I will edit my post. (but you generally don't get browser hijacks unless you've gone to some sketchy sites in the first place)
Leaving Babble for awhile
Thu, 2009-04-02 00:38
#102
Thu, 2009-04-02 00:38
#103
This needs to be discussed?
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 00:45
#104
saga
Yes, I have no interest in your topic as it is offensive to me, but I really don't care if you have the discussion.
You are now saying that it would have ok to have a thread called "discussion of how to AVOID getting nailed for child abuse", and that would have been ok?
Yes or no?
saga quotes cueball ...
I don't give a fuck really.
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.
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
Thu, 2009-04-02 00:46
#105
Cueball
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 00:58
#106
saga
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.
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 01:01
#107
Cueball
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 01:08
#108
Cueball
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 01:16
#109
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 01:23
#110
Cueball
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 01:34
#111
So have a great week, month, etc. I'll come back when it is safe for me to do so.
Please do.
Thu, 2009-04-02 01:57
#112
saga
Actually, the Britney Spears song and video, as Cueball suggests, is a good example of how child porn is normalized and popularized in pop culture. Good point.
No joke. But this point is not just about "normalization" and "popularization", this is about actual child abuse that goes on the popular music industry, and the abuse begins with Britney at 15, lets not forget. She isn't just a model pretending to be 17, she is 17.
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 01:58
#113
Cueball
Uh, no. Its about having a 17 year old girl in a catholic school girls outfit singing "hit me one more time".
Thu, 2009-04-02 02:01
#114
saga
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.
Why would someone have tell their wife/friends/lover?
Just report it.
Those are real kids being abused.
Thu, 2009-04-02 02:12
#115
Cueball
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 02:13
#116
saga
Uh, no. Its about having a 17 year old girl in a catholic school girls outfit singing "hit me one more time".
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.
Thu, 2009-04-02 02:17
#117
Cueball
The law is this:
any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act
What do you supposed Speare's song writer meant when he wrote her the line: "Do me one more time."
Thu, 2009-04-02 02:21
#118
Cueball
How about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsdk7q08lIc
Thu, 2009-04-02 02:22
#119
M. Spector
You could also see it as coming under subsection (b) as an "audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years".
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:24
#120
saga
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.
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
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:28
#121
Cueball
Well that's great. Thanks for posting it. So I just post that Britney video there, and they will take care of it, right?
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:28
#122
saga
The law is this:
any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this ActWhat do you supposed Speare's song writer meant when he wrote her the line: "Do me one more time."
A 17 year old can be sexual if she chooses.
It's not porn.
This is the beginning of the argument ... "Well if she hadn't acted so sexy ... ".
That's what some pedophiles say about toddlers.
It's a non-starter, cueball. Give it up.
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:34
#123
Cueball
I disagree. I think that Britney was manipulated and abused by her manager and her label, and they coerced her into doing thing that she would likely have felt uncomfortable doing. They also offered her rewards and encouraged her to act provactively in front of the camera, and told her exactly what to sing, and hired a choreographer to tell her exactly how to act, and also a wardrobe artist to give her a sexually explicit wardrobe, possibly even threatening her with the loss of her "contract" if she did not behave as they asked. Recent events and her public behaviour are consistent with the behaviour of someone who has been abused
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:35
#124
saga
Well that's great. Thanks for posting it. So I just post that Britney video there, and they will take care of it, right?
It isn't porn.
So ... it's too much trouble for you to report all those images of children being sexually abused that fall on your hard drive by accident, placing you at risk of unjustified search, seizure and arrest ...
... but you'll report a non-porn Brittany Spears video?
I think you need to do a little work on your priorities.
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:46
#125
saga
I disagree. I think that Britney was manipulated and abused by her manager and her label, and they coerced her into doing thing that she would likely have felt uncomfortable doing. They also offered her rewards and encouraged her to act provactively in front of the camera, and told her exactly what to sing, and hired a choreographer to tell her exactly how to act, and also a wardrobe artist to give her a sexually explicit wardrobe, possibly even threatening her with the loss of her "contract" if she did not behave as they asked. Recent events and her public behaviour are consistent with the behaviour of someone who has been abused
HEY! You might be right!So you have a case for child abuse, but it's not porn. Most teenagers dance like that. So do preteens.
