Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: HL on March 22, 2008, 11:28:54 am
-
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nefd.pop
March 20, 2008 4:00 AM PDT
FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects
Posted by Declan McCullagh | 188 comments
The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, together with then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.
Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, together with Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish together with contained no illegal images.
A CNET News.com review of legal documents shows that courts have approved of this technique, even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who's using an open wireless connection--together with whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police.
Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who in addition taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI's hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house together with handcuffed him.
This is very very alarming, especially if some guy finds out the link location together with makes a virus or spyware or some excrement to automatically click it for you? What?
Makes me wonder what the signal of angry dismissal those courts are smoking.
-
Wow, thats pretty crazy. I mean, part of me is saying "Haha pedo got busted" but the other half is going, how far are they going to take this. I mean, what other type of shit are they going to start doing with this. Like, will they start doing ones for other types of illegal pornographic material, or will it go past porno (Illegal downloads). I mean, at some point I gotta wonder just how far they're going to take this shit.
-
I mean, what other type of shit are they going to start doing with this. Like, will they start doing ones for other types of illegal pornographic material, or will it go past porno (Illegal downloads).
History has shown that there is always the possibility of taking such a thing even further.
That's why this sort of thing should be prohibited; once this is fully accepted, they may decide to go one step back or one step further. And even if they said before that they'd never use it to nab people looking for other kinds of illegal downloads, once the possibility is there, there's a chance it will get used. Before you know it, they'll start arresting people who click on links to informational articles about explosive substances or Islamic fundamentalism, and then it won't be long for them to decide that perhaps it's best to simply arrest whomever wants to read political blogs that are critical of the current administration.
And that's exactly why you need to keep your eyes open for these things to try and prevent them immediately.
-
Which is why I'm worried. Its this type of stuff that really makes me hope to god they go "You know, that was really stupid guys". Like you said, this could get really out of hand. It also raises the question as to what else they will use. Granted the internet is the most accessible medium, but with the ways things are developing, they can use other things to pretty much track your every step.
YOUR WII FRIEND CODES ARE FBI TRAPS!
-
Isn't this entrapment?
-
This is horrendous, and it's so easy to go from this to further prevention. They can prettymuch arrest unsavory people and use this as an excuse, claiming they're pedos, for a start. I wonder how long before this method branches out into other information?
-
Isn't this entrapment?
It is, however, afaik, the United States does not have a law against entrapment on a national line....iirc it's handled on a state by state basis.
-
wow. this is ridiculous. I mean, they already have easy access to IP addresses of people downloading illegal material through popular torrent trackers, but now it seems like they'll be able to just throw any Adobe_Photoshop_CS3_crack+keygen.rar up on a popular site that cooperates with them and gives them access to logs (would something like rapidshare ever do this?) and track down illegal downloaders. Mind you, unlike child porn where they may have raided at the first click, this would be something where you would need a track record before being investigated or raided, but it is still alarming!
edit: it's not like this is new technology by any means. it's just that I did not expect/think about the FBI taking such massive measures. What if one of my friends clicked on the link when I was away from the computer in order to have a good laugh later about the file on my desktop?
-
I don't think they'll go arresting everyone who downloads the latest keygen for whatever program it is you need to get, but I can imagine fines up the wazoo.
-
(would something like rapidshare ever do this?)
AFAIK Rapidshare and shit like that tend to host their stuff outside the US, so if the FBI asked for shit they could be like "lol no."
-
This doesn't make any sence. I for myself admit that I click these links just for the fact that I can sort it out and report the sites later on to the authorities.
That would mean that my detective work would be illigal aswell.
-
There's a reason this case is almost 2 years old and only happens in three states. Probable cause may be a federal law, but NO OTHER STATE COURT is stupid enough to give the feds the right to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause alone.
-
Oh great this is going to be the next dumb RICK ROLL. 4chan fuckers are going to be going "here is the link to that file you wanted" "LULZ NOW U R ARRESTED BY FBI!"
-
Oh that reminds me Velfarre here's that Lazytown porn you've been bugging me about (http://www.thisisnotanfbitrap.gov.us/childporntrap.html)
-
Oh great this is going to be the next dumb RICK ROLL. 4chan fuckers are going to be going "here is the link to that file you wanted" "LULZ NOW U R ARRESTED BY FBI!"
I could see this happening. Followed by the whole DID IT FOR LULS faggotry. I mean, how sad of a day is it going to be when /b has the power to get people arrested!
There's a reason this case is almost 2 years old and only happens in three states. Probable cause may be a federal law, but NO OTHER STATE COURT is stupid enough to give the feds the right to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause alone.
You give the states to much credit. They have done some pretty stupid shit man. I mean, just look at the laws we have in act today. There are some seriously retarded ones. Whats to say these twiddly fucks wont make another mistake.
-
We're just one small step away from PRECRIME!
-
More like thought crime.
-
Oh great this is going to be the next dumb RICK ROLL. 4chan fuckers are going to be going "here is the link to that file you wanted" "LULZ NOW U R ARRESTED BY FBI!"
hahahaha
comments like that makes it obvious how completely oblivious the fbi are to internet culture 8(
-
What if one of my friends clicked on the link when I was away from the computer in order to have a good laugh later about the file on my desktop?
You'd have to tell that to the judge.
-
Ah well. if it can help reduce the pedo levels of the internet...
It shouldn't suffice by itself as proof of someone being a pedophile though. I mean nothings easier than tricking someone into visiting a URL. if this URL means HE GETS ARRESTED BY FBI... Any site could simply redirect you to it, any link could become a potential DEADLY TRAP. Its as if you knew that there was a virus roaming the interwebs against which no protection exists, and this virus makes your screen IMPLODE IMMEDIATELY.
-
man I gotta stop visiting TGP porn sites
there is literally no way of knowing if some of the girls are 18 or not... like obviously theres the ones that are like 13-14 on some of those thumbnails and I try to just ignore the fact that those are even there... but seriously when you get the ones that say they are 18 or 19 years old sometimes I wonder. Sigh, this is what I get for not liking fake tits and monster dicks in my porn..
-
i dunno, it seems like you could never get in trouble for this if you live with anyone else. you could just both deny it when you got in court, and what are they going to do? guess which one of you it was? sentence you both?
-
man I gotta stop visiting TGP porn sites
there is literally no way of knowing if some of the girls are 18 or not... like obviously theres the ones that are like 13-14 on some of those thumbnails and I try to just ignore the fact that those are even there... but seriously when you get the ones that say they are 18 or 19 years old sometimes I wonder. Sigh, this is what I get for not liking fake tits and monster dicks in my porn..
"Hohoho, that girl was 17 and 3/4 not 18 you sick son of a bitch!"
Guess for safety's sake we'll all have to look at granny porn from now on. :(
-
More like thought crime.
Don't you get it? Very soon they're going to extrapolate our browsing habits and arrest us before we even click the link!
-
I'm pretty sure this technique isn't PUT UP A WEBSITE AND COLLECT IP ADDRESSES; they could be directly going after suspected pedophiles (IE, sending them a link through AIM). And either way, it's pretty possible that they have the web server set up so that it only registers IPs caught from a link they themselves have set up and not anyone who blunders into it - so that they're only catching people who see a link saying 12 YEAR OLD PUSSY and click it. They could only be setting up these links on pedophile networks even, so that the average net-user wouldn't find them.
There's not enough details in the article to be instantly alarmist.
-
Ah well. if it can help reduce the pedo levels of the internet...
Oh come on, these things get blown way out of proportion. The media makes it seem like anyone above the age of 19 is a pedophile if they use the Internet. Like shark attacks and kidnapping, this is just the new cool thing for the news to make everyone afraid.
No one who enjoys not being arrested for everything they do or believe in should be supporting this.
-
wouldn't it make more sense to go after the people who are putting the porn up? not the guys who are looking at it?
-
well this is pretty awful. i mean i guess we gotta stop pedophilia child porn etc yeah but STILL this is a bit harsh. if they are doin it like mr franklin says then i guess it is a bit OKer otherwise its shit.
-
wouldn't it make more sense to go after the people who are putting the porn up? not the guys who are looking at it?
I think they look at CP as some sort of business, so they're attacking the theoretical "demand" so the "supply" has no reason to keep producing.
I'm pretty certain that kiddie fiddlers don't do their fiddling so they can sell it on the internet, though, so this sort of attack doesn't make any sense.
-
wouldn't it make more sense to go after the people who are putting the porn up? not the guys who are looking at it?
They DO go after the producers, and extremely harshly too, but they go after the clients and consumers as well.
Also a lot of child porn is produced in third world countries anyhow.
-
benjamin franklin you seem to know a lot about child porn. your biography never mentioned this aspect of your personality.
-
Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI's hyperlink.
woah holy shit why haven't i heard of this
i guess that's not exactly something they would put in the school paper
edit: february 2007 nevermind
-
That's terrible, what about people who click the links just out of curiosity but aren't pedophiles?
