Discussion If a person is arrested for looking at child porn because it’s illegal, shouldn’t it be a criminal offense to look at videos of someone being killed?

[Mainländer]

Your logic makes no sense. The people who make cp FILM IT and DISTRIBUTE IT. But somehow, they are not doing it for YOUR consumption. They are doing it.......just cuz? Great way to take the responsibility off of your own shoulders. But of course it wouldn't stand if a little bit of common sense is used.

I already addressed that argument here:

I make a video of me punching someone on the face and explicitly say it's for the amusement of people who like watching people geting punched and upload it on the internet. People who simply download it and watch it should be jailed? Physical assault is a crime.

And here:

If we're just talking about morality, should simple possession of porn be outlawed in your opinion? What about leaked porn, without the consent of the person being shown there? Gore? Videos of people getting punched? Videos of animal cruelty? Car theft videos?

I don't think especulation on the intentions of the person who created the media are relevant to whether or not just watching it should be a crime, since people who are just watching it for free are not contributing to the crime in any way (also because it would be tricky to know it for sure, contrary to the clear made-up division you pull out of your ass to differ gore and CP - "all gore is produced without wanting attention, all CP is produced wanting attention").

In other words, I don't think giving attention to anything should be a crime, even if you can consistently prove that all CP is created to get attention and all gore is not (tip: you can't).

If you think just theoretically giving attention to the criminals through watching the media of the crimes should be a crime, then we need to universally apply that principle to gore, leaked porn, people getting punched, and so on. If you universally apply it, we get a dystopian perverted government where people should be jailed just for looking at things on the internet. If you don't universally apply and think ONLY CP simple possession should be a crime, there's a word for you: HYPOCRITE. It's a double standard. "It's ok if I sadistically laugh at my drug cartel gore video, but if someone watches CP somehow that's different and not ok".

Also, if we apply that:

1. CP is produced through illegal means.
2. CP is of an inherently harmful nature, being in and of itself an affront to the dignity of the child in question.
3. Such media, being contrary to the public morality and decency, should therefore be outlawed.
4. In order to effectively enforce a ban on such content, heavy penalties should exist for those who illegally view such media.

...consistently, what we get is an even more dystopian theocratic-ish government where all immoral acts should be criminalized, so everybody belongs in jail since everyone makes immoral things from time to time. Laughing at dark humor is immoral, for instance.

 

[FinnCel]

Porn should be banned in general

 

[Mainländer]

Porn should be banned in general

If no fault-divorce, women's sexual licentiousness, etc, are not banned as well, that's just yet another selective anti-male whiteknight law disguised as morality. If all of these are banned, this is at least consistent. I don't think all immoral things should be outlawed though because that would mean everybody belongs in jail.

 

[FinnCel]

If no fault-divorce, women's sexual licentiousness, etc, are not banned as well, that's just yet another selective anti-male whiteknight law disguised as morality. If all of these are banned, this is at least consistent. I don't think all immoral things should be outlawed though because that would mean everybody belongs in jail.

high IQ

 

[Mainländer]

I hope many people today learned that men being jailed and having their lives ruined because of media they downloaded for free from the internet is something wrong and hypocritical.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

I hope many people today learned that men being jailed and having their lives ruined because of media they downloaded for free from the internet is something wrong and hypocritical.

And I remember the guitarist from manowar was arrested for looking at cp and everyone said he should be castrated and killed wtf

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

And I remember the guitarist from manowar was arrested for looking at cp and everyone said he should be castrated and killed wtf

Because humans are retarded npcs.

He should be castrated for viewing pictures he didnt take nor was he directly involved with the child. Its fucking retarded.

It's a game of who can be the most morally superior in the publics eyes.

 

[Mainländer]

And I remember the guitarist from manowar was arrested for looking at cp and everyone said he should be castrated and killed wtf

That happened with someone from The Who as well.

Millions of men's lives have been ruined over that. That's why it makes me so pissed that some morons defend that nonsensical outlawing of simple possession here. Especially when there's also hypocrisy involved, since other medias containing crimes can be freely possessed.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Because humans are retarded npcs.

He should be castrated for viewing pictures he didnt take nor was he directly involved with the child. Its fucking retarded.

It's a game of who can be the most morally superior in the publics eyes.

