If I was, do you really think I would be arguing against easier availability?
You seem to know a lot about it.
I know enough. You, on the other hand, seem to be completely clueless.
Most "child porn" I have heard of (pop-ups, etc) involves "teens". Naughty teens. Naked teens. Hot wet and willing teens.
So let me get this straight? You've been sitting here defending something you've never actually seen and have no real knowledge at all about -- other than thinking it may be something you've vaguely heard about? That explains a lot...
Mostly, I would guess, older teens. In the 16-18 age group, as you mentioned.
That's not child porn. Here in the UK, you can see 16 to 18 year olds posing half naked daily in most of our newspapers.
Child porn usually means photographs of children below the age that they can lawfully take part in sexual intercourse. The sorts of websites that the police action is taken against isn't the 'barely legal' stuff that you see in pop-up adverts, or even stuff where the ages are dubious.
What most people are talking about when they talk about child pornography are images of pre-and-post pubescent children, anywhere between the ages of 3 and 13 or 14, often taking part in explicit sexual acts with adults.
Now, answer mine- How would you like it if I paid you to pose naked and took a few pictures?
That's fine. I have no problem with that.
After all, that's what most 'child porn' is- consentual (except for the Statutory part of it).
Where the hell did you get that impression from?
Here's a clue:
- if I sell you my daughter for a day, so that I can buy a $100 worth of crack, that is *not* consensual.
- if you 'groom' a ten year old kid into sucking your dick, using either blackmail or coercion, that is *not* consensual.
- if some half-starved kid from the third world has to sell sex to some decrepid old tosser because that's the only way he or she can stay alive, that is *not* consensual.
I can just about buy the argument that Tracy Lords' movies -- made when she was over 16 but under 18 might count as consensual, but if you'd ever seen pictures of terrified pre-pubescent children, or worse, kids who have cut off their fear and shame by simply going dead behind their eyes as they get the dick of some nasty old men rammed down their throat, you couldn't make such clueless comments.
I do understand that the theory you espouse has a certain intellectual elegance. However, the reality behind it is precisely the same as that of you and your girlfriend getting gang-raped at gunpoint by me and my pals, and putting your ordeal on the net for everyone to see. Just because you can't see the gun in shot, that doesn't mean that what you see is consensual.
If you believe that the latter is indefensible, then you have to conclude that child pornography is as well.
Look at the case law on the things that have been found to contravene the Obscene Publications Act and then tell me that you believe that pornographic material involving consenting adults is legal.
It's less than 30 years ago that three men were sent to prison for publishing cartoon drawings of Rupert the Bear fucking Gypsy Granny.
Raindrop's comment below seems to me to be a very insightful summary on the state of the law in the UK.
But how is that different from the things on rotten.com?
In several ways:
- Firstly, most of the people in the pictures on rotten.com are dead.
- Secondly, for those who aren't, rotten.com regularly take down such pictures at the request of lawyers.
- Thirdly, rotten.com is a legally run site with a named owner and so can be dealt with through the criminal and civil law. Distribution of kiddy porn site illegal in almost all jurisdictions, and so people whose rights are violated won't have legal recourse.
- Fourthly, it's irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- Fifthly, answer my question: how would you feel if me and a bunch of pals were to come around to your place, forcibly rape you and submit you to terrible indignities, and then distribute the film on the net for the rest of eternity?
Or, how about the recent pictures of Iraqi POWs being tortured?
I imagine that those Iraqi prisoners are only too happy to have those photographs published because they serve to highlight a terrible injustice that has been done to them. My guess is that most people in that situation would want the world to know what happened to them. But if they didn't, they have a right to privacy. The people who are publishing those photographs are easily identifiable and again subject to the civil and criminal law -- unlike child pornographers.
Kiddy porn, in contrast, isn't produced so that right-thinking people can view it to see what a terrible crime has been committed against these poor children. It's passed around between people who have that particular kink in their make up, as fantasy and masturbation fodder. There are no parallels at all that I can see between photographs of human rights violations, no matter how embarrassing they might be and kiddy porn.