By the way look at this kiddy pr0n I found: http://www.illegalkiddypr0n.ru/members/image/img076.jpg (http://www.fbi.gov)
-
They DO go after the producers, and extremely harshly too, but they go after the clients and consumers as well.
Well, it's actually apparently quite difficult to go after the producers, as they usually keep their face out of the picture or censor themselves. Most of the anti-child abuse activity is aimed at busting large networks of distributors. These are also more likely to lead to valuable information regarding child trafficking and prostitution.
Of course, that doesn't mean there's no reason to go after the consumers as well, but it's difficult to argue we should allow the police to be able to do these things in order to for them to pursue a very inefficient method of combating child porn.
-
I wonder if something like this will even hold up in court.
God I hope the Patriot Act is destroyed by the next president.
-
That's terrible, what about people who click the links just out of curiosity but aren't pedophiles?
By the way look at this kiddy pr0n I found: http://www.illegalkiddypr0n.ru/members/image/img076.jpg (http://www.fbi.gov)
While some consider it entrapment, by federal law they have to state the age in the add itself. If you see a link that says "12 year old hot and naked" the FBI assumes that only people who are serious about seeing it will actually CLICK ON IT. Why the fuck would you be "curious" about seeing kiddy porn if you're not a pedo yourself?
-
question but LEGALLY are the people who look at the child porn doing anything wrong as they're not actually involved with it's production? why do the feds arrest people with that stuff on their PC?
-
While some consider it entrapment, by federal law they have to state the age in the add itself. If you see a link that says "12 year old hot and naked" the FBI assumes that only people who are serious about seeing it will actually CLICK ON IT. Why the fuck would you be "curious" about seeing kiddy porn if you're not a pedo yourself?
it could just be a joke and the person wants to know what's really there!
-
question but LEGALLY are the people who look at the child porn doing anything wrong as they're not actually involved with it's production? why do the feds arrest people with that stuff on their PC?
demand and supply, it doesnt work if either one is missing
also did you just defend pedophiles?
-
I wonder if something like this will even hold up in court.
God I hope the Patriot Act is destroyed by the next president.
I'm not sure the PA has anything to do with this stuff.
it could qualify as entrapment though, and if they go to court, it will probably get thrown out!
-
question but LEGALLY are the people who look at the child porn doing anything wrong as they're not actually involved with it's production? why do the feds arrest people with that stuff on their PC?
Are you joking?
-
Are you joking?
How so?
demand and supply, it doesnt work if either one is missing
also did you just defend pedophiles?
I don't support exploitation of children (or anyone for that matter), but pedophiles are still people. Its like how people used to persecute gays. Completely unfair and irrational. Now, if a gay person raped someone who wasn't gay (much like in the way that a pedo takes advantage of a child) and leaves him/her both physically and/or emotionally scarred, that deserves persecution. But if he/she's just living life, being gay, what right does anyone have to restrict that?
You get what I'm saying? As long as the pedophile is fulfilling his/her urges by looking at porn and isn't hurting any children, then there's no reason to get all uppity because the person has an unusual fetish.
-
How so?
I don't support exploitation of children (or anyone for that matter), but pedophiles are still people. Its like how people used to persecute gays. Completely unfair and irrational. Now, if a gay person raped someone who wasn't gay (much like in the way that a pedo takes advantage of a child) and leaves him/her both physically and/or emotionally scarred, that deserves persecution. But if he/she's just living life, being gay, what right does anyone have to restrict that?
You get what I'm saying? As long as the pedophile is fulfilling his/her urges by looking at porn and isn't hurting any children, then there's no reason to get all uppity because the person has an unusual fetish.
because he's supporting the people that are hurting the children. and yes, there are laws against having child porn.
-
So if you look at the videos of the terrorists decapitating people, are you supporting terrorists?
-
So if you look at the videos of the terrorists decapitating people, are you supporting terrorists?
only if you wack off to it.
-
So if you look at the videos of the terrorists decapitating people, are you supporting terrorists?
No because by looking at terrorist videos you're not generating the terrorists any money. If no one in the entire world wanted to smoke cigarettes, bang hookers, and buy video games then there wouldn't be any tobacco companies, prostitutes, or gaming industry. Take away the DEMAND and there is no SUPPLY.
Holy shit, why are we even bringing this up? For every person willing to pay top dollar for indonesian child pictures there's going to be some creep who kidnaps little indonesian girls off the streets and whores them on the internet. Fuck.
-
I'm not sure the PA has anything to do with this stuff.
I'm not saying that the Patriot Act relates to this, it's just that this is the sort of tactic that the PA wants to use.
-
How so?
I don't support exploitation of children (or anyone for that matter), but pedophiles are still people. Its like how people used to persecute gays. Completely unfair and irrational. Now, if a gay person raped someone who wasn't gay (much like in the way that a pedo takes advantage of a child) and leaves him/her both physically and/or emotionally scarred, that deserves persecution. But if he/she's just living life, being gay, what right does anyone have to restrict that?
You get what I'm saying? As long as the pedophile is fulfilling his/her urges by looking at porn and isn't hurting any children, then there's no reason to get all uppity because the person has an unusual fetish.
Where the fuck did you pull that comparison from?
A gay person watching gay porn isn't hurting someone (unless of course its an underage child/rape), while a pedophile is watching porn of a CHILD who is more than likely being forced against their will.
-
No because by looking at terrorist videos you're not generating the terrorists any money. If no one in the entire world wanted to smoke cigarettes, bang hookers, and buy video games then there wouldn't be any tobacco companies, prostitutes, or gaming industry. Take away the DEMAND and there is no SUPPLY.
Holy shit, why are we even bringing this up? For every person willing to pay top dollar for indonesian child pictures there's going to be some creep who kidnaps little indonesian girls off the streets and whores them on the internet. Fuck.
Yes but what about downloading it off p2p programs or happyzoo without paying anything, is that supporting the pedophiles?
-
Yes but what about downloading it off p2p programs or happyzoo without paying anything, is that supporting the pedophiles?
Jesus dude, it's fucking wrong because they're watching kids GETTING RAPED JESUS.
-
how do you guys not get this
-
Jesus dude, it's fucking wrong because they're watching kids GETTING RAPED JESUS.
Of course it is but the point is that they're watching for free without paying and therefore not supporting the pedophiles
Anyway if they keep doing things like this The Pedophiles will just find another way to share all their pedophile adventures with each others. This is like trying to stop sociopathy in my opinion, you can't, all you can do is to lock away the ones you find but they will continue appearing
-
I find it weird though that underage girls who take pictures of themselves get arrested for the possession of child pornography.
-
I don't support exploitation of children (or anyone for that matter), but pedophiles are still people. Its like how people used to persecute gays. Completely unfair and irrational. Now, if a gay person raped someone who wasn't gay (much like in the way that a pedo takes advantage of a child) and leaves him/her both physically and/or emotionally scarred, that deserves persecution. But if he/she's just living life, being gay, what right does anyone have to restrict that?
You get what I'm saying? As long as the pedophile is fulfilling his/her urges by looking at porn and isn't hurting any children, then there's no reason to get all uppity because the person has an unusual fetish.
Pedophilia is still classified as a mental disorder that requires treatment, but homosexuality had that status dismissed years ago. So yes they are human beings, yes they are just trying to live their lives, but the kind of behavior and alternative lifestyle of a pedophile is damaging to the image of the community and society as a greater whole. These people should be seeking professional help, not feeding their obsession.
I agree however that pedophiles aren't criminals by definition, but that can very quickly change if such urges are acted on. That's the issue here and is likely why the U.S. government established this type of program. I don't think it's right nor accurate, but at least at the moment this is being done in the interest of protecting children.
-
You cant be like, really saying pedophilia is anything like homosexuality. I mean the only time I heard that before was satirical, like in south park I think? Saying that pedophilia is like homosexuality and will eventually become mainstream is ridiculous. Id even add that it... it sounds like s..something a pedo would say.... :fogetmmh:
I mean sure, like any other "sexual deviance" (I cant think of another term that englobe both pedophilia and homosexuality), its not in any way a pedophiles' fault if he is one. I don't know if its genetic or like, caused by trauma or something, but it sure as hell isn't a conscious choice.
But contrarily to homosexuality and sexual fetishes, pedophilia is inherently wrong, because by its very definition it is to be considered rape: children are not in age to consent to sexual relations, they are naive and manipulable, and worse, they view adults as role models. Any child pornography is wrong, no matter the social context or whatever. Obviously its not the case for homosexuality. The only things I would consider not to be inherently wrong would be like, written, drawn or otherwise false child pornography (adults disguising as children or whatever? Its hard to imagine this to be possible though. Lol midgets). As disgusting as this pornography might be, at least no actual child was harmed. Also pedoes will have something to jerk off to and wont turn into savage rapists.
