This was posted almost 12 hours ago on the Reddit subforum "Shit Reddit Says":
MAJOR SOCIAL NETWORK CONTINUES TO HARBOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND VOYEURISTIC CONTENT
Reddit.com is a social website that allows its user to share and discuss content such as videos, photos, articles, websites, and so on.
Reddit is massively popular (http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/2-billion-beyond.html), especially with young people (http://en.reddit.com/r/misc/comments/nevz9/results_of_the_reddit_demographics_survey_in_pie/).
Reddit is split into subcommunities known as "subreddits," meaning that while reddit exists as a website, it consists of the sum of its subcommunities. People can subscribe to each community and participate by sharing and commenting.
Unfortunately, the reddit community as a whole also harbors and caters to pedophiles, distributors of child pornography, rapists, peeping Toms, and sex offenders.
Last fall, Anderson Cooper aired a report exposing the child pornography hosted on the site, ultimately leading to the largest subreddit devoted to it being shut down. http://www.reddit.com/r/jailbait
Dozens of subreddits took its place.
Reddit users, as well as people in the media, have criticized Reddit's permissive attitude towards child exploitation. Unfortunately, while admins didn't ban sexualized images of children on paper until last February (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/policy-shift-reddit-bans-child-pornography.html), the rule remains unenforced, indicating that they are more interested in shielding themselves from bad press than protecting innocent kids.
A list of "jailbait" (child porn) forums that are currently on reddit: girlsinschooluniforms volleyballgirls TeenSex realteens johnnybait JailbaitPhotos Underage Jail_bait Jailbaits NSFW_JAILBAIT_TUBE PregnantJailbait PhotoPlunder FacebookCleavage japanese_idols AngieVerona
Some of these forums are hidden and invite only which makes it impossible to know how many actually exist.
The owners of reddit know there is active trading of child porn on their forums and refuse to do anything about it. Any reports are deleted and ignored. Further, Reddit's cofounder simply dismisses the issue and blames the exploited children whose pictures are being traded:
Included in the Anderson Cooper report was the statement by Reddit General Manager Erik Martin which defends the child pornography remaining on the site: "We’re a free speech site and the cost of that is there’s offensive stuff on there … Once we start taking down some things we find offensive, then we’re no longer a free speech site and no longer a platform for everyone. We’re exerting editorial control and that’s not what we are." http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/policy-shift-reddit-bans-child-pornography.html
The former leader of the child pornography rings, Violentacrez, is often in direct contact with the owners of the site. Erik Martin (aka hueypriest) went so far as to warn Violentacrez before reluctantly making the announcement last February.
http://pastebin.com/eWhyDXCH (4:03:13 PM) hueypriest: want to give you a heads up (4:04:00 PM) hueypriest: we're making a policy change regarding jailbait type content.
Don't really have a choice.
Reddit also has subreddits which publish images of women's and underage girls' private areas, including "upskirt" and "downblouse" pictures, without the knowledge or consent of their subjects. The users of these subreddits trade tips on how to stalk and photograph women and minors and encourage each other to go out and take more such pictures. A list of these forums currently on Reddit include: CreepShots Upskirt Downblouse yogapants Voyeur
A majority of these images are of girls in high school classroom settings. Creepshots' FAQ states: "Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this sub-reddit exists."
One user, called SFJohnny, secretly video tapes himself raping and beating hundreds of women and girls, and shares them on reddit. http://i.imgur.com/1Hkpt.png Not only is this all of this disgusting, it's illegal as per the Video Voyeurism Act of 2004. Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Other forums are explicitly devoted to filming sexual assaults and sharing them on reddit as pornography for other users. These include: RapingWomen RapingTrannies StruggleFucking AbusePorn BeatingTrannies BeatingWomen
Sick to your stomach yet? Here's more awful Reddit things: A pedophile's confession -http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/mz0au/iama_man_who_at_24_met_a_14_yr_old_girl_and_lost/ Thousands of rapists being supported by the community -http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/29/rapist-confessions-reddit A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women A subreddit called "Incest" devoted to child molestation A subreddit called "Pics of Dead Kids"
Reddit is the most popular with college aged asshats in the US. Lots o' colleges have a black list for websites that contain child pornography or illegal material. Find as many emails for schools as you can and mass email this sucker out. Act Local. If you're in America, I bet there's 20 churches near your home. Each church could have around 100 CONCERNED PARENTS that go to PTA meetings and talk to other parents. Send the "Redditbomb" to local politicians and churches. Let them see that their children are using a website that exploits and sexualizes children.
You can send tips to the FBI all day (god knows I do), but I think a grassroots campaign could do wonders.
Do you know how BORING local news is? Can you imagine if your local news could run a "IS YOUR CHILD POSTING IN A PEDOPHILE WEBSITE? STATISTICALLY THERE'S AN 80% CHANCE!" story? Holy shitballs they'd be all over it.
Project PANDA distribution list Churches, PTAs, Schools Act Local send it to nearby high schools and churches. If you're in America, there's easily 20 churches near your home. Each church will have 30 to several thousand parents that go to PTA meetings and talk to other parents. Send the it to local politicians schools and churches. Let them see that their children are using a website that exploits and sexualizes children. Most importantly, Local News Local News Stations Your local paper REDDIT SPONSORS http://www.mediaplex.com/ (a marketing firm that includes branding with advertising on Reddit) TV News ABC CBS NBC CNN FOX MSNBC Al Jazeera BBC Newspapers NY Times, NY Post (love salacious/scandalous shit) WSJ LA Times SF Chronicle, Bee Washington Post Indianapolis Star Atlanta Journal Constitution Chicago Sun Times everything at http://www.newslink.org/toptypes.html everything here: http://www.theopedproject.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=65 Government Officials Your Senator Your Representative State Legislators Governor Bloggers and Political Websites Political bloggers of all stripes (dKos, Digby, Freep, etc) Mommybloggers Matt Drudge will love this shit Huffington Post Stephen Colbert The Daily Show Rachel Maddow Cops FBI Your local and state police departments https://report.cybertip.org/index.htm WELCOME, SRSTERS, TO PEDOGEDDON 3: FUCK EVERYTHING
How does TL feel about this continuous negative coverage coming out about Reddit? I honestly feel a little disgusted every time I visit that site for something completely unrelated like SC2 news, knowing that the website itself harbors so much disgusting material.
Why the FUCK did you have to post a post that lists ALL the bloody child pornography on reddit!? Its just the most fucking horrible idea to give those things more traffic. Please edit. Seroisly.
PS: forgive my language but really, I just had to be PERFECTLY CLEAR
I love reddit. Great subreddits include trees, gaming, starcraft. Hating all of reddit because some parts contain horrible stuff is like hating all of the internet because it has horrible shit
On September 18 2012 01:41 Positronic wrote: I honestly feel a little disgusted every time I visit that site for something completely unrelated like SC2 news, knowing that the website itself harbors so much disgusting material.
Are you serious right now? I'm against child porn, but I believe that is a stupid stance to have on the subject. And frankly, there really isn't any child porn on any of those subreddits anyway, all the ones that could've possibly had child porn on them are banned. There is nothing illegal about posting pictures of under-age girls wearing things in PUBLIC, or a high-school volleyball team in their uniforms.
On September 18 2012 01:46 TotalNightmare wrote: Why the FUCK did you have to post a post that lists ALL the bloody child pornography on reddit!? Its just the most fucking horrible idea to give those things more traffic. Please edit. Seroisly.
PS: forgive my language but really, I just had to be PERFECTLY CLEAR
On September 18 2012 01:41 Positronic wrote: I honestly feel a little disgusted every time I visit that site for something completely unrelated like SC2 news, knowing that the website itself harbors so much disgusting material.
Are you serious right now? I'm against child porn, but I believe that is a stupid stance to have on the subject. And frankly, there really isn't any child porn on any of those subreddits anyway, all the ones that could've possibly had child porn on them are banned.
On September 18 2012 01:46 TotalNightmare wrote: Why the FUCK did you have to post a post that lists ALL the bloody child pornography on reddit!? Its just the most fucking horrible idea to give those things more traffic. Please edit. Seroisly.
PS: forgive my language but really, I just had to be PERFECTLY CLEAR
It's a broad means of communication between people and some people are bad. Saying I don't like using the sc2 reddit because of jailbait reddits is like saying I don't like playing computer games online because the internet has child porn on it. They're not endorsing it or encouraging it, the people who are posting about it do that. Go after the people, not the medium. It's probably helpful that they're all posting about it online anyway given the difficulty of staying anonymous on the internet these days.
I agree with Mity. I checked some of the subreddits you listed and they were either banned, or contained no child pornography. Apart from that, some of the subreddits are not what you want us to believe they are, like "rapingwomen", as disgusting as it sounds, just links to news articles with stupid comments. No pornography or whatsoever.
Well, you could've edited it and removed the actual names of those disgusting subreddits. No need to publicize them neither in a positive neither in a negative light
Anything coming from SRS is to be taken very carefully, it's a bunch of trolls and hardcore feminists. Seriously just go read some threads on that subreddit.
On the other hand there is some vile shit on Reddit that should be wiped from the site.
It's a slippery slope deal. It's kinda weird going to a website to read the weeks funny meme threads when that same website also contains an entire community that advocates beating wives and girlfriends. It's kinda weird. I would say it's probably not as black and white as everyone is going to say -- "freedom of speech."
On September 18 2012 01:48 Sroobz wrote: I love reddit. Great subreddits include trees, gaming, starcraft. Hating all of reddit because some parts contain horrible stuff is like hating all of the internet because it has horrible shit
Yar.
Mainstream media is fucking stupid and panders to people who don't understand what reddit is at all. And I HATE reddit.
On September 18 2012 01:52 Art.FeeL wrote: Well, you could've edited it and removed the actual names of those disgusting subreddits. No need to publicize them neither in a positive neither in a negative light
Actually, the entire point of the post I quoted was publicity, so you're going to have to argue with the posters on SRS on that. I was just curious what TL had to say about it, although the false equivalency that's been made between being uneasy about visiting a site that has made a habit of sheltering jailbait porn (and worse) and not getting on the internet or playing games because there's "so many bad things" on it is absolutely hilarious.
Reddit as a whole is more of a broad service, not a specific group of people or a community. Anything hosted on Reddit might as well be hosted somewhere else on the internet. It's not all that different from websites that offer CMS or discussion board hosting conceptually - they could host any kind of community and anything could be on there.
If there is illegal content, authorities should take it up with the owners, which is how these things are normally handled as far as I'm aware. It's hardly relevant to the general public, or significant enough to warrant some sort of an extended discussion (or anger).