It won't. What it will do is prevent other perverts masturbating to the photographs and films that your babysitter took while he was molesting your infant kids.
That's because you don't want an answer to your question, you want a 'debate' -- and I'm not going to be a foil for your tedious juvenile on-line masturbation.
If you really wanna know what he did, go use Google.
The holiday was 'in honor of' him
I don't recall making any claims as to why he got one. However, if you really want an answer, then I'd say that the holiday was to mark the political struggles for civil rights that occurred throughout the 50's and 60's. King, as the person most easily identified with those changes, and because of his race and his assassination, gets the holiday because of his symbolic value.
Whether you approve or disapprove of that process is completely immaterial to me as I'm not an American. Similarly, I couldn't give a shit either way for the same reasons.
Your weak argument is 'in honor of' your lefty slashdot buddies
What argument would that be? I don't recall making an argument, other than pointing out your trollish nature -- and that would seem fairly indisputable to me.
But my stomach would be rotating if the police, instead of prosecuting the involved parties, is busily updating the webfilters
I think you'll find that it's the ISP's that update the webfilters, not the police.
One of the most important facts is: The child abuse was already done, when the pictures got posted
So your stomach would twist if one of your kids were abused and had the photos posted on the web, but when it happens to other people's kids -- well, that's just fine and dandy by you? A good thing, almost?
Fact is: Since pictures of abused childs are aviable on the web, the number of childs killed in abuses has dropped remarkably in Germany. From 40 per year in the Eighties down to six last year.
As someone else has already pointed out, it's hard to see how this can be directly attributed to internet access. You aren't making the claim that the levels of child abuse are dropping -- just that the number of children being killed during acts of abuse are dropping.
This makes no sense. People who argue that access to pornography reduces levels of abuse tend to argue that the abuse drops. What you're claiming is that these people are still abusing as many kids, but they just aren't strangling them after they do it? Unless there is evidence of a huge cache of kiddy snuff porn on the net, I don't see how you can propose a mechanism between these incidents.
And of course, normally when someone posts such an unusual claim, they post a reference so that people can verify it. How about it? Do you have an online reference you can cite?
Plus, I don't understand why it's so wrong that child pornography gets exchanged.
OK, so how about me and a few of my buds gome pay you a visit, strap down you and your girlfriend for a hot bukkake fest, film it as we do so and then we make your shame and humilation available for perverts to wank over via the internet for all eternity?
Well, consentual adult pornography is legal in the UK
Really? When did this momentous change in the law occur? I must have missed that one as it passed me by somewhat.
The truth is, a couple of years ago the British Board of Film Censors (or whatever the hell they happen to be called now) relaxed their regulations and started granting a certificate to films that show erect penises and penetration, arguing that public standards had changed, but I think that's rather a long way from saying that pornography between consenting adults is legal in the UK.
The truth is, there are even some sex acts between consenting adults that are still illegal in the UK -- let alone representations of those acts. There has been a recent bureaucratic decision not to prosecute certain images and films lately, but there hasn't been any change in the laws relating to obscenity, etc. which are still archaic.
but the rest of my machines at home don't even have monitors or keyboards.;-)
You should count yourself lucky. I'm so poor that none of my machines have CPU's, hard drives or RAM.
In fact, I had to reply to this post using a punched card, which was then delivered by courier to the university to be run on their 1950's time sharing system...
Actually this is a good example of "free" - someone was actually paying for this so it actually wasn't free, it was more like a social service.
Not really. This was hosted by the UK academic network, so it was paid for by a combination of tuition fees and UK taxes.
The primary beneficiaries would be people studying or working at UK universities, or people living in the UK -- ie, the very people who are paying for it, albeit indirectly. Yes, other people can also make use of it, but that's part of the principle of reciprocity that the whole of the internet was originally based on. That's the basis on which the content was provided that is populating the mirrors.
