Log in

View Full Version : Censor the Internet for the Sake of the Children?


Loki
December 27th, 2008, 06:51 PM
From the country that has forgotten the definition of democracy...

Enter stage left - Andy Burnham. A man who seems to think it's ok to leave children unsupervised for two hours on the netties.

It's for the kiddies!

From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7800846.stm

"Film-style age ratings could be applied to websites to protect children from harmful and offensive material, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has said."


"Leaving your child for two hours completely unregulated on the internet is not something you can do," he told the Telegraph.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif This is not a campaign against free speech... it is simply there is a wider public interest at stakehttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Andy Burnham, Culture Secretary

"This isn't about turning back the clock. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways, but we haven't yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around it."
He went on to say it was time to review the accessibility of certain content on the internet and insisted he was not trying to curb free speech.

.
.
.
"A poll carried out by the children's charity in October suggested three out of four children had been disturbed by images they had seen on the internet."








Time to learn Chinese?

rmw
December 27th, 2008, 06:59 PM
This whole "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" bullshit has got to stop. You don't want your kids going to a porn site, then fucking supervise them! We don't need some more jack-assed regulations that in the end, are meaningless. :icon_rolleyes:

Loki
December 27th, 2008, 07:23 PM
Yup. And the programmes are out there to help you, if you want them.

Personally I turn off all filters because I'm a grown-up and I don't like the idea of any fucker telling me what I should be reading/watching.

One of the comments on the BBC blog made me laugh - something like "would you let your child play on the motorway (freeway) for two hours unsupervised?"

I was listening to the dipshit on Radio 4 (news channel/world service) earlier. He said something about kids accessing videos of beheadings and hangings and how disturbing it is for children to see that ???

Well yeah, it is! Parental responsibility anyone? That stuff isn't all that easy to find. Unless you want to.

Would it not be better to put pressure on people to STOP BEHEADING INFIDELS? Rather that trying to stop them posting vids of it?

But no! That's too hard for elected bacteria. Noooo - that would mean doing something useful - much easier to do the osterich!

It's the same bloody shit again - we know better than you. Ban it! It might upset a voter.

Arseholes!

rzm61
December 27th, 2008, 07:25 PM
Lucikly we live in a world where the parents don't need to act responsible and then they can blame their shortcomings on everything else in this world. Music, video games, the internet.

Sister Faith
December 27th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Well yeah, it is! Parental responsibility anyone? That stuff isn't all that easy to find. Unless you want to.

That stuff is pretty easy to find actually, that's why I'm all for parental control. The thing that worries me about making information inaccessible to anyone is that atrocities will happen without anyone's knowledge. How can these horrors be stopped if no one knows about them?

It's the same bloody shit again - we know better than you. Ban it! It might upset a voter. Arseholes!

Amen!

rmw
December 27th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Would it not be better to put pressure on people to STOP BEHEADING INFIDELS? Rather that trying to stop them posting vids of it?

No, because then you're being intolerant of their religion.

Loki
December 27th, 2008, 10:01 PM
No, because then you're being intolerant of their religion.

Erm...Fuck em?

rmw
December 27th, 2008, 10:08 PM
Erm...Fuck em?

Quit being intolerant! Think of the children, Loki!

tagnostic
December 27th, 2008, 10:10 PM
fundamental control of what a child has access too is soley the responsibility of the parent/guardian, the ones who scream the loudest that it's up to the Government to censor anything are generally the first ones to scream that if you don't give them access your 'stifling' them.
you only need 2)effective tools to raise a child properly
your time
and
communication (works both ways)

jmho

rmw
December 27th, 2008, 10:14 PM
you only need 2)effective tools to raise a child properly
your time
and
communication (works both ways)

Yeah, but that takes effort. It's just easier to let the government handle things like child-rearing.

tagnostic
December 27th, 2008, 10:16 PM
Yeah, but that takes effort. It's just easier to let the government handle things like child-rearing.

thats how you get adults
who act like gov't rear's

Tsar Phalanxia
December 27th, 2008, 10:17 PM
Am I classed as a child? I presume this would mean my visits to 4chan (Not often, mind), Uncyclopedia and, indeed, the CoG would have to stop. Unless I lie/use proxies.

Yes, I watch pr0n, yes I visit 4chan, and yes; I've seen the goat (Not those bloody mountain goats, the other one.). And guess what Andy Burnham? I'm a perfectly well-balanced teenager (Apart from the fact I'm a Digger). Am I fucked up psychopath? Is my childhood innocence destroyed? Fuck no! Considering what some parents buy for their children (E.G. I saw a mum buying Fallout 3 for her 11 year old son, seemingly oblivious of the big EIGHTEEN sticker on the bottom), 99.999% of of the internet which children actually end up looking at will probably be no worse than they've seen in Saw/computer games. Yes, if you leave safesearch off, yes if you allow children completely unfettered access to the internet, of COURSE some eight year old is going to have goat.se appear in his face if he's looking for some animals for a mountain scape.

But filtering the internet is not an option. By restricting the internet, the greatest method of exchanging ideas and information ever developed, you are imposing upon free speech. Yes, some of the shit you find on the internet is going to be seriously fucked up, but that is more of a refelection of what people really are when given anonminity. Maybe the government should spend it's time on the economy, or finding the source of this "moral deprivation".

tagnostic
December 27th, 2008, 10:25 PM
well said.

to answer your question, by my own standards,
and only knowing you from the postings,
intellectually: adult, no screening, just communication
emotionally: i lack information
experentially: i would still feel it necessary to physically protect
actually: your not a child, you just can't buy me a beer yet
:icon_razz:

Tsar Phalanxia
December 27th, 2008, 10:29 PM
actually: your not a child, you just can't buy me a beer yet
:icon_razz:

Wicked. I would have been able to buy you a pack of fags though, until last year.

rmw
December 27th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Found via a friend's LJ: Apparently there's a similar government movement in Australia. (http://nocleanfeed.com/)

rmw
December 27th, 2008, 10:30 PM
Wicked. I would have been able to buy you a pack of fags though, until last year.

What was/is the legal age you can buy cigarettes in the UK?

Tsar Phalanxia
December 27th, 2008, 10:31 PM
Yep, heard about that. I dunno why, considering the Aussies are pretty foul-mouthed and crude in their humour anyway.

tagnostic
December 27th, 2008, 10:34 PM
i was at the corner store buying cat food
when a young guy approached, he wanted
me to buy him a pack of smokes, i said no,
nothing personal, but i break laws for me
not for others, (depending on circumstances)
so he offers me a joint, ( still said no)
but it made me wonder how its easier for
him as a minor to get an 'illegal' substance
than a 'regulated' substance, wierd

Tsar Phalanxia
December 27th, 2008, 10:36 PM
If I wanted to, I could easily get some weed, or some fags. It's not like the government have spies everywhere (Thank RaptorJesus)

Loki
December 27th, 2008, 11:00 PM
Tsar - you look at pron??? My god, what kind of teenager are you?
Answer: A normal one.

And yes - you would be classed as a child.

Minitruth has spoken!

winwun
December 27th, 2008, 11:08 PM
OK, here's your answer . . .

A chip implanted in each fingertip that constantly monitors the person on the KB and does/not allow access to valid/invalid sites . . .

Next problem . . .

Tsar Phalanxia
December 27th, 2008, 11:09 PM
Tsar - you look at pron??? My god, what kind of teenager are you?
Answer: A normal one.


:icon_cool:

sudikics
December 29th, 2008, 02:08 AM
I hae an extremely hyperactive and evil subconscious. I am constantly thinking, and when I try to turn off that thinking, it simply moves to my subconscious and converts to plotting (against me, usually).

I have been traumatized several times by various things I've seen online. For instance, at one point I spent a year with the lights on in my room because of a video on ghosts I had seen online. I understand perfectly well that there is zero evidence for the existence of ghosts, there are several serious flaws in the concept of ghosts, and there is no reason for why any ghosts would be angry at me. However, that doesn't stop ym subconscious.

I'm over all of those troubles now. Well, mostly. Le sigh.

Anyway, censoring the internet is not the answer. It will never be the answer. I would rather personally subject myself to Ludovico Treatment (a la The Clockwork Orange) than censor the internet of these images and others.

This movement is wrong on all levels. It must be stopped. The internet must remain free.

[/drama]

winwun
December 29th, 2008, 01:46 PM
sick, I know what you mean about the ghosts -- if ever I could convince myself that there are no more boogers or things with teeth and claws in the woods at night than there is during the day, I could sleep better . . .

