Look, nobody (except some seriously sick perverts) wants kids to be raped.
Don't be ridiculous. There are entire cultures that have a special place for that custom. And there are people that post on Slashdot that think sex with children (normally referred to as rape) is just fine. Just today I saw a post from someone that stated in essence that he would side with child molesters over the police.
If you want to pretend that drawings are a widespread, major source of injustice in the prosecution of alleged pedophiles, that's your affair. There are far, far more kids that have their lives ruined by child molesters than that.
It's fascinating that on Slashdot the suggestion that sex crimes against children should be investigated is considered a "troll". I've seen both admitted and apparent pedophiles post here, I assume they moderate as well.
I wonder if the next big international police child porn sting will catch any of them? One can only hope.
In practice this is a minor and pointless change - almost anyone who sees evidence of child pornography will already be inclined to report it voluntarily if given an easy and anonymous way to do it.
It's a path to curtail civil liberties, and of course it starts with child pornography. Because who's for child abuse?
Who's for child abuse? There are people that post on Slashdot that are for it. There are pedophiles that post here. There are people that have advocated legalizing adults having sex with minors. There are plenty of people that post and moderate that think nothing should be done about one of the fruits of child abuse, child pornography, because, "thoughtcrime!" And here you are showing up with what is in essence the "slippery slope" argument: "It's a path to curtail civil liberties". Isn't everything a "plot" that leads to a police state on Slashdot? There are people on Slashdot that will side with child molesters over the police, and some of them have said as much.
Adults raping children isn't "thought crime." For all you know they could be pictures of people he/she molested, For all you know he/she bought the pictures thus participating in the market for artifacts of raped children, fueling more rape and abuse.
Now that the battle to normalize homosexuality is largely won there are a growing number of voices in society (including academicians) working to normalize pedophilia.
No there aren't.
Yes, there are. And I'll note that there are social scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists among them. Some of them aren't simply trying to "better understand" something "icky" but are trying to move policy and social acceptance. There are others working for it to gain acceptance.
And this isn't something that was just going on 30-40 years ago, it is sill going on.
One other thing, if the research is truly in its "infancy" as you claim, then why the advocacy for normalization and decriminalization? Wouldn't a prudent, ethical researcher adopt the principle of "do no harm"? I would think they would adopt that outlook until far more is known, but that doesn't seem to be the universal stand.
"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children Normal males are aroused by children.”
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”
UNTIL VERY, VERY RECENTLY, public questioning of the social prohibition against pedophilia--to say nothing of positive celebration of child molestation--was practically non-existent in American life. The reasons why are not opaque. To most people, the very word "pedophilia" summons forth a preternatural degree of horror and revulsion; and the criminal law that reflects those reactions has consistently treated the sexual molestation of minors as a serious and eminently punishable offense. So it is small wonder that, historically speaking, the taboo against using legal minors for sex was no more publicly controversial in the United States than the prohibitions against, say, cannibalism or bestiality. Those few partisans of the idea who did sometimes sally forth customarily found themselves regarded as the lowest of the social low, even by the criminal class.
This social consensus against the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, however--unlike those against, say, animal sex or incest--is apparently eroding, and this regardless of the fact that the vast majority of citizens do overwhelmingly abominate the thing. For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex
Actually yes they are, in two ways. First, their fueled passions and arousal may overcome their restraint to seek out your kids, and the people they pay money to for the porn always need somebody new to film. This sort of thing tends to escalate.
Now that the battle to normalize homosexuality is largely won there are a growing number of voices in society (including academicians) working to normalize pedophilia.
You've asked essentially the same questions in the other thread where I've answered them.
I will add this: I don't think you are reallly thinking about this, or know enough to ask good questions.
You really can't think of why NSA, CIA, and FBI would be naturals to engage in internet surveillance at varying levels, but the NRO which puts very expensive satellites into orbit around the earth to take pictures is "somehow" different than the others? Expensive? Orbit in space? Do you think that is connected with budgets?
You don't really have a good understanding of much of this, especially if you think much of any of this is "child's play".
