• (cs) in reply to ClaudeSuck.de
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    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.
    Here's a simple question for you, then.

    In this case, given the facts as presented, do you think you'd be destroying a man's life by over-reacting? (Which, unbelievably for Americans, they didn't. As the OP sugests, they under-reacted.)

    I'll have to check out the correlation between "fake witch" and "false positive." Considering we both have Germanic ancestry, this makes no sense to me. Does she float, or does she sink? Which is the false positive?

    Und auch sie mochte, ueber das urspruenglich posten, bevor hier so posten.

    To quote you very badly. See, I told you I was rubbish at languages.

    Zwar. Eins mehr, bitte.

    PS I'm rubbish at VB and Java too. I'm just not as embarrassed about that.

    Can I quote you a poem by Catullus?

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    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.
    Here's a simple question for you, then.

    In this case, given the facts as presented, do you think you'd be destroying a man's life by over-reacting? (Which, unbelievably for Americans, they didn't. As the OP sugests, they under-reacted.)

    I'll have to check out the correlation between "fake witch" and "false positive." Considering we both have Germanic ancestry, this makes no sense to me. Does she float, or does she sink? Which is the false positive?

    Und auch sie mochte, ueber das urspruenglich posten, bevor hier so posten.

    To quote you very badly. See, I told you I was rubbish at languages.

    Zwar. Eins mehr, bitte.

    PS I'm rubbish at VB and Java too. I'm just not as embarrassed about that.

    Can I quote you a poem by Catullus?

    I missed the verb out, didn't I? Oh poo. All that time wasted on the intertubes, and they're so helpful too.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered)

    Just to add a little thing:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

  • Tom Woolf (unregistered) in reply to "The Law" is still wrong
    "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.

    Hey Law - Is your 10 year old son a cutie? There's this old man who's always in his blue robe and uses a walker that lives down the street that wants to meet him....

    How "relevant" is your morality now?

    (Not to say every set of "morals" agreed upon by the majority is right - there have been quite a few really farked up ones... But I think I'd not be overstepping any bounds when suggesting sex with kids is off limits.)

  • anonymouse (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    anonymouse:
    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.
    Nice. With that kind of reply, rational exchange with you seems limited. To be clear, my understanding of your arguement is that there is no equivalency between taking a picture of a corpse and taking a sexual picture of a child (an argument which I fully endorse); my counter was that if an attacker were to take video of a rape being committed and distribute said video of that attack, that the moral and victim-impact equivalency approaches, if not matches, that of a child being victimized on video. My point was that there are many things which could be filmed for which the distribution would cause ongoing harm to the subject, yet only video including children is illegal. My question is why is that? Shouldn't it all be illegal? If not, who gets to draw the line, and why is it drawn where it is? These are the greater questions I believe Sanity was trying to get at in his/her original post. The fact that you haven't fully considered greater equivalences and must be fed them before you can envision additional scenarios is unsurprising based on your reply.
    real_aardvark:
    (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.
    I have made no assumptions about your position on any topic. As above, I am trying to assist you in thinking outside of the very narrow constructs you currently seem to be using to analyze this topic
    real_aardvark:
    anonymouse:
    Kp generates a knee-jerk reaction in people which is one of the reasons the laws against it are so extreme.
    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.

    Since you originally posited the that there are direct links between the two, I believe the onus is on you to produce evidence supporting your argument. What I can offer to counter is the following from Wikipedia:

    "Dennis Howitt (1995) disagrees with such research, explaining the weakness of correlational studies. He argues that "one cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."[27]"

    This is sentiment is repeated often where the research is performed by a non-partisan organization (i.e. an organization whose funding does not rely on the correlation between child pornography and child abuse)

    real_aardvark:
    Well, up to three spelling mistakes and counting.
    And were I being paid to spell, I might give a shit about my spelling.
    real_aardvark:
    I've lost count of the logical fallacies
    When you're at zero, there's nothing to count ;)
    real_aardvark:
    and ad-hominem accusations
    You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    real_aardvark:
    For what it's worth, I would like the legal system to deal with people who download kiddie porn...
    This is where you and I are in complete agreement. Your suggestions are well-reasoned, tempered and logical. I would fully support this type of initiative.. let these people know the law means business but focus on prevention instead of punishment.
    real_aardvark:
    No, this is not a knee-jerk reaction.
    In case it was unclear, I was not saying that your reply was knee-jerk, but rather that current laws are a result of political gameplay as opposed to the desire to solve societal problems.
    real_aardvark:
    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.
    Um.. if you actually read what I wrote, you would realize I in fact said the exact same thing.
    real_aardvark:
    If this is the application of intelligent discussion, then there is very little hope for the Enlightenment.
    My intention was to encourage further thought; what was yours?
  • (cs)

    The reason nothing ever changes is because this is what happens in discussions about it. Something causes pedophilia; maybe if it was possible to discuss it without the anger we could find a way to prevent it in the first place.

