Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Bullsh*t: Google & Microsoft agree to block child abuse images

123 replies to this topic
John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#61

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:09 PM

Couldn't we just round up the worlds paedo's, take them to Nazi concentration style camps where we substitute cyanide with Immac, staple pictures of kids faces to their heads, and let them run around together in an enclosed farm somewhere in northern Alaska?

  • geobst likes this

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Supralux (ΛΟ)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#62

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:12 PM Edited by Criѕtian, 18 November 2013 - 11:13 PM.

 

Whilst most pedophiles don't use Google to search for such material, some will probably use Google Videos to find some. There's probably more people using Google Videos for such material than we think.

I think it's a good idea. It doesn't harm anybody but the disgusting bastards who view and get off of disgusting images and videos of young children.

Just arguing against the decision should make somebody feel disgusted.

 

Well, (and I'm not arguing in favor in child porn one bit, but...) if videos of decapitations, murder, etc. are allowed on the internet and are not blocked by Google search, then why should this be?

 

Because people don't usually kill to make videos. Child pornography usually has a well defined purpose: to entertain\satisfy pedophiles. Children are specifically exploited for those videos.

 

I don't agree because I'd like them to be happy. I'd like them to feel comfortable in their own skin.

They shouldn't have to change, they shouldn't be told that they're sick and they need to alter a big part of their make-up to make us feel better. You're right, it will take a long time to create adequate tools to accommodate their desires - but I believe one day robotics, and perhaps virtual reality shall make that possible.

 

I just can't stomach the idea of a man being told by the whole damn world that he should be castrated, flayed and crucified because of how he was born. An impulse they shouldn't have to control could, upon the light of publicity, estrange them from their family, cost them their liberty and - within the prison system - very possibly endanger their health. It makes me sick and it bothers me because once, homosexuals were treated the same way, as though they were devils or demons without a single ounce of humanity within them. And the 'kindness' of trying to cure them was just as cruel as any glob of spit or thrown rock.

They're not sick, they're just acting according to their nature, and I don't want to change them anymore than I want to force a dog to get hooked on catnip.

 

Well, if it was a completely painless cure I don't see why any reasonable person would be against that.

 

I think that only molesters should do time. As for the ones that haven't acted on it, I don't see why they couldn't refrain from that unless they are truly messed up. If it is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality and homosexuality then they should be able to control it like a normal person would, if they are normal people. I have strong sexual urges but I would never take advantage of\rape women.


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#63

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:15 PM

That person has no place in society, if I'm being frank.  If they don't seek help, they're contributing to a culture and cycle of abuse that is far more nefarious than most.

 

Just because an urge relates to one's sexuality does not give one the blanket of political protection.

 

I completely agree. Though isolation from society does not necessarily mean punishment.

In the psychiatric ward I studied/worked at, most patients were brough in against their own will - most importantly to isolate them from society to preventing harm to themselves and others.

However, obviously, they were in no way punished there - rather treated and helped with reintegration into society.

Understanding the nature of paedophilia, I'd think something similar would be best. Paedophiles who retain self-control and insight into their problem can be left in the community and helped (to maintain self-control and insight) when needed. Those who demonstrate a lack of one or both can be isolated.


geobst
  • geobst

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#64

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:46 PM

Whilst most pedophiles don't use Google to search for such material, some will probably use Google Videos to find some. There's probably more people using Google Videos for such material than we think.
I think it's a good idea. It doesn't harm anybody but the disgusting bastards who view and get off of disgusting images and videos of young children.
Just arguing against the decision should make somebody feel disgusted.

 
Well, (and I'm not arguing in favor in child porn one bit, but...) if videos of decapitations, murder, etc. are allowed on the internet and are not blocked by Google search, then why should this be?
Because there's a larger problem in pedophilia and illegal, sometimes forced child pornography than the decapitations or murders in videos. There's not as many videos.
Murder and declination videos are wrong, don't get me wrong. However, they're not as mentally disgusting as the thought of somebody forcing a child to make a pornographic movie so that a disgusting prick can bust a nut.
Plus, whoever said murder and decapitation videos are allowed? People have too much freedom and they take advantage of that. Maybe they'll be removed in the future. Not all child pornography will be removed, as it would be virtually impossible, however something is being done and that's a start.
 