Why would anyone feel upset about this
Because it's an inconvenience? Because it's short sighted? Because it's a poor use of resources? Because it's yet another example of bean counters who don't understand the value of the thing that they are cutting?
Whereabouts are you located? That server has been able to saturate my bandwidth for the last eleven years, and I'm not on JANET -- just on a UK cable provider.
I hope everyone realizes the irony in (ab)using situational theory to produce desire
I rather think that the irony has long been evacuated from this particular issue since Situationist theory has been regularly used to market various commodities and 'yoof lifestyles' since the late seventies now.
See, for example, Factory Records, Malcolm McLaren and the Sex Pistols, etc.
But that's hardly surprising -- that was the basis that they made the investment in the company in the first place.
They bought in because they believed that SCO could have a big payday in the IBM case. They were threatening to dump because they believed that Darl McBride's big fat lying mouth was likely to screw up any chance that they ever had of collecting.
It appears that -- for the moment at least -- they've settled for the CFO's head on a plate -- but hopefully Mr. Crack Pipe McBride won't be able to keep his big yap shut long enough to make his eventual demise inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
All I know is I haven't seen that. Have you?
Yes
Are you a collector of child porn???
If I was, do you really think I would be arguing against easier availability?
You seem to know a lot about it.
I know enough. You, on the other hand, seem to be completely clueless.
Most "child porn" I have heard of (pop-ups, etc) involves "teens". Naughty teens. Naked teens. Hot wet and willing teens.
So let me get this straight? You've been sitting here defending something you've never actually seen and have no real knowledge at all about -- other than thinking it may be something you've vaguely heard about? That explains a lot...
Mostly, I would guess, older teens. In the 16-18 age group, as you mentioned.
That's not child porn. Here in the UK, you can see 16 to 18 year olds posing half naked daily in most of our newspapers.
Child porn usually means photographs of children below the age that they can lawfully take part in sexual intercourse. The sorts of websites that the police action is taken against isn't the 'barely legal' stuff that you see in pop-up adverts, or even stuff where the ages are dubious.
What most people are talking about when they talk about child pornography are images of pre-and-post pubescent children, anywhere between the ages of 3 and 13 or 14, often taking part in explicit sexual acts with adults.
Now, answer mine- How would you like it if I paid you to pose naked and took a few pictures?
That's fine. I have no problem with that.
After all, that's what most 'child porn' is- consentual (except for the Statutory part of it).
Where the hell did you get that impression from?
Here's a clue:
- if I sell you my daughter for a day, so that I can buy a $100 worth of crack, that is *not* consensual.
- if you 'groom' a ten year old kid into sucking your dick, using either blackmail or coercion, that is *not* consensual.
- if some half-starved kid from the third world has to sell sex to some decrepid old tosser because that's the only way he or she can stay alive, that is *not* consensual.
I can just about buy the argument that Tracy Lords' movies -- made when she was over 16 but under 18 might count as consensual, but if you'd ever seen pictures of terrified pre-pubescent children, or worse, kids who have cut off their fear and shame by simply going dead behind their eyes as they get the dick of some nasty old men rammed down their throat, you couldn't make such clueless comments.
I do understand that the theory you espouse has a certain intellectual elegance. However, the reality behind it is precisely the same as that of you and your girlfriend getting gang-raped at gunpoint by me and my pals, and putting your ordeal on the net for everyone to see. Just because you can't see the gun in shot, that doesn't mean that what you see is consensual.
If you believe that the latter is indefensible, then you have to conclude that child pornography is as well.
Look at the case law on the things that have been found to contravene the Obscene Publications Act and then tell me that you believe that pornographic material involving consenting adults is legal.
It's less than 30 years ago that three men were sent to prison for publishing cartoon drawings of Rupert the Bear fucking Gypsy Granny.
Raindrop's comment below seems to me to be a very insightful summary on the state of the law in the UK.
But how is that different from the things on rotten.com?
In several ways:
- Firstly, most of the people in the pictures on rotten.com are dead.
- Secondly, for those who aren't, rotten.com regularly take down such pictures at the request of lawyers.
