• (cs) in reply to Mange
    Mange:
    Why is watching CP illegal?

    There are a number of reasons

    You forgot, "consumption encourages production". Even if there's no direct profit from it (i.e. they're not selling it for money), there are a number of reasons that it can still be considered profitable to the offender.

    1. Does "trade" equate to "profit"? Maybe I'm not distributing it for money, but if I give you one pic in exchange for another, it has the same snowballing effect as doing it for profit.

    2. Some people just want to be notorious. Yes, if you could download it completely anonymously those guys wouldn't be a factor, but if this dude's getting caught by his co-workers, he's probably nor being all that discreet about it.

  • Kuba (unregistered) in reply to John Henry Frank
    John Henry Frank:
    Some of you need to watch more Law and Order or something.

    I won't get into the issue of CP as enough has been said, thank you. What I do find appalling is that you suggest that people should watch more scripted, fictional "law-related" drama. For what? It's completely made up, has mostly zero basis in legal reality, and juries and even military interrogators (WTF? but true!) have been found wrongly swayed/erring due to watching this crap. Please don't fall for it. If you want people to understand law, tell them to talk to a good law teacher, or to go to law school. Not to watch Hollywood-made propaganda.

  • Barf 4eva (unregistered)

    bwahahahaha! Very clbutty!

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    It wasn't even porn, I bet

  • John Henry Frank (unregistered) in reply to Kuba
    Kuba:
    John Henry Frank:
    Some of you need to watch more Law and Order or something.

    I won't get into the issue of CP as enough has been said, thank you. What I do find appalling is that you suggest that people should watch more scripted, fictional "law-related" drama. For what? It's completely made up, has mostly zero basis in legal reality, and juries and even military interrogators (WTF? but true!) have been found wrongly swayed/erring due to watching this crap. Please don't fall for it. If you want people to understand law, tell them to talk to a good law teacher, or to go to law school. Not to watch Hollywood-made propaganda.

    Law and Order, not Boston Legal. Oh and get over yourself already. It's sarcasm. Go watch your star trek.

  • Founder (unregistered)

    The wonders of the English language. Is a "Large animal hospital" a large hospital for animals, or a hospital for large animals.

    Is kiddy porn;

    Porn made starring children Porn made for children Porn made by children

  • Bruteforce (unregistered) in reply to jas88
    jas88:
    Monomelodies:
    Now now, that's a bit uncalled for. While I'm sure we all agree children shouldn't be exploited commercially (for sex), the whole idea of children and sexuality is viewed with much less of a Pavlov reaction in other cultures. And by "other cultures" I don't mean some backwater - the ancient Greeks thought it perfectly okay, and I'm sure I need not remind you that they are considered one of the cornerstones of western society.

    All I'm saying is: there is indeed no absolute truth to morality. Claiming there is, and you know it, and attacking someone for pointing out you are, in fact, wrong by using excessive swearing words is more a sign of your own moral shallowness than anything else.

    More importantly, pointing out that our truths aren't universal does not mean we do not wish to live by said truths. Now /that/ is an unforgivable fallacy.

    You don't even have to go as far afield as Ancient Greece — just modern-day Spain, where the age of consent is apparently 13, meaning that having sex with teenagers is entirely legal there. (No idea how the Spanish laws regard videoing said sex, although it seems illogical to me for it to be illegal to film an act which is in itself legal.) Even within the US itself the age of consent can be a lot lower than people might expect — I was quite surprised myself when I looked it up.

    In sweden 15 year olds are legal to have sex with, but to participate in any kind of porn (or any kind of other entertainment) they need their parents consent. We actually had a teen pop band in sweden a few years ago with 2 girls in it that modeled for a soft core magazine called Slitz. With their parens consent. Apparently, some sleezeball at the record studio had put it in the deal for publishing the music that when they were 16 or something they were supposed to pose for said magazine. And the parents agreed to it, not only when they signed the contract, but before the pictures were taken as well.

  • Metal Lord (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    ...there doesn't seem to be a particularly large industry based on creating corpses and taking pictures of the process?

    I think the joint operations of the Bush administration & FOX news can be called just that.

  • Count (unregistered) in reply to Steve

    first. without any doubt. and without any warning.