Loki
December 31st, 2008, 04:55 PM
Good point - I remember being traumatised by Dr Who and the man eating hedgemonsters as a kid.
And I once spent days with the light on when my parents failed to stop me from reading The Rats by James Herbert when I was about 11.

Let's ban books!

On a serious note I've had more sleepless nights thanks to my exposure to the Assemblies of God than I have from my teenage Penthouse habit :D

Daruko
December 31st, 2008, 05:28 PM
Personally, I rather like the idea of internet censorship.

...


Just hang right there for a second.


...

LOL See, this is what they need to do. The US, Canada, Europe, etc., need to do some SRS Chinese style internet censorship. SRS penalties and restrictions for anyone/everyone that doesn't read/access "appropriate content". I hope they do it. I can't wait for them to do it.
Because...

It will be the most hilarious onslaught of the authoritarian dream. All their ideals, their hopeful regulations, and thought-control tactics will FAIL. The most epic of Epic Fails. Decentralized non-hierarchical open source information sharing technology will inevitably prevail. Even Chinese regulations is bound to fail.

We've already been winning the war. The time has already come when we can openly taunt those who would put locked doors on our WWW, because we (individually) have the advantage. We are gaining ground on an exponential level. Look at Peter Sunde. He laughs and scoffs at the antipiracy spooks. They sue him, he countersues for more. They take down his servers, he's got backups in at least three other countries.

The party's just getting started. Grab yourself a b33r and have a good tiem. It's only gonna get better.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 31st, 2008, 06:06 PM
It would help if I knew how to get around the shit in the firstplace, par proxies.

tagnostic
December 31st, 2008, 06:07 PM
foxyproxy
anymous
airhack

work for me

Tsar Phalanxia
December 31st, 2008, 06:09 PM
I have a Firefox addon that chooses a random proxy for me with the push of a button ^_^

tagnostic
December 31st, 2008, 06:11 PM
hehehe
mine are on auto
unless i'm on specific sites

Fallen Hero
January 4th, 2009, 12:05 AM
I don't hide my self. My furry/schiesse fetishes are for full view of all.

No seriously, I use ninjaproxy unless posting on 4chan. In which case I use the close button to stop excessive intellectual damage.

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 12:25 AM
What's a proxy?

I've never found an add-on that I like. When I need to be secretive I do it manually.
TOR is ok but not so good if you need to keep the same IP for whatever reason.

FoxyProxy? I've got it but not used it - can it find open proxies automatically?

Kabel
January 4th, 2009, 12:30 AM
All censorship should be taken away.
Censorship is one of the ways the government control the people, therefore, it is bad, and should be taken away.

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 12:55 AM
All censorship should be taken away.
Censorship is one of the ways the government control the people, therefore, it is bad, and should be taken away.

I agree in principal but practice is a different matter. What about kiddie pron, weapons technology, medical information, personal information? That's censorship.
I know what you mean but it's not as simple as good and bad.

I don't have the answer by the way :D I wish I did.

Johnny Wadd
January 4th, 2009, 01:09 AM
sometime senser to be good thing. like mum said johnny! stop watch porn because soon you go blind! aready need eye glass thick like dad

Tsar Phalanxia
January 4th, 2009, 11:48 AM
In the UK, you need a permit to protest:(

tagnostic
January 4th, 2009, 11:50 AM
In the UK, you need a permit to protest:(

roflshcuafl

now there's
gov't
intelligence

Tsar Phalanxia
January 4th, 2009, 11:54 AM
Thanks Maggie.

Kabel
January 4th, 2009, 02:00 PM
I agree in principal but practice is a different matter. What about kiddie pron, weapons technology, medical information, personal information? That's censorship.
I know what you mean but it's not as simple as good and bad.

I don't have the answer by the way :D I wish I did.
I guess we just need some rock hard guidelines, deciding what should be public and what shouldn't be.

For one thing, no words should ever be censored away, in my opinion.
The internet should never be censored. If you can spell, or read the links you click, you can fairly easily avoid anything you shouldn't want to see.

Personal info, should be asked for permission to publicize(a word?).
Pornography, now that's the tricky one... I don't have an answer for it, except, not looking at the naughty channels that have it.

rmw
January 4th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Pornography, now that's the tricky one... I don't have an answer for it, except, not looking at the naughty channels that have it.

I think Loki was referring to child pornography. As far as pornography goes between consenting adults, then, like you said, just don't look at it if that's not your thing. But, I think child pornography not only needs to be censored, but further steps need to be taken to eradicate it.

tagnostic
January 4th, 2009, 03:53 PM
i'm into diy
pornography
i'm self taught

Kabel
January 4th, 2009, 04:00 PM
But, I think child pornography not only needs to be censored, but further steps need to be taken to eradicate it.
Oh..

Well of course, things that are made without the other's consent, should not be publicized. But that is sort of a given.

rmw
January 4th, 2009, 04:05 PM
Oh..

Well of course, things that are made without the other's consent, should not be publicized. But that is sort of a given.

Or by those who lack that emotional/intellectual capacity to give consent.

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 05:28 PM
I think Loki was referring to child pornography.

Yeah, sorry about that Kabel. I'll try to put a translation in brackets until you get used to my slang :D

You say that it's a given [child porn]. I agree, it is for most people.
Unfortunately not everyone follows the same code of ethics as we do. For example the age of consent in some countries is 14. In the UK it's 16. In some US States it's 17, others 18.
And if you're a Mormon you can marry your sister at 14 (not sure if I made that up or if it's true).
This was an argument put forward by one of our members who seems to have fucked off for some reason.

He did have a valid point with that. </stirring it :D>

You're right about words. Words are the tool we use to express our ideas.
Ideas can never be censored (The UK is doing it's best though!)

I watched V for Vendetta for the first time a couple of days ago. I wasn't sure if it was fantasy or a documentary.

Tsar Phalanxia
January 4th, 2009, 05:59 PM
Watched it? Phooey! The movie is a hollywoodised piece of crap compared to the original graphic novel.

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 06:07 PM
Watched it? Phooey! The movie is a hollywoodised piece of crap compared to the original graphic novel.

Sorry Phal. I'm just not into comics/graphic novels etc. Apart from Viz.

brutelord
January 4th, 2009, 09:19 PM
About the child pornography...What about manga/anime etc. I am of course referring to lolicon, and shotacon. Should those mediums be banned as well?

rmw
January 4th, 2009, 09:26 PM
About the child pornography...What about manga/anime etc. I am of course referring to lolicon, and shotacon. Should those mediums be banned as well?

I'm not familiar with those (or manga/anime in general). Could you clarify some?

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 09:39 PM
About the child pornography...What about manga/anime etc. I am of course referring to lolicon, and shotacon. Should those mediums be banned as well?

No idea. They are illegal I think?
Dunno. I've never seen any so I can't say.

EDIT: Just had a look at lolicon. That's some sick fucking shit there! Jesus Christos!
I don't know. Is it encouraging CP - (answer=HELL YES!) Is it an abuse of trust = no.

? Incitement?

Dunno!

Tsar Phalanxia
January 4th, 2009, 09:47 PM
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z58/TokioKoroomine/lolicon.jpg
I knew what Lolicon was before this thread (Thanks to Wikipedia's comprehensive list of Hentai) and although it doesn't directly involve child abuse it makes me uncomfortable. It's Illegal in the UK though (I think. *N.B. I was wrong. It appears to be illegal everywhere else except Japan though*)

Au Wikipedia : Lolicon (ロリコン?), also romanized as rorikon, is a slang portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex".[1][2] In Japan, the term describes an attraction to young girls,[3] or an individual with such an attraction.[4][5] Outside Japan, the term is less common and most often refers to a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are depicted in an erotic manner. The phrase is a reference to Vladimir Nabokov's book, Lolita, in which a middle-aged man becomes sexually obsessed with a 12-year-old girl.[6] The equivalent term for attraction to (or art pertaining to erotic portrayal of) young boys is shotacon.

tagnostic
January 4th, 2009, 09:50 PM
thats what passes
for 'art' these days?

Tsar Phalanxia
January 4th, 2009, 09:56 PM
Check out "Mai-chan's Daily Life" for instance.

Fucking nasty shit that is.

sudikics
January 4th, 2009, 10:08 PM
Rule 36 of the Internet: There is always more fucked-up shit than what you just saw.

I recommend that no one here ever play Google Seppuku.

