Slashdot Mirror
Roasting Sacred Cows
Hans Gilde writes: "Pedophilia has been a big topic in the UK lately, there have been riots, beatings and vandalism resulting from [pedophile witchhunts]. In an attempt "to ask hard questions about the way society and the media deal with its most difficult problems" and point out "that famous people have a habit of denouncing things without knowing much about them", a comedian in the UK produced a TV show, described in an article in the NY Times, in which he actually got a member of Parliament to say the following, on the air, in all seriousness: "Using an area of the Internet the size of Ireland, pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible."" This show is frankly hilarious, and the reaction to it is even better. You probably want to see the show, eh? It's available in .avi or Real and DivX.
None of these seem to work for me. Site not found, file not found or authorization failed are the errors. Is there a known issue or is my ISP making a mess?
As for the age of consent, agreed, it's debateable, but there's a lot of other factors of life in modern American society that require different ages. 18 to vote or serve in the military or buy porn or cigarettes, 21 to drink alcohol, roughly 18 to get married, 16 to drive, etc*. One important issue with kids and sex is the parents--even if that thirteen year old girl consents to having sex with the 20 year old guy, the girl's parents are left with the responsibility of taking care of her and possibly the resulting child as well. (The father could be ordered to pay child support or restitution, but would not legally be allowed to marry or live independently with the girl, assuming that he wasn't in jail for statutory rape in the first place.) Or if the kid catches an STD, it's the parents' responsibility as far as medical treatment both in terms of insurance and power of attorney as to permission to give treatment.
However, there's still a big difference between children and teenagers, which is precisely why those freedoms and responsibilities are phased in beginning around the age of 16. Until we open all of the other privileges--voting, driving, drinking, etc. up to children of all ages, as well as requiring children to be employed and self-sufficient, the consent issue is pretty moot.
*Never too young to pay taxes, though! As for the ages mentioned, your mileage may vary depending on your state, etc.
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
hmmm...the daily poll is "favourite terrorist organisation", so I'm guessing it's a pisstake.
> > It's what Nissan used to call itself in English-speaking countries
> In Belgium too, which is not English-speaking.
> Maybe the same reason why Opel is called Vauxhall in the UK?
No, the Nissan company used to brand their cars "Datsun". (Similarly with Mitshbishi/Colt). There's an old joke with the punchline "raining Datsun cogs".
("Fuji Heavy Industry" are still using the Subaru brand for their cars http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/index.htm)
Opel and Vauxhall are companies which are both owned by General Motors, but kept their names and badges.
But back to the original point - there is no such offense as "jaywalking" in the UK, but pedestrians are encouraged to use crossings where possible. Although pedestrians do have right of way on roads (other than motorways (freeways) where they aren't allowed), that doesn't mean a driver who hits a pedestrian on the road is automatically guilty of an offense even if the pedestrian jumped out suddenly.
rant
You are taking the piss right? Irony merchant... And yes, Slashdot's muppet technical support wouldn't mail my login so I could reply without being anonymous.
> We're giving too much attention to a TV show with the intelligence of a prank phone call.
Hardly. If there's a single, take-home message from the series, it's that charities, parliamentarians, government, the press and mass media collude to make rational public debate impossible: "major news topics" derive their sole significance from the extent to which they afford lobbyists, parliamentarians and the news media a pretext for creating mutually self-serving moral panics.
So, in a programme that dealt with the social and media hypocrisy surrounding child sex abuse, the point was made that anyone dissenting from the current hysteria (and suggesting, say, that paedophiles require treatment rather than demonization) would be either ignored or vilified.
Funnily enough, within a day of transmission Morris was vilified in the tabloid press and the programme condemned -- sight unseen -- by three government ministers.
Compared with the rest of a brilliant series, the programme was arguably below par. But to conclude from the fact it was under-written that Morris is somehow a "hack" is frankly stupid.
I never said the effect of the two crimes was the same. I said in my view, both are equally wrong: rape/molestment is a form of torture, and torture, imo, is just as morally wrong as murder. Nor did I ever say the victim's life was over, and nor is it in America -- there are numerous groups to help people who've been raped.
If you convince government to equate rape/molestment with murder then the victim's life is very likely to be over. Since they might feel they have less risk of being caught without a live witness against them.
A rapist or child molestor is really a man who keeps his victim alive, so he can torture her/him
Not all rapists and child molestors have a penis. Given the sexist surrounding the whole issue its impossible to tell how many are men and how many are women however.
are you a post-natal mother? apparently new mothers have uncontrollable urges to pick up babies with their butts sticking way in the air. probably something to do with the fact that if they're in that situation, then the baby is probably on it's way out of the cave, see darwin for the rest...
He was also making fun about people with attitudes like yours. You seemed to miss that part.
I agree that Brass Eye isn't 'satire', it's simply comedic genius. A pity that you (and the Daily Mail reading masses) did not appreciate it.
And of course, I'm not doubting that you've seen the programme for a second...
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
"At my last company we the joke policy was amended to preclude jokes that referred to race, religion, politics, sex, and sexuality: leaving exactly nothing to joke about."
You can still make jokes about murder, torture, and dismemberment.
Who invented the language? How's about the Germans? That's right: English is just a perverted version of German, so much so that you'd have a hard time finding the similarities. And the Brits feel that they have a right to lecture the AMERICANS about what they do to the language? I'll decline to take that seriously, thank-you.
A friend of mine once said that a male friend of hers was ashamed of being a male after watching "Accused" with Jodie Foster.
I asked "why? Did he get excited by the Rape scene?"
Similar thing.
You could still joke about the policy, management, your competiters...
I saw it but think I totally missed a lot of the british-centric jokes. Like I had no clue that guy was actually a member of the Parliment.
And what the hell was Phil Collins doing? Were those taken out of context from some other show, or was he in on the joke? I didn't really get it.
All in all, I thought it was pretty funny, but not nearly as funny as it had the potential to be. The first two minutes make you think it's gonna be hilarious and then it's just...not.
Maybe I'd think differently if I was british.
How low can /. go?
I always thought /. was high tech and nerdie stuff. Geez if I wanted a here about a stupid british (non-scifi) show I would expect to find it on PBS.
I'd like to see you try that in London without getting mown down by a battered looking Datsun Sunny.
Morris is a hack. He claims to be a biting satirist, but he will always sublimate any such intent when presented with the opportunity to present a dim, B (or C) list celebrity in a bad light. Making Phil Collins (Phil Collins for fucks sake) look a bit stupid, is not satire, it's not enlightening, and it certainly isn't very difficult.
We're giving too much attention to a TV show with the intelligence of a prank phone call.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
She read about it. How's that for detailed and useful knowledge of a topic you will be deciding on?
Hello, kettle.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Old enough to pee, old enough for me...
My guess would be the media, who want to make a profit. There used to be tabloids, but now every news media, and especially in poor britain, is more or less tabloid.
I could rant on about how it has to do with the traditional class divisons in Britain, and that these media idiots are really trying to turn their entire people into what americans would call "white trash". But I'm too tired! And disgusted!
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Given your beliefs you should have told no one about the sex crime and immediately killed yourself. How selfish of you to go on living and cause everyone pain.
You did not say if you have children, but if you do or will then you should sit them down one day and tell them:
"If an adult ever has sex with you or sexually molests you in any way, you must kill yourself immediately. And you should mutilate your genitals before you do so that there is no evidence you were sexually molested. This will be the best thing for you, and for your family and friends."
If you don't tell your children this, then you are a hypocrite.
shadyup you fib... don't ever try to tell me we create as much garbage as you gd flatlanders. lookit your gd Ford Expeditions everywhere you wank.
I never said the effect of the two crimes was the same. I said in my view, both are equally wrong: rape/molestment is a form of torture, and torture, imo, is just as morally wrong as murder. Nor did I ever say the victim's life was over, and nor is it in America -- there are numerous groups to help people who've been raped. A rapist or child molestor is really a man who keeps his victim alive, so he can torture her/him. You wouldn't say that if I spared your life only to torture you, that would be somehow more "noble" than killing you on my part, would you? Of course not.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
1. This was news on Geekizoid.com (including links) a week ago.
2. cookdandbomd were having trouble handling the load before. Now they've been slashdotted, you can fucking well forget it.
3. *All* episodes of Brass Eye are brilliant. The ones on cookdandbombd are the censored ones shown ages ago. In the UK we've recently been treated to the uncensored ones (thanks C4).
4. It is very U.K based. A lot of the humour comes from taking the piss out of well-known British celebs and news-readers and their affectations. You yankee pig-dogs will miss a lot of the jokes because of that.
5. "Roboplegic wrongcock" is one of the finest mutliations of the English language ever. Don't miss this new Brass Eye paedophile episode, it really is excellent.
--
chdz
>So we should wonder: what was the point inthe
>history of Western culture where pedophilia
>switched from white to black? And why?
Easy: With the introduction of christianity....
No, it's not just you. They worked about an hour ago, but no go anymore. My ongoing downloads just timed out.
I think it's pretty clear the problem is on your end. Get some help, Johnny.
Read the site policy. Trolls are not allowed. The editors there had no problem with removing comments written to just get a hysterical reaction.
Maybe Americans are a bit less - oh, how shall I put this - INSANE than the British are at the moment.
Uhhh... can you imagine for just one second what the reaction would be if this program were shown in the USA?!
Come on - America practically invented the whole screechy "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" thing. We'd see morally outraged self-righteous christians pounding their fists on tables, and declaring that it's a work of the devil! At least public opinion in Britain seems to be swaying back towards the side of reason, as people finally get the joke.
I missed the program... the media hystreria over here was quite shocking - the same media that supported the beating up of a peadiatrician and the assaults of several people who just happend to look vaguely like the fuzzy photographs they published...
When you get politicians and popstars making stupid statements without ever even thinking whether what they were saying made *sense* (and no, none of them were in on the joke) it makes you wonder what other kinds of crap they're saying in supposedly 'serious' programs.
This comment says it well, from the end of the article:
`"How Mr. Morris must be laughing," Harry Owen of Horley, Surrey, wrote in a letter to The Daily Telegraph. "Perhaps Channel 4, instead of apologizing, should have simply said, `We rest our case.' "'
It's funny how satire becomes reality in that way. It's kind of like the South Park movie; the whole thing parodied, prior to the fact, the reaction of everyone to the movie after it was released.
Such satire is the most brilliant kind -- when a satire makes fun of the very reaction people have tot he satire. It's when you know that the satire's creators have hit their target right in the center of the bullseye.
Q: Why exactly is murdering a child any worse than murdering an adult, or a senior citizen?
A: Well, it's a twisted stew. For one, because the child has much longer to live. There is also of course the question of helplessness -- we here in Western society have a deeply ingrained feeling that "bullying is bad," that one should "pick on someone one's own size." Children are obviously less able to defend themselves than adults. There is the fact that in Western society we think that adults are supposed to take care of children, not harm them; our whole society is designed around keeping children safe. Granted, we all have different ideas about what *will* keep them safe, but the core principle is there. There's also the "that could be MY kid" effect, which hits people right where they live.
Of course, many of these reasons for outrage can be and are applied to other people, to greater or lesser degrees. Murdering a senior citizen is very bad because senior citizens tend to be more helpless than the general public, and also because there's the "that could be MY parent" effect. Murdering a healthy and strong adult is very bad because s/he was "in the prime of his/her life," with a long and productive existence in store.
The reasons for being outraged vary from situation to situation, but it's just that more of them seem to apply to children. Thus, murdering a child is "worse" than murdering someone else.
The difficulty with fiction is that murder can have lots of motives, and in the realm of comedy, there's often the joke that someone deserved to get murdered, or that someone was accidentally killed. It's a lot different to "accidentally" rape a five year old, or have a legitimate motive for doing so that enthralls the reader/viewer/etc.
Our current ideas of age of consent (mixed as they are) are hardly universal through out history. What was the age of consent in ancient Rome, the Egyptian empire or the various American peoples 1,000 years ago?
Alternativly you can have a sci-fi culture which has any rules you'd like to invent about sexuality.
"can" leave scars...what if it doesn't? What are the percentages of those that are scarred vs. those that aren't, and who decides who is scarred or not?
Also when this does happen what is actually causing the "scaring"
Are there controlled studies?
Odds on if anyone attempted to carry them out then they'd receive death threats. (In the same way that reseach in to domestic violence generated death threats when the results made a nonsense of feminist dogma.)
Why don't you?!! I want to see it too.
I just got freenet and I'm still trying to figure out how to use it. I *think* I just inserted the two 12-minute segments under the keys
brass eye special part 1 of 2 (divx)
brass eye special part 2 of 2 (divx)
How can I find out whether I successfully inserted the files?
The shareholder is always right.
so we're not talking about the "uncle fucker" song?
damn!. I'd better look through my videos again...
What's the big deal? THe internet only creates a better way for distribution. People are completely forgetting that the internet hardly creates a better way for pedophiles to gather subjects to abuse. Yes, there's child pornography on the 'net. But the size of Ireland? Damn, those Brits really are pissed off that they can't rule all of Ireland, aren't they?
Is adequacy.org for real or just pisstake?
Bits of it are written very convincingly, but honestly "the wholesome family entertainment of Big Brother" is a bit of a give away.
Sociologically /. is a perferct mirror of the lousiest parts of society.
(and yes, I do agree, I'm part of it just like you)
-- Colin
In Greek culture pedophilia was not only not harmful, but considered exceptionally beneficial (see: Plato's Symposium). So we should wonder: what was the point in the history of Western culture where pedophilia switched from white to black? And why?
In fact, British Airways has an official policy of not seating young children next to men when children fly alone.
Oh, yeah, that sounds like a *real* problem. I would actually request that the airline NOT seat an unsupervised young child next to me on an airplane. Do you really want a mommy-less brat dripping snot and whining next to you for X hours?
He's certainly become viciously ironic and he's merciless to people who'll say anything, no matter how stupid, ("that's a scientific fact, although there's no actual evidence for it") in aid of a good cause. But all he's doing, and he's doing it in an incisive and very pointed way, is to exaggerate the way the British Media covers these topics: hysteria, ludicrously simplistic solutions, and lots of space given to uninformed but well-meaning celebrities (Carol Vorderman being a prime example).
Most of the public commentary was an illustration of the inability to distinguish between the debate about paedophilia and any discussion about how the debate is conducted. Which is hardly surprising since it largely came from politicians who know that an objective debate on how to deal effectively with paedophiles has the potential to lose many votes but gain very few, and from the media, who have an obvious vested interest in polarising and sensationalising the issue.
