Rape of a child has very different effects than the rape of an adult
But I see both as bad things. Mentioning the victim's age, gender, or occupation seriously means nothing to me. I see them as a victim.
If you don't have a special protective reflex in relation to children, then I stand by my assertion that you don't care very much about other people and/or don't understand the subject very well.
Sorry for not having a knee-jerk reaction whenever children are involved and demanding that people burn the witch.
then I stand by my assertion that you don't care very much about other people
Or perhaps I just don't care about the victim's age. Why is that not possible? Your assumptions are meaningless to me.
people are posting pictures of little kids in swimsuits and shit, and talking about them sexually.
So? The pictures themselves weren't illegal (I'm pretty sure most of them weren't illegal and that ones that were would be removed). Why would I care if someone is masturbating to a picture?
even 4chan won't put up with that shit
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
would YOU frequent a website that might end up getting child porn in your browser history / cache ?
"might"? Any website I visit "might" end up with child porn on it. What I wouldn't do is go to one whose main theme is distributing child porn (simply not interested). Someone could even post some here on Slashdot. As for your question, I think it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
It's just that "saving as many lives as possible" means getting rid of the result of unwanted pregnancy after the pregnancy unless the pregnancy threatens the mother's life.
No, no it doesn't. If I said that by itself it would have. But I said, "my goal is to ensure the ability of the mother to get rid of unwanted pregnancies while saving as many lives as possible."
As I see it, people who mock 'think of the children' generally do not care much about other people.
Why do you see it that way? Can you read minds? Do you truly understand the arguments that they are trying to make?
I mock "think of the children" because I could say that about anything. "Think about the murder victim!" "Think about the man whose money was stolen!"
The fact that they're children holds little meaning to me. I'm against rape of all kinds, not just when it comes to children. I don't think that innocents should be harmed when going after criminals. I don't think that entire technologies should be banned because criminals may use it. I don't think that way even when it involves children.
If they had any decency
Sounds subjective.
understanding of the subject
They might understand it, but simply have a different opinion.
(On the other hand, I would consider a peruser of pornography taken against the will of the subject an accessory, since they create the demand that caused the picture to be taken in the first place.)
But they haven't actually done anything with any measurable effect that I see. They simply look at images/videos. The fact that there actions might cause someone to want to make more is quite irrelevant to me.
I'd rather go after the people making it. And if they can't, too bad. I just think there's too much hysteria over images and such.
Doesn't that depend on the person (even if it's unlikely)? Also, if all they have to do is agree to do something, then I'd say they can technically consent. I'd say the fact that they can't perfectly understand everything (it wouldn't surprise me if this applied to most of the population, just like making "poor" choices) doesn't mean they can't consent at all. They might be increasingly unlikely to be able to do so as the person's age goes down, however.
going by your asinine sig I can see you're a libertarian / free state style moron
Just from my sig you concluded that I was a libertarian (guilt by association)? Amazing. Where did you get such an ability? You seem to be fond of putting those you disagree with in groups you oppose.
I fail to see why something needs to serve the public interest.
pictures of preteen girls to be shared on their site in a clearly sexual context.
I don't understand. As far as I know, the pictures were of clothed people, were they not? Does the fact that someone, somewhere looks at the picture sexually change that? Does it even matter in the least?
In fact, there is a valid public interest in not allowing that content to be shared.
Such as...?
Saying it is censorship
I'd say it is censorship (even if you agree with it).
I think the child porn and "for the children" hysteria is even worse. Apparently entire technologies and places should be banned because someone might be having sexual thoughts of children (Wow! They're looking at images! The horror!). Sometimes I've noticed people who voice disagree with this policy are called pedophiles themselves (just like supporting the civil rights movement makes you a black person). And they keep seemingly going on this child porn witch hunt and trying to enact all these draconian "for the children" laws that I find completely ridiculous.
When children are involved, I think all logic goes out the window.
Your brain doesn't fully develop risk analysis on average till you're 25. Cause and effect is tough for a pre-teen's brain. They are not equipped psychologically or physiologically to handle that.
Were they raping them or something?
Sexualizing minors is a problem on the internet.
If you're talking about looking at images, I'm simply not seeing the problem.
The only thing that would, to me, constitute evidence of absolute morality (as many of his statements seemed to imply) would be to prove that some sort of magical moral fairy exists.
Even without that hypothetical study having been done, would it not be reasonable to assume that either one or the other would probably produce a different level of prosperity, and hence be reasonable to assume that there are likely to be objectively better/worse modes of morality?
