Assuming you didn't compensate the producer of the images, you in no way contributed to the market of child pornography.
If I create a product, any product--let's say a new toothpaste, and no one buys it, I don't make it anymore. I don't pour my money into a fruitless venture.
To make child porn, you need money. Even just a little. To distribute/sell it, you need money. You make up for what you spent in how many people buy it. If no one bought it, you couldn't continue making it. You might still sexually molest kids, but perhaps not as many, and in private. Therefore, if someone go to a website and pay them to download child porn material they produced, they're not just contributing to that market, they ARE that market. They're the reason it's being made. In the end, it is the people who are there to have it sold to that hold a shitton of responsibility.
But yea, I'd hope that someone's history is looked up before assuming that *one picture* means they're a pedo. I'd think that investigators look into the entire person, and would be able to tell that it was an accident.
The ones who just jack off to kids... yah maybe they are a danger and need to be dealt with too but... there is a difference in action and, arn't these people sick?
They are, and the problem with that sickness is that in most cases, they escalate. Many, if not the majority, of sexual offenders start small (peeping into windows, stealing women's underwear) and move on to do much, much more (violent rape, murder). I'm not saying we should give a person 20-to-life for peeping, but more needs to be done with a peeper, or in this case, someone who likes looking at naked children.
And what about the kids IN the pictures/videos? They aren't fictional, they're real people who are being victimized. I agree with the idea that using fictional people/characters doesn't hurt anyone and there's nothing illegal about it (I myself write fiction involving 16-17 year old high school characters, some of it sexual), but the fact is, if you're someone who likes actual, real kiddy-porn, you're the reason it's being made. You're their market. Those kids are being hurt and degraded because someone out there wants to watch kids being raped. And while I don't want to say that watching child rape unequivocally leads to committing child rape, the chances that it WILL happen are much more likely. It's already an unhealthy, dangerous start, and after a while a pedophile needs something more.
I never said we shouldn't expect higher standards from them, that's not the issue presented (at least by me). Their behavior should be top-notch and respectable. Have I said that's not true, or even bring it up?
My reasoning when it comes to officers not being videoed resembles why an FBI officer or informant shouldn't be exposed to the media. Yes, it's different, but it's the idea that cops are more reviled than respected, unfairly in many ways. They're prone to attacks, along with their family and friends, by someone wanting revenge for whatever reason (their son getting arrested, etc.). The less you bring up their name and image, the better. In that, I'm not saying that any unlawful actions made by a cop and captured on video shouldn't be hidden or thrown under the rug. I'm talking generic filming, wherein the cop isn't doing anything wrong--perhaps sitting in a restaurant, standing on the sidewalk, filmed specifically to expose him/her.
Maybe I've just watched 'Red Dragon' too many times, but...
When it comes to the protestors, I'm always on the fence. We have the right to protest, but even if only one guy or girl is causing trouble, police have to take some action. The way I see it, you'll have 99 good people and 1 bad; 45 people see that 1 bad doing stuff wrong, while the other 54 don't. The police step in; the 45 step aside, but the 54 think that police brutality is going on when they see them trying to apprehend the 1. They jump in, those trying to get out of the way knowing the police are justified get hurt anyway, chaos reigns, the whole story isn't said. The people against the protestors claim they're dirty hippie bastards, the protestors (there or not) use the perceived brutality as a weapon.
But the story's never going to be straight without clearly unedited, time-stamped footage. With many protestor's vids, they start when the shit goes down. If the police can produce something better and get the details correct, good. The problem when it IS the police's fault is that like hell they're going to reveal the videos they may have taken.
But I think the police are justified in taking video, and that people have to understand that there's some differences when it comes to filming them. The regular Joe or Jane captured on film at a protest are less likely to receive death-threats or face other dangers than a cop whose badge number, car, etc. is visible. If the cop is acting out of order or illegally, film them; if they're just standing there, there's no reason to film them.
This can be argued over and over until the end of time, but no one really wins.
My mom got me a good pan, but it's too small to make a substantial omelet. I can't remember the material used in it.
Can you believe my original comment got up to a score of 4, Informative? It got downgraded to 3, and I'm kinda glad for that. I'm not being informative in the slightest.
I've always thought it wasn't good for you either way, but thanks to you and others on slashdot, maybe I'll save some money and grow accustomed to the teflon flavor.
I'm pretty sure there was a report of SOME guy dying. Let me look it up.
*intermission*
Oops, you were right, if this was the case I was recalling.
But the top result for my search (keywords "guy dies from popcorn") was a man being shot for eating popcorn too loudly in the theater during a screening of 'Black Swan', while the third result was a man dying on Popcorn Road. I'm an evil person, because I've got 'Thunder Road' by Springsteen in my head, only it's Popcorn Road.
