New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn
- Thread starter Scattered
- Start date
Wrong. Viewing it is not illegal; possession, distribution, and creation are. How could one justify making the reception of light, refracted off or emitted from an object, and passing through one's cornea illegal?
Come now.
Wrong. Possession and consumption is a crime in most places, this is not debatable because it IS illegal. You are confusion the (highly subjective) morality of a subject with the illegality (interpretative), both with your weed example and your comments on child porn.
It's not big news, it's of little importance as this is a long standing legal precedent. Dumb fucks make a big deal because of the knee jerk protectionist instincts surrounding children in general, and child porn in specific.
It's a newyork case, should be pretty obvious.
Agreed with this. It may show up on a random site you're surfing. Or you may see it without wanting to. But then, allowing everyone to search and view it openly will create more incentive for producers. The practical way to look at it.
----------------------------------------------
Similar to most threads, this one has also gone offtopic with some actually defending child sex and porn. It can get worse than that too. I think you won't even hesitate going down that way too. I think it has gone much disgusting already. Maybe consult a psychologist if you feel like getting pulled down this route
skyfire that's funny because It is on several news sites and has been discussed all day. . . must have been a slow day for news then. .. and the title of the story doesn't say viewing kiddie porn now legal in New York just like the rest of the the US. . . it points out that the state of New York has now created a safe haven for those who want to view kiddie porn.
13,000 images is not an accident. . . . just saying.
13,000 images is not an accident. . . . just saying.
What a fucking weak cop out. "One day you'll understand" as if being a parent has somehow given you some special perspective. That kind of bullshit psuedo rebuttal is completely useless and remarkably insulting.
Guess what? I'm a parent too, and you are still completely missing the point (my being a parent has no bearing on my opinion as I' am capable of thinking rationally - it's a shame the same can't be said for others). Just fucking read guerrilla's posts (never mind mine, he's clearly brighter than I), and apply a little logic and a sprinkling of critical thinking.
Exactly, you fail to see the point. You are caught up in this one persons actions and not the legal precident previously set, and the court's ruling, which wasn't about porn, but about burden of proof and intent.
No one is saying he didn't knowingly look at child pron. Two things directly relating to that are being said:
1) There is no proof of intent in this case. Circumstantial, subjective evidence is just that.
2) One cannot control what one views, so using the known information that one viewed something does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime.
In addition, Armed Gunman has taken this thing WAY the fuck off base, so we should all try and stick to the original topic, however one last thing:
No one has actually defended child porn. I can see how you'd think that, but it's not at all the case and if you could think critically you'd see that.
A lot of people think they are rational
A lot of people are sure that they are rational
A lot of people think they are not rational
^ All that does not matter. A lot of people live with delusions. A lot of people feel like quashing everything other than what fits their construct as illogical and retarded. A lot of people also literally suffer from mental degradation. A lot of people subscribe to certain ideologies (political, religious, others) and feel like quashing anything that does not fit into their ideology. A lot of people are consistent with their hatred which shows up in everything they do. A lot of people are also ungrateful as they even shit where they eat. A lot of people who argue on forums don't really care about finding a solution, they only care about defending their position which results from their personal beliefs.
Guerilla made several posts about me personally and about my children, so fuck you and fuck him too.
By the way, those aren't guerilla's ideas. He simply regurgitates shit he's read on Mises.org. Don't give him more credit than he deserves.
Exactly. Humans are irrational, trying to shoehorn them into a society of purely rational rules is idiotic, and has never worked. I've pointed that out too many times to count, but some people spend more time interacting with Mises.org than actual people so they'll never understand.
I took this thread off topic? This thread was about the decision in NY, guerilla and his bitches have turned it into a discussion about anarchy and why should courts even have authority etc. Those are all worthy discussions to have, but clearly took this thread off topic. All of my posts are about the case at hand. For fucks sake it took me 10 posts just to get him to acknowledge the correct definition of the word "consent", which some of you guys still don't get.