The Hubble space telescope has sent well over 45 terabytes of data back to earth. It is probably the case that NRO satellites are Hubble++
NRO isn't the only intelligence agency that has nothing to do with internet surveillance. What would they do if they did? Take pictures of the phone lines? Pictures of the cable routes?
NRO has limited scope because it has a particular mission - take pictures from space. That doesn't mix well with being a pizza delivery service and doing things that other agencies are doing. As to their budget, maybe you've heard that putting heavy objects composed of precision electronics and optics into space for long duration space missions is expensive?
Why are they concerned about security? Because it is really hard to fix it when somebody breaks their satellite. They also need to protect the knowledge of what they are taking pictures of, and how good they are. Isn't that obvious?
No one who has worked an NRO spook job, or has talked to someone who has, would talk the way you people are talking.
Really? And you are claiming that you have? If so they must have been pulling your leg because of what's in your post... unless you are holding out on us?
'm not saying you're shills but you're acting a bit, um... naive.
Nobody who was doing "just satellites" would have that much use for infosec skills, even taking into account the need for secure authentication and encryption.
How do you think they move the photos they take? Control the satellites? Lots of things need infosec.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, nobody (except some seriously sick perverts) wants kids to be raped.
Don't be ridiculous. There are entire cultures that have a special place for that custom. And there are people that post on Slashdot that think sex with children (normally referred to as rape) is just fine. Just today I saw a post from someone that stated in essence that he would side with child molesters over the police.
If you want to pretend that drawings are a widespread, major source of injustice in the prosecution of alleged pedophiles, that's your affair. There are far, far more kids that have their lives ruined by child molesters than that.
Normal people don't like kids getting raped.
It's fascinating that on Slashdot the suggestion that sex crimes against children should be investigated is considered a "troll". I've seen both admitted and apparent pedophiles post here, I assume they moderate as well.
I wonder if the next big international police child porn sting will catch any of them? One can only hope.
Sounds like a twofer for the prosecution when the almost inevitable happens. As a bonus, extortion carries serious penalties.
In practice this is a minor and pointless change - almost anyone who sees evidence of child pornography will already be inclined to report it voluntarily if given an easy and anonymous way to do it.
It's a path to curtail civil liberties, and of course it starts with child pornography. Because who's for child abuse?
Who's for child abuse? There are people that post on Slashdot that are for it. There are pedophiles that post here. There are people that have advocated legalizing adults having sex with minors. There are plenty of people that post and moderate that think nothing should be done about one of the fruits of child abuse, child pornography, because, "thoughtcrime!" And here you are showing up with what is in essence the "slippery slope" argument: "It's a path to curtail civil liberties". Isn't everything a "plot" that leads to a police state on Slashdot? There are people on Slashdot that will side with child molesters over the police, and some of them have said as much.
The participation of an adult erect penis or sex toys in the scene could be used as an indicator by the "less astute." @@
Adults raping children isn't "thought crime." For all you know they could be pictures of people he/she molested, For all you know he/she bought the pictures thus participating in the market for artifacts of raped children, fueling more rape and abuse.
It's probably best to let the police sort it out.
It's out there if you look.
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males' - How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences
Conference aims to normalize pedophilia
Now that the battle to normalize homosexuality is largely won there are a growing number of voices in society (including academicians) working to normalize pedophilia.
No there aren't.
Yes, there are. And I'll note that there are social scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists among them. Some of them aren't simply trying to "better understand" something "icky" but are trying to move policy and social acceptance. There are others working for it to gain acceptance.
And this isn't something that was just going on 30-40 years ago, it is sill going on.
One other thing, if the research is truly in its "infancy" as you claim, then why the advocacy for normalization and decriminalization? Wouldn't a prudent, ethical researcher adopt the principle of "do no harm"? I would think they would adopt that outlook until far more is known, but that doesn't seem to be the universal stand.
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males' - How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences
"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children Normal males are aroused by children.”
