New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn

[SUP3RNOVA]

Thanks for the reply. I'll respond tomorrow morning when I'm back home and can check out your references.

 

[ly2 from WF]

DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE

 

[southbound]

This was good until you said "imperfect conclusions" because this implies perfect conclusions are possible.

They are not.

You're making the same mistake the gunman makes.

I suppose like many words, "perfect" is open to interpretation and needs to be defined prior to use. I was using perfect as meaning logically justified, so I should have worded that differently. But even so, the word perfect is probably best left unused. Just because a conclusion is logical doesn't necessarily make it accurate, because the information available to that particular person at the time the conclusion was reached could be incomplete or inaccurate. Out of curiosity, what would you consider perfect to mean in this capacity?

The earth was always round, even when people thought it was flat.


This is funny stuff. I see it all the time. People talk about "reality" and the "real world".

Basically, you're saying that what people think always trumps reality, making science and the physics of the universe invalid.

Obviously, not a very clever position to stake out.

Not to mention, by claiming the theory is useless, you're back to some sort of value objectivity.

It may not be clever, but in practice (or what I refer to as "reality"), what people think generally does trump reality, and always has. Shown by your other quote - "The earth was always round, even when people thought it was flat." Yeah, it was. And at the time, it didn't matter. For me, the attainment of information just for the purpose of knowing is not a worthwhile goal. Information (again, for me) only has real value if it can help advance my life in some way, so that's why I referred to it as useless. And as I said, that doesn't invalidate the logic (or science/physics). Someone's perceptions are their reality - they live within those confines whether they are "real" or not.

This is the myth that rulers like to teach people in public schools.

I'm not sure I follow. You've mentioned that you prefer rules but no rulers. How are these rules set, if not by the majority? Is there a concept of "fair?" I've not done a ton of research on anarchy.

Emotional != irrational.

Self interest is rational.

Logic is just congruence with the facts.

Perhaps you should do more reading into this subject. You're welcome to PM me about it.

I admit that I've not done near the reading you have on it, and I should do more. I enjoy discourse more than reading on the topic. Sure, Emotional != irrational, but emotion has a very strong tendency to introduce bias, which generally results in irrationality. I know that self interest is rational, but self interest trumps logic when the two collide. When it comes to people that make decisions that effect masses, decisions where self interest and logic collide run rampant. So we end up with suboptimal decisions that perhaps were rational to the individual that made them, but not to those without the inside knowledge.

Like I said I'm not saying that I think your reasoning is wrong, I just don't see how you stand to benefit from living by it in the real-world (I know you aren't a fan of that verbiage, but let's face it, there is a chasm between how it could be and how it will be). I'm not looking to change the world, but to live in it, enjot it, profit from it and make sense of it - as it is, not necessarily how it should/could be. These logic/rationality discussions are great mental exercizes, and help me create a well balanced perspective from which to view the world. That is how I've found the best use for them, but it's a work in progress. You've obviously spent a ton of time studying these things. I'm curious on how you apply them in ways that enhance your life. It seems like you denounce all information with no logical basis, but I don't see how that's a sustainable way to live and relate to people.

Don't take any of this as an attack - I'm definitely interested in other perspectives and my views are only based on my experiences so far. I adjust them as I process new and relevant information. Maybe I'll take you up on that pm here in a bit.

 

[guerilla]

I suppose like many words, "perfect" is open to interpretation and needs to be defined prior to use. I was using perfect as meaning logically justified, so I should have worded that differently. But even so, the word perfect is probably best left unused. Just because a conclusion is logical doesn't necessarily make it accurate, because the information available to that particular person at the time the conclusion was reached could be incomplete or inaccurate. Out of curiosity, what would you consider perfect to mean in this capacity?

Rational.

That paragraph is insightful, I think you should chase that line of reasoning.

Logic is simply things that are congruent to one another. A statement like, "I always lie" is illogical because it isn't congruent.

People confuse logical with correct, when a better definition of logical probably is "verified to be consistent with the facts or statements preceding it".

Of course, sloppy language is another problem entirely.

It may not be clever, but in practice (or what I refer to as "reality"), what people think generally does trump reality, and always has. Shown by your other quote - "The earth was always round, even when people thought it was flat." Yeah, it was. And at the time, it didn't matter.

Sure it did. People couldn't progress in a whole bunch of scientific fields because they started with a bad premise.

