OmSigDAVID wrote:dyslexia wrote:one very sick puppy.
I guess that 's the best u can do; offer a veterinary diagnosis.
No, you're a sick piece of sh!t. The sooner someone uses one of those millions of US guns to put a bullet in your damaged brain, the better off the world will be.
dlowan wrote:I think you don't because it was not immediately apparent to you that jerking off to pictures of children being abused was wrong.
Am I correct to assume that you subscribe to the view that actions can be "just wrong" because they "just feel wrong"?
No matter how I feel about an action, if I can't see that it has harmful consequences, then I can't condemn it.
It wasn't immediately apparent to me that jerking off to pictures of children being abused ran the risk of giving financial incentives for people to keep abusing children (to make more child porn).
This had nothing to do with my supposed lack of empathy. It had to do with my ignorance about how people make money on the internet.
Quote:You needed goddess knows how many pages of persuasion, in order to "pretty much" make some concession....and yet you are still arguing the point, as far as I can see.
What point am I 'still' arguing? I thought I was arguing the point that I'm not a heartless bastard. This is a new point.
Quote:All that argument and drama is not necessary to someone with the tiniest amount of empathy for the victims.
The point is that my ignorance about the internet led me to believe that there were no victims of the crime of viewing child porn. I couldn't see a causal link between looking at child porn and somebody abusing a child. On my mistaken assumption that nobody profits when you look at images on a website, there were no victims for me to have the tiniest amount of empathy for. I had empathy for the victims of abuse, but I wasn't talking about abuse. I was talking about looking at photos of abuse; not taking photos of abuse. I thought that lookign was a victimless crime, and hence empathy for victims just didn't come into it.
Understood?
dlowan wrote:I think you don't because it was not immediately apparent to you that jerking off to pictures of children being abused was wrong.
Am I correct to assume that you subscribe to the view that actions can be "just wrong" because they "just feel wrong"?
No matter how I feel about an action, if I can't see that it has harmful consequences, then I can't condemn it.
It wasn't immediately apparent to me that jerking off to pictures of children being abused ran the risk of giving financial incentives for people to keep abusing children (to make more child porn).
This had nothing to do with my supposed lack of empathy. It had to do with my ignorance about how people make money on the internet.
Quote:You needed goddess knows how many pages of persuasion, in order to "pretty much" make some concession....and yet you are still arguing the point, as far as I can see.
What point am I 'still' arguing? I thought I was arguing the point that I'm not a heartless bastard. This is a new point.
Quote:All that argument and drama is not necessary to someone with the tiniest amount of empathy for the victims.
The point is that my ignorance about the internet led me to believe that there were no victims of the crime of viewing child porn. I couldn't see a causal link between looking at child porn and somebody abusing a child. On my mistaken assumption that nobody profits when you look at images on a website, there were no victims for me to have the tiniest amount of empathy for. I had empathy for the victims of abuse, but I wasn't talking about abuse. I was talking about looking at photos of abuse; not taking photos of abuse. I thought that lookign was a victimless crime, and hence empathy for victims just didn't come into it.
Understood?
No...I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that actions can be wrong because they just feel wrong...
And you are cementing my views about your lack of empathy as I speak.
Where empathy ought to have stopped your ridiculous arguments
in their tracks was at the level of how victims feel at knowing people
are jerking off to their abuse.
Wilso wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:dyslexia wrote:one very sick puppy.
I guess that 's the best u can do; offer a veterinary diagnosis.
No, you're a sick piece of sh!t. The sooner someone uses one of those millions of US guns to put a bullet in your damaged brain, the better off the world will be.
I find it very interesting that the standard a2k response when somebody makes a good argument for a position that is morally troubling is to wish the messenger dead, or silence. Where is the atta-boy for making a good point, for directing us all to an area of interest that DEMANDS debate, for providing a juicy bit for our minds to chew on?? Where are the arguments to refute the ones that cause discomfort? Why the dishonest response of attacking the one who speaks truth rather than admitting to all the the truth is uncomfortable?
Here is to hoping that we can all do better in the future.
A lot of really good stuff.
dlowan wrote:
agrote wrote:dlowan wrote:I think you don't because it was not immediately apparent to you that jerking off to pictures of children being abused was wrong.