Frankly, I think it's awesome that we've gone from talking about scientific exploration on Mars to an in-depth discussion about microwaved popcorn. Oh, internet, I love thee.
Cant be necessarily GOOD for me, though. Serious, it looks like I cracked a shitton of fresh pepper on my eggs every time I use the thing. Pretty soon, I will be unstickable.
...mainly because every time I hear the word 'teflon', it reminds me that I really, really gotta throw that pan out before I get poisoned by the stuff. Seriously, why am I still using the thing? Everything sticks to it, and I'm actually eating teflon flakes.
Competition is good for some things, but not all. For instance, there are ideas which can't be done by just one group/country due to massive amounts of $$$ needed, amongst other things. An expedition to Mars would need a collaborative effort, going by what it'd take to get there.
I think it's a little sad to think that a figurative dick-waving is what you have to do in order to get anything done, the idea that "haha, we're better than you!" urging us on instead of, "OMG, if we'd all stfu and combine resources, we could be on Mars by such-n-such a year!"
Remember, if Keith, Princess Allura, Pidge, Hunk, Sven and Lance had this attitude, they never would have been able to fight off the Robeasts. Amirite?
Does anyone have a clue why they want to do it by them selves?
Why not? We did, and our economy sucks harder than theirs. Some things we've done are a combined effort, but in the beginning it wasn't just by ourselves, but a race. It may as well have been Space Olympics.
But I do agree, everyone coming together would get more done. Maybe we'd actually learn to play nice, as well.
Never said she wasn't, did I? And I also never said every man is against women, did I? Gave as generic statements as I could, never once claiming to "know you".
This whole comment sounds like Tommy Wiseau wrote it.
It's funny that with every comment made about women being abused, it becomes a tit-for-tat session, wherein men jump up and yell, "MEN are abused TOO!" Yes, they are. There are plenty of abusive women out there. There, does that validate anything? And have I denied anything, saying that men AREN'T abused anywhere in this thread? No, I haven't. I'm sick and tired of having to validate this crap, and the fact that men are starting this movement as if they're suddenly second-class citizens is so absurd to me.
Whether or not men get treated badly for being men in general, it is most definitely not a given, and most certainly not at the degree that women are subjected to in being women. You don't have to carry mace or other weaponry when going down a dark street because women pose a threat to you, generally-speaking. You get paid more than the woman next to you doing the same work in many cases. You all but get a parade if you stick around to be a father, as if that shouldn't be a given, while a professional woman working outside the home has to deal with people saying, "But don't you want to be home with your kids?" to her at a constant, painting her as a bad mother for not wanting to leave a high-paying career and become a housewife.
The fact that you perceive a woman wanting change and respect, whether in a professional field, not reproducing and being their own person as "being treated like a man" says a lot. Your comment, I have never understood why a woman would want to be treated like a man, when men are truthful they will tell you they adore and look up to the women in their lives. = Giving up admiration if they don't want kids, want to work a professional job, etc., the things women SHOULD be doing, amirite?
We don't want to be men. We just want the men who say "what's she doing outta the kitchen?? HAR HAR!" to stfu. We want the general, flippant disrespect to stop. That's not women's rights, it's common decency between evolved humans.
I was reading an article when the solar eclipse was coming about and the upcoming Venus event on yahoo. I was astounded and dismayed to see the comments below, with so many people asking, "Can someone reply to me and tell me about this? I'm too lazy to read the article." I normally either ignore idiotic comments or try to make reasonable discussion, but in these cases, I replied somewhere along the lines, "Fuck off, read it yourself."
I mean, to think--it's not as if the article was riffed from a super-scientific study that required a master's in science and astronomy to make sense of it. It's one thing if someone DOES read it and wants further information, but to have someone act like they can't be bothered but find it cool anyway but can't be bothered... it actually makes me angry, because you just know how many of them would eat up a stupid report about 'Jersey Shore' without asking for internet Cliff Notes. Maybe I'm just an astronomy snob (I had a coworker say "it's the same thing, really," when I pointed out that astronomy and astrology were NOT the same thing; I gritted my teeth about it all day), but if you want to discover something cool, sometimes you gotta read a few paragraphs./end rant
Well said. I don't think that it's sexist to point out differences, because there are loads. But like you said, to simply determine that someone's better than another because you'd LIKE it that way, or once saw an accident in East Cupcake, Iowa that involved a woman who ran a stop sign and base every single opinion on that... well, anyway. Kinda sick of talking about it, but your response is refreshing.:)
There are a lot of factors, one of which imho, has to do with women getting more encouragement to "go for it" from teachers, parents, etc. in their early years. I know a lot of college aged girls, and so many of them are taking on great degrees in science and math, while dabbling into things like astronomy as electives. Things have changed since I was a little girl, someone not encouraged to sign up for challenging courses while the boys plowed ahead top-speed. As some have said here, it's about choice; both men and women should go for it, not being held back for superfluous, asinine reasons.