They're allowed at the present time. Which is why I ask. Why would they first decide to limit pornography of children and not the videos/images of executions/suicides/murders of innocent civilians? And sex with children is more disgusting than slitting someone's throat or stabbing them multiple times and cutting their limbs off, in your opinion?
Yes, it is.

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#65

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:52 PM

 

 

 

 

Whilst most pedophiles don't use Google to search for such material, some will probably use Google Videos to find some. There's probably more people using Google Videos for such material than we think.
I think it's a good idea. It doesn't harm anybody but the disgusting bastards who view and get off of disgusting images and videos of young children.
Just arguing against the decision should make somebody feel disgusted.

 
Well, (and I'm not arguing in favor in child porn one bit, but...) if videos of decapitations, murder, etc. are allowed on the internet and are not blocked by Google search, then why should this be?
Because there's a larger problem in pedophilia and illegal, sometimes forced child pornography than the decapitations or murders in videos. There's not as many videos.
Murder and declination videos are wrong, don't get me wrong. However, they're not as mentally disgusting as the thought of somebody forcing a child to make a pornographic movie so that a disgusting prick can bust a nut.
Plus, whoever said murder and decapitation videos are allowed? People have too much freedom and they take advantage of that. Maybe they'll be removed in the future. Not all child pornography will be removed, as it would be virtually impossible, however something is being done and that's a start.
 
They're allowed at the present time. Which is why I ask. Why would they first decide to limit pornography of children and not the videos/images of executions/suicides/murders of innocent civilians? And sex with children is more disgusting than slitting someone's throat or stabbing them multiple times and cutting their limbs off, in your opinion?
Yes, it is.

 

 

Would you mind explaining your reasoning for this opinion?


geobst
  • geobst

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#66

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:07 AM

There's no explanation needed. I just think child pornography and explicit child images is more disgusting and more of a problem than murder. A lot of people feel this way.

If you had a child, what would you think? I know if I had a child I'd certainly want the monsterous and disgusting who manufacture and watch or look at such disgusting sh*t tortured and murdered.

You're implying that you think child pornography and explicit child images aren't problems. You also come across as if you're arguing against the removal of such material.

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#67

Posted 19 November 2013 - 01:09 AM

There's no explanation needed. I just think child pornography and explicit child images is more disgusting and more of a problem than murder. A lot of people feel this way.

If you had a child, what would you think? I know if I had a child I'd certainly want the monsterous and disgusting who manufacture and watch or look at such disgusting sh*t tortured and murdered.

You're implying that you think child pornography and explicit child images aren't problems. You also come across as if you're arguing against the removal of such material.

 

There is explanation needed. It is your opinion, but if you don't back it up with sound reasoning, then it's not much of one, is it? And I'm not implying anything. As I previously stated, I'm not arguing in favor/against anything. I'm trying to be the Devil's Advocate.

 

Back on-topic. You think murder is less of a problem than child pornography? What if you had/have a brother/sister/parent and they were murdered in cold blood and the video/image was posted on the internet? I'm not for child pornography by any means, but an explicit image of a child, in my opinion, is not worse than the murder of an innocent human being.


geobst
  • geobst

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#68

Posted 19 November 2013 - 01:57 AM Edited by Unoriginal Gangster, 19 November 2013 - 02:02 AM.

There's no explanation needed. I just think child pornography and explicit child images is more disgusting and more of a problem than murder. A lot of people feel this way.
If you had a child, what would you think? I know if I had a child I'd certainly want the monsterous and disgusting who manufacture and watch or look at such disgusting sh*t tortured and murdered.
You're implying that you think child pornography and explicit child images aren't problems. You also come across as if you're arguing against the removal of such material.

 
There is explanation needed. It is your opinion, but if you don't back it up with sound reasoning, then it's not much of one, is it? And I'm not implying anything. As I previously stated, I'm not arguing in favor/against anything. I'm trying to be the Devil's Advocate.
 