(actually im not sure here. Maybe having something to jerk off to will make them worse?)
Also I'm curious, do pedophiles actually get cured? Or is the only "cure" castration?
-
No Psychoskull a lot of psychologists or psychiatrists have said it's something just like homosexuality and were serious when they said it
And pedophilia isn't the same thing as child sex abuse
Pedophiles get cured as much as people with ADD get cured from ADD (in other words they don't)
-
I find it weird though that underage girls who take pictures of themselves get arrested for the possession of child pornography.
haha, thats fucking awesome.
-
As much as I don't support pedophiles at all, I would have to think it would be pretty awful to be one considering you basically have to keep that shit to yourself forever least you risk having loved ones rank you as worse than like someone who methodically kills people. It must be pretty awful to have that kind of weight on you, to have urges you can't really help but will pretty much ostracize you from everyone in the world except other pedophiles if they are discovered. I mean having feelings and acting on them are clearly two different things, but I don't think most pedophiles would be inclined to get therapy or whatever since our society would rather just burn them at the stake.
-
Pedophilia is still classified as a mental disorder that requires treatment, but homosexuality had that status dismissed years ago.
So really, same thing just 20 years behind?
But contrarily to homosexuality and sexual fetishes, pedophilia is inherently wrong, because by its very definition it is to be considered rape:
complete and utter fucking opinion
-
So really, same thing just 20 years behind?
complete and utter fucking opinion
Are you for real sticking up for pedophiles? The people who use helpless, unknowing children, to take care of their selfish, disgusting wants? The ones who hurt these children both physically and mentally? And also the people who not only condone it, but watch it and use it to get themselves off?
It's not the same as homosexuality, regardless of whether it's a choice or something people are born with, because homosexuals are CONSENTING ADULTS. They are not VIOLATING each other. If a homosexual is going around RAPING PEOPLE then they deserve to be punished, much like any other sexual offender. But in NO WAY is homosexuality the same as PEDOPHILIA.
-
BravoSector is a pedophile.
-
So really, same thing just 20 years behind?
complete and utter fucking opinion
So let me get this straight:
a) you're defending people who attack young defenseless children and have sexual intercourse with them, forever scaring them and most likely destroying any chance they have of integrating back into society
b) you hate homosexuals, because any person who says what you just said can't honestly like them if you're saying pedophilia is anything close to homosexuality.
-
Okay, Bravo, Inri, before you guys continue on defending pedophiles let me point out that children are not legally capable (by man's law) of consenting to sex and this applies to pretty much every country regardless of how much of a shit hole it is. Having physical intercourse with a human being before they're fully developed (I.E before puberty is finished) has been proven to be detrimental and hazardous to healthy growth.
HAVING SEX WITH KIDS IS LITERALLY HAZARDOUS TO THEIR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
Some countries have varying ages of consent like 13 or 14 which is the typical age that puberty (usually) finishes but because humans mature at such a stupidly varying rate, the United States says 16-18 depending on the state and even then if you're 19 or older you can't sex with a 16 year old.
These laws are put in place to stop predators and I've SEEN sexual predators and talked to them before and they're not very nice people to hold a sunday chat with. It is an unhealthy, mental obsession and cannot be compared to homosexuality because that's an actual physical attraction. Pedophilia is on the same level as OCD. There is no love for a child, it's an obsession, a want, a burning desire. Medicine still hasn't reached the point of completely eliminating mental quirks but HOLY FUCK what kind of society would we live in if we accepted people that chased after children? A pedophilic father would lust after his daughter... heck, even his son because pedophilia isn't gender specific.
My God I am losing faith in humanity. We should just lay back and accept everyone into society. Serial killers, arsonists, rapists; these guys have mental obsessions but fuck IT'S JUST LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY RIGHT WE CAN'T BLAME THEM FOR KILLER PSYCHOS!!"
-
a) you're defending people who attack young defenseless children and have sexual intercourse with them, forever scaring them and most likely destroying any chance they have of integrating back into society
hey yo I'm being an asshole just figured I'd let ya'll know I agree with BravoSector about
complete and utter fucking opinion
this.
That paedophilia is wrong is nothing but an opinion and stop saying it's anything else. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum hates the idea of children being abused etc, but paedophilia is NOT something people choose to have and it's a great burden a lot of people have to carry and hide for their entire lives, never ever acting out on their sexual preference. There's nothing wrong about paedophilia at all, and saying these people by default are EVIL/WRONG/IMMORAL etc is really the wrong way to go.
Besides not everyone who checks out child porn is a paedophile (read in my psychology book that about half of all males have one or more short phases where children arouse them sexually), and as such people that also act out on children might not be paedophiles. People that live with that sexual preference their entire lives and do not act out on it ever suffer but are brave people. It's not their fault.
So stop saying paedophilia is wrong as it in itself really isn't. Acting out on it is wrong. 8(
Ok that's just my opinion tho but ya. I do think child porn is pretty disgusting (altho I've never seen it??? but the idea is kinda sickening) and I do think people abusing children should be... well idk, not murdered/killed as some of you seem to think but at least isolated from children until there's no chance of it ever happening again.
But yeah, paedophiles are still human beings.
edit: marcus post just made me feel ashamed for myself :(
But I do mean what I write.
-
Yes but what about downloading it off p2p programs or happyzoo without paying anything, is that supporting the pedophiles?
Not really. Just like downloading any commercial program instead of buying it; you would most likely not buy the software in any case, even if an illegal download weren't available. You don't generate any revenue for child porn distributors as you were never a paying client anyway. There's always the possibility of you becoming one in the future, though.
The only things I would consider not to be inherently wrong would be like, written, drawn or otherwise false child pornography (adults disguising as children or whatever? Its hard to imagine this to be possible though. Lol midgets). As disgusting as this pornography might be, at least no actual child was harmed. Also pedoes will have something to jerk off to and wont turn into savage rapists.
(actually im not sure here. Maybe having something to jerk off to will make them worse?)
That's an interesting question. There's hardly such a thing as a legal alternative to child porn, except in Japan, where manga child porn is legal. A positive correlation between pornography and sex-related crimes has been sought for, but was never found. Now, when we look at Japan, we see that there is actually a negative correlation:Within Japan itself, the dramatic increase in available pornography and sexually explicit materials is apparent to even a casual observer. This is concomitant with a general liberalization of restrictions on other sexual outlets as well. Also readily apparent from the information presented is that, over this period of change, sex crimes in every category, from rape to public indecency, sexual offenses from both ends of the criminal spectrum, significantly decreased in incidence.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the legality of real child porn. And it's also unproven that the increase in pornographic materials is accountable for the decrease in sex-related crimes. But it's something that warrants further research.
-
That paedophilia is wrong is nothing but an opinion and stop saying it's anything else. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum hates the idea of children being abused etc, but paedophilia is NOT something people choose to have and it's a great burden a lot of people have to carry and hide for their entire lives, never ever acting out on their sexual preference. There's nothing wrong about paedophilia at all, and saying these people by default are EVIL/WRONG/IMMORAL etc is really the wrong way to go.
Besides not everyone who checks out child porn is a paedophile (read in my psychology book that about half of all males have one or more short phases where children arouse them sexually), and as such people that also act out on children might not be paedophiles. People that live with that sexual preference their entire lives and do not act out on it ever suffer but are brave people. It's not their fault.
hey lars quick question
how does child porn get made
yeah that's what we're discussing and calling horrible people is the people who make the child porn (these are still pedophiles)
-
hey lars quick question
how does child porn get made
I don't see why you're really asking this if you read Lars' post at all. He's saying that there's a difference between people who don't act upon their urges and those who do. Those who create child porn are part of the latter category and should be severely punished for it.
But die gedanken sind frei, and you can't simply indiscriminately punish all pedophiles for only the reason that they are.
EDIT:
edit: marcus post just made me feel ashamed for myself :(
You know, I also don't like discussing this, because any crime involving children is absolutely disgusting. Child trafficking and prostitution are two of the greatest humanitarian problems in the world today. But that's exactly why the problem should be discussed!
-
I don't see why you're really asking this if you read Lars' post at all. He's saying that there's a difference between people who don't act upon their urges and those who do. Those who create child porn are part of the latter category and should be severely punished for it.
But die gedanken sind frei, and you can't simply indiscriminately punish all pedophiles for only the reason that they are.
I know this but that wasn't what we were talking about, he was agreeing with BravoSector, and maybe BravoSector didn't realize but I don't think anyone ever said punish all pedophiles, I am pretty sure we were saying the people who do the raping and what not are terrible people and then Inri + Bravo go NOO NOO so maybe they got confused.
I was just telling Lars that we are doing exactly what he said so don't be so confused basically??
Obviously there is a difference between a pedophile who knows their urge is wrong and doesn't act on it, and one who acts on it.