  • Count (unregistered) in reply to "The Law" is not always right (remember Prohibition?)

    Exactly.

    Consuming porn made by destroying kids childhood isn't just sick, it comes close to committing it yourself. I recommend removing the balls.

    captcha: ideo

  • m0ffx (unregistered) in reply to Kasper
    Kasper:
    It sure did occur to me. People have different limits on what they classify as kiddie porn. An 18 year old that looks very young would be enough for some people, while others would think a 14 year old is not that bad. And what exactly defines whether a picture is pornographic. For some nakedness is sufficient to classify it as porn, others would require actual sex to be happening. Of course there are extremes where there can be no doubt, but you cannot just draw a line. There will always be some edge cases where people will disagree.

    But THE LAW does draw a line. I believe in most countries CP involving the slightly underage is treated just the same as CP involving babies. The police, prosecutors, and judges may cause sentencing to be different, but the statutes always have to draw a sharp line.

    So yeah, the employee was probably viewing 'jailbait', mixed in with slightly OVERage stuff('barely legal'). The sort of thing he could come across browsing some imageboards.

    Even the laws about it don't always make sense to me. There are countries where it is legal to have sex with a 16 year old, but illegal to posses a picture of somebody else doing it. Can anybody provide a sane argument why the law would consider it worse to be looking at it than to be doing it?
    1) People of that age are considered old enough to consent, but still young enough to be too vulnerable to commercial exploitation. The law can't actually include a commercial purposes requirement because there'd be too many ways to get round it. And for viewers, it's the 'market' arguement.

    Even though CP is not usually sold, it's often traded in groups where in order to download existing material you must upload new material. People are thus soon driven to actual abuse to obtain more material for viewing.

    1. The law's weird.

    CAPTCHA: bene. Twice, since I tried to post without a name the first time. Same word but different graphic. How does TDWTF's CAPTCHA work?

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Wow how was this person not fired on the first offense? Not only is this disgusting and an offensive abuse of company resources it is illegal and such should at minimum be immediate dismissal.

    So far, this is correct. But if you shouted at me when I have done nothing at all, you may well expect such a stupid answer from my side. And in the end he is right. If she sees this as un unhealthy amount she should also say what a healthy amount is. In my opinion she should have said this cannot be tolerated at all and not just that this is way more than the company allows. I find his reply quite sensible. Not to forget that it was the THIRD time. It should be seen as a major thing already the first time.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to Someone
    Someone:
    Well, it is a WTF. That they did not fire him and sent te cops after him when they busted him the first time, that is. Are they stupid, pedofile, or both? Whose ass was that guy licking that he did not get fired?
    Kiss me I'm Polish:
    Hey, what's wrong with watching porn at work? As long as it's healthy.
    First, you're supposed to WORK when you are at work. Not to watch porn. Second, kiddie porn is not very legal you know. And most people don't really like people who like to watch it.

    I don't think the question is if it's legal or not. IMO it could be "fucking" legal. It still is unacceptable to "use" the weak against their will.

    CAPTCHA: conventio - sure, if everybody agrees it should be OK.

  • lolcat (unregistered) in reply to Seriously

    Seriously. HR should have been the second entity to be notified, even if it was the police that tipped them off first. I've heard of people getting fired from their jobs for things that happened elsewhere; this guy should have been formally fired immediately after he plead guilty or was convicted, whatever works. Sad.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to eryn
    eryn:
    i remember once seeing some porn with a teenager in it on the tech network. her brittle smile for the attention of the camera while she was vigerously violated by a man with an evil grin, it was truly horrific.

    the juxtaposition of this euphamized article and that memory is...

    well i think i'm better prepared for what i would do in this situation.

    And you were watching that??? You pervert.

  • matt (unregistered)

    Relativism is too often a badly throught out excuse for being a lazy, egoistical prick.

    Hey! My lazy egotism is incredibly well thought-out, you insensible clod.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to Monomelodies
    Monomelodies:
    Pat:
    Alos, Mr. retardedly arrogant name, I'd love to see you hold on to your precious moral reletavism without the internet to hide behind. The nice thing about moral reletavism is that unless you want to be a giant hypocrite, you can't get mad if someone beats the shit out of you and throws you in a ditch for sating something retarded. Because to them it's moral, an you have to respect that.

