>"We always say there are two types of pedophiles: Star Trek and Star Wars," says Det. Ian Lamond, the unit's second-in-command. "But it's mostly Star Trek." http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20050530_106573_106573

File: 151 KB, 500x497, 4639289860_e1ea3d150e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:15:02 2010 No.1140661 [Reply] [Original]

>"We always say there are two types of pedophiles: Star Trek and Star Wars," says Det. Ian Lamond, the unit's second-in-command. "But it's mostly Star Trek."

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20050530_106573_106573

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:18:02 2010 No.1140691 It's a Canadian plot to smear an American cultural treasure.

>>	sage sage Tue Jun 8 20:18:02 2010 No.1140693 >>1140661 >the unit's second-in-command ARMY FAGGOT! didnt even read your link

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:22:02 2010 No.1140717
File: 1.36 MB, 240x240, 1271565134988.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I honestly don't understand why it's illegal to own a picture or video of CP.

It's legal to own murder videos, rape videos, all sorts of other illegal shit, yet not of a naked girl?

We should be going after the people that are DOING it, not someone that just saved it off of 4chan or some shit, and ESPECIALLY not for those that saved pics/vids of girls WILLINGLY doing it.

Gif related. Totally legal to view. Hypocrisy at its best.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:30:02 2010 No.1140761 >>1140717 people who fap to cp are significantly more likely to molest children than people who don't (believe it or not) also, that is a surveillance video---not something deliberately recorded to sell

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:34:02 2010 No.1140782

>>1140717
>ESPECIALLY not for those that saved pics/vids of girls WILLINGLY doing it
You have NO way of knowing that they "willingly" did it. The problem isn't you having a naked picture of some girl, the problem is that you are in the possession of illicit material of children created for the purpose of sexual gratification.

>>	снайпер Tue Jun 8 20:35:02 2010 No.1140794 >>1140761 >people who fap to cp are significantly more likely to molest children than people who don't prove it, faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:36:02 2010 No.1140799 Holy shit that article looks like a gigantic tangled mess of logical fallacies from a mile away.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:37:02 2010 No.1140805 >>1140794 Why prove it? Isn't it logical that people that jerk off to kids have a higher tenancy to fuck kids?

снайпер Tue Jun 8 20:38:02 2010 No.1140810

>>1140799
Anyone who claims we must punish people for thoughtcrime is going to have logical fallacies in their argument, it's just the way it is.

Most of the time they don't even understand why the things they want to ban are bad. They just follow a bandwagon started by some other person.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:38:02 2010 No.1140811 >>1140805 Tendency, yes, but there's always the possibility of confusing correlation with causation.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 20:39:02 2010 No.1140816

>>1140805
No, it's not logical in the slightest.

You may as well say that watching a video of someone murdering another person is going to cause you to murder people.

Or that seeing simulated, drawn, or actual rape videos will cause you to rape people.

It's fucking retarded. YOU are fucking retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:39:02 2010 No.1140817 whats wrong whit liking kids

YOU'RE BUTTHURT AND I'M A TROLL Tue Jun 8 20:41:02 2010 No.1140827

>>1140717
>I honestly don't understand why it's illegal to own a picture or video of CP.
The reasoning is that CP associates sex with children, an association people don't want made. No much association is made with murder, rape, et cetera. What does your video show? Guns kill people. Grown men kill people. Society already knows this. CP shows that children are sexualized, a far more troublesome revelation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:41:02 2010 No.1140828 >>1140805 priests. /thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:41:02 2010 No.1140829 >>1140817 Dangerous for the kid

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:42:02 2010 No.1140831

>>1140661
Oh look an article saying the best way to detect pedophiles is with the penis cuff, the same device the military used to find teh gheys and keep them out. Things don't have a good track record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_plethysmograph#United_States
OH look sexology, the highly politically biased field that's even worse than psychology.

Man wonder if all the pedophile caught to have trek paraphanelia deviates from the amount that would be expected if all was random.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:42:02 2010 No.1140838 >>1140827 It also promotes taking advantage of children sexually.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:43:02 2010 No.1140850

>>1140811
But is this a situation where a causation needs to be found?
Molest kids, then look at child porn or look at child porn, then molest kids. Either way the CORRELATION between the two is the important part. Since there is an (assumed) correlation, should we not try to stop both acts?
>>1140816
A 1 to 1 ration isn't required when you are dealing with people raping children. Society as a whole wants children to remain unsexualized and "pure." If someone rapes a child and posts a video online of it, BOTH acts are considered
indecent" and promote and effect opposite of what is desired (in the society).

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:45:02 2010 No.1140870

The whole child porn crusade is nothing more than a witch hunt.

People want someone to hate and in today's society it's people who fap to child porn. Punishing people for committing a thought crime is a way of punishing people for being different, people outside the group.

The laws are stupid and in no way protect children. Girls have been arrested for distributing child pornography and placed on sex offender lists... the pornography they sent was pictures of themselves.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 20:48:02 2010 No.1140892

>>1140838
Since I'll have to probably repeat this a million times -

claiming that seeing child porn will force you to commit acts against children is the same as claiming that seeing rape will force you to rape people

And you know, WHY are we even talking about punishing people for something that they haven't even done yet?

Thoughtcrime is reprehensible in all of its forms. It's already illegal to murder someone, it's already illegal to molest a child. That should be enough. The precedent set by going after people who THINK DIFFERENTLY is BAD.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:50:02 2010 No.1140907 >>1140870 >>1140892 This isn't just a thought crime though. People didn't think about obtaining sexually explicit material of children, THEY DID. I'm fine with people doing their own thing, but a line must be drawn when it comes to children and sex.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 20:52:02 2010 No.1140922

>>1140850
>should we not try to stop both acts?

I don't think you realize [at least, I hope you don't realize, otherwise you are the worst scum of the earth] that you are arguing against your own civil freedoms here.

Free speech and expression does not mean ALL free speech and expression is safe and happy. We don't live in some hippie fantasyland.

You remind me of people who think Free Speech means that everything THEY like to talk about, should be free, and everything they hate should be censored.

If you want freedom, you need to take the good and the bad. That's the fucking price. If you don't want that, go be a slave in North Korea or something.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:52:02 2010 No.1140924

>>1140805
Actually, the majority of sexual child molestation cases are brought against relatives of children who have no other history or signs of pedophilia. So if we were going just by correlation as most anti cp people do, the real solution would be to give everyone a picture and then molestation rates would fall through the floor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:52:02 2010 No.1140926 >>1140907 Alot of really stupid, soccer mom style shit gets done in the name of protecting children.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:53:02 2010 No.1140933

>>1140838

It is unproven that watching child pornography encourages people to abuse children. The people that make claims like this are the same people that refer to video games as 'murder simulators' and say that they encourage murder spree's.

I believe that sex and sexual abuse of children should be illegal... this is a crime with a victim. I also believe that paying for child pornography in which actual IRL children are harmed should be illegal as this creates a market and encourages abuse.

But the definition of child pornography is incredibly wide. In the UK having pictures of hentai can be considered child pornography and is illegal despite no one was harmed in creating it other than a pen and paper (and possibly the artist getting cramp in his hand). In Australia watching pornography of adult women with small breasts may soon be considered child pornography even though no children are involved.

In short it's bullshit and anyone who takes the concept of free speech seriously should take a stand against it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:54:02 2010 No.1140944 Scientists like to make a big deal about pedo-priests, and yet most pedophiles are into science-fiction. It makes you think.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 20:55:02 2010 No.1140949

>>1140907
Yeah, so I guess you should be prosecuted and thrown in jail then, if/when someone posts CP, [or hell a STORY about children having sex] in this thread and you see it?

OH no! you'll argue against THAT in court. [Yet argue for it here, fucking hypocrite].