I don't quite understand what you mean. I see morals as mere opinions. Different people value different things. I don't see why one of them being prosperous would have anything to do with it. If they invented their own system of morality to be prosperous, and they weren't prosperous, though, then they clearly failed to do that.
and whatever the fuck point you're trying to make?
I think it was fairly obvious. The technology can be used for more purposes than that, but you seemed to be afraid that someone could abuse it, and that you would be helping them do that. But that could apply anywhere.
But then again you didn't seem to be calling for a ban on the technology.
Yeah, all those images being looked upon. Truly, there is no worse fate for those images.
When it comes to children, everything must be banned. After all, what if someone looked upon an image of a child and they were sexually attracted to it? That would simply bring about the apocalypse. That said, people seem to be stating things as facts (such as that such content is objectively morally wrong) far more often than usual. I wonder what it is about children that gets people so flared up.
especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not it's right.
We could always just ask the magical moral fairy if it's right.
Why should they get criminal charges? Because someone, somewhere is looking at a picture? Because someone, somewhere has sexual thoughts about the person in the picture?
How does it feel to know that you could, at some point in time, unknowingly support a criminal? You need to cease all activity at once so that that never happens.
and they will start swapping child porn links and images eventually.
Ah, so they were planning to do it all along! Good job getting rid of that. After all, there may have been a point in the future where they distributed actual child porn. Who cares that it didn't happen now, just ban it entirely because it could happen. Children are involved, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Rape of a child has very different effects than the rape of an adult
But I see both as bad things. Mentioning the victim's age, gender, or occupation seriously means nothing to me. I see them as a victim.
If you don't have a special protective reflex in relation to children, then I stand by my assertion that you don't care very much about other people and/or don't understand the subject very well.
Sorry for not having a knee-jerk reaction whenever children are involved and demanding that people burn the witch.
then I stand by my assertion that you don't care very much about other people
Or perhaps I just don't care about the victim's age. Why is that not possible? Your assumptions are meaningless to me.
Note that I specifically referred to the people taking the pictures and not consumers of the pictures.
I see. If they're abusing the children, then I would agree.
people are posting pictures of little kids in swimsuits and shit, and talking about them sexually.
So? The pictures themselves weren't illegal (I'm pretty sure most of them weren't illegal and that ones that were would be removed). Why would I care if someone is masturbating to a picture?
even 4chan won't put up with that shit
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
would YOU frequent a website that might end up getting child porn in your browser history / cache ?
"might"? Any website I visit "might" end up with child porn on it. What I wouldn't do is go to one whose main theme is distributing child porn (simply not interested). Someone could even post some here on Slashdot. As for your question, I think it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
But that's not what most of us are looking for.
Alright, but you merely said the word "content," not "informed consent."
It's just that "saving as many lives as possible" means getting rid of the result of unwanted pregnancy after the pregnancy unless the pregnancy threatens the mother's life.
No, no it doesn't. If I said that by itself it would have. But I said, "my goal is to ensure the ability of the mother to get rid of unwanted pregnancies while saving as many lives as possible."
As I see it, people who mock 'think of the children' generally do not care much about other people.
Why do you see it that way? Can you read minds? Do you truly understand the arguments that they are trying to make?
I mock "think of the children" because I could say that about anything. "Think about the murder victim!" "Think about the man whose money was stolen!"
The fact that they're children holds little meaning to me. I'm against rape of all kinds, not just when it comes to children. I don't think that innocents should be harmed when going after criminals. I don't think that entire technologies should be banned because criminals may use it. I don't think that way even when it involves children.
If they had any decency
Sounds subjective.
understanding of the subject
They might understand it, but simply have a different opinion.
(On the other hand, I would consider a peruser of pornography taken against the will of the subject an accessory, since they create the demand that caused the picture to be taken in the first place.)
But they haven't actually done anything with any measurable effect that I see. They simply look at images/videos. The fact that there actions might cause someone to want to make more is quite irrelevant to me.
I'd rather go after the people making it. And if they can't, too bad. I just think there's too much hysteria over images and such.
How did you know of my true intentions!?
No, they literally can't consent.
Doesn't that depend on the person (even if it's unlikely)? Also, if all they have to do is agree to do something, then I'd say they can technically consent. I'd say the fact that they can't perfectly understand everything (it wouldn't surprise me if this applied to most of the population, just like making "poor" choices) doesn't mean they can't consent at all. They might be increasingly unlikely to be able to do so as the person's age goes down, however.
the line for the sex a bit older, and the line for drinking older than that.