Information matters a lot!

For me, the attainment of information just for the purpose of knowing is not a worthwhile goal. Information (again, for me) only has real value if it can help advance my life in some way, so that's why I referred to it as useless.

And yet, some of the smartest and most successful people in the world share the same point of view that I do. Perhaps it's not that it's useless, but you've not seen a use for it yet.

Someone's perceptions are their reality - they live within those confines whether they are "real" or not.

And a clearer perception may lead to a better reality. That's really a question of whether you believe that knowing more is generally better than knowing less. Or if acting without facts is better than acting with facts.

I'm not sure I follow. You've mentioned that you prefer rules but no rulers. How are these rules set, if not by the majority? Is there a concept of "fair?" I've not done a ton of research on anarchy.

This is good. I like that you're thinking. I wish more people did this.

When you play a game of cards with me, who is ruling us?

When you play X-box with your friends, who is ruling the players?

Think about how many social interactions you have each day, including this conversation with me, where there really is no ruler, or at least an obvious ruler dictating the terms of engagement?

Neat hunh?

Anarchism is based on a simple idea that can be expressed different ways, but when you're talking to laymen, you usually can't express anything that requires second or third order thinking from a premise.

Anarchism is based on non-aggression. No one has a right to aggress against another unless aggressed against first. What defines an aggression is up to some debate, but something like smacking someone, or taking their stuff are obvious examples of aggression.

Everything else in anarchistic philosophy flows from that premise. But again, one has to be able to understand the consequences of staying consistent to that principle.

I enjoy discourse more than reading on the topic.

When it comes to economics and philosophy, most of my learning is through discourse, debate and argument.

Sure, Emotional != irrational, but emotion has a very strong tendency to introduce bias, which generally results in irrationality.

I'll give you an alternative definition of rationality.

Acting consistent with the facts you know, is rational. In other words, if you know fire burns, not putting your hand into a fire is rational. Putting your hand into a fire is irrational because you know fire burns. Putting your hand in a fire to save someone or something you love, may be rational if you value the object or person more than your own flesh.

Now expand and apply that to everything a particular person understands. It's easy to see that people are consistently acting within their knowledge and understanding. This is rationalism to someone who understands subjectivism.

Remember, values are subjective. They are relative to each person, their circumstance, time and their own psychological state. So it is impossible for someone to act irrationally, unless they were to do something they knew was bad.

And before you say, "people do stuff they think is bad all the time", the rub is, they knew it was bad, but they decided to do it anyway because that's what they really wanted to do.

Another way to look at this is, the only "right" answer, is the answer you prefer because what you prefer and what I prefer is completely different.

This ^^ is actually pretty deep, and it's hard to explain to people on a forum, but once you grasp it, human action starts to make a lot of sense. It's one thing to understand subjectivism, it is another thing to apply it consistently.

I know that self interest is rational, but self interest trumps logic when the two collide.

Self interest has to trump everything. If you are not acting in your own self-interest, then you cannot act at all. That said, just because you act in your self-interest, doesn't guarantee you're going to act correctly. You will make mistakes, you'll misinterpret info, you'll be influenced by the beatings your parents gave you, and the heartbreak of the girl who left you etc.

No one is perfectly logical, and remember, logic is not a correct answer, it's an answer congruent with the known facts. Better info, better answers (unless you find more knowledge useless )

So we end up with suboptimal decisions that perhaps were rational to the individual that made them, but not to those without the inside knowledge.

Watch suboptimal. Implies an optimal. Same problem with perfect.

Thinking clearly is hard and requires rewiring the way we think.

I'm not sure I understand your greater concern about what other people think though. If people are not being hurt, it's not really that relevant to them.

Like I said I'm not saying that I think your reasoning is wrong, I just don't see how you stand to benefit from living by it in the real-world (I know you aren't a fan of that verbiage, but let's face it, there is a chasm between how it could be and how it will be). I'm not looking to change the world, but to live in it, enjot it, profit from it and make sense of it - as it is, not necessarily how it should/could be. These logic/rationality discussions are great mental exercizes, and help me create a well balanced perspective from which to view the world. That is how I've found the best use for them, but it's a work in progress. You've obviously spent a ton of time studying these things. I'm curious on how you apply them in ways that enhance your life. It seems like you denounce all information with no logical basis, but I don't see how that's a sustainable way to live and relate to people.