Also:
About the child pornography...What about manga/anime etc. I am of course referring to lolicon, and shotacon. Should those mediums be banned as well?
Potentially NSFW (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html)

tagnostic
January 4th, 2009, 10:10 PM
f.i.h.
now
requires
alcohol
reinforcement
:(

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 10:28 PM
Had a look see. Wish I hadn't.

Sick fucks! What is it? Pre-teen rape or shite like that?
FFS

Question - how fucking sad are these cunts? I mean, for me manga is crap. Comic book shit. But manga sex?

Cartoon sex? Why not try the real thing? It's a hell of a lot better.

Oh sorry, that means interacting with a real human. My mistake.

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 10:38 PM
How condescending. I gave up criticising others for their tastes a long time ago, when I realised I wasn't any better.

Really? You don't seem to have a problem with criticising peoples faiths - or is that different?

How was I condescending? I did say "for me"
I still think it's sad.

Hardly condescending - just an opinion.

Kabel
January 4th, 2009, 10:59 PM
I really don't think those drawings should be illegal.

I don't think any creation, that isn't physically harmful to anything , should ever be illegal.

The day someone is sentenced for drawing anything, is the day I'll lose all hope for mankind.

I agree with Rimmer, by the way. Don't judge entire people just because they like one special thing. That would be to generalize, and to generalize, is to be an idiot.

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 11:21 PM
Point taken.


It's the way you said it, really. Through the internet I get to see many interesting minds. Anime and Manga does attract its share of strange people, but you know, when you get to talk to them a bit, you see that they are quite normal. Also, consider the fact that I myself am one of these sick fucks, with rather weird things I find arousing. What do you think of me knowing that? All I can say is that it helps a lot with the guilt I feel knowing that I'm not exactly unusual and there are tons of normal people just as sick in the head as myself.

The sick fuck quote was aimed at those into anime rape. Are you one of those? I doubt it.
"Sick fucks! What is it? Pre-teen rape or shite like that?"

I'd have thought that was obvious but I apologise if it wasn't.

I am curious now. You seem hell bent on finding criticism as to your anime fandom.
Why? If you're happy with it why find attacks where they don't exist?

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 11:41 PM
That's the least of it. If you knew what I liked, you'd understand why I won't tell you. There's a lot of fear involved you see. Fear that someone might be able to identify you, and the fear of being ostracized by people you like. This is already more than I've told anyone, ever, in a non-anonymous situation.

Fear is a bitch. That I do understand.
I'm pretty closed when it comes to ID and stuff- makes sense to me. Some folks think they know my real name - they don't :D
Some peeps have my mobile # - but that's under a false name and address.

So yeah, I like my privacy.

Rimmer - I don't care what you like unless it's children or goats. Maybe chickens too.
And I have fears - we all do. You can never defeat them but you can control them.
I think I know one of your fears. You told me once - have I ever mentioned it? Nope.
Have you overcome it? Not really but you're getting there :D
As to another fear - yeah, I'm no help with that one, sorry. You'll figure it out mate. You're not daft!

You have my email - use it if you want. I'll not pass anything on.
D

Kabel
January 5th, 2009, 12:24 AM
Worst of all, some of my friends know of this site and know I visit it.

EDIT: I dare you to read through that topic with a straight face. I'm laughing my ass off as we speak.
What's wrong with them knowing you go here?
I might tell mine...

And you won the dare. I laugh loudly as soon as I read the title.

Loki
January 5th, 2009, 12:41 AM
Seeing me post shit like the stuff in this topic is why I'm worried.

Why? Who cares?

You don't get upto no good (unlike some of us).
Don't fret!

Kabel
January 5th, 2009, 01:46 AM
So you trust a group of complete strangers, to more then your closest friends?

Sadly, so do I.

Loki
January 5th, 2009, 01:57 AM
On the Internet I am one of the Anonymous. The less I'm known the more comfortable I am with sharing my deepest secrets, because there's nobody to identify me. It makes complete sense if you think about it.

I can relate to that. More than relate to - I do the same. You seem to have a sensible attitude to the net Rimmer. Can't argue with you there.

Kabel
January 5th, 2009, 02:01 AM
Never thought of it in that way.. Just kind of saw myself as a coward with shitty friends.
Now the latter may still be true, to some extent at least, but you have shed some light on the first one, and that is the one that counts.

brutelord
January 5th, 2009, 02:32 AM
Hmm...Personally I don't think mediums like lolicon, and shotacon should be banned. Its only art, no one is harmed.
Personally I do not view pornography regardless of the medium. That said I love lolicon, and shotacon (the rare non-explicit ones). I think they are funny. Forbidden love is my absolute favorite genre.

Are you ashamed rimmer?

Dr Goofy Mofo
January 5th, 2009, 07:28 PM
Ok I only read the title of the thread. Censor it all you want I have what I need!

Loki
January 5th, 2009, 08:47 PM
I've had a bit of time to think about this.

My conclusion - I've never experienced prejudice. I'm a white, male atheist living in a Country that doesn't really give a shit about faith.

So perhaps I shouldn't say I can relate Rimmer. Sorry, I meant no disrespect to you.

I can't hack (understand) anime because it's completely foreign to me. I've no interest in it.

Lolicon and stuff is something that does make me a bit uneasy. Coming from a Country with Used Panty Dispensers I think I've got a reason to be worried :D

Kabel
January 5th, 2009, 11:51 PM
I can't hack (understand) anime because it's completely foreign to me. I've no interest in it.
And thanks for translating it to make it understandable for me.

Regardless of prejudice, there will always be something you don't want to tell the ones near to you.

Loki
January 6th, 2009, 12:07 AM
And thanks for translating it to make it understandable for me.

Regardless of prejudice, there will always be something you don't want to tell the ones near to you.

No problem, I'll forget about it in a day or two so you might have to remind me again :D

...there will always be something you don't want to tell the ones near to you.

It's sheep for me :( I can't get enough of that woolly goodness.

Seriously - no-one needs to know all of your secrets. And we all have them! (Apart from the sheep)

Pen Island
January 7th, 2009, 01:42 AM
There is nothing wrong with a rating system, as long as they are just recommendations and not compulsory. Much like ESRP ratings on video games or TV ratings.

tagnostic
January 7th, 2009, 01:56 AM
censors are cool,
but they stink up
the room, and
overheat the
CPU:icon_eek:

Fallen Hero
January 8th, 2009, 08:44 AM
Had a look see. Wish I hadn't.

Sick fucks! What is it? Pre-teen rape or shite like that?
FFS

Question - how fucking sad are these cunts? I mean, for me manga is crap. Comic book shit. But manga sex?

Cartoon sex? Why not try the real thing? It's a hell of a lot better.

Oh sorry, that means interacting with a real human. My mistake.

I have nothing against most pornography. Hell if you enjoy tentacle porn, so be it. However, when it involves unconsenting adults, or children of any kind. I do not approve and support some of the most vicious of repercussions.

I really don't think those drawings should be illegal.

I don't think any creation, that isn't physically harmful to anything , should ever be illegal.

The day someone is sentenced for drawing anything, is the day I'll lose all hope for mankind.

I agree with Rimmer, by the way. Don't judge entire people just because they like one special thing. That would be to generalize, and to generalize, is to be an idiot.

So it should not be a crime, in a country with a dark history which has left a bitter taste to draw swastikas or to wear swastikas and openly identify yourself as a neo-nazi? German law makes it a crime to wear a swastika in Germany, or to publicly display it. Not to forget the past, but to prevent it from happening again. I do not think that abolishing censorship is the right way to go. There are boundaries which need n't be crossed. Lolicon for me crosses boundaries. Granted, no child is being exploited, however the fact remains that these images are representations of children in sexual situations.

That's the least of it. If you knew what I liked, you'd understand why I won't tell you. There's a lot of fear involved you see. Fear that someone might be able to identify you, and the fear of being ostracized by people you like. This is already more than I've told anyone, ever, in a non-anonymous situation.

Fear is a bitch. That I do understand.
I'm pretty closed when it comes to ID and stuff- makes sense to me. Some folks think they know my real name - they don't :D
Some peeps have my mobile # - but that's under a false name and address.

So yeah, I like my privacy.

Rimmer - I don't care what you like unless it's children or goats. Maybe chickens too.
And I have fears - we all do. You can never defeat them but you can control them.
I think I know one of your fears. You told me once - have I ever mentioned it? Nope.
Have you overcome it? Not really but you're getting there :D
As to another fear - yeah, I'm no help with that one, sorry. You'll figure it out mate. You're not daft!

You have my email - use it if you want. I'll not pass anything on.
D

So your name is n't David :icon_eek:

So you trust a group of complete strangers, to more then your closest friends?

