Elliot Rodger

@izzythepush,

Quote:

At the end of the day all your sympathy lies with the perpetrators of such foul crimes, there's absolutely none for the victims.

So the victims are help in some manner by locking up some fairly small percent of the viewers of their crimes at great cost to society?

Once more we are not talking about child rapists but the sick people who get off watching the rapists as they are not one and the same thing for the most part.

You can not even show that locking up such people for decades work better then your nation approach to the problem.

An I care not so must for the sick people who view such material but the awful waste of resources that results in no better and perhaps worst results then your nation laws had achieved.

Locking up a non-violence offenders that had not harm anyone directly for five years cost enough to send three or so young people through college for example.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I don't differentiate between the two, supply and demand. You're the one who cares about people committing disgusting crimes, and doesn't give a monkeys about the victims.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I don't differentiate between the two, supply and demand

Most child porn is neither sold or traded directly but came from p2p networks and torrent clients so there is little connection between the producers of this sick materials and the viewers of this sick materials. Supply and demands do not therefore function to any great degree.

If the Engineering professor had never look at child porn not one child that was harm would not have been harm.

If you are talking about the very small percent of producers/traders I have zero problems with spending all the resources needed to go after them and locking them up for forever and a day.

As I had repeatedly stated if a heavy handed law enforcement approach work then the US would have the lowest rate of child porn viewing of any Western nation.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I didn't really want to give you yet another opportunity to boast about your extensive knowledge of the child pornography industry. you're not impressing anybody.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So the victims are help in some manner by locking up some fairly small percent of the viewers of their crimes at great cost to society?

Ummmm.....

You're trying to present logic, facts and reason to a violent freak with a low IQ.

If izzythepush were physically in your presence, he'd be trying to assault you right now.

I guess I'm not complaining. Carry on if it entertains you. But I hope you don't have any illusions that your efforts will result in a productive conversation.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I didn't really want to give you yet another opportunity to boast about your extensive knowledge of the child pornography industry. you're not impressing anybody.

So there is something morally wrong with knowing/researching a subject before you expressed an opinion?

Only people such as yourself with a pure heart protected by ignorance have any business expressing an opinion on such subjects as CP trading and the laws?

Hell I hear that there is an opening for an advisor to the UK Prime Minister on internet filtering that you could apply for since Patrick Rock had been arrested for having child porn himself.

My bet is that Mr. Cameron would love having someone like you with almost zero knowledge of the internet and therefore can not get the poor man into trouble.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I didn't really want to give you yet another opportunity to boast about your extensive knowledge of the child pornography industry. you're not impressing anybody.

Oh I think he is impressing people--but not in the way he intends.

He's constantly defending pedophiles in one way or another, whether it's his denial that pedophiles use various lures to entice children to interact with them, or the fact that strangers, as well as people known to the child, can try to sexually abuse/groom/lure/abduct a child, or the fact that those who view child pornography can also be sexually abusing a child, or trading these materials with others, which most definitely contributes to the issue of supply and demand, and that the viewing of these materials violates the privacy of these children each time they are viewed.

Not only are his denials more extensive than any concern he ever shows for the welfare of children, and the need to protect them, his thinking is similar when it comes to the adult victims of rape--he spends considerably more time trying to diminish or deny that problem, or to find excuses for those who rape, or blaming the victims, than he ever has done acknowledging the impact of such crimes on victims, or the need to deter and prevent these crimes.

When someone is continually defending the perpetrators, viewing them, rather than their victims, with sympathy, and trying to protect these criminals and shield them from the legal consequences of their actions, with feeble, and inaccurate, excuses like just acquiring and viewing child pornography is a harmless act that doesn't contribute to greater demand for these materials, furthering the continuing abuse of children, or by dismissing most acts of rape as not "real rape" or "rape-rape", one has to wonder about the sort of person who takes these positions.

People draw their own conclusions about BillRM based on his own words and his views. Then he gets upset by the conclusions they draw.

He launches into discussions of child pornography whenever possible, with almost no provocation. You used the word pedophile, and he was out of the gate and running. Actually I thought you were referring to the saga of why he got kicked out of the park with his kittens, and the concerns of the adults in the park because he was enticing children to interact with a stranger. Instead, he took it as an excuse to, once again, discuss child pornography--even though he denies that viewers of such materials are actually pedophiles, which makes such a digression on his part even more curious.

When BillRM says this, regarding child pornography...

Quote:

So there is something morally wrong with knowing/researching a subject before you expressed an opinion?

Is that a confession on his part that he's acquired and viewed child pornography? Is that how he's "researched it" and "knows" it? That's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw from his statement. People will draw their own conclusions, and most might well find something morally distasteful if they think that's what he's done. The likelihood is, now that he's revealed something, he'll go on to deny it was anything that could reflect on him badly, just like the order of protection his wife got against him, because that's his pattern over and over again.

