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 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 249
556
So looking at pictures of people being abused without consent means that you should in real life be abused without consent. Gah. People like you reinforce one thing in my mind, and that one thing is that democracy is evil and dangerous. Fucking emotionally unstable irrational people are ten times worse than people who look at CP. Yeah I can imagine all the shit you said about a child being raped etc, doesn't it bother you that all research done indicates that making CP illegal to view results in more of that happening? You say you are against child molestation but then you argue for a policy that has been demonstrated to sharply increase child abuse rates. Please, I know you are suffering from mass hysteria and have little control over yourself, but try to keep your shit together a little better.

557
This made me sick to my stomach just reading the first post

If you in anyway support or actually DO NOT DISAPPROVE of CP you should suffer the worst punishment on earth

if SR was in anyway ever associated with such things I would leave and never come back. CP is f*** up and I think anyone who does not disapprove of it likely is suffering from some form of mental deficiency.

Nuff said

Wow that sounds like an extremely excessive reaction to reading the first post, I think perhaps you should go to the doctor correlation is not causation you know.

Quote
Why do you feel the need to get on the forum where I buy my weed and talk about killing and blowing up motherfuckers, gore porn, and all kinds of wackadoo fucking bug-nutty boyfucking deviant weirdness bro?

Well I keep seeing people calling for the death of people who view CP, and ironically for the pedos using the same security technology as they are using for drug transactions to have the feds overcome their security, and I just cannot help but point out that they are fucking idiots. I think a better question is why can't people seem to go more than ten minutes without expressing their disgust with, and desire to kill, anybody who has ever seen a naked picture of somebody under the age of 18?


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

Quote
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1] In medicine the term is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.[2][3]

A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.[4] Sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria.[5]

 dafuq is this suposed to prove

Nothing, I am just pointing out what the current situation in certain parts of the world is. There is a collective delusion that people viewing CP are a threat to society, and it has spread rapidly through rumors and fear. It is a perfect example of a contemporary case of mass hysteria.
thats it, i am done, your incredable idiocy has won.

Yeah I think I would stop trying to argue too if the only argument I had is that pictures of children are magical but other pictures are not.

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

Quote
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Quote
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.


Nice point, and although I think that they have many of the characteristics of confirmation bias (particularly: belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)),  I think mass hysteria is a better diagnosis. None of them are actually even finding any research or other evidence that agrees with them at all, and rather are saying they are right because they are right or calling people names, so since they have not actually even shown that they have found any actual evidence at all that confirms their beliefs, I think they cannot possibly be suffering from confirmation bias. 

Cognitive dissonance also seems to be a common trait though:

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

Quote
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.

This is demonstrated in the people who believe that it should be illegal to view CP because the children depicted are victimized and did not consent, but legal to view other images where the subjects depicted are victimized and did not consent. They clearly hold two opposing beliefs at the same time and therefor are obviously suffering from cognitive dissonance.

558
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Quote
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1] In medicine the term is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.[2][3]

A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.[4] Sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria.[5]

 dafuq is this suposed to prove

Nothing, I am just pointing out what the current situation in certain parts of the world is. There is a collective delusion that people viewing CP are a threat to society, and it has spread rapidly through rumors and fear. It is a perfect example of a contemporary case of mass hysteria.

559
Also in at least some cases I am sure you are wrong. There was a famous bank robbery several years ago where the robbers were decked out with automatic weapons and full body armor, and they got in a huge gun fight with the police while trying to escape. That was covered by the media legally, and the video was broadcast all over the place. All kinds of people in that video were victimized by these guys, they were shooting bullets everywhere, had just robbed a bank, and did all kinds of illegal shit that victimized people and it was all caught on film and broadcast via the media. So you think I am a bank robber because I watched this right, and I should go to jail for robbing a bank and getting in a massive gun fight with the police.

