AnonTalk BBS — Discuss anything anonymously without registration.
Anonymous 1a1b45caed552f4da049537067d28a09 started this discussion 2 months (2008-10-12 01:32:44 UTC) ago:
Advertisement: Ask The Oracle any yes/no question about the future!
Anonymous fe5fda446bb41706cce9562060096dd8 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 01:38:50 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#68,700):
Putting a person in fucking prison "even" if he had tons of child porn is just fucking insane.
This kind of thing makes me so fucking mad.
Anonymous 1a1b45caed552f4da049537067d28a09 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 01:43:28 UTC) ago, 5 minutes later (#68,702):
Putting anyone in prison because they didn't secure their OS properly is even more fucked up.
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 01:56:13 UTC) ago, 13 minutes later (#68,703):
@68,700Even if he had tons?
What the fuck?
It's illegal for a reason.
Anonymous fe5fda446bb41706cce9562060096dd8 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:00:49 UTC) ago, 5 minutes later (#68,705):
@68,703And what reason is that?
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:08:24 UTC) ago, 8 minutes later (#68,706):
@68,705Are you implying that child pornography should be legal to possess?
If we can agree that CP = child abuse, then the reasons are numerous and fairly obvious.
If you don't agree then you, sir, are living in a bubble.
Anonymous fe5fda446bb41706cce9562060096dd8 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:11:06 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#68,709):
@68,706> If we can agree that CP = child abuseWe can't. Keeping a copy of it doesn't hurt the child.
Anonymous 1a1b45caed552f4da049537067d28a09 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:11:26 UTC) ago, 20 seconds later (#68,710):
@68,706I think what he's saying is that possessing a record of the crime is not the same as commiting the crime. And even if it was, if you're not the one who actually possesses it (like in the case I linked to), then there is
gross injustice.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:13:50 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#68,712):
@68,706You're a small-minded idiot. I don't condone CP by any means, but if looking at CP makes you guilty of child abuse, then why doesn't looking at pictures of murdered corpses make you a murderer?
It's the courts ignoring simple logic like that in their bid to protect the children from everything including their own shadows, that allows people to get shafted for relatively small things. And they go after the viewers as opposed to the producers, because IT'S EASIER.
Lazy, ignorant law enforcement at it's best.
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:14:16 UTC) ago, 26 seconds later (#68,713):
@68,706Okay, I'm definitely not a pedophile, but I have
extremely strong feelings on this issue. Let me be clear — should child pornography, or
any information of any sort, be legal to possess? The answer is:
absolutely, and without exception.Child pornography does NOT equal child abuse. I'm all for fighting child abuse and protecting children from molesters, but
not at the price of sacrificing freedom of speech and freedom of information. If it comes to that, then fuck it, I'd rather see a few kids get offed. Granting governments the power to regulate what information it is legal for their citizens to possess will eventually lead to more dead kids in the long run, anyway.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:18:37 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,714):
@68,710What I like is how there was a severe miscarriage of justice that was completely and totally ignored, and then they forced him to take a plea bargain with the charge of (get this) distributing adult pornography to minors. It's fucking sickening that they gave him a choice of jail + buttrape for life, or being charged with something that 99% of high-school boys are guilty of: getting a playboy for them and their mates to look at.
I can't even put into words how ridiculous and depressing America's antics are. I don't even live there and I still don't feel safe.
Anonymous 1a1b45caed552f4da049537067d28a09 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:21:16 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#68,715):
Someone should find that retarded prosecutor's own machine and do the same to him…wonder what he'd be saying then? :)
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:27:42 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#68,720):
@68,712Very well, can we agree on the creation of CP being child abuse.
Does it not follow that allowing photos of this to roam freely on the internet would act only as desensitization of the public's view of the crime?
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:37:59 UTC) ago, 10 minutes later (#68,723):
@68,720The creation is only in certain circumstances. Take Vicky, for example. Common consensus is that she enjoyed her dad's "attentions" immensely, and only years later after someone TOLD her she should be traumatized, did she start making bad noise about it. I don't know how accurate this is having never seen her videos before, but I've seen it said a lot.
If it's an 8 year old and they're crying and obviously don't want to be there, then yes, it's abuse. If it's a horny 12 year old that really wants to feel her daddy's cock inside her, then no it's not abuse. In either case, why do they go after the people who LOOK AT IT as opposed to the people who MAKE IT? Because it's easier, cheaper, and quicker. Like I said, lazy law enforcement. Simply looking at it should not be a crime, for the same reason looking at pics of a murder scene isn't. And don't claim that downloading it for free "helps the industry", because the law states that downloading such things as MUSIC and MOVIES does not HELP the industry, it HURTS it. It can only be one way or the other, not both, but people ignore this because…. well pretty much because they just don't think it's worth thinking about.