-
I was agreeing in BravoSector that paedophilia in itself necessarily isn't evil or wrong, rather that acting out on it is.
edit: i have no idea why I quoted you in my first post DN.......
-
Obviously there is a difference between a pedophile who knows their urge is wrong and doesn't act on it, and one who acts on it.
What is that difference? Is one of them any more wrong or right to be the way they are?
That's an interesting question. There's hardly such a thing as a legal alternative to child porn, except in Japan, where manga child porn is legal.
I actually heard recently that some UN watchdog organization has been pressing Japanese legislators hard to criminalize the production and possession of lolicon, so that may actually change very soon (probably not because it's japan)
-
What is that difference? Is one of them any more wrong or right to be the way they are?
I actually heard recently that some UN watchdog organization has been pressing Japanese legislators hard to criminalize the production and possession of lolicon, so that may actually change very soon (probably not because it's japan)
Yeah, there is, dude.
At least the person who isn't acting out on it isn't actually harming any kids, and isn't breaking any laws. Still probably needs help from a counselor etc, but at least they aren't raping or hurting any children, because they realize their sexual urge is wrong, and you can't help your sexual urges.
I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
EDIT: I am talking about people who have the urges but don't act on them on all, ie: don't look at porn of it etc, because then they are obviously breaking the law.
-
Uhh okay then that's a little different than what I thought I was addressing. I thought you were describing somebody who actually victimizes a child directly and somebody who does something less indirect or severe like looking at child porn!
-
My opinion is that there is rising amounts of padeophiles these days, and we should take all precautions necessary to protect our children, but, they should at least try a different method than arresting people on the spot for clicking it once. What happens if it was an accident? Friend types in 'Child Porn' for fun, and then he clicks it? Etc, etc.
Though, I don't blame the police for this. People who do this are sick, and only sick people would actually click on the link for starters.
That is all.
-
I actually heard recently that some UN watchdog organization has been pressing Japanese legislators hard to criminalize the production and possession of lolicon, so that may actually change very soon (probably not because it's japan)
You're talking about this (http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKT20430220080311), by the way. UNICEF urged Japan to ban virtual child porn, but that's not going to happen. Interestingly, the article states that "the figures are rising" in child pornography cases, but doesn't mention whether this is global or just locally in Japan. (Can't find anything on UNICEF's site either.) In any case, what they're going to do is ban real child pornography, and even for that there seems to be only marginal support from society.
-
complete and utter fucking opinion
How is saying child porn is wrong just a "complete and utter fucking opinion"? Like, its VERY DEBATABLE? I don't think so. I have explained precisely WHY its wrong in the post. Like why its legally, and technically, and morally wrong. If you still don't think its wrong, there is something wrong with you. :fogetbackflip:
And, I didn't know all child porn was legal in japan, I thought only drawn and other false child porn was. Thats pretty nasty.
-
I was agreeing in BravoSector that paedophilia in itself necessarily isn't evil or wrong, rather that acting out on it is.
Actually, I'm glad you brought this up because the word "pedophile" seems to have lost its meaning in this topic.
When used as a suffix, -philia is a pejorative that means someone who acts on their fixation or obsession. Someone who is attracted to children isn't wrong, but pedophiles are, with no exception, sexual predators. The biggest difference between making love to a child and an adult is that children have legal guardians. No sane guardian would consent to their 10 year old kid screwing some 30 year old man, so most pedophiles either trick the child to do depraved acts in secret and then threaten them with violence if they tell or they resort to greater felonies like kidnapping and brainwashing.
You cannot tell me this is healthy to a child. If you do, then I will instantly lose all respect for you. I can understand that Bravo and Inri are saying that people can't choose who they're attracted to, but there is no medical term (that I'm aware of) for someone who's just "attracted" by young humans. Regardless, when you say you support pedophiles it means you support actual sexual predators because that's what pedophilia is.
-
This is probably the best debate ever (I'm being totally serious here).
Stuff GW'ers Like #38: Having Pedophile Friends
-
Actually, I'm glad you brought this up because the word "pedophile" seems to have lost its meaning in this topic.
When used as a suffix, -philia is a pejorative that means someone who acts on their fixation or obsession. Someone who is attracted to children isn't wrong, but pedophiles are, with no exception, sexual predators. The biggest difference between making love to a child and an adult is that children have legal guardians. No sane guardian would consent to their 10 year old kid screwing some 30 year old man, so most pedophiles either trick the child to do depraved acts in secret and then threaten them with violence if they tell or they resort to greater felonies like kidnapping and brainwashing.
You cannot tell me this is healthy to a child. If you do, then I will instantly lose all respect for you. I can understand that Bravo and Inri are saying that people can't choose who they're attracted to, but there is no medical term (that I'm aware of) for someone who's just "attracted" by young humans. Regardless, when you say you support pedophiles it means you support actual sexual predators because that's what pedophilia is.
It's taken to mean someone who doesn't act on their fixation as well.
"The term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote an adult who is sexually attracted to young adolescents, especially younger than the local age of consent,[3] as well as those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse or child pornography-related offences."
-
Is there a staffer who posts the "hot topics" in the community blog? There really should be a "What's going on in GW: unhealthy obsessions and the support of sexual predators debate 2008 JOIN THE COMMUNITY LULZ!"
-
Just throwing this out there:
Everyone here is saying that the only way child porn is made is when the child gets abused/tricked etc, etc. but what about "self-made" child porn? What if two 15 year olds or something got together and taped themselves -- what happens then?
-
Everyone here is saying that the only way child porn is made is when the child gets abused/tricked etc, etc. but what about "self-made" child porn? What if two 15 year olds or something got together and taped themselves -- what happens then?
They could get arrested for creation and possession of child porn. The law, at least in the U.S., does not discriminate in that regard. The reason why this is illegal is because it would otherwise be possible for child porn producers to say "they made it themselves, so you can't blame me". It would be a major legal loophole.
-
Is there a staffer who posts the "hot topics" in the community blog? There really should be a "What's going on in GW: unhealthy obsessions and the support of sexual predators debate 2008 JOIN THE COMMUNITY LULZ!"
it will be as the worst topic so far!
ugh seriously.
also I am really confused as to why anyone is saying "they need some way to express themselves". no you don't. schizophrenics do not EXPRESS THEMSELVES. neither do people with multiple personalities. neither do those with depression. they need medication and treatment, not the possibility of normalizing their behavior.
Just throwing this out there:
Everyone here is saying that the only way child porn is made is when the child gets abused/tricked etc, etc. but what about "self-made" child porn? What if two 15 year olds or something got together and taped themselves -- what happens then?
this is far more rare than you might think. also regardless of what the pedophile excuses himself with, the fact remains that his or her porn tends to not be the "oh shit I thought they were 18" variety. you won't see a pedophile using that excuse.
all these hypotheticals fall flat when you realize no one's gone to court for having one video of a 16 year old having sex with an 18 year old. they go to jail because they have a LOT of videos, and the videos are clearly labeled as child pornography. I'm not going to apologize for pedophilia; it is a mental condition, but it's also unambiguously wrong by almost every relative scale that doesn't require a thought experiment that starts with IMAGINE THE WORLD HAD A BIG NUCLEAR WAR. we legislate pedophilia and people holding materials conducive to pedophilia for a variety of reasons, but the main reason is that no pedophile wants to stop at just videos or pictures. there is no such thing as a harmless pedophile. that puts it under the same label as homosexuality, where you can repress sexual activity, but mental illness means that they have no such thing as control over their illness.
if the pedophile is mentally ill (and if they really are a pedophile, they are), they will not exercise control over it for long. this is not a sexual FETISH. it is an ILLNESS.
-
this is not to imply that all pedophiles will rape or molest children; obviously, if they are treated, grounded, or otherwise incapacitated they won't.
but if the opportunity were to present itself, they would TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. this is how mental illness works. you don't control your fucking mind when it gets bonkers, are you kidding me?
-
there is no such thing as a harmless pedophile.
Every pedophile is harmless until that person becomes a sex offender. You say they all do at some point, but that's what you yourself personally believe. In reality, there is no scientific ground for such a statement and there are no studies that prove it either. (None actually try, since it's virtually impossible to prove.)
I know that this is a sensitive topic, but if you're going to engage in a meaningful discussion about it, you shouldn't present your own hypotheses as if they're fact. That's only going to make it harder to come up with a tangible solution to the problem.
-
The extent to which pedophilia occurs is not known with any certainty. Historically, sexual contacts between older pre-pubescents and adults were relatively common and accepted in many places, including the United States and England, where the legal age of consent typically ranged from seven to 12 years until the end of the 19th century.[30][31] Some studies have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with pre-pubescent youths.[32] Freund et al. (1972) remarked that "with males who have no deviant object preferences, clearly positive sexual reactions occur to [nude] 6- to 8-year old female children."[33]
In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21 percent acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; nine percent reported sexual fantasies involving children; five percent admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and seven percent conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment. The authors also noted that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, [one could] hypothesize that the actual rates ... were even higher.".[34]
A study by Hall et al. of Kent State University found that, of their sample of 80 adult male volunteers, 20 percent reported some attraction to prepubescent girls and 32.5 percent exhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli.[35]
Less research is available regarding pedophilia's occurrence in females.[36] In a 1996 study of a university sample, 2.6 percent of surveyed females self-reported at least some sexual interest in children.[37]
Jesus christ.
