Silk Road forums

So, abusing children is wrong, but looking at pictures of people abusing children isn't? But how can you have one without the other?

How can you have banks without bank robbery? How can you have humans without murder? Should we ban banks to get rid of bank robbery? Should we ban humans to get rid of murder? Saying we must ban looking at child pornography to get rid of producing child pornography is as absurd as saying these other things.

How can you engage in your harmless picture viewing without a child being abused?

You cannot engage in harmless picture viewing without a child being abused (ignoring jailbait and nudist stuff). But there is something called an arrow of time. It moves forward. Children have already been abused in the past. Not looking at the pictures of the abuse makes them no less abused. The thing to look at here is cause and effect. You can engage in picture viewing without causing a child to be abused.

This personal freedom you are trying to defend only makes sense if you refuse to think about the whole chain of events. Yes, by viewing the picture you are not directly causing abuse, but its iimpossible for you to view the picture without that abuse taking place. (leaving aside drawings or convincing child robots)

So what it is impossible for somebody to look at a picture without the abuse depicted in the picture having taken place? The abuse already took place! Not looking at the picture doesn't make it go away. I am thinking about the whole chain of events, I think you might not be thinking about the order of events.

You keep gloating about the logical fallacies others are committing in this thread, in the grip of the strong emotions child abuse engenders. But you are flinging them out left right and centre. In particular, the argument you keep falling back on seems very much a false analogy:

      Child abuse is wrong >>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong
     
       Robbing banks is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of robbery is wrong

       The Holocaust is wrong>>>>so viewing pictures of it is wrong.

      (Reducing to absurdity, showing the premise of an argument leads to absurd conclusions)

       The key difference here is that people aren't robbing banks with the aim of making videos to share with fellow bank robbers, and egging each other on. The Holocaust wasn't committed with the aim of sharing the footage with other totalitarian states "hey Stalin check this out LOL"

It is an irrelevant difference. All are victim creating crimes and all are pictures of crimes with victims depicted. The analogy is solid.

You are also muddying the water somewhat with talk of 14 year old ages of consent, and sexually mature teenagers. This is a completely seperate issue from paedophilia. Throughout most of history a girl was considered a woman when she reached sexual maturity (ie began menstruating). However for legal purposes we find it necessary to draw a line, in most states either 14 or 16. In most cases courts will deal much more leniently with a 17 year old who has had sex with a 14 year old, than a 30 year old who did the same. This seems fair enough to me.

Seems more fair to me to lower the age of consent to something more reasonable. Some countries already have! A lot of them are even first world and highly populated .

I agree that there is a huge amount of media and societal hysteria about paedophilia, (watch Chris Morris's Brasseye episode about "paedogeddon" for a funny take on this). I get that not all people that view CP are child murderering monsters, or even child molesters.

Hell, even most of the inflated bullshit statistics from the crusaders agree that the majority of people viewing child porn are not child molesters and are not risks to children.

     The study you cite ("dozens" showing no correlation between legalising porn and increased sex crime, ONE showing the same for CP, the Czech one) seems kind of weak. Statistics from 1945-1989, then after 1989? Did any other major changes take place in Czech society between these two periods, that might affect a) the data and b) how the data was collected? On the internet, its fairly easy to find research that backs any position you care to take.  I don't think its clear whether the availability of CP effects the incidence of child abuse either way. I really don't think you can claim the evidence on your side, as you have done, several times in this thread, saying things along the lines of 'if you support restriction of CP you are actually increasing child abuse'.

It is not a single one showing the link with CP and reduced sex abuse of minors, also Japan and many other countries as well. Sure can find citations for either argument, I can also find instances where the people arguing the other way have fabricated data and published fraudulent documents so I know who to trust.     

You keep hitting the same argument, looking at a picture of as crime is not the same as committing it. Sure, but when producing the pictures of the crime is a major motivation for the crime, the viewer is complicit.

Although in a significant number of cases I imagine that producing pictures of the crime is a major motiviation (for example all of the commercial CP), I think that in a significant number of the cases producing a picture of the crime is a secondary motivation. Most people do not molest children just so they can take pictures of it, they molest children because they want to molest children and they take pictures of it because they can. And in any case, it is irrelevant.