So he's impressing people all right, but not the way he might like. And I agree with you, we shouldn't give him the opportunity to keep doing that because it's only feeding him to produce more of it.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Someone who watches child pornography does s0o much harm to society,
and contributes to the destruction of young lives,
that a hundred lifetimes of good work can never make amends.

With all respect, I have some trouble figuring out the logic of that,
Izzy, insofar as the putative injuries are concerned.
I remember about 6O years ago, our business partner in some furniture stores
that we owned in Arizona showed us, in his home, some 3-D nude pictures that
he had taken of his daughters in the bath tub, and also straddling him in bed
(he was clothed, under the covers; thay were over the blankets, straddling him)
taken by their mother wherein their sexual organs were visible.
Thay were aged about 6 and 3, appeared smiling n happy.
Neither then nor since did thay complain about the pictures.
In my observation, thay did not suffer any harm, nor did Arizona
become any worse. Sincerely, I don t get the point.

In 2OO5, I was in the hospital; after surgery, I had a bad infection
for a while. While standing in my room as a nurse changed my bedding,
a great flash of light came from behind me. Turning, I saw a man
(looked alien) in a white lab coat holding a camera, who had apparently
taken a picture of my rear end, hanging out of the back of my hospital gown.
I deem him to be mentally sick, but harmless to me.
Tho quite surprized, I chose to ignore the matter. I suffered no ill effects.
If I had been a child at the time, I don t believe that any trouble
wud have befallen me, nor society. I did not feel anger nor malice
toward the mentally sick fotografer. He has enuf trouble in his head already.
I don t care whether he looks at that picture or if he throws it away.
Either way, I feel no effect.

Will u explain your reasoning
in regard to the severe injuries ?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

That's not the same thing David, neither scenario.

There are criminal gangs abusing children for profit, if nobody gave them any money they'd look elsewhere to make a profit.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I remember about 6O years ago, our business partner in some furniture stores
that we owned in Arizona showed us, in his home, some 3-D nude pictures that
he had taken of his daughters in the bath tub, and also straddling him in bed
(he was clothed, under the covers; thay were over the blankets, straddling him)
taken by their mother wherein their sexual organs were visible.
Thay were aged about 6 and 3, appeared smiling n happy.
Neither then nor since did thay complain about the pictures.
In my observation, thay did not suffer any harm, nor did Arizona
become any worse. Sincerely, I don t get the point.

I wouldn't consider pictures like that, that parents take of their own nude young children happily playing, to be child pornography. The children aren't deliberately shown in a way that's intended to be sexually provocative or exploitive, and they aren't shown sexually interacting with each other or an adult, or posed in any way for that purpose, they are just romping on a bed while nude. I've taken photos like that, and others took photos of me like that when I was very young too.They aren't offensive in the least, they don't highlight or focus on the genitalia, even though they might be visible, nor is that the sort of depiction of children that child pornography laws are intended to criminalize.

Child pornography is produced, and distributed, for much the same reasons as adult pornography--to provide sexual arousal and stimulation, and it's also used to provide stimulation while masturbating--it's the exploitation of children for sexual purposes.

When your business partner showed you those pictures, was it for the purpose of sexually exploiting his children, and having you sexually aroused by them? That's really what child pornography is about. Simple nudity does not equate with child pornography, especially not when it's simply a casual component in essentially private family photos .

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

There are criminal gangs abusing children for profit, if nobody gave them any money they'd look elsewhere to make a profit.

What profit???????????

Almost repeat almost no children porn are sold for $$$$$$.

Those found with hundreds/thousands of child porn material on their hard drives did not for the most part paid for any of it.

Now there are some trading in sex with minors in the third world [sex tourism] and even some going on in the first world in regard to older teens but not child porn pictures/ videos for the most part.

Paid for child porn is a very very small percent of the total "market" of child porn.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Even better: how are victims hurt by others looking at pics that the victims dont even know exist? Pics were the victims are not identified and when the guys getting off on the pics dont care who the victim is because all that matters to them is the act of victimization? From what I have read it seems that the majority of child porn pics are done with hidden cameras.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Almost no children porn are sold for $$$$$$.

Are you claiming it's all produced and given away free--as an act of charity?
That it's a non-profit industry? That it's harmless?

Quote:

The Crimes Against Children Research Center is an excellent resource on trends concerning the crime of child pornography. A recent report states that "child pornography is the visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct includes acts such as intercourse, bestiality and masturbation as well as lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area. Possession of child pornography is a felony under federal law and in every state. The federal statutes that criminalize child pornography possession define 'child' as age 17 or younger." A staggering statistic in this report stated that peer to peer (P2P) users (those who share images) were more likely to have images of very young children and violent images. Of P2P users arrested in 2009, 33 percent had photos of children age three or younger and 42 percent had images of children that showed sexual violence.