On September 18 2012 01:52 JustPassingBy wrote: I agree with Mity. I checked some of the subreddits you listed and they were either banned, or contained no child pornography. Apart from that, some of the subreddits are not what you want us to believe they are, like "rapingwomen", as disgusting as it sounds, just links to news articles with stupid comments. No pornography or whatsoever.
Well the mods have to be constantly on guard to ban this kind of stuff, otherwise it'll just draw more media attention.
I use reddit daily. I visit front, funny, league, and pokemon a lot. Fun.
Reddit could definitely work with authorities to try to catch child porn posters, though it would gather a lot of negative attention in the form of "Hey you're giving their IP address to officials. What if you tracked my IP address and stole it?!".
This is stupid. I just looked at some of these and those aren't underage girls. All look like worn out porn stars, the other subreddits with actual teenage girls are all facebook pictures they posted themselves showing cleavage or something. Sensationalist bullshit.
IMO it's not really right to have these "child porn" reddits floating around. I can't blame the site as a whole, but (as others have said) it feels weird to look at funny pictures on a website that also harbours CP. It's hard to say how many of the pics are actually underage girls though, and with a lot of "amateur/home made" style porn you can never really be sure how old the girls are. Porn of 18 year old girls has always weirded me out as well though, and that shit is everywhere.
I personally find it really weird that there is porn of 18+ girls that look like they're super young... because to the viewer the girl is basically a teenager and it ends fulfilling the role of child porn in a way. I also find "barely legal" porn to be strange.. The girl is a child, then she turns 18 and is an adult and can go do porn legally and it's okay to drool over her getting fucked, but 2 days ago it was illegal? OBVIOUSLY there has to be a line drawn between legal and illegal, but I think it's creepy that there is porn that is trying to keep it AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to illegal.
On September 18 2012 02:07 Shebuha wrote: IMO it's not really right to have these "child porn" reddits floating around. I can't blame the site as a whole, but (as others have said) it feels weird to look at funny pictures on a website that also harbours CP. It's hard to say how many of the pics are actually underage girls though, and with a lot of "amateur/home made" style porn you can never really be sure how old the girls are. Porn of 18 year old girls has always weirded me out as well though, and that shit is everywhere.
I personally find it really weird that there is porn of 18+ girls that look like they're super young... because to the viewer the girl is basically a teenager and it ends fulfilling the role of child porn in a way. I also find "barely legal" porn to be strange.. The girl is a child, then she turns 18 and is an adult and can go do porn legally and it's okay to drool over her getting fucked, but 2 days ago it was illegal? OBVIOUSLY there has to be a line drawn between legal and illegal, but I think it's creepy that there is porn that is trying to keep it AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to illegal.
You said it yourself there has to be a line, no exceptions or the whole thing falls apart.
On September 18 2012 01:52 JustPassingBy wrote: I agree with Mity. I checked some of the subreddits you listed and they were either banned, or contained no child pornography. Apart from that, some of the subreddits are not what you want us to believe they are, like "rapingwomen", as disgusting as it sounds, just links to news articles with stupid comments. No pornography or whatsoever.
Well the mods have to be constantly on guard to ban this kind of stuff, otherwise it'll just draw more media attention.
I use reddit daily. I visit front, funny, league, and pokemon a lot. Fun.
Reddit could definitely work with authorities to try to catch child porn posters, though it would gather a lot of negative attention in the form of "Hey you're giving their IP address to officials. What if you tracked my IP address and stole it?!".
rofl the idea that people would use such a mainstream site to share child porn is ridiculous. And i'm pretty sure that reddit is legally obliged to report any and all child porn to the authorities anyway.
this whole thing is just more sensationalist bs from /r/shitredditsays anyway, (though some of the shit on reddit is pretty bad, especially the gore)
Jailbait isn't child pornography, its pictures of sexually attractive teenage girls. People need to get that right. Also a 24 yo who rapes a 14 yo isnt a pedophile, hes a rapist/ephebophile, which doesn't sound good but certainly doesn't raise the same flags that pedophilia does.
Wait, so did the owners legitimately say that they wouldn't police for child porn because doing so would be "policing," and therefore against free speech? There's a difference between auto-taking down anything that hates homosexuals (which would be against free speech) and taking down child porn (which would be upholding the laws of the entire fucking world). There's such a large difference, that I sincerely hope I misunderstood the article.
It's weird, since people seem to be overreacting to Reddit having jailbait pictures, which are completely different from child porn, but I haven't seen an article from Cooper about 4chan and it's long standing history of being a dump for the worst shit on the internet. Including, of course, child porn.
On September 18 2012 01:53 Batssa wrote: It's a slippery slope deal. It's kinda weird going to a website to read the weeks funny meme threads when that same website also contains an entire community that advocates beating wives and girlfriends. It's kinda weird. I would say it's probably not as black and white as everyone is going to say -- "freedom of speech."
This is about how I feel about it, it's really interesting that so many of you find my notion of thinking about some of this material while looking for more innocent information "stupid", lol.
Next to wikipedia, reddit is the most beautiful site on the internet. It's potential is stunning, it's possibilities amazing and it's effect it can have regarding the voice of individuals is beautiful. It's at the pinnacle of freedom. Everybody can make himself heard on reddit. This was and is never ever the case, when the classic media is in control of content.
If someone posts pictures of child pornography, then they should be punished mercilessly, but the site itself is not at fault. Remove? yes. Censor the whole site for anything you feel is sick? no.
In addition, it's not illegal when someone posts comments about the most disgusting topics you can think of, as long as he follows the privacy rules, leaving out names and such. Some may feel sick looking at a picture of a dead body, but showing it is not a crime. Others may wonder about the intentions of someone posting a picture of a 16 year old (no nudity) and commenting it in a weird or unusual way, but that's not a crime. They can do the fucking same every day when watching TV, because there's teenagers all the time in seemingly sexy outfits everywhere.
Well we can only hope that reddit admins take a strong stand against anything resembling to illegal material and forever ban questionable tags from their website so that when people hear word reddit they won't associate it with anything strange or with mess that is called 4chan (on a side note; the day 4chan closes down i will believe in humanity once again).
more than half of those subreddits you posted are banned, the other ones do not have any illegal pics at all. just normal porn. I don't get it. What has reddit done wrong.
yeah a lot of the subreddits posted were just niche porn subreddits, not illegal ones. kinda weird to demonize so vehemently without properly filtering.
sure there's a lot of shit i wish wasn't on reddit, but it's users posting shit, not the admins. kinda weird to attack reddit directly.
On September 18 2012 01:51 KwarK wrote: It's a broad means of communication between people and some people are bad. Saying I don't like using the sc2 reddit because of jailbait reddits is like saying I don't like playing computer games online because the internet has child porn on it. They're not endorsing it or encouraging it, the people who are posting about it do that. Go after the people, not the medium. It's probably helpful that they're all posting about it online anyway given the difficulty of staying anonymous on the internet these days.
If there is something the medium can do, then going after it should be viable. Example: Google.
On September 18 2012 02:14 Kuni wrote: Next to wikipedia, reddit is the most beautiful site on the internet. It's potential is stunning, it's possibilities amazing and it's effect it can have regarding the voice of individuals is beautiful. It's at the pinnacle of freedom. Everybody can make himself heard on reddit. This was and is never ever the case, when the classic media is in control of content.
If someone posts pictures of child pornography, then they should be punished mercilessly, but the site itself is not at fault.
In addition, it's not illegal when someone posts comments about the most disgusting topics you can think of, as long as he follows the privacy rules, leaving out names and such. Some may feel sick looking at a picture of a dead body, but showing it is not a crime. Others may wonder about the intentions of someone posting a picture of a 16 year old (no nudity) and commenting it in a weird or unusual way, but that's not a crime. They can do the fucking same every day when watching TV, because there's teenagers all the time in seemingly sexy outfits everywhere.
Everyone is aware of the rules and legality of simply posting disgusting pictures, I think my feelings however are more directly related to the consistent news I read of there being specific forums dedicated to letting users masturbate to young boys/girls on a site that has much more innocent content. They can do it while watching TV, but the TV shows a person like that would watch aren't specifically created to allow viewers the ability to jerk off to the kids on them.
Usually a small group of idiots ruin it for everyone else because everyone else is content with having less freedom just because of those few idiots. Doing anything about reddit would be nothing short of retarded. Can we please treat the cause and not the symptoms guys ? Any1 with a brain should fight "for" the ability to post child porn in there, and as well take serious actions against child porn producers/beneficiars. Having people with kinks for child porn is "normal" if they come from a messed up family living in a toxic environment, or merely having the wrong wireing inside the brain, unless they don't hurt anyone, they should be left alone. - or be helped in some way, you don't reasonably put meth heads in jail, you must heal them.
Also guys, fyi in some states, holding child pornogrophy material even tho u didn't even buy it may cause you to be thrown in jail for up to 20 years ( if you're lawyer is incompetent ) while abusing a child can bring you 5-7 years of jail time. Yes, hello humanity.
This was posted almost 12 hours ago on the Reddit subforum "Shit Reddit Says":
Well that sure started this thread off on the wrong foot. That subreddit is literally a shithole filled with a bunch of self righteous morons that would rather copy paste links from the internet and laugh at how unjust and despicable they think it is, rather then actually doing something about it.
This was posted almost 12 hours ago on the Reddit subforum "Shit Reddit Says":
Well that sure started this thread off on the wrong foot. That subreddit is literally a shithole filled with a bunch of self righteous morons that would rather copy paste links from the internet and laugh at how unjust and despicable they think it is, rather then actually doing something about it.
Actually the majority of SRS users are SAGoons and they have done a lot more about this particular issue than many of Reddit's users. Terrible post, sir.
Why did you post this now? I'm really confused by this, every news report there is months and months old, most of them date back to 2011. Is any of this since they started closing those subreddits? What part about this is at it again?
He posted it because right now it's on top of r/shitredditsays and is subject to massive circlejerking among those people. They are basically like the angry mob of r/starcraft except more insane.
There's no pornography, nor are the girls children, so how the hell do they justifiy calling it CP?
Educate your adolescent daughters not to take semi-nude or whorish fotos of themselves and not post them on the internet and the "problem" is largely solved. The problem isn't that young people explore their sexuality, it's that their privacy is being given away freely and taken advantage of by older dudes.
On September 18 2012 01:52 JustPassingBy wrote: I agree with Mity. I checked some of the subreddits you listed and they were either banned, or contained no child pornography. Apart from that, some of the subreddits are not what you want us to believe they are, like "rapingwomen", as disgusting as it sounds, just links to news articles with stupid comments. No pornography or whatsoever.