-
BravoSector is a pedophile.
:shady:
So let me get this straight:
a) you're defending people who attack young defenseless children and have sexual intercourse with them, forever scaring them and most likely destroying any chance they have of integrating back into society
b) you hate homosexuals, because any person who says what you just said can't honestly like them if you're saying pedophilia is anything close to homosexuality.
a) no i'm defending people who are attracted to children in so far as they DON'T rape them
b)where the fuck did you get this?
How is saying child porn is wrong just a "complete and utter fucking opinion"? Like, its VERY DEBATABLE? I don't think so. I have explained precisely WHY its wrong in the post. Like why its legally, and technically, and morally wrong. If you still don't think its wrong, there is something wrong with you. :fogetbackflip:
i don't remember exactly but i don't think that my original quote was in reference to child porn but lets say it was:
pictures of a 15 year old and pics of a 7 year old are made. assuming that neither was physically forced to have sex, are they equally bad or is the 7 yo's case worse? age of consent is completely subjective (unless its like a 7 year old). there might be someone who's 15 and is totally mentally able to have sex and there could be an 18 year old (by law: legally able to consent) who is unable to mentally comprehend sex or isn't mentally prepared to have sex. are you taking advantage of the 15 yo or 18 yo in this case?
now, 7 yo sex is another issue, like 100% of the time the kid will not be mentally prepared for sex.
something could be legally called child porn but it is NOT wrong imo if the child is prepared physically and mentally. so stfu!
And, I didn't know all child porn was legal in japan, I thought only drawn and other false child porn was. Thats pretty nasty.
wait what
Okay, Bravo, Inri, before you guys continue on defending pedophiles let me point out that children are not legally capable (by man's law) of consenting to sex and this applies to pretty much every country regardless of how much of a shit hole it is. Having physical intercourse with a human being before they're fully developed (I.E before puberty is finished) has been proven to be detrimental and hazardous to healthy growth.
HAVING SEX WITH KIDS IS LITERALLY HAZARDOUS TO THEIR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
Some countries have varying ages of consent like 13 or 14 which is the typical age that puberty (usually) finishes but because humans mature at such a stupidly varying rate, the United States says 16-18 depending on the state and even then if you're 19 or older you can't sex with a 16 year old.
These laws are put in place to stop predators and I've SEEN sexual predators and talked to them before and they're not very nice people to hold a sunday chat with. It is an unhealthy, mental obsession and cannot be compared to homosexuality because that's an actual physical attraction. Pedophilia is on the same level as OCD. There is no love for a child, it's an obsession, a want, a burning desire. Medicine still hasn't reached the point of completely eliminating mental quirks but HOLY FUCK what kind of society would we live in if we accepted people that chased after children? A pedophilic father would lust after his daughter... heck, even his son because pedophilia isn't gender specific.
My God I am losing faith in humanity. We should just lay back and accept everyone into society. Serial killers, arsonists, rapists; these guys have mental obsessions but fuck IT'S JUST LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY RIGHT WE CAN'T BLAME THEM FOR KILLER PSYCHOS!!"
wow nice post, makes me have to be a lot more specific with what i mean.
question which comes out of this is: is it really an obsession along the likes of 'omg i need my heroin fix and can't live without it!'
this is not to imply that all pedophiles will rape or molest children; obviously, if they are treated, grounded, or otherwise incapacitated they won't.
but if the opportunity were to present itself, they would TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. this is how mental illness works. you don't control your fucking mind when it gets bonkers, are you kidding me?
repeat the question: is it really an obsession along the likes of 'omg i need my heroin fix and can't live without it!' in your case though, I think you're spouting a lot of opinion though in addition to whatever evidence you might have....
-
The extent to which pedophilia occurs is not known with any certainty. Historically, sexual contacts between older pre-pubescents and adults were relatively common and accepted in many places, including the United States and England, where the legal age of consent typically ranged from seven to 12 years until the end of the 19th century.[30][31] Some studies have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with pre-pubescent youths.[32] Freund et al. (1972) remarked that "with males who have no deviant object preferences, clearly positive sexual reactions occur to [nude] 6- to 8-year old female children."[33]
In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21 percent acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; nine percent reported sexual fantasies involving children; five percent admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and seven percent conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment. The authors also noted that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, [one could] hypothesize that the actual rates ... were even higher.".[34]
A study by Hall et al. of Kent State University found that, of their sample of 80 adult male volunteers, 20 percent reported some attraction to prepubescent girls and 32.5 percent exhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli.[35]
Less research is available regarding pedophilia's occurrence in females.[36] In a 1996 study of a university sample, 2.6 percent of surveyed females self-reported at least some sexual interest in children.[37]
wow holy shit. its like its happening in our own backyards
-
ehuhuhu it is happening in my backyard :fogetshh:
-
Creepy fact I picked up from law class; the legal age of consent in Canada was 14. Upon investigation, I found out that it was just raised 16.
-
Every pedophile is harmless until that person becomes a sex offender. You say they all do at some point, but that's what you yourself personally believe. In reality, there is no scientific ground for such a statement and there are no studies that prove it either. (None actually try, since it's virtually impossible to prove.)
I know that this is a sensitive topic, but if you're going to engage in a meaningful discussion about it, you shouldn't present your own hypotheses as if they're fact. That's only going to make it harder to come up with a tangible solution to the problem.
asdffff dummy read what I wrote. every pedophile wants to molest children. I even said most can't because they are incapacitated but guess what if you are mentally ill you cannot control your mind. there is no such thing as a harmless pedophile because there is no such thing as an pedophile (meaning obviously someone not being treated) who doesn't want to have sex with children. you can't fucking harmlessly express that. are you kidding me? the reason they don't is because the opportunity never presents itself. this isn't a fucking opinion. do you know what mental illness is?
either pedophilia, or sexual attraction to young children, is not a mental illness and therefore the majority of pedophiles can lead normal lives and be alone with children and nothing will happen, or it is a mental illness and as such every warning sign needs to be monitored because while a schizophrenic acting on their voices can be harmless idiocy, a pedophile acting on their mental illness will almost certainly hurt a child.
repeat the question: is it really an obsession along the likes of 'omg i need my heroin fix and can't live without it!' in your case though, I think you're spouting a lot of opinion though in addition to whatever evidence you might have....
IT. IS. A. MENTAL. ILLNESS.
similar to how an untreated schizophrene may not WANT to listen to voices but invariably has to, a pedophile may not want to sexually assault children, but that is the sole qualification that makes him a pedophile.
pedophilia is not sexual fetishism. it is a mental illness. there is no level of control allowed in mental illness. every pedophile WANTS to act on their urges. this is why most governments monitor pedophiles and attempt to catch them, because they are clearly not undergoing treatment.
-
and no, masturbating to child pornography is not a way to sublimate the desire to have sexual intercourse with a child. even though it's not a fair dichotomy, just compare it to your own lives; do you jerk off and then say "WHEW...IF I GET OFFERED SEX TONIGHT I WILL TURN IT DOWN"?
more importantly with the mentally ill who do not enter "fugue" states, it is best not to encourage their behavior, because instead of viewing it as sublimation or like a nicotine patch, they view it as a right or a persecution complex. NAMBLA is a clear indicator of this.
(when a schizophrenic is in a state of hearing voices or someone with multiple personalities is listening to them, it's best to act like the delusion is real. no such state is apparent in the pedophile as far as I am aware).
the FBI is putting up these links because the people who will click on them are incredibly dangerous people almost 99.9% of the time. the fact that they have not acted on those desires does not indicate a level of control on their part, but a level of access; they simply have not had the ability to get a child alone in a room in safe circumstances where they know they won't get reported.
similar to how a schizophrene might build something before a grand action, the pedophile has to, in order to use a nauseating phrase, lay a trap for a child. the movie Happiness depicts this rather well, where the pedophile father places sleeping pills in a child's tuna sandwich and then molests him while he's asleep and is only found out when the child suffers rectal bleeding later. throughout the sequence the pedophile takes extreme cautions not to get caught, and only molests children that he can get alone or separate.
-
What are you trying to say Omega?
-
(http://i29.tinypic.com/11s1pi0.jpg)
I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline MSNBC. All of your IPs have been logged, you sick fucks.
the FBI is putting up these links because the people who will click on them are incredibly dangerous people almost 99.9% of the time
Heh. That's the fatal assumption -- that these people are 99.9% guilty. That's the sentiment that juries will take this stuff on, and regardless of whether or not the defense is innocent -- they will be prederminately guilty. This means that the state is now empowered to implant such information into suspects' computers and nab them -- even if they didn't go anyplace near the file. I don't defend the pedophile, but I would not condone these illicit governmental sanctions.
