Pedophile Piggy

[Stonehenge]

Well, tobydoo, at least you are not in favor of locking up or executing those who only think about it. That is far more lenient than I believe most of the others are. Be careful or you will be seen as soft on kiddie porn.

The rest are the usual foaming at the mouth knee jerk types. Xipe thinks that if there is no porn that the pervs will simply go away. Yeah sure, no doubt. That worked perfectly when they banned gay porn, didn't it? Oh wait, that didn't work at all. Centuries of not just jail but executions had no effect on homosexuality at all. Do you know where the term "faggot" came from? It referred originally to a stick of wood. Saying "I'm going out to gather faggots" was not a cause for concern back in the old days. They used the faggots to burn homosexuals for their behavior. Later, the term faggot meant any gay person.

No one seems to see any difference between looking at nasty photos and harming actual children. Xipe and toby seem to think it's equally harmful. What about computer generated photos? No one will touch that question though xipe took a feeble stab at one or two others. Even he or she is too shy to talk about that. How many children are harmed by drawings or fake photos? How does looking at something harm actual children.

Yes, I know that if it's a real photo, then real children are harmed. I'm in favor of punishing those who harm actual children as opposed to computer generated images. But, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference. There is no difference in punishment mandated for looking at something or being the one who created the garbage. I'm the only one who thinks that's odd. Looking at a photo, drawing or image is exactly the same as raping a child. Yeah right.

Lets look at it from the other point of view. If you are a deviant and are denied porn, you might as well go out and diddle a real child. The punishment is the same so what's the difference? Might as well look for the real thing. jono is worried about what someone is jacking off to. I'm worried about actual children being harmed. Denying porn to pervs is forcing them out on the streets. You self righteous lot are responsible for more children being harmed, not less. I hope you are happy with yourselves.

[XipeTotec]

There is no difference in punishment mandated for looking at something or being the one who created the garbage. I'm the only one who thinks that's odd.

well, there is actually

jono is worried about what someone is jacking off to. I'm worried about actual children being harmed. Denying porn to pervs is forcing them out on the streets. You self righteous lot are responsible for more children being harmed, not less.

children are being harmed in the production of these images, which are apparently, "the only tool available to prevent kids being molested"

stonehenge... u r a real piece of work. If you want people to say looking at pictures is not as bad as making them.... then fine, it is not, they are not physically molesting them, so there is a clear difference. If you are wanting people to say it is not a harmful, or even that it is a beneficial activity.... then, they are not going to, ever. There is a number of reasons why it is wrong, including the fact that they are happy to watch children being abused; and that by knowing that the images have been produced, and not reporting them, they are most likely promoting further abuse.

Within society, all adults have the responsibility of protecting children from such harms, as alot of the time, they they are incapable to protecting themselves.

[tobydoo]

Ok stone I'm going to try and take this point by point as you're sounding like my 13 year old daughter again. I will give you an example so you may figure out how you're sounding. Last night I Said I said to her.... " we really need to cut back on the amount of sugary things you eat". Her snippy response.." oh, so you're saying I can never have ANY sugar or cokes or anything ever again, whatever". ... This seems to be the way you interpret things. SOOO.....#1- I truly believe the execution thing was about 55% joking, OK. #2- I never heard xipe imply that if you take porn away that the pervs would go away. #3 - OH, there you go with the gay parallel again. C'mon man get far past it already. I'm not even going to comment on this one any more.......I lied, Once again let me reiterate what others have, ad naseum, reiterated and PLEASE LISTEN THIS TIME..... GAY SEX BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS IS .......WELL, C-O-N-S-E-N-T-U-A-L (look in your Encarta). OK now that that's out of the way Correct? #4 - Computer generated images, OK, SHORT ANSWER; You got it....if it is depicting sex with a child ...WRONG. Please feel free to post your dissenting opinions. And BTW when someone posts as Tobydoos wife or Mrs. Tobydoo you can safely assume that it's a "she" otherwise you can safely assume that I am a "he". ( unload that confusion for ya Huh?). #5- And I'll follow with what Xipe said, yes there actually are different penalties for looking and doing. At least in the U.S. and most likely Australia too. #6 - when you seemingly dismiss what people are jacking off to i.e. photographic / video images, let me refer you back to Verts comment on whether or not you would feel comfortable to a neighbor "buffing his pig" to a video of your Mom being gang raped.