    Of course, you never discussed logic with a real human being, so you wouldn't know that moral relatavism is a joke. There is no intelligent philosopher in the world who buys into that bullshit because it's so obviously flawed.

    Now now, that's a bit uncalled for. While I'm sure we all agree children shouldn't be exploited commercially (for sex), the whole idea of children and sexuality is viewed with much less of a Pavlov reaction in other cultures. And by "other cultures" I don't mean some backwater - the ancient Greeks thought it perfectly okay, and I'm sure I need not remind you that they are considered one of the cornerstones of western society.

    Or think of Mormones having sex with their own children...

  • Rob (unregistered)

    What the hell is wrong with the place you work at? For a start viewing legal porn at work would surely be gross misconduct and a sackable offence. But illegal pornography and they only had a talk with him? Can you tell me where this place is, I'd like to use the resources to run my illegal warez enterprise.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that child porn is so difficult to find.

  • 36% Genius (unregistered) in reply to anonymouse
    anonymouse:
    36% Genius:
    cellocgw:
    ... I am not convinced that *viewing* illegally created material is in and of itself a crime. (sort of like the **IAA trying to nail people for watching illegally copied DVDs).

    In several countries viewing child porn is illegal. The theory is that people who view child porn constitute a market for child porn, which would be an incentive for child molesters to make child porn.

    K, first of all, screw you for actually making me defend something I find reprehensible.
    Sorry, what something do you mean?
    That out of the way, if I were to follow your logic, and you were a fan of say, the movie Hostel, would you be creating incentive for psychopathic criminals to kidnap tourists and offer them as torture victims to wealthy maniacs?
    Wrong analogy. I don't believe that the producers of Hostel were psychopathic criminals and that people were abused during the making of the movie. The reverse is true for child porn. (After reading the wikipedia description of Hostel I do think the producers were pretty sick)
    People who do fucked up things don't do them because they *might* have an audience; they do fucked up things because they are fucked up. If they were going to diddle a little kid and film it, I doubt having a worldwide distribution channel was the motivating factor; if it were, why would there be film from the 60s-80's of the same thing, well before the Internet existed?
    There is a lot of money going on in child porn. This attracts criminals who would't be interested otherwise.
    The reason kp is illegal, beyond the act itself being an issue, is that the victim of the abuse has their face plastered everywhere for the creeps of the world to see. They had no choice in the original crime happening, nor the documentation of it, which results in them being re-victimized every time the image is viewed.
    That is also a good reason to make child porn illegal.
  • Dave (unregistered) in reply to Sanity
    Sanity:
    different

    Different from. Learn English.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    I'm surprised nobody has yet brought up the widespread buying and selling of illicit videos of Saddam Hussein being hanged -- that would be just as good an analogy, wouldn't it?

    Hmmm, you see it was for free on the internetz.

  • Ric (unregistered)

    So what does The Daily WTF consider to be a healthy amount of comments?

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to Bad phrasing...
    Bad phrasing...:
    I don't know about most other work-places, it wouldn't be a "finally"... The *first* time it happened, there would be a huge screaming incident and fists thrown, probably *before* anyone had time to report this to HR...

    I can't confirm that. Here (Belgium, did I hear somebody giggle?) I don't think they tie a rope around your neck at the very first moment. Are you living in the Middle Ages. How many fake "witches" have you burned already? You shouldn't forget that this kind of stuff could also come by spam mail or whatever. Having that stuff on the screen must not necessarily mean that it's that person's fault. Hence, firing, killing, burning, lynching somebody just because you see something on his screen is insane, too, and a WTF in itself.

    CAPTCHA: aptent - WTF?

  • matt (unregistered) in reply to Ric
    Ric:
    So what does The Daily WTF consider to be a healthy amount of comments?

    Count the blue ones.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to Flash
    Flash:
    Saluto:
    However, I do get tired of companies sending company-wide "reminders" of corporate policy when there's only one (known) person who needs to be reminded.
    When there's one person who "forgot" the policy, then maybe there are others who didn't get the message. It's a good time for management to remind everyone. I find no problem with a reminder. In this story, the mistake is scolding the non-offenders rather than just re-enforcing the policy and its purpose.

