Kiddie Porn and the FBI

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And yes, I’d like to see if your answer differs much from mine.

For the first two I’d pull the trapdoor lever or swat the horse on the ass or pull the trigger or flip the switch or slice the throat so fast your anarchist head would spin like Linda Blair’s and your libertarian eyeballs would fly out of their sockets from the centrifugal force.

The guy jacking off to just naked pics of kids would lose his balls to the dullest razor knife in my toolbox and he’d watch my dog eat them in front of his very eyes. If he was jacking off to pics of children being abused he would lose his life akin to the murderer or rapist.

And if any of this happened with my children he would die a very slow and very painful death; one that would impress even the most sadistic Apache who ever pissed a drop on the Mogollon Rim.

To stay with the western theme do you happen to recall what happened to the character Jake Spoon in McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove? Do you remember how and why he died?

If so, be that a reminder to any apologist for pedophiles whether he be of an anarchist or libertarian or rehabilitationist bent. If you ride with 'em even if you haven’t committed their crimes and me and my boys cut your trail and hunt you down, you’re going to swing from the end of an oak tree branch too.

So to sum it all up succinctly, I’d pretty much give no quarter.[/quote]

Charming.

You know, you really need to learn to distinguish “able to discuss a topic without having one’s capacity to reason crippled by emotion” with being “apologist.”

I have no sympathy for anyone who would actually harm a child, nor for anyone who is excited by a child being harmed. Which should have been obvious to you had you actually read the post you were responding to.

It’s amusing that you would advocate for the rapist and murderer (who actually did directly harm children) quick and merciful deaths, and only torture the man who never touched a child, unless the images he was masturbating to depicted abused children, then he too would get the quick and merciful death. Seems a bit illogical.

In my post, I advocated forty years of hard labor for the murderer, followed by execution. Forty years for him to every day contemplate and regret his misdeed, knowing only that at the end of it, he gets the noose.

The rapist gets life without parole, among hardened criminals who, seeing the tattoo on his forehead declaring “CHILD RAPIST.” will make his punishment fit his crime multiple times a day, every day for the rest of his life, forcing the punishment roughly to fit, without lubricant.

So my question back to you, sir, is why are you so comparably soft on child rapists and murderers?

443

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I never said I had any real problem with your answer. And you shouldn’t let any emotion of your own misconstrue things to where you were thinking that you were the apologist unless indeed you are one and if so I am unaware of it.[/quote]

If that’s the case, then I misunderstood you. I guess it was this line that I misconstrued:

“[quote]be that a reminder to any apologist for pedophiles whether he be of an anarchist or libertarian or rehabilitationist bent. If you ride with 'em even if you haven’t committed their crimes and me and my boys cut your trail and hunt you down, you’re going to swing from the end of an oak tree branch too.[/quote]”

I interpreted that as meaning that anyone who refrained from joining in the cyber-lynchings of possessors of dirty pictures deserved to be lynched as well. I figured you were including me in that broad brush stroke, particularly in light of our recent conversation concerning anarchism.

But now I realize that you were probably primarily referring to Orion, Lifticvs and Schwarzfahrer. If so, then as Em so eloquently put it, “my bad.” Though for the record, I don’t want to see them lynched, either.

Jake Spoon, by the way, was lynched because he actually did take part in the murders and cattle rustling, not simply because he opined that cattle rustling shouldn’t always be a hanging offense.

444

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t know, when my brother-in-law sent Omaha Steaks for Christmas I owned them without having purchased them. Isn’t it still my rapacious appetite for steak that creates the market?

Let’s say I’ve stolen the steak. What then?

Editing to add that I have no interest in treating foolish teens as criminals. I would use the legal leverage to mandate them to counseling.

You would force healthy teenagers to counseling…? Hello, nanny state! You do realize puberty means one is ready for sexual activity?

Anyway, demand is only created by an incentive. Unlike supply it is not a measurable quantity. So, in the instance of you getting gifted some steaks the demand was created by the actual purchase. An exchange is an expression of demand.

Your brother-in-law could have shared his purchase with ten other recipients but no new demand is created. Demand is only expressed by actively choosing and expressing that choice with an exchange. You can say you might want to purchase more steaks but until you actually do there is no demand being fulfilled.

Similarly, no purveyor of steaks is going to supply you just because you want them. You have to be willing to pay and not just fantasizing about eating meat.[/quote]

Force healthy teens into counseling? No, of course not. My assumption is that the sexuality of healthy teens will never come to the court’s attention. If photos do come to the court’s attention generally it will be for one of two reasons. One is that the teen is broadcasting photos of him or herself, in which case one wonders why. Maybe he or she is just a free spirit, in which case fine. That will be established and everyone can go home and sleep soundly.