Stone, You're probably a well intentioned human being (I can sort of read between your lines). you're just really not shining right now. Perhaps you ought to take a breath, read the entire thread again and find out where your logic took a break and completely went South.

..........Maybe some Thorazine................................................................ on ice?

[Torsten]

what's a child? In most western countries it is someone under 18. Not long ago it was someone under 21. In the majority of the world's countries childhood ends long before 18. Doesn't that mean that the definition is a social construct not unlike anti-homosexuality, anti-bestiality, or even anti-drug use?

I am not saying that child porn is acceptable. Far from it. But I think anyone in a marginalised section of society or anyone indulging in taboos needs to be careful about throwing stones.

Times change. Kids are starting puberty several years earlier than they did 50 years ago and most are having sex long before they are 18. In many countries [incl australia] it is legal to have sex with a 16 year old. Just think about this for a moment. 10 years ago you would have gotten a jail sentence for having sex with a 16 year old. Today you can have sex with a 16 year old, but you can't take any photos of it? Does that make sense?

An aquaintance of mine runs several gay porn site in the USA and he has long waiting lists of 16 and 17 year olds who can't wait to turn 18 so they can get their kit off in front of the camera. These guys aren't even doing it for the measly 100 bucks, but just because they want to for the thrill of it. It really doesn't make much sense to have legislation that stands in the way of consentual sexual matters and it is ridiculous to make a blanket claim that 16 year olds can't make informed decisions. I think it is important to take scientific and biological factors into account here. For example, the minimum age for igirls to have sex with an adult would need to be where the risk of physical damage is minimal. Anythign else is just an arbitrary social construct created by parents who can't stand the thought of their little ones getting down and dirty.

Obviously what I outlined above is a long way from someone having pics of 6 year olds on their computer and getting off. The problem is where to draw the line and as usual I think the law lags a little behind cultural and social development.

I don't agree with Stone's statement that simply consuming kiddie porn is victimless and hence harmless. Kiddie porn only exists because there is a demand and the demand is fuelled by the people you seem to want to let off. if there was no demand then there would be no kiddie porn.

Commercial porn isn't helping the issue. The most popular sites are those that offer 'barely legal' models or 'teenies'. They are often quite intentionally made to look underage because that is what the market wants.

I don't have any answer to the problem, but I think some of those selfrighteous folks here that will shoot, stone, or throw away the key for any amount of porn under 18 [regardless of actual age or quantity] should take a long hard look at themselves and wonder where they would be if our cultural taboos were a little different.

[reshroomED]

I've avoided this thread as I only seem to be posting into arguments lately, but it's got the better of me.

Firstly, the only thing that moves me to violence is cruelty to children or animals (perhaps cruelty to any unable to defend themselves) or a direct threat to the wellbeing of my family.

Secondly, I strongly disagree with the introduction of a death penalty. For starters, too permanent, given our current legal system and it's constant mistakes. And much too easy a sentence for anyone who truly commits an heinous crime.

Thirdly, what's this shit with people who hold positions of trust in our society receiving diminished sentences? Shouldn't the punishment be greater, considering the knowing and willful abuse of such trust?

As for the crime itself, I see no reason that this man should be excused. He knew what he was doing and continued to do so.

And as for the photo-shopping/dressing models down in age etc, this is pandering to a market of people who like (at the very least) looking at pictures of child/adult sex. Whilst there is no solid data that such will ever commit an offence against a child, they've all at least fantasised about it. If that isn't enough to make a parent worry I don't know what is. And this shouldn't just worry parents, it should be ABSOLUTELY FUCKING SHOCKING to every member of society. As Xipe said, it's everyone's resposibility to ensure that the kids are safe.

