Paedophile Gets 431 Years In Jail

[Vegeta897]

Well there's plenty of western art, and literature is a big thing, and just look at how many porn sites there are featuring barely 18 year old girls that are clearly being portrayed to look like children or have child-like aspects (especially Japanese porn). Or maybe they just google for images of kids in swimsuits.

Hell if I know, but it's beside the point really. Even downloading child porn doesn't make you a rapist or a direct threat to children.

 

[Bad^Hat]

you mean convicted pedophiles right? if you're gonna burn some witches it's best to get your terminology right or else you're just mob and you know what goes well with mobs? anarchy. and you know what quells an mob in the throes of anarchy right? totalitarianism. so now we're oppressed just so you can get yer jollies by offing priests, hockey coaches and uncle larry with their dirty little secrets wrapped in polyester pants

it's a test to reveal them so that they can be taken out back and shot

..or that's how it would go if I were in charge

pedophiles are a more heinous notion and frankly I couldnt give two shits whether their rights are beign infringed upon.

Okay you what, from now on I'm just going to assume that every post you make is a poe. There's no way I can take a single ****ing thing you say seriously any more.

 

[Vegeta897]

Badhat you'll understand when you have kids.

 

[15357]

Well there's plenty of western art, and literature is a big thing, and just look at how many porn sites there are featuring barely 18 year old girls that are clearly being portrayed to look like children or have child-like aspects (especially Japanese porn). Or maybe they just google for images of kids in swimsuits.

Hell if I know, but it's beside the point really. Even downloading child porn doesn't make you a rapist or a direct threat to children.

I'd say that lolicon is hugely different from pedophilia, but anyway.

 

[CptStern]

Ok, I really don't know what you're saying anymore, so allow me to try and retrace our steps. You said we should kill pedophiles because they might rape a child since they're attracted to children. I said that by the same logic we should kill hetero/homosexuals because they might rape a person because they're attracted to those people. You come back and say that not everyone is capable of rape. I say they are, because by your logic (as exemplified by your "kill pedos" stance) having an attraction means you're capable of rape. I say that people aren't rapists because they dont have the desire to rape, despite having an attraction, which is true of anybody regardless of whether they're pedophile or not. You then say that because non-pedos don't have the desire to rape, they're incapable, which goes against your original notion that attraction leads to rape. So you are either arguing that attraction leads to rape, or that not all pedos are capable of rape. Right now you're arguing for both and being hypocritical and quite irrational.


Yes, I do.


I won't deny the possibility that you didn't understand before, like I said I was just playing the assumption game with you. Having children doesn't change the laws of morality, it only gives you another phobia to worry about. A pedophile is not necessarily going to rape your kids, just like a heterosexual man is not necessarily going to rape your sister. What you're talking about is paranoia, not understanding.


As I said, not allowing your kids to hang out with someone IS a rational notion, be he a pedophile or a douchebag or a republican or whatever. You don't want your kids to hang around someone who could be detrimental to them. I'm talking about persecution of someone just because they could be detrimental. Keeping your kids away from someone is not persecution and it is not violating a person's human rights.


Who the **** is suggesting that it is socially acceptable?



And you're intentionally being daft, misconstruing my point so you can avoid owning up to what you're suggesting. Homosexuality is not consensual. It is not even something that has multiple participants. It is a physical attraction, nothing more nothing less. It does not, by definition, require the action of 'heterosexual intercourse.' Pedophilia is the same thing in that regard. The difference is the legality and morality of the associated, but not mandatory action of intercourse.

If you still continue down this line, avoiding and intentionally misinterpreting my point despite all the italicized words I've written, then you're simply not worth talking to because you're a contented bigot.

halflife2.net/forums Where Dreams go to Die, the "this is why we cant have nice things" edition

your mistake is taking me 100% seriously (you of all people should know this by now) since when have I ever advocated for the death penalty? how would anyone even enforce prosecuting thought crimes?

are you a pedophile?
no
NEXT!!!

are you a pedophile
yessno, no I am definately not a pedophile
ok NEXT!!!

are you a pedo...

the litmus test is for a gay man is to tell him mom, friends, girfriend that he's attracted to men. he doesnt even have to admit to anything besides attraction and he'll be either shunned or told to seek help

fixed:

the litmus test is for a gay man is to tell him mom, friends, girfriend that he's attracted to men. he doesnt even have to admit to anything besides attraction and he'll be either shunned, told to seek help or join the clergy

and for the record homosexuality is not a mental disorder pedophilia is. when the APA classified homosexuality as a disorder it was out of bigotry as there were no indicators that would make it a disorder. not so with pedophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Disease_models
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology


anyways most of you need to lighten the **** up

 

[Vegeta897]

I'd say that lolicon is hugely different from pedophilia, but anyway.