It's only recently, evolutionarily speaking, that sex has been restricted to "adults." To add insult to injury, the growth hormones that we put in our chickens and our cows are being passed through to the kitchen table, and are causing children to mature faster.
Use of such hormones is very recent. The actual factor is better nutrition.
What's been happening over the last 200 or so years is that whilst the age of physical maturity has been going down the age of legal adulthood has been going up (in the case of places like the US this is 21).
Thus you end up with a large number of sexually mature people legally considered "children".
The victim lives (and in countries where the culture is NOT as hopelessly sexually fucked up as in Amerika and Gross Britain) eventually recovers, as from any other brutal assault
You mean like in oh, say, Palestine or Afghanistan, where if you're raped it's often considered your own fault, and you may be forced to *marry your rapist* to keep up the family name? Or possibly killed by a male relative (or even your rapist), also to keep up the family name, because you've been disgraced? Is that considered recovering?
Listen, the U.S. and Great Britain's cultures may be pretty sexually fucked up, but they are NOTHING compared to others. In fact, speaking as a genuine certified female, I'd say I've got it pretty good, sexually, in the U.S. of A. Not that it couldn't be better, but it could also certainly be worse.
"Maybe you didnt notice the --End Sarcasm-- at the end of his post."
You seem to be confused. The original poster sarcastically said that the child was NOT to blame. That means that he thinks the child IS to blame (at least partially). The person who replied to him was arguing against the point that the child deserves blame.
Hey, we're not only talking about p(a)edophelia here. We are talking about SEX. Sex is the ruling taboo here. And sex is something that you dont talk about, especially with little kids. So if you not supposed to talk about it, you sure as hell aren't supposed to do it with em, right?
If sex were a more open topic, perhaps it wouldnt be as emotionally traumatizing for a child to say "Mummy, Uncle Ralph had sex with me". Then it would be easier to punish uncle ralph. (What the punishment would be for p(a)edophelia in such an enlightened society, I cannot guess). This is a very slippery slope, but society has a very ignorance based attitude towards sex - what our kids dont know, they cant do. Sexual Education classes start around age 11 now, which is a good start, but if its always been taboo, suddenly talking about it at age 11 won't bring it into the open, and often SEX remains taboo even after such classes for exactly that reason.
The most legitimate logic against p(a)edophelia that I see in our society is that while a citizen is under the age of 18 their parent/guardian is responsible for making their decisions. This raises the question of what happens when Mummy says "Yes suzie, what Uncle Ralph is doing is OK". If suzie didn't grow up in our society, she would probably be emotionally fit. This is assuming that both Mummy and Uncle Ralph are loving relatives with a serious concern for Suzies well being and happiness.
The problem with p(a)edophelia (and, in fact, lots of problems having to do with sex) is that it is often done merely for the gratification of Uncle Ralph with no thought for suzie (whether she is 4 or 40 or black or white).
Now that I think about it, most problems having to do with people have this problem too.
Your
ah, meta-satire! brilliant.
> Sure, it is a horrible subject: grown people should nothave sex with children.
Says who?
How dare you foist your moral view point on other people!
You're absolutly correct. Your arbitrary value system is a valid hypothesis - which, by my layman's understanding, is supported by contemporary psychology, judicial decisions on the matter - not to mention 1001 jonkatz articles about alienation, and can be proven or disproven. Thus, through debate, society's understanding of issues at hand advances to the point where it can be tested against reality, and - whatever the answer - society benefits.
And the subject's out there all over the place... From Oprah to South Park. Every time there's a legitimate case of pedophilia, it tends to be all over the news and papers (though it tends to be restricted to local media, unless the case is particularly bizarre).
The subject is being investigated, debated, explored, etc. The only difference is that a large majority of people tend to agree that having sex with children is not a good thing (especially given that it falls into the non-consensual brand of sex), and that there's few convincing arguments otherwise. (Disclaimers: yes, there's a lot of argument over what the appropriate age of consent is, and that varies with the times. At least in modern Western Civilization, actual intercourse with prepubescent children is considered abuse rather than healthy sexuality.)
Is it a taboo? Yes, so are incest, cannibalism, necrophilia and lots of other things. Unlike the topics of nudity, the Catholic Church, witchcraft, etc., these aren't so much expressions of opinion or choice but rather crimes against another human being, which is a big distinction. The fact that these are crimes doesn't in any way diminish the amount of attention and study given to the subjects, it just tends to weaken the arguments in favor of them, so you're not as likely to have "Pro-Incest Rallies" and "Necrophilia Pride Marches".
All that aside, I'll close with the following from Airplane:
Captain Oveur: Joey, have you ever seen a grown man naked?
and
Captain Oveur: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
Look, you can't go around asking people to defend their positions logically like that. They are likely to hurt their little brains.
Or 217.34.86.35 - on for another 8 hours or so
Offtopic: 1, Insightful: 1
Thus 50% are idiots.
I love statistics!
-- Colin
The guy who said keyboards could release gas is Richard Blackwood, who is not (thank fuck) as the intro to this piece says, a member of parliament. He's a crap comedian/singer who would desperately like to be Will Smith...
"Information wants to be paid"
Well then, you had best not read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Boy will you be in for a shock...
Good work tho, it seems to catch a heap of ppl's.
It's the supertroll site, v funny
Hey, you forgot about "On the hour"! ;-)
It was a Radio 4 show - before the
day today - absolutely
fantastic parody of radio reporting -
eg the Foreign minister gambling away
the 5th of June at an EU conference.
Sex with a 16 year old is not pedophilia.
You're right, it is the stupid pedestrian's fault, they should have used a crosswalk. In my state (FL), if you hit someone who is crossing the street illegaly it isn't (necessarily) your fault.
Which highlights a notable cultural difference between the US and the UK (indeed most of Europe). In the UK a pedestrian always has right of way on a public road (after all they were using them a thousand years before cars were invented.)
At worst, its an example of predatory behavior by adults against weaker, inexperienced and immature children.
You can get this happening with any age groups. Even where the predator is younger than their "prey".
Eheh. Take a trip to India, set your eyes on a beautiful cow, sit on it, and then eat it. You'll be imprisoned, stoned and dead in no time. Enjoy.
It's not the kids fault for being idiots and talking ot people online that they never knew and then going out behind their parents backs and getting molested. And it's certainly not the parents fault for not watching their kids internet habits. IT's all the pedophiles and their evil toxic vapors. Just like Microsoft is really good but open source has been drugging the water and making us think GPL is good.
--End Sarcasm--
I am !amused.
"can" leave scars...what if it doesn't? What are the percentages of those that are scarred vs. those that aren't, and who decides who is scarred or not? Are there controlled studies?
In other words, without more data to back up that statement, it seems equivalent to now-outdated thinking about homosexuality or women's suffrage or what have you.
Wow, you missed the point entirely. They just keep whizzing over your head, huh?
Sacrificing *your* freedom and *your* liberty for *your* children is fine. However, you cross the line when you -- through support of politicians and/or legislation -- that remove somebody else's freedoms or liberty for unspecified and unknown children is wrong.
It is fundamentally the same as restricting the freedoms and liberty of blacks for the sake of white people.
No, I do not have children -- thank goodness. I'm not married yet. I do plan to have children, and will provide a good, moral, healthy home and family for them.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
except for the Labour party rep's complicity in the gag about pedophiles using keyboards, there's not much, i agree, to warrant it's positng on /. The brasseye shows do, however, make some good points about misuse of the news media, something i think /. has as much of a responsibility to keep in mind as any media outlet.
.avi's in a shared folder and firing up LimeWire.
/.'s getting profiled on NPR (last month, i think), as one media-type site that has survived and flourished despite odds against it's kind's survival.
Besides, i've yet to see anything like it on PBS; exept for maybe a few Python bits (if one was quick enough to catch the entendres, not easy if Amur'kin is your first language). If PBS doesn't do it, then the web will; i don't expect nearly so much from PBS. While they contribute much to television content, note that they still have to operate within the commercial broadcast infrastructure. Not as easy, i'm sure, as sticking the
congrats to taco & the rest, too, for
Bullshit. The child may or may not be in pain; the family and friends may or may not be in pain. If the family and friends ARE in pain it would be much less than the pain they would experience if the child had been murdered. Furthermore, a molested child will probably get over it and go on to lead a mostly normal life; but a child will never get over being dead. The same with family and friends -- if they do experience pain they will get over it. But studies have shown that a parent never gets over losing a child. By your moronic logic it would be better to blow someone's brains out than punch them in the mouth. Blow their brains out -- only a split second of pain. Punch them in the mouth -- a few DAYS of pain.
The Independent Television Commission ... said that 411 calls had come in to support the program.
Okay, i'm not going to say people should be forbidden from expressing their opinions on such issues, but is this really the right avenue?
"Hello, Information."
"Hi, i've got a bone to pick with you. The recent witch hunt against pedophiles is going too far. If we don't get a grip on this hysteria, we're--"
"Sir, i really believe this goes beyond my training as a telephone operator."
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
This also applies to adults, it's just that children are less resistant. This method of questioning is very similar to torture.
>>Yet everyone cannot wait to tell each-other "How disgusting it was", in a ferocious attempt to prove that they too are not paedophiles
Hmm. Not where I work - every single person canvassed in an informal survey (ok, we were chatting by the coffee machine) agreed that the program was fantastic and made a strong and valid point about overreaction and brute ignorance regarding "taboo" subjects.
~Cederic
Shouldn't that be Paedant?
Find funky gifts
> But I believe that pedophiles are, in general,
> worse than murderers.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Il Sung, Agusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, Richard Ramirez, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Edward Gein, Ted Bundy, and droves of thousands more...
You're missing the point. Sex criminals (not just pedophiles) are worse, in general (key words), because their actions don't even stem from a normal reaction or impulse. Most of us are probably capable of murder under some circumstances. Many murderers are not completely broken individuals incapable of someday becoming safe, productive citizens. Almost all pedophiles are.
The people you listed above are murderers (and many of them sex criminals, too) who fall into the unredeemable category. Their crimes and motivations have little to do with the average murderer's crimes and motivations.
For what it's worth, I believe that pedophiles are as bad as serial kilers and genocidal tyrants. The magnitude of the damage may differ, but the quality of the individual is the same.
Television in the UK is not made up of perpetual reruns of something that was shown last week, and the week before, etc. Some programs (such as this in fact) are repeated once within a week, and then you've missed your chance to watch it for ages, if ever. I'm sure this is not why it was pulled as that would make no sense at all. If you want to see it though, one word: Gnutella
She masturbated to it. The point is that on camera she has to put up a big show of not watching.
It's like on IRC or AOL when you say you are putting someone on ignore by announcing that. Everyone knows damn well you did no such thing because you just have to know what's going on but at the same time you have to make believe you really did...even when the person makes a statements and you can totally think of the perfect zinger so you end up logging in as a second person and then repeating the comment with a joking laugh so you can feign surprise and deliver the zinger and thus make up for all those times the person outspoke you and thus caused you to put the idiot on ignore in the first place
oh bloody 'ell you've gone and ignore me now.
No, that is SARCASM !!!
The fact that you think it is irony, wel that's just, ehh...
IRONY!!
Are you American by any chance?
ju LOVE vdinator' ! Epeclly th"ah sctin, whre I learnd t ct he bt ff of nod rt ouse s aienc& #101;et! O n the ancprt photo!
O coue, n'tfre 6;o rdvladior 15; ai!He youidiscv& #114;ho tulydiffcultt is idht t o n te weeend... have a izza pary? A fashpar? oto thmal wtall yor friens? v aepve andca o o the oe
Ino,i uvn ceck ou vainators site,yo d kno t oure missing
Or the Digital Mlllenium Childrape Act...which makes it a criminal offense to possess the tools with which you can have sexual interaction with children.
s ...toes...noses...breasts...hair...well you are a potential pedophile.
So if you have genitalia...eyes...tongue...fingers...fists...lip
Merging the above post and the Digital Millenium Rape Act
We could also touch on the porn side of the issue. Should looking at pornographic (that is images depicting overtly sexual situations, not just nudes) pictures of under-age models be illegal?
Definitions of "under age" are highly variable though. Would you mean "under age" where the picture was taken, where the viewer is now, where the picture is now, wheer the subject is now, etc, etc.
What if they are simply fictional illistrations? Computer models? Extremely realistic computer models? Computer generated movies.
Stautes tend to make these equally illegal, but their are loopholes. e.g. Star Trek Voyager isn't "child pornography" even with a character aged between 2 and 5 nor is the movie "The Fly II" even with a lead character aged 5. Being a big corporate probably helps though.
That is like here in America, a politician is requesting a ban on "The Sopranos" because they protray Italians as mobsters. On Larry King live she admitted she had never seen the show, and stuttered into saying she was boycotting it. Luckily Jon Stewart and the daily show concluded "She's a dumbass!" and that they were working on a new show where there were no negative stereotypes against anybody, and no problems or anything, called "The most boring show ever!"
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
Pedophilia, like heterosexuality and homosexuality, is a result of the body type and characteristics that a human's brain is "hardwired" to find sexually attractive. That's why pedophiles tend to be specific about gender and age groups. It's not a choice. It can't be "treated" any more than anyone's sexual preference can be "treated".
Unfortunately, the state of pedophilia presents social and ethical problems beyond that of homosexuality because the act does not involve two consenting adults. The act can never involve two informed and consenting parties, and as such will never - and should never - be acceptable. Pedophilics are cursed with neural pathways that should make even the most flamboyant faggot in the hickest town in the deep south be glad he's the way he is. Don't ask me what the solution is for pedophilics - I'm just an investigator.
In any event, the sooner the taboo is investigated and its mechanisms are understood, the sooner we'll be able to stop ourselves from rounding up everybody that's different from whatever the majority group is and beating the shit out of them.
Using an area of the Internet the size of Ireland, pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible
Whats the gobbledygook there? Toxic vapors? the Internet? Keyboard? suggestible? or perhaps Ireland? Either he knew what all of the words meant and was damn stupid for believing it or he doesn't understand the english language and is still pretty damn stupid.
-Jade E.
Or maybe Janet Reno. 'They barbeeekoood up real good Hillary.'
Yup, pedophilia must be the in thing among public school teachers these days. After all, most of the readers of /. are 15 to 21, where else would you get these stupid ideas?
It's taboo. Dont you get it?
If a 15-year-old goes to meet some pedophile, that he met online, at a motel, he is considered to be completely blameless for what happens. He is only a child and is not responsible for his actions. But if that same child takes a gun to school and shoots his classmates, he is considered to be completely at blame and is tried in court as an adult. Why is that?