Well the mods have to be constantly on guard to ban this kind of stuff, otherwise it'll just draw more media attention.
I use reddit daily. I visit front, funny, league, and pokemon a lot. Fun.
Reddit could definitely work with authorities to try to catch child porn posters, though it would gather a lot of negative attention in the form of "Hey you're giving their IP address to officials. What if you tracked my IP address and stole it?!".
rofl the idea that people would use such a mainstream site to share child porn is ridiculous. And i'm pretty sure that reddit is legally obliged to report any and all child porn to the authorities anyway.
this whole thing is just more sensationalist bs from /r/shitredditsays anyway, (though some of the shit on reddit is pretty bad, especially the gore)
"rofl"? you greet people in a way as to dismiss their ideas as so naive their laughable? TL community.
If they're legally obligated to report child porn posters then there's nothing wrong with this. Reddit's already doing all it can to shut down illegal subreddits. If there are posters dumb enough not to bounce their IP's then they'll get caught.
On September 18 2012 02:25 heyoka wrote: Why did you post this now? I'm really confused by this, every news report there is months and months old, most of them date back to 2011. Is any of this since they started closing those subreddits? What part about this is at it again?
It's being posted all over the Internet, and you'd be naive to think there aren't still many hidden subforums with this same material and probably worse.
Also to get people like this to post absolutely golden material.
On September 18 2012 02:20 bOneSeven wrote: Usually a small group of idiots ruin it for everyone else because everyone else is content with having less freedom just because of those few idiots. Doing anything about reddit would be nothing short of retarded. Can we please treat the cause and not the symptoms guys ? Any1 with a brain should fight "for" the ability to post child porn in there, and as well take serious actions against child porn producers/beneficiars. Having people with kinks for child porn is "normal" if they come from a messed up family living in a toxic environment, or merely having the wrong wireing inside the brain, unless they don't hurt anyone, they should be left alone. - or be helped in some way, you don't reasonably put meth heads in jail, you must heal them.
Also guys, fyi in some states, holding child pornogrophy material even tho u didn't even buy it may cause you to be thrown in jail for up to 20 years ( if you're lawyer is incompetent ) while abusing a child can bring you 5-7 years of jail time. Yes, hello humanity.
On September 18 2012 02:26 Zaphid wrote: SRS is like the tumor of reddit
You just offended tumors everywhere.
Logged in just to make a post about how awful SRS is and how nobody should even bother reading it, but you put it so eloquently I now have nothing to say.
This anderson cooper thing seems like an attempt to discredit reddit and taint the entire site, because Obama did a QandA on reddit, its a political ploy imo.
On September 18 2012 02:35 MrF wrote: This anderson cooper thing seems like an attempt to discredit reddit and taint the entire site, because Obama did a QandA on reddit, its a political ploy imo.
This has been by far the best post in this thread.
You might as well say that you hate the internet since the internet contains all of those things, and therefore should be taken down...terrible logic is terrible.
On September 18 2012 02:10 13_Doomblaze_37 wrote: Jailbait isn't child pornography, its pictures of sexually attractive teenage girls. People need to get that right. Also a 24 yo who rapes a 14 yo isnt a pedophile, hes a rapist/ephebophile, which doesn't sound good but certainly doesn't raise the same flags that pedophilia does.
Since im on my phone and can't post like I want to in order to properly portray my disgust with the idea being perpetuted here, can someone find a post on reddit by some gent on why r/jailbait was closed?
To what end do people share sexually suggestive pictures of underage girls, exactly? Do you suggest these pictures are in no way exploitative of said underage girls? Do you buy into statutory laws regarding age and ability to consent?
On September 18 2012 02:14 Kuni wrote: Next to wikipedia, reddit is the most beautiful site on the internet. It's potential is stunning, it's possibilities amazing and it's effect it can have regarding the voice of individuals is beautiful. It's at the pinnacle of freedom. Everybody can make himself heard on reddit. This was and is never ever the case, when the classic media is in control of content.
If someone posts pictures of child pornography, then they should be punished mercilessly, but the site itself is not at fault.
In addition, it's not illegal when someone posts comments about the most disgusting topics you can think of, as long as he follows the privacy rules, leaving out names and such. Some may feel sick looking at a picture of a dead body, but showing it is not a crime. Others may wonder about the intentions of someone posting a picture of a 16 year old (no nudity) and commenting it in a weird or unusual way, but that's not a crime. They can do the fucking same every day when watching TV, because there's teenagers all the time in seemingly sexy outfits everywhere.
Everyone is aware of the rules and legality of simply posting disgusting pictures, I think my feelings however are more directly related to the consistent news I read of there being specific forums dedicated to letting users masturbate to young boys/girls on a site that has much more innocent content. They can do it while watching TV, but the TV shows a person like that would watch aren't specifically created to allow viewers the ability to jerk off to the kids on them.
That's a fair point I guess. I can understand that. Then the real question would probably be whether or not the imagination and/or description of a possible illegal act alone should be punished or not. And depending on the answer, make a new ruleset or have it stay like it is now.
On September 18 2012 02:42 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: You might as well say that you hate the internet since the internet contains all of those things, and therefore should be taken down...terrible logic is terrible.
Yeah!!! And since the Internet community is only made up of people, why don't we kill everyone because people are responsible for the disgusting things there!!!
On September 18 2012 02:10 13_Doomblaze_37 wrote: Jailbait isn't child pornography, its pictures of sexually attractive teenage girls. People need to get that right. Also a 24 yo who rapes a 14 yo isnt a pedophile, hes a rapist/ephebophile, which doesn't sound good but certainly doesn't raise the same flags that pedophilia does.
Do you buy into statutory laws regarding age and ability to consent?
Those aren't universal. Banging a 15 y/o in Hamburg is illegal, go 50 km north to Denmark and you're fine.
There's no universal rule as to what constitutes as "statutory", whereas CP is universally horrid.
Reddit forbids child pornography. From the titles of these subreddits, every single one of them is about teen girls, not children. The real issue here is that "underage" is under 18, which is a few years too old.
I just wanna ask this, since many of these "jailbait" pictures come from things like facebook and such, and the girls themselves took the pictures, why aren't people getting mad at facebook and other social network sites for the same thing?
On September 18 2012 02:10 13_Doomblaze_37 wrote: Jailbait isn't child pornography, its pictures of sexually attractive teenage girls. People need to get that right. Also a 24 yo who rapes a 14 yo isnt a pedophile, hes a rapist/ephebophile, which doesn't sound good but certainly doesn't raise the same flags that pedophilia does.
Do you buy into statutory laws regarding age and ability to consent?
Those aren't universal. Banging a 15 y/o in Hamburg is illegal, go 50 km north to Denmark and you're fine.
There's no universal rule as to what constitutes as "statutory", whereas CP is universally horrid.
No, they aren't universal, but the line isn't to be drawn by any one person.
On September 18 2012 03:01 N3rV[Green] wrote: I just wanna ask this, since many of these "jailbait" pictures come from things like facebook and such, and the girls themselves took the pictures, why aren't people getting mad at facebook and other social network sites for the same thing?
Because facebooks purpose isn't to centralize these photos for perverts to masturbate to your 16 year old sister in her bikini
On September 18 2012 03:01 N3rV[Green] wrote: I just wanna ask this, since many of these "jailbait" pictures come from things like facebook and such, and the girls themselves took the pictures, why aren't people getting mad at facebook and other social network sites for the same thing?
Facebook doesn't provide the ability to pool those pictures in a particular place for the sole purpose of the sexual pleasure of those who generally don't even know the person.
hah.. well.. does seem horrible when you listen to anderson cooper.. but.. wouldn't blame reddit.. I would blame the perverse minds of this world.. makes sense that they aren't an editorial site and that it's just a platform for free speech.
People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out. A mere few thousand (even hundreds) of years ago, people were banging away on teenage girls and it was fine. Are you telling me that we have evolved so much that we shouldn't have that desire anymore? I call bullshit.
On September 18 2012 01:48 Sroobz wrote: I love reddit. Great subreddits include trees, gaming, starcraft. Hating all of reddit because some parts contain horrible stuff is like hating all of the internet because it has horrible shit
I just want to know how r/Trees or r/Gaming qualify as great subreddits
On September 18 2012 03:08 ayaz2810 wrote: People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out.
CP though..... burn in hell for that.
Oh is that how it is? How young would you go then before you would argue against it? I feel more enlightened already
On September 18 2012 03:16 Euronyme wrote: I'm actually surprised so many here frequents reddit. I thought that was the place you went to if you got banned from TL.
There are a lot of Reddit apologists here, not to mention the fact that I remember seeing a lolicon defense force signature used by a few of the posters here as well so who would be surprised?
Talk about an extreme over reaction -.- The idea of a free internet forum is that it's well... A free internet forum. Some old aged pedophiles exist? I'd rather them hammer the meat off in there bedrooms then rape children any day.
People are so quick to overreact like it's the end of the world.
On September 18 2012 03:08 ayaz2810 wrote: People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out. A mere few thousand (even hundreds) of years ago, people were banging away on teenage girls and it was fine. Are you telling me that we have evolved so much that we shouldn't have that desire anymore? I call bullshit.
CP though..... burn in hell for that.
I thought the age most men are attracted to is 17? I guess that is arguing semantics though. I have read a lot with regards to male attraction and biology (in fact I remember a class in Bio where we discussed males urge for younger (more fertile) women/girls.)
I think a more interesting aspect is how we shy away from sex in our culture but obviously limits do apply and I think 17 is a fine sexual consent age imo. I obviously think looking at 11 year olds (using that as an example but you can't really put a concrete number on it, personally I would go from 11 to 15 a bit disgusting) should be smacked down pretty hard.
On September 18 2012 03:08 ayaz2810 wrote: People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out.
CP though..... burn in hell for that.
Oh is that how it is? How young would you go then before you would argue against it? I feel more enlightened already
Probably before sexual maturity? You know.... when they're still children? That's kind of how it works smartass.
On September 18 2012 03:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Talk about an extreme over reaction -.- The idea of a free internet forum is that it's well... A free internet forum. Some old aged pedophiles exist? I'd rather them hammer the meat off in there bedrooms then rape children any day.
People are so quick to overreact like it's the end of the world.
On September 18 2012 03:08 ayaz2810 wrote: People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out. A mere few thousand (even hundreds) of years ago, people were banging away on teenage girls and it was fine. Are you telling me that we have evolved so much that we shouldn't have that desire anymore? I call bullshit.