In relation to your second point - and so what if it is desensetizing? Last time I checked, desensetization is not a crime.
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:41:38 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,724):
@68,720> Very well, can we agree on the creation of CP being child abuse. In the majority of cases, yes. It would be dishonest of me to assert otherwise, despite the fact that I think that states should have no power to criminalize mere possession of the CP.
> Does it not follow that allowing photos of this to roam freely on the internet would act only as desensitization of the public's view of the crime?I'm not certain that I agree that allowing the spread of child pornography would desensitize people to the crime. People are not desensitized to murder due to the fact that it is legal to possess images of it, and a legalization of murder is not imminent as a result of it being legal to possess photos or videos of murders.
However, this isn't even the point that needs to be made. I'll happily assume for the sake of argument that distributing child porn
does have negative effects on society. But even if this point is true, it is not worth violating the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
For instance, I listen exclusively to classical music. I don't like rap music, and I find little in it of redeeming musical or social value. In fact, I think it's close to pernicious. However, even if I were convinced that society would be better of without rap music, I would
never support the criminalization of rap music. This is because society is
always better off with freedom of speech than with censorship. If you don't protect despicable information (murder videos, CP videos, etc.) then you aren't protecting any information.
Don't get me wrong. I don't mind at all that the FBI and other organizations scour over those videos to try to find the perpetrators. I wish them luck, and I feel sorry for the children in CP who have really been sexually assaulted. It's horrid. However, it's not worth destroying Western culture (freedom of conscience, freedom of speech) in order to stop it. The cure is worse than the disease.
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 02:56:27 UTC) ago, 15 minutes later (#68,726):
@68,723> If it's a horny 12 year old that really wants to feel her daddy's cock inside her……
THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN!Jesus, that is single handedly the first time anyone has ever, EVER shocked me on the internet.
I can see your own preferences are clouding your judgement. So, tell me how exactly one goes about determining a pre-pubescent childs arousal and whether or not they're committed to the act in a grainy video? Shall we get them to sign something? Or maybe have officials in the room presiding over the event?
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:02:56 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#68,728):
@68,726> THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN!Of course it doesn't, what was I thinking.
> Jesus, that is single handedly the first time anyone has ever, EVER shocked me on the internet.Haven't been on the internet long then, I take it.
> I can see your own preferences are clouding your judgement.Nice ad hominem attack there. The last resort of someone who can't logically dissect an argument - attack the PERSON instead. For the record, my preferences do not move in the directions you're suggesting, I just figured we were having an intelligent discussion and looking at all the possibilities. I also see I was mistaken there.
> So, tell me how exactly one goes about determining a pre-pubescent12 is pubescent, most of the time. If you don't like 12, then how's 13? That's pubescent nearly all of the time.
> childs arousalBecause we all know people under the age of 18 never become aroused, right?
> and whether or not they're committed to the act in a grainy video?Wait a minute, so actions DON'T speak louder than words?
> Shall we get them to sign something? Or maybe have officials in the room presiding over the event?Good ideas, those. Too bad people would still insist they were incorrect and there was no way A CHILD ZOMG could become aroused. Using pretty much the same arguments you've posed, and damn anyone who says otherwise because they must be pedos too?
You know that little box your mind is in? Try thinking outside it. At least try not to insult those that can, if you can't yourself.
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:34:29 UTC) ago, 32 minutes later (#68,741):
@68,728I believe the very first thing you said to me was:
> You're a small-minded idiot.Seems 'ad hominem' was your first resort.
I'm not denying a child can be aroused. I can remember enough terrifyingly awkward hard-ons to affirm this. But this influx of hormones is not the same as adult arousal, and therefore should not be treated in the same way. If a 12 year-old girl is lusting after her father's cock, as you put it, she needs psychiactric evaluation, not a good solid fucking on camera.
I suppose Vicky cried wolf for fame and fortune right?
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:36:36 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#68,742):
@68,741> If a 12 year-old girl is lusting after her father's cock, as you put it, she needs psychiactric evaluation, not a good solid fucking on camera.I'm on the other side of this argument, but I feel obliged to comment that you are making some strong points.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:43:58 UTC) ago, 7 minutes later (#68,747):
@68,741> I believe the very first thing you said to me was:> Seems 'ad hominem' was your first resort.No, it wasn't. You've proven that you're incapable of thinking outside the rigid ideals of what a sociological "norm" is. In my definition that makes you small-minded, and in my opinion someone who is small-minded is an idiot. It's only ad hominem if it's baseless. Your accusation of me was that I was obviously attracted to children - but where's your evidence? Pointing out possibilities is not the same thing as saying "i like to fuck kids".
