BREAKING: Hundreds of Child Porn Accounts Exposed on Twitter

[astropheed Veteran]

I think we can discuss ideas about porn involving minors without labelling every person who doesn't fully agree with how it's controlled or censored as a paedophile. Remove emotion, think of reasonable ways to handle the situation, and come to reasonable conclusions. 

 

It's easy to just outcast someone based on their sexual preferences, it's harder to try to rehabilitate them and stop a problem at the source. A consistent problem in the world is this furious emotional response to issues such as this. 

 

Maybe we cool it with the name calling,  and have a grown up discussion.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

46 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

No. The problem with child pornography is that if it increases the desire of a paedophile to act on their urges then that poses a danger to society. However, I would certainly consider whether simulated child pornography (i.e. computer generated) could be used as a form of treatment in supporting paedophiles who come forward to seek help.

This already exists and is coming in droves from Japan.

 

More importantly, I feel like this is a topic of another thread. This thread is about accusation of twitter being a safe harbor for illegal activity.

[theyarecomingforyou]

40 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

You made the claim earlier and quote: "viewing child porn isn't harming anyone". So why, if harmless like you claim, why would you not legalize it unless you know why it is  that it should be illegal?

Viewing it isn't the issue, it's revenue or status earned from it. If a paedophile views child pornography without paying for it or increasing the status of the person responsible (some people do it for the ego boost) and that doesn't increase their risk of acting on it then there is no harm.

 

The problem with legalising or decriminalising it is that if even 0.5% of non-offending paedophiles act on their urges and abuse children  as a result then it is detrimental to society. Further, if people pay for it and that creates a financial demand for it then it could lead to the creation of more, which again is detrimental to society.

 

Strictly speaking simply viewing child pornography is not the issue, it's everything associated with it.

[Rippleman]

2 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

The problem with legalising or decriminalising it is that if even 0.5% of non-offending paedophiles act on their urges and abuse children  as a result then it is detrimental to society. Further, if people pay for it and that creates a financial demand for it then it could lead to the creation of more, which again is detrimental to society.

glad you can finally see the harm it in.  I reject your ludacris low statistic, but still glad you can see that it IS harmful and should NOT be viewed.

[Open Minded]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

And taking illegal drugs supports the atrocities of the drug cartels, yet you don't see that connection being made like it is for child pornography. People have double standards.

One super very important distinction... YOU'RE ONLY HARMING YOUR OWN BODY WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE DRUGS.  No one else.

[T3X4S]

For the uninitiated CP = Cheese Pizza = code for Child Porn - I think it goes back to 4chan... of course.

(not to say Im initiated - I just reddit somewhere  - see what I did there ? )

[astropheed Veteran]

18 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

glad you can finally see the harm it in.  I reject your ludacris low statistic, but still glad you can see that it IS harmful and should NOT be viewed.

His "statistic" was not a statistic, it was an example, an example that actually helps your argument to a degree. You don't seem to be listening and are just waiting for your turn to speak.

[theyarecomingforyou]

9 minutes ago, Open Minded said:

One super very important distinction... YOU'RE ONLY HARMING YOUR OWN BODY WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE DRUGS.  No one else.

And you're not harming anybody by simply viewing child pornography. The issue comes with the supply chain - with drugs that involves violence and killings by cartels; with child pornography that involves the abuse of children. For instance there have been cases where police officers responsible for investigating child pornography have taken it home for their own use - that has zero impact upon the creation of child pornography and if they don't act on it there is no danger posed to society.

 

The issue is that it is all interwoven, which is why a blanket ban is the right approach. The punishment should be commensurate to the impact - those simply viewing it and not funding it or acting on it should be at the bottom of the scale and punished least harshly; those producing and distributing it should be at the top of the scale and punished harshly.

[astropheed Veteran]

19 minutes ago, Open Minded said:

One super very important distinction... YOU'RE ONLY HARMING YOUR OWN BODY WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE DRUGS.  No one else.

But you aren't only harming your body when you choose to buy drugs

[dragontology]

Not for nothing, but infant genital mutilation is legal in the US and I think the UK as well as long as the infant is a boy. I personally think mutilating a child's genitals for your religion (or other BS reason) is worse than looking at some naked pictures, though I'm naturally against both. I think we need to get our priorities in order. And I know a lot of people are going to justify the genital mutilation, and that just confuses me. Circumcision, with either gender, only serves to curb masturbation — that's all it's for. Every other justification has been debunked by science.