CP though..... burn in hell for that.
I thought the age most men are attracted to is 17? I guess that is arguing semantics though. I have read a lot with regards to male attraction and biology (in fact I remember a class in Bio where we discussed males urge for younger (more fertile) women/girls.)
I think a more interesting aspect is how we shy away from sex in our culture but obviously limits do apply and I think 17 is a fine sexual consent age imo. I obviously think looking at 11 year olds (using that as an example but you can't really put a concrete number on it, personally I would go from 11 to 15 a bit disgusting) should be smacked down pretty hard.
I used 15 as an example. I'ts not meant to indicate some kind of magical minimum/maximum age or anything. But I get your point.
On September 18 2012 03:08 ayaz2810 wrote: People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out.
CP though..... burn in hell for that.
Oh is that how it is? How young would you go then before you would argue against it? I feel more enlightened already
Probably before sexual maturity? You know.... when they're still children? That's kind of how it works smartass.
Actual sexual maturity is around 12-14 isn't it? I don't think going that low is correct unless we mean different things when we think of sexual maturity. Maybe I'm wrong though.
On September 18 2012 03:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Talk about an extreme over reaction -.- The idea of a free internet forum is that it's well... A free internet forum. Some old aged pedophiles exist? I'd rather them hammer the meat off in there bedrooms then rape children any day.
People are so quick to overreact like it's the end of the world.
On September 18 2012 03:08 ayaz2810 wrote: People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out. A mere few thousand (even hundreds) of years ago, people were banging away on teenage girls and it was fine. Are you telling me that we have evolved so much that we shouldn't have that desire anymore? I call bullshit.
CP though..... burn in hell for that.
I thought the age most men are attracted to is 17? I guess that is arguing semantics though. I have read a lot with regards to male attraction and biology (in fact I remember a class in Bio where we discussed males urge for younger (more fertile) women/girls.)
I think a more interesting aspect is how we shy away from sex in our culture but obviously limits do apply and I think 17 is a fine sexual consent age imo. I obviously think looking at 11 year olds (using that as an example but you can't really put a concrete number on it, personally I would go from 11 to 15 a bit disgusting) should be smacked down pretty hard.
I used 15 as an example. I'ts not meant to indicate some kind of magical minimum/maximum age or anything. But I get your point.
Yeah I said it was arguing semantics. I understand you're not indicating any magical min/max (as that is extremely hard to do, especially how some people mature faster than others etc etc)
On September 18 2012 03:08 ayaz2810 wrote: People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out.
CP though..... burn in hell for that.
Oh is that how it is? How young would you go then before you would argue against it? I feel more enlightened already
Probably before sexual maturity? You know.... when they're still children? That's kind of how it works smartass.
Actual sexual maturity is around 12-14 isn't it? I don't think going that low is correct unless we mean different things when we think of sexual maturity. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Sounds about right.
EDIT: You think cavemen didn't have sex with 12-14 year old girls to create more cave people? I mean this as a general question. Not to anyone specifically. Just to the people who think that finding a 15 year old girl attractive is reprehensible.
Google's purpose is not to create a repository of jerk off material made up entirely of underage girls.
Can people stop being this moronic?
I don't understand the difference, can you explain? I feel that if google is allowing said childporn (with easier access I might add) shouldn't that be comparable to Reddit allowing the same?
Google's purpose is not to create a repository of jerk off material made up entirely of underage girls.
Can people stop being this moronic?
I don't understand the difference, can you explain? I feel that if google is allowing said childporn (with easier access I might add) shouldn't that be comparable to Reddit allowing the same?
Google was not specifically created to host jailbait images, as many of these Reddit subforums were. There is not much more to understand other than it's stated purpose as a search engine. It's not listing the material in such a way as to be accessed by those who have the intent to pleasure themselves to it. The Reddit forums in question do so brazenly and without regret, and reveling in the fact that the subjects of the photos do not know they're being used for what they are.
Edit: Google lists pictures of underage girls in an incidental way, because of their products function, not because they state a desire to post jailbait.
Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
On September 18 2012 03:08 ayaz2810 wrote: People realize that we're genetically predisposed to like teenage girls right? There's nothing disgusting about it. It's fucking biology. I wouldn't fault a 25 year old dude from saying a 15 year old girl is hot. Acting on those urges on the other hand......
So stupid to be upset about. You can't argue biology. Chill out.
CP though..... burn in hell for that.
Oh is that how it is? How young would you go then before you would argue against it? I feel more enlightened already
And the line you draw is so much better than the line he draws? Age of consent varies from country to country. It can be as low as 13.
Google's purpose is not to create a repository of jerk off material made up entirely of underage girls.
Can people stop being this moronic?
I don't understand the difference, can you explain? I feel that if google is allowing said childporn (with easier access I might add) shouldn't that be comparable to Reddit allowing the same?
Google does sensor extreme pornographic material though - shouldn't Reddit have the same obligation? It's a little bit different because of the mass of content; you could almost say that Google is the largest library on the planet and Reddit is a small bookstore. You find all but the most reprehensible things a library, but if the institution is smaller then they need to be careful about what kinds of material they can be associated with.
However, both Reddit and Google currently sensor materials. Reddit has banned "jailbait" and google has banned website that shows 6 year olds being raped.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
This line of reasoning is terrible.
"I've looked at a minority of places where this has been reported and thanks to that small experience I've decided that I'm comfortable dismissing all the evidence to the contrary".
Edit: Also you have no idea what is going on if you don't assume that the places hosting 12 year old girls vs 17 year olds aren't going to be private sub reddits now.
Google's purpose is not to create a repository of jerk off material made up entirely of underage girls.
Can people stop being this moronic?
Is it Reddit's? People are making shitty subreddits. Reddit is just a medium, a broad one at that and of course it will have bad apples here and there. No point in attacking the whole website ;_;
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
This line of reasoning is terrible.
"I've looked at a minority of places where this has been reported and thanks to that small experience I've decided that I'm comfortable dismissing all the evidence to the contrary".
Edit: Also you have no idea what is going on if you don't assume that the places hosting 12 year old girls vs 17 year olds aren't going to be private sub reddits now.
I have yet to actually see any evidence of the contrary, and I said if anyone finds something else I'd have no issue changing my stance... I feel like everyone is blowing smoke but zero proof is ever shown with actual children for me to be outraged... I looked around, still haven't found anything.
I may not have digged far enough but I have yet to see anyone pull up some disturbing shit. A better question is how do you know they're in the private sub forums (sure they might be, but I'm making assumptions based off of a little bit of looking around, you're basing assumptions off... Nothing? opinion?)
Why are you so passive aggressive also, calm down.
Sadly I don't think the purpose of this is to somehow crack down on what is/isn't allowed on reddit but as an ammo in upcoming election. The connection will be that Obama visited reddit, reddit is "allowing CP" and therefore Obama likes CP. You could say that in this case, CP is the one being abused...
Google's purpose is not to create a repository of jerk off material made up entirely of underage girls.
Can people stop being this moronic?
Is it Reddit's? People are making shitty subreddits. Reddit is just a medium, a broad one at that and of course it will have bad apples here and there. No point in attacking the whole website ;_;
No it's not Reddit as a whole's purpose, it's the intent of the creator of the subforum in which this material was posted, that's pretty obvious man.
And yes, you could consider it just a medium, but you have to hold the administrators responsible for allowing exploitative material on the site when they have every tool to remove it, they just choose not to.
Why would you be so stupid that you'd post jailbait material on such a popular website like reddit? There's plenty of places to find jailbait material on the internet anonymously. I don't understand what these people were thinking.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
There is almost no real child pornography in the "normal" Internet, it only exists in cryptographic pseudonymous networks. The reason is pretty obvious - in almost every country in the world sharing such content is illegal and only really stupid people would risk doing it without proper "disguise", and stupid people rarely possess any sort of such content. Closest thing available outside of darknets/i2p/TOR/etc are pictures and videos of non-nude underage people (most of them posted by themselves on the social networks) and webcam porn with 16/17 y.o. girls (because it's often impossible to distinguish them from 18+ ones without actually checking their IDs).
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
There is almost no real child pornography in the "normal" Internet, it only exists in cryptographic pseudonymous networks. The reason is pretty obvious - in almost every country in the world sharing such content is illegal and only really stupid people would risk doing it without proper "disguise", and stupid people rarely possess any sort of such content. Closest thing available outside of darknets/i2p/TOR/etc are pictures and videos of non-nude underage people (most of them posted by themselves on the social networks) and webcam porn with 16/17 y.o. girls (because it's often impossible to distinguish them from 18+ ones without actually checking their IDs).
Ahh ok that makes more sense, then why is reddit involved? I mean if it's not on the "normal" internet, where reddit resides then how could this be there and no one see it? Maybe I just don't understand subreddits well enough.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
This line of reasoning is terrible.
"I've looked at a minority of places where this has been reported and thanks to that small experience I've decided that I'm comfortable dismissing all the evidence to the contrary".
Edit: Also you have no idea what is going on if you don't assume that the places hosting 12 year old girls vs 17 year olds aren't going to be private sub reddits now.
I have yet to actually see any evidence of the contrary, and I said if anyone finds something else I'd have no issue changing my stance... I feel like everyone is blowing smoke but zero proof is ever shown with actual children for me to be outraged... I looked around, still haven't found anything.
I may not have digged far enough but I have yet to see anyone pull up some disturbing shit. A better question is how do you know they're in the private sub forums (sure they might be, but I'm making assumptions based off of a little bit of looking around, you're basing assumptions off... Nothing? opinion?)
Why are you so passive aggressive also, calm down.
Do you really want me to post proof of this stuff? It's probably bannable material on this website and the entire point of the original post is to show where this stuff has gone down on Reddit, and nobody should be forced to upload or link material of jailbait or childporn to satisfy you if you're not willing to believe it.
Especially if you've looked at only 3 of the subforums and act like you're more knowledgeable than someone who has actually worked with SomethingAwful to put this stuff out there (me). Or that you're comfortable with all the other forums based on that. What a ridiculous idea. XD man, you really are naive if you're asking stupid questions like "Well how do you know they're in private subreddits!?"
Good job, drive it all underground where it's difficult to monitor people! At no stage do I claim anything like jailbait thread viwer = child rapist but it is probably advisable to keep an eye on some of the more abhorrent posters in these kind of subreddits.