I suppose you're right, seeing as you know me so well. Oh, wait.
She DID divorce him, and didn't take him for everything he had. She DID realize it was wrong and jumped ship before it got worse.
I HAVE had a friend who's boyfriend was abusive. I DIDN'T plot and scheme to destroy him. I supported her and was glad when she left him.
Why I feel the need to explain myself, who knows. Maybe it's because I get annoyed and defensive when someone who doesn't even know what colors my eyes are starts claiming that I'd do this or that, or that I'm a hypocrite based on absolutely no evidence.
To add, she told me at work. We don't drink margaritas at work, and I rarely, if ever, go to bars with "the girls" to talk about how all men suck and our periods like you think I (and women in general) do. If you want to classify me, stereotype me, I can't stop you, and it's actually not my problem. It's yours. How this got 'insightful' when insightful implies that you're well-learned in the subject you speak of (in this case, me) and have constructed an analysis of something observable, I mean... wow.
I don't agree with man-bashing, either. General joking's not going to kill anyone, I DO bitch about guys at times (that's so totally natural, on both sides), but when it comes to actual harm or cruelty? Nay. Just so you know. I hate hearing about good dads getting screwed in court when they should have custody over the idiot mothers, I hate women who'll smack a guy around and if he shoves her away starts screaming, "DON'T HIT A GIRL!"... all of that. I had a friend who confessed to hitting her husband and thought it was okay; I told her it wasn't, flat-out.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming you didn't compensate the producer of the images, you in no way contributed to the market of child pornography.
If I create a product, any product--let's say a new toothpaste, and no one buys it, I don't make it anymore. I don't pour my money into a fruitless venture.
To make child porn, you need money. Even just a little. To distribute/sell it, you need money. You make up for what you spent in how many people buy it. If no one bought it, you couldn't continue making it. You might still sexually molest kids, but perhaps not as many, and in private. Therefore, if someone go to a website and pay them to download child porn material they produced, they're not just contributing to that market, they ARE that market. They're the reason it's being made. In the end, it is the people who are there to have it sold to that hold a shitton of responsibility.
But yea, I'd hope that someone's history is looked up before assuming that *one picture* means they're a pedo. I'd think that investigators look into the entire person, and would be able to tell that it was an accident.
The ones who just jack off to kids... yah maybe they are a danger and need to be dealt with too but... there is a difference in action and, arn't these people sick?
They are, and the problem with that sickness is that in most cases, they escalate. Many, if not the majority, of sexual offenders start small (peeping into windows, stealing women's underwear) and move on to do much, much more (violent rape, murder). I'm not saying we should give a person 20-to-life for peeping, but more needs to be done with a peeper, or in this case, someone who likes looking at naked children.
And what about the kids IN the pictures/videos? They aren't fictional, they're real people who are being victimized. I agree with the idea that using fictional people/characters doesn't hurt anyone and there's nothing illegal about it (I myself write fiction involving 16-17 year old high school characters, some of it sexual), but the fact is, if you're someone who likes actual, real kiddy-porn, you're the reason it's being made. You're their market. Those kids are being hurt and degraded because someone out there wants to watch kids being raped. And while I don't want to say that watching child rape unequivocally leads to committing child rape, the chances that it WILL happen are much more likely. It's already an unhealthy, dangerous start, and after a while a pedophile needs something more.
You're on LJ, eh? As am I. And I have written. Oh yes. ;)
I never said we shouldn't expect higher standards from them, that's not the issue presented (at least by me). Their behavior should be top-notch and respectable. Have I said that's not true, or even bring it up?
My reasoning when it comes to officers not being videoed resembles why an FBI officer or informant shouldn't be exposed to the media. Yes, it's different, but it's the idea that cops are more reviled than respected, unfairly in many ways. They're prone to attacks, along with their family and friends, by someone wanting revenge for whatever reason (their son getting arrested, etc.). The less you bring up their name and image, the better. In that, I'm not saying that any unlawful actions made by a cop and captured on video shouldn't be hidden or thrown under the rug. I'm talking generic filming, wherein the cop isn't doing anything wrong--perhaps sitting in a restaurant, standing on the sidewalk, filmed specifically to expose him/her.