Making the viewing of child porn legal will result in more child porn being produced, which will result in more victims. There is an economic reason for this - if it is legal more people will actively seek it out (drug law comparisons are flawed for several reasons which I can spell out for you if need be), and as more people seek it out that traffic has value thus providing a profit incentive to create more CP and push the boundaries even more in order to capture a larger share of that traffic, thus creating more victims.
Some of you guys are trying to act like this is about accidentally seeing topless pics of high school girls, but it's not. This ruling makes it legal for people to actively seek out and repeatedly view pictures of a 5 year old getting gang raped, and some of you guys are like "Well if that's what she wanted..." Dafuck is wrong with you people?
I saw someone compare this to weed. Are you serious? Can you not see the difference between a victimless crime and the rape of children. Seriously? Or adult porn because its illegal in Saudi Arabia? Really? Another victimless crime. At least guerilla is consistent, some of you other motherfuckers just can't think for yourselves and I suppose that's why you jock everything he says without looking at it through the prism of real world experience.
***Stop your huffing and puffing and read this***
There IS a problem with making it illegal as well which I understand. Anybody that's ever been on 4chan knows you can be in a thread about Austrian Economics and the next thing you know some asshole is posting hardcore CP. I get that. But as mentioned before there is a big difference between someone that has a few images hidden away in their cache, and somebody that has tens of thousands of images in their cache to go along with an active search history seeking this stuff out. With no law, there is no distinction, but once you make a law innocent people get caught up in bullshit, and I get that too.
So what's the solution? I don't know, I don't think there is an easy solution. I do know that making it legal will create more victims and that should be unacceptable. Guerilla may think a 5 year old can consent to sex, but I don't. And if I'm being irrational by feeling that way, I'm OK with that.
At jonas33h: if you're interested to learn more about anarchy, there are some good videos and links to articles here:
http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/147089-law-without-state-3-videos-article.html
When did I make posts about you personally, or your children?
lol.
Humans are not irrational, that's a failure to understand how the human mind works. Humans are in fact rational, except the very small exceptions on the edges.
As to whether something has "never worked" that's an argument against history. Go back 300 years ago, and slaves had "never been free". We had "never been to the moon". Your argument for historical materialism is sad, just like marxism.
I interact with actual people all of the time, and I stopped reading mises.org almost 2 years ago. None of which explains why you make the same logical errors today you were making 3 years ago.
It's one thing to be wrong, it's another thing to insist on being demonstrably wrong over and over again.
Yes, you took this thread off topic with your sad little epeen game with me.
I simply wanted to know what was illegal about looking at something.
You decided to make it moral crusade for your children, and for your values.
In the end, we opened up a broader discussion because I defeated your arguments, no one was left to argue, and all you could do was post a lie about my position.
Get over yourself, it's all in text here bro. Anyone can read it and see what you and I are all about, and I don't think I am the one who has anything to be ashamed about.
..............
..............
That has been debunked more times than I can count. Most people behave in an irrational manner. I could point to all of the scientific studies that consistently prove it, or for the present audience I can simply point to all the money made off of people that think they can lose 35 pounds without diet and exercise and in JUST 3 weeks!!1!!!11!1 Or the people that believe they can earn $3,726 per week putting links on teh Google. People behave irrationally, and that's why there is so much money in marketing.
So just to sum up your position on this, you think that children should be able to do porn, even though it may not be a "good decision"? Is that correct?
With regards to both you and your children, you miss the point. I'm not attacking you personally, I am using your own circumstances to demonstrate where your argument is flawed and where your blindness to it is.
I could have used the children and experiences of someone else, but that wouldn't have had the same impact.
It's not the same as lying and saying, "Guerilla is defending child porn" which is cowardly and despicable behavior.
There is no objective standard for rational because values are subjective.
The concept of a good decision is nonsensical, in that the only way to determine the utility of an action, is again, intrapersonal.
I could have used the children and experiences of someone else, but that wouldn't have had the same impact.
It's not the same as lying and saying, "Guerilla is defending child porn" which is cowardly and despicable behavior.
Rationality is intrapersonal, not interpersonal. Everyone behaves rationally relative to their own psychological experience.