Back on-topic. You think murder is less of a problem than child pornography? What if you had/have a brother/sister/parent and they were murdered in cold blood and the video/image was posted on the internet? I'm not for child pornography by any means, but an explicit image of a child, in my opinion, is not worse than the murder of an innocent human being.
We never went off topic. I don't need to explain myself, it's how I feel.

You're not getting the point. This argument is over.

E: The topic of exploited explicitness child images or videos is a frustrating topic for me to think about, nevermind express my thoughts to/in. It's f*cking disgusting. What animal would exploit children and/or get off from watching such horrible f*cking material?

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#69

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:18 AM Edited by Vlynor, 19 November 2013 - 02:23 AM.

 

 

There's no explanation needed. I just think child pornography and explicit child images is more disgusting and more of a problem than murder. A lot of people feel this way.
If you had a child, what would you think? I know if I had a child I'd certainly want the monsterous and disgusting who manufacture and watch or look at such disgusting sh*t tortured and murdered.
You're implying that you think child pornography and explicit child images aren't problems. You also come across as if you're arguing against the removal of such material.

 
There is explanation needed. It is your opinion, but if you don't back it up with sound reasoning, then it's not much of one, is it? And I'm not implying anything. As I previously stated, I'm not arguing in favor/against anything. I'm trying to be the Devil's Advocate.
 
Back on-topic. You think murder is less of a problem than child pornography? What if you had/have a brother/sister/parent and they were murdered in cold blood and the video/image was posted on the internet? I'm not for child pornography by any means, but an explicit image of a child, in my opinion, is not worse than the murder of an innocent human being.
We never went off topic. I don't need to explain myself, it's how I feel.

You're not getting the point. This argument is over.

E: The topic of exploited explicitness child images or videos is a frustrating topic for me to think about, nevermind express my thoughts to/in. It's f*cking disgusting. What animal would exploit children and/or get off from watching such horrible f*cking material?

 

Again, how is a video/image of a man/woman/child with their limbs cut off or a bullet-hole in their head less disgusting? I'm not saying that child pornography isn't disgusting, I'm asking why you think it's so much worse than murdering an innocent? You're not giving me a reason, just the general and ill-thought-out, "It's disgusting!" response.

 

You don't need to explain yourself, no, but your opinion is meaningless if it's not backed up with at least a reason. "It's disgusting." isn't a reason, since most people will argue the decapitation of an innocent person is disgusting as well.


geobst
  • geobst

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#70

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:30 AM

There's no explanation needed. I just think child pornography and explicit child images is more disgusting and more of a problem than murder. A lot of people feel this way.
If you had a child, what would you think? I know if I had a child I'd certainly want the monsterous and disgusting who manufacture and watch or look at such disgusting sh*t tortured and murdered.
You're implying that you think child pornography and explicit child images aren't problems. You also come across as if you're arguing against the removal of such material.

 
There is explanation needed. It is your opinion, but if you don't back it up with sound reasoning, then it's not much of one, is it? And I'm not implying anything. As I previously stated, I'm not arguing in favor/against anything. I'm trying to be the Devil's Advocate.
 
Back on-topic. You think murder is less of a problem than child pornography? What if you had/have a brother/sister/parent and they were murdered in cold blood and the video/image was posted on the internet? I'm not for child pornography by any means, but an explicit image of a child, in my opinion, is not worse than the murder of an innocent human being.
We never went off topic. I don't need to explain myself, it's how I feel.
You're not getting the point. This argument is over.
E: The topic of exploited explicitness child images or videos is a frustrating topic for me to think about, nevermind express my thoughts to/in. It's f*cking disgusting. What animal would exploit children and/or get off from watching such horrible f*cking material?
 
Again, how is a video/image of a man/woman/child with their limbs cut off or a bullet-hole in their head less disgusting? I'm not saying that child pornography isn't disgusting, I'm asking why you think it's so much worse than murdering an innocent? You're not giving me a reason, just the general and ill-thought-out, "It's disgusting!" response.
 
You don't need to explain yourself, no, but your opinion is meaningless if it's not backed up with at least a reason. "It's disgusting." isn't a reason, since most people will argue the decapitation of an innocent person is disgusting as well.
I'm not talking about visually disgusting images, I'm talking about mentally disgusting.

How the f*ck can you say you're not implying that you don't find the exploitation of explicit child material wrong when you're clearly defending the right to have it available so badly?