Sadly, so do I.

Not the case for me. I trust my closest friends, however, there are things which are easier to let out from behind a mask.

On the Internet I am one of the Anonymous. The less I'm known the more comfortable I am with sharing my deepest secrets, because there's nobody to identify me. It makes complete sense if you think about it.

To some extent. I don't reveal things under this alias because I use it too often. So there are many things that you will never learn. ie. my picture will never be on the forums, nor my cell no. Loki is the only one who has it, and has it only for an emergency when it requires my attention.

Hmm...Personally I don't think mediums like lolicon, and shotacon should be banned. Its only art, no one is harmed.
Personally I do not view pornography regardless of the medium. That said I love lolicon, and shotacon (the rare non-explicit ones). I think they are funny. Forbidden love is my absolute favorite genre.

Are you ashamed rimmer?

Why should Lolicon and Shotacon not be banned? To me it is a representation of heinous acts. Could n't we classify it as child pornography. On that note, there are cases of the "teen" pornography (really the concept is dangerous) where the 18 year old actress is dressed up and styled to appear as if 12 or 13. I also do not think this is alright. However, this is still legal. Why? Because the actors are of legal age, thus there is no exploitation, merely a girl who looks young performing sexual acts. This does not justify it in my opinion. Porn should not be made to provide the illusion of 12 year olds being involved.

I've had a bit of time to think about this.

My conclusion - I've never experienced prejudice. I'm a white, male atheist living in a Country that doesn't really give a shit about faith.

So perhaps I shouldn't say I can relate Rimmer. Sorry, I meant no disrespect to you.

I can't hack (understand) anime because it's completely foreign to me. I've no interest in it.

Lolicon and stuff is something that does make me a bit uneasy. Coming from a Country with Used Panty Dispensers I think I've got a reason to be worried :D

UPD's vital part of society. Makes the street air smell fresh and smoggy.

There is nothing wrong with a rating system, as long as they are just recommendations and not compulsory. Much like ESRP ratings on video games or TV ratings.

ESRP ratings are not recommendations, just as movies are rated are games. The enforcement is just terrible.

fosley
January 8th, 2009, 07:28 PM
But the reason CP is illegal isn't because of what's depicted; it's illegal because the demand creates a tremendous amount of supply.

Recording people selling cocaine isn't illegal, nor is having videos of people being murdered. It's not the illegal activity, such as rape, that's the problem, it's when you watching the video compounds the problem.

People don't sell cocaine so they can produce video of it, nor do they murder someone so they can get it on video (at least, it's not common at all). People do force children into sexual acts so they can sell CP, so the buying and selling of CP is illegal, as it encourages others to create it so they can sell more. For the same reasons, simply owning it is illegal, though I don't know how they conclude a person simply possessing CP increases demand and therefore supply. At the end of the day it's perfectly plausible they're simply erring on the side of save-the-children. Regardless, the issue lies in the economics of supply and demand, not the suppression of ideas.

Similarly, I've never heard of animated CP being illegal, because you aren't increasing the demand for actual CP. The argument could be made, of course, but I haven't seen any studies one way or the other.

Kabel
January 8th, 2009, 10:41 PM
So it should not be a crime, in a country with a dark history which has left a bitter taste to draw swastikas or to wear swastikas and openly identify yourself as a neo-nazi? German law makes it a crime to wear a swastika in Germany, or to publicly display it. Not to forget the past, but to prevent it from happening again. I do not think that abolishing censorship is the right way to go. There are boundaries which need n't be crossed. Lolicon for me crosses boundaries. Granted, no child is being exploited, however the fact remains that these images are representations of children in sexual situations.
Nope. As long as you're merely wearing the symbol, I don't see any reason for it to be a crime.

Daruko
January 9th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Nope. As long as you're merely wearing the symbol, I don't see any reason for it to be a crime.

on that note, i played hitler at a 4-20 music show a couple years back, it being his birthday and all. bit o black humor. i wore the whole getup, swastikas and all. it was very entertaining for most, offensive for some. ppl need to lighten up. was the holocaust funny? no. can holocaust inspired black humor be funny? yes.

Ever watch Bamboozled?

brutelord
January 9th, 2009, 03:22 AM
Nope. As long as you're merely wearing the symbol, I don't see any reason for it to be a crime.
I agree. However I take it a step further and say it should be legal to be a nazi, as long as you are not inhibiting others rights.

Fallen Hero
January 9th, 2009, 06:36 AM
But the reason CP is illegal isn't because of what's depicted; it's illegal because the demand creates a tremendous amount of supply.

Recording people selling cocaine isn't illegal, nor is having videos of people being murdered. It's not the illegal activity, such as rape, that's the problem, it's when you watching the video compounds the problem.

People don't sell cocaine so they can produce video of it, nor do they murder someone so they can get it on video (at least, it's not common at all). People do force children into sexual acts so they can sell CP, so the buying and selling of CP is illegal, as it encourages others to create it so they can sell more. For the same reasons, simply owning it is illegal, though I don't know how they conclude a person simply possessing CP increases demand and therefore supply. At the end of the day it's perfectly plausible they're simply erring on the side of save-the-children. Regardless, the issue lies in the economics of supply and demand, not the suppression of ideas.

Similarly, I've never heard of animated CP being illegal, because you aren't increasing the demand for actual CP. The argument could be made, of course, but I haven't seen any studies one way or the other.

Animated CP (lolicon/shotacon is illegal in more than one country, Australia, Canada, Uk (I think), etc. Not in the US last I checked though. The justification is that it displays a minor in adult situations. This includes things such as 500 year old characters who look like 8 year olds.

Nope. As long as you're merely wearing the symbol, I don't see any reason for it to be a crime.

Why? I think it should be illegal and simply for this reason. It's a symbol of hatred and violence. Essentially, wearing a swastika is the same as stating that you support the nazi ideals (excluding things such as Daruko's case - performance related reasons. albeit even then some times) and feel that jews, and other non-white/non-christians are inferior species of man. It's a crime for a reason, not stop free expression, owning it is not a crime, it is the public display or sale or distribution which is. I do not think that the KKK should be allowed to rally or organize either.

on that note, i played hitler at a 4-20 music show a couple years back, it being his birthday and all. bit o black humor. i wore the whole getup, swastikas and all. it was very entertaining for most, offensive for some. ppl need to lighten up. was the holocaust funny? no. can holocaust inspired black humor be funny? yes.

Ever watch Bamboozled?

I agree. However I take it a step further and say it should be legal to be a nazi, as long as you are not inhibiting others rights.

It is legal to be a nazi, just not publicly. That tends to inherently be harassment.

I hate nazis with a passion, so I do hold some bias, but it's the same for all racially based groups. I do not support the concept of asian or african clubs at my school either.

Kabel
January 9th, 2009, 03:22 PM
I don't think that, hating any people just because of their skin color, religion, ancestors etc. should be illegal.

Every man is entitled to own his own opinions. Nobody should ever be able to take those away, nor make him hide them. - Steffen Kabel.

Loki
January 9th, 2009, 05:25 PM
I don't think that, hating any people just because of their skin color, religion, ancestors etc. should be illegal.

Every man is entitled to own his own opinions. Nobody should ever be able to take those away, nor make him hide them. - Steffen Kabel.

Certainly you can't ever allow opinions to be illegal. Thoughtcrime :icon_eek:

I do think people should keep their opinions to themselves unless asked though.

Kabel
January 10th, 2009, 12:50 AM
I do think people should keep their opinions to themselves unless asked though.
How will you ever determine who is right then? Or in the swastika case, whether or not anyone is wrong.

Opinions should be expressed and talked about. Be they serious or not.

winwun
January 10th, 2009, 12:23 PM
Kabel, you are absolutely right, but regardless of the right or wrong of an issue -- subjective determinations at best, obviously those in power have the authority to enforce their edicts.

I realize the values I grew up with are now "verboten", but they are still my values, so I just have to "hunker down" and be careful of what I say and where I say it (Thank you, Howard Baker), and it is a little hard to stomach, but even if you disagree with reality, you had best accept it.

You might not like falling out of the boat, but you had better start swimming . . .

That's the main reason I enjoy this site so much, it seems full of people who realize that this is the only place they can make the statements contained herein -- sort of an "opium den" of unfettered thinking and speech.

Fosley, a very astute and valid point you made on the significance of the supply and demand aspect of porn.

When one reaches legal maturity, one does not simply say, "OK, I will decide now to view some porn", or "I think I will see how it feels to molest children," -- predilections for these actions are formed and the actions themselves are performed, oftentimes many years before becoming an adult.