Saying someone should be killed for looking at cp is like saying I should be killed if I view a professional killer’s videos of him killing people for entertainment

That happened with someone from The Who as well.

Millions of men's lives have been ruined over that. That's why it makes me so pissed that some morons defend that nonsensical outlawing of simple possession here. Especially when there's also hypocrisy involved, since other medias containing crimes can be freely possessed.

That happened with someone from The Who as well.

Millions of men's lives have been ruined over that. That's why it makes me so pissed that some morons defend that nonsensical outlawing of simple possession here. Especially when there's also hypocrisy involved, since other medias containing crimes can be freely possessed.

And many musicians these days lose their careers over sex with some 16 year old that they did a decade ago. Even in like 2018, moby received backlash for asking out Natalie Portman back when he was 33 or something and she was 18.

 

[Mainländer]

Saying someone should be killed for looking at cp is like saying I should be killed if I view a professional killer’s videos of him killing people for entertainment


And many musicians these days lose their careers over sex with some 16 year old that they did a decade ago. Even in like 2018, moby received backlash for asking out Natalie Portman back when he was 33 or something and she was 18.

The Japinha case made me extra mad. JAPINHA DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG, not even from a legalist perspective. The AoC in Brazil is 14 and the girl he politely and reciprocally hit on was 16. He lost the job in the band he played for 21 years over that shit. It's revolting that nowadays men can lose everything over dumb shit like that, and even more revolting that there are people in a FUCKING INCEL FORUM who defend stuff like that.

If I were the admin those people would be banned from here as hard as Zesto was. There isn't even a trace of him left here if you notice. Agecucks and whiteknights don't belong in an incel forum, go shame your fellow men unjustly on Reddit instead. You'd be in more adequate company there.

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

The Japinha case made me extra mad. JAPINHA DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG, not even from a legalist perspective. The AoC in Brazil is 14 and the girl he politely and reciprocally hit on was 16. He lost the job in the band he played for almost 30 years over that shit. It's revolting that nowadays men can lose everything over dumb shit like that, and even more revolting that there are people in a FUCKING INCEL FORUM who defend that.

If I were the admin those people would be banned from here as hard as Zesto was. There isn't even a trace of him left here if you notice. Agecucks and whiteknights don't belong in an incel forum, go shame your fellow men on Reddit instead. You'd be in more adequate company there.

Hey guys, pictures of sexy 13 year olds are wrong. Just ignore your biology bro. If you're sexually attracted to a young female you need therapy.

Am i doing good my government overlords?

 

[Personalityinkwell]

Every case is different and requires analysis to see how far the offender is down the rabit hole. I have already said that. That aside, middle schooler sex is wrong on another level. Even hindus and deobandi muslims, for whom the concept of pedophilia is non-existent, who practice child marriage don't go that far. That simply shouldn't be happening.

well we live in a clown world of course. I agree a traditional society where people wait til marriage to have sex is the best, but we don't live in that.

I just don't see how watching that would be "immoral"

and just to clarify, I don't really enjoy porn in general anyway, I've seen some pornhub stuff of course, which is legal, but most stuff I jerk to is solo pictures. and never of kids, just sometimes teens in skimpy outfits (which IS NOT illegal)

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

The Japinha case made me extra mad. JAPINHA DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG, not even from a legalist perspective. The AoC in Brazil is 14 and the girl he politely and reciprocally hit on was 16. He lost the job in the band he played for almost 30 years over that shit. It's revolting that nowadays men can lose everything over dumb shit like that, and even more revolting that there are people in a FUCKING INCEL FORUM who defend stuff like that.

If I were the admin those people would be banned from here as hard as Zesto was. There isn't even a trace of him left here if you notice. Agecucks and whiteknights don't belong in an incel forum, go shame your fellow men unjustly on Reddit instead. You'd be in more adequate company there.