If you watch it, you are complicit in its production.

that makes as much sense as saying if I look at pictures of the holocaust I am complicit in genocide. If somebody looks at a picture of a child being abused so fucking what they had nothing to do with it, probably didn't pay for it, probably nobody even knows they did it. how the fuck is that complicit in the production of it?

Complicit: Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime

So if it is the watching of the crime that makes someone complicit, then my argument about the holocaust stands. If you say that somebody participates in the crime by looking at pictures of it, then you are probably insane.

Yes, yes I know "huh? So if I watch a film of a bank robbery I'm complicit in that too am I?". No. These are two different situations as outlined above. The demand for the CP encourages the supply. This demand need not be monetary.

I already have given citations that there is no evidence for this, but I know you think citations to things on the internet are useless. Okay I have a proposal then. There is a technology called private information retrieval. It lets somebody get an item from a set of databases without the set of databases being able to tell the item they got out of it. If we have a bunch of databases containing CP and various other items, and people use PIR to get items out of the database, then nobody can determine the demand for any of the individual items in the database. This effectively completely hides the demand for any of the individual items in the database. Do you think that if CP is only legal to view if it is obtained from a PIR system that it is okay? Because that handles the demand problem perfectly, nobody will know the demand for child pornography and you cannot use it as your reason to argue against it if it is only distributed via PIR.

So, non exclusive ephebephile? You like dem young girls? But you'll take a grown up lady if that's all that's going? Well I guess we can all understand that. But, where do we draw the line? In our society we regard girls under 16, although their bodies (their nubile soft young bodies.....) might be physically mature, as too young to give meaningful consent, and so they fall under the protection of the law, against exploitation.
Obviously, on her 16 th  birthday, a girl doesn't suddenly change from a child into a woman, but we need these legal fictions for practical reasons.

Well I am pretty clearly attracted to girls at age 14, really I could probably even go somewhat lower than that on a case by case basis. I have no interest at all in anybody who is not at all sexually developed, so I do not qualify as being a pedophile. I am interested in females between tanner stage 4 and 5 I would say, which can range from 13 to indefinite age (some females never even get to stage 5). I don't feel such strong compulsion to have sex with any particular age group that I would bother trying to do anything illegal like sleeping with underage teenagers (not going to find me on to catch a predator, lol), and I still wonder at what age it is okay to have sex with somebody without causing them harm. I really doubt that age is 16 or 18 personally.

Ah fuck it....I'm just going to call you a nonce like everyone else. NONCE!

Damn you did such a good job being pretty rational and not foaming at the mouth and having decent arguments and not sounding like a fucking retard, don't throw it away now !

Quote from: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 09:19 am

Quote from: Festivalia on August 10, 2013, 09:15 am

This isn't even about morality; it's about idiocy. OP makes valid points about 'potential' cultural shock mechanisms which may or may not effect child abuse based on increased availability of Child Porn to satiate the predators. Beyond that, OP just digs himself a hole by mixing valid points with sheer stupidity.

No wonder no one is responding to you civilly when you act like your concept is fail-proof and at best are 'guessing' the fate of Child Porn within an unpredictable time frame.

I'm reading a lot of obvious search-engine use here, and a LOT self-righteousness in this thread on all sides.  I'd like to know what any of this has to do with Silk Road.  Albeit the 'Off Topic' board, this is more than off topic.  This topic has no place here, and if it did, the points would have been made by someone with less manic behavioral dysfunctions, and someone a bit more credible than the OP.

What makes me lack credibility ? And please explain how I am behaving manically, but the people ranting about hunting down and castrating and murdering people for looking at pictures are not? lol.

Because reading through your posts it is clear that you have a problem focusing on your main point which is trying to bring validity to a few things you read on the net. I literally just read through this thread in one shot, and upon doing so, I've come to the conclusion that you're just straight up trolling your own thread super-hard. Anyone on here can Google, copy, and paste the 'findings' you've posted to justify your argument, just like anyone can Google, copy, and paste the media that is in stark contrast to everything you chose to.