The line HAS been drawn: You molest a child, you get punished. There doesn't need to be anything more than this done. Please go live your Orwellian fantasies in some other country.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:55:02 2010 No.1140950 Startrek to boldly go where no other man has gone before

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:55:02 2010 No.1140955 >>1140870 my favorite one was the girl tried for endangering a minor (herself) she got tried as an adult...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:56:02 2010 No.1140962 >>1140907 >This isn't just a thought crime though. People didn't think about obtaining explicit material of violence, THEY DID. I'm fine with people doing their own thing, but a line must be drawn when it comes to guns and violence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:56:02 2010 No.1140963 >>1140907 That's bullshit though isn't it? If a young girl sends pictures of herself to a boy she likes... and then the boy AND the girl are arrested for child pornography who's being protected?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:56:02 2010 No.1140968 >>1140950 Best ITT

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:57:02 2010 No.1140972

>>1140944
the priests aren't pedophiles. they just have sex with little kids. More often then not, the sci-fi pedophiles, are not touching little kids. interesting how that works out. those that love young ones are the ones that are less likely to harm them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 20:57:02 2010 No.1140975 >>1140870 You're overinflating the importance of the issue. I expect it's either because you're butthurt or because you're myopic.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:02:02 2010 No.1141010

>>1140975
>overinflating the importance of the issue

What issue? Kids that willingly take nudes of themselves and distribute them should not be charged, nor should the recievers of said porn.

CP that is several years old should be fair game too. There is no reason for it not to be. Better to have people fapping to CP than outside actually DOING it to kids.

There's no "issue" here at all except for putting people in prison for looking at a fucking picture.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:02:02 2010 No.1141013

>>1140975
HAHA OH WOW

Look, maybe you haven't noticed but the media for the past decade has trotted out the "Think of the children!!!" card over almost everything. As soon as children are mentioned, brains shut down and very stupid legislation gets passed.

It's not some "small issue" that's being blown out of proportion. This is a significant problem today. Politicians LOVE the "think of the children!" crowd, because it means they can legislate feel-good laws that make them LOOK good, but do nothing to solve any problems, and often cause more problems.

It's a lot easier to catch "child molesters" when you expand what the word means. Now the police, instead of doing the hard and good thing of tracking down actual child molesters, are instead throwing people in jail who saw a kid naked once.

But it looks good for them. Now they're throwing a hundred "molesters" away every month, instead of one.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:03:02 2010 No.1141014

>>1140922
Yea, but you have to draw a line somewhere.
"Why'd you kill him?"
"I didn't like him, and used my freedom of expression to show him."
>Free speech and expression does not mean ALL free speech and expression is safe and happy. We don't live in some hippie fantasyland.
Oh, you mean like CP isn't allowed?
>>1140926
Yea, and that's retarded.
>>1140933
I agree that the defn of child porn is too wide, it should not include people 16-18 imo. The reason they just blanket it together and ban it all is because they don't want people "pushing the boundaries" of CP laws.
>>1140949
I was going to type up a large response, but instead I am going to go get some food. I don't see why you care if people who have CP get arrested, and if you think that media showing children getting raped is cool, that's your own problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:04:02 2010 No.1141027 File: 40 KB, 473x351, patrick_stewart_as_captain_picard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm posting sum cp

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:05:02 2010 No.1141030 >>1141027 You have won the thread.

>>	снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:06:02 2010 No.1141041 >>1141014 >I don't see why you care if people who have CP get arrested Because they're being arrested for thoughtcrime you dense motherfucker.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:06:02 2010 No.1141045

>>1141014
>I don't see why you care if people who have CP get arrested

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:06:02 2010 No.1141046

>>1141013
>instead throwing people in jail who saw a kid naked once
You and I both know that that isn't happening, I'm totally allowed (and do) have pictures of my four year old neice running through a sprinkler naked on her birthday. Now if I have a picture of her getting fucked by a 300 lb black male then I have a problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:07:02 2010 No.1141048 File: 38 KB, 400x648, pedobear.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Gentlemen,set your phasers to stun

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:08:02 2010 No.1141054 >>1141045 Slippery slope fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:10:02 2010 No.1141064 >>1141046 A grandmother in the UK was recently charged with possessing child pornography... it was pictures of her grand daughter playing in the bath.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:10:02 2010 No.1141065

>>1141046
>instead throwing people in jail who saw a kid naked once
>You and I both know that that isn't happening,

No, I know it's happening. You refuse to believe it.

http://current.com/news/90986809_parents-sue-wal-mart-after-children-taken-away-over-bath-time-photo
s.htm
http://cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=358:woman-charged-with-po
ssession-of-child-pornography-for-taking-photos-of-herself-breastfeeding&catid=3:news&Itemid
=96

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:11:02 2010 No.1141070 >>1141054 Except it's true.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:11:02 2010 No.1141072

>>1141054

it's not a slippery slope argument. the argument is, you should stand up against things that are wrong even if they don't affect you personally. a slippery slope argument would be claiming that outlawing CP is bad, and will lead to a worse bad of outlawing all free speech. but that's not what's being claimed here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:12:02 2010 No.1141078 File: 183 KB, 600x764, vforvendetta.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1141064 I'm not surprised The UK has turned into a totalitarian regime

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:13:02 2010 No.1141082

Though people are forgetting there is legal cp. Look at david hamilton for example. his collections have been taken to court many times, and each time it has been deemed art.

>>1141046
I also feel bad for the drunk who pissed in an alley, some family walked by and complained, and he gets listed as a child sex offender for life because a child might have seen his penis.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:13:02 2010 No.1141083

>>1141054
Except that it's fairly valid.

Look at Australia. First they set up a regulatory agenecy. Ban even looking at child porn. Then they ban some porn with small-breasted women (because it "might make pedophiles more likely to molest children"), they've already banned porn with pissing/shitting on it, what's stopping them from banning, say, hentai? Anal? Double-penetration?

It's restricting free speech for no good reason.

No one has even presented a reason that "sexualization of children" is bad. Boys as young as 12 were involved with older men in ancient Greece, and they did pretty damn well.

In essence, children having sex is bad because then they'll have sex with children who will have sex with children...which is bad.

>>	снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:13:02 2010 No.1141085 >>1141078 Quite frankly, the rest of the modern world ain't doing much better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:13:02 2010 No.1141086 >>1141045 how about because anyone who has been on /b/ for more than 5 minutes (ie all of 4chan) has a 99.99% chance that there is a cached CP image somewhere on their drive, even if they didnt click on it, your browser would still cache it.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:16:02 2010 No.1141100

>>1141086
And there have been people that have been boned because of this exact thing.

>>1141072
Truth. I may absolutely despise flag-burners and anti-abortion protesters, but I will always fight for their right to do so, because all speech, no matter how controversial, is important and should be protected (as long as no one is getting hurt, which, last time i checked, no one is being hurt if I look at CP).

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:17:02 2010 No.1141103 >>1141083 Time for me to make an actual science argument. According to something I read somewhere, it is a human condition to be attracted to different generations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:17:02 2010 No.1141105 >>1141085 Hey as long as we have the constitution they can't pull this shit in the US

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:18:02 2010 No.1141108 >>1141105 hahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaah hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha haha haahah

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:19:02 2010 No.1141112 >>1141103 Boy this place is starting to sound a lot like anon t4lk

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:20:02 2010 No.1141121

>>1141105
Except that they already are.

The FCC banning certain words from being said on the radio, for example. Sure flies in the face of "freedom of the press."

Also, states that ban people under 18 from buying porn. How can a person have free speech if they can't even look at another person naked on film, when, in states with an age of consent under 18, like Michigan, they can *have sex* at 16?

>>	снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:21:02 2010 No.1141123 >>1141112 >implying you've visited that place brool story co

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:21:02 2010 No.1141124

>>1140816
No, sir, may I have sufficient audacity to proclaim that it is YOU my good man who is the retard. Child porn was created for an audience, that audience is you. The strategy is to take away that demand from an audience to undermine the supply of the sick fuck. As long as there are sick fucks like you, their will be sick fucks taping little children.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:22:02 2010 No.1141129

>>1141112
I think it was in my psychology 101 class. There was this comic in the textbook of a man and his son walking past a woman and her daughter. The son had a thought bubble above his head of the lady in underwear, and the man had a thought bubble of the girl in her underwear.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:24:02 2010 No.1141137 >>1141123 I have Its basically a bunch of pedophiles

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:24:02 2010 No.1141138

>>1141112
Nevada judge rules that a man's attraction to young women is a natural impulse:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/006813.html

It's good for humanity as a species to chase after adolescent teens:
http://scienceblog.com/cms/old-men-chasing-young-women-good-thing-14203.html

In essence, it's totally natural to be attracted to girls that are able to have kids. Those that have had periods.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:25:02 2010 No.1141146 >>1141121 until a few years ago you could get married in virginia at the age of 13. I think Massachusetts still allows 14 year olds to do so. Also until 2 years ago in Rhode Island girls under 18 could be strippers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:26:02 2010 No.1141152 >>1141146 As far as I'm concerned 12 and up is awwwwrite 11 and under is a no no

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:26:02 2010 No.1141153

>>1141124
see:
>>1141010

CP that is several years old should be fair game.