It’s crazy because famous men used to date underage teens even in the 2000s. Nowadays it would instantly destroy their career. I mean look at Austin jones, he received nude photo from underage fans and everyone wants him raped and killed in prison

 

[Mainländer]

It’s crazy because famous men used to date underage teens even in the 2000s. Nowadays it would instantly destroy their career. I mean look at Austin jones, he received nude photo from underage fans and everyone wants him raped and killed in prison

The Stone Temple Pilots predicted the future. "Conversations kill". Talk with some teenage groupie (who wants you), people want you tortured, raped and killed.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqyposaQWnI

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

The Stone Temple Pilots predicted the future. "Conversations kill". Talk with some teenage groupie (who wants you), people want you tortured, raped and killed.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqyposaQWnI

Seriously in 10 years feminists are gonna raise the AOC to 21 and any man who dates 18-20 year olds will lose their careers and people will want them raped and killed

 

[Mainländer]

Seriously in 10 years feminists are gonna raise the AOC to 21 and any man who dates 18-20 year olds will lose their careers and people will want them raped and killed

The sad part is not women wanting illogical and emotionally-driven things. It's men accepting it as a group.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

The sad part is not women wanting illogical and emotionally-driven things. It's men accepting it as a group.

Most men are brainwashed and listen to feminists out of fear

 

[Caesercel]

well we live in a clown world of course. I agree a traditional society where people wait til marriage to have sex is the best, but we don't live in that.

I just don't see how watching that would be "immoral"

and just to clarify, I don't really enjoy porn in general anyway, I've seen some pornhub stuff of course, which is legal, but most stuff I jerk to is solo pictures. and never of kids, just sometimes teens in skimpy outfits (which IS NOT illegal)

Well there are 13 year old teens and then there are 16 year old teens. That's a difference. Again its case by case. Even a collection of 15-16 yo jb would be considered illegal in a place like USA. Which is kinda absurd. The thing is social media changed things a lot and so did feminist uproar for sluttery. Nowadays teens are uploading their own jb out there. You cannot tell with what intention the pictures one possess were taken. I think (((they))) are trying their best to normalize pedophilia and child porn. Also there are different kinds of cp, so there's that. Its a very detailed topic that minds greater than you or I have debated.

My own idea is, don't take part in exploitation of children(which should be agiven) and don't consume it either. And if its illegal in your country then don't make jb collections either. You may think its not immoral but you are changing nobody's mind. There is enough non jb porn out there for one to enjoy unless they are an exclusive pedo.

Other than that I don't really care for the excuses that pedophiles here make for jerking off to a video of a 9 y/o sucking off an adult man(that's the cp I encountered).

These pedos need help(that's something soys and feminists who run soyciety would say. I say, bullet to the head.)

 

[Personalityinkwell]

Well there are 13 year old teens and then there are 16 year old teens. That's a difference. Again its case by case. Even a collection of 15-16 yo jb would be considered illegal in a place like USA. Which is kinda absurd. The thing is social media changed things a lot and so did feminist uproar for sluttery. Nowadays teens are uploading their own jb out there. You cannot tell with what intention the pictures one possess were taken. I think (((they))) are trying their best to normalize pedophilia and child porn. Also there are different kinds of cp, so there's that. Its a very detailed topic that minds greater than you or I have debated.

My own idea is, don't take part in exploitation of children(which should be agiven) and don't consume it either. And if its illegal in your country then don't make jb collections either. You may think its not immoral but you are changing nobody's mind. There is enough non jb porn out there for one to enjoy unless they are an exclusive pedo.

Other than that I don't really care for the excuses that pedophiles here make for jerking off to a video of a 9 y/o sucking off an adult man(that's the cp I encountered).

These pedos need help(that's something soys and feminists who run soyciety would say. I say, bullet to the head.)

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Well there are 13 year old teens and then there are 16 year old teens. That's a difference. Again its case by case. Even a collection of 15-16 yo jb would be considered illegal in a place like USA. Which is kinda absurd. The thing is social media changed things a lot and so did feminist uproar for sluttery. Nowadays teens are uploading their own jb out there. You cannot tell with what intention the pictures one possess were taken. I think (((they))) are trying their best to normalize pedophilia and child porn. Also there are different kinds of cp, so there's that. Its a very detailed topic that minds greater than you or I have debated.

My own idea is, don't take part in exploitation of children(which should be agiven) and don't consume it either. And if its illegal in your country then don't make jb collections either. You may think its not immoral but you are changing nobody's mind. There is enough non jb porn out there for one to enjoy unless they are an exclusive pedo.

Other than that I don't really care for the excuses that pedophiles here make for jerking off to a video of a 9 y/o sucking off an adult man(that's the cp I encountered).