> I'm not denying a child can be aroused.Yes, you are.
> I can remember enough terrifyingly awkward hard-ons to affirm this.Why am I not at all surprised or confused by your use of the word "terrifying"?
> But this influx of hormones is not the same as adult arousal,Why not? What is different, biologically? Arousal is precipitated by an influx of hormones, a lot of the time happening at inappropriate moments. If it was as you say it is, then arousal in children and arousal in adults would have two separate distinct biological precursors. They don't.
> and therefore should not be treated in the same way.WHY NOT? I'm getting a little tired of your statements of what should and should not be done, especially considering you've got absolutely no solid backing for your arguments. WHY should arousal in children be treated as something inappropriate? Tell me, please, I'm dying to know why, when I jacked off at age 13, I was unwittingly being severely inappropriate.
> If a 12 year-old girl is lusting after her father's cock, as you put it, she needs psychiactric evaluation,Why? And don't just say "because it's wrong", because that's not an argument.
> not a good solid fucking on camera.I agree, that's not a good idea. I don't agree with you as to WHY it isn't a good idea though.
> I suppose Vicky cried wolf for fame and fortune right?I wouldn't be at all surprised. She certainly got fame. Fortune will be forthcoming after Fox decide to make a mini-series about her, with her dad as an evil rapist and her as an innocent oblivious child.
Anonymous 1a1b45caed552f4da049537067d28a09 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:45:54 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#68,749):
It doesn't matter whether the laws concerning CP are right or not in this case, given that he didn't do it. Regardless of whether you think CP is an awful crime or not, this innocent man faced almost 100 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit due to poor security in his OS, and that is injustice.
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:45:59 UTC) ago, 5 seconds later (#68,750):
@68,742The other side being?
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:54:45 UTC) ago, 9 minutes later (#68,755):
@68,749> and that is injustice.That was clearly ignored though, in the US of A's perverted quest to make examples of people who are otherwise not breaking any laws. They're not too far away from enforcing the laws they know everyone breaks (recording television shows, for example) simply so they can feel they're doing some good in the world.
Meanwhile, people are getting robbed, beaten, shot, raped and stabbed by the hundreds on the streets - you don't see a massive mobilization task force created to stop that, do you? Law enforcement is only interested in appearances, not actual crime-stopping. It's too difficult and dangerous.
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 03:57:09 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#68,757):
@68,747I'm going to have to jump to anon's defense on this point, because I think that he made a strong point.
Putting aside all notions of societal norms, we can probably agree that incest between a father and his (sexually immature) daughter is biologically unnatural. There are biological mechanisms (not mere cultural ones) in place that act to discourage this sort of thing from happening, and from an evolutionary standpoint, the existence of these mechanisms makes sense (and in fact, should be expected).
A twelve-year old girl who is begging for daddy to fuck her didn't have that idea occur to her
sua sponte. It was daddy who was violating an incest taboo that is probably part of our basic psychology. I don't have any empirical evidence proving that it is harmful (where the fuck would we get a sample for that, anyway?) but in this case, I think that it's not unreasonable to think that it is harmful.
Think of the amount of moral authority a father has over a young child. Even if the girl was factually consenting to sex (or even at the point of actively soliciting it), the power balance is just unconscionable.
Seriously, are you really ambivalent to the idea of having been seduced and fucked by your father when were twelve?
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:00:49 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,758):
@68,750I am opposed to the notion that possession of any information should ever be a crime — with respect to that argument and its progeny, we are adversaries.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:02:12 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#68,759):
@68,757> Seriously, are you really ambivalent to the idea of having been seduced and fucked by your father when were twelve?No, because I'm a dude, and that just would have been wrong.
But I do like how you insinuate the father would be the one doing the seducing. People need to dispose of this idea that 12, 13 year olds are innocent and have no idea how to manipulate people. There's plenty of examples of 13 year olds getting one of their older peers or even relatives drunk so they would fuck them. You try to make a point but you're still stuck in the INCEST IS BAD, SEX BELOW THE AGE OF 18 IS BAD mindset. Therefore your argument is of no interest to me.
Anonymous 1a1b45caed552f4da049537067d28a09 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:04:57 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#68,760):
@68,759He never said "below 18", he said biologically immature (presumably meaning prepubescent).
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:08:08 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#68,762):
@68,760In that case I agree. Sex with a BIOLOGICALLY IMMATURE RELATIVE would be bad, for all sorts of reasons not limited to the moral ones.