It boils down to this being an acute matter of opinion, and you're trying to make out to be an obtuse matter of fact; it isn't.

But I can also quote media that debunks the media that is in stark contrast to everything I chose to post.....

If we get away from the facts and research, which everybody arguing against me understandably seems to want to do, it becomes a matter of philosophy. I suppose then that my philosophy is that information should be free and we should respect the right to freedom of speech and nobody should be punished unless they hurt another person, and the people arguing against me have the philosophy that the governmnet should censor information and send people to prison for looking at pictures they find distasteful, freedom of speech doesn't apply to things they don't want people to say and if you don't agree with them you are a dirty pedophile child rapist who deserves to be hunted down and violently tortured, castrated and murdered.

Quote from: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 08:34 am

Quote from: novocaine on August 10, 2013, 08:28 am

Like looking at kiddy porn? We call you a rock spider.
Even if it is made legal you rock spiders will always have to hide under your rocks because the vast majority of the  population despises you cunts. Nothing will change that EVER.
I fantasize about finding rock spiders. The things I would do to you gets the heart racing.

Quote a  legal loopole if it makes you feel better about your miserable life, but you are dead if you cross my path.

Whoa we have a badass over here. Don't worry I have no plans to go to the UK why would I want to go to a surveillance state that has CCTV cameras and microphones covering it entirely?

Go find some sex offenders and kill them then brah, there are public registries man. Go hunt some down you fucking pussy I thought you want to go kill some people? Ah all talk and no action, big surprise, a real internet badass.

Fuck yeah!! straight to the back of the prison bus, seat reserved. high fives all round for the rock spider KILLER. Treated like royalty for the short 22 month stint. Something to do with being abused as a child and losing it and blacking out while smashing a rock spiders hard drive full of kiddy porn into his skull.\\

do it faggot

This isn't even about morality; it's about idiocy. OP makes valid points about 'potential' cultural shock mechanisms which may or may not effect child abuse based on increased availability of Child Porn to satiate the predators. Beyond that, OP just digs himself a hole by mixing valid points with sheer stupidity.

No wonder no one is responding to you civilly when you act like your concept is fail-proof and at best are 'guessing' the fate of Child Porn within an unpredictable time frame.

I'm reading a lot of obvious search-engine use here, and a LOT self-righteousness in this thread on all sides.  I'd like to know what any of this has to do with Silk Road.  Albeit the 'Off Topic' board, this is more than off topic.  This topic has no place here, and if it did, the points would have been made by someone with less manic behavioral dysfunctions, and someone a bit more credible than the OP.

What makes me lack credibility ? And please explain how I am behaving manically, but the people ranting about hunting down and castrating and murdering people for looking at pictures are not? lol.

It will never be legal in the US because if it is there will become a market for it, which would mean people would be actively seeking kids out to abuse for it.

www.fd.org/pdf_lib/FJC2012/Child_Porn_Dangerousness.pdf

The market thesis has no empirical support

"Have you ever read any of my posts where I show that CP is legal to possess in half of the world and how fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well? Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago lol. "

Sick fuck. Paedophile logic on display here. Of course it was consensual, didn't you see the way the 10 year old was flirting with me?

I said nothing but factual statements? One of the things I am noticing is that the biggest idiots and most rabid crusaders here use UK spellings, God your country must be completely over run with rabid retards huh? Maybe it is because you guys seem to have the most outlandish tabloids and they have brainwashed you exceptionally well.

Quote from: kmfkewm on August 10, 2013, 06:46 am

Do you know what the word renaissance means?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/renaissance

Quote

A rebirth or revival.

In their 'later years' ... not in their 'mid life years'.  Read before you rebuttal please.

I don't even understand the point of what you posted then. The only possible sense I could make from it is that you thought renaissance meant peak, but now that you don't appear to think this, I just wonder why you posted that?

Sorry bro I kind of already spent entirely too much time on this topic for Friday than I had originally intended. You however can continue to spend your Friday evening going on tirades and preaching the merits of molestation. I honestly have better shit to do.

See, for example, this is a strawman fallacy.