These pedos need help(that's something soys and feminists who run soyciety would say. I say, bullet to the head.)

Executing someone for viewing cp is stupid. Also, nobody here is saying you should look at cp but saying it should be illegal and a criminal offense to view it but then say it’s ok to watch entertainment videos of people irl being killed professionally is retarded, most cp is amateur anyway

 

[TINMAN]

All non-2D porn should be banned and illegal to the same extent CP is. Women shouldn't get money just for having a vagina. If we implement such a law then the debate on CP would become irrelevant.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

All non-2D porn should be banned and illegal to the same extent CP is. Women shouldn't get money just for having a vagina. If we implement such a law then the debate on CP would become irrelevant.

We wouldn’t be able to ban all porn

 

[Iwanttolive]

I feel There is a difference between media produced by Richard Huckle and some young foids leaks

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

I feel There is a difference between media produced by Richard Huckle and some young foids leaks

Richard huckle? I remember he got killed in prison, but’s rare believe it or not

 

[Sheogorath]

Child porn is illegal because it supports an illegal industry.
ou're aiding child pornography by being patron to it.
Or at least that's what they're trying to prevent.

Patrons (look up Patreon for example) are people who donate money to fund the creation of a work.

Creators fucking hate leechers who look at or share their works without sending money their way. It actually harms their ability to make money, and by being less profitable, actually reduces incentive to create future content.

We understand this for pretty much any other kind of media.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Patrons (look up Patreon for example) are people who donate money to fund the creation of a work.

Creators fucking hate leechers who look at or share their works without sending money their way. It actually harms their ability to make money, and by being less profitable, actually reduces incentive to create future content.

We understand this for pretty much any other kind of media.

So viewing cp for free deters creation of cp?

 

[FrothySolutions]

Patrons (look up Patreon for example) are people who donate money to fund the creation of a work.

Creators fucking hate leechers who look at or share their works without sending money their way. It actually harms their ability to make money, and by being less profitable, actually reduces incentive to create future content.

We understand this for pretty much any other kind of media.

Another perspective for media in general is "Distribution, even at a loss, is good for promoting awareness of the product." It's not an absolute that "leeching" is bad.

 

[Fat Link]

I voted the very top option as I could see an allowance being made for people being allowed to watch videos of people being killed via accidents but yeah if pedo shit is illegal to view so too should be murder vids.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

I voted the very top option as I could see an allowance being made for people being allowed to watch videos of people being killed via accidents but yeah if pedo shit is illegal to view so too should be murder vids.

If I watched murder videos nobody would care but cp and people have heart attack

 

[Deleted member 20195]

Law enforcement are able to view confiscated Child Pornography. Well apparently it's ok as it's not for their own sexual gratification. So why is the same benefit of doubt not given to those who possess it?

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Law enforcement are able to view confiscated Child Pornography. Well apparently it's ok as it's not for their own sexual gratification. So why is the same benefit of doubt not given to those who possess it?

And some might view cp because of curiosity instead of pleasure

 

[Mainländer]

And some might view cp because of curiosity instead of pleasure

All the people I've seen here who defend the criminalization of simple possession of CP downloaded for free from the internet, but not of gore, have basically two flaws in their argument:

1) they think the intentions of the people who produced the media, or those of the ones who downloaded it, must be taken into consideration for whether or not criminalization of simple possession of media downloaded for free from the internet should take place. So, according to their logic, if the criminal didn't want attention, you can watch the media for free; if he wanted, you can't. If you're watching to fap to it, you can't; if not, you can. THESE SHOULD NOT BE RELEVANT REASONS WHETHER OR NOT TO BAN SIMPLE POSSESSION OF MEDIA DOWNLOADED FROM THE INTERNET AT ALL.

If I download a picture of you from Facebook and use it to print it, glue it to a punching bag and hit your face printed on it, should I be jailed for the simple possession of the picture of you I downloaded for free from Facebook? THIS SHIT MAKES NO SENSE, GOD, THINK STRAIGHT.