And yes, there is a bit of a different between finding teens hot and child porn. Not to mention the issue of whether the girls in question consented to have their pictures used in such a manner.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
There is almost no real child pornography in the "normal" Internet, it only exists in cryptographic pseudonymous networks. The reason is pretty obvious - in almost every country in the world sharing such content is illegal and only really stupid people would risk doing it without proper "disguise", and stupid people rarely possess any sort of such content. Closest thing available outside of darknets/i2p/TOR/etc are pictures and videos of non-nude underage people (most of them posted by themselves on the social networks) and webcam porn with 16/17 y.o. girls (because it's often impossible to distinguish them from 18+ ones without actually checking their IDs).
Ahh ok that makes more sense, then why is reddit involved? I mean if it's not on the "normal" internet, where reddit resides then how could this be there and no one see it? Maybe I just don't understand subreddits well enough.
I think about 99% of such reports about childporn are simply bullshit - it either doesn't contain underage people or isn't pornographic. Remaining 1% indeed report illegal material but it is removed as soon as moderators/admins of the site see it posted.
p.s. the numbers are made up, but I think they are not far away from reality
On September 18 2012 03:50 Positronic wrote: And yes, you could consider it just a medium, but you have to hold the administrators responsible for allowing exploitative material on the site when they have every tool to remove it, they just choose not to.
You make it sound so easy, though. Reddit already does remove illegal material; what's left is all questionably legal. Where do they draw the line on what to remove and what to leave, and how much effort are they supposed to expend doing so? If you think there should be no "morally corrupt" material on the Internet, we may as well shut the whole thing down right now.
To be honest people need to fuck off about the teens in bras on reddit, it's a community that is formed of mainly under 18 people with the rest being around 18 to 22/4. Quite frankly i see nothing "morally" wrong with an 15 years old being turned on by someone who is 17, nor of a 20 years old that does the same thing.
The whole point of reddit is not to look at it as a "community", since its not a fucking community, is a bunch of communities and reddit is just a host site for them. If you were to look at the top reddits ( aka politics, ama, "gaming", funny... etc) there are a whole bunch of other way fucking worse thing than suggestive teen photos.
And if you are gonna talk about legality ? They are in there damn rights to post those photo there as far as pornography goes since they are not fucking pornography.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
This line of reasoning is terrible.
"I've looked at a minority of places where this has been reported and thanks to that small experience I've decided that I'm comfortable dismissing all the evidence to the contrary".
Edit: Also you have no idea what is going on if you don't assume that the places hosting 12 year old girls vs 17 year olds aren't going to be private sub reddits now.
I have yet to actually see any evidence of the contrary, and I said if anyone finds something else I'd have no issue changing my stance... I feel like everyone is blowing smoke but zero proof is ever shown with actual children for me to be outraged... I looked around, still haven't found anything.
I may not have digged far enough but I have yet to see anyone pull up some disturbing shit. A better question is how do you know they're in the private sub forums (sure they might be, but I'm making assumptions based off of a little bit of looking around, you're basing assumptions off... Nothing? opinion?)
Why are you so passive aggressive also, calm down.
Do you really want me to post proof of this stuff? It's probably bannable material on this website and the entire point of the original post is to show where this stuff has gone down on Reddit, and nobody should be forced to upload or link material of jailbait or childporn to satisfy you if you're not willing to believe it.
Especially if you've looked at only 3 of the subforums and act like you're more knowledgeable than someone who has actually worked with SomethingAwful to put this stuff out there (me). Or that you're comfortable with all the other forums based on that. What a ridiculous idea. XD man, you really are naive if you're asking stupid questions like "Well how do you know they're in private subreddits!?"
There wont be any CP private subreddits on reddit. Like it has been said before, CP mostly is shared on stuff like TOR,darknet, ... where connections are secure and the feds can't get your IP. You'd be an idiot sharing CP on site a like reddit.
Why the fuck did you post spam from SRS onto TL? They're a troll subreddit that is filled with hate and bigotry and the mods there will ban you immediately for going against the circlejerk (see their sidebar).
Hey OP, why are you on the Internet? It disgusts me every time people use the internet when I know what kind of awful things exist there. I'm appalled about what those millions of users do on there.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
This line of reasoning is terrible.
"I've looked at a minority of places where this has been reported and thanks to that small experience I've decided that I'm comfortable dismissing all the evidence to the contrary".
Edit: Also you have no idea what is going on if you don't assume that the places hosting 12 year old girls vs 17 year olds aren't going to be private sub reddits now.
I have yet to actually see any evidence of the contrary, and I said if anyone finds something else I'd have no issue changing my stance... I feel like everyone is blowing smoke but zero proof is ever shown with actual children for me to be outraged... I looked around, still haven't found anything.
I may not have digged far enough but I have yet to see anyone pull up some disturbing shit. A better question is how do you know they're in the private sub forums (sure they might be, but I'm making assumptions based off of a little bit of looking around, you're basing assumptions off... Nothing? opinion?)
Why are you so passive aggressive also, calm down.
Do you really want me to post proof of this stuff? It's probably bannable material on this website and the entire point of the original post is to show where this stuff has gone down on Reddit, and nobody should be forced to upload or link material of jailbait or childporn to satisfy you if you're not willing to believe it.
Especially if you've looked at only 3 of the subforums and act like you're more knowledgeable than someone who has actually worked with SomethingAwful to put this stuff out there (me). Or that you're comfortable with all the other forums based on that. What a ridiculous idea. XD man, you really are naive if you're asking stupid questions like "Well how do you know they're in private subreddits!?"
There wont be any CP private subreddits on reddit. Like it has been said before, CP mostly is shared on stuff like TOR,darknet, ... where connections are secure and the feds can't get your IP. You'd be an idiot sharing CP on site a like reddit.
CP idiocy is not even really a question, for example a My Little Pony artist was livestreaming his drawing session awhile ago apparently and kept his stream open long enough for his viewers to get a good look at his child porn collection. Then I believe killed himself.
My problem with Reddit is more of the degree that they allow images of younger kids who have no idea about where their picture has ended up to be posted in forums dedicated to the sexual pleasure of those who have access to it. CP or jailbait, still feels very weird to be on a site that has that duality to it.
On September 18 2012 04:17 Rhine wrote: Hey OP, why are you on the Internet? It disgusts me every time people use the internet when I know what kind of awful things exist there. I'm appalled about what those millions of users do on there.
Do you see the problem with your argument?
XD I'm not even going to respond to this because your argument actually makes no sense.
On September 18 2012 04:16 javy_ wrote: Why the fuck did you post spam from SRS onto TL? They're a troll subreddit that is filled with hate and bigotry and the mods there will ban you immediately for going against the circlejerk (see their sidebar).
Because the entire purpose of SRS is to post the hate and bigotry that fills up Reddit? You do understand that the material posted there is from the rest of the site right? Be angry at Reddit as a whole or at the individuals posting the content that's shown in SRS, not the people making it known what idiocy is perpetrated there.
On September 18 2012 01:46 TotalNightmare wrote: Why the FUCK did you have to post a post that lists ALL the bloody child pornography on reddit!? Its just the most fucking horrible idea to give those things more traffic. Please edit. Seroisly.
PS: forgive my language but really, I just had to be PERFECTLY CLEAR
Relax, only pedos and shitheads like that are going to visit that, and those people are going to fuck over (no pun intended) other people regardless of what they see on the internet. As for the topic at hand, it is fucking retarded that Reddit is willing to tolerate this, for countless reasons I am sure I do not need to list for the sake of the people present. It is one of the main reasons I do not visit the site. You can be an idiotic idealist if it pleases you, but when you tolerate, and, indeed, assist people who, statistically speaking, cause incomprehensible suffering to dozens of people over their lifetimes, you need to go to hell.
On September 18 2012 04:17 Rhine wrote: Hey OP, why are you on the Internet? It disgusts me every time people use the internet when I know what kind of awful things exist there. I'm appalled about what those millions of users do on there.
Do you see the problem with your argument?
When you use the internet, it doesn't benefit the people who put the awful things up. If you agree that these subreddits are bad and that reddit should take them down, then you believe reddit itself (the owners/operators) is bad, and you going to the site directly benefits them through advertising.
You can debate whether reddit, which as a private website has the right to censor content that is posted, should use that authority, but if it *is* doing something very wrong, boycotting it is perfectly reasonable as a response.
Wait a minute, so you are telling me, that you can find pictures of kids on the internet? Wait, wait, they are on a page that allows hosting pictures/links? Holy shit this is huge, we need to warn people! Yes it's bad/illegal/horrible/enter whatever you feel like, but that's.... internet. I love when media try to wrap their heads around the internet at correct it's every corner, and mind you, it has a lot and I mean a lot of dark corners.
I use reddit for things like /r/gaming, /r/trees because I like to see those high comics :D, and the front page. Still, after finding out about the hidden wiki nothing surprises me.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
This line of reasoning is terrible.
"I've looked at a minority of places where this has been reported and thanks to that small experience I've decided that I'm comfortable dismissing all the evidence to the contrary".
Edit: Also you have no idea what is going on if you don't assume that the places hosting 12 year old girls vs 17 year olds aren't going to be private sub reddits now.
I have yet to actually see any evidence of the contrary, and I said if anyone finds something else I'd have no issue changing my stance... I feel like everyone is blowing smoke but zero proof is ever shown with actual children for me to be outraged... I looked around, still haven't found anything.
I may not have digged far enough but I have yet to see anyone pull up some disturbing shit. A better question is how do you know they're in the private sub forums (sure they might be, but I'm making assumptions based off of a little bit of looking around, you're basing assumptions off... Nothing? opinion?)
Why are you so passive aggressive also, calm down.
Do you really want me to post proof of this stuff? It's probably bannable material on this website and the entire point of the original post is to show where this stuff has gone down on Reddit, and nobody should be forced to upload or link material of jailbait or childporn to satisfy you if you're not willing to believe it.
Especially if you've looked at only 3 of the subforums and act like you're more knowledgeable than someone who has actually worked with SomethingAwful to put this stuff out there (me). Or that you're comfortable with all the other forums based on that. What a ridiculous idea. XD man, you really are naive if you're asking stupid questions like "Well how do you know they're in private subreddits!?"
Oh, so you're one of those guys who is trying to be the world police, trying to shut down sites which shows any possibility of questionable content involving teen photos, no wonder SomethingAwful has such bad reputation. Why don't you ban subreddit like picsofdeadkids which is much worse than those listed ones. I know, it's socially acceptable to watch even the worst gore (including kids) but god forbid there is any photo of 17 year old girls on the internet. Thanks, America.
Just to note before I get accused by some prude mob, I do not support child pornography or child abuse in any way.
