I just have refuted it because it is *not* evidence, it *is* simply supposition and innuendo."
> PROVE IT. It sure looks like evidence.
> No, it's an official police report that you can't refute, so you discount it. Sorry, that's evidence whether you like it or not.
No, dharbee, it is a quote that says "The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse. Prosecutors in Naples are considering charging those who have bought the videos with complicity in murder. They say some may have specifically requested films of killings."
Note that they *say* the material includes... prosecutors are *considering*... "they *say* some may..."
All of this is, at best, anecdotal and not proof at all. It is most certainly not an "official Police report".
Now if you can show me reports from the Italian Courts (or, indeed, any other courts) of any actual charges being laid or prosecutions being brought or, even better, *convictions* then your claims may have some merit.
Until then, however, they are still nothing more than supposition and innuendo.
And, again, I remind you of the Burden of Proof. It is *YOUR* assertion that snuff movies exist. I have to prove nothing. I certainly don't have to prove that he did not sell any, you only want to try to force me to do that because of the weakness of your arguments.
Your "declaring victory" and resorting to personal attacks in this and other threads simply confirms this.
(And, just for clarity, I'm not going to keep dealing with this in multiple threads, so I've included all my answers in this one. This is not "stifling debate", this is just to save me wasting my time.
> Who the hell are you to accuse anyone of basing an argument on "supposition and innuendo" when that is the totality of your response to evidence you can't refute?
Excuse me?!
*What* "evidence I can't refute"? I just have refuted it because it is *not* evidence, it *is* simply supposition and innuendo.
You keep asserting that snuff movies exist, but you have not yet managed to supply any credible evidence to back that assertion up.
If you can, I will be happy to consider it, but the Burden of Proof is on you to make your case, not for me to demonstrate the falsehood of your claims.
I am glad you have at least attempted to supply proof instead of just relying on personal attacks and abuse, however I have already addressed the first link in another reply (see earlier) and pointed out that it does *not* offer proof.
The Wikipedia article first cites the same report without any more proof, it then goes on to say Some murderers have in various instances recorded their acts on video; however, the resultant footage is not usually considered to be a snuff film because it is not made for the express purpose of distribution.
You might as well argue that the video shot by Iraqi hostage takers beheading their victims or even the footage of the execution of Saddam Hussein are "snuff movies", but they do not fit the description of "a motion picture showing the actual murder of a human being that is produced, perpetrated, and distributed solely for the purpose of profit" (often with the implication of it being sexual in nature).
So, I'm sorry, but you have still not managed to prove your case and, as such, I cannot accept your opinion that I am wrong.
When you can put together a rational, sensible and logical argument without resorting to personal attacks or swearing or moving the goalposts, please, let me know.
Abuse doesn't make your position any more credible.
> You can get as pointed and confrontational as you like,
Hmm...
> but one thing is certain, and you can't refute it. People have weird tastes, and some of those people have money.
Yes, I am aware that people have wierd tastes and some of those people have money. But this is *not* proof of the existence of snuff movies.
> Again, if you think that snuff doesn't exist even though there is a market for it, you're just too stupid to continue discussing this with.
ROFL! Sorry, *who* was making comments about being "pointed and confrontational"?!
"Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black"...!
The assertion is that Snuff Movies exist. Neither you nor anyone else has provided proof of their existence. Your argument is based on supposition and innuendo (not to mention ad hominem comments!) not proof.
> where are you getting info to support the claim that no snuff movies have ever been found?
That article is from 2000, nearly seven years ago, but does it actually *say* that they been found have? No.
"The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse"
"British authorities [...] are concerned that 'snuff' movies in which children are killed may have also been imported."
They quote an "alleged e-mail"
"Dmitri Ivanov was sentenced to 11 years for actually participating in the abuse that was being filmed."
Note, that's "abuse", not "murder".
There are a lot of quotes in there and a lot of supposition and implication and FUD, but don't you think that if there *had* been actual "snuff" films, the media would have been trumpetting it from the rooftops?!