Also, it should be illegal to ask a person for CP if that person was the creator.

However, there is NO reason why it should be illegal to save CP that was posted on, say, 4chan, and is just a repost of an old post.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:26:02 2010 No.1141155

>>1141124

uh huh...

Except that there have been peados for longer than we have had video tapes so getting rid of child porn isn't going too get rid of child abusers.

And that allot of child porn doesn't harm children... drawings harm no one. And porn of legal aged women with small breasts is completely consensual.

You have audacity anon... please try and acquire acumen.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:28:02 2010 No.1141164 >>1141138 I've also heard things concerning prehistoric man, and small communities. being attracted to other age ranges helped reduce sibling incest and diversified genetics.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:28:02 2010 No.1141166

>>1141124
>Child porn was created for an audience, that audience is you.

Oh is that how it is? I'm against senseless laws that criminalize how we think, so I'm a child molester? What a fantastic argument on your end.

>The strategy is to take away that demand from an audience to undermine the supply of the sick fuck

Okay so let me get this straight - if you take away all the CP so there's no more in the world. All the sick fucks who molest children will stop, because they no longer have pictures of CP to fap to?

You really ARE functionally retarded, aren't you? Oh wait you say, the sick fucks will continue regardless of the availability of child porn? Maybe we should just throw people in jail for abusing and molesting children? OH WAIT WE ALREADY DO.

You want to criminalize thought - throw people in jail for seeing, reading, hearing, and thinking about the wrong thing.

The only sick fuck here, is you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:28:02 2010 No.1141168 >>1141146 >girls under 18 could be strippers how the fuck could that be?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:28:02 2010 No.1141174 >>1141155 most child abusers are not pedophiles

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:29:02 2010 No.1141178 >>1141168 Because Rhode Island was awesome, apparently. I think it'd be hot as fuck to see a 16-year old stripper.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:29:02 2010 No.1141179

>>1141153
With all the CP in circulation its nearly impossible to determine which child "willingly" does it or not. On top of this is the potential that many children will be forced by adults to "willingly" send pictures of their nude bodies to others. The reason there are limitations pertaining to youth, is to prevent manipulation from adults. The young look up to us and make most of their decision based upon ours. Grow the fuck up and be an example.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:29:02 2010 No.1141181 >>1141168 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8149969&page=1

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:31:02 2010 No.1141190 The pictures of child porn and rape are humiliating monoliths to they're ordeal the existence of which only extends the ordeal. dead people don't feel pain, that is the difference

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:32:02 2010 No.1141193 >>1141190 Exactly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:33:02 2010 No.1141195 >>1141190 That isn't very /sci/ of you. You are making a presumption that there was an "ordeal"

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:33:02 2010 No.1141197
File: 495 KB, 2304x3072, 1270452877249.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1141179
What do you mean by "children"?

A teen that sends some nudes to her boyfriend should absolutely be fair game.

Also, if it's SEVERAL YEARS OLD, then who gives a shit?

And finally, while this girl's uncle did take nude pictures of her, after he got thrown in prison, her and her older sister continued to take pictures of themselves and upload them to 12chan.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:35:02 2010 No.1141204 >>1141197 YESS!!!

снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:35:02 2010 No.1141205

>>1141190
I guess it follows then, that we should criminalize any video that embarrasses someone.

Think of the emotional pain they must feel!

[and hey, it just so happens that those embarrassing things our politician did never gets to hear the light of day again...]

The world is not a friendly place, bad things happen, and pretending otherwise will fix nothing. You can't hide problems and hope they go away, anonymous. Because the problems don't go away, they just get hidden.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:35:02 2010 No.1141206 File: 70 KB, 709x836, 1273668469586.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1141190 I wonder what the parents, friends, and relatives of this guy think about this picture being legal to own...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:36:02 2010 No.1141210 >>1141204 No. I only uploaded Jessi to make a point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:36:02 2010 No.1141212 >>1141197 >>her and her older sister continued to take pictures of themselves and upload them to 12chan. uhm did no one stop this? would they not be under watch from the publicity

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:36:02 2010 No.1141213 >>1141206 wtf, how did that happen and who/what did it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:37:02 2010 No.1141214 >>1141197 I was about to rant about this picture but I don't actually know if it's child porn or not. The kid's obviously under age.... but she not naked.

>>	снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:38:02 2010 No.1141216 >>1141206 >implying you should be thrown in jail for having or seeing that picture.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:38:02 2010 No.1141217 >>1141206 thats not the guy on the right.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:38:02 2010 No.1141218

To put this in perspective, in Saudi Arabia the marriage age is 9 years old. They changed it recently from 7 years old because it made our embassy staff squeemish to see 50 year old men with their new 8 year old wives. This rates high on my personal Yuck-O-Meter. Every culture in the planet has different ideas about when a woman becomes a woman. In America two centuries ago, if a woman wasn't married by 18 she was considered an "old maid"; this is because living to 40 years old was an iffy prospect, and we had to grow up early and have kids so we could see our grand children. In the greater scheme of things, this really doesn't make any difference. Typical America, we are the Jerry Springer of the planet

снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:42:02 2010 No.1141233

>>1141218
>To put this in perspective, in Saudi Arabia the marriage age is 9 years old

These are usually arranged marriages, more contractual than sexual. Not saying it doesn't happen, but more often than not the guy's going to wait until she's 15 or older. These guys will usually have older concubines of sorts to 'play' with anyways.

Like you said, different culture. In the west, we see marriage as a very sexual thing [possibly because Christians are under the impression that you can only have sex with the person you're married to...] so when we see a girl married to a grown adult, we immediately jump to the conclusion that they are fucking.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:42:02 2010 No.1141234

I think there can actually be made a valid point for legalizing child porn. And the reason would be protection children.

Sounds counterintuitive I know but hear me out.
Firstly sex with children would obviously still be illegal, and people who do that stuff will still get prosecuted.
Now if cp is legal it gets pushed to bigger audience. Now I think that a lot of pedophiles actually don't want kids to be the sufferers of physical or mental harm. And this is where wider, open availability kicks in.

On /b/ people get semi-regularly fucked because anonymous finds some sweater of a university, a myspace page, exif data or whatever clue on their actual rl identity. Think about what they could do to help find childrapists.
Remember that highly publicized worldwide cp raid where they captured that guy who put some swirl with photoshop on his face that could be easily removed?
Had that stuff been in wide distrubution people may have found him years earlier, potentially preventing more abuse.

Obviously there are some issues speaking against legalisation: people come in contact with this stuff that normally wouldn't. Now this is only a problem if you think that childrape follows directly from viewing cp. Studies don't support that point of view(see op's article).

Next problem is increased demand for commercial production of cp and thus increased numbers of child rape crimes.
I actually think that the market for commercial cp is actually only there because
a)people can't find the stuff easily, thus they pay for easy access
b)people are scared of being prosecuted for possesion so they search out commercial sites that offers privacy

Both fall away if cp becomes legal, also there is no copyright protection for cp, and no moral pressure to pay the producers.

That's all I can think about at the moment...

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:44:02 2010 No.1141239
File: 11 KB, 986x180, encyclopedia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1141214
That picture alone is not CP, by most definitions and in most jurisdictions.

>>1141212
There wasn't a lot of publicity. You can read about it here:

>>1141213
Not entirely sure. I heard mixed stories, apparently he might have been the guy that got stabbed/decapitated on the Canadian Greyhound bus a few years back, idk.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:46:02 2010 No.1141243

>>1141216
No, I was implying the opposite, derp. It should be legal to own that picture and CP, at least CP that is old, or CP where the abuser has been caught and sentenced.

Actually, that's a good idea. CP should be legal if the "abuser" has already been caught.