- Thirdly, rotten.com is a legally run site with a named owner and so can be dealt with through the criminal and civil law. Distribution of kiddy porn site illegal in almost all jurisdictions, and so people whose rights are violated won't have legal recourse.
- Fourthly, it's irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- Fifthly, answer my question: how would you feel if me and a bunch of pals were to come around to your place, forcibly rape you and submit you to terrible indignities, and then distribute the film on the net for the rest of eternity?
Or, how about the recent pictures of Iraqi POWs being tortured?
I imagine that those Iraqi prisoners are only too happy to have those photographs published because they serve to highlight a terrible injustice that has been done to them. My guess is that most people in that situation would want the world to know what happened to them. But if they didn't, they have a right to privacy. The people who are publishing those photographs are easily identifiable and again subject to the civil and criminal law -- unlike child pornographers.
Kiddy porn, in contrast, isn't produced so that right-thinking people can view it to see what a terrible crime has been committed against these poor children. It's passed around between people who have that particular kink in their make up, as fantasy and masturbation fodder. There are no parallels at all that I can see between photographs of human rights violations, no matter how embarrassing they might be and kiddy porn.
It won't. What it will do is prevent other perverts masturbating to the photographs and films that your babysitter took while he was molesting your infant kids.
Which is actually the point.
You cannot answer the question directly
That's because you don't want an answer to your question, you want a 'debate' -- and I'm not going to be a foil for your tedious juvenile on-line masturbation.
If you really wanna know what he did, go use Google.
The holiday was 'in honor of' him
I don't recall making any claims as to why he got one. However, if you really want an answer, then I'd say that the holiday was to mark the political struggles for civil rights that occurred throughout the 50's and 60's. King, as the person most easily identified with those changes, and because of his race and his assassination, gets the holiday because of his symbolic value.
Whether you approve or disapprove of that process is completely immaterial to me as I'm not an American. Similarly, I couldn't give a shit either way for the same reasons.
Your weak argument is 'in honor of' your lefty slashdot buddies
What argument would that be? I don't recall making an argument, other than pointing out your trollish nature -- and that would seem fairly indisputable to me.
But my stomach would be rotating if the police, instead of prosecuting the involved parties, is busily updating the webfilters
I think you'll find that it's the ISP's that update the webfilters, not the police.
One of the most important facts is: The child abuse was already done, when the pictures got posted
So your stomach would twist if one of your kids were abused and had the photos posted on the web, but when it happens to other people's kids -- well, that's just fine and dandy by you? A good thing, almost?
Fact is: Since pictures of abused childs are aviable on the web, the number of childs killed in abuses has dropped remarkably in Germany. From 40 per year in the Eighties down to six last year.
As someone else has already pointed out, it's hard to see how this can be directly attributed to internet access. You aren't making the claim that the levels of child abuse are dropping -- just that the number of children being killed during acts of abuse are dropping.
This makes no sense. People who argue that access to pornography reduces levels of abuse tend to argue that the abuse drops. What you're claiming is that these people are still abusing as many kids, but they just aren't strangling them after they do it? Unless there is evidence of a huge cache of kiddy snuff porn on the net, I don't see how you can propose a mechanism between these incidents.
And of course, normally when someone posts such an unusual claim, they post a reference so that people can verify it. How about it? Do you have an online reference you can cite?
I know you shouldn't feed them, but what the fuck -- every now and then you get one that's so clueless that I can't help myself...
Pleasing the unwashed masses is not my task.
Nor is familiarizing yourself with history or politics, or so it would seem.
Both JFK and Bobby got shot, and neither of them got holidays.
Here's a clue: the holiday wasn't *for* King. He couldn't give a fuck as he's dead.
Now can you please get over the fact that the Jim Crow days are over and move on forward into the 21st century?
Plus, I don't understand why it's so wrong that child pornography gets exchanged.
OK, so how about me and a few of my buds gome pay you a visit, strap down you and your girlfriend for a hot bukkake fest, film it as we do so and then we make your shame and humilation available for perverts to wank over via the internet for all eternity?