    REMINDER!

    YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH MINORS DURING OFFICE HOURS!

    (Just in case you had forgotten it)

  • budets (unregistered)

    Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time.

  • Chris (unregistered)

    These comments are more "Daily Mail" than "Daily WTF"

  • (cs) in reply to wonkoTheSane
    wonkoTheSane:
    real_aardvark:
    It doesn't necessarily involve running around in a mob spray-painting words on a paediatrician's house.

    I should hope not, what could any one have against a pediatrician? A paedophile on the other hand... I could understand that.

    It's a reference to a particularly stupid crime committed a few years ago, during a bout of tabloid-fuelled anti-paedophile hysteria: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm

  • (cs) in reply to "The Law" is not always right (remember Prohibition?)
    "The Law" is not always right (remember Prohibition?):
    real_aardvark:
    George Nacht:
    (I myself fear the day I am caught reading The Daily WTF).
    Nothing to worry about. This here is curious perversions, not illegal and downright immoral perversions.

    Morality is in the eye of the beholder to anyone who is not a blind sheep.

    I think this qualifies for the Mixed Metaphor of the Week.*

    • Believing in moral relativity often gets one into these uncomfortable positions.
  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    I call shenanigans. Or stupidity.

    I'm the security analyst for my firm. If we found child porn the order of reporting would be cops first then senior management (let them tell HR).

    As a moral issue: it's evil. As an issue of the company's welfare: can you imagine the repercussions of doing it any other way?

    Can you imagine explaining to your spouse and/or children that you let it slide? Can you imagine explaining to a court? Can you imagine your company's officers trying to explain it to the media? Can you imagine your company's officers trying to explain it to the courts? For the selfish: Can you imagine trying to find work ever again?

    No, and those are all extremely sensible questions.

    What's interesting/depressing is that this whole thread went off on a hair-up-your-ass tangent (and I'm not excluding myself) that ignored all of them.

  • (cs) in reply to anonymouse
    anonymouse:
    real_aardvark:
    Leaving aside the question of why a corpse would care whether you are looking at i <whatever it is that I said in the first place that doesn't fit into a single line in vi/>
    Replace the word "corpse" with "rape victim", and I submit that you have something just as bad as kp, that is not (at the moment) illegal (in the worst possible taste, yes, but not illegal).
    (1) I can only deal with supposed equivalences presented to me at the time. That wasn't it, you twit. (2) Depending upon the photographs in question, I either agree with you or disagree with you. Context, my sweetie, context. If it's a photo of a bruised and scared face, it works either way (and viewing it might still be immoral, but that's a different question). If it's a photograph or video of the act taking place, then I'm mildly offended at your assumption that I wouldn't take the same moral position (backed by the consensus) on both of them.
    anonymouse:
    Kp generates a knee-jerk reaction in people which is one of the reasons the laws against it are so extreme. It's certainly not defensible, but truth be told, I'd rather that someone who violently assaults another human spend way more time in prison than someone who is looking at kp. I don't buy the concept that kp is a "gateway drug" to actual abuse. People are screwed up enough to come up with the idea all on their own.
    Read a few papers on the topic, then.

    You don't have to buy the fact that excessive indulgence in chocolate leads to diabetes. The statistics tend to show that both are true, though.

    anonymouse:
    real_aardvark:
    Mainly, it's about hoping that the entire culture of child pornography can be ripped out at its roots.
    Good luck. That sentiment has sure worked well against murderers, rapists and fraud artists. Wouldn't you rather have police time focused on the producers and molesters rather than than the viewers? Once the first two have been dealt with, move on to the third.
    Well, up to three spelling mistakes and counting.

    I've lost count of the logical fallacies and ad-hominem accusations.

    For what it's worth, I would like the legal system to deal with people who download kiddie porn (and I do so love abbreviations like "kp", as though it's something that army recruits do ... though, now, come to think of it) as follows: (1) Put the little bastards on some sort of Sexual Offenders Register. (2) Get a court order to confiscate their computers and analyse them for possible links to child porn rings. They can have the computers back afterwards. (3) Fine them to give them a slap on the wrist, and give them a suspended jail sentence of three months or so to put the frighteners up them. (4) Offer them counselling.