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#71

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:31 AM

 

 

 

 

There's no explanation needed. I just think child pornography and explicit child images is more disgusting and more of a problem than murder. A lot of people feel this way.
If you had a child, what would you think? I know if I had a child I'd certainly want the monsterous and disgusting who manufacture and watch or look at such disgusting sh*t tortured and murdered.
You're implying that you think child pornography and explicit child images aren't problems. You also come across as if you're arguing against the removal of such material.

 
There is explanation needed. It is your opinion, but if you don't back it up with sound reasoning, then it's not much of one, is it? And I'm not implying anything. As I previously stated, I'm not arguing in favor/against anything. I'm trying to be the Devil's Advocate.
 
Back on-topic. You think murder is less of a problem than child pornography? What if you had/have a brother/sister/parent and they were murdered in cold blood and the video/image was posted on the internet? I'm not for child pornography by any means, but an explicit image of a child, in my opinion, is not worse than the murder of an innocent human being.
We never went off topic. I don't need to explain myself, it's how I feel.
You're not getting the point. This argument is over.
E: The topic of exploited explicitness child images or videos is a frustrating topic for me to think about, nevermind express my thoughts to/in. It's f*cking disgusting. What animal would exploit children and/or get off from watching such horrible f*cking material?
 
Again, how is a video/image of a man/woman/child with their limbs cut off or a bullet-hole in their head less disgusting? I'm not saying that child pornography isn't disgusting, I'm asking why you think it's so much worse than murdering an innocent? You're not giving me a reason, just the general and ill-thought-out, "It's disgusting!" response.
 
You don't need to explain yourself, no, but your opinion is meaningless if it's not backed up with at least a reason. "It's disgusting." isn't a reason, since most people will argue the decapitation of an innocent person is disgusting as well.
I'm not talking about visually disgusting images, I'm talking about mentally disgusting.

How the f*ck can you say you're not implying that you don't find the exploitation of explicit child material wrong when you're clearly defending the right to have it available so badly?

 

 

Please, point out where I said I want child pornography available. Quote me.

 

And what do you mean, mentally disgusting?


geobst
  • geobst

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#72

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:34 AM

Are you actually thinking before you post or do you get a kick out of arguing?

I never said you directly stated you wanted such material available, what I said was:

How the f*ck can you say you're not implying that you don't find the exploitation of explicit child material wrong when you're clearly defending the right to have it available so badly?


Are you seriously asking me what being mentally disgusted means? If so, don't bother replying.

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#73

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:45 AM Edited by Vlynor, 19 November 2013 - 02:45 AM.

Are you actually thinking before you post or do you get a kick out of arguing?

I never said you directly stated you wanted such material available, what I said was:

How the f*ck can you say you're not implying that you don't find the exploitation of explicit child material wrong when you're clearly defending the right to have it available so badly?


Are you seriously asking me what being mentally disgusted means? If so, don't bother replying.

 

 

I'm asking what you mean by "mentally disgusted" as opposed to "visually disgusted" as those aren't commonly used phrases. Do you mean mentally disturbed? Now please, if you would be so kind as to explain what you mean, I would be grateful.

 

Also:

 

Stop being a dick and acting like you have the higher ground. You need to calm down when you debate/argue. I can see the rage progressively building as you type. I have not implied anything. As I've said, I'm not in favor of child pornography. I've stated that multiple times.

 

 

Well, (and I'm not arguing in favor in child porn one bit, but...)

 

And I'm not implying anything. As I previously stated, I'm not arguing in favor/against anything. I'm trying to be the Devil's Advocate.


geobst
  • geobst

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#74

Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:08 AM

Where I come from, we tend to use the term mentally disgusted rather than mentally disturbed. For example we use the word disgusting instead of disturbing in some cases. I shouldn't have gone ahead and presumed you'd know the local lingo. It's not right, but it's how I've been brought up and therefore it's a habit to use such (basically wrong) terms.

Stating that you're not arguing for or against anything doesn't automatically disregard the rest of your post content. You're content does imply that you're defending people's freedom to view such material on the grounds that videos of murder aren't being removed at the same time as the child porn images and videos.