>>	снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:46:02 2010 No.1141244 >>1141239 >he might have been the guy that got stabbed/decapitated on the Canadian Greyhound bus a few years back Was that really a few years ago? Doesn't feel like it's been that long...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:47:02 2010 No.1141247 >>1141234 >>1141234 if pedophile cravings are anything like mine for normal porn(tied up humiliated hookers) then they will eventually want to act on that fantasy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:49:02 2010 No.1141253 >>1141244 i remember that, everyone was scared shitless of going on busses after that. (The bus departed from the city i live in) It couldn't have been more than 2 years ago

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:50:02 2010 No.1141259 >>1141247 Many pedophiles realize what they like is terrible, and they are strongly motivated never to hurt children.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:50:02 2010 No.1141261

>>1141234

oh thought of something more:

there is also the issue that past victims may run into cp depicting them causing additional trauma. They should have the rights to have these pictures taken down(sort of like the laws we have in place today concerning private photos), I know that solution isn't pretty...

снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:52:02 2010 No.1141268

>>1141247
Well, you're forgetting the fact that tying up hookers and having sex with them is legal. [Excluding that you bought the services of a hooker, which is illegal, and assuming both parties are consenting]

Whereas having sex with a child is already illegal. Very much illegal, and would destroy your life entirely if people found out about it.

That's some pretty heft incentive not to do it.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:52:58 2010 No.1141266 [DELETED]

File: 826 KB, 1854x1900, 1272627432994.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1141253
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tim_McLean

July 2008. Almost 2 years ago.

>>1141247
I look at CP along with lots of normal porn, and while I have plenty of urges for girls 14+, I don't have any urges for girls younger than Jessie

Pic related. It's Jessie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:53:02 2010 No.1141272 >>1141266 Reported

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:55:02 2010 No.1141280

>>1141234
I agree with this.

Ask some anti-CP man if he thinks if he sat in fromt of CP all day, he'd become attracted to it. He'd probably say no, because he's not a pedo. You then say that's your point, people don't change their sexuality just be looking at things that isn't attractive to them. If they already want to see CP, chances are that they're already a pedo. It's natural for them. I'd even go as far as to say it's like homosexuality in that regard. You won't go gay if you view gay porn 24/7.

On the other hand, CP does encourage people to actually film it. I think the only truly harmless form of "CP" is drawn or the like, as no real children were harmed in it's creation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:56:02 2010 No.1141289 >>1141272 >implying my picture violates the rules Hell, my first picture was more sexual than THAT one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:57:02 2010 No.1141294 What if children were to smarten up and sell porn of themselves (no adults involved in any stage of the process)... is that illegal? cause they'd make a killing

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:58:02 2010 No.1141299 >>1141294 Yeah, it's illegal. There have been kids that have been charged as adults for taking nude pictures of minors.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 21:58:02 2010 No.1141300

>>1141261
>there is also the issue that past victims may run into cp depicting them causing additional trauma.

I'm of the opinion that people need to man the fuck up instead of expecting all of society to kowtow to their emotional state.

Besides, there's been pretty significant evidence that children don't even suffer from any severe emotional distress during or immediately after being molested or abused - it usually happens later on in life once they actually realize what happened, or when they see the reactions of other people when they find out.

Which isn't particularly shocking considering that they're still growing physically and emotionally.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 21:59:02 2010 No.1141301 >>1141247 well that sounds legal if they consented. would you still have done it if it potentially meant years in prison? also what >>1141259 said. cp may be sort of a relief valve that actually helps keep child rape down...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:01:02 2010 No.1141309 >>1141300 see: >>1141206 Just because the picture is emotionally stirring for the victim or victim's relatives doesn't mean that it should be illegal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:03:02 2010 No.1141321 >>1140816 No, you dumbass, buying videos of people being murdered is bad because someone got murdered to make them, the same way that some kid got molested to make your precious CP.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:04:02 2010 No.1141325 >>1141321 "bad," yes. Illegal? No. Nor should it be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:06:02 2010 No.1141334 >>1141325 I'm sorry, what? Purchasing things whose production involves child abuse should be legal? How in the fuck?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:08:02 2010 No.1141342

>>1141266
>After the incident, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sent an advertisement to the Portage Daily Graphic comparing the murder of Tim McLean to the killing of animals for food. The ad was rejected by the paper.[20] PETA was harshly criticized for attempting to exploit the incident in such a manner, but refused to apologize.[21]

GOD DAMN FUCKING PETA they don't give a fuck about people

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:08:02 2010 No.1141345

>>1141334
Actually, I was referencing the murder videos.

Personally, I think it should be allowed to receive child porn as long as no money is exchanged. It should be legal to own it. It should be illegal to sell it, you got me there.

As long as money isn't involved, I see no reason for CP to be illegal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:09:02 2010 No.1141350 >>1141334 Kindly read my wall of text here >>1141234 and ignore my crappy english.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:10:02 2010 No.1141352

>>1141300
I am of the opinion that therapy can cause more damage to children.

Often the therapist will continuously remind the child it was not their fault. Unfortunately while helpful for those that did think it was their fault. For those that do not, the constant reinforcement will make them start to believe it was. Because maybe the therapist thinks it really is their fault, otherwise why would they keep bringing it up?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:10:02 2010 No.1141358

>>1141325

I'm sure the lot of us could come to some reasonable agreement with respect to what sort of real imagery should or should not be illegal but since the average person is a slobbering retard and a collection of people is one of the most dangerous things known to man the only safe option is to, as you're implying (and I obviously agree with you), make everything legal to view. Child porn, though absolutely disgusting to me, does technically depict something that has already happened and cannot be reversed. If viewing such images and or videos can decrease the likelihood of further abuse then I'm all for it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:11:02 2010 No.1141361 >>1141345 >get CP from back alley peddler, pay cash, no receipts of any sort involved, peddler disappears >"Oh no officer, I got this as a present!" Right.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:11:02 2010 No.1141366 >>1141342 PETA is a terrorist gang and should be fucking shut down.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:13:02 2010 No.1141369 >>1141361 >implying anyone pays for CP

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:13:02 2010 No.1141374 >implying that there are people in America or Canada who are neither fans of Star Trek nor Star Wars Go die in a fire.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:15:02 2010 No.1141381

>>1141350
>>1141358
So your argument is that pedophiles will get caught on the off chance that some vigilante on the internet manages to find out something about them? How many hundreds of pedophiles do you think go scott free for every one that gets busted in this manner?

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing how these marginal cases would help to even remotely decrease the problem. Purchases would indicate to the producers that there is demand, thus increasing production, therefore increasing the number of children molested for profit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:15:02 2010 No.1141383 >>1141374 don't forget the browncoats

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:16:02 2010 No.1141388 >>1141345 There is allready money involved, huge sums actually. Making it illegal just drives the price up and makes it harder for the pedos who want it to get it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:16:02 2010 No.1141390 >>1141381 no, we aren't out to catch the pedophiles, its the child molesters who need catching.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:16:02 2010 No.1141391 wow.. the longest non-troll thread in /sci/ history pretty much, and its about the legality of cp.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:16:02 2010 No.1141392 >>1141369 That makes >>1141345's argument even more untenable.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:16:55 2010 No.1141384 >>1141342 How can you diss PETA for doing its job. I would holeharetdly agree with putting the ad in the paper, because it SHOWS people what they are actaully doing. they are psychopathically mistreating animals for human pleasure.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:18:02 2010 No.1141401
File: 1.73 MB, 512x384, 1270111322364.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1141381
"Purchasing"?

Are you fucking retarded?

We agree that selling it should be illegal. Freely handing them out should be legal, though, as should handing out, say, this gif:

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:19:02 2010 No.1141403 >>1141369 They do Its estimated cp generates 3 billion dollars a year I don't know how they came up with that figure though

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:19:02 2010 No.1141407 >124 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. Fuck off back to /b/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:20:02 2010 No.1141411 >>1141403 The same way they estimated how much piracy costs the music industry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:20:02 2010 No.1141413 >>1141401 And how, exactly, do you demonstrate that someone didn't purchase the CP in their house? This is not the kind of business you get credit card records for.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:21:02 2010 No.1141421

>>1141403
Why would someone pay for it, though, when you can find it easily on sites like 4chan?