There is no objective standard for rational because values are subjective.
I think anyone should be able to do anything as long as it is voluntary and consensual.
The concept of a good decision is nonsensical, in that the only way to determine the utility of an action, is again, intrapersonal.
And that is why society has laws. My values may interfere with yours, so to maintain order we've developed laws and those laws constantly evolve. I personally disagree with the majority of laws we have, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of abolishing all laws. I see the value of society knowing what is allowed rather than having to guess what everyone's individual values will allow them to do.
But you are defending child porn. You think you're defending the right of people to view it, but if you follow that to its logical conclusion that porn has to be produced somewhere. And based on your quote below, you do support a child's right to do porn:
That is the crux of the disagreement. I do not think a child has the mental capacity or experience to make good decisions, and they certainly don't have the physical ability to resist if they find themselves in a dangerous situation. So we have laws to protect them from that. You and I will never agree on that point, and I'm OK with that.
I guess what I am trying to figure out is. . . in the scenario I presented is that justified in anarchy? If not who is going to stop me from doing it? Or punish me for doing it?
Reply for above:
Valuable advice for you:
- Stop hypocrisy. Apply what you say on yourself as well.
- Try to be consistent.
- Consult a doctor and get medication.
- Check out the real world.
- Don't do sales threads outside BST.
UG, before you further embarass yourself by calling everybody that disagree with you child rapist, please read the actual ruling and educate yourself.
120508 NY ChildPorn Ruling
Do you honestly think the NY judges want to live in a lawless state where adults are free to rape children, film it and upload it to the internet for "traffic"?
In this specific case, the viewing was "legal" because:
1. It was a work computer, and somebody else could've viewed the content.
2. "cache" is not possession because it's not strong enough to demonstrate that he had actually searched/downloaded the material.
In one of your posts, you mentioned "CP in Internet Explorer History". This proof is actually stronger than cache files for example.
120508 NY ChildPorn Ruling
Do you honestly think the NY judges want to live in a lawless state where adults are free to rape children, film it and upload it to the internet for "traffic"?
In this specific case, the viewing was "legal" because:
1. It was a work computer, and somebody else could've viewed the content.
2. "cache" is not possession because it's not strong enough to demonstrate that he had actually searched/downloaded the material.
In one of your posts, you mentioned "CP in Internet Explorer History". This proof is actually stronger than cache files for example.
Pretty much any discussion people with differing "right or wrong" opinions on any subject boils down to this. Trying to find a logical foundation to any morality argument is damn near impossible. It's an interesting topic though. I agree with guerilla's line of reasoning, because if you remove emotion from the equation, the logic stands.
But you seem like a sharp guy guerilla, so you realize that even though the logic leads to an obvious conclusion, you know that the vast majority can't separate emotion, and arrive at imperfect conclusions, doubly complicated by the above quote that rationality itself is subjective. So people are emotional and irrational, and will also act in their own self interest. While that doesn't invalidate logic, it seems to remove the ability to live in a society where logic dominates, especially over the long term.
That makes the theory nice, but practically useless. It seems that to coexist peacefully as a society, we have to be able to create boundaries and guidelines for the whole, and those rules must be in harmony with the opinion of the majority. And there is no way that is possible to do since the majority is not logical. If the individual isn't in agreement with the feelings of the majority, I've come to the conclusion that it's up to the individual to rectify the dissatisfaction. If you are ambitious, try and change majority opinion. If it doesn't matter, chill out and have a beer. If it's a big enough deal, move.
I'm still trying to work out my stance on the whole thing, as it runs deeper than CP or any other moral debate. I enjoy the discussion though, and if you can remove personal feelings from it (which I understand is tough for some depending on your situation and ties to it) then there is opportunity to grow and learn from the perspectives of others, because even if they are illogical, they are usually not unique and need to be addressed.
Good stuff.
You put words in my mouth like that, then have the balls to talk about embarrassing oneself. Show me where I said that or shut the fuck up and get your mouth back on guerilla's dick where it belongs.