What about the assault on Rodney King, should I be charged with police brutality? I saw a video on the news a few days ago where there was a speeding car, should I get a speeding ticket? I saw pictures of the holocaust am I a war criminal? You say no to all of these things, but then if somebody looks at a video of a child being molested you say that they are abusing children in doing so. It makes no sense really, and it is apples to apples, videos are videos, crimes are crimes, watching videos of crimes is watching videos of crimes. Your problem is that you take two apples and say one is an orange.

In reply to JohnTheBaptist the only thing I really disagree with what you said is pedophiles being above average intelligence, most studies I have read say that they are below average intelligence and there is a strong correlation between childhood head injury and pedophilia.
there is no comparision between the above and cp, if i go into a bank, or any other public area i am aware that i will likely be caught on tape so to speak, i have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

So if somebody takes a child to a public area and molests them you think the resulting CP should be legal? Your argument just sucks man, you are trying to save something that cannot be saved. If you think CP should be illegal to view because it depicts people who are victimized without consent, you either must think that all images that depict people who are victimized without consent should be illegal to view, or you are suffering from cognitive dissonance and clearly irrational.

560
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Quote
Mass hysteria — other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior — in sociology and psychology refers to collective delusions of threats to society that spread rapidly through rumors and fear.[1]


561
omg its fucking joepedo. we haven't missed you at &Z btw you fucking nonse cunt.

Usually in life I find that the people who give arguments using various techniques (ie: analogy, reduction to absurdity, etc), and provide facts and citations for the facts, tend to be right, and the people who freak out and call people fucking nonse cunts and act like they are just inherently right without having to give any logical arguments or citations to research, are usually totally wrong and not using their logical abilities at all but rather are suffering from an acute manifestation of some hyper emotional disease.

562
Also in at least some cases I am sure you are wrong. There was a famous bank robbery several years ago where the robbers were decked out with automatic weapons and full body armor, and they got in a huge gun fight with the police while trying to escape. That was covered by the media legally, and the video was broadcast all over the place. All kinds of people in that video were victimized by these guys, they were shooting bullets everywhere, had just robbed a bank, and did all kinds of illegal shit that victimized people and it was all caught on film and broadcast via the media. So you think I am a bank robber because I watched this right, and I should go to jail for robbing a bank and getting in a massive gun fight with the police.

What about the assault on Rodney King, should I be charged with police brutality? I saw a video on the news a few days ago where there was a speeding car, should I get a speeding ticket? I saw pictures of the holocaust am I a war criminal? You say no to all of these things, but then if somebody looks at a video of a child being molested you say that they are abusing children in doing so. It makes no sense really, and it is apples to apples, videos are videos, crimes are crimes, watching videos of crimes is watching videos of crimes. Your problem is that you take two apples and say one is an orange.

In reply to JohnTheBaptist the only thing I really disagree with what you said is pedophiles being above average intelligence, most studies I have read say that they are below average intelligence and there is a strong correlation between childhood head injury and pedophilia.

563

I don't understand how I am stretching at all. The argument "Pictures that depict the victimization of those who do not consent to the illegal actions taken against them in the photographs should be illegal because of the lack of consent" clearly means that both child pornography and video footage of bank robberies should be illegal.

And that's where your argument is fatally flawed...

     I will play your game, and use your comparison against you.  Video footage depicting the victimization of a bank would likely be legally protected by the bank as proprietary information.  It would only legally have to be released by court-order; or willfully.  Also, consent laws apply to all persons and proprietary information obtained or filmed within the confines of any private property.  The bank would have to consent to those images being used in any public domain, so, by definition those images WOULD be illegal.  Shall we continue?

Tell me something, do you often compare apples to oranges? I suppose in your world; fruit is fruit.

Okay so you think child pornography possession should be a small copyright violation unless the depicted child agrees to put it into public domain or enough years pass that it automatically goes into the public domain? Because the only thing I can conclude from your new twist to this argument is that either people should have to go to prison for decades and register as sex offenders for downloading Spiderman movies, or people who download CP should be mostly left alone or maybe get sued by the children sometimes.

