Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not interested in any blowup dolls. I think we're crossing a fine line by taking a strong stance against victimless crimes. When they move on to real kids and sheep, lock them up and throw away the key.Are you worried?
Chief reckons downloading child porn is a victimless crime.I'm not interested in any blowup dolls. I think we're crossing a fine line by taking a strong stance against victimless crimes. When they move on to real kids and sheep, lock them up and throw away the key.
I read his statement in context - he was using it as a straw man example of a crime which appears victimless but is rightly treated as abhorrent- and the straw was exposed later in thread that there is a real child that was hurt to make the porn
I read his statement in context - he was using it as a straw man example of a crime which appears victimless but is rightly treated as abhorrent- and the straw was exposed later in thread that there is a real child that was hurt to make the porn
A straw man?I read his statement in context - he was using it as a straw man example of a crime which appears victimless but is rightly treated as abhorrent- and the straw was exposed later in thread that there is a real child that was hurt to make the porn
He was (I think) using it as an example of something which is not and should not be condoned and equating it to the victimless sex doll use.A straw man?
I don't understand what you're saying.
It seems to me like a pretty straightforward assertion.
That makes no sense.He was (I think) using it as an example of something which is not and should not be condoned and equating it to the victimless sex doll use.
How does that make the initial statement less weird?Now it came apart as it was pointed out that child porn is not victimless.
I didn't say he supported child porn. I said he said it was a victimless crime, which he did. And that's bizarre.What I was doing is pointing out you took chief’s comments out of context to make it appear he was stating child porn is victimless in order to support child porn.
I'll point out that your post makes no sense.No doubt you will find some pedantic sh*t to attack me for in this post.
Chief explain it then. I don’t actually give a flying forkThat makes no sense.
How and why would any sane person "equate" child porn involving a real child to someone doing weird things to an inanimate object?
How does that make the initial statement less weird?
It came apart? What does that mean? People pointed out that it was a truly weird thing to say?
In what universe does anyone mistake child porn for a victimless crime? WTF are you people smoking?
I didn't say he supported child porn. I said he said it was a victimless crime, which he did. And that's bizarre.
Don't spin me some bullshit about it being "out of context".
I'll point out that your post makes no sense.
But don't take him "out of context". Give me a spell.Chief explain it then. I don’t actually give a flying fork
Thank fork you are here I am done trying to explain things to that pedant.No I didn't.
You said: "Plenty of crimes are victimless. Who is a paedo victimising by looking at pictures they got off a Usenet group?"No I didn't.
Yeah I imagine it can be hard trying to explain something that makes no sense.Thank fork you are here I am done trying to explain things to that pedant.
No doubt you will find some pedantic sh*t to attack me for in this post.
Responding to a post point by point is now "trolling".He immediately breaks your post up line-by-line as trolls do.
Responding to a post point by point is now "trolling".
That's how you make an argument, by responding to the other person's points.Yes. You respond that way because you're a pedantic troll. You're well aware of this.
That's how you make an argument
If two people are making separate contentions that don't match up, what would you call that?That you assume everything is an argument, describes you well.
I was talking about the act of downloading images, not creating images.Thank fork you are here I am done trying to explain things to that pedant.
I was talking about the act of downloading images, not creating images.
That's still not a victimless crime.Being charged for downloading or possessing it is technically victimless, in that, it's already out there and the individual being charged isn't producing it themselves, or harming anyone directly themselves. But, if by downloading it, they're creating demand, they're still part of the cycle that creates more victims.
It is completely unlike using a doll.It's a valid argument to distinguish images from a doll in that with images the proximity of harm to the child is a lot closer than with a doll. But I don't think it is that much closer so as to be completely unlike using a doll.
No. Never said it was.Chief owen87 Victimless crimes?
German police shut one of world’s biggest darknet child abuse images sites
Boystown platform had membership of more than 400,000 international subscriberswww.theguardian.com