Just because you think your responses shouldn't and don't come across that way does not necessarily mean they won't. Obviously they have come across that way and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way.

Sorry for any mistakes in this post, by the way. I'm on my phone and it's pretty late.

Flight180Victm
  • Flight180Victm

    Give me the power, I beg of you!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2012

#75

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:36 AM Edited by Flight180Victm, 19 November 2013 - 08:38 AM.

@ Unoriginal Gangster You must really be against Gays too... You find them " Mentally disgusting" too??? Man, I lost a lot of respect for you...


StormerBoy
  • StormerBoy

    Tribe Leader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#76

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:46 AM Edited by StormerBoy, 19 November 2013 - 09:48 AM.

 

 

That person has no place in society, if I'm being frank.  If they don't seek help, they're contributing to a culture and cycle of abuse that is far more nefarious than most.

 

Just because an urge relates to one's sexuality does not give one the blanket of political protection.

Seek help for how they were born? That concept doesn't bother you at all?

 

 

Of course it bothers me, even though there's no proof that pedophilia is genetic, and plenty to suggest that is environmental. Yet, to stay on point, some of us were born with incredibly violent tendencies. These certainly aren't tolerated. Some of us were born with a greater propensity to lie. The line between what constitutes a "birth defect" and normalcy is incredibly problematic but that fact is, we're talking about impulses that directly (or indirectly) victimize others. There's no place in our society for people so tragically broken if they don't seek treatment.

 

Exile the f*ckers.

 

 

That is just anger and emotion coming out of you. If everyone in life would take the time to properly understand why the people/things they hate are the way they are, they wouldn't need to hate them in the first place, fact!

 

 

I think everyone's missing the point that this has little to do with anything related to child abuse images and more to do with the actual censorship.. 

 

They'll use a touchy subject such as the one being discussed right now and the people who can't think things through will accuse those against censorship that they approve of child pron and completely miss the fact that it's not even about that lol...

 

What's actually wrong with this is that some people believe they're superiorly above others and get to choose what's right and wrong for everyone else. I don't need google blocking certain things for me to know it's wrong.. Censorship in general is just silly.

 

Who in the world got to decide women's breasts are 'bad' and can't be shown on television? Why is sex- the thing that brings about new life deemed inappropriate but a zombie eating someone's brains in graphic detail is totally cool entertainment? It all just seems so asshat backwards.

 

Well put. People are unfortunately just to blind to see it though. As you say, the government use something as powerful as paedophilia to scare people into submission.


fullmetal5550
  • fullmetal5550

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#77

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:09 AM

Child abuse imagine should not be on there anyway. Anyone that uploads or takes stuff like that needs to get thrown in prison for life. 


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#78

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:14 AM

I am going to drop my few cents on the paedophilia argument.

Paedophilia is not inherently wrong, whether it is an environmental, or a physical trait one is born with is irrelevant because seemingly it is impossible to reverse that trait once it takes hold. Now I have no issue with someone who is a Paedophile, that's fine, they can be that way, but as soon as they start watching child pornography or doing something that in some way, directly, or indirectly harms children, is when I have an issue. Perhaps if people actually accepted Paedophilia in society and accommodated for those people as Typhus suggested - via the use of cartoon imagery - instead of simply shunning them and hating them for something they cannot really change, perhaps we can stop creating these monsters that molest children who were bred from hatred, we may not entirely eradicate the practice, but perhaps accepting paedophilia would at least minimize the incidence, just like rehabilitating criminals will reduce crime.

It will be a very very long road before Paedophilia becomes acceptable within society, but dark skinned people, and homosexual people have walked the same road, and now both are becoming/have become widely accepted, and as we can see within this topic, paedophilia is too, becoming accepted.

  • StormerBoy likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#79

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:53 AM Edited by sivispacem, 19 November 2013 - 11:00 AM.

 


I think everyone's missing the point that this has little to do with anything related to child abuse images and more to do with the actual censorship.. 
 
They'll use a touchy subject such as the one being discussed right now and the people who can't think things through will accuse those against censorship that they approve of child pron and completely miss the fact that it's not even about that lol...
 