See, I was talking about the age of 12 and up though. Most girls have started puberty by 12, and pretty much all of them have by 13. That makes them biologically capable.
So I fail to see what his argument says in contradiction to mine.
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:11:00 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#68,763):
@68,747In my opinion someone who supports CP has no reason for doing so unless her or she is a pedophile. If you claim to not be a pedophile, why are you flying the flag for freedom of CP?
I support illegal music downloading because I like music. If I didn't like music; I wouldn't give a fuck. This is what I based my opinion of your preference on.
If you can explain this to me, I will base future replies on it.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:18:02 UTC) ago, 7 minutes later (#68,765):
@68,763Easy. I don't support CP, I never said I DID support CP, and I never will.
What I HAVE said is that sex between someone who is "underaged" and someone who is a fair bit older is not necessarily child abuse, and neither is "CP" where the girl is enjoying herself (if it exists). I also have stated my mirth at constant statements that young girls "shouldn't be aroused", "can't be aroused", "can't understand sex" etc. To take from that that I like CP requires a pretty vivid and somewhat twisted imagination.
And no. You don't download music because you like it, you download it because you like it and you're a cheapskate who doesn't feel like paying for it - I do the same. I don't download OR buy CP though, so your argument is somewhat invalid.
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:19:15 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#68,766):
@68,763Here's some famous copypasta for you:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
~ Voltaire"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
~ Noam Chomsky Anonymous a5f8ed35d20499ddffe653311d4b3111 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:24:53 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#68,767):
@68,747> Tell me, please, I'm dying to know why, when I jacked off at age 13, I was unwittingly being severely inappropriate.More than that, what the fuck am I supposed to do? I started jacking off at the oh so tender age of five or seven, was I wildly inappropriate, "obviously" abused at some point or another, or what? I'm just dying to know, oh great Swami! Please teller of tales, enlighten this poor traveler on the path of understanding and tell all…
As for Vicky, from what I've heard she was wildy complict in the acts and the videos—what confuses me though is various reports I've read claim the Feds uncovered the videos having been deleted from HER computer….Hmmmm…now THAT stikes me as being significant somehow.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:25:45 UTC) ago, 52 seconds later (#68,769):
@68,766Don't waste your time. He's convinced he's correct and that anyone that disagrees with him is a pedophile. I'm not sure why I'm suprised - people like him comprise the majority of the population of America, and to a lesser extent the other America-following countries of the world.
Basically, it's a free country as long as you don't hold a minority opinion, in which case you're a filthy degenerate who should be jailed.
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:29:18 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,771):
@68,765We can agree on one thing; I am a cheapskate.
If you held a gun to a girl's head and told her to smile, she would. If you held one to her mom's head, the girl would do anything you told her to. This is something we can't see or know about in CP, so it should not be up to the viewer's discretion whether it is a coerced 'performance' or genuine participation.
And would a pedophile even care?
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:33:29 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,773):
@68759> No, because I'm a dude, and that just would have been wrong.That's an interesting answer. Please explain why father-son incest would be "just wrong". Be sure to do it in such a way that doesn't make father-
daughter incest "just wrong", especially given that both of these activities are arguably unnatural and in contravention of biological mechanisms designed to prevent them from occurring. I will be surprised if you can give an answer consistent with your positions.
> People need to dispose of this idea that 12, 13 year olds are innocent and have no idea how to manipulate people. There's plenty of examples of 13 year olds getting one of their older peers or even relatives drunk so they would fuck them.Sure, I agree that they aren't innocent. If I could have gotten laid at twelve, I would have. However, not with my mother or father — and it would have been unconscionable to them to permit it. Parents are supposed to be wiser than their twelve-year old kids.
> You try to make a point but you're still stuck in the INCEST IS BAD, SEX BELOW THE AGE OF 18 IS BAD mindset.You don't know what my "mindset" is, and anyway, it's irrelevant to my arguments. I think that incest is unnatural, but I don't care about it unless there is a power balance (like my example of you getting fucked by your dad). If two fifteen-year old brothers want to get incestuous with each other,
I don't fucking care, even if I think that it's strange.
I certainly don't have a problem with underage sex, either. I had plenty of it. I don't think that it's a big deal when kids do it — as long as there's not a power balance that leads to kids getting exploited. A thirty-year old (male) and a thirteen-year old have a pretty inherent power imbalance. A thirteen-year old and a six-year old have an inherent power imbalance. If two eight-year olds experiment with each other sexually, on the other hand, I don't think that it's worth kicking up a fuss over. That shit
had to have happened all the time in our evolutionary history.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:33:45 UTC) ago, 16 seconds later (#68,774):
@68,771> If you held a gun to a girl's head and told her to smile, she would. If you held one to her mom's head, the girl would do anything you told her to. This is something we can't see or know about in CP, so it should not be up to the viewer's discretion whether it is a coerced 'performance' or genuine participation.So what you're saying is the authorities should decide, on the same lack of evidence one way or the other, that it's coercion and abuse? If that's the case, what's to stop them doing the same for any media one way or the other? That's a dangerously slippery slope, and I'm disappointed that there's people that are still ignorant enough to support measures such as these.
