Kiddie Porn and the FBI

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Call it a thought crime, I could care less. It shames me not that some degenerate will miss out on slick Pixar-like productions of children being sodomized because of my opposition.

Go ahead, I’m a damn “Fascist.” A “Statist.” A blah-dee-blah-blah. Not losing sleep over this one, folks.[/quote]

How dare you, Sloth?!

Don’t you know that the Armageddon of Liberty will be fought on the Battlefield of Your God-Given Right to Watch Children Being Sexually Abused For Your Sexual Appetite?!

Don’t you know the Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration and beat the British back so that helpess kids could be dragged into sketchy motel rooms and filmed while being exploited sexually?

It’s in the Constitution!

To battle-stations against Fascists like you!

202

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Call it a thought crime, I could care less. It shames me not that some degenerate will miss out on slick Pixar-like productions of children being sodomized because of my opposition.

Go ahead, I’m a damn “Fascist.” A “Statist.” A blah-dee-blah-blah. Not losing sleep over this one, folks.

How dare you, Sloth?!

Don’t you know that the Armageddon of Liberty will be fought on the Battlefield of Your God-Given Right to Watch Children Being Sexually Abused For Your Sexual Appetite?!

Don’t you know the Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration and beat the British back so that helpess kids could be dragged into sketchy motel rooms and filmed while being exploited sexually?

It’s in the Constitution!

To battle-stations against Fascists like you![/quote]

That strawman must be the second or third man made structure observable from space.

203

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

IF the same was true for child pornography, and there is no reason to believe it is not, COULD CRIMINALIZING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEAD TO MORE ABUSED CHILDREN?

Child pornography [u][b]is[/b][/u] child abuse, so there couldn’t be a reduction in it by allowing more of it.

How could anyone possibly abuse a child by trading pictures?

By providing a market for it?

Trading, not buying.

The way I see it, after the pictures have been made, the damage is done.

[/quote]

But, even if you’re trading ‘free’ pics, you’re trading them for something, no? And, if they can be traded for something else, they have value? And if they have value there will be demand wanting to be supplied? If gold could be used as currency, why not child porn? Since you’re talking about exchange.

204

[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, even if you’re trading ‘free’ pics, you’re trading them for something, no? [/quote]

Nope.

You old farts seriously need to get on with the times. Start here:

205

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But, even if you’re trading ‘free’ pics, you’re trading them for something, no?

Nope.

You old farts seriously need to get on with the times. Start here:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/[/quote]

No thanks, don’t need the link. If you’re trading, you’re trading.

207

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

IF the same was true for child pornography, and there is no reason to believe it is not, COULD CRIMINALIZING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEAD TO MORE ABUSED CHILDREN?

Child pornography [u][b]is[/b][/u] child abuse, so there couldn’t be a reduction in it by allowing more of it.

How could anyone possibly abuse a child by trading pictures?

By providing a market for it?

Trading, not buying.

The way I see it, after the pictures have been made, the damage is done.

But, even if you’re trading ‘free’ pics, you’re trading them for something, no? And, if they can be traded for something else, they have value? And if they have value there will be demand wanting to be supplied? If gold could be used as currency, why not child porn? Since you’re talking about exchange.[/quote]

That is a clever argument.

I do not know what to make of this.

On the one hand you can multiply these pictures indefinitely. That makes it hard to see them as a currency. That would be like a dollar you can spend over and over again.

But what would such pictures buy you? Probably only other pictures of the same kind that are not in and of themselves a crime.

I think you might want to argue that some people would actually produce child pornography in order to trade it. Then, exchanging pictures would lead to a market that demands new material.

I have no way of knowing whether this is true in this case.

I was operating under the assumption that such pictures were made for profit and so I would not expect anyone making those pictures to accept pictures in exchange, but how sure can I be that that is really the case?

editing:

Thinking about it, does the act of trading pictures MUST lead to the production of new material?

Can we hold someone responsible for someone else who creates new pictures in order to trade?

The question would be, how much of an incentive do you have to create to be responsible for someone else’s action and doe we apply the same standard here that we would apply otherwise?

On this site here pictures of marijuana plants have been posted. Those pictures are not crimes in and of themselves, but let us suppose someone really broke the law to also be able to post such pictures.

Would we hold the first posters in such a case responsible for the actions of the second poster?

Another editing:

And yet another question would be, must a case like these be held to the same standards we would apply otherwise?

Could it not be argued that the safety of children justifies a higher standard?

And yet again, have we not seen were such double standards lead us?

208

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tirib, you know you did the right thing if for no other reason than jackasses with warped reasoning abilities like Liftics and Orion think you didn’t.

In fact, 90% of the time you could use both of those guys’ views as litmus tests.

I’ve said this before about Orion and it applies to Liftics as well, that they so desperately seek to be perceived as intellectual giants but they fall short by a country mile. One of the reasons for this is sometimes one thinks he is so smart that he fails to see his common sense reservoir is virtually dry.

I wonder if so many cranial atoms get used up in the pursuit of a refined intellect that practicality and reasonableness get sacrificed in the process.