What's actually wrong with this is that some people believe they're superiorly above others and get to choose what's right and wrong for everyone else. I don't need google blocking certain things for me to know it's wrong.. Censorship in general is just silly.
 
Who in the world got to decide women's breasts are 'bad' and can't be shown on television? Why is sex- the thing that brings about new life deemed inappropriate but a zombie eating someone's brains in graphic detail is totally cool entertainment? It all just seems so asshat backwards.

 
Well put. People are unfortunately just to blind to see it though. As you say, the government use something as powerful as paedophilia to scare people into submission.
So, seen as you appear to be intent on completely f*cking ignoring any voice of reason on the subject and clearly have absolutely no understanding of how either the Internet or businesses work, let me ask you a question.

How is a private company making a business decision to index or not to index certain web material and act of, or prelude to, censorship?

If you can find it in your blind vitriol to answer that then will you kindly explain to me why you have an issue with it being applied to illegal pornography and not to internet enabled SCADA or credential based restricted access pages?

Why in f*ck's name are people so stupid as to forget that Google are a company providing a service? They can do whatever the hell they want with their own product. Why don't people understand the difference between censorship and limiting access? By the logic of some people in this thread, all websites that require login credentials are also censoring the web because you can't see them without active participation. Why are people who clearly feel very strongly about issues so ignorant as not to understand that not indexing a web page doesn't affect one's ability to access it any more than removing a door from an architectural plan of an already built building would make it a wall in real life.

Seriously, being offended about something without reason is bad enough, but being offended by something you clearly don't even have the most basic understanding of is completely inexcusable.
  • Kristian. likes this

Shenmue18
  • Shenmue18

    Basketballs don't hold grudges.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Unknown

#80

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:48 AM

I really have no problem with this. There's a big difference between looking up child pornography and then blocking things that control the freedom of normal people. There's really not much of a reason why they shouldn't block out your ability to look up pictures or videos of child pornography. In the age we live in, where people can't go a day without being on the internet, if the government was to block the public from going on YouTube or Facebook then there would be riots and a huge uprising.


geobst
  • geobst

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#81

Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:10 PM Edited by Unoriginal Gangster, 19 November 2013 - 03:11 PM.

@ Unoriginal Gangster You must really be against Gays too... You find them " Mentally disgusting" too??? Man, I lost a lot of respect for you...


What the f*ck are you talking about? How does saying I find child abuse disgusting mean I also find homosexuality disgusting?

IDredMan
  • IDredMan

    Dred

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2013
  • None

#82

Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:37 PM

I'm sorry Google and MS are blocking child abuse and child porn.

I know these might be difficult times for you. But that's life.

You know, there are some really cheap white vans out there for sale. And candy doesn't cost too much.

  • Otter likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#83

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:49 PM

It will be a very very long road before Paedophilia becomes acceptable within society, but dark skinned people, and homosexual people have walked the same road, and now both are becoming/have become widely accepted, and as we can see within this topic, paedophilia is too, becoming accepted.


This notion that pedophilia is just another sexual sexual preference and will one day be acceptable is, quite frankly, laughable. This is like saying consentual German cannibalists and snuff films or rapists will some day be able to walk around with their heads held high.

The fact is that most of what we know about pedophilia shows that it is the result of one's own trauma or abuse at an early age, and not some genetic abberation. Furthermore, there are studies that suggest that we all have these desires hardwired into us at an animal level but our reason, conditioning, and restraint keep them in check. There are cases where head trauma in later life has led to a lack of this impulse control - I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who turned black after a bonk on the head, or swapped teams entirely.

If you present a threat to our society, you need to get help or go live somewhere else. Again, we shouldn't have to suffer those without self control on any level; why do some of you lament the position of a child abuser?

And let's be perfectly frank here: if you are consuming child pornography (not pervy Japanese comics or whatever) you are abusing children. You KNOW you are abusing children. And you have the responsibility to stop it or get sent far, far, away because you are a monster.
  • Max likes this

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Supralux (ΛΟ)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#84

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:37 PM

^ That's a rather exaggerated comparison. Nobody here was defending offenders.

  • StormerBoy likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#85

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:42 PM

The topic is about child pornography. Please specify the exaggeration.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Supralux (ΛΟ)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#86

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:55 PM

Comparing them to rapists? We were mostly talking about the ones that haven't molested anyone but feel attracted to children.