In some traditional Indian (as in India) societies it was considered the normal and proper thing to have their budding ~12 yr old daughters introduced to sex by the most loving, gentle, experienced persons available: their grandfathers.
And I read on some NAMBLA thing where a 14 yr old boy described getting sodomized by his 40 yr old buddy as feeling "really great".
It's people doing mean things to other people that we're trying to avoid. Right?
" I asserted, without proving it, that children have a limited capacity to choose. This means that I beleive [sic] they in general have a limited capacity for consent, in the manner that adults may consent."
So if a child consents to join with another person to commit murder or robbery then they are blameless?
but some bits werent. The overall concept was to take the piss out of the media hysteria of a year(?) ago but it went too far in naming particular people (Sidney Cook - sp?) in particular instances. Making politicans look fools is always worth while though :)
That user alewondo does some serious pimping of that (in)adequacy.org site. (S)he's surfing this site, looking to direct traffic over to his site. 90% of the time, he hyperlinks to adequacy.org, and usually to something that looks like it came up first in a keyword search.
> That means we can all probably agree that there are things that are not so good. Rape, maybe, or murder, or even child abuse.
Again, says who?
What's "wrong" with someone raping, murdering or abusing someone else? Who says that shouldn't be the order of things?
Please explain your rationale as to why your view is better than someone else's.
You're imposing your world view on everyone else and being very intolerant at the same time. Isn't that called "being biggoted?"
Looking forward to your response.
> I owuld say "bad is what hurts other people".
I would (notice the spelling) say define "hurts other people." Some people claim that people who engage in extreme sporting activities hurt other people because they cause their medical insurance rates to increase. So does that mean such activities should be outlawed?
If you're not bigoted, then why did you say that "grown people should not have sex with children?" That is a bigoted statement because you are being intolerant of people who want to have sex with children.
You need to have a more open mind, this is 2001 you know!
The tabloid press in the UK has, for the past few years, been using paedophiles as the new bogey men, and at one point there seemed to be almost a revulsion race to see which paper could revile them the most. One of them ("The News of the World") came up with the most disturbing: they would print photographs and addresses of known paedophiles. This seems reasonable, and it was defended by the NoW as such, but it lead directly the the aforementioned riots and, as the article says, witchhunts. This was entirely predictable.
The problem with the violence and the witchhunts is that things got out of hand, as they do when a mob tries to think. In one town they forced out a paediatrician by daubing "Paedo out" slogans on her house (see this). In other locations the naming of people a "Paedos" was enough to get them beaten up - there was a fair bit of score settling going on at the time - here is the BBC about Paulsgrove, the main estate where such things were happening.
There was also a bit of feedback going between the sections of press, hand wringing about the violence whilst implicitly condoning it - after all no one could be for paedophilia. So all was good in the world of the press - circulations were up, they were protecting children from evil, and they were secure in the knowledge that nobody could successfully attack them because that would mean that they were for paedophilia, and could instantly be slurred.
Enter Brass Eye. The press were livid, and instantly attacked. In fact, they attacked before the program went out, and the program was delayed for two weeks whilst the legalities were sorted out - Mr Collins was upset for some reason. The reaction to the show was amazing: every news bulletin, every newspaper, every channel reported it. And reported it negatively at first.
Then the press belated realised that a large section of the public were just not buying the story - see this for a fairly typical cross-section.
Certainly no one I know who has seen it thought it in anyway glorified paedophila. No one was particularly offended by it either. It wasn't about paedophilia - it was about media manipulation. It is vastly amusing to see the very same things that were so effectively satirised in the show wheeled out to attack it. This includes government ministers saying "I haven't seen the show but..." (I will except David Blunkett, the Home Secretary from this as he is blind).
Wow, George Costanza for the Digital Age!
I just LOVE vladinator's site! Especially the "fash" section, where I learned to cut the bottom off of an old shirt to use as a hair enhancement! Oh, and the "dance party" photos!
Of course, don't forget to read vladinator's emails! Here you will discover how truly difficult it is to decide what to do on the weekends... have a pizza party? A fash party? Go to the mall with all of your friends? Have a sleepover and call boys on the phone?
In short, if you haven't checked out vladinator's site, you don't know what you're missing!
But surely you cannot be serious. You would not rather have your kid killed rather than raped. This is an example of how we have lost sight, as a society, of the relative severity of these offences.
I have two small kids myself. If they were assaulted against their will I would gladly kill the perpetrator with my bare hands. But there is NO WAY that I would rather have them dead than assaulted. It does not even come close. Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
...ummm that I believe is the point.
Have a look at this picture - it pretty much sums it up.
heheh
now you are funny
rofl
the childraping poet ginsburg dealt with it too.
check for more info on modern pedophiles.
The internet ISN'T taking care of this problem by itself. And people are making money off of the rape of children. This is wrong. and if you think this is acceptable (i don't care what Ginsburg did) then YOU are wrong.
this isn't a "but what about the CHILDREN" sort of thing. We don't let children drive because given the time of development for the human mind, it's a crapshoot risk. we don't allow children to make sexual decisions with adults for the same reason. Yes, in the roman period, women and men were often married in their teens. guess what, this isn't the roman period. deal.
go to andrew vachss site for more info about predatory pedophiles.
Emotional abuse is fine, and completely justified by the media and most of the public. Hell, churches and schools and most parents all do it. Physical abuse? Sure, by parents is cool... anything to make sure they think the same way as you, you don't want kids to have independent thoughts. INDEPENDENT THOUGHTS ARE THE ENEMY!!! But sex? hmm, yeah... don't let kids learn how to enjoy their bodies, that's just wrong... it doesn't do any harm? BULLSHIT! IT FEELS GOOD! IT MUST BE EVIL! OH YEAH, DISGUSTING! AND YOU GO TO HELL! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE! rant over ;-)
I punch the child, their family and friends, and you in the stomach. You are all in pain. I committed a worse crime than a pedophile?
> [...] would you respond in disgust and anger? [...]. If I were to make a joke about the Holocaust, would you, then? Probably, yes, indeed
Well, I used to like that kind of sick jokes. Unfortunately, those are now illegal in the country I live.
Cheers,
--fred
Please prove you exist without resorting to a priori premises.
My opposition to pedophilia rests on one a priori assumption, which is fairly fundamental to my values: that imposing your will on others carries a high potential for evil. Another relevant assumption I make is that children, in general have underdeveloped choice-making capacity. This is not an a priori assumption, though proving that rhetorically is tedious and demanding. I would beg your indulgance on the point. (In fact, I will ignore you if you challenge me on it, as I have real work to do today. 8)
In the case of pedophilia, the potential evil attendant upon forcing one's will upon a person with limited capacity for choice is the disruption of normal human development caused by the untimly exposure to a powerful human drive that even adults have a hard time coping with psychologically. The potential for damage increases the younger the victim, and the closer the relation of the perpetrator.
In philosophical terms, the above argument has lots of holes. In common-sense terms, I believe it is nearly bullet-proof.
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
I saw the icon and the blurb and had visions of thousands of Britons bursting into homes with torches and pitchforks searching for lonely little men sniffing shoes in the corner!...
Pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest are not by any stretch of the imagination "victimless crimes".
The dictionary defines victim as: "One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition" In all of the above, there is no one made to suffer from the sexual act, therefore there are no victims, therefore they are victimless crimes
Pedophila: there is no basis for a claim that sex with children causes suffering. In fact, sexual acts bring pleasure and statisfaction are are expressions of love. Of course with any sexual relationship there is always the potential for abuse, for example husbands raping their own wives...but that does not make marriage immoral because the potential exists. In fact, the only suffering these children would suffer is the stigma attached to them by society for engaging in "bad or dirty" behavior. This is entirely independant of the sexual act.
Beastiality: there is no basis for a claim that sex with animals harms them. It is in fact impossible to induce a male animal to commit a sexual penetration against its will. A dog will not get erect unless it is stimulated and receiving pleasure. If the animal were truly being harmed, it would not become erect. Likewise, there are many examples of animals masturbating by licking or rubbing themselves to arousal. It is obvious that these animals are receiving pleasure else they would not do it. An animal can also be taught to give consent. My dog will scratch my arm when she wants to be scratched back. She will also roll over on her back so I can get to that favorite spot below the neck. If a dog can give consent and even ask to be pleasured in this manner, can't that be extended to other forms of pleasure?
Necrophilia: there is no for a claim saying that necrophilia causes suffering. It is, in fact, impossible for a dead person to suffer. The whole argument against necrophilia is predicated on the false concepts of disrespect and lack of consent. Lack of consent is a smokescreen because even if I said in my will "I give permission for my spouse to have sex with me after I am dead" it is still considered a crime. Lack of respect is another society-induced value that has nothing to do with the sexual act. Personally, if after I died my spouse refused to take another lover and instead engaged in intercourse with my stuffed body I would take that as a sign of deep respect.
Incest: there is no basis for a claim that incest causes suffering. Incestuous couple have been breeding in some societies for centuries. While the incidents of birth defects are much higher, this has nothign to do with the sexual act. Incest can occur between relatives who cannot breed, such as same-sex or prepubescent or post menupausal. Incest can also take non-reproductive forms such as sodomy (oral and anal), petting, use of dildos, etc. Incest can also occure between relatives who have been sterilized with a vasectomy or having tubes tied.
You, sir, know nothing are are simply regurgitation the same tired arguments that society has been spewing for centuries because deep down they feel sex is dirty and shameful. The same arguments that were once used against homosexuality. I believe the point of the original post is that once you open the door and begin protecting people based on sexual preference (homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is by definition a digressive sexual preference) then you are starting down a path towards tolerance for all diviant interests.
This is discrimination and stereotyping of men - could you imagine if blacks were treated this way?
Presumably black men are...
---
Silence is consent.
chemical induced euphoria?
Meanwhile many truly sick fucks are being busted (Anybody got the stats?, perhaps the net has/is helping clean out a sewer?). Not only is Chester assuming he's anonymous but when he does screw up he's got hundards or thousands of charges
Locally a deputy DA got poped when he took a machine, hard drive brimming with kiddy porn, in for service. JOY...(he walked, pisses me off, but he's fired and disbarred). I'm not sure the tech should search for *.jpg, but the DA was taking it in and new it ahead of time. Anything not encrypted was public.
just E vadnaor's site! Eseil h "ashston, were Ilerdt ut the bttmf of an od shirt s a a air ehaneent! O andhe"aneprty "poto!
Ofcourse, do' fore toread vlinaos emai!Her o iisoer howtruyiffiult ts tecie attdo n h weees.. ave aiza pay A s partyGo to t ll wi al ofyorfriends Hae a lepvern cll y n h pone
In ot, iu haven't chced out vlanaor'ssite,yo do't knwhat yo're mssing
Fortunately, that's a problem which is specific to a very small area of the world.
Circumcision is a far worse problem. Without going into too many details, I've read that it reduces sexual enjoyment to 20-40% of its original level. (What do you expect when you remove skin that contains so many nerves?)
And we say it's done for cleanliness. Teach your kid to use a fucking bar of soap!
To stay on topic, people used to marry at 12. It's only recently, evolutionarily speaking, that sex has been restricted to "adults." To add insult to injury, the growth hormones that we put in our chickens and our cows are being passed through to the kitchen table, and are causing children to mature faster. Females have breasts at a much earlier age now, making them sexual targets.
I'm not defending the pedophile; I'm simply trying to explain the behavior, objectively.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Men get paid only a fraction of a % more PER HOUR!! Men work more hours on average. Look it up.
Women are less likely to be punished in car related crimes (speeding, say)--even though the stats show more are being committed by women than men.
As for rape, women don't need to worry about the guy next to them. Less than 1% of Americans beat or rape women, or engage in child abuse. Sure that's still a lot of people, but it's not every man on the subway--and not the 30-40% reported by some extreme feminist groups.
You want to know anti-man action? American schools have researched for years how to improve scholastic performance of girls (a good thing). But, boys are now dropping out of school in great numbers, less are going to college, and few read that well anymore. Why? The boys are being ignored as girls are being focused on--after all, boys have an advantage at birth, right?
Even worse, many young kids (k-2) are being told that, essentially, boys are violent little monsters and need to be forced to pay nice--even though "voilent" play is necessary and leads to a more calm, emotionally stable future. Any charactor building for young men, such as making gentlemen, is shunned.
The roles are reversed and boys are being screwed. Have a good laugh.
To all the potential naysayers of the concept of "men's rights," I would urge you to take a look at some of the stories on this site, which apparently has been running for some time (they've got over 1000 articles posted).
I've never seen such a comprehensive collection of articles and research defending the idea of men's rights in my life. Anyone who is here refuting this obviously hasn't even looked at the site.
It doesn't appear to be a knee-jerk conservative site, either. I guess the men's movement is starting to take off.
I mean perhaps a minority will stop and think and say "Well, perhaps that's true, I got too carried away when I and the rest of the mob beat the living daylights out of that suspected paedophile". But that's surely an small minority. I mean, people capable of such introspection usually stop short of the "mob state" in the first place. Most of the others will call and complain. Nobody likes to be mocked.
I'm now downloading the program. I want to check if I belong to that "small percentage of the psychologically sick" that could have found the program enjoyable, or rather to the other big percentage of the psychologically sick.
--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Pedophiles do not make for a funny subject, neither does the ignorance of elected officials when it comes to technology, or any other topic, for that matter. Sure, we all get a chuckle from hearing how dumb people can be, but these elected officials are there to make laws, and if they're clueless about certain facts, we end up with stuff like the DMCA.
I'm off to put my troll-mod suit on.
"In a moment of rage, with varying degrees of justifiability, an ordinary person could commit a murder."
And what about a pedophile who in a moment of lust has sex with a child? A person who can't control his anger is better than a person who can't control his lust?
"Murder is something to which most people can relate, at least to some extent."
This is the crux of your argument. The pedophile is worse because he is different, because he has different drives than most people. This is similar to the attitude that it's okay to drink because most people do it, but it's not okay to smoke pot because most people don't smoke pot. It also reminds me of how it used to be true that juries wouldn't convict someone of murder (or even manslaughter) who killed someone while driving drunk, because they had driven drunk themselves. You sound like the kind of person who believes that their perversion is okay, but other people's perversions (if different from your own) are sick and disgusting. Bottom line: you think a pedophile is worse simply because he is different.
BTW, I think you need to get some counseling since you can relate to murder and think it is somewhat justifiable. I hope you don't live in my neighborhood.
Since the subject is satire and taboos, why wasn't the the subject header for this topic "Burning sacred crosses" instead of "Roasting sacred cows"? A bit more culturally relevant, don't you think?