From my experience, there seems to be a lot of overlap between people attracted to real children and people who like loli. (and why shouldn't there be..) But you are right, loli art is just as different from reality as anime is. But the clean style and 'cute' aesthetics of loli art fit well with what pedophiles desire.

lol at stern

 

[Krynn72]

your mistake is taking me 100% seriously (you of all people should know this by now) since when have I ever advocated for the death penalty? how would anyone even enforce prosecuting thought crimes?

I knew you weren't being very serious with some of the things you've said ("put one in between their eyes"). However, on other things ("I dont give a **** about their rights") I am quite certain you are 100% serious.

and for the record homosexuality is not a mental disorder pedophilia is. when the APA classified homosexuality as a disorder it was out of bigotry as there were no indicators that would make it a disorder. not so with pedophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Disease_models
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

I don't have enough time to thoroughly read through the links, but I didn't see anything under the Diagnostic Criteria that would differentiate an attraction to kids from an attraction to anyone else. From what I read on there, as with any sexual attraction, nobody even knows what causes it. You say that homosexuality was included without indicators that would make it a disorder, what indicators are there for pedophilia that don't also apply to any other attraction?

 

[CptStern]

I knew you weren't being very serious with some of the things you've said ("put one in between their eyes"). However, on other things ("I dont give a **** about their rights") I am quite certain you are 100% serious.

ya so? I dont give two shits about their rights just like I couldnt care less about the rights of the religious. what's wrong with that?

I don't have enough time to thoroughly read through the links, but I didn't see anything under the Diagnostic Criteria that would differentiate an attraction to kids from an attraction to anyone else. From what I read on there, as with any sexual attraction, nobody even knows what causes it. You say that homosexuality was included without indicators that would make it a disorder, what indicators are there for pedophilia that don't also apply to any other attraction?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) outlines specific criteria for use in the diagnosis of this disorder. These include the presence of sexually arousing fantasies, behaviors or urges that involve some kind of sexual activity with a prepubescent child (age 13 or younger, though onset of puberty may vary) for six months or more, and that the subject has acted on these urges or suffers from distress as a result of having these feelings. Neither the ICD nor the DSM diagnostic criteria require actual sexual activity with a prepubescent youth. The diagnosis can therefore be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges even if they have never been acted upon.

Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality.

gays = a-ok, pedos = freaks of nature

 

[kineaesth]

Quoting the DSM should be a criminal offence.

 

[Krynn72]

ya so? I dont give two shits about their rights just like I couldnt care less about the rights of the religious. what's wrong with that?

Lots.

*DSM quotes*

The question I posed to you was what indicators are there for pedophilia that don't also apply to any other attraction? What you quoted can be applied to anything, so its clearly a terrible way of classifying a disorder.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Mom I... I love to rub my exposed chest all over sinks. It just.. it's the best thing in the world. Sometimes I add a little soap in there.. oh god, the foamy soap.. jesus I'll be right back i need to go find a si

 

[Viperidae]

Quoting the DSM should be a criminal offence.

How about an infractionable one?

 

[ríomhaire]

Even downloading child porn doesn't make you a rapist or a direct threat to children.

It does mean that you're supporting the bastards that make it.

 

[The Monkey]

ya so? I dont give two shits about their rights just like I couldnt care less about the rights of the religious. what's wrong with that?

You gotta be shitting me.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Poe's law. POE'S LAW.

*fingers in ears lalalalalala*

 

[Vegeta897]

It does mean that you're supporting the bastards that make it.

I didn't say it wasn't bad, I said it wasn't a direct thread to a child. Like someone with a sex offender record would be.

 

[Viperidae]

Poe's law. POE'S LAW.

*fingers in ears lalalalalala*

This whole time Stern has been Darkside's alt.

 

[Raziaar]

Hell if I know, but it's beside the point really. Even downloading child porn doesn't make you a rapist or a direct threat to children.

Me and you have had this argument before.