564
trying to compare cp to the war on drugs is like comparing prohabiton and the ban on murdering.
for me, it all boils down to the fact that CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT!

Banks don't consent to being robbed, and bank robberies are illegal, why don't you want to charge people who look at video footage of bank robberies? Your argument cannot possibly boil down to "children can not consent" because the principle behind that would be it should be illegal to look at images of crimes that involve a victim who did not consent, but you do not want to charge people for looking at bank robbery footage do you? So you are inconsistent and thus full of shit.

You're really stretching with your analogies.  Just thought I'd point that out, again.

I don't understand how I am stretching at all. The argument "Pictures that depict the victimization of those who do not consent to the illegal actions taken against them in the photographs should be illegal because of the lack of consent" clearly means that both child pornography and video footage of bank robberies should be illegal. Where is the stretching? There is no stretching, the issue is that the people who argue this don't really believe it, they are just making up excuses as to why they want to lock people up. When they are pressed to explain how the analogy does not work they usually just get upset and end up saying something such as "whatever, you are obviously wrong, this isn't even worth my time you fucking pedophile!".

565
trying to compare cp to the war on drugs is like comparing prohabiton and the ban on murdering.
for me, it all boils down to the fact that CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT!

Banks don't consent to being robbed, and bank robberies are illegal, why don't you want to charge people who look at video footage of bank robberies? Your argument cannot possibly boil down to "children can not consent" because the principle behind that would be it should be illegal to look at images of crimes that involve a victim who did not consent, but you do not want to charge people for looking at bank robbery footage do you? So you are inconsistent and thus full of shit.

566
cp being legal, and cp being moral are completely diferent things. for example just because it's legal for the westboro baptist church to protest funerals, the're still horible monsters posing as humans. in the same vein, just cause it's technically legal to view cp, doesn't mean you're not a danger to society and need to be put down before you fuck up someones life.

Studies show 16% of people who view CP are child molesters, although even this statistic is inflated. Other studies show 6% of men are rapists https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/. Where do you draw the line when it comes to precrime? Should all men be locked up to prevent the 6% who rape from doing so? If not then why should all people who view CP be locked up to prevent the "16%" who molest from doing so? At what % do you draw the line before you can justify precrime group punishments to yourself.

Do tell how you know the percentage of CP views whom are, or are not Child Molesters? This just made me LOL.

From this site (and other studies) that show how the government has systematically released baseless child pornography statistics and laundered them to make them appear to be legitimate despite the fact that they are based on nothing at all:

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.




I could also reference www.fd.org/pdf_lib/FJC2012/Child_Porn_Dangerousness.pdf which points out that the statistics include in many cases sexual contact with anyone under 18, and that in many of the cases the sexual contact was with people who are 16 years old, and that some studies have even counted prior sexual contact when the offender was under the age of 18 with people under the age of 18 in their statistics of percentages of child porn offenders who have had prior sexual contact with minors (which is why I say that even the 16% figure is inflated).

I could also give more weight to my previous statement of CP possession being legalized because of the internet causing more and more people to view it:

Quote
Most experts appear to agree ... The internet and technology continue to breed new species of child pornography offenders that do not represent the same risk as traditional offenders

567
Quote
Oh, wait a minute, is that doubt I'm reading?  For a second there, you seemed certain of yourself.

Yes I had a moment of doubt. I honestly don't know how much CP there is that depicts rape, I know next to none depicts snuff though. See, in knowing that you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about and knowing that you fabricated something directly out of your ass, I over reacted with my certainty that the vast majority of CP is from the Eastern European studios, although I imagine I am correct. I know that single studios in Ukraine and Russia produced several millions of softcore CP pictures, and that jailbait is a substantial percentage of all underage pornography, and that nudist photographs are also a substantial percentage of child pornography.