Should photos of murdered people be illegal? If a Nazi website has photos of dead Jews from concentration camps, should they be breaking the law? Does it incite murderous feelings in a Nazi viewer in the same way that child pornography incites sexual ones in a pedophile? If murder is worse, then why are photos of it legal and photos of sex crimes illegal?
Because an adult has more resistance to pain and bad situations in general. Adults are much more able to stand being in pain, being hungry, being hot, being cold, being bored, etc. Adults have been through many bad situations in their lives and have built a hard shell that helps them through the rough spots in life. Children (especially young ones) are open and vulnerable to the world. Their experience of dying would be much more intense, unless death came instantaneously and unexpectedly. Furthermore, a dead child has gotten cheated out of many life experiences. A senior citizen has already lived a full anyway. It's the difference between getting injured in the final minutes of the last game of the season, and getting injured in the first 5 minutes of the opening game and spending the rest of the season on the injured list.
I'm not advocating harsher penalties for murdering a child than for murdering senior citizen. But it is understandable that we react with more horror to a death of a child than the death of an adult.
I feel I must point out that there is no Biblical basis for being against pedophilia. Both the Old and the New Testament advocate breeding to every extent that it is possible. As David Spade says "If there is grass on the field, play ball"
Once a boy or girl is able to reproduce, the Bible instructs that they should be bound together in married "cleave together as one flesh" and raise up children "in the teaching of God and all manner of scripture". Simply put, the faster and more often you breed the stronger you are as a people.
That's why the Israelites were forbidden from masturbating. God said that it was better for an Israelite man to cum inside a prostitute than to let the sperm go to waste.
The Torah also indicates in several chapters that Gentile girls can be used for sexual pleasure as long as they are over four years old.
Homosexuality is a crime according to the Bible because it prevents procreation. Pedophelia is not a crime according to the Bible because it fosters procreation. Go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.
no, the poster is an American....
How true. Ank take it from a pedophile victim. The taboo is worse then the crime. Let me repeat that. The TABOO is WORSE then the CRIME. AC on bloody purpose.
it sucks, free registration required
but what does this have to do with roasting cows?
______________________
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
This is overlooked by almost everyone.
The point of the show, and of many of Morris' other shows, is that is an attack on self serving publicity hungry semi-celebritys. For example - Phil Collins in a "Nonce Sense" T-shirt (Nonce being an English slang word for paedophile) going to schools, and blindly repeating absolute gibberish fed to him by Morris.
Most people will say that Phil was doing a good thing, by trying to educate children. I side with Morris, that it was a self-publicising act on his behalf, and that if he had any real interest in protecting children he would have easily spotted it as a spoof. As Eammon Holmes (UK daytime TV presenter) did.
Other sections included a news report on how children were being crammed into football stadiums to "Keep them safe". How far is this from the truth? Media hysteria makes parents (Like myself) believe that it is impossible to allow children safely out at night, whereas attacks on children are at a relatively constant rate (Can't link to a newspaper - sorry).
Chris Morris has attacked not children with this show, but he has attacked the misleading media, and attention craving celebrities. For this he has been denounced, his actions upset the status quo - by showing celebrities as fools, by lambasting the newspapers who terrify us with exaggerations of how unsafe we are.
He is even described in the UK media as "Elitist" , a bludgeoning attempt to ensure people will not try to understand his comedy, for fear that they will be associated with such a negative connotation.
The UK viewing figures for this programme were 2 million at the start, 1 million at the end. Yet everyone cannot wait to tell each-other "How disgusting it was", in a ferocious attempt to prove that they too are not paedophiles. As though the very act of laughing at, or even watching the show inspires one to go out and attack children.
Mainstream media hates this man for exposing them as liars and fools.
That just makes me like him more ;-]
I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams.
"I'd love to see a similar show done in the US, outing celebrities and politicians on both sides of an issue who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when discussing Intellectual Property and Copyright Law, environmental issues like global warming, internet law, energy concerns, and the like."
The U.S. already has such a show. It's called "Politically Incorrect."
She looks like an adult to me....
Moderators... PLEASE, spend some time reading through past articles of adequacy.org. People will say "trolling is not allowed on adequacy.org", etc. etc., but it's all part of the joke. Every story on the site is a troll. Many comments are as well. Don't take it seriously. I.e., the parent comment to this is _not_ Interesting. If anything, it should be marked as Funny (although not really, because I suspect the person who wrote the comment has no idea about the real intent of the web site).
I modded the Troll Investigation and I got
But pedophilia is by no means worse than murder.
I partly disagree. You're right in that murder has the worst outcome; that is, someone's dead. But I believe that pedophiles are, in general, worse than murderers. Murder is something to which most people can relate, at least to some extent. In a moment of rage, with varying degrees of justifiability, an ordinary person could commit a murder. Not so for a child-molester. Those people are deeply damaged and constantly dangerous.
Big Brother is considered wholesome family entertaiment in Britain? I think we may have found the problem...
~ Leilah
Pedophilia on te other hand is a taboo; today's taboo. Taboo subjects are subjects "not legitimate for discussion". "Taboo" implies a certain amount of irrationality. This should worry free thinking people. Past taboos have included non-Catholic religion, madness, witchcraft, sexuality, nudity, homosexuality (male and female), the earth turning around the sun, women having the same number of teeth as men, and so on.
Note that some of these "past taboos" are still very much current. Also the paedophilia definitly overlaps with sexuality in terms of things such as ages of consent. Especially in the "first world" where people now routinely reach biological maturity whilst they are legally considered "childern".
When a subject is taboo, it is legitimate to investigate it. I would say, it is crucial. It is how progress in society is made.
Yes, sometimes that means investigating distasteful subjects. But the alternative is worse: a society run on the basis of fear, superstition, and unstated interests. That's not where I want to live.
Roving bands of viglantee thugs certainly dosn't help society.
They were first linked to from Geekizoid, not Plastic.
I think the points made in that thread (about code red) also apply here...
This TV program was headline news for like 3 days. Haven't they got something better to report?
Nonetheless, the program was as funny as f*ck. I am glad that alot of the Americans enjoyed it. This suprised me, as I have had embarrising incidents using sarcasm/satire with americans.....
"With murder, the act is over and done with. The damage is done, and no more damage is incurred. With pedophilia, the crime continues to inflict pain and damage, often for generations. Victims of pedophilia (or, for that matter, just about all sex crimes) are significantly more likely to have disfunctional sex lives and relationships for the remainder of their lives. This means that not only does the victim get punished, but that
victim's lovers, and children, and so on. It is a pain that continues to inflict long after the initial damage is done."
So if you do have sex with a child, the humane thing would be to then murder them.
Rape is assault. The victim lives (and in countries where the culture is NOT as hopelessly sexually fucked up as in Amerika and Gross Britain) eventually recovers, as from any other brutal assault. Murder is final. The victim will not recover regardless of how stable they are mentally. This is a rather MAJOR difference in the crime. Morons who equate rape with murder trivialize both, and are part of the problem that causes rape victims to be set apart culturally. Do you give a shit about rape victims? Then stop making them feel like their life is over. Stop insisting that they've been irreparably harmed. This cultural victimization is WHAT IS PREVENTING THEM FROM RECOVERING AND MOVING ON!! --Charlie
But if someone finds the content they find offending, no one is saying they must look at it
That is absolutely true. People seem to too easily blame someone else for their mistakes, in this case it is the internet. However, there is a group in our society that cannot think for themselves, or rather, do not know when to stop or look the other way. They are called kids. I teach kids from ages 5 to 12. I can see clearly how they are influenced by what they watch (TV more so than the internet), and for that I hold only the parents responsible.
You can't police the internet.>/i>
That is also true, but you have to educate the responsible people.
You just made the assumption that such sexual activity is actually damage. What about parents who force shots on their kids? How traumatic is that yet they are told to be good little boys and girls and endure it. Or force them to eat their vegetables and punish them when they don't?
:)
Or even chopping bits of babies' genitals. Which happens very often in the USA...
There's that Star Trek TNG episode where everyone runs around in skimpy outfits and it happy and carefree. The underlying message, though the closest they could come to saying it was have a bunch of teenage girls half naked, was that giving pleasure was considered a noble deed in their society. So women went out of their way to pleasure the male Federation officers and vice versa.
A problem with popular sci-fi (IMHO) is that all too often supposed "aliens" act far too much like contempoary American humans... Certainly in terms of interpersonal relationships. Such that situations like this are very noticable.
If you were to raise a child alone on a desert island and taught that child to fulfill your every sexual desire where would the child acquire any sense of wrong or damage? Wouldn't it seem a natural and pleasurable action? The giving and receiving of pleasure?
In the US and UK right now sex purely for exchange and sharing of pleasure would probably be considered highly abnormal anyway
Imo, molesting a child is rape, and deserves the same punishment as rape, which in my opinion deserves the same punishment as murder or torture -- death, or life in prison.
However, this is a comedy, and Morris didn't mean to say that pedophilia's OK -- he was trying to show how fucking ignorant society is of the real issues. It was funny.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
What's "wrong" with someone raping, murdering or abusing someone else? Who says that shouldn't be the order of things?
Something being "wrong" probably should not prevent it being part of the plot of a novel or movie.
See it here on this CNN story! Apparently, the president of the Ukraine is downloading warez or porn .EXEs and got infected!
But that is my definition. Your mileage may vary. "Right" and "wrong" are tough to define. That's what society is for. So maybe I should say "societally undesirable".
You target the wrong guy: I am not being bigoted (notice the spelling) at all. On the contrary, I am advocating free debate (rather than unfree taboo) to come up with the answers.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
- It is very much a taboo. Even a show about it raises moral objections from the masses. A murderer gets complimented in jail; a pedophile gets murdered. My simple reply (in which btw I said I though pedophilia was distasteful!) elicited a "you sick fuck child rapist" response. Need I say more?
- There is a LOT to discuss. Is it indeed harmful? To whom? Can we minimise its incidenmce? Can we minimise its harm? Why are some people pedophiles? HOw can we minimise any harm caused? How should released pedophiles return to society? What therapies work best? Is the Internet bad for allwoing free communication? Should the Internet be banned becuase it contains child sex pictures? Is the harm partly or wholly culturally caused? I could go on for a while - and all these questions are taboo, as they generally just receive reactions like that one response to my post I saw that just saud "you sick fuck child rapist". That was a typical reponse not to a pedophile but to someone merely responding to a post ABOUT the subject! And that is what we should fix, and that is what the show no doubt hopes to achieve.
Michael---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Same here, two teachers were suspended for supposedly making a 14 year old girl stand on a desk while they looked up her skirt. Totally made up imho.
The whole site is one big troll.
It can be funny. But you probably haven't a clue as to what is funny.
Let me be more succinct. You should probably ask people around you what is funny, because you apparently have no clue.
And in some parts of Europe, sex with a 14 year old isn't paedophila. I, for one, was functional sexually at 14, but no-one wanted to have sex with me :-). For the bulk of human history, adulthood began at 12 or 13 anyway...
The general view (and law) is that a person under the legal age _cannot_ consent.
The basic problem here is that legal ages vary so wildly that it makes more sense to suppose that the whole thing is based of circular reasoning. Rather than an age being derived from any kind of objective study.
- Who exactly decides what is legitimate for entertainment purposes? Only by free discussion can we work this out.
- At my last company we the joke policy was amended to preclude jokes that referred to race, religion, politics, sex, and sexuality: leaving exactly nothing to joke about. I would say that jokes about touchy subjects are very much legitimate.
- Which evidence says that discussing distasteful subjects makes us immune to them? I have seen many cop shows but am no more likely to murder anyone, or accept anyone murdering anyone, as a result.
Michael---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
I think that it would be interesting to see how a show like this would be received in the US. In any case, the responce to this satire certinly justified its existance.
The real question is: who is manipulating the public's fear so as to create this fear of pedophilia, and what is their goal for doing so?
These files are nowhere to be found on gnutella, unfortunately. Gone. Totally. Poof.
Guess they must have cracked down on gnutella also.
I dunno about you, but I don't consider teenagers 'small children'. There's something of a difference between young, healthy men/women and an eight year old kid.
I think most societies are in broad agreement that sexual contact between adults and children is hurtful to both parties at best and can leave long-lasting scars on all parties involved.
But is the issue age or "power". Currently the law does not distinguish between a teacher or babysitter (who may themselves be a "child" taking advantage of the person they are entrusted with and someone meeting a young person at a party/bar/club/etc.
I just have to take issue with one of your statements. "But pedophilia is by no means worse than murder." I cannot disagree with this more.
With murder, the act is over and done with. The damage is done, and no more damage is incurred. With pedophilia, the crime continues to inflict pain and damage, often for generations. Victims of pedophilia (or, for that matter, just about all sex crimes) are significantly more likely to have disfunctional sex lives and relationships for the remainder of their lives. This means that not only does the victim get punished, but that victim's lovers, and children, and so on. It is a pain that continues to inflict long after the initial damage is done.
That said, I applaud the work of the satirist. There is a level of witch hunts going on for all sorts of crimes, including pedophilia, rape, and drugs. All that it takes in today's world to absolutely ruin a person's life is to accuse that person of one of these crimes.
--Be human.
if i was you, i wouldnt tell anyone about that. they are likely to laugh in your face.
I just L vlnato's&# 116;e Epecilly th "fsh"sction,ere I eared toct h botmoffof n lhirt use as ahirenhncment hd e "danc rt hotos!
Ofcrse, dotog orea ladiator'seals! Hre u wlov r howtulyicu lit iecide wh t do tewkd..&# 46; hae a pzapty? A fhprty G t theml with llo your frids? av leeper ad cal bs n th pone?
I shrt, yo vn't cedut nao's ; sit, y don' kow wht'r ssing!
IusLOVE vadatorssie Epeialyth fah" ectiwher I eaned o ct ebottmoff ofan o shittouse as a hair hmet! ,an the ance paty" phoo!
;sie o n nowwha yue mis
corse, dnt orgett ea vains emailsHeouwi l scor how tulydifficlt it i to dcidewht tdo on weeds. ; hav pza pa fash arty? Gto he m wialof yur rends? Hve a seepve and cllbys on tephoe?
I shor fou han' ccd out adir' 
Perhaps its more about the child being forced by an adult (often a trusted adult) to do something they don't want to do (repeatedly), and then threatened (not necessarily overtly) by said trusted adult if they don't keep quite about it.
Probably a big part of the problem is that the child can easily be pressured into cooperating, as they naturally feel subordinate to the adult, and so are unlikely to reject advances. I don't see there being any way around that.