Loki
January 10th, 2009, 05:28 PM
How will you ever determine who is right then? Or in the swastika case, whether or not anyone is wrong.

Opinions should be expressed and talked about. Be they serious or not.

Yes, I agree they should be expressed and talked about. But in places like this where we want to know about them and want to discuss.

It's when people force their opinions on others - and parading up the highstreet in a nazi uniform, a white robe, a Jilbab etc...

Yeah, it's a tricky one. :icon_confused:

Kabel
January 10th, 2009, 05:50 PM
I realize the values I grew up with are now "verboten", but they are still my values, so I just have to "hunker down" and be careful of what I say and where I say it (Thank you, Howard Baker), and it is a little hard to stomach, but even if you disagree with reality, you had best accept it.
It's a shame though.

It's when people force their opinions on others - and parading up the highstreet in a nazi uniform, a white robe, a Jilbab etc...
I don't think parading around in a uniform is forcing ones opinion onto others though..

Going around neighborhoods knocking on people's doors and questioning them, that's forcing opinions on to others.

Loki
January 10th, 2009, 06:07 PM
I suppose it comes down to what the people think is acceptable.

If walking down the street dressed as Himmler doesn't cause a riot then go for it.
If it involves the police having to protect you then that's probably safe to say the public doesn't like it all that much.

:icon_razz:

Kabel
January 10th, 2009, 06:55 PM
Conclusion:
Theory: Opinions should be expressed and debated, fun will be had, the problems of the world will eventually be fixed.

Praxis: Walking down the street wearing a hat with a swastika sign on it, a shirt that says "Niggers should be killed", no pants or underwear and a sign that says "I support Saddam Hussein's actions in Iraq", will get your ass kicked.

winwun
January 10th, 2009, 09:13 PM
Well said, Kabel -- the difference in theory and reality -- well expressed.

Kabel
January 10th, 2009, 09:16 PM
Thanks.

Back to the topic of censoring the internet, or did we finish that?

fosley
January 10th, 2009, 11:50 PM
Let's see if I remember what I said before my post got mangled. :icon_razz:
It's a symbol of hatred and violence. Essentially, wearing a swastika is the same as stating that you support the nazi ideals So are crosses, fishies, crecent moons, and a zillion other symbols, but those aren't illegal. Why should the swastika be special? And I would guess that many more people have been killed under the symbols of either the Christians or the Muslims than the Nazi ideology.

Furthermore, the swastika is *only* a symbol of hatred and violence when linked to the Nazi idealogy. I know of at least two other uses (which far predate the Nazis) which have the opposite meaning of hope or joy. So just because it's a swastika, doesn't mean the wearer is pro-Nazi.

rmw
January 11th, 2009, 12:10 AM
That may be true in theory, but I think in practice, most people who wear the swastika probably associate themselves with the Nazi cause. That being said, as much as I loathe what skinheads, KKK members, radical Muslims, WBC, etc. stand for, I have to say I loathe the idea of silencing them even more. It's impossible to legislate such morality and ideas, and the question becomes "If you outlaw one, who/what else must be outlawed in the interests of morality and fairness?" And from a practicality standpoint, how enforceable are these laws? (No, I seriously want to know. For example, how does Germany enforce its laws against Nazism, and what do they consider a successful enforcement rate?)

I think a better solution is to let people counter-protest. For example, when Fred Phelps and his ilk rolled into town a year or two ago, with their "God hates fags" signs and whatnot, a larger, more "enlightened" (for lack of a better word) crowd stood across the street and peacefully* counter-protested Phelps' message of hatefulness and ignorance.

*Peacefully counter-protesting being key. It does no good to kick Fred Phelps' ass (not matter how richly he and others like him deserve it) when 1) it gets you arrested, and 2) your message of love, harmony, peace, and all that good stuff gets lost in the fray and hypocrisy.

(And Fosley, I'm so sorry I fucked up your post. It wasn't intentional--I'm just an idiot!)

rmw
January 11th, 2009, 01:53 PM
Let's see if I remember what I said before my post got mangled. :icon_razz:

I deserved that. *head-desk*

winwun
January 11th, 2009, 05:19 PM
Fosley, it is wrong and against the law simply because those who decree right and wrong and have the power to enact laws says so -- no other reason.

There is NO right or wrong, there is ONLY what those in power SAY is right or wrong.

Look what happened in Yugoslavia and the Balkans -- while Papa Tito had his boot on everyone's neck they were good little boys and girls, but when the people became "free", they began to do what they had been dreaming of their whole lives -- killing their neighbors.

There has been more people massacred in the name of freedom than under the guise of dictatorship -- the despot needs everyone to enhance his position -- he doesn't want them being killed (unless it's his idea), he wants them alive and working -- full employment, and the trains run on time, because if the train is late, the engineer gets shot.

Good, if you are a passenger, but you had better not get your car stuck at a RR crossing 'cause he ain't gonna stop for ya. . . .

Loki
January 11th, 2009, 06:17 PM
Fosley, it is wrong and against the law simply because those who decree right and wrong and have the power to enact laws says so -- no other reason.

There is NO right or wrong, there is ONLY what those in power SAY is right or wrong.



I can't argue with that. I suppose the only hope we in the Democratic Nations have is the one where our vote makes a difference.

Yeah - who am I kidding :D

rmw
January 11th, 2009, 07:19 PM
I can't argue with that. I suppose the only hope we in the Democratic Nations have is the one where our vote makes a difference.

Yeah - who am I kidding :D

Your naivete is cute Loki.

I think that there does need to be a distinction that a naked child does not necessarily equate to child porn. As Sciky and rzm have pointed out somewhere else (can't remember and am too lazy to look), Nirvana's "Nevermind" baby (http://www.theworldsbestever.com/2008/01/28/nirvana-nevermind.jpg) and the photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrangBang.jpg) are not child pornography. (FYI, while not pornographic, these images are probably NSFW.) Yes, CP needs to be tracked and banned. But a historical picture or album cover does not qualify as such.

Tsar Phalanxia
January 11th, 2009, 08:27 PM
Your naivete is cute Loki.

I think that there does need to be a distinction that a naked child does not necessarily equate to child porn. As Sciky and rzm have pointed out somewhere else (can't remember and am too lazy to look), Nirvana's "Nevermind" baby (http://www.theworldsbestever.com/2008/01/28/nirvana-nevermind.jpg) and the photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrangBang.jpg) are not child pornography. (FYI, while not pornographic, these images are probably NSFW.) Yes, CP needs to be tracked and banned. But a historical picture or album cover does not qualify as such.

It depends if it is meant to be arousing or not. Nervemind baby, Pucci (Cherubs)? They're not meant to be arousing, they're meant to display innocence, and therefore are not CP.

fosley
January 12th, 2009, 04:56 AM
Fosley, it is wrong and against the law simply because those who decree right and wrong and have the power to enact laws says so -- no other reason.I think that's an oversimplification. Sure, democracy doesn't always equate to law = what the people want, but there are controls and there are reasons behind the laws. When the laws are stupid, the people bitch about it and the courts overturn them.

nudity does not necessarily equate to pornFixed. There are far too many people who cannot, or simply do not, grasp this exceedingly simple point, and it involves more than just the child porn arena.

That wouldn't be why I want it illegal. Imagine how you'd feel if you knew that there were nude pictures of you as a child online and people were fapping to them? Not to mention if you had been exploited as a child and it was viewable by anyone in the world with an internet connection and a little patience? It's illegal because it causes harm to the person depicted. It's the reason it should be illegal and also the reason lolicon should not.

A reference from an attorney (albiet 10 years old), as said in a 1998 article (http://www.loundy.com/CDLB/1998-Child-porn.html) for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin:
[T]he theory behind child pornography laws in the U.S. traditionally has been that such material is illegal not because of the content of the material itself, but because of the harm the production and distribution of such material causes children who are used to create the child pornography.

Now, the act of creating child porn is tantamount to rape, and has also been called "sexual abuse". Regardless of its name, it is highly illegal. However, the possession and distribution of child porn is not illegal because it depicts illegal acts (again, you can possess or distribute videos of other illegal acts (http://www.cops.com/)), but because the vast majority of it is created for the purpose of possession and distribution.