Am I correct to assume that you subscribe to the view that actions can be "just wrong" because they "just feel wrong"?
No matter how I feel about an action, if I can't see that it has harmful consequences, then I can't condemn it.
It wasn't immediately apparent to me that jerking off to pictures of children being abused ran the risk of giving financial incentives for people to keep abusing children (to make more child porn).
This had nothing to do with my supposed lack of empathy. It had to do with my ignorance about how people make money on the internet.
Quote:You needed goddess knows how many pages of persuasion, in order to "pretty much" make some concession....and yet you are still arguing the point, as far as I can see.
What point am I 'still' arguing? I thought I was arguing the point that I'm not a heartless bastard. This is a new point.
Quote:All that argument and drama is not necessary to someone with the tiniest amount of empathy for the victims.
The point is that my ignorance about the internet led me to believe that there were no victims of the crime of viewing child porn. I couldn't see a causal link between looking at child porn and somebody abusing a child. On my mistaken assumption that nobody profits when you look at images on a website, there were no victims for me to have the tiniest amount of empathy for. I had empathy for the victims of abuse, but I wasn't talking about abuse. I was talking about looking at photos of abuse; not taking photos of abuse. I thought that lookign was a victimless crime, and hence empathy for victims just didn't come into it.
Understood?
Quote:
No...I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that actions can be wrong because they just feel wrong...
Quote:And you are cementing my views about your lack of empathy as I speak.
From David (in blue font):
It looks like u believe that the EMOTIONS
of another person r your business, that he is accountable for them.
I wonder where u got THAT idea ?
Quote:
Where empathy ought to have stopped your ridiculous arguments
in their tracks was at the level of how victims feel at knowing people
are jerking off to their abuse.
From David (in blue font):
I posted yesterday of my remembering overhearing around 15 years ago,
a group of boys on a train who looked around maybe 12 years old
discussing their business of selling such photografy that thay took
of themselves; laffing about not paying taxes on it.
Tho I cud not read their minds,
thay did not appear distressed about being ABUSED by their enterprize.
U think Marilyn Monroe felt ABUSED after her appearance in Playboy ?
Maybe she shuda sued Hef ? U think ?
P.S.: U can t disprove nor discredit anyone 's arguments
by just calling them ridiculous.
That does not count.
Any person can call any of your arguments "ridiculous" no matter how good thay may be.
David
I posted yesterday of my remembering overhearing around 15 years ago,
a group of boys on a train who looked around maybe 12 years old
discussing their business of selling such photografy that thay took
of themselves; laffing about not paying taxes on it.
OmSigDAVID wrote:I will not be deflected therefrom by ad hominem insults.
Not ad hominem. I'm not addressing your views about child porn. I am pursuing the tangential line of argument that you have an incredibly annoying way of writing, and I therefore have good reason to disassociate myself from you. My 'insults' support my claim that you have an annoying way of writing.
for some strange reason
i always saw you as a defender of children's human rights David,
but i was wrong.
You are a disgusting piece of ****,
no doubt in my mind
If you can't see the wrong in child pornography,
it is no one else' s fault or problem - and up to no one else
to have to deal with whatever it is that has cost you your empathy
and compassion.
MY CONCEPT C:
No one here has to explain their human instinct to protect children
No one here has to explain why the exploitation and sexulisation
of the child image is a direct attack on ALL children
If you condone the abuse of children then you are a nonce
And that goes for anyone else out there who lacks the moral fibre
to do the right thing by young people.
There are no exceptions.
It IS about putting children before adults. For all our sakes.
Quote:I posted yesterday of my remembering overhearing around 15 years ago,
a group of boys on a train who looked around maybe 12 years old
discussing their business of selling such photografy that thay took
of themselves; laffing about not paying taxes on it.
Oh believe me, we all saw that idiotic post.
I'm sure they were all boy scouts and you threw a pocketful of change
onto the floor so they could joyously scramble around at your generosity.
<snork>
OmSigDAVID wrote:dlowan wrote:
agrote wrote:dlowan wrote:I think you don't because it was not immediately apparent to you that jerking off to pictures of children being abused was wrong.