If I film myself punching someone in the face, say "I'M DOING THIS FOR THE PLEASURE OF SADISTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, ENJOY!", upload it to the internet and someone downloads it for free and watches it, should this person who just downloaded it for free be jailed? IT. SIMPLY. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

2) on top of it, they ASSUME the intentions of people who downloaded that types of media. "Everyone who downloaded CP did it to fap to it and is a pedo and a potential risk to society" / "Everyone who downloaded gore did it just because they're curious and mean no threat". HOW CAN YOU FUCKING KNOW? Seriously, how can you? What if the person who downloaded CP did it out of curiosity, what if the person who downloaded gore is plotting to commit a violent crime and downloaded it to learn torture and murder techniques?

@Caesercel @Irishcel @FrothySolutions @psygnosis-owl @Smitty (there are probably more people I'm forgetting), what you defend (criminalization of simple possession of media downloaded for free from the internet) is either tyranny (let's jail/forcefully intervene everyone who downloads media containing crimes for free from the internet) or HYPOCRISY (let's do it only with those who downloaded CP because of some random emotional, inconsistent reason, but not gore, violence or other crimes). So either way you're WRONG.

I'm bringing this up again to sum things up and let it very clear to anyone looking that YOU LOST the debate and are wrong. This is a very important subject to me as MILLIONS of men have their lives ruined over that shit unjustly, many of which are likely incels like us. Whiteknighting, lookism, gynocentrism and misandry play a HUGE role on inconsistencies like this one.

 

[Irishcel]

All the people I've seen here who defend the criminalization of simple possession of CP downloaded for free from the internet, but not of gore, have basically two flaws in their argument:

1) they think the intentions of the people who produced the media, or those of the ones who downloaded it, must be taken into consideration for whether or not criminalization of simple possession of media downloaded for free from the internet should take place. So, according to their logic, if the criminal didn't want attention, you can watch the media for free; if he wanted, you can't. If you're watching to fap to it, you can't; if not, you can. THESE SHOULD NOT BE RELEVANT REASONS WHETHER OR NOT TO BAN SIMPLE POSSESSION OF MEDIA DOWNLOADED FROM THE INTERNET AT ALL.

If I download a picture of you from Facebook and use it to print it, glue it to a punching bag and hit your face printed on it, should I be jailed for the simple possession of the picture of you I downloaded for free from Facebook? THIS SHIT MAKES NO SENSE, GOD, THINK STRAIGHT.

If I film myself punching someone in the face, say "I'M DOING THIS FOR THE PLEASURE OF SADISTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, ENJOY!", upload it to the internet and someone downloads it for free and watches it, should this person who just downloaded it for free be jailed? IT. SIMPLY. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

2) on top of it, they ASSUME the intentions of people who downloaded that types of media. "Everyone who downloaded CP did it to fap to it and is a pedo and a potential risk to society" / "Everyone who downloaded gore did it just because they're curious and mean no threat". HOW CAN YOU FUCKING KNOW? Seriously, how can you? What if the person who downloaded CP did it out of curiosity, what if the person who downloaded gore is plotting to commit a violent crime and downloaded it to learn torture and murder techniques?

@Caesercel @Irishcel @FrothySolutions @psygnosis-owl @Smitty (there are probably more people I'm forgetting), what you defend (criminalization of simple possession of media downloaded for free from the internet) is either tyranny (let's jail/forcefully intervene everyone who downloads media containing crimes for free from the internet) or HYPOCRISY (let's do it only with those who downloaded CP because of some random emotional, inconsistent reason, but not gore, violence or other crimes). So either way you're WRONG.

I'm bringing this up again to sum things up and let it very clear to anyone looking that YOU LOST the debate and are wrong. This is a very important subject to me as MILLIONS of men have their lives ruined over that shit unjustly, many of which are likely incels like us. Whiteknighting, lookism, gynocentrism and misandry play a HUGE role on inconsistencies like this one.

Dude why are so passionate about child pornography?

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

Dude why are so passionate about child pornography?

He never said he was passionate. Why are you using that word to make him seem like an ass?

 

[Mainländer]

Dude why are so passionate about child pornography?

I'm not. I said many times it's morally wrong. What I'm passionate about is showing the world that jailing men and ruining their lives for simply downloading media for free from the internet, especially in a hypocritial, inconsistent way, is wrong. If I was able to make one person realize it with that debate I undeniably won, I'm satisfied.

 

[Deleted member 22999]

Child porn is illegal because it supports an illegal industry. You're aiding child pornography by being patron to it. Or at least that's what they're trying to prevent.