  • (cs) in reply to anonymouse
    anonymouse:
    <snip/>
    Well, nice to know that we both agree, then.

    Now, let's go after these degenerate bastards with torches and tar and feathers and a socially acceptable amount of cocaine.

    I'm sorry: did you mention something about encouraging further thought?

  • ChiefCrazyTalk (unregistered) in reply to Someone
    Someone:

    First, you're supposed to WORK when you are at work.

    As opposed to posting to the Daily WTF?

  • kip (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark

    I'm not getting the cocaine thing.

    Was reading about yet another case of a woman adopting multiple children to scam the government out of money, then using zip ties to keep the kids in bed and not feed them. She's looking at 7 years.

    Too bad she wasn't doing something really horrible, like downloading pictures, then she'd get some real jail time, eh?

    It's not that anyone here approves of kp. But at least in the US, ending up on the sex offender list is something you carry with you for the rest of your life. We're all to quick to become vigilantes when it comes to simple things like JPEGs, but who here gave a crap when the news broke out about Philip Morris selling cigarettes to the third world without warning labels? Just because something is bad, even really really bad, it's no excuse to lose perspective. There really is a witch hunt going on, and no, it's not to protect the children. It's to increase power of law-makers and law-enforcers.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to ChiefCrazyTalk
    ChiefCrazyTalk:
    Someone:

    First, you're supposed to WORK when you are at work.

    As opposed to posting to the Daily WTF?

    Especially after reading through 4 pages of comments...

    CAPTCHA: damnum - how TF does it come that this damn CAPTCHA thing is always so good in condensing the comment into one word

  • Dude (unregistered) in reply to Godot
    Godot:
    I've read this before...

    Yeah, so what? Who cares you genius...

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark

    So let's try again. I believe that this was your reply to my post, to which I replied, to which you are replying. (Isn't this fun?) I will quote it in full:

    anonymouse:
    real_aardvark:
    Leaving aside the question of why a corpse would care whether you are looking at i<missing out whatever else I said, again, because even I don't think it's at all important, other than as simple good manners/>
    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). 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 defendable, but truth be told, I'd rather that someone who violently assualts 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.
    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 mol

    And to Pat... chill the fuck out. You can have a much more constructive discussion once you extract anger from the argument and limit your fucking use of profanity ;) Besides, haven't you heard that old Shakespeare adage "Methinks tho dost protest too much"? I'm keeping my eye on you...

    Jeez, this thinking and replying properly to intelligent people stuff is hard, isn't it? No wonder they pay lawyers the big money. Let's go forward one post:

    anonymouse:
    real_aardvark:
    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.

    Um.. if you actually read what I wrote, you would realize I in fact said the exact same thing.

    I'm incredibly dense, I know. In what exact way does "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," and I quote you word-for-word, mean "exactly the same thing" as "I believe the two go hand-in-hand"?

    It doesn't, does it?

    Look, we both basically agree. More so, I suspect, than most of the other contributors to this thread. (With a number of very honourable exceptions.) I'm not going to take back my assertion that you were being a twit (or twerp, or whatever I said), because I think you were being a twit.

    I am just very, very tired of this entire discussion.

    I started off, in a land far, far away, making a bad joke about necrophilia and hearses and a comment to the effect that one's bosses shouldn't compare looking at TDWTF to looking at what I assume we must all now call "KP."

    I had no desire to go any further into the matter.

    Then we had the charming thoughts of a moral relativist, whose initial comparison was between Prohibition and the proscription of KP.

    Then we had a bunch of ill-educated lunacy.

    Then we had a comparison between looking at pictures of a corpse and looking at pictures of an abused child.