> And would a pedophile even care?I'm not qualified to answer that, I suggest you ask an actual pedophile, not just someone you disagree with.
Anonymous a5f8ed35d20499ddffe653311d4b3111 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:43:01 UTC) ago, 9 minutes later (#68,780):
@68,771Pedophiles? Yes, yes they would.
Child-rapists? No they wouldn't care at all as long as their lust\fetish is sated.
What's the difference you ask?
Simple—a pedophile actually cares about the one he or she is with and sincerely wants the child to enjoy themselves as much as they do. What they're secretly hoping for is to discover someone just as sexually curious and horny as they themselves were at that young age and be the adult they hoped to find then.
The child-rapist distances himself from what he or she does and only wants to get off and back to living their life. They only see the child as a lust object and as such the child doesn't exist for them beyond the act, whatever it may be. If they had access to an adult they would behave the same way usually, but choose to go after an "easier" target. They're sick at their core.
Some hundred years ago we would call the pedophile a father or a mother, people thought nothing of it because the pedophile would marry their lovers. Up until recently we called the child-rapists a psychopath. How things have changed…
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:46:01 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#68,781):
@68,773> That's an interesting answer. Please explain why father-son incest would be "just wrong". Be sure to do it in such a way that doesn't make father-daughter incest "just wrong", especially given that both of these activities are arguably unnatural and in contravention of biological mechanisms designed to prevent them from occurring. I will be surprised if you can give an answer consistent with your positions.No problem. It would have been just wrong for me, as I a) have no sexual interest in my father and b) have no sexual interest in men in general. So yes, if my father had had sex with me it would have been wrong on the basis of those two points.
> Sure, I agree that they aren't innocent. If I could have gotten laid at twelve, I would have. However, not with my mother or father — and it would have been unconscionable to them to permit it.Why? Plenty of parents do, and plenty make sure their kid is doing it safely, is protected, etc. Are they all bad people?
> You don't know what my "mindset" is, and anyway,"And anyway" is used by people who have been caught out and are now trying to justify their actions/comments. You're not helping yourself.
> it's irrelevant to my arguments. I think that incest is unnatural, but I don't care about it unless there is a power balance (like my example of you getting fucked by your dad).So you don't care until it violates one of your arbitrary moral boundaries, at which point you start saying how wrong it is and how it should be illegal?
Sorry, but what the fuck are you trying to argue here? I'm starting to become puzzled as to your supposition.
> If two fifteen-year old brothers want to get incestuous with each other, I don't fucking care, even if I think that it's strange.You shouldn't even have an opinion as at the end of the day it has nothing to do with you, a point most people care to ignore.
> I certainly don't have a problem with underage sex, either.Yes, you clearly don't at all.
> I had plenty of it. I don't think that it's a big deal when kids do it — as long as there's not a power balance that leads to kids getting exploited.At this point, I can draw that your idea of "exploitation" is any person below a certain age having relations with anyone above a certain age. I'm sorry but as a definition that's too broad and therefore unable to be validly applied as an argument.
> A thirty-year old (male) and a thirteen-year old have a pretty inherent power imbalance.Why? If they're only doing it for their own pleasure, then there's no power imbalance. In any case, the 13 year old could get the 30 year old in trouble, so the ball is really in THEIR court, which sortof tips your whole idea of a power imbalance on it's head, doesn't it?
Also, I note you stated the older participant is the male. What if the roles were reversed and the 30 year old were female? Would that be ok to you?
> A thirteen-year old and a six-year old have an inherent power imbalance.The 6 year old is physically unprepared to have sex, so that's wrong for entirely different reasons than the point you're trying to make. Still, six year olds masturbate frequently, all they know is that it feels really good.
> If two eight-year olds experiment with each other sexually, on the other hand, I don't think that it's worth kicking up a fuss over.Somehow I doubt that, your argument at the moment is all over the shop. I think you don't know WHAT you believe and are just regurgitating piece-meal what you've been brought up to believe. It's pretty sad, really, when you can't even parrot correctly.