I don't denounce all information that isn't logical. I just don't trust information that isn't logical. It's out there, the fact that billions of people believe in power worship, violence etc means I have to play inside their game, because if you don't know who the sucker is in a game, you're the sucker.

The meaningful benefits I get from my perception is that I don't hate people for doing things I don't understand. I don't waste time on politics. I don't accept high taxes. I'm not going to sign up for the army and get myself shot in some mindless war.

I'm able to sleep good at night because I try not to do anything that leads to people being stolen from or attacked.

I think I am a much better marketer with my understanding of rationalism and subjectivism.

There is probably more, but I am too tired to think about it a lot. The bottom line is, I am 36 years old and going through the best year of my life, and a lot of it is because I feel psychologically stable in a world that can feel dangerous, isolating and chaotic.

Don't take any of this as an attack - I'm definitely interested in other perspectives and my views are only based on my experiences so far. I adjust them as I process new and relevant information. Maybe I'll take you up on that pm here in a bit.

If this is true, it doesn't matter if you think I am full of crap or not, or you hate me or not, or you PM me or not.

You'll find some truth useful to you by staying committed to absorbing and processing new information.

It's the people who stop trying to learn and stop pushing themselves that get lazy, angry and can't articulate themselves intelligently in a debate.

An honest man is going to feel pretty dumb if he has an opinion he professes loudly that he can't substantiate. A fool will carry on even if he can't explain what he believes.

 

[turbolapp]

I'm having a hard time stomaching the hypocrisy on the forum that had great love for the skittles thread and yet are coming out so hard-assed on paper when it comes to the idea of being prosecuted should kiddie porn come in contact with your eyeballs.

In other words, Every single of one of you that looked at that thread should all be in jail, according to many of you and to the protesters of this NY Court of Appeals ruling.

Listen, I'm all for prosecuting the child porn rings but lets maintain focus on the creators and distributors of this disgusting business and continue to ensure that the law stays off the every day citizen's computers, shall we?

 

[jonas33h]

^ lets not. . . and say we didn't. If you can build a case around a guy who just views kiddie porn as a sick fuck who wants to fuck kids grill his ass. . . I mean seriously why would you want to give these guys a free pass. . .

there is a difference between a guy who has a handleful of underage material that was sorted in with his college co-ed collection vs a pedo collection with college coed sorted in if you can prove he wanted to "look" at these images he should get the book thrown at him.

This isn't a drug war were letting the user off only does them harm, I don't care if you get high that is YOUR problem. Chlid abuse effects the child more than anyone and is a non participant therefore ALL guilty parties need to suffer for it. I find it disturbing that people cannot distinguish the difference.

 

[guerilla]

I'm having a hard time stomaching the hypocrisy on the forum that had great love for the skittles thread and yet are coming out so hard-assed on paper when it comes to the idea of being prosecuted should kiddie porn come in contact with your eyeballs.

As someone who lives in his mother's basement, I can confirm that the internet is loaded with undersexed tough guys posting from their mom's basement.

"I'm gunna fuck you up with mah posts!"

"I would blow his penis off!"

"People who look at it are sick fucks who deserve to burn!"

Meanwhile, these are the same guys who vote for politicians who are pedophiles, the same guys who support a court and social service system that institutionalizes child abuse, and who endorse a system that mass murders innocent strangers all over the world.

WE GOTTA DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!

WE GOTTA FUCK UP THE PEDOS!!!!

YOU EITHER HATE THE PEDOS OR YOU ARE A PEDO!!!

MERP MERP MERP!!!! BEEP BEEP BEEP!!!




Sometimes I like to imagine there is no Unarmed Gunman, no AOJON, no Guerilla, just a handful of rogue chat bots that showed up in the same room at the same time.

 

[cardine]

Morality is just a word used to describe something. It is a thing, it's the attempt to discern what is "good" vs what is "bad" and apply that to our daily life. We created morality because we've evolved to the point where we can recognize and understand it.

Having evolved to accept something does not make what we accepted as being right. We may believe it is right but we are limited by the bias that evolution gives us so there is no way for us to impartially determine what is truly moral or not (if true morality even did exist).

Evolution is the progress towards more profitable states. As long as we can agree on the assumption that more profitable states are better than less profitable states, you could say that we evolve towards what is truly right. It's not like they're mutually exclusive.