Can you still not see what's so wrong about that?
Well, consentual adult pornography is legal in the UK
Really? When did this momentous change in the law occur? I must have missed that one as it passed me by somewhat.
The truth is, a couple of years ago the British Board of Film Censors (or whatever the hell they happen to be called now) relaxed their regulations and started granting a certificate to films that show erect penises and penetration, arguing that public standards had changed, but I think that's rather a long way from saying that pornography between consenting adults is legal in the UK.
The truth is, there are even some sex acts between consenting adults that are still illegal in the UK -- let alone representations of those acts. There has been a recent bureaucratic decision not to prosecute certain images and films lately, but there hasn't been any change in the laws relating to obscenity, etc. which are still archaic.
but the rest of my machines at home don't even have monitors or keyboards. ;-)
You should count yourself lucky. I'm so poor that none of my machines have CPU's, hard drives or RAM.
In fact, I had to reply to this post using a punched card, which was then delivered by courier to the university to be run on their 1950's time sharing system...
I couldn't have made a more redundant comment myself.
I believe you just did.
Actually this is a good example of "free" - someone was actually paying for this so it actually wasn't free, it was more like a social service.
Not really. This was hosted by the UK academic network, so it was paid for by a combination of tuition fees and UK taxes.
The primary beneficiaries would be people studying or working at UK universities, or people living in the UK -- ie, the very people who are paying for it, albeit indirectly. Yes, other people can also make use of it, but that's part of the principle of reciprocity that the whole of the internet was originally based on. That's the basis on which the content was provided that is populating the mirrors.
Why would anyone feel upset about this
Because it's an inconvenience? Because it's short sighted? Because it's a poor use of resources? Because it's yet another example of bean counters who don't understand the value of the thing that they are cutting?
Whereabouts are you located? That server has been able to saturate my bandwidth for the last eleven years, and I'm not on JANET -- just on a UK cable provider.
Ed Bradley might be on 60 minutes but he's just a nigger to the rest of us.
Excuse me. You left forgot to complete your sentence. I believe you meant to write:
"...to the rest of us in-bred hillbilly trailer trash."
Hope this helps.
Why not just take the strap on off while you go swimming?
I hope everyone realizes the irony in (ab)using situational theory to produce desire
I rather think that the irony has long been evacuated from this particular issue since Situationist theory has been regularly used to market various commodities and 'yoof lifestyles' since the late seventies now.
See, for example, Factory Records, Malcolm McLaren and the Sex Pistols, etc.
Sadly, Gil Scott Heron was very, very wrong.
So who did I download this copy of RHEL from, then?
Um, I know what a sex offender is. Do you know what a *joke* is?
Jesse Lucious from the band Blatz was arrested for playing naked and had to register as a sex offender
So was he using a ten year old boy as a guitar or what?
Hmm. Do you think that Ryan is a clean room implementation of Darl, or has another serious breach of SCO's intellectual property taken place?
If I were Ryan, I'd take to the hills before David Boies slaps him with a five billion dollar lawsuit
What is this, reader's digest?
ludicris? anidote?
It would certainly pay *you* to increase *your* word power...
endless stories about SCO etc are just tedious
.sig that you'd rather be playing videogames?
It appears from your
You know I never really understood that whole Slashdot/mama's basement thing until now.
money for nothin, but does he get the chicks for free?
Yes, but being a Mormon, he has to marry them first...
That isn't free in any sense that I'm familiar with -- neither freedom *nor* beer.
But that's hardly surprising -- that was the basis that they made the investment in the company in the first place.
They bought in because they believed that SCO could have a big payday in the IBM case. They were threatening to dump because they believed that Darl McBride's big fat lying mouth was likely to screw up any chance that they ever had of collecting.
It appears that -- for the moment at least -- they've settled for the CFO's head on a plate -- but hopefully Mr. Crack Pipe McBride won't be able to keep his big yap shut long enough to make his eventual demise inevitable.