And, if it was legalized, it'd be even easier to, reducing the need for selling, which will reduce the production of NEW CP (with no incentive or motivation to make new CP, why would someone go through the trouble?) and would make it much easier to punish those that do make CP of kids (being widespread would make it easier to find/punish the criminals).

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:23:02 2010 No.1141431 >>1141421 uhm a large amount of pedo busts often consist of hundreds of gigs of material, these guys can never get enough and wil do a lot of new shit

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:23:02 2010 No.1141434

>>1141413
But WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY FOR IT?

You're lumping people that pay for it (and thus support the CP industry) and those that don't pay for it (and aren't supporting the industry, and aren't doing ANYTHING wrong other than looking at a picture) into the same group.

It's the difference between me buying a video of a decapitation from Al Quaeda directly (and thus, supporting them) and simply finding the video online. One should be illegal, because it's supporting terrorism, but the other shouldn't, because it's not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:25:02 2010 No.1141444 >>1141434 For the same reason people pay for regular porn

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:27:02 2010 No.1141460 >>1141434 If CP is illegal to buy it should be illegal to own. I don't see the difference except that simply owning without paying implies the crime of piracy as well.

>>	pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Tue Jun 8 22:27:02 2010 No.1141462 >>1141444 Hold on a second, I wasn't going to join in on this conversation, but I have to know. People still pay for porn?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:28:02 2010 No.1141469

>>1141381

no I was refering to the second part of my post. vigilante cases will be a minor part I agree but may also bring a sort of postive "chilling effect" with them.
I was saying that commercial production will go down because of rampant, legal pirating, no legal handle for the producers and no demand for overpriced(or any priced) cp with end user privacy protection from elite like circles. The only reason why games, movies and mp3s aren't pirated even more than they allready are is because people fear legal theats or feel morally obliged to support what is produced.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:28:02 2010 No.1141470 >>1141434 And what if, say, some sick fuck rapes a little girl, makes a video, and shares it with his sick fuck friends?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:31:02 2010 No.1141490

>>1141470
The sick fuck that rapes a little girl should be thrown in prison and the key thrown away, derp.

What kind of rebuttal was that?

>>1141460
CP should not be illegal to own, but it should be illegal to support the child porn industry (which is, in effect, supporting child molestation). See: my Al Queda analogy. It's not illegal to own videos that Al Queda makes, but it's illegal to support them by donating to them. A similar thing should be done for child porn.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:33:02 2010 No.1141503 >>1141490 But are his friends not supporting him and encouraging him to harm more children, even if money isn't involved?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:33:02 2010 No.1141505 >>1141490 Dude pedophiles will make cp regardless of whether they earn money or not

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:33:02 2010 No.1141506 >>1141266 >The victim's eyes and a part of his heart were never recovered and are presumed to have been eaten by the accused. So the picture is not this guy. Still horrifying...

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:34:02 2010 No.1141510

>>1141503
Do keep in mind child molesters tend to be aware that what they do is considered absolutely heinous and disgusting by the overwhelming majority of people - having a circle of like-minded individuals encouraging them would be a pretty damn huge incentive to keep doing it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:34:02 2010 No.1141513 >>1141462 I buy over sized art books that are nothing but nude photos of women *(glamour, fetish, pin-up etc). To some people that could be considered softcore porn.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:36:02 2010 No.1141526 >>1141490 Al Quaeda is a false analogy. Watching the videos does not correlate to a likelihood of performing terrorist attacks, however it CP correlates strongly to likelihood of abusing children.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:37:02 2010 No.1141535

>>1141503
I'm a sick fuck, and while I'd enjoy the video, I'd also kick my friend's ass and turn him into the cops.

The sick friends are really only supporting it if they ENCOURAGED him to rape a little girl (which is FAR different from encouraging a friend to give them CP, not knowing that it was said friend that did it).

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:38:02 2010 No.1141538

The best laws are simple one with little room for confusion.

Raping or molesting a child should be illegal.

Owning pornography of a real child being raped or molested should be illegal.

Owning pornography simulating a child being raped or molested should be legal. (drawing, cartoons, photoshopped pictures, small breasted women)

It's simple and causes no confusion. It allows peados to legally enjoy fapping to porn and protects children at the same time by discouraging IRL abuse of kids to produce porn to sell.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:39:02 2010 No.1141543

>>1141510
That's the biggest danger of shit like this on the internet, the whole "anonymous" environment that allows criminal elements to come together and support one another. The internet may be a good thing overall, but encouraging child abuse is one of its worse elements. Frankly before the introduction of the internet, Child Porn production was at very low levels, and hard to distribute none the less sell. Now a days there are large criminal organizations producing the shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:39:02 2010 No.1141545 >>1141526 Bullshit. There is no causation between watching CP and child molestation. I could make the argument that there is a "correlation" between those that seek out Al Queda videos and potential extremist Muslims.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:40:02 2010 No.1141551 >>1141526 >CP correlates strongly to likelihood of abusing children There is no evidence to suggest that watching child porn increases the likelyhood to abuse so your argument is invalid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:40:02 2010 No.1141554 >>1141538 I'd add, obscene posing to raping and molesting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:42:02 2010 No.1141568 >>1141551 I didn't say watching child porn increases the likelihood, I said that watching child porn correlates to a higher likelihood, and I stand by that. Learn to read before you chime into the big boys' discussion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:42:02 2010 No.1141572 >>1141554 But why should pictures that are years old continue to be illegal?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:42:02 2010 No.1141575

>>1141503

there are laws allready in place for this kind of behaviour(as in saying: go do that crime xy, bro)

>>1141490

once you legalize pirating of cp(which obviously goes hand in hand with legalisation of possesion and distributing and keeping the actual production illegal), huge archives will pop up, siterips of every paysite will be freely availible and all the paystuff will implode. left will be some small underground commercial comunities noone knows about, but we have these already today.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:42:02 2010 No.1141576 >>1141545 you could make that argument, but it wouldn't be backed with statistics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:43:02 2010 No.1141580 >>1141554 To hard to define. What's obscene to one person may be normal to another.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:44:02 2010 No.1141587 >>1141575 But its more sinister than just saying "go rape X" its about validating the desire, its about normalizing it, even a small community of like-minded individuals become much more dangerous than they are separately.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:44:02 2010 No.1141594 >>1141580 So you don't need to define it, you just need to be able to recognize, current US precedent is sufficient IMO

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:45:02 2010 No.1141603

>>1141568
>most school shooters liked violent media
>violent media causes people to become school shooters

L2correlationvscausation

If anything, sick fucks like me are less likely to molest an actual kid after fapping to CP than by not having any outlets for sexual frustration.

Most pedos (the ones that look at CP) find child molestation to be horrendous. I find it disgusting, and I would personally beat the ever-living FUCK out of anyone that harms an innocent kid like that. But, I'm attracted to little kids, and I can't help that, so I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to look at a picture that was already made. The crime is already committed, and I hope the fuck was imprisoned, so why should pictures/video be illegal still?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:45:02 2010 No.1141606 >>1141568 I know what you said... I said your argument was invalid. If watching child porn correlates to a higher likelihood of abusing children... but it doesn't increase the likelihood. Then so what? it's a non-point.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:47:02 2010 No.1141621

>>1141603
You're anecdote isn't evidence. You don't have any more ground to talk about "most" pedophiles than anyone else, just because you are a sick fuck yourself.

And CP has no valid social role outside of the sick fuck community, so causation doesn't matter, the fact that it correlates is enough for me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:47:02 2010 No.1141625 >>1141576 Are you implying that people that are considering joining Al Queda wouldn't seek out videos and information about them?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:48:02 2010 No.1141633

>>1141594

Yeah but then you get Grandmothers being arrested for taking pictures of their grandkids playing in the bath.

I have a strong personal belief that unless there is a victim involved then no crime has been committed. Unless these poses are tantamount to abuse... they should be legal.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:48:02 2010 No.1141634

>>1141606
I'm fine with just taking away whatever little joy I can from the sick fucks who get their kicks watching it. I'm fine with protecting children at the expense of something that is enjoyed primarily by sick fucks. So the point is, because a disproportionate number of sick fucks enjoy it, it should be banned.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:49:02 2010 No.1141639

>>1141621
>YOUR (way to mess up the form of your) anecdote isn't evidence. You don't have any more ground to talk about "most" gamers than anyone else, just because you are a gamer yourself.

