Kiddie Porn and the FBI

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[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]

Does this count?

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sex_girls_pictures_hot_pics_photo_women/the_worship_thread?id=955954&pageNo=0

462

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I believe “refrain(ing) from joining in the cyber-lynchings of possessors of dirty pictures” hardly characterizes the typewritten words of the posters you mentioned. Open advocacy for the freedom of possession would be a more accurate description.

In other words “open advocacy” does not equal “refraining from lynching”. The comparison does not even come close.[/quote]

Fine, but then (to keep with the Old West theme), the open advocates of freedom of possession would be those few townsfolk who would themselves neither rustle cattle, buy the stolen animals, butcher the carcasses nor even receive any of the meat, but who believe that while the rustlers should be hanged, and the buyers and butchers should probably be horsewhipped out of town, the folks with a few pounds of meat in their freezer probably don’t deserve such harsh measures.

These folks are but few voices of dissent among the rest of the town, who wants to hang everyone from the rustlers on down to the town drunk, who was found with a highly incriminating roast beef sandwich.

But now you seem to want to hang those few townsfolk, too, for being apologists for cattle rustling and stolen beef-having.

463

When he’s done with his punishment, he’s going to burn your house down and kill your family.

465

[quote]orion wrote:
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?

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?
[/quote]

That brings us back to the original question: what constitutes harm to others? I don’t think I’ve indicated that I want to “hunt down everyone who has a slightly deranged sexuality.” Do you think I’ve indicated that?

Isn’t the question whether the guy Tiribulus turned in is guilty of harming others or not? My understanding is that the downloaded files contained genuine child pornography. Not benign pictures of pretty children.

My contention is that even though it was passive, at least to some extent, his role in seeking and obtaining child pornography, which is the depiction of illegal acts, is criminal. I further contend that it constitutes real harm in that his “want” creates a demand that the marketplace endeavors to supply.

Perhaps Tiribulus’ guy didn’t pay for his kiddie porn. Maybe his buddy passed it along. It doesn’t matter. Possession is enough. I have no issue with pedophilia itself. I just want it so far underground, so deeply closeted, that no child need ever know about it. So let all the neighborhood bozos get off to their old videocassette of Pretty Baby. As long as everyone is so terrified of getting caught with kiddie porn that no one will buy it or consider spending money to produce it, I’m good.

466

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

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?

Does this count?

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sex_girls_pictures_hot_pics_photo_women/the_worship_thread?id=955954&pageNo=0

[/quote]
That was certainly interesting, but no. I don’t consider that child pornography.

To be honest, I found the recurrent rape theme more concerning than the pedophiliac fantasy, though not “concerning” in any criminal sense of course.

It’s interesting to me that there is so little material of that sort geared toward women. I can’t even think of anything that corresponds. What’s with men??

467

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
What’s with men?? [/quote]

Which men?

468

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
What’s with men??

Which men?[/quote]

All men. I need you to explain men to me. In concrete terms if you would, please.

469

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
All men. I need you to explain men to me. In concrete terms if you would, please.[/quote]

I’m not a collectivist.

470

Nor am I, but I thought it would take too long to explain each individual man.

471

Men have penises.

472

I see. Thank you for explaining it to me.

473

Can’t you just read Cosmo to figure this stuff out?

Nearly every woman who writes for that magazine is an expert on men and what satisfies them.

474

I have read Cosmo, but rather than explaining what’s with men it just made me wonder what’s with women.

476

[quote]pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
…it just made me wonder what’s with women.

When you did this wondering did you happen to arrive at any conclusions?

[/quote]

The men have made the women squirrelly, Push.