lived out these events. The actual event is the issue--not the images.

Yes this is what I have said the entire time. That is the same thing as saying it is the production of CP that is the issue, not the viewing of CP, at least that is how I interpret your last sentence.

I think I have just demonstrated that you are not actually concerned with people looking at real CP. Because you are not concerned about people looking at virtual CP that is photorealistic and depicts a child who does not exist being molested. But this brings up the question, what would happen if such a child came to exist in the future, and they were molested and photographed and the resulting real CP looked identical to the previously created virtual CP? The virtual CP was made prior to the child in the real CP even being born, it cannot possibly have caused anything bad to happen to the child in the real CP before the child was born. But just by chance the real child looks exactly like the child in the virtual CP, and just by chance they are molested on camera in such a way that the resulting CP is identical to the previous virtual CP. So now does the virtual CP become bad and the people who view it are evil sick fucks who need to be castrated, even though the people viewing it some number of years prior were perfectly morally okay? Or is it that the people viewing the real CP now are bad but the people viewing the virtual CP are still okay, even though the images are visually identical? Or is the real conclusion that it is not immoral for anyone to look at either the virtual CP or the real CP, and that the only immoral activity was the abuse of a child? 

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 249