    No, I don't want them torn apart by wild beasts in prison. Yes, I do think they should be punished.

    No, this is not a knee-jerk reaction.

    No, I would rather the police catch the actual producers/perpetrators. Unlike you and many others, I believe that the two go hand in hand.

    Yes, my outrage at this entire thread did start with a bunch of moral relativist tit-heads begging questions they have no answer for.

    If this is the application of intelligent discussion, then there is very little hope for the Enlightenment.

  • (cs) in reply to 36% Genius
    36% Genius:
    cellocgw:
    ... I am not convinced that *viewing* illegally created material is in and of itself a crime. (sort of like the **IAA trying to nail people for watching illegally copied DVDs).

    In several countries viewing child porn is illegal. The theory is that people who view child porn constitute a market for child porn, which would be an incentive for child molesters to make child porn.

    Given that argument, and given that the RIAA says that downloading songs without permission harms the market for their product, wouldn't that make downloading pirated kiddy porn commendable? :P

  • (cs) in reply to ClaudeSuck.de
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Bad phrasing...:
    I don't know about most other work-places, it wouldn't be a "finally"... The *first* time it happened, there would be a huge screaming incident and fists thrown, probably *before* anyone had time to report this to HR...

    I can't confirm that. Here (Belgium, did I hear somebody giggle?) I don't think they tie a rope around your neck at the very first moment. Are you living in the Middle Ages. How many fake "witches" have you burned already? You shouldn't forget that this kind of stuff could also come by spam mail or whatever. Having that stuff on the screen must not necessarily mean that it's that person's fault. Hence, firing, killing, burning, lynching somebody just because you see something on his screen is insane, too, and a WTF in itself.

    CAPTCHA: aptent - WTF?

    Welcome, Claude, to the thread that never ends. Your complete inability to produce a logical argument will go unnoticed here.

    FYI: "aptent:" Third person present plural of the verb "aptare," meaning "adapt, fit, apply, adjust, accommodate; put on, fasten; prepare, furnish."

    Have you Bathed in the Blood of the Lamb?

    Do you feel Cleansed now?

    Praise The Lord!

  • Adam (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    No, morality is a social construct, built by consensus. Nice bit of pointless relativism though.

    I was wondering when the Ayn Rand/NAMBLA lads were going to get in on the, ahem, act.

    Are you seriously equating Ayn Rand's philosophy with moral relativism?

    Perhaps you should actually educate yourself instead of making random shit up in a failed attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.

  • (cs) in reply to Chris
    Chris:
    These comments are more "Daily Mail" than "Daily WTF"
    Welcome to the world of moral relativism and American loonies in general.

    And you thought we had it bad...

  • (cs) in reply to Adam
    Adam:
    real_aardvark:
    No, morality is a social construct, built by consensus. Nice bit of pointless relativism though.

    I was wondering when the Ayn Rand/NAMBLA lads were going to get in on the, ahem, act.

    Are you seriously equating Ayn Rand's philosophy with moral relativism?

    Perhaps you should actually educate yourself instead of making random shit up in a failed attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.

    Well, actually, I was merely suggesting that this blog was about to become swamped with people who, for whatever reason, believe that their personal definition of "morality" is preferable to the consensus view (however fungible that might be) of morality.

    But I see your ability to follow an argument -- let alone read through the rest of this interminable thread -- is limited. So I'll swap to defending myself against your ludicrous accusations, for no very good reason.

    (1) If you can explain the difference between "Objectivism" and "Moral Relativism," I'd really love to hear it. Plz send teh postcardz. (Alex will no doubt reward you with a free sticker. It'll be fun for all of us.) (2) I may well need to educate myself. Don't we all? (Mentioning no names in particular.) And who really does know what they're talking about, at least insofar as I understand Ludwig Wittgenstein? (3) Is "random shit" better or worse than "a Poincare series of the local ring?"

    I think we should be told.

    Twerp.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Bad phrasing...:
    I don't know about most other work-places, it wouldn't be a "finally"... The *first* time it happened, there would be a huge screaming incident and fists thrown, probably *before* anyone had time to report this to HR...