On September 18 2012 03:37 Evilmystic wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that using the terms "pedophilic" while speaking about content with postpubertal children or "child porn" to content where there is no pornography is beyond retarded?
So I decided out of frustration not knowing whether they were 12 year olds or 17 or so on the site opened a few of the links... I found Faye Raegan, Lexi Belle and some other notable porn stars in the majority of the images. The rest looked like college students or older...
Is this really what we're labling as child pornography now? Hell, maybe I'm a pedophile to then for watching some porn here and there.
I think the image of CP should really be changed because when I went in looking I had my eyes squinted expecting to see someone the age of my little sister and then shut my laptop in horror... But not only did I NOT find any actual pornography (other then the actual porn stars) but none of them seemed underage...
Anywho, if you're brave enough start looking but I only went into 3 of them and I mean after looking at the 3 and not seeing anything I feel comfortable to assume the rest probably are around the same.
Anybody find anything else, my opinion would definitely change if they harbored actual child pornography.
This line of reasoning is terrible.
"I've looked at a minority of places where this has been reported and thanks to that small experience I've decided that I'm comfortable dismissing all the evidence to the contrary".
Edit: Also you have no idea what is going on if you don't assume that the places hosting 12 year old girls vs 17 year olds aren't going to be private sub reddits now.
I have yet to actually see any evidence of the contrary, and I said if anyone finds something else I'd have no issue changing my stance... I feel like everyone is blowing smoke but zero proof is ever shown with actual children for me to be outraged... I looked around, still haven't found anything.
I may not have digged far enough but I have yet to see anyone pull up some disturbing shit. A better question is how do you know they're in the private sub forums (sure they might be, but I'm making assumptions based off of a little bit of looking around, you're basing assumptions off... Nothing? opinion?)
Why are you so passive aggressive also, calm down.
Do you really want me to post proof of this stuff? It's probably bannable material on this website and the entire point of the original post is to show where this stuff has gone down on Reddit, and nobody should be forced to upload or link material of jailbait or childporn to satisfy you if you're not willing to believe it.
Especially if you've looked at only 3 of the subforums and act like you're more knowledgeable than someone who has actually worked with SomethingAwful to put this stuff out there (me). Or that you're comfortable with all the other forums based on that. What a ridiculous idea. XD man, you really are naive if you're asking stupid questions like "Well how do you know they're in private subreddits!?"
Oh, so you're one of those guys who is trying to be the world police, trying to shut down sites which shows any possibility of questionable content involving teen photos, no wonder SomethingAwful has such bad reputation. Why don't you ban subreddit like picsofdeadkids which is much worse than those listed ones. I know, it's socially acceptable to watch even the worst gore (including kids) but god forbid there is any photo of 17 year old girls on the internet. Thanks, America.
Just to note before I get accused by some prude mob, I do not support child pornography or child abuse in any way.
Actually SomethingAwful has done a lot of good things (tens of thousands of dollars donated to various causes around the world), but don't let that stop you from believing I'm working to take away your right to fantasize about that girl next door who's still in high school. And why wouldn't you get rid of a forum dedicated to posting pics of dead kids?\
edit: Yeah and GOD FORBID anything like this keep existing
"Creepshots' FAQ states: "Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this sub-reddit exists.""
Cooper Anderson, go home! His ideas are wrong and here's why, reddit is only a messenger and platform for communication. I don't mind that reddit harbors "creepy" pictures as those images were taken by a third person and eventual crimes are cannot be committed by a bystander. The censorship of internet has lead to the mass surveillance we have today.
Although this topic is out of date,I just wanna say that if you spend any time at all on the site, it becomes apparent that there are a lot of racists and sexists on reddit. On top of that, the non bigoted people on there have some gut reaction against censorship so for some reason they think that they need to defend the rights of everyone else no matter how ugly their opinions. Also a lot of young kids read reddit, and if they see this shit as accepted on reddit, they might think its acceptable in everyday life, which can lead to some screwed up kids.
On September 18 2012 04:53 besteady wrote: Although this topic is out of date,I just wanna say that if you spend any time at all on the site, it becomes apparent that there are a lot of racists and sexists on reddit. On top of that, the non bigoted people on there have some gut reaction against censorship so for some reason they think that they need to defend the rights of everyone else no matter how ugly their opinions. Also a lot of young kids read reddit, and if they see this shit as accepted on reddit, they might think its acceptable in everyday life, which can lead to some screwed up kids.
And they are completely right with their position.
On September 18 2012 04:19 Positronic wrote: Because the entire purpose of SRS is to post the hate and bigotry that fills up Reddit? You do understand that the material posted there is from the rest of the site right? Be angry at Reddit as a whole or at the individuals posting the content that's shown in SRS, not the people making it known what idiocy is perpetrated there.
I thought the purpose of SRS is to act as a ghetto for whiny "social justice" types. You know, people that have Tumblr accounts. Those people manage the amazing achievement of being more obnoxious and circle-jerking than the rest of Reddit from what I've seen, which I find amazing.
On September 18 2012 04:53 besteady wrote: Although this topic is out of date,I just wanna say that if you spend any time at all on the site, it becomes apparent that there are a lot of racists and sexists on reddit. On top of that, the non bigoted people on there have some gut reaction against censorship so for some reason they think that they need to defend the rights of everyone else no matter how ugly their opinions. Also a lot of young kids read reddit, and if they see this shit as accepted on reddit, they might think its acceptable in everyday life, which can lead to some screwed up kids.
I'd have thought someone from the United States would understand the importance of freedom of speech.
On September 18 2012 04:39 Positronic wrote: Actually SomethingAwful has done a lot of good things (tens of thousands of dollars donated to various causes around the world), but don't let that stop you from believing I'm working to take away your right to fantasize about that girl next door who's still in high school.
you want to take away someone's right to think?
edit: Yeah and GOD FORBID anything like this keep existing
"Creepshots' FAQ states: "Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this sub-reddit exists.""
am I a bad person if I I don't see anything wrong with this? paparazzi exist, and this is basically the same thing but with an ordinary citizen as the subject.
On September 18 2012 04:53 besteady wrote: Although this topic is out of date,I just wanna say that if you spend any time at all on the site, it becomes apparent that there are a lot of racists and sexists on reddit. On top of that, the non bigoted people on there have some gut reaction against censorship so for some reason they think that they need to defend the rights of everyone else no matter how ugly their opinions. Also a lot of young kids read reddit, and if they see this shit as accepted on reddit, they might think its acceptable in everyday life, which can lead to some screwed up kids.
So true. But I wouldn't stop censoring all the sick stuff only from reddit. Our kids are exposed to sex and violence everytime when they turn on the TV. And without proper supervision how are they supposed to know the difference between TV and reality? Just look the kids who act and dress like prostitues and don't have any respect to authorities anymore. It's hardly surprising that crime rate is skyrocketing with kids idols being gangster rappers always singing about their high salary and fancy women.
On September 18 2012 04:39 Positronic wrote: Actually SomethingAwful has done a lot of good things (tens of thousands of dollars donated to various causes around the world), but don't let that stop you from believing I'm working to take away your right to fantasize about that girl next door who's still in high school.
edit: Yeah and GOD FORBID anything like this keep existing
"Creepshots' FAQ states: "Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this sub-reddit exists.""
am I a bad person if I I don't see anything wrong with this? paparazzi exist, and this is basically the same thing but with an ordinary citizen as the subject.
so you are fine with people secretly taking " private" pictures of you to post them for creeps on some shitty board? i doubt that.
and paparazzi are among the worst scum doing a "legal" job out there.
On September 18 2012 04:19 Positronic wrote: Because the entire purpose of SRS is to post the hate and bigotry that fills up Reddit? You do understand that the material posted there is from the rest of the site right? Be angry at Reddit as a whole or at the individuals posting the content that's shown in SRS, not the people making it known what idiocy is perpetrated there.
I thought the purpose of SRS is to act as a ghetto for whiny "social justice" types. You know, people that have Tumblr accounts. Those people manage the amazing achievement of being more obnoxious and circle-jerking than the rest of Reddit from what I've seen, which I find amazing.
On September 18 2012 04:53 besteady wrote: Although this topic is out of date,I just wanna say that if you spend any time at all on the site, it becomes apparent that there are a lot of racists and sexists on reddit. On top of that, the non bigoted people on there have some gut reaction against censorship so for some reason they think that they need to defend the rights of everyone else no matter how ugly their opinions. Also a lot of young kids read reddit, and if they see this shit as accepted on reddit, they might think its acceptable in everyday life, which can lead to some screwed up kids.
I'd have thought someone from the United States would understand the importance of freedom of speech.
It is. SRS is full of PC whiners and misandrists who use sarcasm and "it's all a joke!" as a cover. There is a lot of ugly stuff on reddit however, but the vast majority of SRS posts are "OMG a man said men get raped too!"
Let me ask again. What is this Reddit you speak of?
Somehow Reddit and Facebook have never captured my interest and I never visited those sites (I believe I even have facebook banned in my hosts file so no one using my computer can connect to it).
Edit: Indeed, facebook.com is returned as 127.0.0.1
On September 18 2012 04:39 Positronic wrote: Actually SomethingAwful has done a lot of good things (tens of thousands of dollars donated to various causes around the world), but don't let that stop you from believing I'm working to take away your right to fantasize about that girl next door who's still in high school.
you want to take away someone's right to think?
edit: Yeah and GOD FORBID anything like this keep existing
"Creepshots' FAQ states: "Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this sub-reddit exists.""
am I a bad person if I I don't see anything wrong with this? paparazzi exist, and this is basically the same thing but with an ordinary citizen as the subject.
so you are fine with people secretly taking " private" pictures of you to post them for creeps on some shitty board? i doubt that.
I won't like it, but legally they are allowed to. (as long as it doesn't constitute "invasion of privacy")
On September 18 2012 04:39 Positronic wrote: Actually SomethingAwful has done a lot of good things (tens of thousands of dollars donated to various causes around the world), but don't let that stop you from believing I'm working to take away your right to fantasize about that girl next door who's still in high school.
you want to take away someone's right to think?
XD did you take that as a serious statement? come on now son...
edit: Yeah and GOD FORBID anything like this keep existing
"Creepshots' FAQ states: "Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this sub-reddit exists.""
On September 18 2012 05:10 starfries wrote:am I a bad person if I I don't see anything wrong with this? paparazzi exist, and this is basically the same thing but with an ordinary citizen as the subject.
And yeah, you might be a bad person if you don't see anything wrong with that. I, for one, don't believe that my GF or any other woman should have to worry about guys sneaking shots of them for their own personal masturbation to post on a creepy internet forum. Guys who are not marked as press or have visible cameras, just randoms on the street who obviously are mentally underdeveloped enough not to be able to get girlfriends of their own.