    Can you see where I'm going with this? I'm really tired.

    Then we had other, unconnected, people trying to adjust this somewhat appalling comparison so that it sounded more plausible. The closest we've got so far is a rape victim. I'm pretty disgusted that anybody would assume that I'm any more in favour of people downloading pictures of rape victims in acta than I would be of people downloading pictures of child pornography in acta.

    I am now going to confess all.

    No, I wasn't molested as a child, with or without a web-cam or cine-8 present.

    No, neither were my parents.

    My mother, however, was put in charge of a school-room of nine- and ten-year olds after the deputy head (who had previously been cautioned for "unspecified sexual offences with under-age children") had been caught out in the class-room in a papier-mache grotto. His wife, needless to say, "understood."

    My mother had to go through a year of hell with these kids.

    The boys hated her, because unfortunately their previous teacher wasn't that kind of pervert.

    The girls hated her, because unfortunately my mother was not that kind of pervert.

    Probably, fifteen years on, 90% of all of these kids are going through a modified version of that hell.

    Sorry, I don't buy this "it's all right to look, but don't touch" crap.

    I know it's anecdotal, but I'm going to believe it until I see some credible evidence against it.

    And I don't mean volume fucking six of Ayn Rand's self-serving memoirs.

    PS Were you objecting to "ad-hominem," which I believe I used correctly, or to "accusing," which I also believe I used correctly?

    Or are you just a twit?

  • jk (unregistered) in reply to Pat

    but what if you work in hr, and someone complains about inappropriate material on a user's pc, and you check it out, and find this? oops, you've just "happened across" this at work! Guess you'll have to turn yourself in...

    lots of heat, very little light.

    Pat:
    cellocgw:
    I have to say the "send him to jail" folks are missing something important. First of all, I fully agree that child molesters are nasty criminals, and that people who enslave children and force them to commit sex acts, on or off camera, are even worse. However, the person in this case was (allegedly) *watching* kiddie porn. Certainly unacceptable in the workplace, but 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).

    You are fucking retarded.

    You are so fucking retarded I can't believe you actually wrote something that fucking retarded.

    Child porn is not something you just "happen across" at work, you fucking retard.

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to jk
    jk:
    but what if you work in hr, and someone complains about inappropriate material on a user's pc, and you check it out, and find this? oops, you've just "happened across" this at work! Guess you'll have to turn yourself in...

    lots of heat, very little light.

    Pat:
    cellocgw:
    I have to say the "send him to jail" folks are missing something important. First of all, I fully agree that child molesters are nasty criminals, and that people who enslave children and force them to commit sex acts, on or off camera, are even worse. However, the person in this case was (allegedly) *watching* kiddie porn. Certainly unacceptable in the workplace, but 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).

    You are fucking retarded.

    You are so fucking retarded I can't believe you actually wrote something that fucking retarded.

    Child porn is not something you just "happen across" at work, you fucking retard.

    I remember some 2 years ago. A soldier had been beheaded by his enemy. The pictures went around the world and landed also on cell phones of school kids. I must admit that I also wanted to see the video. But I wanted to know what these kids could watch on their phone and what my one will eventually see when he gets is own cell phone. OK, it wasn't child porn. And I didn't watch it at work. But I find it important to know what is going on in the world AND I want to have my own opinion if something is offending or not. Hence, yes, you might see me sitting in front of a comp watching child porn.

    <sarcasm> Tons of, in fact. You never know if the next film, the next scene, the next second might be offending. So you have to watch it all.

    But unfortunately, child porn is difficult to find. (I do not put much energy in the search, though.) Hmm... I've read this before. </sarcasm>

    Just a little gem:

    Do (or better did) I have to take care at which speed I wash the penis of my son? Is there a, somehow, "healthy" speed? Am I a pervert? Is the answer "42"?

  • flame flame go away (unregistered)

    Clbuttic. omfg! How lame are all the responses to such a lame wtf. Thank $diety none of you are lawyers. Go back to your computers and for your own sake keep it clean as you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

    thread closed. nothing to read here. go away please.

  • vman (unregistered) in reply to "The Law" is still wrong
    "The Law" is still wrong:
    real_aardvark:
    "The Law" is not always right (remember Prohibition?):
    Morality is in the eye of the beholder to anyone who is not a blind sheep.
    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.

    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.