 

Pedophilia is very much like any other orientation, the only difference is that it is potentially harmful. That's why I don't think they should be accommodated like some people here have suggested. That wouldn't fix the problem.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#87

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:59 PM

But it would solve the problem.

You must see how treating men like monsters is what causes them to become monsters?

Open dialogue about both the rights of a child and the rights of a pedophile are necessary. That way, people growing up with those feelings won't be forced underground and compelled to extreme behaviour by the prejudice they face.


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#88

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:12 PM

But it would solve the problem.

You must see how treating men like monsters is what causes them to become monsters?

Open dialogue about both the rights of a child and the rights of a pedophile are necessary. That way, people growing up with those feelings won't be forced underground and compelled to extreme behaviour by the prejudice they face.

What? It is not an orientation in the same way necrophilia is not an orientation. It is a manifestation of deep trauma or psychological imbalance. Are you suggesting that by outlawing child molestation and pornography governments have in someway persecuted those who feel sexually attracted to children and this has made them do the terrible things they have done? Frankly in this case the rights of the child to not be raped beats the rights of a pedophile to not feel guilty every time. 

 

 

And Cristian: Where is it stated that we're not talking about those who have or haven't committed acts of pedophilia? Otter was absolutely right to compare a pedophile to a rapist. If someone molests a child, they are both raping them and what's worse they are doing it when they are in an even worse position to physically and emotionally deal with the trauma. Even if someone just fantasizes about it they are essentially accepting the act of rape as a prerequesit of their sexual fantasy.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#89

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:26 PM Edited by Typhus, 19 November 2013 - 07:27 PM.

What? It is not an orientation in the same way necrophilia is not an orientation. It is a manifestation of deep trauma or psychological imbalance. Are you suggesting that by outlawing child molestation and pornography governments have in someway persecuted those who feel sexually attracted to children and this has made them do the terrible things they have done? Frankly in this case the rights of the child to not be raped beats the rights of a pedophile to not feel guilty every time.

Actually, pedophilia is an orientation and the claim that it's part of some imbalance or abuse is nothing but a shaming tool by those who want to seem compassionate, but in reality only want to change them to suit their own notions of morality.

People have tried to 'cure' homosexuality, too. Or chalked it up to outside elements. It's the same damn thing, and I'm a bit sick of explaining that. It's like people here have this blinker up and just can't accept that people are born a certain way.

Human beings are not your playthings, you do not get to open their skulls, poke your fingers in their brains and 'fix' them because they have different notions of beauty.

 

This attitude of superiority and disgust has done more to compel child molesters than any law can. And, if you recall, I'm fully in favour of censoring real images of children and punishing sexual predators. I'm simply against this lynch mob mentality and the arrogant assertion that pedophiles should line up to get their genitals sawn off. They should not have to change who they are for you.

 

They deserve the right to peacefully indulge their impulses using legally available material in which no real child was harmed.

Yet, in the UK, even this isn't possible. It is against the law here to even produce a cartoon image of a child. And you wonder why people turn bad? Why they're pushed to extremes? Our society has left them no other recourse.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#90

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:31 PM

Let's make the obvious conclusion here: if sex with children is some sort of precious sexual orientation that we must protect, then you have to say the same for those who desire to rape. Why is there some sort of sympathy towards one group but none to be found for the other?

Typhus, what you're essentially saying is that if we all get together and consider something to be acceptable, it becomes acceptable. Well, for the lack of a better term, duh. This does not mean we need to treat every case of deviant behaviour as if it will be a future civil rights issue. That's absurd.

Furthermore, you keep making this claim that pedophilia is no different than homosexuality in that they are sexual orientations. Well yes, a cheeseburger and a stalk of celery are both food. That doesn't mean they share all the same properties now, does it? Pedophilia, even unexplored, is harmful and destructive (and IS caused by trauma, according to more studies than you can produce to the contrary) and shouldn't be accepted just because "that's just how some people are". I've demonstrated that there are other terrible inherent flaws that you don't seem to care to protect... Again I have to ask, what makes pedophilia so special?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users