    I can't confirm that. Here (Belgium, did I hear somebody giggle?) I don't think they tie a rope around your neck at the very first moment. Are you living in the Middle Ages. How many fake "witches" have you burned already? You shouldn't forget that this kind of stuff could also come by spam mail or whatever. Having that stuff on the screen must not necessarily mean that it's that person's fault. Hence, firing, killing, burning, lynching somebody just because you see something on his screen is insane, too, and a WTF in itself.

    CAPTCHA: aptent - WTF?

    Welcome, Claude, to the thread that never ends. Your complete inability to produce a logical argument will go unnoticed here.

    Logical argument? I just raise the finger and say we don't need no Inquisition. Passing by a computer with a child on the screen that is shown in a offending (whatever that is IS in the eye of the beholder) situation can become overkill. My grandma had certainly another view of what is offending than I have. Should one always call the police? Are we the ones who know what is good and what is bad? And aqgain, what about the Mormones? They seem to have a certain right to have sex with minor family members. How shall we react? Burn them right away? Where is the limit to all that? Not to forget that kid porn is not the only crime in the world. Shall we have Inquisition just for this case or should we not extend it to, say, everything that offends us?

    BTW: you seem to be quite good in languages. Nice to see.

  • Dudley Dawson (unregistered)

    Yeah, this story isn't very cool, and there must be a misunderstanding with 'kiddie porn'. How would this guy not be arrested within minutes. I know I would have reported him to the cops and skipped HR.

  • (cs) in reply to Steve

    Christ where do you live? I would call the police immediately. I wouldn't even go back to my desk. I would call from my cell phone and then go straight to my boss's office and tell him as well. It's seriously illegal -- at least in the US. I wouldn't want to be anywhere close to abetting a child pornographer. Your employer was doing exactly that if they were providing him internet access even though they knew what he was doing with it. Extremely illegal.

  • Joe (unregistered) in reply to brazzy
    brazzy:
    "The Law" is still wrong:
    And what sheep don't realize is that if the consensus is stupid, the law is still wrong. Having a majority of sheep feed into your every word doesn't make it right, it means that the majority are too ignorant and stupid to see otherwise.
    So if morality is in the eye of the beholder, who decides what is stupid and what is wrong, and based on what?

    Relativism is too often a badly throught out excuse for being a lazy, egoistical prick.

    Haven't you guys ever taken an ethics course? Morality IS relative and determined by the people. Ethics however is concrete.

    Killing Jews was the "right" thing to do for the Nazis (in their eyes). To themselves they were being moral. However, they were not being ethical. Ethics has no basis in societal contexts.

  • (cs) in reply to ClaudeSuck.de
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Logical argument? I just raise the finger and say we don't need no Inquisition. Passing by a computer with a child on the screen that is shown in a offending (whatever that is IS in the eye of the beholder) situation can become overkill. My grandma had certainly another view of what is offending than I have. Should one always call the police? Are we the ones who know what is good and what is bad? And aqgain, what about the Mormones? They seem to have a certain right to have sex with minor family members. How shall we react? Burn them right away? Where is the limit to all that? Not to forget that kid porn is not the only crime in the world. Shall we have Inquisition just for this case or should we not extend it to, say, everything that offends us?

    BTW: you seem to be quite good in languages. Nice to see.

    I'm crap at languages (probably even my own). I'm good at pretending. I'm trying to learn Swedish, but then I have Ulterior Motives.

    That "fake witches" thing, amongst all the rest, suggests that your ability to put logical arguments in prose is weak. (I'm not suggesting that you can't argue logically. Christ knows, just look at the rest of this thread.)

    I know Germans don't follow irony very well (I've got a choice between der Sarkasmus, die Ironie, and der Spott here, so forgive me if I go for what sounds like a more natural Spott). Trust me. That was meant to be irony. In this thread, you've just stepped into a snake-pit, where your natural good nature is going to have to face up to a bunch of really, really, badly expressed arguments.

    None of which (I hope) is meant to sound like a defence of child pornography.

    Most of which (through sheer stupidity, I hope) sound like defences of child pornography. But only in acceptable circumstances, of course.

    Scroll back a page or two, and do us all a favour by picking your favourite idiot and tearing them apart.

    (I don't mind if it's me.)