I think you and I differ in our assumptions about counseling. So you sit in an office three times and talk about stuff. Where’s the horror? Generally kids don’t hate it, though they may roll their eyes. In my experience they like it, sociable creatures that they are. We’re not talking about stabbing anyone with poisoned darts here. The other possibility is that the teen sent the pics to a trusted boyfriend or girlfriend assuming they would be private and was betrayed. Here again, processing that is not the worst thing that could happen. In some cases other stuff will be going on and the kid will stay in counseling working through it. That’s a win.

As for the nanny state, I hate to be the one to shatter your pleasant vision of the world as a happy place where only good things happen, but some kids don’t have super nice parents. That stuff you see on TV, where the mom and dad are always sober and willing to talk? Where sex talks are bumbling but well-meaning and ultimately helpful? That stuff isn’t always the reality. Would that it were. But it’s not.

Lastly, I think you’re confused about the concept of supply and demand. Whether my BIL paid for the steak or I did, the demand was met (supplied). If he had shared it with ten other people that would be the case as well. I’m going to assume that those hypothetical ten people who did not enjoy the steak my BIL sent to me bought other steak to sate their own appetites, as I would probably have done had it not been purchased for me.

“Demand” and “wish” are different enough concepts that there shouldn’t be a great deal of confusion. Vague wishes are not the focus of capitalist suppliers of commercial goods, you are correct. Whereas a “rapacious appetite” probably would be. What was your point?

447

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
What was your point?
[/quote]

Your BIL gifting you steak does not create additional demand for steak. The supplier only sees one purchase. He has no reason to believe the supply should be increased beyond the unit purchased by your BIL because he does not even consider you a possible customer.

This is completely analogous to someone sharing pictures via an archive. There is no demand being expressed here. There is no information exchanged from the original supplier to those the original purchaser decides to share his images with. The original supplier has no reason to believe he should produce more images.

Besides this, the nature of the internet pretty much guarantees that all information could eventually be had for free. The implication is that those that produce kiddie porn are doing so because they want to – and they would probably produce it regardless of the financial benefit they might get from it. Thus, someone downloading and viewing kiddie porn does not create an incentive to produce new kiddie porn.

I would suggest it is not me that is confused about supply and demand but rather the people who imagine something happening that does not.

448

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
What was your point?

Your BIL gifting you steak does not create additional demand for steak. The supplier only sees one purchase. He has no reason to believe the supply should be increased beyond the unit purchased by your BIL because he does not even consider you a possible customer.

This is completely analogous to someone sharing pictures via an archive. There is no demand being expressed here. There is no information exchanged from the original supplier to those the original purchaser decides to share his images with. The original supplier has no reason to believe he should produce more images.

Besides this, the nature of the internet pretty much guarantees that all information could eventually be had for free. The implication is that those that produce kiddie porn are doing so because they want to – and they would probably produce it regardless of the financial benefit they might get from it. Thus, someone downloading and viewing kiddie porn does not create an incentive to produce new kiddie porn.

I would suggest it is not me that is confused about supply and demand but rather the people who imagine something happening that does not.[/quote]

You’re suggesting that child pornography is not profit-motivated? That it is now randomly generated, not a thriving industry spawning side industries (such as encryption software)?

I think you make the mistake of assuming that once the image is obtained the appetite is sated. It isn’t, not for very long. New images are being funneled into the system on an ongoing basis. Maybe some people at the end of the line are enjoying them for free (bottom-feeders) but someone is paying up the line.

And you’re absolutely correct that my BIL gifting me steak doesn’t create additional demand. It simply satisfies the existing demand. My demand, for steak. If my BIL wants steak, too, someone is going to have to pay for it. Maybe him, maybe me. Then, of course, the supply must increase if that demand is going to be met. It doesn’t matter who the payor is. If I feed six children steak the supply is still meeting demand created by their need for nourishment and my willingness to obtain it for them.

I’m not under the impression that feedlot operators very much care whether I or my brother-in-law or the homeless lady I dragged in off the street eat the steak. They don’t see me or my BIL or care which of us gave a credit card number, we’re too far down the line for them. What they see is demand. As I’ve been saying. :slight_smile:

But I will also mention that you’re mistaken about the immediate supplier seeing me as a potential customer. Omaha Steaks advertises to us relentlessly, as I know they do my brother-in-law. They know perfectly well what the shipping address was on that order. I would imagine their system also evaluates the demographic value of my household to decide how much marketing effort we’re worth. I promise you, they consider me a possible customer and are wildly desirous of increasing demand beyond the unit purchased by my BIL.

449

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
orion wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

The photos of the children are supplied to fill demand from pedophiles. Those children are raped and abused. Their sexual abuse feeds the appetite of your local kiddie porn bozo, who pays to enjoy his fix. He is a threat because he has the means (money) to cause harm to be done on his behalf.