Also, you do know that if there are pictures of you, clothed or otherwise, there's almost certainly someone fapping to them, right? Do you have any idea how many times I've had guys send me IMs to tell me they were fapping to various pictures of me? Really though, if they wouldn't send me creepy messages to tell me as much, I wouldn't give one damn what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Doesn't hurt me any.

tagnostic
January 12th, 2009, 05:06 AM
i have a question,
with digital technology and graphics moving as it is,
if someone digitaly generated child porn, would that
then be as ilegal and damaging?

still sick, but is it ilegal?

fosley
January 12th, 2009, 06:06 AM
Well, the most recent court case I see is from 2003, but to my knowledge it's legal in the USA as long as no actual children were involved.

The argument could be made that virtual child porn causing real child porn, but I don't see how that argument is any more valid than the arguments of virtual violence causing real violence, etc.

There is the argument pedophiles show child porn to children to make them more agreeable to partaking, but I still don't see that as a legitimate reason to prevent people from using virtual child porn in a proper manner. And, again, this applies to other forms of media just as easily.

Edit: I could look this up from work (I work in an attorney's office), but I'm not sure I want people tracking me when I search for child porn laws. It's not like I have a legitimate case I can point to as my reason, and they might consider it odd. (Interestingly, I almost got to help prosecute a guy for child porn a month or two ago, but that never happened.)

Loki
January 12th, 2009, 05:26 PM
I'm pretty certain it's illegal.

Yeah - it is in the US and I'm certain it is here too.
http://missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1504

tagnostic
January 12th, 2009, 05:32 PM
so it would appear,
thanks Loki,

now the moral part,
if the perv's had access to digital, drawn whatever other medium that didnt involve any live humans, would it keep them away or encourage them?

Loki
January 12th, 2009, 05:41 PM
Yeah, that's the big question.
My guess would be encourage. It's a guess btw :D

Mainly from what I've read but it seems like an addiction. Some kind of urge. Dunno.
If that's the case then yeah, I think it would encourage people if they're that way out.
I know that on the few times I've stopped smoking for more than two days any depiction of a cigarette gets me salivating. Seriously.

Kabel
January 12th, 2009, 05:55 PM
So, if we deleted all child nudity, arousing or not, there wouldn't be any real child pornography?

Loki
January 12th, 2009, 06:09 PM
So, if we deleted all child nudity, arousing or not, there wouldn't be any real child pornography?

You've lost me Kabel.
No - by definition there wouldn't be.

Kabel
January 12th, 2009, 06:21 PM
If people never heard of it, they wouldn't want to do it.
That was the point I was trying to make.

Loki
January 12th, 2009, 06:33 PM
If people never heard of it, they wouldn't want to do it.
That was the point I was trying to make.

Ok, sorry - I miss-read you.

If people never heard of it, they wouldn't want to do it.

Do you mean look at naked underaged girls or sleep with them?

I think some people will always want to do at least one, whether they've heard of it or not.
There's a biological imperative playing here - any woman who's reached puberty is a viable partner to the hind-brain of most males.

So in that case the age of consent is an age we've decided upon. Some people will always disagree. It's a reasonable age I think.

Pre-pubescent is a bit different - that's not something that would help spread the genes on. Psychological problem?

Kabel
January 12th, 2009, 09:18 PM
Ok, sorry - I miss-read you.

Do you mean look at naked underaged girls or sleep with them?

I think some people will always want to do at least one, whether they've heard of it or not.

I think the fault was mine.

I mean both. I'm thinking the men thinking about child abuse/porn would just discard it as a weird unbelievable thing, if they didn't already know that there are dozens of other men with the same thoughts.

Fallen Hero
January 12th, 2009, 09:30 PM
Possibly, however it is also likely that they would just keep it to themselves and try to orchestrate their fantasies under much greater difficulty.

Kabel
January 12th, 2009, 10:48 PM
There isn't really any way of knowing though.
And even if we did know, we wouldn't be able to erase CP completely, so in a way, this debate is useless...

Carry on.

sailor
January 13th, 2009, 01:34 AM
There's a biological imperative playing here - any woman who's reached puberty is a viable partner to the hind-brain of most males.

So in that case the age of consent is an age we've decided upon. Some people will always disagree. It's a reasonable age I think.

Pre-pubescent is a bit different - that's not something that would help spread the genes on. Psychological problem?

Is that what that is?

fosley
January 13th, 2009, 02:42 AM
I'm pretty certain it's illegal.

Yeah - it is in the US and I'm certain it is here too.
http://missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1504Yay, I'm glad your reference has references.

18 U.S.C. 1466A (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html) says anything that depicts or appears to depict child porn in any format, whether using real children or not, is illegal. However, it is only illegal if the porn crosses state or national lines.

Note though, that 18 U.S.C. 2256 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html) defines "child pornography" as (paraphrased):
1. Graphic real sex (graphic meaning you can actually see genetalia)
2. Lascivious simulated sex with genetalia showing at any time (lascivious meaning it's intended to arouse--this is different from (1) in that (1) shows sexual contact, while (2) shows only nudity, but in the same scene as simulated sexual contact)
3. Virtual sex that's indistinguishable from the real thing

From this definition, we can conclude that hand-drawn child porn is legal, so long as it's obviously not a real person. Photo-realistic hand-drawn porn is not legal. And, this only applies to such porn that doesn't cross state or national lines.

Also, this is all at the federal level; individual states may (and probably do) have more restrictive definitions.

So, if we deleted all child nudity, arousing or not, there wouldn't be any real child pornography?Pedophilia has nothing to do with anyone else, except that having others to support your endeavors makes it more likely the pedophile will actively pursue fulfilling their fantasies. The advantage of wiping out child porn isn't preventing pedophilia (there's nothing illegal about being a pedophile*), but mitigating the sexual abuse of children which is associated with the creation and distribution of child porn. Because wiping out child porn won't wipe out the pedophilia, you'll still have some pedophiles who act on their desires and create more child porn.

Still, I don't see child molesters as inherently different from murderers, thieves, rapists or the like. Either they have a different idea of what is moral than the rest of us, or they simply don't care enough to stop themselves. Sure, many people have the attitude that children are most sacred, and therefore raping a child is worse than raping an adult, but I don't see the root problems as being any more severe in one than another.

* Using the word in its sensible definition of someone who has a sexual preference of children, not in the useless definition of someone who has molested children

fosley
January 13th, 2009, 03:00 AM
If it's not illegal, it's legal. There may be other laws somewhere else that make it illegal, but judging from that definition, it's legal.

tagnostic
January 13th, 2009, 09:31 AM
Still, I don't see child molesters as inherently different from murderers, thieves, rapists or the like.

I do see a difference, preying on children or anyone mentally, physically or emotionally less mature than yourself is heinous in the extreme.
theft is just property, rapists should get the death penalty and murder is a matter of opinion(ask the courts) but harming a child is stealing the rest of their lives, and murdering their soul.

Either they have a different idea of what is moral than the rest of us, or they simply don't care enough to stop themselves. Sure, many people have the attitude that children are most sacred, and therefore raping a child is worse than raping an adult, but I don't see the root problems as being any more severe in one than another.

again, respectfully disagree


* Using the word in its sensible definition of someone who has a sexual preference of children, not in the useless definition of someone who has molested children

agreed that the thought is not the same as the act, but who knows who has what thoughts? to me then it would seem that the definition of a pedophile is one who has acted on the impulse and it can be proven whereas alot of people have thoughts negative to society or its individuals but never act on them, since we can't identify (or would want to) anyone who has ever had a thought of attraction to a minor, why bother to give them a label?

jmho

Tsar Phalanxia
January 28th, 2009, 10:22 PM
Bump
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4370072/New-pornography-laws-could-make-comic-books-illegal-claim-campaigners.html

Loki
January 29th, 2009, 07:19 PM
Bump
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4370072/New-pornography-laws-could-make-comic-books-illegal-claim-campaigners.html

Oh my! That is going a bit over the top!

...if "the impression conveyed ... is that the person shown is a child".

EDIT: And nicely left open for expensive interpretation! </cynical bastard>

Daruko
January 29th, 2009, 08:27 PM
I do see a difference, preying on children or anyone mentally, physically or emotionally less mature than yourself is heinous in the extreme.
theft is just property, rapists should get the death penalty and murder is a matter of opinion(ask the courts) but harming a child is stealing the rest of their lives, and murdering their soul.

agreed that the thought is not the same as the act, but who knows who has what thoughts? to me then it would seem that the definition of a pedophile is one who has acted on the impulse and it can be proven whereas alot of people have thoughts negative to society or its individuals but never act on them, since we can't identify (or would want to) anyone who has ever had a thought of attraction to a minor, why bother to give them a label?

jmho

I agree. I sometimes think of all sorts of weird fucked up shit. I don't DO every fucked up thing I THINK of though. It makes all the difference.