Am I correct to assume that you subscribe to the view that actions can be "just wrong" because they "just feel wrong"?
No matter how I feel about an action, if I can't see that it has harmful consequences, then I can't condemn it.
It wasn't immediately apparent to me that jerking off to pictures of children being abused ran the risk of giving financial incentives for people to keep abusing children (to make more child porn).
This had nothing to do with my supposed lack of empathy. It had to do with my ignorance about how people make money on the internet.
Quote:You needed goddess knows how many pages of persuasion, in order to "pretty much" make some concession....and yet you are still arguing the point, as far as I can see.
What point am I 'still' arguing? I thought I was arguing the point that I'm not a heartless bastard. This is a new point.
Quote:All that argument and drama is not necessary to someone with the tiniest amount of empathy for the victims.
The point is that my ignorance about the internet led me to believe that there were no victims of the crime of viewing child porn. I couldn't see a causal link between looking at child porn and somebody abusing a child. On my mistaken assumption that nobody profits when you look at images on a website, there were no victims for me to have the tiniest amount of empathy for. I had empathy for the victims of abuse, but I wasn't talking about abuse. I was talking about looking at photos of abuse; not taking photos of abuse. I thought that lookign was a victimless crime, and hence empathy for victims just didn't come into it.
Understood?
Quote:
No...I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that actions can be wrong because they just feel wrong...
Quote:And you are cementing my views about your lack of empathy as I speak.
From David (in blue font):
It looks like u believe that the EMOTIONS
of another person r your business, that he is accountable for them.
I wonder where u got THAT idea ?
Quote:
Where empathy ought to have stopped your ridiculous arguments
in their tracks was at the level of how victims feel at knowing people
are jerking off to their abuse.
From David (in blue font):
I posted yesterday of my remembering overhearing around 15 years ago,
a group of boys on a train who looked around maybe 12 years old
discussing their business of selling such photografy that thay took
of themselves; laffing about not paying taxes on it.
Tho I cud not read their minds,
thay did not appear distressed about being ABUSED by their enterprize.
U think Marilyn Monroe felt ABUSED after her appearance in Playboy ?
Maybe she shuda sued Hef ? U think ?
P.S.: U can t disprove nor discredit anyone 's arguments
by just calling them ridiculous.
That does not count.
Any person can call any of your arguments "ridiculous" no matter how good thay may be.
David
Oh David.... you occupy some weird ground beyond ridiculous.
All we can do is look at you and pity.
Stay away from my daughter you demented f@ck.
agrote wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:I will not be deflected therefrom by ad hominem insults.
Not ad hominem. I'm not addressing your views about child porn. I am pursuing the tangential line of argument that you have an incredibly annoying way of writing, and I therefore have good reason to disassociate myself from you. My 'insults' support my claim that you have an annoying way of writing.
Even the sickos that hold similar views on child pornography can't get along. It seems to reflect on their argumentative nature regardless of the subject.
hawkeye10 wrote:Wilso wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:dyslexia wrote:one very sick puppy.
I guess that 's the best u can do; offer a veterinary diagnosis.
No, you're a sick piece of sh!t. The sooner someone uses one of those millions of US guns to put a bullet in your damaged brain, the better off the world will be.
I find it very interesting that the standard a2k response when somebody makes a good argument for a position that is morally troubling is to wish the messenger dead, or silence. Where is the atta-boy for making a good point, for directing us all to an area of interest that DEMANDS debate, for providing a juicy bit for our minds to chew on?? Where are the arguments to refute the ones that cause discomfort? Why the dishonest response of attacking the one who speaks truth rather than admitting to all the the truth is uncomfortable?
Here is to hoping that we can all do better in the future.
I haven't seen a good argument for their position. There is NO good argument for their position. Endy is completely correct. OmSig is a dangerous psychopath. He needs to be either put down, or put away.
agrote wrote:dlowan wrote:I think you don't because it was not immediately apparent to you that jerking off to pictures of children being abused was wrong.
Am I correct to assume that you subscribe to the view that actions can be "just wrong" because they "just feel wrong"?