However, I'm speaking in terms of pre-adolescent children. People reaching sexual maturaty are more likely to be in control of themselves and able to choose their encounters, but most are less capaible than an adult, although they probably would not admit this to themselves, which could possible get them into a worse situation.
I'm no psycologist though.
I've never really encountered a taboo about dicussing why pedophilia is bad, or what exactly constitutes pedophilia. Discussing why its GOOD would tend to draw some attention though :)
We could also touch on the porn side of the issue. Should looking at pornographic (that is images depicting overtly sexual situations, not just nudes) pictures of under-age models be illegal? What if they are simply fictional illistrations? Computer models? Extremely realistic computer models? Computer generated movies?
At what point does such porn change from being a release to something that encourages actual physical acts? Should kiddie porn retain the completely taboo status it has in the USA and be eradicated in all forms? Or is that sort of zero tolerance policy unjust and unrealistic?
...whose military practices were so notoriously cruel that they garnered disaproval even among the Roman Senate. I found a good, if short, history of the Gaulish conquest here: http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar04.html
I just LOVE vladinator's site! Especially the "fash" section, where I learned to cut the bottom off of an old shirt to use as a hair enhancement! Oh, and the "dance party" photos!
Of course, don't forget to read vladinator's emails! Here you will discover how truly difficult it is to decide what to do on the weekends... have a pizza party? A fash party? Go to the mall with all of your friends? Have a sleepover and call boys on the phone?
In short, if you haven't checked out vladinator's site, you don't know what you're missing!
When I wrote my 2nd-year College paper on gun control, I was roasted for concluding that banning guns would only save 10-15 lives a year. I was nearly failed for it and the senior Law professor didn't speak to me for about a year. This all happened around the time of the Dunblane incident, when 17-18 children were killed by a man who never should have had a gun licence in the first place (what a shocker). The Government banned handguns. Between 10 and 15 deaths a year were traced to legally owned handguns, prior to the ban. Chalk one up for the good guys? I don't think so. If Members of Parliament are being conned by Brass Eye, may God have mercy on the future of democracy in Britain. I have been in America for two years so I have missed most of this fuss over paedophilia in Britain. It seems to be a re-run of the gun control problem: the new Labour Government is determined to do whatever the people want, no matter how ridiculous it is. I don't know what you Brits have done with my country while I've been away, but while I was there, Paedophilia was actually less of a problem than it is in here in America. Maybe Americans are a bit less - oh, how shall I put this - INSANE than the British are at the moment. I love my country but right now I'm not very proud of my countrymen.
This is the single most reasonable thing I have read in weeks -- the last thing we need is a government big enough to make thinking a crime, no matter how objectionable the thinking may be. Sadly, we are closer than we think to that very situation...
Vote Libertarian
has finally crossed that final line of completely random links
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
It's off topic, but here's my opinion: I believe there is some body of evidence that suggests that children having sex with adults can indeed lead to emotional damage later on. Indeed, this may well be wholly or partly cultural (Pedophilia appears not to have done the old Greeks much harm, for instance), but of course our kids do live in our culture.
I suppose we could debate this - legitimate debate by the way! - but I think it's off topic here. Still, I quite agree we COULD, and SHOULD BE ABLE TO, debate it. Otherwise once again we get stuck with irrational opinions and fears - that is exactly what taboos achieve. Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
There's nothing distasteful about rational, reasoned discussion of a distasteful subject, any subject. Why are we all here talking about it if it's an illegitimate topic? My gripe with this sort of garbage program has nothing to do with the the distastefulness of the subject. I'm disturbed by the fact that, like so much of modern art and entertainment, the performer/artist intentionally offends while cloaking their "art" within the mantle of "social commentary". Modern artists/performers are often souless, directionless, without strong moral centers. The only avenue left for some: ridicule and parody the mores of the society that they live within, yet despise. This is a pattern that became pronounced in the 60's, waned in the 80's, and is now returning with a vengeance. Many Artists/Performers simply choose offensive material because it gains easy notoriety (this entire thread is a case in point). They lack the more subtle, refined, and crafted ability to comment on society in a productive, thoughtful manner.
A fundamental: while some societal values do change over time, some values MUST remain. Restrictions against the acts of murder, theft, cheating, lying, and many other forms of behaviour are, at the very least, neccesary for the continued existence of a stable and ordered society. At most, they're neccesary for the spiritual health of every human being. I often wonder if modern liberal thought perceives all mores as individual dominoes in a chain, each one falling when struck by the one before. Your statement, and others, has almost left me with the impression that the taboo against sex with children is just one more restriction on individual desires that society will one day overcome.
Finally, your piece mixes apples and oranges: you confuse the taboo that surrounds the act with the act itself and sceintific facts. You use murder as an example of something worse than paedophilia, as though to argue that paedophilia should be just as frequently parodied, joked about, etc. Herein lies a bit of the difference between the two: many (most?) people can relate, at least in part, to murder, at the very least in the sense of wishing violence towards someone, murder being the ultimate form of violence. However, which of us, in any way, finds a three year old sexually desireable? It's unthinkable, and it's impossible to imagine the sickness of a mind so contorted. Of course, you might argue that we merely find such a thing unimagineable because it's taboo. Other's, and I'm in this camp, maintain that taboos are tools developed by society to safeguard against the most harmful forms of human behaviour. The taboo surrounding paedophilia exists for good reason, and little thought is required to understand the importance of that particular taboo. Sure, lets discuss the issue rationally and intelligently, but lets not make something so horrible and debased a subject to be joked about by the next Leno or Letterman.
I rule. You can all suck my fat cock.
-- chdz
Sure, it is a horrible subject: grown people should nothave sex with children. But pedophilia is by no means worse than murder. Yet murder is a legitimate subject for satire, comedy, thrillers, whodunnits: a whole industry has sprung up around it. Ask P.D. James, or read about Kinsey Millhone.
Pedophilia on te other hand is a taboo; today's taboo. Taboo subjects are subjects "not legitimate for discussion". "Taboo" implies a certain amount of irrationality. This should worry free thinking people. Past taboos have included non-Catholic religion, madness, witchcraft, sexuality, nudity, homosexuality (male and female), the earth turning around the sun, women having the same number of teeth as men, and so on.
When a subject is taboo, it is legitimate to investigate it. I would say, it is crucial. It is how progress in society is made.
Yes, sometimes that means investigating distasteful subjects. But the alternative is worse: a society run on the basis of fear, superstition, and unstated interests. That's not where I want to live.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
except they didn't annihilate Gaul.
Caesar beat Vercingetorix after a year-long siege and accepted Vercingetorix's surrender. (vercingetorix then went to Rome to provide 'entertainment')
conquered Gaul, yes.. annihilitated - no way.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
If a 17-year-old chooses to have sex with a 21-year-old they do not fully understand the situation. But they DO fully understand the situation if they choose to murder, rob, steal, assualt, vandalize, drive drunk, hack the school's web site, cheat on a test, etc... It's all bullshit. We consider a 17-year-old to understand the situation anytime they, by themselves, do anything wrong. They also understand the situation if they do anything wrong with another 17-year-old. They also understand the situation if they murder, rob, or just about any other bad thing with a 21-year-old. It's just consensual sex with an adult where all of a sudden the 17-year-old doesn't understand the situation. The reality behind the no-sex-with-minors laws is that society doesn't like adults having sex with minors, and since sex is not illegal society has to make a special law prohibiting sex based solely on one person being under 18. And society's ire is directed solely at the adult, and the child is considered blameless even though in any other law-breaking situation the child would be considered responsible for their actions.
Furthermore, what is really intended in the underage sex laws is to prohibit sex between an adult male and a female minor. How often do you hear about an adult woman being prosecuted for statutory rape? The only case I've heard of was a special situation where the woman was the boy's teacher. Does society somehow think that it's just girls who don't understand what they're doing when they consent to sex? Furthermore, if both the girl and the boy are 17 then it's not illegal for them to have sex. Why is it illegal for a 21-year-old male to have sex with a 17-year-old female, but not a illegal for a 17-year-old male to have sex with a 17-year-old female? Like I said it's all bullshit.
I think the idea behind this show is great. The specific issue (in this case, pedophilia) is really rather unimportant. I'd love to see a similar show done in the US, outing celebrities and politicians on both sides of an issue who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when discussing Intellectual Property and Copyright Law, environmental issues like global warming, internet law, energy concerns, and the like. In fact, I have a fledgeling site running Slash called Simon Jester where I'm trying to do just that... on a smaller scale and in a much less sensational manner. www.simonjester.com
woof!
Most of them do look suspiciously like adults.. umm ooops, i mean, i would think they do... not like i look at child pr0n.. oh dear i'll shut up now.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Get off your soapbox so someone who needs it can use it.
~Warble
===== Warble://VX
I live in London, and noticed absolutely no fuss generated by the programme.
The tabloids, of course, reported that there was. But, here's some exciting news, just in: the tabloids are out to make money, not to report the truth
The BBC, in turn, is forced to report what the tabloids report - in order to show that they reflect public concerns. Everyone in the media knows how the game works, but the whole thing has become a self-sustaining entity living on fictional news.
All this is quite entertaining, but readers in the States should remember to treat the Brit media with the scepticism that, I guess, we should treat US media with.
What is less entertaining is that our politicians are the mindless slaves of the newspaper owners. Both the Labour government and the Conservatives are terrified of displeasing their masters, and the Lib-Dems are increasingly going that way too.
They wonder why none of us voted in the last election?
Because we vote every day - in the purchase of our preferred daily paper.
here
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Shouldn't the internet just take care of itself and shouldn't society ignore the net if they don't like what they see? The net ain't an integral part of society (as of yet ;)), much as it seems to be. But if someone finds the content they find offending, no one is saying they must look at it: they can just forget about it and move on to something that does interest them. You can't police the internet.
The net is a free medium, and although I can understand that some people want it to be controlled, how likely is internet policing?
You were expecting a sig?
I honestly can't tell. Or is is 'more of the same', ie a spoof of these people. Is Chris Morris actually behind it?
The 'Open Letter to Channel 4' is fucking hilarious, it had me pissing myself.
Humour Is Subjective (i.e., do not tell other people what constitutes a funny subject)
Take an example: If I were to make a joke regarding Rome annihilating Gaul, would you respond in disgust and anger? Probably not. If I were to make a joke about the Holocaust, would you, then? Probably, yes, indeed. Why? Because you feel more of a close personal attachment to the event of the Holocaust than to the even of the conquering of Gaul. They're both tragic genocides on a similar scale. One is not greater than the other, but we have more personal, emotional interest in tip-toeing around the issue of the Holocaust. That doesn't make it rational in any way shape or form, however.
neither does the ignorance of elected officials when it comes to technology, or any other topic, for that matter. Sure, we all get a chuckle from hearing how dumb people can be, but these elected officials are there to make laws, and if they're clueless about certain facts, we end up with stuff like the DMCA.
So because legislation is a "serious issue", it should not be joked about? Are you saying that any joke that involves circumstances that are less than beneficial should not be made? Making fun of our misfortunes is nothing if not the basis for comedy itself. Generally, I find that people who refuse to view the world with any sense of humour become extremely cynical.
His most enjoyable work I believe, is Blue Jam. It's nothing short of brilliant.
Available from Cookd and Bombd
No, _you're_ wrong. The internet isn't some sort of evil robot that grabs children and puts them in porno films. Its just a place to view information that has already been acquired. When you solve a problem you don't attack it at the widest point. you attack it at a bottle-neck. The internet is the widest point where a large number of people view a relatively small number of things. If you want to get rid of child pornography, stop the _small_ number of people that create it not the _large_ number of people that host and view it.
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
> grown people should not have sex with children
Please defend this statement without resorting to a priori or ad hominim premises. (ie: You can't say "because the Bible says so", "because it just is", or "because your an Anonymous Coward".)
I have my own reasons for disapproving of pedophilia, but I doubt that many people have given it rational thought.
>"It was the most grievous breach of taste I have ever witnessed on TV," wrote a Mail columnist, Simon Heffer,
Obviously hasn't watched much tv, or typed: 'lolita hardcore torture' into gnutella.. lol
>"and a program that only a small percentage of the psychologically sick could have found enjoyable."
Oh dear, i'm very sick then...
The best thing is the fact that they repeated the show the very next night even after the news that day. And no-one complained when they showed 'Cartman joins NAMBLA' on the same channel... Oh well, it just goes to show how clueless our politicians and celebrities and general public and media are over here. I was looking forward to the next series, however i doubt he'll be working anymore...
>"Perhaps Channel 4, instead of apologizing, should have simply said, `We rest our case.' "
I agree
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
A couple of weeks ago there was a protest against paedophiles which was reported on TV here in the UK. The first image was of a man carrying a sign saying "Pedofils out".
Are you trying to justify pedophile behavior?
I knew you were a linux user but not a LINUX user..
fucking pedophiles
The climate in the UK is very hostile towards men. In fact, British Airways has an official policy of not seating young children next to men when children fly alone. This is discrimination and stereotyping of men - could you imagine if blacks were treated this way?
2 30 206.shtml
I know this is offtopic, but Slashdot has a brother web site (based on Slash) that covers news on men's rights issues:
http://www.mensactivism.org
They deal with the decline of men's civil liberties with regard to sex crimes, and many other topics.
An Anony Mouse
PS - the BritAir source can be found at:
http://www.mensactivism.org/articles/01/03/17/0
Want to see some good kiddie porn? Check out the makeup/lighting/clothing/hairstyles of young girls in television commercials. How about Britanny Spears?
If people woke up to the fact that there are sexual images of children, all around them, maybe I would take this whole 'save the children' thing a little more seriously.
It is ok for the RIAA to parade a 'pre-teen-appearing' Britanny Spears in the media to sell product? It is okay for them to do it to sell clothing or shampoo?
Marketing and Advertising uses not so-subtle techniques like these with abandon, just because it is not seedy and badly-lite dosnt mean it is acceptable.... or does it?????
Save questioning what, exactly, makes paedophilia tantamount to child abuse? Any scars left on the child are solely a product of the society's reaction to such an affair, disregarding rape. A newborn child is a blank slate by default, everything is imprinted.
(Admittedly, I have no kids. I also do not lust after children or possess any religious beliefs. I consider myself rather objective on the entire issue.)
Also, I note the use of the word "morals" in your post. Morals are irrelevant. They are naught but societal imprinting.