We're not talking about policing people's thoughts or inclincations here. If one has these kinds of thoughts often, than I'd suggest one seek psychiatric help. However, that's not likely to happen if the person in question isn't really all that disturbed by those thoughts. More often than not, in these cases, I suspect they will attempt to rationalize these fantasies more and more, until they do act on it.

So when I hear someone rationalizing it, it's not because they think it that I feel disdain, it's because they are attempting to justify it for others, and may act on it, etc. Someone like TS or Reverend Loveshade from PD, for instance, is a worthless sack of shit, in my mind, until they prove otherwise (which is not likely). If you can't find anything better to do with your time than try to rationalize pedophiliac tendencies or related phenomena, than I'm not wasting my time finding out whether you're really a POS.

I once read that in prison, "baby rapers" are at the absolute lowest point in the social hierarchy. That, statistically speaking, even the murderers and rapists (of adults) despise them. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but if there is, I'm glad.

tagnostic
January 30th, 2009, 12:00 AM
well said Daruko,
and yes it's true
chomos are the
sediment in the
bottom of the scum pool

Perna de Pau
January 31st, 2009, 05:02 PM
We're not talking about policing people's thoughts or inclincations here. If one has these kinds of thoughts often, than I'd suggest one seek psychiatric help. However, that's not likely to happen if the person in question isn't really all that disturbed by those thoughts. More often than not, in these cases, I suspect they will attempt to rationalize these fantasies more and more, until they do act on it.


When I hear about policing people's thoghts the Taliban "ethic police" comes to my mind.

Policing your thoughts is also what religion try to do, and they were quite successful at it for more than a thousand years.

We came a long way to get rid of it but we should stay alert for "they" have not given up yet.

Political correctness is yet another attempt to police our thoughts and should be exposed whenever we get an opportunity.

Tsar Phalanxia
January 31st, 2009, 06:02 PM
Most of the PC bullshit, like changing the lyrics of Baa Baa Black sheep to Rainbow sheep, because it's racist is often grossly misinterpreted, deliberately or not, or simply not true. For example, the Baa Baa Black Sheep incident occured because they were trying to teach children the different colours in the rainbow.
Anti-PC stories are often reported because they look like they infringe upon people's customs and traditions; things people feel very strongly and defensive about. They're great for working up hatred against the government/minorities.

Perna de Pau
January 31st, 2009, 10:20 PM
Anti-PC stories are often reported because they look like they infringe upon people's customs and traditions; things people feel very strongly and defensive about.

I have no problem about infringing upon people's customs and traditions.

My problem is about infringing with freedom of expression.

winwun
January 31st, 2009, 11:23 PM
My problem is other people infringing on MY customs and traditions . . .:icon_mad:

rmw
January 31st, 2009, 11:53 PM
Simply because something is customary or traditional or part of a culture doesn't make it right. Cultural relativism is a form of political correctness: "Well, that's just how they do things, and we have to respect that." For example, female genital mutilation is practiced in Muslim societies. However, that doesn't make it right.

Perna de Pau
February 2nd, 2009, 08:26 AM
Simply because something is customary or traditional or part of a culture doesn't make it right. Cultural relativism is a form of political correctness: "Well, that's just how they do things, and we have to respect that." For example, female genital mutilation is practiced in Muslim societies. However, that doesn't make it right.

Absolutely.

Other examples of customs and traditions which very well deserved other people interfering with were the Indian tradition of burying the widows alive with the corpse of their late husbands and the African/southeast Asian custom of cannibalism.

And yes, political correctness and in particular cultural relativism should be opposed.

winwun
February 2nd, 2009, 12:13 PM
PC and CR are on a continuum from putting your pants on in the morning to not saying the "N" word.

You can't say "always" or "never", there are degrees of acceptance, and too, comments are relative to the situation.

If one lived alone, with little or no involvement with society at all, then you could do what you please, but in a tight-knit group, acceptable standards are born, and the emerging leaders of the group decree adherence thereto.

Think the recent surge against smoking -- CR, pure and simple . . .

Oh, BTW, having said the above, I am simply recognizing and pointing out the obvious -- my personal standard of PC and CR is still (and will forevermore be), rooted in the 1940's.

Daruko
February 2nd, 2009, 11:28 PM
One should not ascribe a predicate to a people, to paraphrase Korzybski.

winwun
February 3rd, 2009, 01:30 PM
We seem to be fond of bandying about pop phrases such as "Political Correctness" and "Cultural Relativism", but could anyone give examples of CR, as they apply to specific races/demographics ?

One example of CR that I have witnessed being "accepted" locally, is that blacks now have the local police to where they cannot tell a black to "shut up" while the police are working a crime scene, because the blacks went to City Council and pushed the concept that to reply to anything said by someone else is part of the "black culture", and therefore cannot be abrogated.

So now, if you are white and are with a black in a police situation, the local cops have to put up with the black continually mouthing off, but if you, as a white, are told to "shut up", you had better do it, or you will get popped.

Perna de Pau
February 3rd, 2009, 04:25 PM
We seem to be fond of bandying about pop phrases such as "Political Correctness" and "Cultural Relativism", but could anyone give examples of CR, as they apply to specific races/demographics ?


In 2006 a German judge refused the divorce to a German woman of Moroccan origin who complained about her husband's brutality, on the grounds that they were married under muslim law and the quran allowed husbands to beat their wives.

This is the sort of CR I am most against.

tagnostic
February 3rd, 2009, 04:28 PM
i remember that case,
absolutely disgusting
in those situations i fall
back on Heinlein
"never let your morals prevent you from doing whats right"

Dementis
February 9th, 2009, 04:58 PM
i remember that case,
absolutely disgusting
in those situations i fall
back on Heinlein
"never let your morals prevent you from doing whats right"
I thought you always fell back on 40s...
Anyways, children should not be left alone to the interwebs unless you have taken the time to painstakingly set up filters and content control. Even then, if they have some smarts and a little persistence, you won't stop them.

Tsar Phalanxia
February 12th, 2009, 02:28 PM
NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY, YOU CAN'T STOP US NOW -Renegades of Funk
Exactly. Look where I am now; the entire web is at disposal.

tagnostic
February 12th, 2009, 02:38 PM
Tsar!!
your back!!

woot

Daruko
February 12th, 2009, 02:44 PM
Welcome back, Tsar.

Sister Faith
February 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM
Hurry and get your box set up. I want to see pics. :icon_cool:

Daruko
February 13th, 2009, 03:04 AM
Hurry and get your box set up. I want to see pics. :icon_cool:
Wait... who yuo talkin 2?

EDIT: Oh Tsar, probably. Jussa funny, cuz I'm building MY box TOMORROW! WOOT! It's gonna roxxor the soxxors.

rmw
February 13th, 2009, 03:05 AM
Wait... who yuo talkin 2?

She was talking to Tsar. Sorry Daruko, but nobody wants to see your homemade porn. :D

Daruko
February 13th, 2009, 03:21 AM
See what I get for puttin in an edit?

tagnostic
February 13th, 2009, 03:30 AM
hehehehe
it is tough to pull off
an artistic edit
without
some
on
takin
a shot at
ya

ty.mcccxxxvii
February 15th, 2009, 09:30 PM
No, because then you're being intolerant of their religion.

I'm not confident that any specific religious doctrine specifies using beheadings and torture. I'm sure some extremists have been able to interpret the necessity of violence..but I doubt that these beheadings are more than sick, hateful individuals cutting off heads..

tagnostic
February 15th, 2009, 09:56 PM
I don't recall beheading specifically,
but stoning has always been popular

fosley
February 16th, 2009, 01:28 AM
In all fairness, beheading is much more civilized than stoning. So they are trying it would seem.

tagnostic
February 16th, 2009, 04:25 AM
the end result being the same

Kaleb
February 16th, 2009, 05:37 AM
:icon_eek:

winwun
February 16th, 2009, 12:05 PM
I see more stoned than beheaded . . .

tagnostic
February 16th, 2009, 01:17 PM
Don't go there Tag,

Tsar Phalanxia
February 16th, 2009, 02:01 PM
He said JEHOVAH!

zexx0r
February 17th, 2009, 04:19 PM
Internet should not be censored,
for it's a parent responsibility to look out for their kids,
and monitor them.

Other users shouldn't be "punished" by censorship!

ty.mcccxxxvii
February 17th, 2009, 06:16 PM
Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship#Substantial

...I hadn't actually read anything like that before. When you see the specifics, it makes me grateful for the freedom of browsing we have here...