Maybe I've just watched 'Red Dragon' too many times, but...
When it comes to the protestors, I'm always on the fence. We have the right to protest, but even if only one guy or girl is causing trouble, police have to take some action. The way I see it, you'll have 99 good people and 1 bad; 45 people see that 1 bad doing stuff wrong, while the other 54 don't. The police step in; the 45 step aside, but the 54 think that police brutality is going on when they see them trying to apprehend the 1. They jump in, those trying to get out of the way knowing the police are justified get hurt anyway, chaos reigns, the whole story isn't said. The people against the protestors claim they're dirty hippie bastards, the protestors (there or not) use the perceived brutality as a weapon.
But the story's never going to be straight without clearly unedited, time-stamped footage. With many protestor's vids, they start when the shit goes down. If the police can produce something better and get the details correct, good. The problem when it IS the police's fault is that like hell they're going to reveal the videos they may have taken.
But I think the police are justified in taking video, and that people have to understand that there's some differences when it comes to filming them. The regular Joe or Jane captured on film at a protest are less likely to receive death-threats or face other dangers than a cop whose badge number, car, etc. is visible. If the cop is acting out of order or illegally, film them; if they're just standing there, there's no reason to film them.
This can be argued over and over until the end of time, but no one really wins.
My mom got me a good pan, but it's too small to make a substantial omelet. I can't remember the material used in it.
Can you believe my original comment got up to a score of 4, Informative? It got downgraded to 3, and I'm kinda glad for that. I'm not being informative in the slightest.
I've always thought it wasn't good for you either way, but thanks to you and others on slashdot, maybe I'll save some money and grow accustomed to the teflon flavor.
I'm lending Obama my pan. I liked the guy, but he needs all the help he can get at this point.
I'm pretty sure there was a report of SOME guy dying. Let me look it up.
*intermission*
Oops, you were right, if this was the case I was recalling.
But the top result for my search (keywords "guy dies from popcorn") was a man being shot for eating popcorn too loudly in the theater during a screening of 'Black Swan', while the third result was a man dying on Popcorn Road. I'm an evil person, because I've got 'Thunder Road' by Springsteen in my head, only it's Popcorn Road.
Frankly, I think it's awesome that we've gone from talking about scientific exploration on Mars to an in-depth discussion about microwaved popcorn. Oh, internet, I love thee.
Oooh, I loved that man... and that moment.
Cant be necessarily GOOD for me, though. Serious, it looks like I cracked a shitton of fresh pepper on my eggs every time I use the thing. Pretty soon, I will be unstickable.
Whoa, Mr. Serious McSnarky! Calm yourself, I was just enjoying going on an OT rant.
Perhaps not poisonous, per se, but to hell with my eggs looking like I sprinkled bits of burned tinfoil all over them. I'm so over that.
I remember the guy who died because of his addiction to smelling microwaved popcorn at a constant.
Well, at least the samples won't get stuck.
It's flaking off, so yuh-huh.
...mainly because every time I hear the word 'teflon', it reminds me that I really, really gotta throw that pan out before I get poisoned by the stuff. Seriously, why am I still using the thing? Everything sticks to it, and I'm actually eating teflon flakes.
But yea, Mars and stuff.
Competition is good for some things, but not all. For instance, there are ideas which can't be done by just one group/country due to massive amounts of $$$ needed, amongst other things. An expedition to Mars would need a collaborative effort, going by what it'd take to get there.
I think it's a little sad to think that a figurative dick-waving is what you have to do in order to get anything done, the idea that "haha, we're better than you!" urging us on instead of, "OMG, if we'd all stfu and combine resources, we could be on Mars by such-n-such a year!"
Remember, if Keith, Princess Allura, Pidge, Hunk, Sven and Lance had this attitude, they never would have been able to fight off the Robeasts. Amirite?
Does anyone have a clue why they want to do it by them selves?
Why not? We did, and our economy sucks harder than theirs. Some things we've done are a combined effort, but in the beginning it wasn't just by ourselves, but a race. It may as well have been Space Olympics.
But I do agree, everyone coming together would get more done. Maybe we'd actually learn to play nice, as well.
Never said she wasn't, did I? And I also never said every man is against women, did I? Gave as generic statements as I could, never once claiming to "know you".
Dropping it, cos' I am sick of it.
This whole comment sounds like Tommy Wiseau wrote it.
It's funny that with every comment made about women being abused, it becomes a tit-for-tat session, wherein men jump up and yell, "MEN are abused TOO!" Yes, they are. There are plenty of abusive women out there. There, does that validate anything? And have I denied anything, saying that men AREN'T abused anywhere in this thread? No, I haven't. I'm sick and tired of having to validate this crap, and the fact that men are starting this movement as if they're suddenly second-class citizens is so absurd to me.