 

[Mainländer]

Read the entire thread @Venomkore

 

[Deleted member 22999]

Read the entire thread @Venomkore

will read I got a car drive comin’ up so I got time I guess

 

[Deleted member 20207]

I have never understood why the consumers of child pornography should be arrested, when it is the producers who actually hurt children.

You do not support child pornography just by watching a video of child rape, just like you do not support murder just by watching a gore video involving murder. You are just a bystander who is not involved in the actual crime whatsoever, so arresting the video consumers does not make any logical sense.

The laws against watching child pornographic videos are entirely based on subjective morality (guilt by association). With the same morality, you could argue that anyone who happens to be a bystander to a rape or murder in reality should be arrested though.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

I have never understood why the consumers of child pornography should be arrested, when it is the producers who actually hurt children.

You do not support child pornography just by watching a video of child rape, just like you do not support murder just by watching a gore video involving murder. You are just a bystander who is not involved in the actual crime whatsoever, so arresting the video consumers does not make any logical sense.

The laws against watching child pornographic videos are entirely based on subjective morality (guilt by association). With the same morality, you could argue that anyone who happens to be a bystander to a rape or murder in reality should be arrested though.

All the people I've seen here who defend the criminalization of simple possession of CP downloaded for free from the internet, but not of gore, have basically two flaws in their argument:

1) they think the intentions of the people who produced the media, or those of the ones who downloaded it, must be taken into consideration for whether or not criminalization of simple possession of media downloaded for free from the internet should take place. So, according to their logic, if the criminal didn't want attention, you can watch the media for free; if he wanted, you can't. If you're watching to fap to it, you can't; if not, you can. THESE SHOULD NOT BE RELEVANT REASONS WHETHER OR NOT TO BAN SIMPLE POSSESSION OF MEDIA DOWNLOADED FROM THE INTERNET AT ALL.

If I download a picture of you from Facebook and use it to print it, glue it to a punching bag and hit your face printed on it, should I be jailed for the simple possession of the picture of you I downloaded for free from Facebook? THIS SHIT MAKES NO SENSE, GOD, THINK STRAIGHT.

If I film myself punching someone in the face, say "I'M DOING THIS FOR THE PLEASURE OF SADISTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, ENJOY!", upload it to the internet and someone downloads it for free and watches it, should this person who just downloaded it for free be jailed? IT. SIMPLY. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

2) on top of it, they ASSUME the intentions of people who downloaded that types of media. "Everyone who downloaded CP did it to fap to it and is a pedo and a potential risk to society" / "Everyone who downloaded gore did it just because they're curious and mean no threat". HOW CAN YOU FUCKING KNOW? Seriously, how can you? What if the person who downloaded CP did it out of curiosity, what if the person who downloaded gore is plotting to commit a violent crime and downloaded it to learn torture and murder techniques?

@Caesercel @Irishcel @FrothySolutions @psygnosis-owl @Smitty (there are probably more people I'm forgetting), what you defend (criminalization of simple possession of media downloaded for free from the internet) is either tyranny (let's jail/forcefully intervene everyone who downloads media containing crimes for free from the internet) or HYPOCRISY (let's do it only with those who downloaded CP because of some random emotional, inconsistent reason, but not gore, violence or other crimes). So either way you're WRONG.

I'm bringing this up again to sum things up and let it very clear to anyone looking that YOU LOST the debate and are wrong. This is a very important subject to me as MILLIONS of men have their lives ruined over that shit unjustly, many of which are likely incels like us. Whiteknighting, lookism, gynocentrism and misandry play a HUGE role on inconsistencies like this one.

there's literally people who want you executed for viewing cp. i mean one guy got a life sentence for viewing cp i remember reading

 

[Deleted member 20207]

there's literally people who want you executed for viewing cp. i mean one guy got a life sentence for viewing cp i remember reading

What is the difference between executing men who are attracted to children, but who do not personally molest children, and executing homosexuals though, of which the later is condemned by the establishment?

In both cases, they cannot determine who they are attracted to.

 

[Sheogorath]

So viewing cp for free deters creation of cp?

Well, not necessarily. You can do things other than pay money directly to induce someone to do something.

Like for example if you view/click advertisements and the advertisers pay the creator money.