I don't think you can make that assumption. We of course would think that, but that is because we are a product of (and beneficiary of) evolution. It might be that the world truly is a better place without any life whatsoever, but we would never know that.

But we don't, because it's immoral.

You have it the other way around. We believe it is immoral because it is advantageous for our ability to reproduce to think it is immoral. I think it is rather arbitrary to define absolute morality by asking 'will this make it easier for my genetic code to reproduce'. But that's how we currently do it (and is why our current morality is completely arbitrary).

 

[guerilla]

(and is why our current morality is completely arbitrary).

I loved your post up until this point. Our morality isn't arbitrary, it is as you said, a result of our successful evolution. Our (broad) morality serves a purpose.

Of course, I don't mean the moralizing in this thread. In this thread you have guys who want to protect the innocent (children) by attacking what may be innocent adults.

But then, I am pretty sure most of us posting wouldn't be the ones reproducing in the wild anyway.

 

[MSTeacher]

Sometimes I like to imagine there is no Unarmed Gunman, no AOJON, no Guerilla, just a handful of rogue chat bots that showed up in the same room at the same time.

It works great. It's the only way I can stomach your anarchy

 

[Ar Scion]

The free market has a simple morality which most people do not want to observe.

Only voluntary (consensual) interactions are free, free market and moral.

As to the issue of what age constitutes a child, it's actually irrelevant to the question of if the child cannot consent, then surely the parent claims they can consent as a guardian. Or in UG's case, his children are being raised by the court system which apparently has power over his children he does not have as a parent.

If parents can consent for their small children, then parents can consent to their kid being involved in kiddie porn. Outside of Detroit, if one actually travels, you can see parents who put their kids into prostitution in other countries, because this is a way the kids can contribute to keeping the family fed, housed and alive.

Be thankful we live in a technologically advanced society where we aren't forced to make choices like that.

If a parent freely consents to have their baby abused, what's to stop it from happening within a free-market worldview?

 

[guerilla]

It works great. It's the only way I can stomach your anarchy

Peace is hard to embrace.

If a parent freely consents to have their baby abused, what's to stop it from happening within a free-market worldview?

Absolutely nothing. The free market doesn't stop people from making bad decisions, or decisions which you and I might not approve of.

There is this myth, that if the NY judges had ruled differently, there would be less kiddie porn because people are terrified of the law.

I think the amount of marijuana usage and underage sex, and fraud and gambling in the US is proof that people will pretty much do what they want regardless of the law. Of course, laws make beta males feel good about themselves, because someone is out there supposedly enforcing their morality for them.

There will probably always be kiddie porn, and culturally in the west, kiddie porn is more acceptable now than it has ever been before. Ron Paul has a great line that basically goes, "laws can't make people moral, only moral people can obey laws".

If you want to diminish the amount of kiddie porn created, it seems to me you have to address the fundamental issue of how we raise children in the first place. Healthy and emotionally stable children probably don't get used in kiddie porn, and they probably don't grow up to be kiddie porn consumers.

 

[MSTeacher]

Peace is hard to embrace.

+rep

 

[jacky8]

It is funny you think that you can diagnose people's disorders on an internet forum. lol

I strongly suspect you may have those disorders and I suggest you get a thorough checkup.

I should come to India and visit you. See how a real forum badass lives, amirite?

Yes, and you are welcome to visit me anytime.

I don't do this, but I probably could and get away with it.

I can honestly say I haven't made a nickel from Wickedfire in 2012.

Start a poll about who has put more into this community, you or me. Then when you win, you can lecture me about who does what around here.

Meanwhile, keep hating. All haters are winners.

Why are you making this you Vs. me? It never was. I'm only giving my honest advice. You will eventually feel better if you take it.

I am not hating. Think of this for a moment - maybe you are the one who is hating those who don't suck your dick. Sounds about right?

I might start selling my sig on Wickedfire soon.

BacklinkFUEL! The CTRs are unreal.

Go on, do it.

The funny thing is, you didn't demonstrate one delusion.

There are much more than "one" actually. Take a look at just your last 100 posts on anarchy. A lot of them are pure delusions and scenarios which don't work in the real world. Anarchy does not work in the real world. Maybe you live in a nice, secure and green place in Canada where you can't really feel the real world even if you wanted to, so you go on taking all the good things around you for granted.

Jacky8, you're lucky you're able to post here. You're lucky you're able to sell here. You confuse both of those facts with being smart and insightful.