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
>1.Sexually explicit images of children, which were even classified on-air as being "obscene" by a former head of the Obscene >Publications Branch, were shown to the >unsuspecting viewing public. Broadcasting this foul artwork must surely have provided >cheap titillation to any perverts watching the programme.
The FORMER head was giving snap judgements. This section was showing how the people who decide what's obscene simply pull arbitrary judgements from thin air (for instance, a barbie doll with a penis attached to it isn't unacceptable, a womens naked body with a childs head grafted on isn't unacceptable, but a barbie doll with a penis attached and a childs head is)
>* Mockery was made of last summer's anti-paedopile protests by concerned mothers. It is simply unacceptable to criticise the >genuine fears of honest law-abiding citizens in this >manner.
These protests were absolutely disgusting. They were made by ill-informed people (banners used often had peadophile spelt incorrectly), their fears were totally illegitimate, and the hysteria came to such heights that a peadiatritcian was chased from her home my a mob. It is perfectly acceptable to mock peoples fears if they are ill advised fears that harmed innocent people. (We do not still respect the fears of the German people during krystallnacht for instance)
>* The sickening music of the notorious American paedophile rap musician "JLb-8" was openly promoted on this programme.
Is this letter a joke? (If so I shall continue writing as I'm rather enjoying this). Anyhow, JLb-8 is entirely ficticious, and this section of the programme satirised both the tabloid media's sensationalist views of rappers, and how young, middle class children buy music by people like eminem, despite it not being to do with anything they have, or will ever, experience.
>Numerous celebrities, including members of parliament, newscasters and a musician were ridiculed by their unsuspecting >involvement with this programme.
Celebrities thrust themselves into the public eye deliberatly, and as such are liable to be ridiculed, if they wanted to avoid such ridicule, they could have done the tiniest bit of reaserch into what they were saying. This section also made a valid point; that celebrities will endorse anything, so we cannot trust them alone to 'sell' a charity.
> Worst of all, real children appeared in this programme. It is clearly wrong to expose them to this sinister subject matter at such a >tender age. The experiences of this programme may permanently damage these poor infants.
This is a disgusting attitude in my opinion. Surely we should expose children in order to educate them about peadophilla, sex and other taboo subjects, rather than keep them in the dark (to maintain the victorian notion of childhood innocence). Knowledge of peadophillia means the child is more likely to report this crime in the unlikely event that they expereince it.
Futhermore this 'crusade for innocence' has resulted in Britain having the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in europe, as when this innocent child becomes a teenager they will be pressured to have sex, and because they know so little about it (contraception, and how to say 'no') they do it, and ruin their lives by becoming pregnant. This is why the final thing in the programme is a young teenager saying she will lose her virginity 'tomorrow, maybe'.
That's all I can think of right now, and this as been written pretty hastily so don't be suprised if there are copious spelling mistakes
P.S. I'm pretty sure that this 'open letter' was one big joke.
Hey, thats a really great show. I always loved the British humour... Try watching it, hope the servers aren't /.ed soon...
Help the guys at CookdAndBombd by using their mirrors:
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
a l/ cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial1.avi
i al /cab-brasseyespecial2.avi
http://mirror5.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror5.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror6.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror6.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror7.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror7.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror8.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror8.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror9.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror9.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/speci
http://mirror10.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror10.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror11.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror11.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror12.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror12.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror13.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror13.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror14.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror14.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror15.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror15.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror16.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://mirror16.cookdandbombd.com/brasseye/spec
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
Graphics3D 640, 480
Here in Europe you can rent and buy bestiality videos, even in newsstands ! Nope, I'm serious.
And truthfully, most poeple really don't care about "saving the children", it's just a cause to talk about.
But it's one which works well...
If we really cared about our children we'd stop the child on child abuse that's rampant in our schools, or hell, even bother to install seat belts in the school buses that take our children to school.
Also build the bus so that it won't go anywhere unless all passengers are belted in. Maybe also prevent parents from acting as a taxi service to school children, creating dangeous congestion and air pollution in an area full of pedestrians.
Is it me, or do none of the links for either the AVI or RA file and its mirrors work?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
So it's not spam. Dear Lord, man, pull your head out of your ass a little.
yeah, that's a really brilliant solution: cloning. Let pedophiles clone themselves so that they can molest a younger version of themselves. That way it won't harm anybody else. Right?
The hysteria surrounding all this has to be seen to be believed - for some reason paedophile terror has really taken off in the UK in the last few years, culminating in hilarious/terrifying events like the attack on the house of a paediatrician by a mob of (presumably semi-literate) vigilantes a while back.
For the record, my mother (56, and a psychotherapist) watched the programme and found it amusing to the point of being life-threatening.
Steff
The cautious among us may respond that such material would still be harmful because it might encourage acts of molestation against real children. I would challenge this assumption. I have only my own experience to judge by I guess, but I know that in my case pornography does not encourage me to go out and rape women.
She read about it. How's that for detailed and useful knowledge of a topic you will be deciding on?
nt
"Rape can be funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd."
From there he did a radio show which became the BBC show The Day Today, which offered surreal news stories combined with the best parody of news reportage as stands in the Western world I've ever seen. His vaguely threatening goodnight, the use of insane graphics and pounding music... But then he got Brass Eye.
In the UK, humor and sex aren't as big a deal as violence, and you'd be amazed at what's shown on television here compared to the US. Before Brass Eye was even aired it became a news story, as several celebrities and politicians complained to the commisioning network, Channel 4, that he had gone too far.
During the height of Ecstacy hysteria in the UK, he had gotten politicans and celebrities to denounce the evils of a dangerous new drug ruining our children, called CAKE. As in, "We must ban cake." He did it so brilliantly that one of the Members of Parliament who he recorded denouncing cake ("which affects the part of the brain known as Shatner's Bassoon, which affects perception of time - cake is a made up drug, made up of chemicals") asked questions about it in Parliament. The then head of Channel 4 tried to get Morris to tone down the show's vitriol and abuse of celebrities. In the Science on Trial episode he had several UK celebrities talking about the dangers of "heavy electricity" which was killing people in the Far East. So Morris put a subliminal message in the final episode, calling his boss a cunt, which led to statements that he would never work for Channel 4 again. He returned to radio.
Until this year, when changes at Channel 4 led to a rebroadcast of the series and the commisioning of the new one off special on pedophilia. He had a famous London radio DJ stating that pedophiles had more genes in common with crabs than you or I, and there's no evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact! It went on. The result was instant, knee jerk tabloid hysteria, I think best represented in this picture. What you should know is that earlier this year, thanks to a name and shame campaign a major UK tabloid did on paedophiles, a paedatrician was attacked by an angry mob and had her car firebombed. A few days after airing of the programme, several politicans got in on the act, admitting they hadn't seen the show. One of them is even blind!
But thankfully the British public have shown their sense of good humor and more calls of support were received on Channel 4's complaints line then actual complaints, so the entire issue is now being hushed up.
I think what really grates about Morris is that he deigned to show that you cannot trust any of the mainstream media you partake of, that celebrity endorsements count for nothing. My favorite moment on the paedophilia special was a presenter for the BBC's technology show stating that internet padeophiles can use penis shaped sound waves to molest children. I think it's far more frightening to the public to know that those people that put a comforting, sickly gloss on the world as it is today are patently full of shit. The result of Morris' work may be greater than any piece of culture I've had all year, because it's made me question everything. I can no longer watch the news without laughing and being shocked by the idiocy and dramatics of it all. For that he deserves to be knighted.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
I want to see more porn with chicks eating shit and drinking piss. Bring back the snuff film!
The second part is even better. It kinda reminds me that with a pretty statistic und some funky numbers, anything can be proven true and/or reasonable.
Damn, and I thought germany (where I live) was braindead to the core. But now, the UK looks even worse to me.
+++ath0
I was actually a pretty sexually active child at around age 6, with my own peers. Children are sexually active, it's just not a subject that's ever brought up.
Now I don't think a child/adult relationship would ever be healthly. There's too much a power/mental gap for such a relationship to ever be anything other than coercive. But the subject is way blown out of porportion in today's media.
And truthfully, most poeple really don't care about "saving the children", it's just a cause to talk about. If we really cared about our children we'd stop the child on child abuse that's rampant in our schools, or hell, even bother to install seat belts in the school buses that take our children to school.
It's a hostile world for children, but not because of Evil Pedophiles lurking behind every corner.
I'm desperately trying to think of example where you could state why this would be wrong just using your rules, but can't.
That's because there isn't one. Same-sex incest would be the only thing i would consider wrong that i can't argue against, or come up with any justification for believing it is wrong.
Does this mean same-sex incest is wrong? No. what it means is that i am not internally consistent. i am not perfect. i aspire to have a moral system in which everything is at the core based off of the idea that the morality of an action has to be evaluated wholly based on who it hurts and who it decieves and to what extent-- and i have not entirely achieved that. I can come up with no justification for considering two people incapable of bearing children commiting incest to be immoral, yet i consider it immoral anyway. I don't believe i am right; however, this is just what i feel. So, i wasn't "trolling myself", i was simply trying to outline the places where i am not consistent, the one place where the only way i can state my viewpoint is by hurling insults and saying fuck you, i don't wanna discuss this. Why? Because i don't want to represent myself as a better person than i am. I don't particularly want anyone reading my post to trust me.
I did not post to this thread trying to get anyone to agree with me. I just posted to this thread trying to get people to think. I don't want anyone to believe anything i say; i just want them to evaluate my logic and perhaps adopt said logic as their own.
Oh, and just for the record: no, if there were people i knew engaging in same-sex incest, i would not intervene. I would be bothered, but (unlike in cases of pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, or "normal" incest..) i would not intervene in any way, because i would have no justification for saying that what they are doing is wrong and therefore i do not believe i have any right to intervene.
K? Trolling yourself and doubting yourself are probably different things; either way, never doubting yourself is probably not healthy. I dunno. But i do think it is safe to say i am at the least more interally consistent than the AC that posted #9, and i do think that allowing your biases to be be visible upfront (even if i can't or don't have time to state those biases in a terribly polite or clear way) is better than hiding your bias and hoping nobody thinks to ask.
P.S. I don't care to come up with a specific difference between "not immoral" and "moral". I don't think it's relevant anyway.
Adequacy.org ran the article Open Letter to Channel 4: Brass Eye Was Unacceptable , denouncing Channel4 and BrassEye for these escapades.
If you want a good summary of the opposition, then I'd suggest reading it. It's a good read in any event.
I'm not sure that there's as much of a taboo against discussing pedophilia as much as there is a taboo against participating in it. I think most societies are in broad agreement that sexual contact between adults and children is hurtful to both parties at best and can leave long-lasting scars on all parties involved. At worst, its an example of predatory behavior by adults against weaker, inexperienced and immature children.
So when you say there's a taboo against discussing pedophilia, I think most people would respond "What's there to discuss?" I doubt there's any room at all for change in attitudes without endorsing what is tanatamount to child abuse.
I think the only space for any exploration is "When does mature sexuality begin?" and there's probably sincere people who think that in the special, unique contexts an adult-sexually mature teen relationship is possible. But beyond that sphere, there's little moral or practical room for movement on the issue of pedophilia, which is why people get cranky when you talk about it.
I find it amusing that the other side of the page is a 1/2 page photo and article about how a 15year olds breasts are getting larger.
On one hand: She's 15, underage for most countries, on the other, well duh, it's natural. They grow.
Dear Moderators,
For a version of the adequacy troll that remembers to be amusing as well as ironic, see if you can prize this URL out of Slashdot's cold dead fingers.
Tee-hee. You have been trolled you dumb bitches
Britney Spears is 20.
Check this info out about Pedophilia. Why are there riots and mobs? Because the police are doing next to nothing to stop the pedophiles that have customers in high government positions.
e /2 166
e /2 167
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist/messag
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist/messag
Pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest are not by any stretch of the imagination "victimless crimes". You can take moral relativism to its absolute extreme, and say, ok, the morality of all things must be based, at their root, wholly on the harm or help they cause to others, and nothing is immoral unless someone is hurt-- and all four of those things are still immoral. The first two things on that list are nothing more or less than rape, and unjustifiable in any moral system (constructed or derived); it is plainly impossible for a child or an animal to truly understand the consequences (mental or physical) or contents of a sex act, and therefore it is impossible for them to provide consent of any sort. (Even that comment is just word wrangling in case a NAMBLA person shows up on this thread. I seriously doubt there is anyone who engages in acts of pedophilia or bestiality who gives a crap about "consent" (including the NAMBLA people), and i don't think you could produce a case of either bestiality or child molestation where you could honestly claim that the victim believed they were giving consent.) The third comes down to the same thing, and by violating the dead you are violating both the dignity of the person who they were (a victim) and the wishes and dignity of the friends and/or family of the deceased (whether anyone knows or not. deception of any sort is inherently creating victims of all involved in any way, whether aware or not, and is as such immoral. i could have a long argument with you on this point, but i don't wanna, cuz this thread is stupid.). The fourth case the victim is the potential child that would result; you have no right to bring something into this world with as much inherent damage as even a slight case of incest would produce, and there are no 100% effective methods of birth control.
See? Letting go of arbitrary moral systems imposed by society or religion and replacing them with cold logical ones doesn't mean you have to give up morality, at all, or come into acceptance with anything really horrible. It just means you have to accept homosexuality, suicide, substance abuse, and some really sick consensual sex acts as moral. (Note that it is possible to hurt other people while engaging in any of the above; doing so is immoral, but it doesn't make the concepts themselves immoral-- only the individual act of hurting others. Also note that although the items on the above list become moral actions, most of them are still really, really bad ideas, and it's a good idea to talk someone out of them based on their being really bad ideas. Whoo.) Stop thinking of things in terms of "this is wrong because our morality says it is wrong", start thinking of terms of "our morality says this is wrong because it is wrong, and i agree with its reasons." (Never mind you're a troll.) And if you start trying to use what i've just said to argue that same-sex incest is not immoral, then you're a sick piece of shit and to hell with you.