I believe the CP theory is something like "these guys are encouraged by attention so you are paying them with attention".

In which case: I guess we contributed to the murder of JFK by watching JFK get shot because that gives attention to the murderer's act, all according to keikaku.

Funny thing though: that actually sounds incredibly gay to be a man fueled purely by a desire to have other men watch you fuck kids.

I'm pretty sure that's not the leading motive of CP producers, they probably want money or to get people to make their own porn.

My guess is they fucking hate leechers who don't contribute shit.

There are people who do work uncompensated (like fansubbers) but fansubbing is a lot less work than creating the product they're subbing.

Another perspective for media in general is
"Distribution, even at a loss, is good for promoting awareness of the product."
It's not an absolute that "leeching" is bad.

No, the reason why "awareness" has value (ie free for pirates) is to induce law-abiding people to actually purchase the product later.
When you make it illegal to purchase the product, that's not a market.
While you're right that leeching may be useful for inducing sales, I don't think that factor exists with products which are illegal to sell.

Law enforcement are able to view confiscated Child Pornography. Well apparently it's ok as it's not for their own sexual gratification. So why is the same benefit of doubt not given to those who possess it?

TBH as much of a lolicon as I am, if it were legal to DL/view my primary motive in doing so would be to aid law enforcement, to see if there were any bad dudes abusing kids in them and to help dox them.

Obviously per MY standards of abuse though (ie visible suffering) so not going to waste time on the fapfuel.

I have never understood why the consumers of child pornography should be arrested, when it is the producers who actually hurt children.

You do not support child pornography just by watching a video of child rape, just like you do not support murder just by watching a gore video involving murder. You are just a bystander who is not involved in the actual crime whatsoever, so arresting the video consumers does not make any logical sense.

A related issue would be the Brenton Tarrant shooting video last year. I believe some places started making it illegal to spread the video.

I guess one could argue that getting attention was one of Tarrant's motives and that by viewing/sharing the video we are giving him what he wants, in effect "paying" Tarrant to commit the murders.

I find that an incredibly slippery slope though.

I mean what's next, I can't spread that video of niggers beheading a woman because it gives the niggers the attention they crave?

Why should it be assumed I'm doing it to celebrate niggers and not condemn them?

What's next, we outlaw videos of mezizah b'peh ceremonies because it gives mohels the attention they crave?

One thing we seem to miss here is they're not actually catching the primary offenders as much when they focus on tertiary targets.

Although they sometimes do release portions of CP to help identify perpetrators, their faces would be much more memorable if they showed people the entire video.

 

[Mainländer]

A related issue would be the Brenton Tarrant shooting video last year. I believe some places started making it illegal to spread the video.

I guess one could argue that getting attention was one of Tarrant's motives and that by viewing/sharing the video we are giving him what he wants, in effect "paying" Tarrant to commit the murders.

I find that an incredibly slippery slope though.

I mean what's next, I can't spread that video of niggers beheading a woman because it gives the niggers the attention they crave?

Why should it be assumed I'm doing it to celebrate niggers and not condemn them?

What's next, we outlaw videos of mezizah b'peh ceremonies because it gives mohels the attention they crave?

One thing we seem to miss here is they're not actually catching the primary offenders as much when they focus on tertiary targets.

Although they sometimes do release portions of CP to help identify perpetrators, their faces would be much more memorable if they showed people the entire video.

High IQ. Simply giving attention to things cannot be criminalized without it either becoming tyranny or hypocrisy, even if there was a way to satisfactorily assess which criminal wanted attention and which didn't (there isn't, it's all assumptions in the vast majority of cases). That was my point in my last long post here and people who want their fellow men jailed for watching media for free cannot refute it

 

[Sheogorath]

High IQ. Simply giving attention to things cannot be criminalized without it either becoming tyranny or hypocrisy,
even if there was a way to satisfactorily assess which criminal wanted attention and which didn't
(there isn't, it's all assumptions in the vast majority of cases)

imagine making it illegal to view the videos of James Alex Field hitting Heather Heyer with his car because it would be assumed to be for celebratory purposes

oh wait... that already happened, they literally sealed the police helicopter footage that Berke Bates died recording

Trump should honor Bates and Cullen and make all footage they took that day public property.