Cows are not killed randomly. They’re killed in response to my cry for steak and because of my willingness to pay for it. They are killed on my behalf, a service I gladly pay money for, being disinclined to bludgeon my own livestock to death. Are you familiar with the nutria or coypu? Attempts have been made to establish markets for its meat and fur but because it’s a disgusting rat-thing no one is interested. Hence you won’t see the kind of large-scale nutria feedlots you’ll notice for cattle driving through Amarillo, TX. No demand means no supply means no feedlots dedicated to the fattening of nutria.

In you´re scenario you create a demand because you are willing to pay for it.

That makes a good case against buying that kind of pictures, but not against owning it.

This way you could also avoid punishing teenagers who film themselves.

I don’t know, when my brother-in-law sent Omaha Steaks for Christmas I owned them without having purchased them. Isn’t it still my rapacious appetite for steak that creates the market?

Let’s say I’ve stolen the steak. What then?

Editing to add that I have no interest in treating foolish teens as criminals. I would use the legal leverage to mandate them to counseling.[/quote]

In the first case he had to buy or produce it, which would both be illegal and in the second case you have not really created any demand by stealing, haven´t you?

Nobody produces anything so that it can be stolen.

450

Advertising does not create demand. Until there is a purchase it is all just market speculation.

Demand only exists when it is expressed via an exchange. The psychological nature of individuals does not factor into it.

Without a receipt there is no proof that any demand exists…and it is all historical data anyway.

451

[quote]orion wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
orion wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

The photos of the children are supplied to fill demand from pedophiles. Those children are raped and abused. Their sexual abuse feeds the appetite of your local kiddie porn bozo, who pays to enjoy his fix. He is a threat because he has the means (money) to cause harm to be done on his behalf.

Cows are not killed randomly. They’re killed in response to my cry for steak and because of my willingness to pay for it. They are killed on my behalf, a service I gladly pay money for, being disinclined to bludgeon my own livestock to death. Are you familiar with the nutria or coypu? Attempts have been made to establish markets for its meat and fur but because it’s a disgusting rat-thing no one is interested. Hence you won’t see the kind of large-scale nutria feedlots you’ll notice for cattle driving through Amarillo, TX. No demand means no supply means no feedlots dedicated to the fattening of nutria.

In you´re scenario you create a demand because you are willing to pay for it.

That makes a good case against buying that kind of pictures, but not against owning it.

This way you could also avoid punishing teenagers who film themselves.

I don’t know, when my brother-in-law sent Omaha Steaks for Christmas I owned them without having purchased them. Isn’t it still my rapacious appetite for steak that creates the market?

Let’s say I’ve stolen the steak. What then?

Editing to add that I have no interest in treating foolish teens as criminals. I would use the legal leverage to mandate them to counseling.

In the first case he had to buy or produce it, which would both be illegal and in the second case you have not really created any demand by stealing, haven´t you?

Nobody produces anything so that it can be stolen.

[/quote]

No, of course not, but wouldn’t the original owner need to replace it? Nobody produces things so they can be stolen but those things are still a part of our economy.

452

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Advertising does not create demand. Until there is a purchase it is all just market speculation.

Demand only exists when it is expressed via an exchange. The psychological nature of individuals does not factor into it.

Without a receipt there is no proof that any demand exists…and it is all historical data anyway.[/quote]

You’re kidding, right? Advertising exists to stimulate demand and to sway demand so that it’s focused on the advertiser’s products. It does so with resounding success.

But that was just a side note in direct response to your assertion that the supplier “has no reason to believe the supply should be increased beyond the unit purchased by your BIL because he does not even consider you a possible customer.”

Attempted acquisition of goods or services represents demand. I dispute that a receipt is needed. Demand can be expressed for goods that are unavailable. Demand can also be expressed through theft.

453

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
orion wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
orion wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

The photos of the children are supplied to fill demand from pedophiles. Those children are raped and abused. Their sexual abuse feeds the appetite of your local kiddie porn bozo, who pays to enjoy his fix. He is a threat because he has the means (money) to cause harm to be done on his behalf.

Cows are not killed randomly. They’re killed in response to my cry for steak and because of my willingness to pay for it. They are killed on my behalf, a service I gladly pay money for, being disinclined to bludgeon my own livestock to death. Are you familiar with the nutria or coypu? Attempts have been made to establish markets for its meat and fur but because it’s a disgusting rat-thing no one is interested. Hence you won’t see the kind of large-scale nutria feedlots you’ll notice for cattle driving through Amarillo, TX. No demand means no supply means no feedlots dedicated to the fattening of nutria.

In you´re scenario you create a demand because you are willing to pay for it.