If you have *ANY* proof of the existence of Snuff Movies, or even *any* proof of the existence of a market for them, then, please let's see it.
Or pass it on to your local Police/ FBI/ Whatever office because they'd love to see it too.
Who are these people "willing to buy them"? Where are they?
We are being told that we must give up our rights to look at so-called "extreme pornography" based on someone else's opinions and a complete lack of proof of a) snuff movies or b) that looking at this material definitely causes a few deranged individuals to commit acts of violence.
Absence of proof, especially after 30 years looking, is good enough to counter this sort of FUD argument.
There's an absence of evidence for the Loch Ness Monster too...
> IIRC what got the brits with their panties in a knot about extreme porn, was a case where one deranged guy watched a bunch of snuff movies, then went and strangled a woman to death.
No, that is what those who propose this law *want* you to believe.
Some facts:
1) SNUFF MOVIES ARE A MYTH!
Excuse me shouting, but in 30 years of searching by police agencies worldwide there has never been a *single* "snuff movie" found (someone being murdered for sexual gratification and then the film being sold or distributed), let alone anyone being prosecuted for it!
2) He looked at sites like "Necrobabes" and "Hanging Bitches" which are *staged* porn sites with actors posing for photos. Nobody is killed in these any more than people are killed in films like Saw or Hostel or Captivity!
3) Martin Salter MP, the guy who is pushing this law, has a clear anti-porn agenda. He has just been quoted as saying "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet" he has also repeated the myth about Snuff Movies and claimed that "it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind" even though the original Government Consultation admitted that there was *NO* evidence that images such as this caused harm!
> I fail to see what good it does to provide movies for _that_ deranged minority.
You have this argument backwards. What you fail to see is that *NO* good will come from attempting to block imagery like this *in the hope* that it will somehow stop a "deranged minority" hurting others.
Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper" murdered prostitutes and justified it by his reading of the Bible. Should the Bible therefore be banned because it stimulates a "deranged minority" to murder??
> I'll say they're messed up in the head as it is. With or without movies, that's a disturbingly unbalanced person who gets an erection at the thought of taking a life.
Exactly, see above. These people will find justifications by one means or another. Criminalising the rest of us is not going to make a difference.
Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050 102.htm
This is a classic fallacy of the "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" argument ("after this, therfore because of this") resulting from a self-selected group.
You arrest people for child porn offences and, big surprise, you find that some of them have molested children. But what exactly does that prove? That child porn made them molest children or is it rather that their desire to molest children made them view child porn?
Child porn does not sate a desire to molest children, it inculcates this desire.
What, apart from the above fallacy, is your proof of this?
This is the same argument that the UK Government is using to try to ban "extreme pornography" because Graham Coutts was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst after "viewing sites like Necrobabes".
The argument was that because he'd looked at the pictures, he then went and killed her. But his conviction has been ruled as Unsafe by the UK Courts of Appeals because there is no proof of this claim.
If banning artificial child porn makes child porn hard to come by and thereby dampens the demand for the real thing (or molestation), then it's a great idea. Even if it doesn't, I'm a little tired of this idea that free speech extends to pornography. Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers
And I'm a little tired of the idea that "Freedom of Speech" means "Freedom to say things that *you* agree with", but not otherwise.
It's a good thing this sort of idiotic nonsense pandering to ignorant pressure groups and those with an anti-porn agenda doesn't happen on the right hand side of the pond.
Oh, wait a minute, it does...
The UK Government wants to make it an offence, punishable by three years in jail, to simply possess "violent pornography", the definition of which appears to be based on the subjective viewpoints of some narrow minded and puritanical members of the Home Office.
This knee-jerk legislation came about after Graham Coutts was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst, because, it's claimed, he looked at sites like Necrobabes which "promote violence against women".
Even though the Court of Appeal has quashed his conviction the "We must be seen to be doing something!" bandwagon keeps rolling and a law that will create a Thought Crime and trample over people's right to make up their own minds about what they can look at on the internet is in the offing.