>And video games has no valid social role outside of the gaming community, so causation doesn't matter, the fact that it correlates (with school shooters) is enough for me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:50:02 2010 No.1141648 >>1141545 I'd say there is a very strong correlation between people who seek Al-Qaeda videos and potential extremist Muslims

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:50:02 2010 No.1141649 >>1141633 the definition of crime always includes a victim, but its always the same victim, crimes by definition are offenses against society, not individuals, those are torts and settled in civil court.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:50:02 2010 No.1141660 >>1141648 Yes, you did just say it fortunately for the world, your word on the matter is not considered very forceful.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:51:02 2010 No.1141669 >>1141639 Do you think I would rush to defend violent video games, fuck why do I care I haven't played a video game since I was 12.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:52:02 2010 No.1141674 >>1141575 Yes, because the current porn industry isn't making money hand over, er, fist these days. Totally.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:52:02 2010 No.1141677 >>1141633 But how could you tell between an adult posing the child and not just the child imitating miley cyrus or some other media icon?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:52:02 2010 No.1141686

>>1141634
Oh boy. You seem to be of the position that I CHOOSE to like CP.

Not at all. If I could, I would make it so that I only like women older than 16. But, that isn't how I feel. I should be punished with essentially thoughtcrime for looking at a fucking picture, just because I was born with a different sexual preference? I'm not harming anyone, why should I be punished for liking little kids as much as older girls?

You're sounding just like those that want to keep gay marriage illegal because "I'm fine with just taking away whatever little joy I can from the sick fucks who get their kicks from it."

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:53:02 2010 No.1141691

>>1141621

That's fine. You are the type of person this thread is about.

You don't care if child porn harms children or increases the likelihood that they will be harmed. All you care about is that 'sick fucks' like it and it's squicky so should be banned.

Freedom of speech is more important than your aesthetic tastes. Unless an artform is actively harming someone is should legal and uncensored.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:53:02 2010 No.1141693 >>1141677 you don't need to, the picture is obscene no matter where the obscenity originates from, it is not a description of how the picture came to be, but what is in the picture.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:53:02 2010 No.1141699 >>1141669 >fascist detected

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:54:02 2010 No.1141704 >>1141634 You, ah, didn't read the article. It can be said that a disproportionate number of sick fucks like Star Treck. Therefore, make it illegal?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:54:02 2010 No.1141708 >>1141674 But it's still legal to sell regular porn. Make it legal to own and distribute CP for free, but make it illegal to sell or make.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:54:02 2010 No.1141709 >>1141693 But then criteria becomes subjective as is obscenity

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:54:02 2010 No.1141710 >>1141677 You can't... that's kinda my point. Suggestive poses is to damn vague.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:55:02 2010 No.1141718 >>1141691 But it DOES harm people. Children, even.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:55:02 2010 No.1141720 >>1141710 2nd'd.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:55:02 2010 No.1141723 >>1141674 yeah, well you didn't understand my post thats ok.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:55:02 2010 No.1141725

>>1141691
CP is socially destructive, art must add something to society even if we find it unpleasant.
And the protections of free speech have always been limited, its only meant to prevent censoring statements of political discourse, not to protect perverts from spreading their warped morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:56:02 2010 No.1141729 >>1141708 Does the term 'ad revenue' mean anything to you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:56:02 2010 No.1141737 >>1141709 Obscenity is never objective, it is subjective, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:57:02 2010 No.1141754 >>1141723 I thought it was fairly clear in stating that if it's possible to get for free, there won't be any incentive to produce more. This is rather horrifyingly false; if you meant to imply otherwise, then you failed.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 22:58:02 2010 No.1141756

>>1141718
No it doesn't. Me looking at a naked girl harms no one. Go after the people making it, not the people that save it off of 4chan or some shit.

>>1141725
Music, movies, video games, comic books, regular books, and anti-state novels are socially destructive, art must add something to society even if we find it unpleasant.

Therefore, we should get rid of all of these. Not only that, we should make them illegal to own.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:00:02 2010 No.1141777 >>1141756 And you don't think a guy who gets off from making child porn and posting it anonymously would be rather massively encouraged by a group of people (say, a thread on /b/) telling him to go on so they can save the pictures off 4chan?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:00:02 2010 No.1141779

>>1141754
If it's possible to get it for free, then there is far less incentive to make it, and no reason to sell it (since no one would buy it).

Not only that, it would still be illegal to sell it.

Only people that make it will be those that would regardless of the law, and hopefully they can be found and ass-raped in prison.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:01:02 2010 No.1141787

>>1141756
>save it off 4chan
that's what this thread is all about, people want to be able to defend and rationalize their own little contributions to the most indecent of acts. People want strict definitions of obscenity so they can cut just one iota above them. This thread is nothing but a bunch of fucking sick bastards hoping to stay out of prison, instead of just stopping looking at the shit, they try everything they can to rationalize themselves.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:02:02 2010 No.1141807

>>1141779
Distributing it freely or for profit still has the nasty side effect, of a person presenting their crime to the world, and being forgiven for it. The people viewing it egg them on, tell them how hot it is or whatever, and the person is given a reprieve from the fact that they know they've done something unforgivable.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:03:02 2010 No.1141811 >>1141787 Fair enough but just imagine sucking cocks was illegal. Imagine how difficult your life would be. Walk a mile in their shoes, brah.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:04:02 2010 No.1141824 >>1141811 Pictures of adults sucking cock don't involve child molestation.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:05:02 2010 No.1141833

>>1141725

Art is a representation of an idea, it has no obligation to be socially constructive what so ever...

I honestly think that you are digging yourself into a moral hole here. If you think that anything that encourages 'perverts to spread their warped morality' should be banned what's to stop other people doing that?

And who the fuck defines 'pervert' or 'warped morality'? There are plenty of people who would include gays, feminists and atheists in those groups.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:06:02 2010 No.1141842

>>1141811
I would find suicide preferable to walking in their shoes, every moment they stay alive they choose to be pedophiles, they choose to exist with their affliction. I say, anyone of them that chooses to be a pedophile, is guilty of a crime, and it is only my great sadness that it will never be able to be proven in a court of law.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:08:02 2010 No.1141869
File: 222 KB, 1316x1156, 1273933768400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1141777
We on 4chan have no way of knowing if the poster is the abuser or not, but 4chan HAS gotten people fucked over in real life before for posting illegal shit.

I'm having trouble finding the pic that I'm looking for, so here's an another example of /b/ fucking shit up.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:08:02 2010 No.1141870

>>1141833
Pervert and warped are defined the same way all words are, by their accepted use in a large linguistic group, for instance the consensus of the American English speakers. That a few people use the word pervert to mean gays is not sufficient to be called a consensus. That pervert can be universally applied to pedophiles is. Stop demanding a deductive proof of immorality, you won't get it, but that doesn't mean morality is meaningless, just that it is irrational, but some of the best things in life are completely irrational.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:09:02 2010 No.1141876 >>1141869 And how many of these go uncaught in comparison?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:10:02 2010 No.1141891

>>1141869
I'm aware of the fact that occasionally 4chan fucks someone over, however that doesn't mean it validates the clamor to "post CP" calls for "moar" and what not. The fact that they act in support of that shit and take arms together against the "moralfags" is enough to condemn them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:11:02 2010 No.1141903 >>1141842 You're more of a sick fuck than any pedophile-but-non-child-molester will ever be. You're an enemy to freedom, a supporter of thoughtcrime, and a disgusting waste of flesh. Go to hell.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:12:02 2010 No.1141909 >>1141903 >pedophile-but-non-child-molester Oh please.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:13:02 2010 No.1141918

>>1141842

That's punishing people for thought crime. You want to punish people for thinking about an illegal act rather than committing it.

If everyone was arrested for thinking about committing a criminal act everyone in the world including yourself would be in jail.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:13:02 2010 No.1141920 >>1141891 Because almost all of the time the CP is REALLY OLD. If the OP implied that the CP was new, or that he was the abuser himself, even most of the pedos would join in trying to fuck that guy over.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:15:02 2010 No.1141945

>>1141918
Not to mention, pedos don't CHOOSE to have those thoughts.