 

That said, I'm of the opinion that people who harm children should be shot, so don't ask me what I'd do if I were in charge. You can pretty much guess what I'll say.

[T3X4S]

12 minutes ago, dragontology said:

Not for nothing, but infant genital mutilation is legal in the US and I think the UK as well as long as the infant is a boy. I personally think mutilating a child's genitals for your religion (or other BS reason) is worse than looking at some naked pictures, though I'm naturally against both. I think we need to get our priorities in order. And I know a lot of people are going to justify the genital mutilation, and that just confuses me. Circumcision, with either gender, only serves to curb masturbation — that's all it's for. Every other justification has been debunked by science.

 

That said, I'm of the opinion that people who harm children should be shot, so don't ask me what I'd do if I were in charge. You can pretty much guess what I'll say.

Careful - saying things about religion will get a slap from the mods now.

 

[The Evil Overlord]

2 hours ago, dragontology said:

Not for nothing, but infant genital mutilation is legal in the US and I think the UK as well as long as the infant is a boy.

Illegal across the board in the UK, no matter the gender, (I'm quoting from a child police detective)

(I think the only one that is legal is circumcision, and that HAS to fall under guidelines.)

[Studio384]

3 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

And you're not harming anybody by simply viewing child pornography. The issue comes with the supply chain - with drugs that involves violence and killings by cartels; with child pornography that involves the abuse of children.

Watching child porn stimulates the creation of more which does harm others. Using drugs also stimulates the creation of more, but guess what, unless there are accidents, it doesn't harm others. If cartels use violence and kill people for it, that hasn't anything to do - strictly speaking - with the creation of the drugs itself. Besides, these cartels choose to be part of that system, the children in child porn? Do you think they freely thought: "yeah, that is a good idea!"?

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

3 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

And you're not harming anybody by simply viewing child pornography. The issue comes with the supply chain - with drugs that involves violence and killings by cartels; with child pornography that involves the abuse of children. For instance there have been cases where police officers responsible for investigating child pornography have taken it home for their own use - that has zero impact upon the creation of child pornography and if they don't act on it there is no danger posed to society.

 

The issue is that it is all interwoven, which is why a blanket ban is the right approach. The punishment should be commensurate to the impact - those simply viewing it and not funding it or acting on it should be at the bottom of the scale and punished least harshly; those producing and distributing it should be at the top of the scale and punished harshly.

Been reading through this thread and I gotta admit, I agree with you 100%. Your arguments on the topic make total sense to me, people viewing it should be punished, but, as you say, should be at the lowest end of the punishable scale as there is a huge difference between viewing it, and producing it.

[astropheed Veteran]

4 hours ago, Rippleman said:

snip

No, I'm pro-adult discussion. theyarecomingforyou is clearly not "pro-child prongraphy does no harm", if you're paying attention at all. You're hearing something that I personally think sort of scares you, and responding purely out of emotion. His argument is that at the very, very basic level the act of viewing any content without any signs of viewing it, zero contribution to its development and zero contribution to the propagation and perpetuation of it's current and future development can do no further harm nor propagate further content. He didn't say it's "OK", he said it's not a contributor to the creation, distribution or consuming of said content. And because of this the punishment (which he was clearly for) should be fitting.

 

If your response to this very factual, emotionless and succinct post is any less than reasonable then I'd not expect another response from me. Don't take that as a sign of compliance or conceding but more an acknowledgement of ignorance. I'd hate to give you the wrong impression, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Edit: I'd like to point out, if it weren't obvious, that I agree with everything that theyarecomingforyou has said.

[Dick Montage]

7 hours ago, Open Minded said:

Ummm no.  No.  Not at all buying that.  At all. 

 

By viewing that, you're saying it's fine to do and giving it your personal OK.

No, he's really not.  He explained his comments and in a very unbiased way.  He then attacked his own argument with a retort and gave both sides.

[Dick Montage]

3 hours ago, Rippleman said:

dude, stick to a side

And here is where you fail at any form of conversation.  If you see it about sides then you are not open to a true discussion of the points raised.  He has the ability to argue and counter points regardless of "side" - he is stating points, putting forth arguments and counter arguments, rather than trying to "win".

[dragontology]

5 hours ago, T3X4S said:

Careful - saying things about religion will get a slap from the mods now.