In practicality, clicking the link would establish absolute guilt. But whether or not the link was clicked can very well be arbitrary.
-
Heh. That's the fatal assumption -- that these people are 99.9% guilty. That's the sentiment that juries will take this stuff on, and regardless of whether or not the defense is innocent -- they will be prederminately guilty. This means that the state is now empowered to implant such information into suspects' computers and nab them -- even if they didn't go anyplace near the file. I don't defend the pedophile, but I would not condone these illicit governmental sanctions.
In practicality, clicking the link would establish absolute guilt. But whether or not the link was clicked can very well be arbitrary.
well the problem there is you won't really have a case. let's say you, today, click one of these links. FBI searches you. HOPEFULLY they don't find any evidence of pederasty. case dismissed.
that's what I mean by 99.9%, the remaining small percent will be people tricked into it somehow. I'm a law major (hey guys I got waitlisted at William and Mary, considering I have a shitty GPA and an arrest record that's not too bad!) so I know that guilt and innocence are spectrums in the court system, but just from what I know, I sincerely doubt the court systems are so corrupt as to establish guilt of a person. will someone innocent spend a few hours in jail until they are bailed out, yes. is that unfair, absolutely. will they be found guilty, almost certainly not. this is one of those cases where it's hard to have a spectrum of anything. you'd have the innocent guy and then you would have the pedophile with numerous files and conversations.
also I really doubt any old fuckarow will stumble on these links. people joked about 4chan but honestly if 4chan or some big group did spread the link, the cases would quickly be dropped because obviously they were spread around. the chances of a non-pedophile stumbling on one of these is fairly slim, barring incompetence on the parts of the people putting these links.
obviously they aren't telling us WHERE or HOW these links are being distributed, but I wouldn't leap to any conclusions about non-pedophiles accessing them. I for one have no idea how to get child porn or where to get linked it (maybe the NAMBLA website?) and most people are in the same situation.
-
I guess if they only post their bait inks in underground secret pedophile websites it might work but only if they don't tell they're going to do it to everyone. Oops they already did it. Mission failed.
-
i cant believe some of you are defending people who rape kids
-
Because nobody is defending people who rape kids.
-
Because nobody is defending people who rape kids.
Was this supposed to be sarcasm? I...
what?
What did you intend to say?
"Nobody is defending people who rape kids."
or
"Because we are defending people who rape kids here. [/sarcasm]"
I guess I'm confused because I was under the impression that you and Bravo were defending people with sexual attraction to children, not defending actual child rapists.
-
Nobody is defending them we are only saying that pedophilia is something you don't chose and as long as they don't act upon their desires pedophiles aren't really EVIL BEINGS WHO MUST BE EXTERMINATED.
-
Nobody is defending them we are only saying that pedophilia is something you don't chose and as long as they don't act upon their desires pedophiles aren't really EVIL BEINGS WHO MUST BE EXTERMINATED.
telling pedophiles to not act on their sexual desires is equivalent to the church telling gay people "IT'S OK TO BE GAY YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE GAY SEX."
(ie it's near impossible for someone to just NEVER HAVE SEX. this is especially true for pedophiles because most people regard pedophilia as a mental disorder and not a sexual preference.)
-
(ie it's near impossible for someone to just NEVER HAVE SEX. this is especially true for pedophiles because most people regard pedophilia as a mental disorder and not a sexual preference.)
No it's not. I never had it. So I think it's possible for a pedophile to never abuse children.
-
telling pedophiles to not act on their sexual desires is equivalent to the church telling gay people "IT'S OK TO BE GAY YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE GAY SEX."
(ie it's near impossible for someone to just NEVER HAVE SEX. this is especially true for pedophiles because most people regard pedophilia as a mental disorder and not a sexual preference.)
nah, it's a little stronger than that. since pedophilia is not a fetish, it is a direct biological misfire in the brain. there's a good chance that just by having a sexual attraction to children (once again, a mental illness!) you would not be able to distinguish right and wrong and whether or not you should molest kids.
I don't know where people got this idea of just these normal pedophiles from but the ones I've always heard of tend to look and act like...they are mentally ill.
-
I guess I'm confused because I was under the impression that you and Bravo were defending people with sexual attraction to children, not defending actual child rapists.
that's what i'm doing: defending people with the attraction. some of you are saying that having the fetish immediately makes that person evil and a menace to society. now, a rapist is a rapist is a criminal regardless of the age.
nah, it's a little stronger than that. since pedophilia is not a fetish, it is a direct biological misfire in the brain. there's a good chance that just by having a sexual attraction to children (once again, a mental illness!) you would not be able to distinguish right and wrong and whether or not you should molest kids.
I don't know where people got this idea of just these normal pedophiles from but the ones I've always heard of tend to look and act like...they are mentally ill.
stfu how do you know this! gimme proof and i'll get off your ass about this!
-
nah, it's a little stronger than that. since pedophilia is not a fetish, it is a direct biological misfire in the brain. there's a good chance that just by having a sexual attraction to children (once again, a mental illness!) you would not be able to distinguish right and wrong and whether or not you should molest kids.
I don't know where people got this idea of just these normal pedophiles from but the ones I've always heard of tend to look and act like...they are mentally ill.
Tell me - which definition of "Mental Illness" (at least those offered by the APA or the DSM) state that all mental illnesses include the loss of being able to tell right from wrong? Because the way you use that term sure makes me think you believe thats the case.
You're not a psychologist or a psychiatrist - I'm not either. Thankfully I have one sitting next to me... (Hooray for my interesting ex-girlfriend) I'm running what I'm posting past her so this post comes with some accreditation.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV) criteria for Pedophilia are:
1. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
2. Sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty OR the person has acted on these sexual urges.
3. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
There is no criteria that states people with sexual urges towards children HAVE TO, WILL or WANT to abuse a child to be diagnosed as a pedophile, nor does it mean that pedophiles have to, will or want to abuse a child.
It's people like YOU that cause non offending pedophiles (such as ones that are ashamed of their sexual desires or the ones that choose not to act on them due to legal common sense) to NOT seek help because it's people like you that alienate them as a group thats 99.9% dangerous.
Back on Focus:
This seems like federally sponsored entrapment to me... And to top it off, they are just links, not leading to any illegal material, so how can you punish someone for looking at CP when they actually didn't see any?! Thats like the government arresting me because I WANT to snort a line of coke off a hookers ass.
-
2. Sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty OR the person has acted on these sexual urges.
the point of this is the WANT TO ACT ON IT is causing the marked distress or interpersonal difficulty, not some just...weird side effect of being a pedophile. I said many pedophiles never DO ACT ON IT. you can't! kids are watched constantly! and then there is social pressure and feeling gross about it. but they want to. why is everyone so fucking stupid that they don't get the idea that by virtue of being a pedophile, you have feelings, unwanted or not, that make you want to molest children? that is what being a fucking pedophile is!
all pedophiles want to act on their urges otherwise they would not be pedophiles. they would instead, idk, want to wear a diaper or some shit. it's not a fucking fetish. the fact that it is in the DSM IV is indicative of this. there is no such thing as the pedophile sitting at home crying himself to sleep at night because he feels just awful constantly and this is all he ever does, he would NEVER EVER ACT ON IT, he's going to bootstrap himself through pedophilia just you wait!
all sexual attraction comes with a degree of wanting to have sex with the person in question. will you at least admit that small point?
and will you admit that when the sexual attraction comes from such a deviant source as CHILDREN, the person in question isn't just going to say "whew, glad I convinced myself not to be a pedophile there!" and do this everytime?
if so, will you give your child to a pedophile who swears they can control their urges? this isn't a strawman, you clearly believe that there are all these weepy ashamed pedos out there who just control themselves always and never at all act on the urge that, you know, makes them pedophiles. there's no way that they also might have problems recognizing control and social issues because of their mental illness. mental illness is always JUST ONE JUST ONE ONLY. pedophiles have just this perfect system of locks and balances that prevents them from molesting kids because it was just this one misfire, no waaaaay would they molest kids.
also you...did you seriously bring up another one of your fucking girlfriends. you are so goddam pathetic.
-
I'M STEEL I AM ANGRY AND UNREASONABLE WHEN I HAVE AN OPINION THAT IS CHALLENGED INSTEAD OF DICKSUCKED
edit : PS, BravoSector's posts were pretty terrible but man Steel you are ranting against other people's legitimate posts backed up with evidence just because you are worked up and ANGRY.