It's like trying to not be straight or something, it's impossible without severe mental brainwashing. As long as they're not harming anyone, who gives a shit? Well, that guy, apparently.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:15:02 2010 No.1141947 >>1141870 Yes but the law should never be irrational. The law should attempt to provide justice fairly and without prejudice.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:16:02 2010 No.1141954

>>1141903
There is no such thing as a crime of thoughts only, you would push the myth that we as a subject is somehow different from the conglomerations of thoughts, and by thoughts all we are is the processing of stimuli, it is an ephemeral illusion, a man is responsible for his thoughts, and all thoughts are actions. Good and evil apply to a man just as much as an action, and even though they are not defined objectively they still have meaning. A good man is the same as a good computer, just much more sophisticated. A bad computer should be disassembled for scrap.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:17:02 2010 No.1141961 >>1141947 The law should always be prejudiced against the unlawful. Otherwise it would have little purpose.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:17:02 2010 No.1141967 >>1140717 Out of curiosity, is it illegal to own pictures of a dead, yet naked, child? A friend needs to know.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:17:02 2010 No.1141971 >>1141870 But a few thousand years ago, it was NORMAL for 12 year old boys to have sexual relationships with old men. In Ancient Egypt, it was normal to be married by 8 and start having kids by 12.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:18:02 2010 No.1141977 >>1141961 I don't think it's prejudice if it's against criminals. That's just straight up judging.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:18:02 2010 No.1141978

>>1141945
Pedos do choose to have those thoughts, every man chooses moment by moment to keep on living, every man takes responsibility for his totality and for the totality of the word, every moment they realize they needn't go on living. If they fail to realize that then, they aren't a man who's life means anything in the first place. The pedophile chooses himself, just as everyone else does.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:20:02 2010 No.1141992

>>1141967
If it's in a medical sense, then almost always no. Same with crime scene photos.

>>1141954
My god, you sound like O'Brien, directly out of 1984. You really ARE an enemy to freedom. I find it amusing that you think that a man can control his thoughts, though.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:20:02 2010 No.1141997

>>1141971
Who cares, morality is relative yes, but not meaningless. That child molestation is immoral now is all that is relevant, and that I will fight to keep it so in the future, and to spread that morality on the rest of the world, is perfectly justified, because I am a human being, a social animal to whom morality is necessary, irrational though it may be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:21:02 2010 No.1142008 >>1141992 Who said a man can control his thoughts? I just say that man can be judged by them, he chooses them as he chooses himself, every moment he goes on living.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 23:21:02 2010 No.1142010

Holy shit, where do you people come from?

Is there like, a school of fascism that's teach kids how to be totalitarian dictators or something?

Courts PRESUME INNOCENCE.

It us up to the prosecutor to show why you are guilty.

THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL TO RULE OF LAW AND OUR COURT SYSTEM

It means I cannot accuse you of burglarizing my house, forcing you to go to jail because you cannot prove you did not.

If the prosecution cannot, without a shadow of a doubt, show that the accused committed a crime, the accused goes free. This is justice and the way the law SHOULD WORK. Because anything else is just fucking ludicrous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:22:02 2010 No.1142014 >>1141997 At least you admit that it's irrational. Also, you fail to define "child molestation." What age does being a "child" end at?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:23:02 2010 No.1142028 >>1141997 We're not talking about child molestation. We're talking about CP, which is NOT child molestation.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:24:02 2010 No.1142043

>>1142010
No one is contesting that fuckwad. Innocence 'till proven guilty is a necessary and good thing, i am simply expressing my sorrow that pedophilia as a disposition can never be proven in court, overall I am quite supportive of the justice system as it is.

>>	снайпер Tue Jun 8 23:24:02 2010 No.1142044 >>1142008 >Who said a man can control his thoughts? Well.. you just did. I think you need to do some growing up though. The world isn't black and white, and people should not go to jail because they have a different opinion of something than you do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:26:02 2010 No.1142054 File: 133 KB, 550x500, Picard_GTFO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:27:02 2010 No.1142063

>>1142014
15, then I'd be willing to call it sexual assault (consent is still to be considered impossible until age of majority)
>>1142028
We've been talking about both, but CP is considered immoral for the same reasons as child molestation, detailed in the post to which you replied.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:28:02 2010 No.1142076

>>1142044
I didn't say a man can control his thoughts, I said a man is responsible for them, just as he is responsible for everything else about him, man is a deterministic machine, his thoughts are no different from his actions, he is responsible for the latter so he is responsible for the former.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:30:02 2010 No.1142099 >>1142076 I agree with you. How do we go after the gays once we get rid of the peados?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:31:02 2010 No.1142106 >>1142099 Hmm, I don't care, that will work itself out after Bravo goes off the air.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:31:02 2010 No.1142107

>>1142063
Have you never been 15 before?

Jesus Christ, man. You sound like a fundamentalist Christian who thinks that a boy seeing a "boob" amounts to being raped.

I'm glad you're not in control of things in my state, because in my state, the Age of Consent is 16. Doesn't stop tons of under-16s from having sex with each other, though. Nor should it. There's nothing wrong with sex as long as both parties are consenting and both parties understand what sex is, the risks involved, etc. And by "consent" I mean ACTUALLY consent, not what the state arbitrarily describes as consent. I know that I could consent way before age 15.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 23:31:02 2010 No.1142110

>>1142076
Yeah, you know what, you sound exactly like a teenage kid who's going "herp a derp I'm so philosophical look at me misusing these big words everyone!"

You're just spewing meaningless bullshit. Go back to /lit/, at least they can give you some pointers over there. God only knows how many years they've been forced to learn how to spew meaningless bullshit in english essay after english essay.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:33:02 2010 No.1142124

>>1142107
First I should correct myself I said age of majority, I meant age of consent, 16 or 17 might be reasonable for that.

I have no problems with close in age exceptions to consent laws, the issue of consent is one of power disparity the adult party has too much authority of the underage. Its not necessarily about the underage party lacking intelligence or something, its simply about human social dynamics.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:36:22 2010 No.1142142 [DELETED]

>>1142110
/sci/ has a thread on ethics and bitches about a philosophy major, odd thing really. T

hough, don't worry I'm on /sci/ because of my physics major and my role as a graduate student in materials science, I just though a thread on ethics might be a good chance to exercise my old philosophy skills a bit. I didn't realize the purpose of this thread was to sit around and talk about how awesome pedophilia is, you really should make that clearer.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:38:02 2010 No.1142153

>>1142124
Greece turned out fine...and they had sex with kids as young as 12. Would you call that "molestation" too?

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

"The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his beloved. His beloved was called eromenos whose reward for his lover lay in his beauty, youth, and promise."

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:38:02 2010 No.1142155

>>1142110
/sci/ has a thread on ethics and bitches about a philosophy major, odd thing really.

Though, don't worry I'm on /sci/ because of my physics major and my role as a graduate student in materials science, I just thought a thread on ethics might be a good chance to exercise my old philosophy skills a bit. I didn't realize the purpose of this thread was to sit around and talk about how awesome pedophilia is, you really should make that clearer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:39:02 2010 No.1142166 >>1142153 So what's your point see:>>1141997

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:39:02 2010 No.1142171 what about children looking a CP? like a 15 yr looking at a 15yr CP?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:41:02 2010 No.1142178 >>1142166 The point is that our laws shouldn't be based on petty morality when it conflicts with freedom and where there is no real damage done to the "victim," and when the "victim" is actually COMPLETELY FINE WITH IT.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:41:02 2010 No.1142180 >>1142171 I've always wondered this myself but if you look at all of the sexting charges kids are getting, then you have your answer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:41:02 2010 No.1142182 >>1142155 >implying the majority of posts in this thread aren't due to OP's pic subconsciously causing horny guys to post.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:42:02 2010 No.1142190

>>1142171
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/

"Six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones. "

All of them are between 14 and 17.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:42:02 2010 No.1142194 >>1142180 well isnt that more about distribution than possession?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:42:02 2010 No.1142195

>>1142171
Its a problem but not as urgent a one as older people looking at it. Young people are subject to the same restrictions as old people, the courts just have a wider degree of leniency for them. They should still be tried but in family court and face lesser sentences. After 18 their records will be sealed and there should be no need for a sex offender registry (though I oppose the registry in general anyway)

снайпер Tue Jun 8 23:42:02 2010 No.1142196

>>1142155
lol... a "philosophy major", is it?