That makes a good case against buying that kind of pictures, but not against owning it.

This way you could also avoid punishing teenagers who film themselves.

I don’t know, when my brother-in-law sent Omaha Steaks for Christmas I owned them without having purchased them. Isn’t it still my rapacious appetite for steak that creates the market?

Let’s say I’ve stolen the steak. What then?

Editing to add that I have no interest in treating foolish teens as criminals. I would use the legal leverage to mandate them to counseling.

In the first case he had to buy or produce it, which would both be illegal and in the second case you have not really created any demand by stealing, haven´t you?

Nobody produces anything so that it can be stolen.

No, of course not, but wouldn’t the original owner need to replace it? Nobody produces things so they can be stolen but those things are still a part of our economy.

[/quote]

Ha!

Ve are in ze 21 zentury!

Meaning in the digital age this is no longer true.

Pictures are just data that can be copied.

454

I could be mistaken, but I think that’s not true of the kind of pictures we’re talking about because the risk is so high.

We’re still talking about raped children, right? Not generic porn?

455

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Advertising exists to stimulate demand and to sway demand so that it’s focused on the advertiser’s products.[/quote]

Advertising is a psychological product. I am trying to argue that your understanding of demand is incorrectly linked to psychology.

[quote]
Attempted acquisition of goods or services represents demand. I dispute that a receipt is needed. Demand can be expressed for goods that are unavailable. [/quote]
No. This is all just psychological. It does not exist in the economic sense.

Demand only exists because of action. Want is purely psychological.

A new supply will not be fulfilled by psychic knowledge but rather because demand for what actually exists has been expressed.

For example, a store owner is not going to restock his shelves until he knows his product is demanded.

I agree with this claim.

456

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I could be mistaken, but I think that’s not true of the kind of pictures we’re talking about because the risk is so high.

We’re still talking about raped children, right? Not generic porn?[/quote]

Once a picture is digital you can copy it with a mouseclick.

Any picture.

457

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Advertising exists to stimulate demand and to sway demand so that it’s focused on the advertiser’s products.

Advertising is a psychological product. I am trying to argue that your understanding of demand is incorrectly linked to psychology.

Attempted acquisition of goods or services represents demand. I dispute that a receipt is needed. Demand can be expressed for goods that are unavailable.
No. This is all just psychological. It does not exist in the economic sense.

Demand only exists because of action. Want is purely psychological.

A new supply will not be fulfilled by psychic knowledge but rather because demand for what actually exists has been expressed.

For example, a store owner is not going to restock his shelves until he knows his product is demanded.

Demand can also be expressed through theft.

I agree with this claim.[/quote]

I disagree that demand for what already exists is the only compelling economic factor for suppliers. The crowds lined up outside of Olive Garden on Saturday nights (and leaving without purchasing food because they’re frustrated by the wait) factor into the company’s decision to expand or for competitors to try to draw business away.

Your desire to think only in concrete terms blinds you to the power of want and to the efficacy of manipulating it. Demand can be manipulated and is manipulated every day by suppliers, who then respond by creating more of whatever they’re supplying.

458

[quote]orion wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
I could be mistaken, but I think that’s not true of the kind of pictures we’re talking about because the risk is so high.

We’re still talking about raped children, right? Not generic porn?

Once a picture is digital you can copy it with a mouseclick.

Any picture.

[/quote]

LOL…so I’ve heard.

So, I’m pretty curious and I click lots of links at T-Nation and everywhere. But I don’t think I’ve ever stumbled across any kiddie porn.

I wonder if anyone else has ever bumped into it surfing around?

459

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
orion wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
I could be mistaken, but I think that’s not true of the kind of pictures we’re talking about because the risk is so high.

We’re still talking about raped children, right? Not generic porn?

Once a picture is digital you can copy it with a mouseclick.

Any picture.

LOL…so I’ve heard.

So, I’m pretty curious and I click lots of links at T-Nation and everywhere. But I don’t think I’ve ever stumbled across any kiddie porn.

I wonder if anyone else has ever bumped into it surfing around?[/quote]

When I was a teenager I once downloaded one video that was borderline.

Considering my teenage porn Dls that id negligible.

Anyway, nobody is arguing that this is perfectly healthy.

It isn´t.

But, if we agree that our resources are limited, do we have to hunt down everyone who has a slightly deranged sexuality?

Or just those who hurt others?

460

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I disagree that demand for what already exists is the only compelling economic factor for suppliers…
[/quote]

Speculators expand their businesses every day based on their false perceptions of demand. They usually end up bankrupt.

I have no doubt in the role psychology plays in choices made but I cannot prove what those choices would be even if I were so inclined. So I must stick with concrete things that are observable. Economics deals with such things.