-
no! I'm not! he just quoted a part of the DSM IV that says pedophilia can be DIAGNOSED by symptoms such as distance from others and RAPING CHILDREN and is ignoring the fact that these two are very related. these people aren't seeking help because they just get boners, they are seeking help because they get boners and kind of want to do something about those boners, namely have sex.
how is no one getting this? can we at least agree that the qualification for being a pedo is sexual attraction towards children and that sexual attraction almost always comes with a desire to act on that urge? therefore can we agree there is no such thing as a safe pedophile? someone in treatment probably doesn't count (barring that they are just starting or whatever), but I think everyone is giving far too much credit to pedophiles not wanting to act on their urges ever.
and since pedophilia is so socially condemned (rightfully), it's not like they can seek a normal venue for these urges. the options are then to either resort to molestation or spend day in and day out resisting your sexuality, something very few (less than a percent) of people can successfully do. and since they can't BEAT PEDOPHILIA ALONE, they will either act on it or get progressively worse until they act on it or something terrible happens like they kill yourself! this second process is also the reason you will see pedophiles with additional mental problems, and there are very few "happy" pedos out there since they all suffer from some form of depression.
or obviously go screaming in terror and say DOCTOR DOCTOR I GOT A PROBLEM which more and more people do.
but this belief that I'M the reason pedos are all not seeking treatment is hilarious. it's NAMBLA and apologists that have made pedophilia okay!
-
edit : PS, BravoSector's posts were pretty terrible but man Steel you are ranting against other people's legitimate posts backed up with evidence just because you are worked up and ANGRY.
HEY WHAT F U!
-
how is no one getting this? can we at least agree that the qualification for being a pedo is sexual attraction towards children and that sexual attraction almost always comes with a desire to act on that urge? therefore can we agree there is no such thing as a safe pedophile? someone in treatment probably doesn't count (barring that they are just starting or whatever), but I think everyone is giving far too much credit to pedophiles not wanting to act on their urges ever.
Those are completely reasonable conclusions, but those aren't what you were saying! Or rather, that might have been what you were TRYING to indicate but your OVERLY ANGRY posting (or maybe it's just the formatting) made it hard to see those conclusions.
You made blanket statements that all pedophiles are unequivocally dangerous and harmful. To a great extent, many are! But you are acting like they should be treated as pre-emptively guilty for being child molesters just because they have a mental illness. It's no different from saying 'we should seek out all schizophrenics and lock them up for the sake of society'.
At this point I am just going to quote Dada:
Every pedophile is harmless until that person becomes a sex offender. You say they all do at some point, but that's what you yourself personally believe. In reality, there is no scientific ground for such a statement and there are no studies that prove it either. (None actually try, since it's virtually impossible to prove.)
I know that this is a sensitive topic, but if you're going to engage in a meaningful discussion about it, you shouldn't present your own hypotheses as if they're fact. That's only going to make it harder to come up with a tangible solution to the problem.
Unless you are defining pedophile as 'someone who is so mentally ill that they will molest a child immediately given the chance', which would be a mislabeling of the issue, you're being overly angry and accusatory. I have sexual attraction towards lots of guys but that doesn't mean I'm gonna rape them or have sex with them! Your posts seem to mix 'violent sex offender' with 'someone who has confused sexual issues'.
Also can we all at least agree BravoSector is a moron for defending child porn.
EDIT:
and since pedophilia is so socially condemned (rightfully), it's not like they can seek a normal venue for these urges. the options are then to either resort to molestation or spend day in and day out resisting your sexuality, something very few (less than a percent) of people can successfully do. and since they can't BEAT PEDOPHILIA ALONE, they will either act on it or get progressively worse until they act on it or something terrible happens like they kill yourself! this second process is also the reason you will see pedophiles with additional mental problems, and there are very few "happy" pedos out there since they all suffer from some form of depression.
or obviously go screaming in terror and say DOCTOR DOCTOR I GOT A PROBLEM which more and more people do.
but this belief that I'M the reason pedos are all not seeking treatment is hilarious. it's NAMBLA and apologists that have made pedophilia okay!
Yeah I agree with a lot of the things in this edit and it clears up a lot of stuff so okay.
also you are the reason children are raped steel
-
HEY WHAT F U!
well I mean you're the one asking for evidence that pedophilia means you're probably mentally ill and will want to have sex with kids, it's not exactly the soundest argument.
the crux of this whole argument is how the government can punish people who download child pornography. the point is that people who HAVE child pornography are the ones who click these links, not DS or...r...rami...
and then the belief that these people are just harmless and masturbating at home and that letting them have their porn collection won't lead to a public acceptance of pedophilia, a mental condition that, let's face it, ruins kids for life if acted on, is all kind of silly. you can argue it's entrapment (and I said as much earlier) but people who have child porn on their computers are almost always pedophiles and all pedophiles DO want to act on their urges. this is the crux of the law's reasoning.
You made blanket statements that all pedophiles are unequivocally dangerous and harmful. To a great extent, many are! But you are acting like they should be treated as pre-emptively guilty for being child molesters just because they have a mental illness. It's no different from saying 'we should seek out all schizophrenics and lock them up for the sake of society'.
schizophrenics who demonstrate traits of possibly harming others are often "locked up" or forced into treatment. since the nature of pedophilia means you must harm others, they are a far greater threat. I'm afraid that all pedophiles are dangerous. not all equally dangerous, but by the act of being a pedophile, they pose a danger. a schizophrenic can be harmless and just sit in his shack talking to no one. we meet harmless mentally ill people every day. but pedophilia is a mental illness dedicated to sexual urges towards the most helpless members of our society, children. this isn't just someone hearing voices, it's someone wanting to DO something to someone else.
unlike sexual attraction within two men or a man and woman, the pedophile has no successful outlet with dating or hookers or whatever. it's a stress situation and that only serves to make them more dangerous, not less. by nature of being a pedophile, they are dangerous to children. nothing short of psychiatric treatment will lessen this. you can have all the control in the world but it eventually wears down.
we get angry at people so we snap at our friends instead of killing the person in question. we get horny so we go on dates and try and get laid. the pedophile has no such outlet. the few that he does, like masturbation, quickly fall short (as any virgin in their 20s will tell you). and so the idea of a "harmless pedophile" is pretty much a myth!
-
also I would like to clarify that if you know me at all, I don't like condemning groups of people at all. pedophiles are sick and mentally ill. organizations such as NAMBLA disgust me and horrify me, but my heart does go out to anyone who is suffering with pedophilia.
but the legal reality is that pedophilia is not quite like other mental illnesses. by the nature of the illness, the sufferer poses a societal risk. there are no harmless pedophiles. this doesn't mean that every pedophile is dangerous (whoooooo logic arguments), it just means that every pedophile poses a risk that other mentally ill people and normal people don't. as a result anyone who is actively doing something pedophilic such as downloading child porn is also dangerous, and that's the point of laws like these and prosecuting people who hold child porn. pedophilia is dangerous by its nature. people commiting illegal actions and pursuing pedophilia are more dangerous.
-
actually I'm feeling really dreadful about all this so I'm probably done here TRIPLE POST but yeah I feel so awful condemning a group of people for being dangerous even if they are, because they can't help it. so I'm done but basically the point is that LEGALLY if nothing else there is no such thing as a safe untreated pedophile.
-
So if you look at the videos of the terrorists decapitating people, are you supporting terrorists?
this and most of the arguments at this were pretty awful, because in that hypothetical you are supporting terrorists (think why they decapitated them rather than shot them (it wasn't to kill them (but to TERRORISE))) and because pedophiles don't do it primarily for MONEY
this is like leaving a battery on the ground and following the people home to see if they have any portable electronics, or i guess following smoke to see if there's a fire
i am under the impression most people could become pedophiles just like most people could becomes gays because sexual contact tends to be pleasurable (measured by orgasm), that doesn't mean it's RIGHT. i'm sure you could enjoy KILLING people too (Vidcon sales, 2008) but that's wrong too no matter how much relativism your field has been sprayed with*. probably 'become' was the wrong word, maybe replace it with enjoy.
idk just because pizza is your favourite food doesn't mean you'd have to eat it ever but if someone was a pizza fiend even if they'd just eaten a lot of food i would not leave my pizza near them. i'm sure they could cure pizzaphilia. oysters or snails vs busted brains
also i think saying nambla is responsible for pedophilia is like saying the KKK is responsible for racism. both encourage crimes though i guess (classic KKK i don't know much about them)
*here i am calling relativism manure
-
all sexual attraction comes with a degree of wanting to have sex with the person in question. will you at least admit that small point?
No.
I know from personal experience (having sexual attraction towards certain males yet having no want or desire to have sex with those people [faust ][/faust]) that sexual attraction doesn't automatically come with the desire to ACT on sexual attraction.
Also, it's pretty common that sometime in your life you will be sexually aroused by something that you want nothing to do with, (same sex, fat people, a furry, trees, etc.) which kind of ruins your argument that all sexual attraction comes with the want to act on it.
and will you admit that when the sexual attraction comes from such a deviant source as CHILDREN, the person in question isn't just going to say "whew, glad I convinced myself not to be a pedophile there!" and do this everytime?