Whether or not men get treated badly for being men in general, it is most definitely not a given, and most certainly not at the degree that women are subjected to in being women. You don't have to carry mace or other weaponry when going down a dark street because women pose a threat to you, generally-speaking. You get paid more than the woman next to you doing the same work in many cases. You all but get a parade if you stick around to be a father, as if that shouldn't be a given, while a professional woman working outside the home has to deal with people saying, "But don't you want to be home with your kids?" to her at a constant, painting her as a bad mother for not wanting to leave a high-paying career and become a housewife.
The fact that you perceive a woman wanting change and respect, whether in a professional field, not reproducing and being their own person as "being treated like a man" says a lot. Your comment, I have never understood why a woman would want to be treated like a man, when men are truthful they will tell you they adore and look up to the women in their lives. = Giving up admiration if they don't want kids, want to work a professional job, etc., the things women SHOULD be doing, amirite?
We don't want to be men. We just want the men who say "what's she doing outta the kitchen?? HAR HAR!" to stfu. We want the general, flippant disrespect to stop. That's not women's rights, it's common decency between evolved humans.
The last link is just awesomesauce. That is all.
I was reading an article when the solar eclipse was coming about and the upcoming Venus event on yahoo. I was astounded and dismayed to see the comments below, with so many people asking, "Can someone reply to me and tell me about this? I'm too lazy to read the article." I normally either ignore idiotic comments or try to make reasonable discussion, but in these cases, I replied somewhere along the lines, "Fuck off, read it yourself."
I mean, to think--it's not as if the article was riffed from a super-scientific study that required a master's in science and astronomy to make sense of it. It's one thing if someone DOES read it and wants further information, but to have someone act like they can't be bothered but find it cool anyway but can't be bothered... it actually makes me angry, because you just know how many of them would eat up a stupid report about 'Jersey Shore' without asking for internet Cliff Notes. Maybe I'm just an astronomy snob (I had a coworker say "it's the same thing, really," when I pointed out that astronomy and astrology were NOT the same thing; I gritted my teeth about it all day), but if you want to discover something cool, sometimes you gotta read a few paragraphs. /end rant
Hah, you're welcome. Sometimes I worry that I'm a blabbermouth... and I AM sometimes, but hey, it's a forum. A forum's meant for discussion, so... :)
Well said. I don't think that it's sexist to point out differences, because there are loads. But like you said, to simply determine that someone's better than another because you'd LIKE it that way, or once saw an accident in East Cupcake, Iowa that involved a woman who ran a stop sign and base every single opinion on that... well, anyway. Kinda sick of talking about it, but your response is refreshing. :)
There are a lot of factors, one of which imho, has to do with women getting more encouragement to "go for it" from teachers, parents, etc. in their early years. I know a lot of college aged girls, and so many of them are taking on great degrees in science and math, while dabbling into things like astronomy as electives. Things have changed since I was a little girl, someone not encouraged to sign up for challenging courses while the boys plowed ahead top-speed. As some have said here, it's about choice; both men and women should go for it, not being held back for superfluous, asinine reasons.
I suppose you're right, seeing as you know me so well. Oh, wait.
She DID divorce him, and didn't take him for everything he had. She DID realize it was wrong and jumped ship before it got worse.
I HAVE had a friend who's boyfriend was abusive. I DIDN'T plot and scheme to destroy him. I supported her and was glad when she left him.
Why I feel the need to explain myself, who knows. Maybe it's because I get annoyed and defensive when someone who doesn't even know what colors my eyes are starts claiming that I'd do this or that, or that I'm a hypocrite based on absolutely no evidence.
To add, she told me at work. We don't drink margaritas at work, and I rarely, if ever, go to bars with "the girls" to talk about how all men suck and our periods like you think I (and women in general) do. If you want to classify me, stereotype me, I can't stop you, and it's actually not my problem. It's yours. How this got 'insightful' when insightful implies that you're well-learned in the subject you speak of (in this case, me) and have constructed an analysis of something observable, I mean... wow.
I don't agree with man-bashing, either. General joking's not going to kill anyone, I DO bitch about guys at times (that's so totally natural, on both sides), but when it comes to actual harm or cruelty? Nay. Just so you know. I hate hearing about good dads getting screwed in court when they should have custody over the idiot mothers, I hate women who'll smack a guy around and if he shoves her away starts screaming, "DON'T HIT A GIRL!"... all of that. I had a friend who confessed to hitting her husband and thought it was okay; I told her it wasn't, flat-out.