    Wow, the nambla spokesman is here. Dude, if you like diddling kids, go get psychiatric help. It's not normal.

  • Endo808 (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    I'm reminded of the funeral director who justified keeping on the necrophiliac member of his staff by saying:

    "We don't care what our employees get up to during their break time, so long as it doesn't frighten the hearses..."

    Worst. Joke. Ever.

  • Endo808 (unregistered) in reply to joe.edwards
    joe.edwards:
    Stairmaster:
    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...

    euphemized article? it explicitly states kiddie (as in pre-teen) porn here. this is worlds apart from porn with teenagers.

    It was my understanding that "kiddie porn" implied under-legal-age (in the USA, 18 years). Teenagers would be included in that.

    Not that that's any more excusable...

    Since when did being 19 not make you a teenager?

  • M L (unregistered) in reply to Someone
    Someone:
    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.

    WHOOSH!!

  • (cs) in reply to Endo808
    Endo808:
    real_aardvark:
    I'm reminded of the funeral director who justified keeping on the necrophiliac member of his staff by saying:

    "We don't care what our employees get up to during their break time, so long as it doesn't frighten the hearses..."

    Worst. Joke. Ever.

    Well, I was sort of hoping that nobody would notice it...

  • Mmmk (unregistered) in reply to charonme

    Yeah, I'm calling BS on this as I fail to see how true KP would not result in a police call instantly. I know what most of us think about HR, but as dumb as some of them be there is no way in the world they wouldn't act immediately, what with potential company liability (viewed on their network, machine, etc).

  • anonymouse (unregistered)

    real_aardvark, You really take the cake. You continue to berate people on this board, assuming to be their intellectual superior (while promoting your position with flawed logic, and thesaurus-derived tirades) while everyone can easily see you for the spoiled little child you are (see, now THAT was an ad hominum attack, notice the difference?). Grow up, act like you actually belong up here at the adult table, and like I said to Pat, chill the fuck out.

    And if speaking with the 'intellectual plebs' has really worn you out, perhaps it's best you seek out another forum; somewehere where your unique brand of genius can truly be appreciated for what it is:

    Misplaced bravado cocooned in delusion.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Pat
    Pat:
    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.
    So you'd argue that Sartre wasn't an intelligent philosopher?
  • Karmakaze (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.

    Well thats bloody easy and I'm not even an Ayn Rand fool (blech!).

    The obvious answer is the individual decides what they will tolerate and how much effort they will go to to stop what they do not tolerate. Sure murder, theft, torture and rape are socially immoral, but that never stopped anyone, and I don't see THAT many people demanding the US government stop doing all of the above in Iraq.

    So the reality is, there is only one kind of morality - the fake kind that we pretend to adhere to as long as it doesnt individually impact us. Joe Bloggs down the road stole a car? Send him to prison the damn thief! I stole a car? Damn I hope they don't catch me!

  • katastrofa (unregistered) in reply to George Nacht
    George Nacht:
    I can´t help but repeat what other 15 people said already - where I work, people would be fired for ANY kind of porn watched on workplace. Actually, they would probably leave out of sheer shame first time someone caught them. (I myself fear the day I am caught reading The Daily WTF). And all other coleagues and managers alike would probably resort to shocked silence, instead of yelling at anyone/anything. What is nationality of original poster? Must be country with some specific attitude. Or maybe ,,kiddie porn" means something completely different there.

    It might be. In Spain the age of consent is 12 years. Cultures differ.

  • anonymouse (unregistered) in reply to Karmakaze
    Karmakaze:
    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.

    Well thats bloody easy and I'm not even an Ayn Rand fool (blech!).

    The obvious answer is the individual decides what they will tolerate and how much effort they will go to to stop what they do not tolerate. Sure murder, theft, torture and rape are socially immoral, but that never stopped anyone, and I don't see THAT many people demanding the US government stop doing all of the above in Iraq.

    So the reality is, there is only one kind of morality - the fake kind that we pretend to adhere to as long as it doesnt individually impact us. Joe Bloggs down the road stole a car? Send him to prison the damn thief! I stole a car? Damn I hope they don't catch me!

    Kudos, Karmakaze. I think your post most accurately sums up reality better than anything we've seen here yet.

    Thanks!

  • (cs) in reply to anonymouse
    anonymouse:
    Karmakaze:
    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.