But ... Forget the children being sexually abused, eh?
It's much more important to report a sexy Brittany Spears video.
Ya, you go cueball!
Let me know how that works out, eh?
Then ... maybe go through your hardrive and report some of those too? Or no? Too much trouble?
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:52
#126
saga
all those images of children being sexually abused that fall on your hard drive by accident, placing you at risk of unjustified search, seizure and arrest ...
And as for your hidden personal insult ... "dickhead" is a pretty stupid thing to call a woman. Kinda loses its meaning!
Clearly your vocabulary is as limited as your ...
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:56
#127
Cueball
I am right. I know I am right.
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:57
#128
saga
I am right. I know I am right.
About what?
That Brittany was a victim of child abuse?
Likely. (Prove it)
That her video is "porn"?
No.
Thu, 2009-04-02 03:59
#129
Cueball
But billions of dollars made by the music and fashion industry have convinced you that child abuse is really something that only happens hidden away in some dark corner in some basement somewhere, while they have been indoctrinating you to think that Britany is just "dancing" because she "chose" to.
You're a laff.
Thu, 2009-04-02 04:00
#130
Cueball
Did you look at the sparkle motion video I posted?
Thu, 2009-04-02 04:01
#131
saga
But billions of dollars made by the music and fashion industry have convinced you that child abuse is really something that only happens hidden away in some dark corner in some basement somewhere, while they have been indoctrinating you to think that Britaney is just "dancing" because she "chose" to.
The discussion is about child sexual abuse and child porn.
Yes, I think Brittany likes dancing. Most teens do. Preteens too. It's not porn.
Well, I know you love to argue ad infinitum about useless things, and this is getting ridiculous, so just carry on without me, eh?
Thu, 2009-04-02 04:11
#132
Cueball
Filming teens saying and doing lewd things in order excite people sexually and sell it to them is porn. In the case of the Speares video, its "soft" porn, but it involves a minor, so it is child "soft" porn. It doesn't matter if you produce it in your basement, or if Warner does it on a soundstage.
Britany can dance and do whatever she pleases, but as soon as someone picked up a camera and "directed" her and put her on that sound stage, saying and doing lewd things and sold it they were making porn.
Thu, 2009-04-02 04:16
#133
saga
Ok, all rock and pop music videos are soft porn ... in your world. HOLY CRAP!! ... and you've got youtube links all over your computer! ... wait! ... I hear the sirens now! ... Yup! They're coming to get you cueball!
lmao
"Yup he's right over here, officer! Take him away! Please! "
rotflmao
Thu, 2009-04-02 04:21
#134
saga
Now you are getting it. They are having Britany make an adult style soft porn video. In other words engaging a minor in performing in a porn video.
"Take him away .... pleeeeeez officer!"
lol
Oh ya, and take his computer too. He thinks it's infected with child porn.
lmao
Thu, 2009-04-02 04:25
#135
Cueball
Now you are getting it. They are having Britany make an adult style soft porn video. In other words engaging a minor in performing in a porn video.
Thu, 2009-04-02 04:34
#136
Cueball
They enticed her with money fame and fortune, then made her do these lewd things in front of a camera, and threatened her with the loss of all that money fame and fortune, when she balked, and she performed willingly (?) and then when she grew up, and started to want to determine her own life, they broke her, since she was all used up as a child sex star and took away all her things, and her contract, embarassed her, and made her an object of fun in the media.
And the fans loved it. But as for the dirty old men in the sleezebag hotels yeah... the fans agree... hang the "perps".
Thu, 2009-04-02 04:34
#137
Long thread. Let's continue the discussion about what could improve babble here:
http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/babble-finished
And let's continue the discussion about child pornography laws and enforcement and potential for abuse of process here:
http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/ayad-mejid-terrorist-pedophile-or
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3