By downloading child porn and consuming it, that person is THE REASON, along with all the others who do it, that child pornography exists. They create the demand for the market, and people out there supply it. It is an indirect threat to children by generating demand within the industry. Doesn't have to be a direct threat, indirect threat is enough for me. Those people are the reason children get victimized and their victimization distributed.

 

[Vegeta897]

Me and you have had this argument before.

By downloading child porn and consuming it, that person is THE REASON, along with all the others who do it, that child pornography exists. They create the demand for the market, and people out there supply it. It is an indirect threat to children by generating demand within the industry. Doesn't have to be a direct threat, indirect threat is enough for me. Those people are the reason children get victimized and their victimization distributed.

Would you please read? I wouldn't even have to have made this post if people understood the difference between direct and indirect threats. Who said that being an indirect threat wasn't 'enough'? I didn't say that downloading child porn was a safe and harmless method. You can go to jail for it for crying out loud...

I didn't say it wasn't bad, I said it wasn't a direct thread to a child. Like someone with a sex offender record would be.

The discussion wasn't about indirect threats. It wasn't even about child porn. I only said and implied what I said, so stop putting words in my mouth when we both know we've discussed this before.

 

[Krynn72]

By downloading child porn and consuming it, that person is THE REASON, along with all the others who do it, that child pornography exists. They create the demand for the market, and people out there supply it. It is an indirect threat to children by generating demand within the industry. Doesn't have to be a direct threat, indirect threat is enough for me. Those people are the reason children get victimized and their victimization distributed.

I'm curious as to whether there is any proof of this. That argument makes it sound like people rape kids so others can watch... as if its entirely selfless. For one, I doubt there is much money in it, as theres seems to be plenty of places where people just get lots and lots of it for free (that hidden web thread is D: ). Its not like they get ad revenue. I mean, maybe I could maybe see "they wouldn't record it if nobody watched it," but even if that were the case its not stopping anybody from getting raped, its just stopping people from filming it, the only way that wouldn't be the case is if they were raping kids specifically for the money from the video. I doubt there are many cases where the primary reason a child rapist records him raping a kid is so he can show a video of it to people. Of course, I'm only talking from an uneducated point of view, so if there is actually evidence of a correlation of people watching CP and increases cases of child rape, then I take back everything I just said.

 

[Vegeta897]

I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to get meaningful results out of a study like that.

But I'm willing to lean on the side of 'child porn is bad and you shouldn't watch it, even if it wasn't illegal' because I have no real reason to want to believe otherwise. It really has nothing to do with this thread or what we were discussing.

 

[Raziaar]

From wikipedia, not directed at anybody.

Pedophile viewers of child pornography are often obsessive about collecting, organizing, categorizing, and labeling their child pornography collection according to age, gender, sex act and fantasy.[73][74] According to FBI agent Ken Lanning, "collecting" pornography does not mean that they merely view pornography, but that they save it, and "it comes to define, fuel, and validate their most cherished sexual fantasies." An extensive collection indicates a strong sexual preference for children and the owned collection is the single best indicator of what he or she wants to do.[74] Researchers Taylor and Quayle reported that pedophile collectors of child pornography are often involved in anonymous internet communities dedicated to extending their collections.[75] Pedophile online community bulletin boards often contain technical advice from experienced child pornography offenders assisting new users with protecting themselves from detection.[74]

Gotta... catch em all?



At Krynn:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/jan/12/childprotection.childrensservices

partial snippet

Children's charity NCH - formerly National Children's Homes - said there was evidence that the 1,500% rise in child pornography cases since 1988 would be reflected in more children being abused to produce the pictures.

"The scale of the problem has changed beyond recognition in just over a decade," said NCH's internet consultant John Carr.

"The increased demand has made child pornography into big business and the consequences for children in all parts of the world are horrifying."

549 people were charged or cautioned with child pornography offences in 2001 compared to just 35 in 1988, the charity said.

The figures for 2002 are expected to rise even higher with the impact of Operation Ore, the police investigation into 6,500 Britons alleged to have used credit cards to download child pornography from a Texas-based website.

Texas based website? Well... color me unsurprised. Also I don't know if I can exactly consider increased charges to increased occurrences or just simply better funded and operated investigations.

Despite the attempts to clamp down on child pornography users through credit card details, peer-to-peer file-sharing software such as KaZaA, Morpheus and Grokster now allows images to be accessed anonymously and for free.

Police told the Guardian in November that the scale of peer-to-peer traffic in illegal images of children dwarved almost any other paedophile network they had encountered.

