babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
saga quotes cueball ...
I don't give a fuck really.It was your dismissive tone and your selection of an insignificant, and imo, inaccurate detail seemingly just to try to invalidate remind's source.
Charles Bukowski of course.
Teletubbies. And then I got upset.
Fat chance. Saga ducks a straight question based on an exact quote of her words. Nothing more. But you are right to evade this question because I am directly calling you out on your smear, and your bullshit cover up of your smears.
This wouldn't cover such things that "advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years". I think this is an important clause.
But
is an interesting question, and we touched on this in a much older thread which I don't think I can find now. Current laws I guess do criminalize such depictions, but should they? I don't know. This would be an interesting question for further discussion, as we never got there before.
I am not even sure how the first relates. But the second might be pondered in the light of such a thing as murder. Does the depiction of murder in art constitute muder, is Picasso's Guernica a "war crime", in and of itself? Writing something like "Crime and Punishment" punishable as murder because Dostoyevsky writes from the perspective of the criminal?
Lets get real here folks.
We have launched ourselves into an Orwellian world of thought crime, as soon as you start proscribing what it is that people may think about, write about or draw, outside of the actions that they do that are harmful to others.
This needs to be discussed?
I guess I should have been spending more time on these "moral" isssues threads, because I have only recently become aware how far off from principled morality a good deal of the population of this web site has strayed.
Babble = ethics fail.
Now you're creeping me out.
Exactly Saga. Your entire thing is about you being "creeped out". It's got nothing to do with actual harm done to actual people or children. You are creeping me out. It is you who wants to punish people for having weird thoughts. It speaks of a kind of Christo-moralist fascist sadism that you embody.
There is nothing objective about what you are talking about. Its all just your own personal "issues", nothing to do with child abuse, whatsoever.
Well, if you'd rather discuss how one accidentally finds oneself looking at child porn, go right ahead. I find the other question more interesting, given that it is probably a widespread private reality that is in direct violation of current child pornography laws.
How do you know this, dude?
Shoes on the other foot now, eh? Regardless, as I said, and explained in the previous thread where this came up, when you go to a public internet space, which I sometimes do, the previous user may have downloaded a trojan onto your maching that automatically hijacks the browser. These are very hard to get rid of.
I also worked in an entirely legal capacity doing sales for an entirely legal internet porn company, so I also have the inside edge on knowing how this works. What is your excuse?
This team later went on to do various work for other "legitimate" businesses, such as mainstream music web broadcasting, and some very rich people doing some other very legitimate consumer rip offs, since of course, the people who did the porn thing had all the scams right down. My NDA says I can't really say more.
I am suprised you don't know this, since you apparently know all about sketchy sites.
You're a big boy, cueball. I fully trust your ability to come up with an appropriately titled thread. That one sounds good, if you like it.
I'd be flattered by your interest in my opinion ... but ... it turns out to be just a ruse ...
yawn
Don't you think that having "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", would be unlawful and also contributing to child abuse? I thought you were opposed to child abuse. You have been going on about it for days. But now you are advising me to start a thread about "avoiding getting nailed for child abuse", and suggesting that such should be allowed on this web site.
Why don't you send me your name and address in a PM so that I can forward it to the proper authorities, so that I can tell them you have been running around the interweb suggesting that people start discussions about how to avoid legitimate prosecutions, and thus aiding and abetting abusers?
I have never started any such threads or engaged in any such discussion. I did start a discussion about the overeach of police powers and the possibilities and impacts of wrongful prosecutions upon innocent parties, and so on and so forth.
Your personalized comments are totally inappropriate.
Most people are creeped out by people who defend consumers of child porn, as you just did.I believe it was pointed out that pictures are is illegal.
There is nothing 'harmless' about sexualizing children for sexual pleasure, whether drawings or just fantasies. It's sick.
Given that your continuing concern is the possibility of being inappropriately targeted for child porn, you might want to consider that this discussion could fall into the wrong hands.
It may be sick, but it is not in my view criminal to have weird thoughts. I am allowed to have differences with the law and how it is applied, am I not? If capital punishment were allowed, would I be able to say that I opposed it?
I am not in the slightest bit worried about this discussion at all, and what I have said here. In fact, were it to happen that the state had a problem with what I have said here, I would say that it was proof positive that my concern was legitimate. I am personally opposed to the state making peoples thoughts, however sick, a crime, however expressed, unless such expressions directly harm others.
Apropos to that you should read the post immediatly above the one you just posted.
Anyone who has looked at any commercial porn sites has encountered the pop ups and the browser hijinx. This isn't underworld information nor do I need some "excuse" for having encountered these. Just FYI.
Of course not. Most men who are internet capable have looked at porn. If only for curiosities sake. There is nothing illegal about it. Nor do I think there is anything immoral about it, though I would say there are very serious problems with the economic system that produces it.
In fact I think the moral stigma attached to it probably makes prosecution of people who produce child abuse porn more difficult, since most men don't even want their wives, friends, or lovers knowing about it, because even if someone were to accidentally discover such a site, or have it imposed on them, they would likely do everything they could to hide the fact that they were looking at web-porn in the first place. That in itself puts the likelyhood that they would, of all things, call the police and report such to the authorities very small.
Please do.
I've been pondering these posts. I agree, cueball, about the child abuse in the music industry, and I also think Brittany is a victim of that.
In another sense, though, jas is skirting awfully close to a very significant dividing line, calling it "porn" ...
... a teenager can't sing and dance because somebody might see it as porn?
That's just a different version of ... 'women cannot wear sexy clothes because someperv might rape them'.
I just wanted to point that out.
Why would someone have tell their wife/friends/lover?
Just report it.
Those are real kids being abused.
Well you see, you would be interviewed by the police. And they would no doubt want to know all kinds of things. Hey they might even want to take your computer in for a forensic analysis. In fact, I would say they would need to take your computer in for a forensic analysis since they would need to track your browser history, and try and trace the site through the various masks that are created. Its not just as simple as saying, I happened upon this or that web site, at this or that URL.
They would have to track the whole process. Its not as if you are saying, I met this man who tried to sell me a dirty book.
You would then likely be asked to testify, and so on. I don't see how you would avoid people finding out. They might even think you are a suspect who has turned out of some moral concerns, for example. Most people don't even want to talk to the police at all anyway.
Have you ever called the police to report what you thought might be a crime?
Who knows. Moral prohibition certainly does not encourage reporting, I am sure.
It's a fine line here, I'll grant you that, given that she is underage and under control of adults, possibly 'forced'.
However, a teenager singing and dancing while dressed is not porn.
To call it "porn" demeans her.
She's just a teenager singing and dancing.
The law is this:
What do you supposed Speare's song writer meant when he wrote her the line: "Do me one more time."
These are real kids being sexually abused.
Apparently 35,000 Canadians don't think it is too much trouble to report it.
Cybertip.ca, which is operated by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, has received more than 35,000 reports from Canadians. Data collected by Cybertip.ca reveals that almost 70% of the confirmed child pornography images involve children less than 8 years of age, and 30% of those capture sexual assaults against the child victim.Online reporting ...
https://www.cybertip.ca/app/en/report