No matter how I feel about an action, if I can't see that it has harmful consequences, then I can't condemn it.
It wasn't immediately apparent to me that jerking off to pictures of children being abused ran the risk of giving financial incentives for people to keep abusing children (to make more child porn).
This had nothing to do with my supposed lack of empathy. It had to do with my ignorance about how people make money on the internet.
Quote:You needed goddess knows how many pages of persuasion, in order to "pretty much" make some concession....and yet you are still arguing the point, as far as I can see.
What point am I 'still' arguing? I thought I was arguing the point that I'm not a heartless bastard. This is a new point.
Quote:All that argument and drama is not necessary to someone with the tiniest amount of empathy for the victims.
The point is that my ignorance about the internet led me to believe that there were no victims of the crime of viewing child porn. I couldn't see a causal link between looking at child porn and somebody abusing a child. On my mistaken assumption that nobody profits when you look at images on a website, there were no victims for me to have the tiniest amount of empathy for. I had empathy for the victims of abuse, but I wasn't talking about abuse. I was talking about looking at photos of abuse; not taking photos of abuse. I thought that lookign was a victimless crime, and hence empathy for victims just didn't come into it.
Understood?
No...I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that actions can be wrong because they just feel wrong...
And you are cementing my views about your lack of empathy as I speak.
Where empathy ought to have stopped your ridiculous arguments in their tracks was at the level of how victims feel at knowing people are jerking off to their abuse.
Wilso wrote:Stay away from my daughter you demented f@ck.
Be damned.
Henceforward, I will no longer read anything u post.
David
Child-Porn Victim Brings Her Story to Washington
Teen Shares Her Horrific Experiences at Congressional Hearing Targeting Online Porn
Aug. 31, 2006
There are approximately 3 million images of child pornography on the Internet.
As large as that number may seem, it can be a sad, abstract and faceless statistic.
In May, Masha Allen, a Russian-born 13-year-old, put a face on child pornography and its victims when she testified before Congress.
She revealed the horrific pain behind those numbers in written testimony that described her experiences as a victim of online child molestation and pornography.
Masha thought she was heading for a better life in America when she was adopted in 1998 by Matthew Mancuso, who brought the 8-year-old to his home in Pittsburgh.
Instead, she became a victim of child pornography as Mancuso adopted her with the purpose of molesting her and using her to produce pornographic photos, which he would then share with others.
She appeared in more than 200 explicit photos that circulated on the Internet.
Masha's image caught the attention of authorities, who ultimately tracked her down and arrested Mancuso, removing her from his custody.
He was convicted in 2003 of distributing child pornography online and received a 35-year prison sentence on federal pornography charges, while facing additional charges.
The Horror Continues
Masha is now safe and with a new family. Mancuso is in prison.
She told Congress' Energy and Commerce Committee at its fourth such hearing this year that her horror hadn't ended.
"Because Matthew put my pictures on the Internet, the abuse is still going on," she said to legislators. "You have to do something about the Internet," she wrote. "Matthew found the adoption agency on the Internet. They let him look at my pictures from Russia on the Internet even though they didn't really know anything about him."
"Matthew put my pictures on the Internet after he got me. People are still downloading them even though he has been in prison for two years," Masha said.
Masha first told her story to "Primetime" in an effort to help other victims.
She thanked correspondent John Quinones twice in her written testimony to Congress for helping to bring her story "to the whole world."
In her "Primetime" interview, she told ABC News she felt Mancuso "stole" her childhood.
"He took away five years of my life that I could never get back," Masha said.
She also urged other victims to seek help.
"Even if they are afraid to tell somebody, no matter what they think is going to happen, it's going to be for the better," she said. "If they tell somebody, it's going to change."
Quote:MY CONCEPT C:
If, as the kids on the train that I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion,
children choose to raise funds for their delights
by going into the photografy business selling sexual images of themselves
or of one another, thay r perfectly within their natural right to freedom of contract.
Will someone explain exactly HOW
a kid is "ABUSED" if he or she takes sexual pictures
of himself or herself and sells them for profit ??
Will her hair fall out ? Will he get a broken bone ?
WHAT WILL HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF THIS ABUSE ??