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”
"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered - The taboo against sex with children continues to erode
UNTIL VERY, VERY RECENTLY, public questioning of the social prohibition against pedophilia--to say nothing of positive celebration of child molestation--was practically non-existent in American life. The reasons why are not opaque. To most people, the very word "pedophilia" summons forth a preternatural degree of horror and revulsion; and the criminal law that reflects those reactions has consistently treated the sexual molestation of minors as a serious and eminently punishable offense. So it is small wonder that, historically speaking, the taboo against using legal minors for sex was no more publicly controversial in the United States than the prohibitions against, say, cannibalism or bestiality. Those few partisans of the idea who did sometimes sally forth customarily found themselves regarded as the lowest of the social low, even by the criminal class.
This social consensus against the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, however--unlike those against, say, animal sex or incest--is apparently eroding, and this regardless of the fact that the vast majority of citizens do overwhelmingly abominate the thing. For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex
Nice fly-by Jor-El. Good thing we've got a yellow sun.
That phrase implies "think of their welfare," not "fantasize about their destruction for self-gratification."
I think the only real issue people have with this is that if the FBI can justify such tactics then whats to stop them from doing the same to WikiLeaks
Wikileaks would probably have a meaningful First Amendment defense. Child pornography site, not so much.
What would be the criteria upon which law enforcement would make the distinction between those two?
I suppose a good start would be a record of removing and reporting illegal child pornography posted.
Actually yes they are, in two ways. First, their fueled passions and arousal may overcome their restraint to seek out your kids, and the people they pay money to for the porn always need somebody new to film. This sort of thing tends to escalate.
Now that the battle to normalize homosexuality is largely won there are a growing number of voices in society (including academicians) working to normalize pedophilia.
If I have to choose between siding with child molesters or siding with a police state, I'm on the side of child molesters. Simple self interest.
Child molesters have no interest to bother me. The same cannot be said about a police state.
That's a false choice*. There is nothing about law enforcement action against child molesters that either implies or requires a police state.
Now let's just make it child molesters or the police (not police state). Where are you siding now? Does your answer change? I'm betting not.
*Did any of the moderators notice that? Really?
It's sad that you don't realize there are differences in the policies you'll get from (D) vs (R).
The news tells us that Germany is a surveillance-state and yet that doesn't seem to stop you from peddling nonsense. Why is that?
You've asked essentially the same questions in the other thread where I've answered them.
I will add this: I don't think you are reallly thinking about this, or know enough to ask good questions.
You really can't think of why NSA, CIA, and FBI would be naturals to engage in internet surveillance at varying levels, but the NRO which puts very expensive satellites into orbit around the earth to take pictures is "somehow" different than the others? Expensive? Orbit in space? Do you think that is connected with budgets?
You don't really have a good understanding of much of this, especially if you think much of any of this is "child's play".
The Hubble space telescope has sent well over 45 terabytes of data back to earth. It is probably the case that NRO satellites are Hubble++
NRO isn't the only intelligence agency that has nothing to do with internet surveillance. What would they do if they did? Take pictures of the phone lines? Pictures of the cable routes?
NRO has limited scope because it has a particular mission - take pictures from space. That doesn't mix well with being a pizza delivery service and doing things that other agencies are doing. As to their budget, maybe you've heard that putting heavy objects composed of precision electronics and optics into space for long duration space missions is expensive?
Why are they concerned about security? Because it is really hard to fix it when somebody breaks their satellite. They also need to protect the knowledge of what they are taking pictures of, and how good they are. Isn't that obvious?
No one who has worked an NRO spook job, or has talked to someone who has, would talk the way you people are talking.
Really? And you are claiming that you have? If so they must have been pulling your leg because of what's in your post ... unless you are holding out on us?
'm not saying you're shills but you're acting a bit, um... naive.
Maybe I'm just ... um ... better informed.
My Hello Kitty Online Adventures account uses "1" as the password.
Ugh... Butters, go buy world of warcraft, install it on your computer, and join the online sensation ....
You gotta be careful about that. Sometimes "Hello Kitty" has claws or "more forceful" means of dealing with the unwelcome.
NRO takes pictures using satellites. .
Nobody who was doing "just satellites" would have that much use for infosec skills, even taking into account the need for secure authentication and encryption.
How do you think they move the photos they take? Control the satellites? Lots of things need infosec.
I thought my coffee tasted odd.
Now if only the system didn't truncate it to 8 characters.