I know that there are at least several instances where toddlers were raped and young kids were abused violently in CP, but I don't know exactly how much of it is like this. I don't think that there are several millions of pictures of child porn snuff, not even close to it, I really doubt any type of CP can compete in vastness with the professional studios that used to operate out of Eastern Europe, and when you pad that with jailbait and nudism it makes your claim that almost all CP is snuff and rape sound absurd. Too bad it is illegal for anybody to actually research this and know for sure huh? My impression is certainly that only a small minority of CP falls into the category that you claimed almost all of it falls into, and that the vast majority of it falls into the category that I said it falls into. Neither of us is likely able to show citations for this one.

568
cp being legal, and cp being moral are completely diferent things. for example just because it's legal for the westboro baptist church to protest funerals, the're still horible monsters posing as humans. in the same vein, just cause it's technically legal to view cp, doesn't mean you're not a danger to society and need to be put down before you fuck up someones life.

Studies show 16% of people who view CP are child molesters, although even this statistic is inflated. Other studies show 6% of men are rapists https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/. Where do you draw the line when it comes to precrime? Should all men be locked up to prevent the 6% who rape from doing so? If not then why should all people who view CP be locked up to prevent the "16%" who molest from doing so? At what % do you draw the line before you can justify precrime group punishments to yourself.

569
I am a sick child rapist because I can identify trends and extrapolate them to the future?

Trends?  Freedom Hosting just got fuckin' took, son... Did you see that trend coming?

You're talking about the legal definition of ownership over digital media, not the legality of the digital media itself.

There are films of 5 year old's getting 50 year old cocks crammed up their tiny little holes, and you're trying to say the trend is going to steer towards global acceptance and legalization of such perversions?  I think you're high, bra.

Well currently the globe is sharply divided, about 50-50, between thinking people should be free to watch whatever they want and thinking that there should be thought police. Oddly enough many of the countries that are most vocal about how much freedom they have are the same ones that have thought police. It is also strange to realize that many of the countries with legalized drug possession also have legalized CP possession, it is like they understand freedom on a deeper level than the other countries and it is generally reflected in their policies.

570
Children don't have reason, they can't consent to their sexual imagery.

I'm sick of this retarded discussion. If I turn statist, I'll kill people for fucking discussing it.

CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE REASON.

Did the millions of dead Jews consent to you viewing images of the holocaust? So should we try you for war crimes? The debate isn't that it should be legal to abuse children and photograph it, primarily it is that it is not bad to look at or possess images.

Most CP is snuff / rape footage. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAH did you just pull that straight out of your ass or what?  The vast majority of CP consists of nude or semi nude minors posing in costumes with props and fake scenery, taken at professional studios in Russia and the Ukraine, with consent of parents and all children depicted, for money, and most of that was created semi-legally in the countries it was produced in. A lot of the rest consists of pictures at nudist communities and nude beaches in Europe, where you can walk around and see tons of naked kids but not take pictures of any of it. A lot of the rest consists of teenagers looking at their mirrors with their camera phones, taking pictures of themselves.

Of course there is still I imagine a ton of pictures of rape and toddlers being abused etc, but I very much doubt it is the majority and it sure as hell is not most.

Quote
If you were ass-raped by your dad as a kid, would you think it was okay for all of us to watch that?  Don't even answer, because there is only one answer.

If I was ass raped by my dad as a kid I would't want to put people in prison for viewing pictures of it, because they would have no effect on my life at all.

Quote
I'm all for saying 'fuck sensitivity', but you're debating the morality of the existence of child rape as something that is "okay to watch", so long as you didn't commit it.  But if you're watching it, aren't you fantasizing?  Isn't that what we do when we watch adult porn? 

So you think a fantasy should be illegal? Doesn't that mean you think a thought should be illegal? So you are in favor of thought police?

Quote
Wherever your mind is, it's not a good place guy.

I would say the same thing to you since you seem to think we should have thought police.

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 249