> That shit had to have happened all the time in our evolutionary history.Still happens, it's actually thought to be an important part of sexual development, and the cementing of a sexual identity. It allows kids to identify that they are one way, and the other person is a different way (like when a boy and a girl play doctor). As it goes along they are later able to apply the labels to themselves and other - "male" and "female", in that example.
However, the world is filled with people who seem to think it's dirty, horrible, reprehensible and deserving of hardcore therapy - which ironically is usually what causes the psychological damage exhibited later in life anyway.
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:46:37 UTC) ago, 36 seconds later (#68,783):
@68,774> So what you're saying is the authorities should decide, on the same lack of evidence one way or the other, that it's coercion and abuse?No, not at all. The authorities have already decided it's illegal, why would they need to decide whether it is consensual or not?
> what's to stop them doing the same for any media one way or the other?What?! Unheard of!
> I'm not qualified to answer thatI know, and neither am I. I simply asked for your opinion.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:51:08 UTC) ago, 5 minutes later (#68,785):
@68,783So you're saying it's ok for them to go after the people who watch/view CP as they have decided that it is illegal, and it ends there?
Wow. I'd hate to live under you as a ruler.
Anonymous 5103d12c7544b0a1baec45a4e4b24409 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 04:58:22 UTC) ago, 7 minutes later (#68,788):
@68,785I'd like to believe they at least try and trace it back to the source (possible?).
If it was illegal for no discernible reason, then yes, it would be wrong to prosecute on the basis of posession.
But, it's NOT illegal for absolutely no reason, so why bother arguing about the legality of it?
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 05:12:38 UTC) ago, 14 minutes later (#68,795):
@68,788> I'd like to believe they at least try and trace it back to the source (possible?).Hahahahaha. Right, ok. Keep believing in mythological occurrences.
> If it was illegal for no discernible reason, then yes, it would be wrong to prosecute on the basis of posession.Ok.
> But, it's NOT illegal for absolutely no reason, so why bother arguing about the legality of it?So why is looking at it illegal? Looking at pictures of murder isn't illegal. Looking at pictures of rape isn't illegal. Looking at pictures of theft isn't illegal.
But looking at a 13 year old getting off with her brother is?
Right. Nice logic there.
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 05:16:10 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,801):
> No problem. It would have been just wrong for me, as I a) have no sexual interest in my father and b) have no sexual interest in men in general. So yes, if my father had had sex with me it would have been wrong on the basis of those two points.
Right. But it would be reasonable to assume that "Vicky" did not have an latent sexual interest in her father, either. Suppose that your father had had a sexual interest in you. Could he have leveraged his position as a moral authority figure to seduce you over the years of your childhood, and encouraged you into sexual congress (note that I am not referring just to penetrative sex)? I think it likely. Would this have been exploitative?
> Why? Plenty of parents do, and plenty make sure their kid is doing it safely, is protected, etc. Are they all bad people?
I think that you misunderstood me. I don't care if parents facilitate their child having sex, but not having incestuous sex with the parents.
> "And anyway" is used by people who have been caught out and are now trying to justify their actions/comments.
No. "And anyway" means that the following point stands independent of the previous one. You ought to confine yourself to responding to literal arguments, instead of building up strawmen and knocking them down.
> So you don't care until it violates one of your arbitrary moral boundaries, at which point you start saying how wrong it is and how it should be illegal?
I did not make an arbitrary boundary. I made a boundary based on power imbalances. I'm of the opinion that, if one of your parents wished, they could have led you into an incestuous relationship, and that this would not necessarily have been in your interest, even if it were pleasurable to you at the time.
> At this point, I can draw that your idea of "exploitation" is any person below a certain age having relations with anyone above a certain age. I'm sorry but as a definition that's too broad and therefore unable to be validly applied as an argument.
It is not a causal relationship, but it is close. Take a look at your own position under a microscope. If you were a parent, would you have a problem with an adult male seducing your pre-adolescent daughter or son? Note that I am not necessarily assuming penetrative sex in this hypothesis. Do you think that you should have legal recourse if your daughter's Girl Scout (or whatever) leader encouraged her into having pleasurable sexual relations with him, or a full-fledged romantic relationship?
> Why? If they're only doing it for their own pleasure, then there's no power imbalance. In any case, the 13 year old could get the 30 year old in trouble, so the ball is really in THEIR court, which sortof tips your whole idea of a power imbalance on it's head, doesn't it?
I disagree. Adults have an enormous psychological advantage over children, who are socialized to be deferential, to obey, and to trust the judgment of adults. I agree that it is possible that such a relationship could exist without exploitation, but the potential for exploitation is very high.
> Also, I note you stated the older participant is the male. What if the roles were reversed and the 30 year old were female? Would that be ok to you?