>A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Really? That's not what the subreddit is about at all, and anyone asking how to rape women would be downvoted rapidly. SRS needs to learn how to limit it's aim - when you sprinkle in absolute lies with things that are in a legitimate "legal but creepy" area like /r/creepshots you diminish the impact of your push. I skimmed the big link you posted in the OP but after seeing r/seduction described as "how-to-rape subreddit" I've lost all interest - it's clear they are being dishonest and manipulative and have lost credibility.
On September 18 2012 04:39 Positronic wrote: Actually SomethingAwful has done a lot of good things (tens of thousands of dollars donated to various causes around the world), but don't let that stop you from believing I'm working to take away your right to fantasize about that girl next door who's still in high school.
you want to take away someone's right to think?
XD did you take that as a serious statement? come on now son...
then reword it for my benefit. what are you trying to do?
edit: Yeah and GOD FORBID anything like this keep existing
"Creepshots' FAQ states: "Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this sub-reddit exists.""
On September 18 2012 05:10 starfries wrote:am I a bad person if I I don't see anything wrong with this? paparazzi exist, and this is basically the same thing but with an ordinary citizen as the subject.
And yeah, you might be a bad person if you don't see anything wrong with that. I, for one, don't believe that my GF or any other woman should have to worry about guys sneaking shots of them for their own personal masturbation to post on a creepy internet forum. Guys who are not marked as press or have visible cameras, just randoms on the street who obviously are mentally underdeveloped enough not to be able to get girlfriends of their own.
I would rather they didn't, but there are a lot of things that I would rather people didn't do. they still have a right to do those things.
So I decided to just go through the subreddits listed to confirm/deny whether or not it's stuff that should be taken care of.
girlsinschooluniforms - NSFW. Looks like college/private school/porn stars. Haven't seen anything resembling child porn though. volleyballgirls - Bunch of images of girls in volleyball outfits, usually focusing on their asses. Bearing in mind these uniforms are what they play in at public matches, again nothing resembling child porn. TeenSex -Banned subreddit. Seems like they do in fact clean up the messes they find. realteens -Banned subreddit. johnnybait -Banned subreddit. JailbaitPhotos - Troll subreddit with literally 7 posts. Not actual child porn Underage -Banned subreddit. Jail_bait - only one post linking to yet another Banned subreddit. Jailbaits -Banned subreddit. NSFW_JAILBAIT_TUBE -Banned subreddit. PregnantJailbait -Banned subreddit. PhotoPlunder -NSFW. Reposted pictures of women found on the internet. Has rules against underaged girls specifically. FacebookCleavage -NSFW. Essentially pictures women post on their facebooks for the public to see in dresses, bikini's etc showing cleavage. Also has rules against underaged girls. japanese_idols -Private subreddit. Unverifiable but I'm pretty sure Reddit Admins can see what's behind the door to make sure. AngieVerona - Private subreddit. Questionable because of it's name but again, Reddit Admins probably have access.
The Voyeurism stuff is something that should be investigated by the appropriate authorities, as well as the rape/incest stuff but I don't think reddit is responsible for looking up every single discussion to make sure people aren't talking about it. Finding something you think is illegal and reporting it is about the best you can do since some of the topics walk a thin line where discussion without necessarily committing criminal acts isn't grounds for deletion.
Ultimately it seems reddit does a damn good job at closing down subreddits that blatantly cross the line, so I don't believe outrage towards reddit is warranted. Yes, despite their efforts there are most certainly still sick people on reddit. Sick people exist in this world and they use the internet, it's just impossible to stop this, but it's not reddit's fault.
On September 18 2012 01:51 KwarK wrote: It's a broad means of communication between people and some people are bad. Saying I don't like using the sc2 reddit because of jailbait reddits is like saying I don't like playing computer games online because the internet has child porn on it. They're not endorsing it or encouraging it, the people who are posting about it do that. Go after the people, not the medium. It's probably helpful that they're all posting about it online anyway given the difficulty of staying anonymous on the internet these days.
I disagree. All of these horrible subreddits can only exist if Reddit lets them; I approve of their defense of freedom of expression, but they can't let their site become a haven and a community for creeps, stalkers, pedophiles and misogyny.
I generally approve of protecting free speech, but Reddit also needs to look at the evidence and ask itself whether this is the kind of site it wants to be. I hope the answer is "no".
On September 18 2012 05:18 Manit0u wrote: Let me ask again. What is this Reddit you speak of?
Somehow Reddit and Facebook have never captured my interest and I never visited those sites (I believe I even have facebook banned in my hosts file so no one using my computer can connect to it).
Edit: Indeed, facebook.com is returned as 127.0.0.1
That's cool, bro. Something to brag about for sure - like not having a TV.
Reddit admins are going to walk that thin line that maximizes 'page hits' - a balance between 'free speech' and 'not offending people too much'.
Is it bad that I've subscribed to several of the ones in the OP(no jailbait though iirc)? Have seen some pretty wild shit on those but nothing illegal I think. Illegal subreddits get reported and shut down fairly quickly afaik. Also people tend to exaggerate and twist facts when it comes to things like this.
On September 18 2012 01:51 KwarK wrote: It's a broad means of communication between people and some people are bad. Saying I don't like using the sc2 reddit because of jailbait reddits is like saying I don't like playing computer games online because the internet has child porn on it. They're not endorsing it or encouraging it, the people who are posting about it do that. Go after the people, not the medium. It's probably helpful that they're all posting about it online anyway given the difficulty of staying anonymous on the internet these days.
I disagree. All of these horrible subreddits can only exist if Reddit lets them; I approve of their defense of freedom of expression, but they can't let their site become a haven and a community for creeps, stalkers, pedophiles and misogyny.
I generally approve of protecting free speech, but Reddit also needs to look at the evidence and ask itself whether this is the kind of site it wants to be. I hope the answer is "no".
Yes, they can. They can't let the blatantly illegal stuff stay due to possible legal consequences, but everything else is acceptable. Don't you know that being a pedophile isn't illegal unlike being a child molester/rapist?
Reddit gets negative heat while 4chan skips a long with a troll face and spider man flying by saying "taking over". Well anyways it's the internet and having a public posting site like reddit is always going to invite sick people. Just be educated and don't go near those sub reddits. Honestly I don't like the idea of reddit in the first place where mobs and quick one liner jokes seem to be the direction.
I think looking at a picture should never be a crime, no matter it's contents. It might make me sick to my stomach thinking of the type of shit some people get off of, but ultimately, if they aren't hurting anyone and dont bring their sick fetish out in public, so be it. Better than that have pedophiles and worse out roaming the streets looking for gratification. We really have better things to do as a society than go out and persecute people for behavior that doesn't hurt others. By all means, investigate and prosecute the makers of cp/the ones conspiring to do so, but let's not go hog wild and become the state morality police and decide it is wrong for an unrelated party to look at a picture, no matter how abhorrent, in private.
ROFL getting all major media networks to tell the world that reddit has a ton of illegal pics would drive a shitload of new traffic to reddit and grow those pervert "communities". i think u need a new plan.
On September 18 2012 05:07 besteady wrote: Freedom of speech does not include sexualizing underage kids, which for some reason a large part of reddit thinks it does
Yes but not all redditors are from the US and in some EU countries the legal age of consent is as low as 14 and in other parts of the world even lower than that. Teenage girls sexualize themselves, they post suggestive pics on facebook et al, they dress in a way that they know will attract guys, in most of the western world it is perfectly legal for me to sleep with a 16 year old girl but if I take photos of her naked, suddenly its illegal. The line is arbitrary and blurry, if a girl is 15 and consents to sex with a 17 year old guy then no one will convict the guy of statutory rape, at least not in my country because they are of similar age. Same situation with 15 year old girl and 20 year old guy? Then you start gettin in to an area where you can argue that he should have known better or whatever argument you have against it etc etc etc.
Every 15 year old girl I've ever met dreams of having an older boyfriend, many girls when I was at school were dating guys who were 18-19 and some even older. I completely get why the girls do it and I can also see why many guys do it too. Girls look physically the best they will ever look between the ages of 14-21, men are genetically programmed to find them attractive, any guy who says he doesn't is lying. The attraction to teenage girls is natural, acting on it is when you get in to morally questionable ground but again, depending on where you live, the rules are different. Why can a girl consent to sex at 14 but not consent to being photographed until 18? I don't know the answer to that question, I think that actual consent at that age only happens when the guy is of a similar age, when he is significantly older, she is probably feeling extremely pressured to say yes and that means she isn't really consenting but conceding.
If a 16 year old girl takes photos of herself naked and then posts them on reddit, without being asked to do so, she just decides that she wants to do it, why is that wrong? She has made a decision to sexualize herself and make it publically available. Its all about context and subjectivity. If a 14 year old girl sleeps with a 20 year old guy, hes probably gonna get either convicted by the police or beaten up by her dad. If its a 14 year old boy and a 20 year old woman, the kid is a FUCKING LEGEND and his dad will probably high 5 him. How is that fair or right? I'm not saying the 20 year old guy was in the right, i'm just saying that its a double standard. Its either ok or its not, whether you are male or female shouldn't make any difference to the application of the law or whether your peers think its ok.
I do not condone true jailbait, but often girls on jb sites are actually overage but look younger and I also don't think that if a 15-17 year old girl chooses to take pics and put them on facebook that someone else should get in trouble for looking at them. If a girl posts naked pics of herself on 4chan, she decided to do that, she made that choice, no one else. If someone forces her to do it, then by all means slap on the handcuffs. Girls often go on Stickam and the like and strip, they choose to do that, they sexualize themselves.
I recall looking at /r/jailbait during the previous controversy once, suspecting it would just be harmless pictures of teenagers in bikinis at beaches, but I actually felt incredibly creeped out by how young they all seemed. On the other hand, a lot of reddit users are young enough and in many cultures it's okay to even view fifteen year olds as lust objects, so I don't think enjoying those pictures is wrong by default. I think the term child porn fails when a seventeen year old in a bikini is child porn, but an eighteen year old doing hardcore porn is okay.
So I don't really see a good reason to shut those forums down, from a freedom of speech PoV, but I'm very wary about it, because it's just the thing to serve as a pretext for even more internet censorship. I'd really rather have that reddit put a stop to those subreddits, because some battles are worth fighting and losing whatever internet freedom is left just to placate some creeps that are deliberately provocative with their creepy antics (and also the real pedophiles that use these forums to get in touch with each other) seems not worth it.