Look around. You're not the one who is winning.

LOL. Same holds true for you. You should feel extra lucky you are able to sell here outside BST.

I never said I'm smart and I never go on calling people peasants and retards. That is something you do and maybe it pleases you to attack people. I openly acknowledge the contribution of wickedfire for myself.

Also, I'm all open to criticism. When you close yourself to criticism, it is when your mental degradation starts and you'll do "bad" things without even realizing.

You also don't know anything about me, what services, products and sites I got going online and what little setup I have got offline. You are not one among the ones here who really know me. You may be a peasant but fortunately, I'm not.

Keep the personal attacks coming guys. It means I am right, or you're incapable of discussing my argument heads on. I love it, because your behavior confirms what I already know.

Delusion. "Don't confuse being a loud idiot with being right," someone once said.

 

[Moxie]

 

[guerilla]

@Moxie, talking about me again? Looks like I am still winning.

 

[jonas33h]

As someone who lives in his mother's basement, I can confirm that the internet is loaded with undersexed tough guys posting from their mom's basement.

"I'm gunna fuck you up with mah posts!"

"I would blow his penis off!"

"People who look at it are sick fucks who deserve to burn!"

Meanwhile, these are the same guys who vote for politicians who are pedophiles, the same guys who support a court and social service system that institutionalizes child abuse, and who endorse a system that mass murders innocent strangers all over the world.

WE GOTTA DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!

WE GOTTA FUCK UP THE PEDOS!!!!

YOU EITHER HATE THE PEDOS OR YOU ARE A PEDO!!!

MERP MERP MERP!!!! BEEP BEEP BEEP!!!




Sometimes I like to imagine there is no Unarmed Gunman, no AOJON, no Guerilla, just a handful of rogue chat bots that showed up in the same room at the same time.

This comment is fill so much full fail.

 

[jonas33h]

oh and just remove the computer. . . . If a grown ass man had a child get naked in front of them didn't touch didn't force the child to do anything clearly he is not trying to view child porn and is free to fap since he is just looking correct?

 

[faceblogger]

This thread is the largest battlefield of 2012

 

[guerilla]

There are much more than "one" actually. Take a look at just your last 100 posts on anarchy. A lot of them are pure delusions and scenarios which don't work in the real world. Anarchy does not work in the real world.

If you say it enough times, It must be true!! lol

Sure anarchy works in the real world. It works trillions of times a day. More of life is anarchistic than not.

That should be obvious to anyone who understands what anarchy is.

Maybe you live in a nice, secure and green place in Canada where you can't really feel the real world even if you wanted to, so you go on taking all the good things around you for granted.

We all inhabit the same world. Mine is as real as yours.

The only difference between our worlds is that mine has a future.

LOL. Same holds true for you. You should feel extra lucky you are able to sell here outside BST.

Are you going to keep up this lie, or are you going to tell everyone what I am selling? lol

Also, I'm all open to criticism. When you close yourself to criticism, it is when your mental degradation starts and you'll do "bad" things without even realizing.

This thread is rife with criticism of me. Some of it fair, most probably not.

I seek out criticism and challenges. Here I am, talking to you, someone I don't particularly like, but I am responding to your offtopic, personal and shitposts in public.

You can accuse me of a lot of things but you can't accuse me of not getting and responding to criticism.

You also don't know anything about me, what services, products and sites I got going online and what little setup I have got offline. You are not one among the ones here who really know me.

And I don't care. I don't think anyone here cares.

Parlay this sad attack on me into an opportunity to promote yourself.

Who are you? What do you do? Who do you work with?

Open yourself up to some criticism.

I'll bet $100 to the charity of Turbo's choice you won't.

You may be a peasant but fortunately, I'm not.

Being a peasant is a state of mind, it's not a bank balance. If you think like a peasant, and you act like a peasant, it doesn't matter how much money you have. You're a fucking peasant.

Maybe you're wealthy. Maybe your money comes from your family. Maybe you have a day job that pays well. Maybe you own a network of fantastically successful websites. Maybe you're dominating the affiliate marketing scene in India. Maybe you're one of the best daytraders on the asian subcontinent.

None of that matters if you act like a peasant.

Guys like you and Moxie are necessary. I don't begrudge your existence. you're part of the game, like the backboard in basketball or the heckler behind the home team bench.