Children (and baby critters of all descriptions) are the most precious and beautiful rescource that we have. To treat such with so barbaric a lack of feeling is inexcusable, and the removal of those who do so from society should be of far greater importance than any of our petty flouride/taxes/petrol-prices.

ed

[Stonehenge]

I agree that age makes a difference. What I'm looking at is what will prevent the most harm to children (or animals, etc). Is banning porn going to prevent harm to children? Tobydoo, (or his/her alter ego) seems to think that even computer generated porn should receive the same penalties. Which can range up to 20 years in prison or even more. For looking at an image that is unconscionable.

Now, if I could just get people for a moment to stop and think what would prevent harm the most, we might have a meeting of minds on a few things. No one will touch the question of if you prevent the pervs from looking at porn, of whatever sort, then their only other outlet is to go looking for the real thing. Can anyone dispute that? Or are you going to tell me that by making porn unavailable they will simply lose interest in children, animals or what have you? I don't think any rational person will really think they will simply lose interest and take up knitting instead.

If you can get 20 years for simply looking at photos, then if you are a deviant, you might as well molest an actual child. You will likely get the same sentence or close to it. I'm not saying that type of porn should be freely available. I just do not see the insane penalties leading to anything good.

Again I hear people saying they don't want someone jacking off to something unacceptable. If it's a choice between that or them going out looking for victims, which do you choose? I'd rather they stayed at home jerking off than going out and doing harm.

And I know no one wants to acknowledge the similarity, but once you allow the authorities lattitude, they will use it on other things. If you can get 20 years for looking at a picture, why not 20 years for possessing forbidden substances? Makes perfect sense if you are a jack booted authoritarian type. Possessing drugs might harm kids, you might give them to a kid. See the logic?

When they drag you away for your favorite vice, you will be wailing "Noooo, I supported you guys when you went after pedos but this is different..." As we drive by the penitentiary we will hear you crying out from the window over and over "It's different I tell you!!!"

But it will be too late.

[tobydoo]

Stone ....Please understand that there is no alter ego going on here ...Simply it is my wife and myself reponding. And yeah, once again, "Oh NO NOT ME"...Drug offences VS fucking children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....... What planet are you on?? PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS MY FRIEND. Go back to Torstens' reply and try and make some sembelance of ......some sort of ... a rational response. I don't agree completely with what T said but I at least understood where he was coming from................you are becoming a case of Having to suffer idiots man!! BABOSA, EN ESPANOL!

[tobydoo]

maybe I ought to take my own advice and take a breath and figure out where I went south on my responses to you. ......and re-evaluate.

[Jesus On Peyote]

In my books, a child is ages from 1 to 15ish these days. also there is a slight difference between a "consenting" 16 year old with an adult, thats where the lines are kinda fuzzy,because the "child" is in adolecents and may think she/he knows best, or think they are in love, but none the less the adult is in the wrong in these cases, simply because he/she should know better.

Im more talking about NON CONSENSUAL . which is abuse,molestation and personal sexual gratification. Somthing so "evil" that serves no purpose then to take advantage of CHILDREN.there is no consent there,only abuse.

[tobydoo]

In my books, a child is ages from 1 to 15ish these days. also there is a slight difference between a "consenting" 16 year old with an adult, thats where the lines are kinda fuzzy,because the "child" is in adolecents and may think she/he knows best, or think they are in love, but none the less the adult is in the wrong in these cases, simply because he/she should know better.

Im more talking about NON CONSENSUAL . which is abuse,molestation and personal sexual gratification. Somthing so "evil" that serves no purpose then to take advantage of CHILDREN.there is no consent there,only abuse.

YES.

[Stonehenge]

Many places in the world, a 20 year old is considered a child. Are any of you soft on that? If so better be prepared to be burned at the stake because we do not allow any softies here.

Yes, I can see how witch burning got popular and the public supported it. They were just like some of you.

Jacking off to unacceptable thoughts??? Off with their head. No one wants to talk about harm reduction for fear of looking soft. But, you so called toughies are putting pervs on the streets. You are responsible for a portion of the crimes commited due to your attitude. Better a harmed child than someone jerking off, right tobyskoo? Or your alternate personality.