I did make that distinction, and you are right to challenge me on it. I suppose that I have a bias just based on the physiognomy of male/female sexual intercourse — i.e., the inherently receptive aspect of the mechanics of female sex.
> Somehow I doubt that, your argument at the moment is all over the shop. I think you don't know WHAT you believe and are just regurgitating piece-meal what you've been brought up to believe.
No, the consistent element is the notion of the power imbalance. You might see things my way if you will concede that even mutually consensual, mutually pleasurable sexual relations involving children can have undesirable effects. I refer again to the example of a boy's incest with a dad — even if it were pleasurable for you at the time, aren't you at least sort of glad that it didn't happen?
> It's pretty sad, really, when you can't even parrot correctly.
Another strawman. Just keep setting 'em up and knocking 'em down.
> However, the world is filled with people who seem to think it's dirty, horrible, reprehensible and deserving of hardcore therapy - which ironically is usually what causes the psychological damage exhibited later in life anyway.
We are in strong agreement on this point, at least.
Anonymous e104bc605ffb8b593b6efb2b12b833cb replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 05:21:26 UTC) ago, 5 minutes later (#68,806):
@68,801I give up. You've decided what's right and wrong for completely arbitrary reasons and I'm wasting my time trying to get you to see sense in a logical argument. I'm wasting my energy trying to convince you so I'm just going to stop and put it towards something a little more productive.
View this is a forfeit or an admission of loss, I don't care. I've got better things to do than beat my head against a brick wall of illogic.
Anonymous bb9886e160f310e297277746ca409e20 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-12 19:20:23 UTC) ago, 14 hours later (#68,970):
if it's 10 years for owning a copy of CP, then it's only logical to actually rape a child, since you're getting close to the same time in prison.
some laws are fucking stupid, try to actually STOP CP distribution, not ruin more lives.
Anonymous a5f8ed35d20499ddffe653311d4b3111 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-13 00:33:59 UTC) ago, 5 hours later (#69,077):
@68,970You're expecting
logic during a
witch hunt? Wow, that's very brave of you, unfortunately you're not seeing things through the miasma of superstition and emotion the lawmakers are using to write these kinds of laws.
Instead they're thinking to themselves that CP is a magical copy of the child's soul trapped forever watching as pervert after pervert faps away unable to do anything else but watch through the screen as you slake your horrific lusts. Surely you can agree that stopping this is much much more serious than catching the ones who are actually sexing up the child and producing the CP….
Anonymous 3e1993124042dc393c5bbfd8e6c69c11 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-13 12:55:47 UTC) ago, 12 hours later (#69,255):
I would much rather a few kids get raped than give governments or companies the keys to the internets and practically ultimate surveillance over the digital world, as well as the ability to imprison anyone for simply possessing particular information (without actually distributing or producing it). Even if I were raped as a kid (face it, it is still going to happen even with those "protections") I would still support full freedom of information for the internet and all individuals. The internet is waiting to be abused, and the name of combating pedophilia is the perfect excuse. "Think of the children!!!11"
Anonymous 6d92ee62fed788048f99fcdbe3a3a029 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-13 14:34:44 UTC) ago, 2 hours later (#69,267):
SICKENING.
Child Pornography is sickening. and YES i mean owning it and patricipating in it. If noone downloaded cp then it would be a LOT less common. Its common knowledge that once something is viewed many times, it becomes acceptable. What you people are doing is condoning cp, just by owning it. You are making people think it is acceptable, as long as it is annonymous. This is disgusting. I have always been one to stick up for pedophiles in jail. I believe that any pedophile caught ONLY looking at/owning cp should NOT go to jail, but some kind of rehabilitation centre. A place where he/she can work out these intense WRONG feelings and learn to not act on them.
These are WRONG feelings whether you wish it or not. It is not ok to prey on children, it is not ok to watch them where they play while touching urself, it is not ok to own images of them FULL STOP. Unless they are a family member or child of a friend it is NOT ok. Certainly not sexual pictures, and that applies to any child.
This, for the anon who mentioned that one girl liked it until someone told her she should be traumatized. Do you honestly think you are not damaging these childrens lives forever? Let me place you into the mind of an abused child. I, myself was sexually abused when i was 4. I did enjoy it. That is embarassing and shameful to admit but i did. Because it felt nice. Just like playing with my dolls felt fun, and hugging my parents felt comforting. However, once i got back home the trauma started. "What did i just do? what do you call that? why did we do that? is that how ur supposed to show effection? Do i do that with my friends? family?" Those were just some of the questions that plagued my mind at 4 years of age when i should have been out playing and being naive. When i was around 9 years old i was severely depressed. I had already figured out what he did to me was wrong, but it wouldnt leave me. Everytime a man raised his voice it made me shake. I became very defensive over my body and when boys touched me i got afraid. I had very few friends because i didn't know how to talk to girls, because they were so happy and innocent and i felt like a monster. They avoided me because i wasnt like them anymore, i couldnt run and play and smile. They say children can see monsters, its true.