"declaring pedophiles born that way" is old hat. theories that at least some pedophiles were "born that way" for various reasons have been tossed around for a long time, although it's generally considered more of them are that way because of some kind of childhood trauma. people with genetic hemophilia are "born that way". that doesn't mean it's good for them or others, or that they aren't diseased people. the medical establishment can and does look at pedophiles, including any theories as to why they do what they do, wholly in terms of how to deal with their disease, for the good of the pedophile and the good of others. (Mostly others.) some people, including i suspect the Brass Eye people, would say that "it isn't the pedophile's fault they're that way". i suspect this is the viewpoint you're arguing against. i agree with this viewpoint in some cases, and you know what? it doesn't mean the pedophiles aren't diseased people. You can hold the viewpoint that pedophiles are nothing worse than diseased and still believe what the pedophiles are doing is wrong and still believe that pedophiles who may act on their impulses need to be put in prison for as long as it takes to be CERTAIN that they are no longer a danger to others.)
you are a troll, and i don't know why i'm responding to you. i just have lots of spare time. moderators: if the parent post is moderated down to -1, feel free to put my post there as well, and i apologize for wasting your modpoint. if you vote me up: i hate you. now let's see if i get any objectivist/lavey satanist (same thing) trolls (or people who just have too much time on their hands) trying to argue against me by claiming the "an harm ye none" part of "an harm ye none do what ye will, that shall be the whole of the law.." is wrong.. or that animal abuse isn't immoral..
Thats basicly like molesting your children? Thier basicly your DNA mix with someone elses right? Clonings not the solution. The whats is acceptible (sorta). Is drawings and literotica, maybe mock kiddie porn. (where every one is really over 18 or whatnot.) Of course if someone is having thier thoughts consantly then they need thairepy (sp?).
Or maybe the redundancy is intentionally there for emphasis, assface.
Later on, when you realize it's true, it makes you cry.
The problem with elected officials is that people tend to put them on a pedestal. They assume that all the words coming out of that official's mouth are blessed by God and unarguably true. Showing the people, dramatically and unarguably, that this is false is an absolute necessity. If the official is such a plonker that he must be reminded to breathe upon occasion, calling peoples' attention to that fact is also a good thing. Maybe then he won't remain an elected official for much longer.
Elected officials can not be expected to be experts on everything any more than you can. The fact that they are not the least bit informed about something that touches as many of their constituents as the internet does should be worrying a lot of people. I also expect my elected officials to get help from experts when they are going into territory with which they are completely unfamiliar. You'd think there'd be some little alarm bells in their head going "I know nothing on this topic; maybe I'd better ask someone before I go shooting my mouth off..."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why don't we alter the DNA so that the kids aren't hurt by molestation. Heck then is would be a problem, rape could be legalized and be an acceptable part of our culter. Right?
Have we finally found the root of michael's rabid privacy campaign?
When you kill someone, thier dead. Thier family and freinds are in pain. The dead aren't in pain.
Pedophilia the child is in pain. Thier family and freinds are in pain. More pain equals worse crime.
The DivX downloads dies a few hours ago.
The site has now been updated... now displays 'Closed for legal reasons', with a BBC test page...
Shame... Suppose I'll just have to borrow a VHS copy from a mate at work...
Ye gods, anytime someone claims to do something "For the children", you know we're in trouble.
Look, a child-worshipping culture is just as bad as one that worships nobility. You teach children, you educate children, you do not sacrifice freedom or liberty for children.
An exemplary quote. In other words, Mr. Rapson, in a fit of "for the children", read something he did not understand or know anything about. The fact that he read it, no questions, based entirely on the claim that it was "for the children" ought to prove the satirist's case.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Bogus. Looks like the vid web links were censored. Can someone who got it put it on GNUTELLA? And what is the filename to search for?
Anon
I was surprised that the original poster missed that element of the picture -- I thought that the comparison of a 15 year old's breasts and the outrage over Morris' "sick" show was the whole point!
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
awww you poor baby. we'll send someone over right away to change your diapers for you, you poor baby.
The people that run the site have emphatically said that the videos and the site being down has NOTHING to do with "The Slashdot Effect". It is for legal reasons which they have hinted that they cannot explain without getting into deeper trouble. So far, 90% of the assumptions are that Channel 4 is probably pretty pissed that everyone is seeing the show on the web instead of watching their reruns, which is understandable, except for the fact that msot of the people watching it on the web are Americans that have no chance of seeing it in a non-pirated/copied manner.
Looks like the avi and divx links have been taken down for "legal reasons".
Anyone know what's up with that?
When the cookdandbombd .avi mirrors were first linked to from the Plastic forums, they were immediately unavailable due to high demand. I was able to download the first avi from mirror4 and the second avi from mirror5 (only mirrors 1-3 had been linked to from the main page), but most Plastic readers probably didn't think of that. Now, cookdandbombd has stopped distributing the avis, and their front page says "closed for legal reasons" (copyright?).
What if, instead of hosting the avis themselves, they had put the avis on freenet and given out the key on their web site? That would have taken care of the Plastic effect (which, btw, is an order of magnitude weaker than the Slashdot effect) and also any legal problems arising from distributing the copyrighted show.
The shareholder is always right.
-Daniel
Ownyourphone.com. Custom ringtones, cheap and easy
The adequacy.org article is dated 27 July. It looks to me like your DaveVH character plagiarized adequacy.org.
Paedophilla is one of those things people go into hysteria about without understanding it. Paedophiles are people (usually male, age 15 or older) who are attracted soly, or almost soly, to pre-pubescencants (not 'children'). Much of this internet-paedophilla hype is bogas because the under-14s simply don't chat on the internet unattended.
I am unable to go into the prefession (speech-therapy) that I wanted because people in this country have an attitude that if any male shows any disire to work with children (teaching or otherwise), then they must be a *paedophile*. Teachers are banned from hugging children (even if they are hurt) because it could be 'paedophilic behaviour", men receive dirty looks if they go anywhere near a swimming-pool with children in it, 3 & 4 year olds are given instructions at kindergarten about how to beware of paedophilic men, fathers are sometimes afraid to hug their own children in public, men are afraid to help out at school & school events, 17 year old boys who make love to their 15 year old girlfriends are charged with 'rape' (for being 'paedophiles'), hysterical news reports go on TV about 'paedophiles' molesting 15 year olds, & so on & so on.
The hysteria that surrounds paedophilla does infinately more harm to society than actual paedophilla does. All the means of protection society uses are doing more harm than good, and don't work anyhow. Paedophiles are actually quite rare, most perverted idiots who molest children aren't even paedophiles!
Are there any mirrors or anywhere else that has this? I was trying to be an informed individual, and watch it and make my own opinions, but it seems that every link on the site is dead, and there is 'Closed for legal reasons' on the page.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Hans Gilde wrote: "a comedian in the UK produced a TV show ... in which he actually got a member of Parliament to say the following, on the air, in all seriousness: '... pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible.'"
4 93 ,528478,00.html
In point of fact that was the comedian Richard Blackwood, who's just been (successfully) sold to US broadcasters as the "British Eddie Murphy". His stated excuse was that "I thought they were genuine. They had a website".
Incidentally, there's a summary of the "H.O.E.C.S" games sequence at:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7
Those are nice cans, tho. Thanks tabloid! I guess I'm a pedophile. Shhh.
I take it you mean the 1960s or whenever it was jerry-lee lewis married his 13 year old cousin.
Hey, I even went to a wedding of kids at my school who were teenagers (both 18).
Let's not even mention Ayisha. :-)
I can never remember which one deals with feet and which one with kids :-)
I got date-raped (forced to have sex unwillingly) myself twice when I was younger (17, 18) and I am still alive now (though it took me ages to have a test done. Much relief that it came back negative). I don't really give a shit about those two guys, though I would prefer it if they did not do it to someone else (equally gullible). It's not the same as murder. Of course if I'd got infected I would think differently. I think other things (e.g. getting mugged) made me more paranoid that those two incidents.
for the child to not tell their family!
Unintended consequences?
The problem with kiddie porn is that every child involved is automatically a victim. So it is not a victimless crime
And gets it closed down. Well done, Slashdot. Thanks for keeping that one under the radar.
After I posted it I realised that was probably the point of the scan.
Yeah, well, there will always be idiots.
My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
You killed cookdandbombd.com!
Hope you're happy bucnch of faggots and clownhats!
pinkNoise
For emphasis of a conclusion that was reached with absolutely no logic.
bummer; maybe the exposure of getting /.-ed was more than chilled.cream.com needed. Since around 5:30pm cdt the site has replaced content with "Closed for legal reasons." Guess i'll be looking for those episodes on Gnutella ;-)
stop both. by getting it off the internet, it's just one more distribution channel destroyed. it doesn't SOLVE the problem, but it DOES slow the growth. that's important.
Reminds me of this kid for a science fair project, held a poll asking people to support a ban on the production and use of Dihydrogen Monoxide, a substance which is discharged by most industries, is a major component of acid rain, causes break failure on automobiles and has been found in cancer cells in cancer patents. 70% responded with a YES, 22% had no opinion, and only 8% knew what Dihydrogen Monoxide was and said no.The title of the fair entry? A Survey on 'How gullible are we?' (Dihydrogen Monoxide, is H2O a.k.a water)
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Remember, PLEASE share them back out once you get them! I've had 73 ppl download these from me already and there's only like 3 ppl on this section of gnet sharing this. Thanks.
-Jade E.
That's an oximoron.
First off, that page you linked to coincided with attempts by someone to attempt to probe my PC all three times I loaded the page. Coincidence? Or is that Java applet that loads an attempt to search someone's hard drive for suspicious filenames? I don't have time to look into it, but I've heard of such things, so if you go to that site have a firewall unless you don't care about nosy people. As I said, I haven't the time to determine whether it's coincidence--but three times is suspicious.
;-)
Guess what, Mr. Mindless Zealot? The Internet *is* taking care of this problem by itself, and *NO ONE* is making money off of the rape of children. That's just baseless propaganda.
As someone who has researched child pornography through interviewing both law enforcement agents and consumers and producers of child pornography, I can tell you one thing with absolute seriousness: there is *NO* commercial distribution of hardcore child pornography at this time. By that I mean that there are no organized distribution channels--it is possible that one person may meet another person in a somewhat random fashion, and sell him child pornography. But that is a one-on-one transaction which does not count as commercial distribution, and by definition rarely if ever occurs.
The reality is that hardcore child pornography is distributed by "hobbyist" collectors to one another, for free, in chat rooms and newsgroups, and sometimes on free webpage accounts, not sold commercially. Furthermore, about 99.9% of hardcore child pornography distributed on the Internet is "old"; that is, scans from magazines or captures from videos that were legal in the 1970s when they were produced by the commercial child pornography producers which existed and were legal back then, or come from Japan where child pornography was perfectly legal until the U.S. pressured them to pass laws against it last year. It's not exactly fair to equate things that were legal where and when they were created, with child-rape. In most if not all cases the actors and actresses were fairly compensated for their performances and did the material voluntarily--they were not forced. Whether they could give legal consent is of course a good question, but most of the material was made by professionals in parts of Europe in the 1970s and Japan in the 1990s, where and when it was largely legal. As such, it isn't a clear-cut case of right versus wrong.
A few images of actual child-rape have been circulating on the Internet, but not commercially--such images have been uploaded by pedophiles gratis. They also are considered to be sick and disgusting by most pedophiles, and when such an image is posted on a pedophile newsgroup, it always raises complaints. Even pedophiles are not happy with child-rape, the same way heterosexuals are not happy with adult rape. Such images are few and far between, and not popular at all.
Now, the softcore child pornography business is a different matter entirely. It used to be extinct since 1982, when the last Danish producer was put out of business just as the hardcore had been stamped out by the authorities--except of course in Japan, which has a different culture where young sexuality is more acceptable, and where to this day there is a "Lolicon" cultural subset. With the global Internet came an uinterest by the West in Japan's legal (in their own country, of course, not in the U.S.) child pornography. Between 1995 and 2000, a large amount of Japanese softcore child magazines--very common in their own country--were scanned and uploaded to the Net, but almost exclusively by enthusiasts, not by commercial ventures. The U.S. made agreements with Japan to stem the tide of Japanese child pornography, and while my Japanese friends tell me the books and videos can still easily be purchased in any big city, people no longer scan and post to the Net like they used to, so that it is out of sight and mind to the Puritanical Americans. But about the same time, there was a rebirth in the commercial softcore business--Russia and the Eastern Bloc nations, in need of money, and not as Puritanical as Americans are about sexuality and the young, and with the backing of the Russian Mafia, started giving birth to a new breed: the commercial softcore child pornography website.
Actually, the first such website, as far as anyone can recall to me, was a Paraguayan website called tinyamericans.com or somesuch; but it folded quickly when the owner/photographer, a man named Milton Xiscati, got into legal trouble after the U.S. customs authorities formally complained tabout the site and put pressure on Paraguayan authorities. But the Russians followed suit at about the same time in mid-2000, and had better success since the Russian authorities don't really care what the U.S. thinks or wants, and are being paid off by the Russian mob anyway. Several websites exist where a credit card number gets access to softcore images of nude children posed in a Playboy style--not very graphic, from what I'm told. These images are not illegal under Russian law, though they probably are under U.S. law. Posing in these very softcore images does not, by the accounts of those in Russia who take the pictures, cause any harm, and indeed the money generated from the site is used to feed and clothe the girls and their families, who are rather poor and without much means of supporting themselves.
To listen to the accounts of the Russians who produce this very soft stuff, it is almost humanitarian--poor girls and families get lots of money, and all that they have to do in return is a simple Playboy-like shoot. While I am in the U.S. and cannot see the images myself for legal reasons, I recently was given some very innocent clothed images of the families and the girls at a barbeque party thrown for them by the producers. They all seemed very happy and healthy, normal kids. In addition, some other innocent images were given to me of the girls being taught on new computers at a school set up for them inside the studio. Apparently a fair percentage of the money made off these Playboy-style images is being used to give the girls, who range in age from about 7 to 16, educational and vocational opportunities they could not otherwise afford. I am also told that some of the images distributed at the sites are actually taken by some of the older girls, who are learning professional photographic skills, as well as computers and Web design and other skills they wouldn't learn in an ordinary Russian school.
That doesn't sound so bad, now does it? If I were a poor Russian kid right about now, I think posing for some Playboy-style artsy nudes wouldn't be a bad idea if it would get me a classroom full of new computers and someone to teach me skills to use them, and other marketable skills I could not learn otherwise, as well as some money for my family. So what if a few decadent Western perverts whack off to them?
And yet, when I interviewed the Innocent Images task force under press credentials, they made things like that seem like the end of civilization as we know it. Funny then how the websites hosting the images are still, as far as I know, active and from what I hear updated daily now. If the FBI or U.S. Customs *really* wanted to shut down these websites, I'm sure they could do something about it. Talk U.S. Internet companies into purging their URLs from DNS databases, maybe. But no, they still exist, at the same addresses as they've been at for a year or so. The FBI also played up the prevalence of hardcore child pornography on the Internet, and yet my own experience of reading the text-only messages in newsgroups like alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen tells me that this is false, that the hardcore stuff is rarely posted and when it is, it is almost exclusively 1970s or Japanese stuff that used to be legal, and it draws criticisms from some--and if force is being used, it draws near-universal criticism. I can only conclude that the FBI was blowing smoke up my arse, and that indeed there is very little hardcore CP on the Net, there is no commercial hardcore CP (the only sites that offer it are FBI or Customs stings, or Russian Mob scams which aren't distributing anything, they're hjust stealing credit card numbers of stupid people), and that the softcore Playboy-type stuff that is common is hurting no one and definitely helping the girls and their families.