  • anonymouse (unregistered) in reply to Saemundr
    Saemundr:
    anonymouse:
    That out of the way, if I were to follow your logic, and you were a fan of say, the movie Hostel, would you be creating incentive for psychopathic criminals to kidnap tourists and offer them as torture victims to wealthy maniacs?

    No, he would be creating incentive for people to make FICTIONAL movies. FICTIONAL.

    Good God we're splitting hairs now... OK, so go to somethingawful or rotten and you can see videos of real people being killed for real. Those videos generate a great deal of $$ for those sites. Do you think THIS provides incentive for people to go out and create more just like it? Even for videos where the murder is filmed and the murderer KNOWS he's being filmed or is filming it himself, do you think that someone else watching it all of a sudden says to themself "Hey, you know, I should go kill someone and film it"?

    I contend that the only person who would, was someone with a prediliction to do so prior to seeing the video, which was kinda my whole point in the first place.

    Why on the Internet is it always "Paint By Numbers" or someone gets lost?

  • Mange (unregistered) in reply to vt_mruhlin
    vt_mruhlin:
    Mange:
    Why is watching CP illegal?

    There are a number of reasons

    You forgot, "consumption encourages production".

    Look again.

    Mange:
    Reason 3: It motivates child abusers to have an audience
  • (cs) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    Haven't you guys ever taken an ethics course? Morality IS relative and determined by the people. Ethics however is concrete.

    Killing Jews was the "right" thing to do for the Nazis (in their eyes). To themselves they were being moral. However, they were not being ethical. Ethics has no basis in societal contexts.

    You see? This is what's wrong with exposing immature American kids to Philosophy 101 just because they can't concentrate hard enough to get a specialized degree in a single subject.

    No concept of history. No ability to see that "morals" and "ethics" are two sides of the same coin. Hey, it's nominalist! They're spelled different than eachother, right?

    Jesus.

    Taking a "course" in this sort of thing just proves that your high school, with all the well-meant "civic studies" stuff that you have to force yourself through, didn't tell you jack-squat about philosopy (even moral philosopy, which I would personally class as a degenerate version of same).

    My personal belief is that every American child should forego "Civics" and be exposed to "critical thinking" instead. This thread bears that belief out. (I also think that every British child should do the same thing, but that's an even sadder condemnation of our educational establishment.)

    I'm so sick and tired of this that I'm just going to mention Abu Ghraib.

    What's that? Morals? Ethics? A wholesale failure of the political military-economic compex (copyright D. D. Eisenhower)?

    Did somebody just mention Nazis?

    OK, game over.

  • (cs) in reply to anonymouse
    anonymouse:
    Saemundr:
    anonymouse:
    That out of the way, if I were to follow your logic, and you were a fan of say, the movie Hostel, would you be creating incentive for psychopathic criminals to kidnap tourists and offer them as torture victims to wealthy maniacs?

    No, he would be creating incentive for people to make FICTIONAL movies. FICTIONAL.

    Good God we're splitting hairs now... OK, so go to somethingawful or rotten and you can see videos of real people being killed for real. Those videos generate a great deal of $$ for those sites. Do you think THIS provides incentive for people to go out and create more just like it? Even for videos where the murder is filmed and the murderer KNOWS he's being filmed or is filming it himself, do you think that someone else watching it all of a sudden says to themself "Hey, you know, I should go kill someone and film it"?

    I contend that the only person who would, was someone with a prediliction to do so prior to seeing the video, which was kinda my whole point in the first place.

    Why on the Internet is it always "Paint By Numbers" or someone gets lost?

    Sometimes, on the internet, it's about logic. Logic. Logic by numbers, if you will.

    I was going to make the exact same post, for exactly the same reason.

    If you can't at least try to argue straight (and I'm sure I've got a heap of logical inconsistencies above, but at least I'm trying), then what the hell is the point?

    This is a glaring logical inconsistency.

    If you can't see that, then you're just not trying hard enough.

    No soup for you.

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered)

    I say BS. Every company would him imediatley

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    I say BS. Every company would him imediatley
    Well, you say BS, and we say tomato.

    What does BS taste like, anyhow?

    (I suspect you mean "immediately." Quite impressive in an eight-word comment, what with the red-lining and all.)