Slashdot Mirror
I just have refuted it because it is *not* evidence, it *is* simply supposition and innuendo."
> PROVE IT. It sure looks like evidence.
> No, it's an official police report that you can't refute, so you discount it. Sorry, that's evidence whether you like it or not.
No, dharbee, it is a quote that says "The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse. Prosecutors in Naples are considering charging those who have bought the videos with complicity in murder. They say some may have specifically requested films of killings."
Note that they *say* the material includes... prosecutors are *considering*... "they *say* some may..."
All of this is, at best, anecdotal and not proof at all. It is most certainly not an "official Police report".
Now if you can show me reports from the Italian Courts (or, indeed, any other courts) of any actual charges being laid or prosecutions being brought or, even better, *convictions* then your claims may have some merit.
Until then, however, they are still nothing more than supposition and innuendo.
And, again, I remind you of the Burden of Proof. It is *YOUR* assertion that snuff movies exist. I have to prove nothing. I certainly don't have to prove that he did not sell any, you only want to try to force me to do that because of the weakness of your arguments.
Your "declaring victory" and resorting to personal attacks in this and other threads simply confirms this.
(And, just for clarity, I'm not going to keep dealing with this in multiple threads, so I've included all my answers in this one. This is not "stifling debate", this is just to save me wasting my time.
> Who the hell are you to accuse anyone of basing an argument on "supposition and innuendo" when that is the totality of your response to evidence you can't refute?
Excuse me?!
*What* "evidence I can't refute"? I just have refuted it because it is *not* evidence, it *is* simply supposition and innuendo.
You keep asserting that snuff movies exist, but you have not yet managed to supply any credible evidence to back that assertion up.
If you can, I will be happy to consider it, but the Burden of Proof is on you to make your case, not for me to demonstrate the falsehood of your claims.
I am glad you have at least attempted to supply proof instead of just relying on personal attacks and abuse, however I have already addressed the first link in another reply (see earlier) and pointed out that it does *not* offer proof.
The Wikipedia article first cites the same report without any more proof, it then goes on to say Some murderers have in various instances recorded their acts on video; however, the resultant footage is not usually considered to be a snuff film because it is not made for the express purpose of distribution.
You might as well argue that the video shot by Iraqi hostage takers beheading their victims or even the footage of the execution of Saddam Hussein are "snuff movies", but they do not fit the description of "a motion picture showing the actual murder of a human being that is produced, perpetrated, and distributed solely for the purpose of profit" (often with the implication of it being sexual in nature).
So, I'm sorry, but you have still not managed to prove your case and, as such, I cannot accept your opinion that I am wrong.
When you can put together a rational, sensible and logical argument without resorting to personal attacks or swearing or moving the goalposts, please, let me know.
Abuse doesn't make your position any more credible.
Hmm...
> but one thing is certain, and you can't refute it. People have weird tastes, and some of those people have money.
Yes, I am aware that people have wierd tastes and some of those people have money. But this is *not* proof of the existence of snuff movies.
> Again, if you think that snuff doesn't exist even though there is a market for it, you're just too stupid to continue discussing this with.
ROFL! Sorry, *who* was making comments about being "pointed and confrontational"?!
"Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black"...!
The assertion is that Snuff Movies exist. Neither you nor anyone else has provided proof of their existence. Your argument is based on supposition and innuendo (not to mention ad hominem comments!) not proof.
If you have proof: Show it.
That article is from 2000, nearly seven years ago, but does it actually *say* that they been found have? No.
"The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse"
"British authorities [...] are concerned that 'snuff' movies in which children are killed may have also been imported."
They quote an "alleged e-mail"
"Dmitri Ivanov was sentenced to 11 years for actually participating in the abuse that was being filmed."
Note, that's "abuse", not "murder".
There are a lot of quotes in there and a lot of supposition and implication and FUD, but don't you think that if there *had* been actual "snuff" films, the media would have been trumpetting it from the rooftops?!