How the fuck does some local judge keep that locked up for literally years so we can only analyze the APPROVED video taken by protesters which conveniently doesn't show the guy smashing his motorcycle helmet into Fields' car prior to the clubbers

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Well, not necessarily. You can do things other than pay money directly to induce someone to do something.

Like for example if you view/click advertisements and the advertisers pay the creator money.

I believe the CP theory is something like "these guys are encouraged by attention so you are paying them with attention".

In which case: I guess we contributed to the murder of JFK by watching JFK get shot because that gives attention to the murderer's act, all according to keikaku.

Funny thing though: that actually sounds incredibly gay to be a man fueled purely by a desire to have other men watch you fuck kids.

I'm pretty sure that's not the leading motive of CP producers, they probably want money or to get people to make their own porn.

My guess is they fucking hate leechers who don't contribute shit.

There are people who do work uncompensated (like fansubbers) but fansubbing is a lot less work than creating the product they're subbing.

No, the reason why "awareness" has value (ie free for pirates) is to induce law-abiding people to actually purchase the product later.
When you make it illegal to purchase the product, that's not a market.
While you're right that leeching may be useful for inducing sales, I don't think that factor exists with products which are illegal to sell.


TBH as much of a lolicon as I am, if it were legal to DL/view my primary motive in doing so would be to aid law enforcement, to see if there were any bad dudes abusing kids in them and to help dox them.

Obviously per MY standards of abuse though (ie visible suffering) so not going to waste time on the fapfuel.


A related issue would be the Brenton Tarrant shooting video last year. I believe some places started making it illegal to spread the video.

I guess one could argue that getting attention was one of Tarrant's motives and that by viewing/sharing the video we are giving him what he wants, in effect "paying" Tarrant to commit the murders.

I find that an incredibly slippery slope though.

I mean what's next, I can't spread that video of niggers beheading a woman because it gives the niggers the attention they crave?

Why should it be assumed I'm doing it to celebrate niggers and not condemn them?

What's next, we outlaw videos of mezizah b'peh ceremonies because it gives mohels the attention they crave?

One thing we seem to miss here is they're not actually catching the primary offenders as much when they focus on tertiary targets.

Although they sometimes do release portions of CP to help identify perpetrators, their faces would be much more memorable if they showed people the entire video.

i doubt watching free cp videos gives them money, isn't most cp amateur anyway. but even pro videos don't get money from free views/downlaods. napster didn't give musicians money

 

[Sheogorath]

i doubt watching free cp videos gives them money,
isn't most cp amateur anyway.
but even pro videos don't get money from free views/downlaods.
napster didn't give musicians money

There isn't actually a clearcut line between free/amateur unless you mean the performers being paid.

Napster ran into legal difficulties due to copyright infringement.

That's one area I think is important: if people were in porn and it was getting sold without giving them a sensible cut then they could sue the seller.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

There isn't actually a clearcut line between free/amateur unless you mean the performers being paid.

Napster ran into legal difficulties due to copyright infringement.

That's one area I think is important: if people were in porn and it was getting sold without giving them a sensible cut then they could sue the seller.

i still think executing someone for viewing cp is dumb. but many pedo panickers would disagree

 

[Mainländer]

i doubt watching free cp videos gives them money, isn't most cp amateur anyway. but even pro videos don't get money from free views/downlaods. napster didn't give musicians money

Those people think people usually watch CP in some CP version of pornhub with those "click here to get a free gift" and "wait 5 seconds to skip" ads, kek. They obviously didn't do their research at all. Most CP is watched in deep web sites that don't even allow Javascript (what tube sites run on).

Source: Wikileaks and dozens of threads about it I read on 55chan, before more ad hominem shit comes my way.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Those people think people usually watch CP in some CP version of pornhub with those "click here to get a free gift" and "wait 5 seconds to skip" ads, kek. They obviously didn't do their research at all. Most CP is watched in deep web sites that don't even allow Javascript (what tube sites run on).

Source: Wikileaks and dozens of threads about it I read on 55chan, before more ad hominem shit comes my way.

some cp is on the darkweb

 

[Mainländer]

some cp is on the darkweb

I've never ever heard of large tube CP sites full of ads. Who would even host that shit?

It's 99% amateur shit. As for professional CP being sold and bought, yeah, jail those.