Given that just like any mental illness, there are varying degrees of a disorder - but for the most part, yes, I think for pedos (except for the most ill, who are usually the ones who do offend) a prison sentence spanning several decades is a pretty good reminder not to act on your desires.
Given that the (limited - I'm going out on the proverbial limb here) studies done have shown that in adult males, between 21 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2706562?dopt=Abstract) and 32 (http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html) percent showed some sexual attraction towards small children, and obviously nowhere near those percentages of men abuse children in the US, one could argue that plenty of people that are attracted to children sexually somhow ignore or resist the desire, or have the attraction but not the want that you say supposedly comes with it.
if so, will you give your child to a pedophile who swears they can control their urges?
Could you get any more cliche'? Obviously it would depend on the person, although I don't know what you mean by "give" my child... I'll just assume you mean place in their care, like a teacher or coach or something.
the options are then to either resort to molestation or spend day in and day out resisting your sexuality, something very few (less than a percent) of people can successfully do.
Huge Assumption. How do you know how many people can resist their sexuality? LETS SEE SOME SOURCES, BUCKAROO.
unlike sexual attraction within two men or a man and woman, the pedophile has no successful outlet with dating or hookers or whatever. it's a stress situation and that only serves to make them more dangerous, not less. by nature of being a pedophile, they are dangerous to children. nothing short of psychiatric treatment will lessen this. you can have all the control in the world but it eventually wears down.
Except for the fact that studies show that (http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8204/8204sa.pdf) only about 7% of pedophiles are "exclusive" pedos that are only attracted to children. (http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf) Some are attracted to adolescents (which in certain countries is legal) and in most cases, adults as well as children and subsequently have a more healthy outlet for sexual frustration.
but this belief that I'M the reason pedos are all not seeking treatment is hilarious. it's NAMBLA and apologists that have made pedophilia okay!
When people run their mouths and their torch and pitchfork attitudes, it further scares pedophiles who want treatment into divulging what must be their darkest secret to ANYONE, regardless of confidentiality laws or confessional canon. If an unfounded accusation of pedophilia can ruin someones life, how do you think people will treat someone that says "I HAVE SEXUAL FANTASIES ABOUT CHILDREN, BUT ITS OK, I'M GETTING TREATMENT!"
also you...did you seriously bring up another one of your fucking girlfriends. you are so goddam pathetic.
Coming from angry-because-people-disagree-with-all-knowing-steel, that doesn't really mean much. Sorry buddy. :shrug:
-
No.
I know from personal experience (having sexual attraction towards certain males yet having no want or desire to have sex with those people) that sexual attraction doesn't automatically come with the desire to ACT on sexual attraction.
Also, it's pretty common that sometime in your life you will be sexually aroused by something that you want nothing to do with, (same sex, fat people, a furry, trees, etc.) which kind of ruins your argument that all sexual attraction comes with the want to act on it.
no man thinking someone is attractive or sexually attractive is different to being sexually attracted to someone. by definition if you are sexually attracted to kids you want to have sex with them, and sexual arousal is different again (though it will probably lead to sexual attraction if you continue doing it or w/e)
please make sure you are supporting pedophiles (the people) and not pedophillia (what they do) because pedophillia is wrong hands down buddy! it is hard to support them though because i am pretty sure as a mental illness paraphillias involve a lot more choice and rationalisation than depression or schizophrenia. i'd say it's closer to substance abuse but i am going to read a book to see if things support this!
-
I know from personal experience (having sexual attraction towards certain males yet having no want or desire to have sex with those people) that sexual attraction doesn't automatically come with the desire to ACT on sexual attraction.
There is a *big* difference here.
In standard medical diagnosis booklets, pedophilia is a mental disorder, "if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
Homosexuality (or, the urges towards homosexuality), is *not* a mental disorder.
http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355
-
Yes, but not long ago Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder?
-
Dude if you're trying to form a connection between homosexuality and paedophllia then stop there.
-
please make sure you are supporting pedophiles (the people) and not pedophillia (what they do) because pedophillia is wrong hands down buddy! it is hard to support them though because i am pretty sure as a mental illness paraphillias involve a lot more choice and rationalisation than depression or schizophrenia. i'd say it's closer to substance abuse but i am going to read a book to see if things support this!
Don't get me wrong man, I would never, ever, support any sort of abuse or neglect involving anyone, especially a child. My point is that pedophiles aren't the 99.9% dangerous group of people Steel made them out to be in all his hysteria.
In standard medical diagnosis booklets, pedophilia is a mental disorder, "if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
Homosexuality (or, the urges towards homosexuality), is *not* a mental disorder.
And that point of mine had nothing to do with the particular brand of sexuality in question at all; only that not all sexual attraction "comes with a degree of wanting to have sex with that person"
Yes, but not long ago Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder?
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1972 - the team of psychologists and psychiatrists that publish that manual agreed that the impairment in a gay persons life came from the outside stigma that came with being gay, and not from being gay itself.
-
And that point of mine had nothing to do with the particular brand of sexuality in question at all; only that not all sexual attraction "comes with a degree of wanting to have sex with that person"
What you said has nothing to do with pedophilia, a mental disorder. That's great that you can't personally act out on your sexual fantasies of wanting other men, but I think it's safe to say someone not right in the mind probably would, only in this case, theirs is about children.
-
obviously they aren't telling us WHERE or HOW these links are being distributed, but I wouldn't leap to any conclusions about non-pedophiles accessing them. I for one have no idea how to get child porn or where to get linked it (maybe the NAMBLA website?)
I was interested in this as well, since I figured that if it's really so easy to find child porn online, it must be easy to take down the websites too. But it's not as easy as it seems. There are three major problems to this approach:
- Child porn websites are almost always part of the "dark web", and cannot be reached through normal or "legitimate" means (such as by using a search engine);
- Some websites are located in countries that refuse to take them down, which means that the only way to prevent access to them would be to censor them—an approach that has little support from society these days;
- Websites are only one of many ways of distributing content.
Since the people who own those websites don't want to be found by law enforcement, they make sure that only trusted individuals know the link. That way, it does not get linked to from any website that's part of the visible web, and thus does not get indexed in any search engine either. It's impossible to find unless you infiltrate the network that runs it.
And don't forget that there is P2P as well. Any somewhat active network, like Gnutella, ED2K or FastTrack, will allow you to search for and find child porn with relative ease. Doing so does mean you'll be logged by every computer that's connected to you at that time, but even then it's still very difficult get caught.
Let's say, hypothetically, that you're a law enforcement officer and you've just logged the IP of someone who downloaded a file which you know is child porn. What happens then? You'll first need to find out which address resides behind the IP, which means you need to get a court order to subpoena the IP's ISP to give you the required information. That means you'll need definite proof that what this person was downloading was illegal beyond doubt. The ISP might refuse to give you this information, and if it does, your search ends right there and then. If you do get the information, you'll need to actually have the person arrested and start the legal procedure. My guess is that even this is difficult, since it's not a good idea to sue people for such a serious offense without having rock solid proof. If the culprit chooses to fight back, he's got many good arguments to use in court, since studies show that it's usually not possible to be entirely sure about what a person was downloading and for what reason. He might not have had the full file, he might have searched for something "legal" and downloaded every single result, he might have seen a different file title altogether as files can have multiple (and subsequently inaccurate) names...
It's just very difficult, at this point, to do anything against people who want to download child porn. And the way I see it, this isn't going to change, as the Internet indiscriminately allows for this kind of freedom by design. It is literally impossible to block access to this kind of material with reasonable efficacy, period.
So, now you understand why I have no faith in trying to fight child porn via online measures. The way I see it, the best way to do something against it is through old-fashioned police work, which means infiltrating the networks of producers and distributors and finding out exactly who's connected to them.
EDIT: by the way I know you were talking about how it's difficult for people to accidentally stumble upon this material, and that's entirely true. My post isn't actually a response to your quote, but I just wanted to shed some light on how distribution via the Internet works and why it's so difficult to fight it.
-
Well I gotta say up here in Canada theres a good chance this system will be adopted eventually. Due to the police genuinely having a guilty until proven guilty mentallity gong down despite the fact that this is an innocent until proven guilty system.
One thing about the whole Pedophilia sexual frustration/urges thing Pidgeotto221, or steel, or whatever your called, is that your making it sound like all Pedophiles can be compared to Sex Addicts and Sex Maniacs. And yes your burn the witch mentality towards this is pretty bad.
I'd like to point out that Manitoba can pretty much be considered a haven for people with an attraction for children, and you know what? It's not the scenario you painted.
Also: http://pedophileophobia.com/statistics.htm And: http://pedophileophobia.com/what_is_a_pedophile.htm
-
-
I see, so you're suggesting we burn Manitoba to the ground to destroy such an infestation, I believe I can get behind that.