[tobydoo]

Dear Lord, Can someone help me!

[tobydoo]

maybe I ought to take my own advice and take a breath and figure out where I went south on my responses to you. ......and re-evaluate.

Nope, I was correct.

[XipeTotec]

I've avoided this thread as I only seem to be posting into arguments lately, but it's got the better of me.

STFU reshroomed!!!

only kidding

[tobydoo]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too! "Onward through the fog oat willy". (Am I dating myself)?

[Vertmorpheus]

Classic stuff, and very revealing! It's nice we can all sit down and have these little chats isn't it?

VM

[tobydoo]

Here's to you Vert!!

[Stonehenge]

Talking to tobypoo is like talking to Sybil. You know, the woman with 23 or however many personalities. Who is speaking to us today?

As always, no one wants to talk about harm reduction and what will cause the least harm to children, or any other group. No, they would rather rant on and look like a hardliner which is supposed to be more morally correct or something. The amount of harm to anyone is of little concern to them. Jacking off is of great concern though it harms no one if done in private. I'd wager that most or all of the self righteous moral crusaders in this thread have jacked off or do it a lot. Do as you say, not as you do, eh?

And the fact that this gives wide latitude to the authorities does not enter into their thinking at all. The fact that they are breaking several laws at the same time they are on the soapbox proclaiming 0 tolerance does not phase them a bit. It's "different" you see. Later, when they cry about some crackdown on something they consider harmless, they will not like hearing about how they wanted to crack down on jacking off with lengthy prison sentences. "It's not the same, those bad guys were thinking dirty thoughts" is what they will reply.

And the fact that sex with a 20 year old who looks 25 can lead to the same penalties does not deter them either. They would never make such a mistake of course. Never could happen. Neither would they accidentaly download a nude photo of said 20 year old. No, that could never happen either so they are good with 20 year penalties for looking at photos. All up until the authorities come for them. Then they sing a different tune.

[XipeTotec]

i thought i had something to say... but i was just foolish

Edited March 24, 2008 by XipeTotec

[Torsten]

Stoney, I don't think peopel here have an issue with jacking off to 'thoughts' of minors, but rather to pictures. The difference being that pictures of kids in sexual situations are no better than raping them in the first place. Obviously there are those pedos who simply jack off to 'harmless' pics, like kids on the beach etc, but I think this is not really the problem discussed here [the pedo in the article had pics of kids in 'sexual situations']. So, personally I also fail to see the difference bwteen someone who rapes a child and someone who whacks off to pictures of a child being raped.

[Vertmorpheus]

haha, this is like a bunch of magnets shuffling around a table...

And T,you missed stonies point anyway, which is best explained by the following...

drugs are fun.

but theyre illegal.

So, if you make a show about people doing heaps of drugs, with lots of pictures of drugs, you will find that people will be less likely to try drugs,or do them reguarly.

Anyone that already has drugs in their possession will have a much reduced chance of wanting to use them, and in time will come to view them as completely undruglike in any way at all.

They certainly wont see other people having fun with them and desire the experience themselves, nor will they use it to reinforce their own worldview that drugs are ok. They'll just sit and stare at the screen.

And those that have tried them and do them regularly will stop because they dont need the primacy of their own sensorium, they're happy enough to just watch other people get high.

Not only that, but anyone that says maybe a show about drugs isnt a great idea... they are implicitly responsible for anyone that decides to go out and try drugs in their own time, as they enver would have if they could just watch a show about it.

Course, the show itself would have to contain only fake drugs, or things that were very recently drugs but can still be mad eto look druglike, or perhaps things that have it in their head that they really want to be drugs, but arent drugs yet. So say, fake buds would be fine, or failing that, at least buds that arent nearly ripe enough yet but are still able to be chopped n packed.

Makes perfect sense! Same way that the weekend they put racing on telly, no dumb young fucks in hot cars wrap themselves around trees at at all.

Obvious, isnt it?

VM

Edited March 24, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[Stonehenge]

Vert, put down the bottle and back away slowly.

personally I also fail to see the difference bwteen someone who rapes a child and someone who whacks off to pictures of a child being raped.