NCH said the internet had also increased the volume of child sex abuse pictures in the hands of individual paedophiles and it was now common for suspects to be arrested with tens of thousands of images on their computers.

In 2003, one man in Lincolnshire was found with 450,000 images and another in New York had 1,000,000.

Really though I think it's a case of "more variety, more stuff to collect". I really do believe that it increases the demand and that demand is met solely to meet the demand and the underground profits it generates.

No different than any other commodity really, any other "consumer market". People want the latest and greatest. Sickening.

Regarding internet proliferation, the U.S. Department of Justice states that "At any one time there are estimated to be more than one million pornographic images of children on the Internet, with 200 new images posted daily." They also note that a single offender arrested in the U.K. possessed 450,000 child pornography images, and that a single child pornography site received a million hits in a month. Further, that much of the trade in child pornography takes place at hidden levels of the Internet, and that it has been estimated that there are between 50,000 and 100,000 paedophiles involved in organised pornography rings around the world, and that one third of these operate from the United States.

I mean really, why would child pornography rings even exist in the world. We all know they do, they're busted quite frequently. They wouldn't be very dynamic if they kept circulating the same old shit. Really, when you think about it there's very explanation other than economic demand and the underground industry it is.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to get meaningful results out of a study like that.

But I'm willing to lean on the side of 'child porn is bad and you shouldn't watch it, even if it wasn't illegal' because I have no real reason to want to believe otherwise. It really has nothing to do with this thread or what we were discussing.

Agreed. Its just that every time CP is talked about, people make that claim, and I'm wondering if its backed up by actual data. You could probably get at least somewhat reasonable results just by asking convicted people if they ever did it for any reason besides wanting to diddle a kid's doodle.

@ Raz: Thats weird, but not so unexpected I guess. I mean, tons of people collect regular porn of all types as well. I'd bet a large number of hl2.netters have a "collection" of porn. You certainly dont think of "communities of pedophiles," helping each other out with it, but again, hearing it doesn't really surprise me, because no matter how niche something is, theres an internet community for it. I mean, I found a site and forum that was a whole, active community consisting of people who use straight razors.

 

[unozero]

they should use VR to "entertain" people with this fetish,no?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Gotta agree. Regardless of any direct correlation, it's exploitative and that should be enough grounds to think of it as unethical. Which isn't to imply Krynn was arguing otherwise, or that such findings would be without merit, but I think it's safe to make that kind of judgment without statistics to back it up.

Edit: Ah mother****er this was meant to go about 5 posts ago.

This whole time Stern has been Darkside's alt.

But I thought everyone was already Stern's alt. D:

 

[Raziaar]

Going on the article and things I mentioned in my previous post, that completely avoids the topic of child sex tourism, which is huge in some parts of the world... mostly east asian countries. They exist because people pay money for them, primarily foreigners on vacation either for other reasons of exclusively for that reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism

 

[Krynn72]

Gotta agree. Regardless of any direct correlation, it's exploitative and that should be enough grounds to think of it as unethical.

Absolutely agree. And yeah Raz, child sex tourism is ****ing horrifying. Getting rid of human trafficking of all sorts should be a top priority for first world countries.

 

[CptStern]

Lots.

such as?

The question I posed to you was what indicators are there for pedophilia that don't also apply to any other attraction? What you quoted can be applied to anything, so its clearly a terrible way of classifying a disorder.

how would that prove that either way? it's somehow not a mental disorder because you're removing it from it's context and attempting to co-relate it with something that's not even remotely related? the attraction to children is abnormal and not in a "there's too few people therefore it's not normal" and more of "hey this is not normal

the APA site is under a register/payment gate. if you have a problem with their criteria you could try to refute their research with your own. as it stands I'll take the word of medical professionals over random people on the interwebs. pedophiles = mental disorder according to the APA, AMA and CMHA. the suystem used in diagnosis is in use by pretty much every first world country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10#National_adoption_for_clinical_use

and if it's alright with you I'd rather not delve too deep into this subject matter as I find it disturbing

 

[Bad^Hat]

"hey this is not normal"

How scientific!

 

[kineaesth]

and if it's alright with you I'd rather not delve too deep into this subject matter as I find it disturbing

"I'm done arguing and you're all creepy for wanting to talk about this squicky business."

 

[CptStern]

no one's stopping you from researching into it and getting back to us if you're so inclined but thanks for your contribution to this discussion anyways