Or pass it on to your local Police/ FBI/ Whatever office because they'd love to see it too.
Who are these people "willing to buy them"? Where are they?
We are being told that we must give up our rights to look at so-called "extreme pornography" based on someone else's opinions and a complete lack of proof of a) snuff movies or b) that looking at this material definitely causes a few deranged individuals to commit acts of violence.
Absence of proof, especially after 30 years looking, is good enough to counter this sort of FUD argument.
There's an absence of evidence for the Loch Ness Monster too...
No, that is what those who propose this law *want* you to believe.
Some facts:
1) SNUFF MOVIES ARE A MYTH!
Excuse me shouting, but in 30 years of searching by police agencies worldwide there has never been a *single* "snuff movie" found (someone being murdered for sexual gratification and then the film being sold or distributed), let alone anyone being prosecuted for it!
2) He looked at sites like "Necrobabes" and "Hanging Bitches" which are *staged* porn sites with actors posing for photos. Nobody is killed in these any more than people are killed in films like Saw or Hostel or Captivity!
3) Martin Salter MP, the guy who is pushing this law, has a clear anti-porn agenda. He has just been quoted as saying "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet" he has also repeated the myth about Snuff Movies and claimed that "it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind" even though the original Government Consultation admitted that there was *NO* evidence that images such as this caused harm!
> I fail to see what good it does to provide movies for _that_ deranged minority.
You have this argument backwards. What you fail to see is that *NO* good will come from attempting to block imagery like this *in the hope* that it will somehow stop a "deranged minority" hurting others.
Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper" murdered prostitutes and justified it by his reading of the Bible. Should the Bible therefore be banned because it stimulates a "deranged minority" to murder??
> I'll say they're messed up in the head as it is. With or without movies, that's a disturbingly unbalanced person who gets an erection at the thought of taking a life.
Exactly, see above. These people will find justifications by one means or another. Criminalising the rest of us is not going to make a difference.
Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050 102.htm
This is a classic fallacy of the "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" argument ("after this, therfore because of this") resulting from a self-selected group.
You arrest people for child porn offences and, big surprise, you find that some of them have molested children. But what exactly does that prove? That child porn made them molest children or is it rather that their desire to molest children made them view child porn?
Child porn does not sate a desire to molest children, it inculcates this desire.
What, apart from the above fallacy, is your proof of this?
This is the same argument that the UK Government is using to try to ban "extreme pornography" because Graham Coutts was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst after "viewing sites like Necrobabes".
The argument was that because he'd looked at the pictures, he then went and killed her. But his conviction has been ruled as Unsafe by the UK Courts of Appeals because there is no proof of this claim.
If banning artificial child porn makes child porn hard to come by and thereby dampens the demand for the real thing (or molestation), then it's a great idea. Even if it doesn't, I'm a little tired of this idea that free speech extends to pornography. Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers
And I'm a little tired of the idea that "Freedom of Speech" means "Freedom to say things that *you* agree with", but not otherwise.
It's a good thing this sort of idiotic nonsense pandering to ignorant pressure groups and those with an anti-porn agenda doesn't happen on the right hand side of the pond.
Oh, wait a minute, it does...
The UK Government wants to make it an offence, punishable by three years in jail, to simply possess "violent pornography", the definition of which appears to be based on the subjective viewpoints of some narrow minded and puritanical members of the Home Office.
This knee-jerk legislation came about after Graham Coutts was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst, because, it's claimed, he looked at sites like Necrobabes which "promote violence against women".
Even though the Court of Appeal has quashed his conviction the "We must be seen to be doing something!" bandwagon keeps rolling and a law that will create a Thought Crime and trample over people's right to make up their own minds about what they can look at on the internet is in the offing.
For more information see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and UK citizens can sign an online petition objecting to the Nanny State trying to control what we can or cannot see at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/ or write to their MP to object via http://www.theyworkforyou.com/