You don't even realize that if man is a "deterministic machine" then he has no free will and no control over his thoughts.

You just threw a bunch of fucking words together in what passed for a sentence and assumed people would gobble your bullshit up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:43:02 2010 No.1142204 >>1142178 Morality is the only thing to base the laws on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:45:02 2010 No.1142210 >>1142196 I know what I said, look up compatibilsm as it pertains to free will and existentialism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:45:02 2010 No.1142211 >>1142171 samefag. Really? I think it should be much more lenient morally if not legally.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:45:02 2010 No.1142212

>>1142142

It isn't.

In fact if you had been paying attention every SINGLE person in this thread has agreed that abusing children is wrong and should be prevented whenever possible and punished to the full extent of the law if not.

We were discussing Child Pornography and it's affects on paedophilia. I am one of those 'sick pervert' who think that child abuse should be illegal, owning porn of IRL children being abused should be illegal but owning or creating simulated porn of children being abused should be legal due to reasons of free speech.

That art is merely a representation of an idea and that idea's can never be illegal.

Your position (which I find outrageous) is that not only can art be illegal but thoughts themselves should be illegal. That people who think things that you disapprove of should be punished by the courts even if they have not committed a crime.

Advocating thought crime isn't exercising philosophy skills, it's an affront to every advance that liberal society has made since the end of the dark ages.

>>	снайпер Tue Jun 8 23:45:02 2010 No.1142213 >>1142204 Who's morality? You saying we should adopt Sharia Law? Oh, what's that? You're coming to the sudden realization of how stupid it would be to base laws on morality?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:46:02 2010 No.1142218 >>1142211 Yes more lenient, but not entirely forgiven either.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:48:02 2010 No.1142233

>>1142211
I don't think that it should be illegal at all for a teen to take nudes of themselves, because EVERYONE FUCKING DOES IT.

See: Ancient Greece.

Times are changing, and adults are just trying to get as many kids in trouble as possible in a vain attempt to keep it from changing. It's just a shame that they're harming many kids in the process, which defeats the whole purpose of "protecting the children."

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:48:02 2010 No.1142240

>>1142213
Why would I advocate Sharia Law, I'm an American who doesn't believe 14 year olds should be sold and married to some random old man, and I clearly don't support religion if, as I've said, I'm a moral relativist. I mean the laws are all based on our societies morality, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:51:02 2010 No.1142262

>>1142218
I disagree. It should be entirely forgiven. What makes a person at 17 and 364 days any less able to handle taking nudes of themselves than a person a day older? Arbitrary limitations on things of that nature are retarded.

It should be handled very simply: ask the person how they feel IMMEDIATELY when the act/photos are discovered. If they don't mind the sex or whatever, if they *consented,* then it should be legal.

>>1142240
Except that your morality comes at the cost of people's rights.

What's next, if 51% of people think that flag-burning, or violent video games, or any other media should be illegal, it should be?

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:53:02 2010 No.1142274

>>1142212
Art is not simply a representation of an idea, that is far to broad a definition, then a single word counts as art, for every word stands in for an idea. Art is propaganda, all of it tells a story and hopes to lead us to a conclusion, even if its just a story about what beauty is. Pornography is not art, it is simply something arousing to get off to, it conveys no message beyond that.

снайпер Tue Jun 8 23:54:02 2010 No.1142275

>>1142240
Yes there IS. Because your average American is a Christian, and the Christian Bible advocates absurdities like stoning people to death for working on sundays, and ownership of slaves.

Your "moral" laws are just as fucking stupid as Islamic Sharia Law is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:55:02 2010 No.1142287 >>1142262 51% is a weak majority, I prefer consensus building, lets push that to say 67% and its all good. People's rights? the right to produce pornography of children? that is no right that I have any desire to protect

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:56:02 2010 No.1142293 The law has child porn as illegal because society says it's immoral, which says it's immoral because their parents taught them so, and since most of society says it's immoral, it's illegal. Circular logic is circular.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:56:02 2010 No.1142294 >>1142275 Except my moral laws are correct, and theirs are wrong. Its irrational yes, but I'll fight for them. You are free to do the same, fight for your right to fuck children, we'll see how that march to the Capitol dome turns out.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:57:02 2010 No.1142308

>>1142293
So, morality is not empirical or rational, it is simply human, stop fighting it and embrace humanity, we're a bunch of irrational little primates who scurry around the world building societies and trying our best to pass on our genes and protect our children.

Anonymous Tue Jun 8 23:57:02 2010 No.1142311

>>1142287
NOT TO PRODUCE IT

JUST TO LOOK AT IT

IT'S A FUCKING PICTURE

Your "morals" are ass-backwards. I wish that I lived in Ancient Greece or a culture that embraced sexuality instead of viewed it as "icky" and "only for adults," when most kids are prone to experimentation anyways.

Anonymous Wed Jun 9 00:01:02 2010 No.1142332

>>1142274

This is the whole gist of the argument my obtuse anon. Art means different things to different people.

In a democratic liberal society you HAVE to allow artistic freedom and freedom of speech. And there have been numerous court cases which have proved that one persons pornography is another persons art.

If you honestly and truly believe that another human being should be punished by a court of law for thinking of a act you don't like... even if no one was hurt by that act. Then how do you justify the many criminal acts you yourself have though of doing in the past?

Anonymous Wed Jun 9 00:07:02 2010 No.1142359

>>1142332
People really need to stop conflating thinking about something, with desiring a thing. There's a difference, a desire is a motive that would be acted upon with the right conditions, a pedophile will molest if the conditions are right, such as a suitably low chance of being caught, thus the only reason a pedophile is not a child molester is because by chance they weren't in the wrong place at the wrong time. Since we have the right to condemn the child molester we should have the right to condemn the pedophile.

Anonymous Wed Jun 9 00:11:02 2010 No.1142381

>>1142359
>People really need to stop conflating thinking about something, with desiring a thing. There's a difference, a desire is a motive that would be acted upon with the right conditions, a pedophile will molest if the conditions are right

Bullshit. I've had a chance to molest a little girl before, but I didn't because it's fucking WRONG. I fap to the idea, sure, much like I fap to the idea of rape, but I'm never going to actually do it unless it's in a simulation where no children or rapees are actually involved.

You're an idiot if you think that desire essentially constitutes doing the crime. You're basically suggesting that anyone that has a rape fantasy should be locked up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 9 00:13:02 2010 No.1142393 File: 87 KB, 469x428, Trollface_HD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1142381 Well its been fun arguing with you guys, but I'm out. You took it all hook line and sinker, but one can only keep this shit up so long. pic related.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 9 00:15:02 2010 No.1142404 File: 37 KB, 500x500, 10outof10.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1142393 .... Honestly. 10/10. You did fantastic. I fucking hate you and especially hate your persona, but congratulations. Asshole.

>>	3rdyearChemfag !Zm8pCdtzww Wed Jun 9 00:17:02 2010 No.1142416 >>1142393 LOLITROLLU.jpeg

Anonymous Wed Jun 9 00:18:02 2010 No.1142420

>>1142359

Uh huh...

You Anon are everything I despise.

As a matter of fact I too find CP squicky and pedos upsetting. But as long as no one is being hurt I would defend their right to exist and live there lives unharmed.

That is the basic human contract. We only punish people who have done wrong... not people who may do wrong in the future.

You wish to force other people to obey your whims. Whims which you admit are irrational and have nothing to do with protecting children.

Please fuck off back to /b/ because you do not have the moral character to be an ethical /sci/entist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 9 00:20:51 2010 No.1142432 lulz i found sum child porn featuren christopeher pooolar bear hearways :tinyurl dawt com / 39poqjq 49e73b0d0b4a1bcad5c7866d3875de12

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 9 00:47:02 2010 No.1142566 >>1141842 >Implying one chooses ones sexual preferences Hmmm I think I'll be attracted to man asses today.... I don't fuckin think so.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math