    Well thats bloody easy and I'm not even an Ayn Rand fool (blech!).

    The obvious answer is the individual decides what they will tolerate and how much effort they will go to to stop what they do not tolerate. Sure murder, theft, torture and rape are socially immoral, but that never stopped anyone, and I don't see THAT many people demanding the US government stop doing all of the above in Iraq.

    So the reality is, there is only one kind of morality - the fake kind that we pretend to adhere to as long as it doesnt individually impact us. Joe Bloggs down the road stole a car? Send him to prison the damn thief! I stole a car? Damn I hope they don't catch me!

    Kudos, Karmakaze. I think your post most accurately sums up reality better than anything we've seen here yet.

    Thanks!

    Reality? Who said anything about reality? I was under the impression that this ludicrous thread was more focused on morality.

    Given the straw-man argument in question, I'm afraid that my stealing a car is still immoral. Anybody stealing a car is immoral. That's just kind of the way it is in what you like to think of as the "real world" and I like to think of as "consensus morality." The fact that I'm going to object to being held accountable for my own morality, and to prepare a defence based on my own definition of personal morality (not this one, incidentally), is neither here nor there.

    Neither is the pointless diversion into an irrelevant rant against the behaviour of American troops in Iraq. Quite a lot of people have demanded that the US Government stop doing this. Quite a lot of them are Americans. That's pretty much how you define "consensus morality." But it's totally irrelevant to the alleged point.

    Back to what I think is the best summary we've seen here yet:

    brazzy:
    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 thought out excuse for being a lazy, egoistical prick.

    Feel free to argue with that one, since you don't seem up to a logical refutation of anything else.

  • VP (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    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.

    Oh hell, beaten to it.

    You've got to admit that the imagery of a blind sheep, possibly associated with drinking moonshine during the Prohibition era (an interesting example of "consensus morality" being hijacked by a bunch of loonies, and thus hardly relevant to the topic at hand) is rather appealing, though.

    Very Phil K Dick.

    I'm still going with the Ayn Rand theory. But you could be right. He might just be a lazy, egotistical prick.

    And what is wrong with that? By nature we are all egotistical and work by nature to support ourselves and our closest (our genes).

    There is nothing natural about helping, supporting or following the weaker part of society which is the majority, it's just how society has become.

    The only ones that matter are yourself, your family and your closest friends. Everyone else can go fuck themselves if you can't gain anything by their existance, that is how life is.

  • VP (unregistered) in reply to charonme
    charonme:
    I wonder if it occurred to anyone that the original author might have meant something else by "kiddy porn" since 1. the colleagues tolerated is so long, 2. the management tolerated it multiple times, 3. he was not fired and police was not called ? Let me propose that the author was foreign and didn't really know what he was implying (or he is fortunate having no idea actual child porn really exists) and in reality it was some soft erotica.

    But of course that wouldn't be dramatic enough to put on the best of sidebar. Alternatively, the "kiddy" aspect was added to the story in postproduction to boost the embellishment/drama.

    Most likely it was just teenporn or loliporn where 18 year old girls just look insanely young which some people probably view as grayzone.

  • JDocs (unregistered)

    Note: Not defending the pricks actions just pointing out the story may in fact be real.

    Has anybody thought of what the legal age is in the country that this occured. 18 is legal age in the USA, in my country (South Africa) legal age is 16 and I've heard that in some countries the legal age is as low as 8. Henceforth it may have been legal but morally wrong.

  • Evamarie (unregistered)

    Why did no one just report him to the police? They would have arrested him and confiscated his computer.

  • Babar (unregistered)

    Hint to anyone that has to deal with this: CALL THE POLICE!!

    This is one of those instances where you don't have to put up with HR or Management acting like morons. They should've had the guy arrested the moment it was discovered he was downloading kiddie porn.

  • Duncan Bayne (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    I was wondering when the Ayn Rand/NAMBLA lads were going to get in on the, ahem, act.
    What he meant - at least, what I hope he meant - is that morality is not a social contract, & that the guy d/ling kiddie porn was acting in an immoral fashion, regardless of the majority opinion.
    You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it. - Ayn Rand
    Are you trying to argue that his actions were wrong only because society proclaims them to be wrong?

Leave a comment on “The Wrong Thing to Say”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article