Most of the lines really don't make any sense to me.
What the hell is with all the people trying to rationalize pedophilia on this site?
What's with all the people trying to "rationalize" their anti-pedophile mentalities? Is trying to "rationalize" something bad?
Is pedophilia apologia a "thing" for libertarians or something?
Just libertarians? And I think they're simply extremely anti-censorship (whether or not they agree with the content) in most cases.
going by your asinine sig I can see you're a libertarian / free state style moron
Just from my sig you concluded that I was a libertarian (guilt by association)? Amazing. Where did you get such an ability? You seem to be fond of putting those you disagree with in groups you oppose.
there is no public interest served by
I fail to see why something needs to serve the public interest.
pictures of preteen girls to be shared on their site in a clearly sexual context.
I don't understand. As far as I know, the pictures were of clothed people, were they not? Does the fact that someone, somewhere looks at the picture sexually change that? Does it even matter in the least?
In fact, there is a valid public interest in not allowing that content to be shared.
Such as...?
Saying it is censorship
I'd say it is censorship (even if you agree with it).
I think the child porn and "for the children" hysteria is even worse. Apparently entire technologies and places should be banned because someone might be having sexual thoughts of children (Wow! They're looking at images! The horror!). Sometimes I've noticed people who voice disagree with this policy are called pedophiles themselves (just like supporting the civil rights movement makes you a black person). And they keep seemingly going on this child porn witch hunt and trying to enact all these draconian "for the children" laws that I find completely ridiculous.
When children are involved, I think all logic goes out the window.
Luckily this only happened on a single website.
Your brain doesn't fully develop risk analysis on average till you're 25. Cause and effect is tough for a pre-teen's brain. They are not equipped psychologically or physiologically to handle that.
Were they raping them or something?
Sexualizing minors is a problem on the internet.
If you're talking about looking at images, I'm simply not seeing the problem.
The only thing that would, to me, constitute evidence of absolute morality (as many of his statements seemed to imply) would be to prove that some sort of magical moral fairy exists.
Even without that hypothetical study having been done, would it not be reasonable to assume that either one or the other would probably produce a different level of prosperity, and hence be reasonable to assume that there are likely to be objectively better/worse modes of morality?
I don't quite understand what you mean. I see morals as mere opinions. Different people value different things. I don't see why one of them being prosperous would have anything to do with it. If they invented their own system of morality to be prosperous, and they weren't prosperous, though, then they clearly failed to do that.
and whatever the fuck point you're trying to make?
I think it was fairly obvious. The technology can be used for more purposes than that, but you seemed to be afraid that someone could abuse it, and that you would be helping them do that. But that could apply anywhere.
But then again you didn't seem to be calling for a ban on the technology.
you know is used in the main
Is this true?
So... ban the entire thing?
Yes. Anyone who says something you disagree with condones child rape. And your arbitrary line is the most important.
for the actual children being exploited
Yeah, all those images being looked upon. Truly, there is no worse fate for those images.
When it comes to children, everything must be banned. After all, what if someone looked upon an image of a child and they were sexually attracted to it? That would simply bring about the apocalypse. That said, people seem to be stating things as facts (such as that such content is objectively morally wrong) far more often than usual. I wonder what it is about children that gets people so flared up.
especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not it's right.
We could always just ask the magical moral fairy if it's right.
someone is getting off on it and it's perpetuating the crimes themselves.
Just like video games. The instant someone sees a picture/video, they'll turn into a criminal themselves.
And how horrible that is. Someone might enjoy the pictures/videos. It's the apocalypse!
I know. Anyone who criticizes you must indeed be a pedophile themselves. There are only two sides here, after all.
People who should get criminal charges
Why should they get criminal charges? Because someone, somewhere is looking at a picture? Because someone, somewhere has sexual thoughts about the person in the picture?
Hey, man. Children are involved here. Therefore, all of your arguments are completely incorrect.
How does it feel to know that you could, at some point in time, unknowingly support a criminal? You need to cease all activity at once so that that never happens.
and they will start swapping child porn links and images eventually.
Ah, so they were planning to do it all along! Good job getting rid of that. After all, there may have been a point in the future where they distributed actual child porn. Who cares that it didn't happen now, just ban it entirely because it could happen. Children are involved, after all.