    I've got some awesome pictures of children having their toes sucked by the ex-Duchess of York ... Want me to share them with you? Discreet email only, please.

  • (cs) in reply to vt_mruhlin
    vt_mruhlin:
    Mange:
    Why is watching CP illegal?

    There are a number of reasons

    You forgot, "consumption encourages production". Even if there's no direct profit from it (i.e. they're not selling it for money), there are a number of reasons that it can still be considered profitable to the offender.

    1. Does "trade" equate to "profit"? Maybe I'm not distributing it for money, but if I give you one pic in exchange for another, it has the same snowballing effect as doing it for profit.

    2. Some people just want to be notorious. Yes, if you could download it completely anonymously those guys wouldn't be a factor, but if this dude's getting caught by his co-workers, he's probably nor being all that discreet about it.

    Well, I've spent a huge amount of time trying to explain this. And I failed.

    Thanks for making the exact point.

    Somebody had to.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Logical argument? I just raise the finger and say we don't need no Inquisition. Passing by a computer with a child on the screen that is shown in a offending (whatever that is IS in the eye of the beholder) situation can become overkill. My grandma had certainly another view of what is offending than I have. Should one always call the police? Are we the ones who know what is good and what is bad? And aqgain, what about the Mormones? They seem to have a certain right to have sex with minor family members. How shall we react? Burn them right away? Where is the limit to all that? Not to forget that kid porn is not the only crime in the world. Shall we have Inquisition just for this case or should we not extend it to, say, everything that offends us?

    BTW: you seem to be quite good in languages. Nice to see.

    I'm crap at languages (probably even my own). I'm good at pretending. I'm trying to learn Swedish, but then I have Ulterior Motives.

    That "fake witches" thing, amongst all the rest, suggests that your ability to put logical arguments in prose is weak. (I'm not suggesting that you can't argue logically. Christ knows, just look at the rest of this thread.)

    You're right, I'm bad in prose. I'm a scientist, not an artist.

    I know Germans don't follow irony very well (I've got a choice between der Sarkasmus, die Ironie, and der Spott here, so forgive me if I go for what sounds like a more natural Spott). Trust me. That was meant to be irony. In this thread, you've just stepped into a snake-pit, where your natural good nature is going to have to face up to a bunch of really, really, badly expressed arguments.

    I tend to be sarcastic, not ironic.

    None of which (I hope) is meant to sound like a defence of child pornography.

    Hell, no. I have a 10 year old. It was meant to protect the innocent. I shouldn't have said "fake witch" but rather "false positive". Once you have been accused of child pornography you have enormous problems to get rid of it. Nobody will believe you anymore, even when proven unguilty. You can destroy a man's life by doing the wrong thing and over-reacting.

    Most of which (through sheer stupidity, I hope) sound like defences of child pornography. But only in acceptable circumstances, of course.

    Well, I don't really see what are acceptable circumstances. OK, sex is the nicest "secondary matter" (translation by babelfish) of the world. But everybody involved should have fun doing it. What is the right age? I leave it open for discussion. My first girl friend was 15 and we had tremendous fun. It was tolerated by the parents, just to say.

    And the post just above your answer mentions killing Jews was the right thing to do. We shouldn't forget that during this period children could simply call the police and say their parents know Jews or sell/buy to/from them or whatever. Those parents then had the same destiny as the Jewish. It's that "shoot first, ask later" attitude (or what I call "Pax Americana") that frightens me.

    Scroll back a page or two, and do us all a favor by picking your favorite idiot and tearing them apart.

    (I don't mind if it's me.)

    Didn't find a favorite one. And I should better have re-read the OP before posting my previous one. I had already forgotten that HR was, in fact, informed. I remember that somebody was fired on the spot at one of my previous employers for sending the picture of a dollar bill with a naked woman in the pyramid. It was an American company. Tja, don't click on "Reply To All", heehee, when Corporate sends you a mail. But then, OTOH, there were two female employees who put their pictures when posing naked on the server of the same company. Well, I never told management but find it a bit stupid to do so, I mean putting sexy pictures (not really porn) of oneself on the corporate server.

Leave a comment on “The Wrong Thing to Say”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article