How so?I get you're trying to be an idiotic troll. But even by your standards. This is low.
That's immaterial.Read my post.
I will elaborate - Usenet is a free service. Using that free service doesn't appear to add to "demand" as no payment is made.
Nah. Not going down this path with you.How so?
You said downloading or possessing child porn is technically victimless.
So all these freaks on that porn site were committing victimless crimes?
Agreed.Nah. Not going down this path with you.
Clear as day what I said, and it’s not what you’re pretending it is.
You can deny your own words if you like but maybe that should tell you something.If you want to be a low rent troll, go for it. But even you should be above stooping this low.
Nope, still not playing your game.Agreed.
This is a direct quote: "Being charged for downloading or possessing it is technically victimless..."
It's not "technically victimless". It revictimises the child by sharing evidence of their abuse for the purposes of entertainment.
You can deny your own words if you like but maybe that should tell you something.
And no one is surprised you try to change the subject after getting it wrong.Let’s be honest. No one here is surprised you’ll be going it alone.
Wow. A real insight to your inner thoughts right here.And no one is surprised you try to change the subject after getting it wrong.
Maybe one day you'll manage to lay a glove on me. It must be frustrating for you.
You'd so dearly like to get the better of me just once. But I'm too dexterous for you. Get in line with the rest.
You can't even bring yourself to defend your own words because you know you're in the wrong.Wow. A real insight to your inner thoughts right here.
BigFooty really means a lot. Must have been distressing when you got banned. Hope future SJ is ok when it happens again.
Nah. Try as you might. It’s pretty clear how much ‘winning’ at BigFooty means to your life.You can't even bring yourself to defend your own words because you know you're in the wrong.
And your wounded reaction confirms that it upsets you.
You're not kidding anyone. Woe is Owen!
I don't think it is a victimless crime.That's immaterial.
It's still trafficking in child porn. It's participating in the crime after the fact. It revictimises the child.
It is taking evidence of horrific abuse and circulating/consuming it as entertainment. You can't tell me that is a victimless crime.
It's not about adding to demand. It'a about participating in the crime after the fact and revictimising the victim by further circulating the material. That remains the case regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid.But it could be argued that anonymously downloading an image where there is no gain for the publisher is not adding to demand. Which is the aspect of the argument I was addressing.
Why do you assume there's a child used in the production process? It's not the 1980s. They don't need to make a plaster cast. They can digitally map a child's body and then run a 3-D printer. They don't need to have a kid standing there.So: which child are these dolls moulded from?
I had “evil desires“ written in the heading and I don’t even believe in evil. how else do I describe a topic they may be disturbing for some? I wanted to make sure people knew what they were getting into with the heading.Dunno why but I thought this thread would be about something far less disturbing.
What im wondering is what makes something legally a 'sex doll'...
There are the freaky looking baby dolls that oddball old women collect.
Open Mouth and genitalia???
Toys-R-Us stock plenty of dolls that suck on a bottle then sh*t/piss.
Yeah I realise that now.I had “evil desires“ written in the heading and I don’t even believe in evil. how else do I describe a topic they may be disturbing for some? I wanted to make sure people knew what they were getting into with the heading.