Both are disgusting, yes. However, the difference is that raping a child is doing irreparable harm to the child. I think we agree on that. Looking at a photo harms no one. The picture itself may be computer generated or a drawing.

And before Australia changed it's laws, it was one of the places where a 20 year old was a child for purposes of the law. So things that were punishable by a lengthy sentence are now perfectly legal. If it's a moral crime, as many have said, then is it still a moral crime and the present law is wrong or was the law wrong to begin with? Morals are supposed to be unchanging and not subject to the whims of politicians.

[tobydoo]

i thought i had something to say... but i was just foolish

I'm with you Xipe...Right there!

[tobydoo]

Now I have some time to wade through, once again, the tripe I glanced over breifly while back at the office. ......... and I swear guys, if this next post I make Is not the last one That I make on this subject / thread.,......kick me off...!! I would deserve it.......... Stay tuned.. (are ya all tingly yet?) LOL

TD- AKA - Sybil

[tobydoo]

Talking to tobypoo is like talking to Sybil. You know, the woman with 23 or however many personalities. Who is speaking to us today?

As always, no one wants to talk about harm reduction and what will cause the least harm to children, or any other group. No, they would rather rant on and look like a hardliner which is supposed to be more morally correct or something. The amount of harm to anyone is of little concern to them. Jacking off is of great concern though it harms no one if done in private. I'd wager that most or all of the self righteous moral crusaders in this thread have jacked off or do it a lot. Do as you say, not as you do, eh?

And the fact that this gives wide latitude to the authorities does not enter into their thinking at all. The fact that they are breaking several laws at the same time they are on the soapbox proclaiming 0 tolerance does not phase them a bit. It's "different" you see. Later, when they cry about some crackdown on something they consider harmless, they will not like hearing about how they wanted to crack down on jacking off with lengthy prison sentences. "It's not the same, those bad guys were thinking dirty thoughts" is what they will reply.

And the fact that sex with a 20 year old who looks 25 can lead to the same penalties does not deter them either. They would never make such a mistake of course. Never could happen. Neither would they accidentaly download a nude photo of said 20 year old. No, that could never happen either so they are good with 20 year penalties for looking at photos. All up until the authorities come for them. Then they sing a different tune.

WTF!!!.................WTF!!......Jesus on a pony Stone!!

Sex w/ a 20 year old that looks 25!!?? WTF?

"Move slowly away from the bottle"

Gotta love people who insinuate that just because you've said something that they either don't understand or don't agree with, that you MUST be drunk or high!! Absolutely love that.

OK, OK.....Sheesh!

My wife (AKA my other 23 personalities) just reminded me of something That's really kind of funny. One night my 7 year old Son (not part of my 23 personalities- a real person) came up to me while I was on the lap top and asked, "what's your computer name"? (screen name). I told him, "Tobydoo". He came back 5 mins. later giggling, "Tobypoo, Tobypoo." After reminding me of this, after reading your post, my wife (not one of my 23 personalities) replied, "Kinda speaks about the mentality of Stonehenge huh?".

I'm really sorry Stonehenge if I confused you by having the audacity of letting my wife respond to a subject that she was / is very passionate about. I'm really sorry that this has confused you so deeply. Were you scared about the split personality thing? You seem truly disturbed and confused since you dwell on it despite repeated attempts to qwell your concerns/ (fears?) that I am NOT, indeed a split personality.

Did the Doc have to increase your meds for you to sleep at night to overcome the fear?

I truly want you to get over this hump. I really feel bad. And sloely for your comfort my wifes' new screen name will be "Painite."

I don't want to add to any more of your apparent confusion disorder. As it is obviously causing a HUGE hole in your entire thought processes.

For example.................Naw....

Hopefully Stone, your Mom won't for get to line your shoes up left to right tomorrow morning hence throwing your whole day down the crapper.

The 'J' family --all 23 of us-- BOOOOOOoooooooooooOOOOOOOoooooOOOoohHHhhhhh!!!