On another note, it is interesting that the relative few bozos who stream tears of despair over the alleged invasion of privacy of the pedophile conveniently fail to mention the invasion of the privacy of the eight year old boys.[/quote]

You are not even able to make the distinction between a human being and a picture and yet you lecture me on common sense?

209

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tirib, you know you did the right thing if for no other reason than jackasses with warped reasoning abilities like Liftics and Orion think you didn’t.
[/quote]

What is warped about only prosecuting actual crimes? Possession of anything is not a crime unless it be stolen. It may be considered “sick” to possess child porn but that has nothing to do with committing the actual crime of taking said photos.

Should possession of historic criminal paraphernalia not then also be considered a crime? Should anyone who possess Nazi memorabilia be locked away for life? or anyone who wears a Charles Manson T-Shirt? Think about the impressionable children…

210

[quote]orion wrote:

On the one hand you can multiply these pictures indefinitely. That makes it hard to see them as a currency.

[/quote]

And yet the Federal Reserve does this very thing every day.

212

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

IF the same was true for child pornography, and there is no reason to believe it is not, COULD CRIMINALIZING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEAD TO MORE ABUSED CHILDREN?

Child pornography [u][b]is[/b][/u] child abuse, so there couldn’t be a reduction in it by allowing more of it.

How could anyone possibly abuse a child by trading pictures?

By providing a market for it?

Trading, not buying.

The way I see it, after the pictures have been made, the damage is done.

But, even if you’re trading ‘free’ pics, you’re trading them for something, no? And, if they can be traded for something else, they have value? And if they have value there will be demand wanting to be supplied? If gold could be used as currency, why not child porn? Since you’re talking about exchange.

That is a clever argument.

I do not know what to make of this.

On the one hand you can multiply these pictures indefinitely. That makes it hard to see them as a currency. That would be like a dollar you can spend over and over again.

But what would such pictures buy you? Probably only other pictures of the same kind that are not in and of themselves a crime.

I think you might want to argue that some people would actually produce child pornography in order to trade it. Then, exchanging pictures would lead to a market that demands new material.

I have no way of knowing whether this is true in this case.

I was operating under the assumption that such pictures were made for profit and so I would not expect anyone making those pictures to accept pictures in exchange, but how sure can I be that that is really the case?
[/quote]

Nothing clever about the argument. Darknets, and even the public web are filled with that kind of filth. You don’t need to trade anything to acquire it.

There is no rational explanation to forbid fictional characters from doing anything.

213

Apparently trading is going on. That is, unless the first and only image still resides in it’s original place in cyberspace. I guess all these slimeballs have retained their own self produced images. No matter how indirect, they’re being traded/exchanged. They are traded through a community. Even if only a spontaneous community.

They are passing hands, and they darn sure have value. In fact, if they had no value, the pedos would take no action. For them, it scratches a psychic itch. One that satifies a present state of unease.

214

[quote]lixy wrote:
There is no rational explanation to forbid fictional characters from doing anything.[/quote]

Correct. The fictional characters do not draw, write, animate themselves. It’s the ‘doings’ of real people that I would forbid.

There’s liberty and it’s consequences when dealing with adults, and then there’s children.

That’s it for me on this thread. Thanks again, Tir.

215

[quote]orion wrote:

How could anyone possibly abuse a child by trading pictures?
[/quote]

Because in order to produce the pictures, you must engage in child abuse.

216

[quote]orion wrote:

This is an interesting assumption that can in no way, shape or form be proven.

The only thing that animated child pornography would lead to for sure is more animated child pornography.[/quote]

That is irrelevant - we have no desire to prove it. In order to prove it, we’d have to permit and then evaluate it, and the trade-off isn’t worth it.

The assumption is good enough in furtherance of preventing the evil.

217

[quote]lixy wrote:

You make a lots of assumptions yourself about my finances. [/quote]

It’s not so much an assumption of finances and more of an assumption that you are a parasitic fop who exists on the subsidy of someone who is actually productive in society…

…and I am quite sure of that assumption.

I never said it wasn’t - but I don’t think violent video games promote the actualization of any depicted violence, nor do I think they lead to actual violence. Qualitative difference.

By the way, still waiting on that evidence that I want to ban violent video games. Tick tock, tick tock.

218

[quote]orion wrote:

That strawman must be the second or third man made structure observable from space.[/quote]

It’s not a strawman - it’s a parody of your idiotic libertine positions that, to be honest, are self-executing parodies of themselves without my help.

219

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No thanks, don’t need the link. If you’re trading, you’re trading. [/quote]

No, “trading” in only a market function when it helps their arguments for a gold standard, etc. - “trading”, which is still exchanging things you value in the absence of a recognized medium, isn’t “trading” when they need a quick denial that a “market” doesn’t exist…it is, er, um, hmmm, well, uh, “trading” not “buying”.

Don’t you see?

220

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’ve said this before about Orion and it applies to Liftics as well, that they so desperately seek to be perceived as intellectual giants but they fall short by a country mile.[/quote]

Nail on the head.