I'm about to have a daughter in a few months... I already have set up a gmail for her, and since IM so active online, I feel its only natural that she should obviously have restrictions on a few things, but mostly, free reign over her own activity on the internet. The trick will be in teaching her how the internet works, how to filter out all the nonsense and pedophiles, and ensuring that im doing my job as a parent and she is supervised until I can tell she has the maturity for me to gtfo. Censorship though?

I'm offended that the old assholes making all this legislation don't have more respect for the people who are about to have children, and don't have the same perspective....i.e. When their children were looking at pr0n online on their old 386, with Win 3.1 and AOL.....the concept was completely foreign...grabbing pictures of tits out of thin air wasn't something that was so commonplace. Of course they are shocked and want to throw laws at it.

But I know how to deal with a kid looking at porn....make sure his computer is in his room and you have established boundaries for their space :)

I don't know....I think the focus should be worldwide education on the exchange of information for legislators, and parents.

DERP.

tagnostic
February 17th, 2009, 06:22 PM
I concur,
it's on parents,
not governments.

Tsar Phalanxia
February 17th, 2009, 07:07 PM
*coughs*
:D

Will.
February 18th, 2009, 12:15 AM
Parents need to be able to beat the hell out of children for this reason.

rzm61
February 18th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Parents should also monitor their kids while online. >_>

Will.
February 18th, 2009, 12:23 AM
Parents should also monitor their kids while online. >_>

That could work too, but When I grew up, the only time yer pants were below yer crack, was because someone was whoopin tha' arse.

rzm61
February 18th, 2009, 12:26 AM
wtf?

Will.
February 18th, 2009, 12:27 AM
O.o, its an expression, it also could be why I'm soo messed up t'day?

rzm61
February 18th, 2009, 12:28 AM
Yeah, but when the fuck did either one of us mention pants being below 'yer' crack?


Other then just now.

Will.
February 18th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Metaphor I mean.... But what I was saying was, if you did something wrong, any adult could whoop yah... And if you told your parents, they'd whoop yah.

Lots of whoop'ns.
Hence no one tried nothin unless they figured out a loophole... Or caught their parents doin it before hand.

Daruko
February 18th, 2009, 05:50 AM
Metaphor I mean.... But what I was saying was, if you did something wrong, any adult could whoop yah... And if you told your parents, they'd whoop yah.

Lots of whoop'ns.
Hence no one tried nothin unless they figured out a loophole... Or caught their parents doin it before hand.
dood, how old are yuo? 24?

Will.
February 18th, 2009, 08:54 AM
Do you need to know how old I am, or are you one of those?

tagnostic
February 18th, 2009, 02:12 PM
Stoned Satan vs The Drunken Gnome

now i feel schizophrenic

Will.
February 18th, 2009, 02:54 PM
You feel schizo? I haven't seen more personalities since Howie Mandel.

Sister Faith
February 18th, 2009, 07:41 PM
You feel schizo? I haven't seen more personalities since Howie Mandel.

Just wait 'til Meg introduces her selves to you :icon_lol:

Will.
February 18th, 2009, 07:54 PM
:icon_lol: I somehow am looking forward to this...

rzm61
February 18th, 2009, 07:59 PM
Hey sister, can you introduce yourself to me? http://bbs.311.com/forums/images/dark_vb/smilies/dancingnaughty.gif

Sister Faith
February 18th, 2009, 08:09 PM
Howz aboot I introduce the back of your head to the palm of my hand. :icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
February 18th, 2009, 08:29 PM
Just wait 'til Meg introduces her selves to you :icon_lol:

Woah, hivemind :D

Sister Faith
February 18th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Woah, hivemind :D

*Damn, they're onto us Meg!*

rzm61
February 18th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Howz aboot I introduce the back of your head to the palm of my hand. :icon_lol:

.....as long as you buy me a drink first.

Sister Faith
February 18th, 2009, 09:11 PM
.....as long as you buy me a drink first.

Naughty, naughty boy!

8 pm @ The Stray Cat. Don't be late! :icon_twisted:

rzm61
February 18th, 2009, 09:26 PM
Naughty, naughty boy!

http://bbs.311.com/forums/images/dark_vb/smilies/dancingnaughty.gif

8 pm @ The Stray Cat. Don't be late! :icon_twisted:

The Stray Cat?
Sounds like my type of place. :icon_cool:

Sister Faith
February 18th, 2009, 09:40 PM
Hey, it just occurred to me!

When was the last time you & I had a convo that was actually on topic:icon_question::icon_exclaim:
I think we've managed to derail a thread without actually derailing it. :icon_cool::icon_lol:

rzm61
February 18th, 2009, 09:45 PM
:icon_lol:

Awesome.


Also, did I ever tell you that I did go to my sisters wedding an all?

Sister Faith
February 18th, 2009, 10:29 PM
No you didn't!

How did it go? Any drama? Did your younger(?) sis enjoy her birthday despite the wedding happening on the same day?

Dish it, baby! :icon_lol:

Edit: Oh,sh*t! Trust me to be the first to break the record for the shortest on topic convo :icon_rolleyes:

Is that a train (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVkpckTC3Us&feature=related) I hear? :icon_lol:

rzm61
February 19th, 2009, 09:25 PM
It wen't fairly well....however I wish I could have just went to the reception. The ceremony was nice if you're into that sort of thing...and I believe my younger sister did enjoy her birthday.

Daruko
February 19th, 2009, 10:07 PM
Let's talk about pedophiles again guys!
\
http://www.acus.org/files/images/top-secret-rubber-ink-stamp.jpg

Tsar Phalanxia
February 19th, 2009, 10:08 PM
I actually Lol'd. :D

rmw
February 20th, 2009, 01:38 AM
Let's talk about pedophiles again guys!

pedophilia shud nots bee considered an crime. itz are naturual too has seksual thoughts abowt young children, en een more sew tew act onna dem. pedophiles deserve 2 b treated wid respect, az vell as speshul civil rights granted too em. :icon_lol:

(I found it too difficult to take my level of comprehension of the English language down to Top Secret's level, and so this post was aided by unintelligencer.com.)

Daruko
February 20th, 2009, 06:11 AM
pedophilia shud nots bee considered an crime. itz are naturual too has seksual thoughts abowt young children, en een more sew tew act onna dem. pedophiles deserve 2 b treated wid respect, az vell as speshul civil rights granted too em. :icon_lol:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll212/darukomakaruto/roglol.gifhttp://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll212/darukomakaruto/mittens.gifhttp://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll212/darukomakaruto/roglol.gif

Loki
February 20th, 2009, 04:34 PM
(I found it too difficult to take my level of comprehension of the English language down to Top Secret's level, and so this post was aided by unintelligencer.com.)

Hahahaha - wish I'd had that link a few years ago. I might have had more than one hatemail published by Bobby then :D

I wunda if theirs a fundie vershen?

google_is_my_friend
February 25th, 2009, 08:28 AM
you can't just sensor the internet. Kids will always get into trouble. Disaplin them.

djura
February 25th, 2009, 10:05 AM
Ancient Greek civilization, definitively most advanced civilization of it's time, cherished the belief of homosexuality to be not only somebodies right, but it was actually desirable. This "privilege" was reserved for higher class and intellectuals. Greeks believed that "to seduce a women" one needs little effort, but to "seduce a man" was lot harder, and therefore bigger a privilege.
Philosopher of that time, had a distinguish taste for young boys - and it is even noted that Heraclitus and Pythagoras particularity enjoyed their company.
After Roman empire conquered the Greeks in 146 BC, homosexuality was banned, and pedophilia become punishable by death - essentially they ware nailed to a cross.
Byzantine empire had a nicer way of dealing with pedophiles and child abusers - essentially their genitals ware removed with a sharp object, and they ware left to bled to death.
In ancient Judea, stoning was preferred, as chopping of body parts "left too much of a mess" - as one Roman procurator noticed.

It's hard to pick between two, and since civilization is so much more advanced these days, I think we should just use lethal injection.

winwun
February 25th, 2009, 12:44 PM
There is a device in vogue that is capable of lethal injection from a distance -- that is, it can inject a lethal pellet, commonly made of lead or copper-plated lead, and if properly directed, is 100% guaranteed to be totally efficient.

Tsar Phalanxia
February 25th, 2009, 01:53 PM
Fuck. Why not just inject them up close?

winwun
February 25th, 2009, 02:38 PM
Good thinking, Tsar -- works for me . . .