 

I think I'm good. I said religion was a BS reason to mutilate a child's genitals. Not that religion is BS. A line I chose not to cross as it is neither here nor there.

 

2 hours ago, The Evil Overlord said:

Illegal across the board in the UK, no matter the gender, (I'm quoting from a child police detective)

(I think the only one that is legal is circumcision, and that HAS to fall under guidelines.)

Circumcision is genital mutilation. It just has a clinical term to make it sound like a medical procedure. It isn't. There actually are cases where it can be necessary, however, and that isn't what I'm talking about. That might be the guidelines you're talking about, though. I'd like to think the UK is a little ahead of us here in the US on this.

[troysavary]

The problem with many of these reports is the broad brush thy use to paint child porn. A 14 year old girl posting her boobs and a 5 year old girl performing fellatio should not be in the same category.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

6 hours ago, T3X4S said:

Careful - saying things about religion will get a slap from the mods now.

 

No, breaking the rules will. Big difference Feel free to PM myself or another staff member if you need clarification.

 

We encourage and provide topics to discuss religion respectfully.

 

Topic cleaned

 

No further personal attacks or "mocking" thanks.

[MikeChipshop Member]

3 hours ago, The Evil Overlord said:

Illegal across the board in the UK, no matter the gender, (I'm quoting from a child police detective)

(I think the only one that is legal is circumcision, and that HAS to fall under guidelines.)

As a former Youth mentor and worker, you are totally correct. We were fully trained in how to spot the psychological signs of F/MGM and to report it at once as a matter of urgency as it's highly illegal in the UK.

 

Also, taking a quick moment to verify some of the claims in that Google document, where some of them were clearly highly inappropriate but some of them were quite clearly regular porn with no CP in sight. This is the problem, although the person who collated these thought they were helping, they were probably actually doing more harm than good to many, many people. Before throwing accusations around, you've got to be 100% sure of your claim. In the internet age it's far to easy to be a SJW with no clue of the real world and this is very damaging. The suspected accounts should have been passed straight to the relevant, professional authorities.

[theyarecomingforyou]

3 hours ago, troysavary said:

The problem with many of these reports is the broad brush thy use to paint child porn. A 14 year old girl posting her boobs and a 5 year old girl performing fellatio should not be in the same category.

This a thousand times. It's scary that children sending each other naked pictures of themselves consensually is classed as child pornography and is being put on their criminal record. There's a huge difference between something like that and an adult raping a child, yet they all come under the umbrella term 'child porn'. It's unhelpful to an informed discussion.

 

3 hours ago, dragontology said:

I think I'm good. I said religion was a BS reason to mutilate a child's genitals. Not that religion is BS. A line I chose not to cross as it is neither here nor there.

 

Circumcision is genital mutilation. It just has a clinical term to make it sound like a medical procedure. It isn't. There actually are cases where it can be necessary, however, and that isn't what I'm talking about. That might be the guidelines you're talking about, though. I'd like to think the UK is a little ahead of us here in the US on this.

Agreed. Circumcising children for cultural reasons is a barbaric tradition that needs to be banned and something I consider worse than simply viewing child pornography. However, that's a discussion for another topic.

 

4 hours ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

And here is where you fail at any form of conversation.  If you see it about sides then you are not open to a true discussion of the points raised.  He has the ability to argue and counter points regardless of "side" - he is stating points, putting forth arguments and counter arguments, rather than trying to "win".

Thank you. I was concerned when posting about such a sensitive matter, as people have a tendency to be irrational and the discussions can get off track really easily. I always look at everything from a rational perspective and use discussions like this to help inform my own views.

[MikeChipshop Member]

4 hours ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

No, he's really not.  He explained his comments and in a very unbiased way.  He then attacked his own argument with a retort and gave both sides.

Open Minded is, ironically, one of the least open minded members on this site.

[Dick Montage]

13 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Thank you. I was concerned when posting about such a sensitive matter, as people have a tendency to be irrational and the discussions can get off track really easily. I always look at everything from a rational perspective and use discussions like this to help inform my own views.

You have to look past your reaction to something and see cold hard facts.  You need to be able to question your own opinions and discount them when you disprove them.

 

As soon as an argument gets to comments like "So if it was your kid" and such twaddle, I become thoroughly disengaged because whoever says such things has already devalued their offering that they need to resort to emotive nonsense.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Andrew

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Comments cleaned.

 

No personal attacks, please.