When i became a teenager it got worse. My first time having sex was terrifying. Not just for me. My boyfriend didn't know how to react when i knew exactly what to do and how to do it. He said i changed when we had sex, like the life drained out of my eyes and i was daydreaming into th distance. That's because i was. Sex didn't feel special. It didn't feel great. It felt horrible. Just routine. I feel empty when i have sex. Like im suddenly back in that room, with him. I cant stay in a relationship, because after a while they see that part of me. He turned me into a monster, i can never get my innocence back just because he decided to act on his feelings instead of control himself. It really isnt so hard, and if you manage it, you could save a little girl/boy from a life of shame. It really is in your hands, you cant expect a child who doesnt even grasp the idea of age to understand what sex is.
What that peadophile did to me wrecked my life. Now i am trying to fix it, by forgiving pedophiles and hoping they will help themselves and the children they're ruining the lives of. Seeing this rubbish, it makes me sad. You really have no idea the impact of what you do. I do understand that pedophiles arent monsters, you have unfortunately gained/been born with this attraction to children. I know it is not your fault, and i do know its not always sexual, i understand it is love, but just as i would give up someone i love to protect them, you should be doing the same.
Anonymous c6137e131fb3b9ac4f996fe7251ca90a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-14 06:20:55 UTC) ago, 16 hours later (#69,614):
@69,267> SICKENING.I agree.
> Child Pornography is sickening.Really, I agree.
> If noone downloaded cp then it would be a LOT less common.Well, if you mean the pornographic images themselves, then your statement is a tautology. However, it's never been clear to me how banning the possession of child porn is supposed to stop even one child from being abused.
> Its common knowledge that once something is viewed many times, it becomes acceptable.No, it isn't. I mean, that statement really isn't true. Lots of people look at videos of murders (I watched the hanging of Saddam Hussein) and do not feel that murder is acceptable. In fact, there are lots of vegetarians who became that way
after watching videos of slaughterhouses (imagine that!).
> What you people are doing is condoning cp, just by owning it. You are making people think it is acceptable, as long as it is annonymous.Just owning things
should be acceptable.
> This is disgusting. I have always been one to stick up for pedophiles in jail. I believe that any pedophile caught ONLY looking at/owning cp should NOT go to jail, but some kind of rehabilitation centre. A place where he/she can work out these intense WRONG feelings and learn to not act on them. Well, in this case, technically the pedophile
wasn't acting on them. I believe in freedom of conscience — a person should be able to think and imagine whatever they want, whenever they want, even if they are fapping and their imagination is a horrid cesspool.
> These are WRONG feelings whether you wish it or not.I tend to agree with you here, but just because they are wrong, does not mean that we should empower governments to act as censors. The cure would be worse than the disease.
> It is not ok to prey on children. . .Very strongly agree.
> . . .it is not ok to watch them where they play while touching urself. . .Tentatively agree — it definitely shows that a person has sexual problems — but if they aren't harming anyone by masturbating, then I guess that they ought to be able to do it.
> it is not ok to own images of them FULL STOP. Unless they are a family member or child of a friend it is NOT ok. Certainly not sexual pictures, and that applies to any child. I just disagree. Maybe we could agree that it's not
morally okay, but that does not mean that there should be a law against it.
> This, for the anon who mentioned that one girl liked it until someone told her she should be traumatized. Do you honestly think you are not damaging these childrens lives forever?I agree with you on that point. That girl, "Vicky", was exploited.
I'm not going to address your story. Some other anon can do that — it would make me feel bad. In a nutshell, I am sorry for the things that happened to you — you have my true, real-life sympathy — but I don't think that preventing these things from happening is worth sacrificing fundamental freedoms for while millions more have suffered and died.
Anonymous cdcc977faadfcc1b4f8d095247b4cfae replied with this 2 months (2008-10-14 15:31:43 UTC) ago, 9 hours later (#69,899):
@69,614Children were being raped and abused LONG before the advent of the internet.
Or video.
Or photography, even.
I very much doubt the number of pedophiles has risen dramatically since then. If anything, the opposite.
What HAS changed is society's stance on the matter. It went from "who the fuck cares" to "WITCHHUUUUNT YEEAAHHH".
I'm not sure which of those two I prefer.
© AnonTalk.com 2008