Child pornography is one of the fastest growing businesses online, with estimated annual revenue of $3 billion. According to the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection, child pornography is usually distributed two ways. It's either commercial child pornography that is distributed for profit, or non-commercial child pornography that is offered free or traded among offenders, like the P2P networks. ASACP estimates that the United States has the largest share of commercialized child pornography websites with close to 50 percent of the global volume. Websites that distribute commercial child pornography offer thousands of images and videos. Most children exploited are pre-adolescent. Some children appear to have been subjected to physical as well as sexual violence.

In December 2012, the United States Sentencing Commission issued a report to Congress regarding Federal Child Pornography Offenses. This report, a multi-year undertaking, examined many aspects of child pornography, ranging from trafficking of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor to possession; offender characteristics; to how offenders are prosecuted, sentenced, incarcerated and supervised once released. I will only give a few highlights here, as the entire report can be read here.

• All child pornography offenses, including possession are extremely serious because they result in perpetual harm to the child and validate and normalize the sexual exploitation of children.

• Child pornography victims are harmed initially during the production of the images and the perpetual nature of their distribution on the Internet causes significant additional harm to victims.

• Child pornography offenses are international crimes. The images are transmitted across the world to offenders who redistribute them. Once an image is on the Internet it's virtually impossible to eradicate all copies. The harm to victims is lifelong.

• The constant demand for new images of children by child porn "communities" further contribute to the production of new material and thus the sexual abuse of children.

• For some offenders, child pornography is a risk factor for other sex offending against minors.

• Approximately one in three offenders had engaged in one or more types of criminal sexually dangerous behavior predating their prosecutions for non-production offenses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-l-pulido-phd/child-pornography-basic-f_b_4094430.html

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye if any child porn pictures can be Id to a child then for the rest of his or her life the Federal government will notify him or her when the material is found on someone computer.

The idea that by doing so the victim can sued the person with his or her pictures.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Are you claiming it's all produced and given away free--as an act of charity?
That it's a non-profit industry

it is traded, like baseball cards used to be. Except you come away from the deal with two rather than one.

Quote:

That it's harmless?

Hard to say, but it could even be a collective benefit....if these guys are satisfied with their fantasy lives and see no reason to make a real victim then we are all better off.

Quote:

The constant demand for new images of children by child porn "communities" further contribute to the production of new material and thus the sexual abuse of children.

I dont know that this is true, there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of child porn pics in existence already, I dont know that if people had access to these that they would feel the need to make more. Maybe the reason they make more is because the ones that exist already are hard to get. Maybe we should have a free public offering online of child porn, maybe that would be the best thing we could do to keep more victims from being made.

Quote:

Child pornography victims are harmed initially during the production of the images and the perpetual nature of their distribution on the Internet causes significant additional harm to victims.

also not true, what make a pic child porn is that the government imagines that a perv would like it, the making of the pic is very often harmless.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Hawkeye if any child porn pictures can be Id to a child then for the rest of his or her life the Federal government will notify him or her when the material is found on someone computer.

The idea that by doing so the victim can sued the person with his or her pictures.

I am aware, and I am of the opinion that it is the government which is causing the victimization when this happens.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye all anyone need to do is boot up any of the common freeware p2p programs such as Ares and put in search terms like hot pre teens and you sadly will get a long long list of files names that claims they contain child porn.

Same thing for torrent search engines.

Note to Izzy and Firefly......No Izzy/firefly I never have downloaded any of those files so they all might contain only g rated disney movies but somehow I question that likelihood.

In any case, there is no big market for paid CP.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

All child pornography offenses, including possession are extremely serious because they result in perpetual harm to the child and validate and normalize the sexual exploitation of children.

we would need to delete most of the stories on literotica.com if the sex minders got their way and all erotic acts that they dont want to see normalized could not be promoted. This is such an obvious slippery slope as to invalidate the argument. And what of all the tumblr's I look at filed with pics of women being tied up and abused (consensually one must assume)?? they should not just go but should be illegal according to the new puritans I am sure.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Hard to say, but it could even be a collective benefit....if these guys are satisfied with their fantasy lives and see no reason to make a real victim then we are all better off...

That's the argument that's made for adult pornography, that the fantasy outlet may help to reduce crimes of sexual assault and rape.

However, that's not a successful argument to be similarly made in the case of child pornography, for several reasons, but, most importantly, because we do not want children exploited for sexual purposes, and we don't want children viewed as acceptable objects for sexual purposes and sexual use. We don't want to normalize the sexual use/abuse of child, in the same way we accept sexual behaviors between adults in adult pornography.

Quote:

• All child pornography offenses, including possession are extremely serious because they result in perpetual harm to the child and validate and normalize the sexual exploitation of children.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Hawkeye all anyone need to do is boot up any of the common freeware p2p programs such as Ares and put in search terms like hot pre teens and you sadly will get a long long list of files names that claims they contain child porn.

Why would anyone want to do that?

0 Replies

Quick Links

My Account

able2know