So, why would the FBI lie about child pornography? Simple: to get gullible people like you to applaud them and gladly forfeit each and every one of your civil rights the moment you log on to the newest and most powerful medium in the world. The FBI doesn't actually care about child pornography--they care about making the public believe they need to give up all their rights in order to protect their children from the phantom menace of pedophiles, who contrary to popular belief seem to be just like heterosexuals or homosexuals, in that it is a matter of being attracted to a certain group of people, not a matter of rape. Just as only a small percentage of heterosexuals rape women, only a small percentage of pedophiles rape children. Most pedophiles are content to jerk off to the Disney Channel, Sears catalogues, or pictures of nude Russian girls, realizing that touching a child in a sexual way is not good for the child or for the pedophile. It is only a small portion of them who do stupid things like trying to seduce young girls or boys online, and the FBI is doing its job to try to stop them--albeit I have to question my tax dollars being spent to have people chatting on IRC all day pretending to be 12 to entrap stupid potential abusers. Seems like a waste of my tax dollars, and it seems like illicit entrapment to me--but hey, I can't complain too much; the idea behind it is to be pro-active, instead of re-active, and I respect the motive if not the method.
However, the FBI seems to be doing nothing to stop child pornography. Newsgroups are posted to with near-impunity, and as I said those half-dozen or so Russian sites are still going strong. From what I'm told, there are Yahoo groups devoted to questionable images which can last for weeks or months before shut-down. It would seem that the FBI could do more about it if they wanted to. My conclusion is that they don't want to--they don't care, as long as the child porn stays segregated to these "ghettos" so that everyday yokels don't find them and raise hell. They just care about instilling a public perception that child pornography is pervasive and dangerous, so that people will react irrationally and forfeit their rights "for the sake of the children."
This is borne out by another observation I made: there is a third class of child pornography, a class which i made right here in the U.S., but which is only considered child pornography here in the U.S. That is, "clothed child pornography." A few years ago the Court ruled that images of a clothed minor can still be considered child pornography if the primary purpose of the images was to inspire sexual feelings in the viewer, and the images had the minor posed in a provocative position or focused on a sexual area of the body such as the buttocks, crotch, breast, or thigh. And yet, a type of site has grown in the U.S. itself which specializes in such images. They are "modeling" sites which offer images of clothed minors in underwear, swimsuits, leotards, vinyl fetish wear, etc., ostensibly for the purposes of promoting modeling careers for the girls, but which are really there to sell site memberships so that pedophiles can jerk off to attractive young American girls posed to titillate and sexually excite. Clothing or no clothing, many of these images should qualify as child pornography under U.S. law--although the rest of the world would laugh at us for it. Yet the FBI and Customs do nothing about these sites, which are hosted in the U.S., which feature American minors, etc. This further bolsters my argument that the FBI really cares more about promoting the fear of child pornography, than about eliminating it from the Net. Just look at what the FBI is asking for in next year's budget--a HUGE cybercrime spending package. They want more funding and more power, and child pornography is the red herring to get it for them.
Lastly, just for the heck of it, here is a response to a troll/thumper who posted in alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen , where as I said I read all the text-only postings. Originally I read the group's text for research, and now I read it because the regs are funny as hell and I like hanging out there. Anyway, here's the message, which is relevant to your ideas:
In article ,
shaunlamoureux@hotmail.com bestowed from atop the mount his words of wisdom
upon mankind, speaking thusly in tongues:
> I would like to appologize to all the young girls in these pictures.
> I have done something morally wrong by looking at these photos. Although
> it my seem like no one is harmed by this practice there are real people
> suffering during and after this sexual abuse. I know these pictures are
> inanimate and remove the viewers from actual abuse but this is no
> excuse. There are still people
> being hurt and by downloading photos one is just as guilty as he or she is
> perpetuating abuse of innocent children.
>
> Next time you are looking ask yourself why? All forms of behavior sexual
> or not have roots in the past.
>
> Once again I am sorry. Please forgive me
>
> For the young victims.
Why Child Pornography Isn't Inherently "Bad"
You know, just looking at images harms no one. Images are not actions,
they are mere information, binary ones and zeros just like anything else in
cyberspace. There is a huge difference between passively looking at an
image and actively doing whatever an image may depict.
An image is not good or bad. It may depict something good or bad, but the
image is neutral. Images depicting torture and genocide have won Pulitzer
Prizes and other awards, and are not considered illegal or evil just
because what they depict may be illegal or evil. We do not feel remorse
for looking at images, even if they depict horrors such as the famous photo
of the nude Vietnamese woman running from her burning village as her flesh
is melting. This is because the image just shows a moment in time; we are
not responsible for that moment just because we have seen a representation
of it.
So, if you have been looking at images of children in sexual and possibly
abusive situations, as you say, why should you feel bad for it? That
moment would have happened whether or not you looked at the image 20 years
or 20 minutes after whatever happened, happened. You are no more
responsible for that moment just because you saw an image of it, than I am
responsible for war crimes for looking at that famous image of a North
Vietnamese man with a gun to his head, crying as he was about to be
executed. And what if you enjoyed looking at an image of a girl in a
questionable situation? You have no more engaged in the situation than I
have engaged in the situation whenever I watch Annette Haven get reamed in
the classic porn film *Co-Ed Fever*--although I wish it were me reaming
Annette Haven, but I digress.
The fallacy so many people--particularly overzealous LEA--fall for is
believing that child pornography promotes child abuse. But it's untrue,
and a notion founded entirely on emotive propaganda not fact. As I said,
the things depicted in images would go on whether or not you view the
images. Do you really think a child molester would stop molesting if no
one would look at his pictures? Of course not; most child molesters do
what they do without posting images on the Net. The motivation is primal,
sexual, and the images are mostly for his own enjoyment, and sharing them
with others is entirely secondary. So where is the harm if someone sees
such an image and is excited by it? They are not vicariously contributing
to the scene depicted--that would have happened no matter what.
Another argument some make is that seeing child pornography may make people
more likely to emulate what is depicted. Well, that argument is quite
groundless. In a society which condems adult-child sex as much as ours
does, no one is going to think sex with children is OK just because they
run across, or even collect, some pictures of it. Do people who see that
picture of a Vietnamese man with a gun to his head suddenly start thinking
that it's okay to go around killing people? Heck, our films and television
shows and video games are laden with more pure violence than ever before,
and despite right-wing propaganda and rhetoric, the Justice Department's
own aggregate statistics say that violent crimes among teenagers--surely
the most impressionable demographic--have been on the decline overall for
10 years. The only thing that causes people to think there's a problem is
media exploitation--the media broadcasts disproportionately about crimes
involving youngsters because it increases their ratings. The statistics
show the truth. Likewise with child porn--people believe it's a problem
because the media tells them so. But the reality is that no one is going
to go out and have sex with a 10 year old just because they see it in a
picture or film. Would you go out and have sex with a dog if you see that
on film? Of course not, unless it were something you were going to go out
and do anyway.
That last statement is the key. There is *no* causal link between child
porn and sex with children; the only reason some people may think so is
based on the fact that the type of people who would collect child porn are
the type of people who are attracted to children sexually in the first
place. So, naturally a percentage of them are going to have sex with
children; the child porn they may happen to possess is merely an indication
of their attractions--not a cause, an effect. And it cannot be denied that
child porn is for some pedophiles the same as adult porn is for some
heterosexuals--a release valve for sexual tensions, something to masterbate
to which ultimately decreases sexual desires, not increases them. Hence,
child pornography (in a limited, semi-underground form, at least) is good
for society, not bad, since it provides people who might otherwise seek
juvenile sexual partners with a healthy, inanimate outlet for those needs.
The other argument against child pornography, and the one most often touted
by law enforcement agencies, is that child pornography can be used as a
"recruitment tool" for pedophiles and child molesters who may try
to convince children that adult-child sex is OK by showing them such
images. This last argument is perhaps the thinnest, least believable,
because anything can be used for a nefarious purpose--just because plastic
baggies can be used to hold drugs, does not mean they don't have more
positive uses, or that they need to be made illegal. I'd concede fully
that child porn can and has been used in that capacity; just the other day
I watched a news program about a guy who used it that way. But regular
adult pornography is just as effective a recruitment tool, because people
interested in seducing young girls (or boys) don't rely on being able to
convince them sex with adults is all right--they're taught at school if not
by their parents that it isn't--but rather they rely on the youngster's
natural curiosity about sex and natural desires to do things that feel
good. Adult pornography arouses curiosity and desire in the potential
subject just as much. A child rapist is just going to rape, regardless of
what the child wants, so he does not usually use any pornography in finding
a victim, and it is not at all important in enabling him to do what he
does. Pornography is only really used in this context by non-rapists who
want to seduce or otherwise broach the subject of sex with children. This
can just as easily--if not more easily--be done with adult pornography as
with child pornography. It is also safer, since the adult can leave
regular adult pornography in places the child is sure to find it and wonder
about it, and if the child reports the porn to his or her parents, the
adult can make an excuse about accidentally leaving it in an accessible
place; the same is not true of child pornography, which the parents are
going to report if their child reports seeing it. My researches into the
subject (for a book, which may or may not ever get published) indicate that
adult pornography is used for seducing children far, far more often than
child pornography is. Therefore to blame such seductions on child
pornography is ludicrous, since adult pornography, which is perfectly legal
to possess, serves exactly the same purpose. In this context, child
pornography is not at all different from or more useful than regular porn.
If there are any other arguments for why merely possessing or viewing child
pornography is somehow inherently "bad", bring them up and I'll refute
them. Face it: the only reason you feel bad about looking at what you say
you've looked at, is a pathological Puritan guilt about sex. That's why
the U.S. has such a high rate of sex crimes compared to the rest of the
world--an unhealthy Puritan outlook on sex leads to an unhealthy sex life
and a potential for sexual pathologies.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Umm, in the post above, where it reads:
:-)
> a class which i made right here in the U.S.
it should actually say:
> a class which is made right here in the U.S.
Now, there's an example of one little letter, or the lack thereof, *completely* changing the meaning and context of a phrase! Jumpin'-Jeezus-on-a-Pogo-Stick, I almost fell out of my seat in embarrassment when I read my own typo.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
What people simply don't realize is that the exploitation of little kids is all around us. People are just too nieve to realize it. I saw a show on HBO (I believe) 3-4 months back about this little girl that professionally starred in beauty pagents. Her mother grilled her constantly over walking right, talking right, smiling right, sticking out her chest ("strut it like you'll have it in 10 years"), her numerous dance routines and memorized lines, etc... The demand put on that little girl was extreme. I believe the mother home schooled her as well so they could spend more time in training. The mother would pay professional makeup artists to literally make this girl look like a little Barbie Doll. They made this little girl (eight years old I think) look like a miniature whore. It was sickening. The girl made a mistake on stage during a speaking part and started bawling when she got off stage. The mother ripped her for messing up her lines and now her makeup. It was disguisting. The mother was exploting the little girl. Hell I heard Shirley Temple was viewed as crude by many because of her short dresses and scenes with black men (tap dancing and what not). This shit is nothing more than a witchhunt and the media is doing nothing more than fueling the fire. School shootings are the same way. The media make it out to be a disease that is spreading across the nation and getting wirse every day. That's total bullshit. The number of violent incidents on school campus is dropping every year. It's less than half what it was in in the late 70's. The media will never tell you that. Blood and guts sell. Controversy sells. Early in my mother's teaching career she worked at a school in southern Kansas. A girl (known as a slut to everyone) accused the woodshop teacher of something (touching, sexual assault, I don't remember). She had no proof he did it. He had know that he didn't. Her story kept changing every time she was questioned. Never the less he was suspended. There was a big public outcry against him. Blah blah blah. You've heard it all before. Finally he left and went elsewhere. Shortly after that the girl confessed that she made it up because he gave her a bad grade in his class. It didn't matter. If you go to that town today and bring up his name with a parent around the age of say 55 now they'll probably remember his name and go on and on about his sexual misconduct and shit like that. The truth came out. No one listened. He was still run off. Hmm, I'm starting to rant now. Well, let me close with something I've long since believed. The media should be held accountable for everything they speak or write. If they accuse a teacher of sexual misconduct, they should be held legally accountable if that person is found to be innocent. Now that doesn't mean I don't think they can't print something that's not proven to be true. Say for example someone is hauled into court on sexual charges. State that. Don't print something weeks before on how some kid said person X did something to me. Kids say things. Wait until there is an actual fact. Then print it. Someone being hauled into court is a fact. It's not a fact that they did something but it is a fact that there is enough reason to let a jury or judge decide. Also, if that story is put on the front page with a 72 point headline, the retraction should be just as big and on the front page. It shouldn't be hidden back under the Classifides. It should be given just as much importance as the original story was given. Well, enough of my ramblings. We now return you to your regularly scheduled force-fed media hype.
They are now available on Freenet (in realaudio format) at: freenet:KSK@cab-brasseyespecial1.ra and cab-brasseyespecial2.ra.
Yeah and you'd have the worlds shittiest teeth and your pubs would be carbombed by the Irish. The ::fucking:: Irish!!
nitpicking, but he is *not* an american
Strangely enough, Victor-Lewis Smith, who appears to be an old rival of Chris Morris, advanced exactly the same arguments as you did. No doubt he's just cheesed off because being similar to Morris in many ways (eg gross-out humour, prank phone calls) he's now going to be thought of as Chris Morris-lite. Which he is really, since his phone pranks are pretty childish to be honest, and his recent attempts at comedy (eg "The Gay Daleks" from "TV Offal") are defintely inferior to Morris' "Blue Jam" and "Brasseye".
Actually, the "Zebra" segement is in the "Animal Rights" episode of Brass Eye, not the recent special. Sorry about that!
Erm, excuse me, but 'pedophilia' has not been a big topic over here; paedophilia has. That's right, we spell it with another 'a'. Not only must we put up with the Americanisation [sic] of the net, but we apparently have our own stories misspelt too! Who do you think invented the language, anyway???
(Pedant - and proud of it :)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.