It's actually why I wish they legalized lolita or whatever they call hentai with underage girls. Yes, it's majorly creepy, but pedophiles do exist and why not give them more or less harmless outlets for their needs? At the very least it will serve as one less reason for why ISP's must monitor all internet traffic.
And the scare about pedophiles is really annoying. I teach guitar as a part time job at times and most of my clients are parents who have me teach their kids, and basically all of them keep a very close eye on me to ensure I don't do anything troublesome with them. It's why I have to keep traveling around to their houses instead of the more convenient method of them coming to my apartment. Or when I was 20 and I had a crush on a 15 year old I kept feeling guilty and I was worried if there was something wrong with me for finding her attractive.
OP you sound like a huge tool. "I'm personally disgusted about the child porn etc etc". Granted the whole beating women/raping thing is kind of bad, but I don't know enough about these subreddits to make any judgments. Most of the jailbait stuff is completely harmless, it's illegal because of the law, not because it's morally wrong. When you learn that an attractive and physically mature girl is 17 and 11 months old instead of 18, does that send waves of disgust throughout every fiber of your being and make you want to vomit?
if the jailbait pix are girls taking photos of themselves, then there is no exploitation going on. there's nothing wrong with that, and it IS the girls fault in that situation. i dont consider that child porn. child porn involves actual exploitation and forcible rape of children, which is a much different beast.
in that case, we should be jailing/prosecuting/punishing the people who produce the content. it should not be illegal to watch child porn, because that is violating peoples rights to do whatever they want to in private. people get turned on all by all sorts of stuff, and its their legal right to be turned on by it. its only when they act out on it (a pederast as opposed to a pedophile) that it should be punished. we absolutely should not censor the internet, which is a bastion of free speech. once we go down that slippery slope, its all over.
On September 18 2012 07:08 KimJongChill wrote: OP you sound like a huge tool. "I'm personally disgusted about the child porn etc etc". Granted the whole beating women/raping thing is kind of bad, but I don't know enough about these subreddits to make any judgments. Most of the jailbait stuff is completely harmless, it's illegal because of the law, not because it's morally wrong. When you learn that an attractive and physically mature girl is 17 and 11 months old instead of 18, does that send waves of disgust throughout every fiber of your being and make you want to vomit?
The argument works in reverse as well though. Moral outrage over a risque pic some 15 year old posted voluntarily to stoke the fires of perversion is questionable. Lack of moral outrage over an explicit cp shot of a child of... Well use your imagination, that would be even more ridiculous. I'm not saying that the latter type is at all common, but its surely there from time to time and I can understand anyone posting an emotional rant after being exposed to it, because it honestly is morally and even physically disgusting when you see an actual child being exploited for this purpose.
On September 18 2012 07:08 KimJongChill wrote: OP you sound like a huge tool. "I'm personally disgusted about the child porn etc etc". Granted the whole beating women/raping thing is kind of bad, but I don't know enough about these subreddits to make any judgments. Most of the jailbait stuff is completely harmless, it's illegal because of the law, not because it's morally wrong. When you learn that an attractive and physically mature girl is 17 and 11 months old instead of 18, does that send waves of disgust throughout every fiber of your being and make you want to vomit?
The argument works in reverse as well though. Moral outrage over a risque pic some 15 year old posted voluntarily to stoke the fires of perversion is questionable. Lack of moral outrage over an explicit cp shot of a child of... Well use your imagination, that would be even more ridiculous. I'm not saying that the latter type is at all common, but its surely there from time to time and I can understand anyone posting an emotional rant after being exposed to it, because it honestly is morally and even physically disgusting when you see an actual child being exploited for this purpose.
Yes but if you actually go to a jailbait website or look up the term the definition is of a girl who "looks" between the age of 13-17. There is a huge difference between cp and jailbait. CP is wrong, everyone knows that, even the people who are the ones making and consuming it. CP applies only to prepubescent age, girls in their teens are from a biological stand point sexually matured and from there it is all very subjective and laws vary from country to country. Most of the stuff that this article is calling CP isn't in the slightest, most of it is of teenage girls wearing clothes, which neither falls under the catagory of pornography or images of children, thus calling it child porn is wrong on every level.
I'm sure you get true CP on reddit from time to time and there is probably a subreddit where it is regularly posted but to lambast a site for hosting CP and then list subreddits which are in no way related to CP is both wrong and idiotic. As rightly said by KinJong, if you met a girl and found out she was 17 years and 6 months old but you really found her attractive both emotionally and physically, not many people would then say "sorry have to wait until you are 18" in my country I wouldn't even have to say it since 16 is the age of consent. Granted at 29, if I met a 15 and half year old girl I would say "sorry, you're too young" but thats because she is almost half my age and not because I think there is something inherently wrong with it. What could we possibly have in common? I would be only dating her because she is young and physically attractive, I would be using her in short and I personally don't think that is right. I do not condone guys my age sleeping with 15 year old girls but I also do not see why waiting a few extra months makes it suddenly ok in the eyes of the law. Sleeping with a girl who is 15 years 364 days old is illegal, sleeping with a 16 years and 0 days girl is..... pretty stupid law in my eyes. Same with taking naked pics.
You have to draw the line somewhere but there should be some fluidity and flexibility. once again, I'll say it.....Context is king
On September 18 2012 07:12 fishjie wrote: if the jailbait pix are girls taking photos of themselves, then there is no exploitation going on. there's nothing wrong with that, and it IS the girls fault in that situation. i dont consider that child porn. child porn involves actual exploitation and forcible rape of children, which is a much different beast.
in that case, we should be jailing/prosecuting/punishing the people who produce the content. it should not be illegal to watch child porn, because that is violating peoples rights to do whatever they want to in private. people get turned on all by all sorts of stuff, and its their legal right to be turned on by it. its only when they act out on it (a pederast as opposed to a pedophile) that it should be punished. we absolutely should not censor the internet, which is a bastion of free speech. once we go down that slippery slope, its all over.
so your argument is literally that perpetuating a market for videos of people raping other people should in fact be defended by free speech?
On September 18 2012 08:10 wozzot wrote: This thread seems to be bringing the "ephebophiles" out of the woodwork.
Anyway, there's no need to go around bashing ShitRedditSays. SRS owns and it's where all the cool kids hang out
I definitely had to look up "ephebophile", but yeah, after skimming this thread that's exactly what I was thinking. Weird.
I had to look it up as well and I think that's part of the problem. Not everyone in society is as open minded as we are here online (which is barely), and most would immediately dismiss the idea of a "pedophilia lite" and fall back on their socially ingrained, television exposé conceptions of child porn and overweight creepy stalker pedos who want to kidnap their children. There's almost no use pointing out that "jailbait" is different, because most people will simply label you, dismiss your objections as rationalizing, and possibly throw you in jail (which is itself implied in the term jailbait).
"seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women? are you fucking kidding me? it's about learning to man the fuck up and not be a whiny introverted pussy around people. that includes respecting women by treating them as human beings, not aliens, and learning to have fun together. what a fucking joke this shit is.
Dude I used to love those subreddits! Mind you, I was 14 so I was their age too. Was so mad that I had to start fapping to girls that were closer to my parents' age.
Wow. How about you take a look at those subreddits before pointing the finger? ANYTHING that is ANYWHERE CLOSE to jailbait or child porn is going to get removed in instants and posters will get banned. Of course it's going to keep happening but anything that is questionable must be submitted with 18+ proof or it is removed.
You really need to know nothing about reddit to have that kind of opinion. There are so many users who live to find this kind of stuff and get it removed. The users HATE IT. This is ridiculous, even back in the r/jailbait era there was no child porn. I've never seen any, and I've seen a lot of posts removed because a girl who was totally 18+ looked questionable to some users and the poster wasn't submitting proof. It's absurdly strict, and any subreddit that doesn't have mods that enforce this is removed as soon as it's figured out. You really can't do that much of a better job with so much submitted content every day.
TLDR: Reddit is trying really hard to prevent this! It's not easy when you have so many users but they are doing a great job!
On September 18 2012 04:17 Rhine wrote: Hey OP, why are you on the Internet? It disgusts me every time people use the internet when I know what kind of awful things exist there. I'm appalled about what those millions of users do on there.
Do you see the problem with your argument?
When you use the internet, it doesn't benefit the people who put the awful things up. If you agree that these subreddits are bad and that reddit should take them down, then you believe reddit itself (the owners/operators) is bad, and you going to the site directly benefits them through advertising.
You can debate whether reddit, which as a private website has the right to censor content that is posted, should use that authority, but if it *is* doing something very wrong, boycotting it is perfectly reasonable as a response.
But the admins on reddit do ban those subreddits. Look at how many banned subs are listed in this thread alone. Every time one comes out and gets any popularity, it gets the hammer. There was some debate on the edge-wise legality of /r/jailbait, but it was decided to take it down. Now, there's all this furor about things that are constantly being banned and moderated. Is that not what we wanted?
My point was that condemning an entire community of "those crazy Reddit users" and how "disgusting" it is to visit he same website where some users posted questionable content is silly. The internet is filled with bad places and we don't blame all its users. I'm not arguing that that jailbait should be a thing on reddit. I am arguing that user-created content should be taken on its merit and moderated if necessary (which is what is happening all the time, even on a "freedom" oriented site like reddit).
On September 18 2012 06:53 Zahir wrote: I think looking at a picture should never be a crime, no matter it's contents. It might make me sick to my stomach thinking of the type of shit some people get off of, but ultimately, if they aren't hurting anyone and dont bring their sick fetish out in public, so be it. Better than that have pedophiles and worse out roaming the streets looking for gratification. We really have better things to do as a society than go out and persecute people for behavior that doesn't hurt others. By all means, investigate and prosecute the makers of cp/the ones conspiring to do so, but let's not go hog wild and become the state morality police and decide it is wrong for an unrelated party to look at a picture, no matter how abhorrent, in private.
The problem with people looking at pictures of CP is that it's a privacy violation of the child.
If you were raped and video were taken, do you think it would be just fine for anybody to have that video?
cooper would have a heart attack if he went to /b/, reddit is basically 4chan for those who can't handle a bunch of dicks and gore lol (seriously i think 4chan has made me immune to gore)
On September 18 2012 05:18 Manit0u wrote: Let me ask again. What is this Reddit you speak of?
Somehow Reddit and Facebook have never captured my interest and I never visited those sites (I believe I even have facebook banned in my hosts file so no one using my computer can connect to it).
Edit: Indeed, facebook.com is returned as 127.0.0.1
That doesn't make you cool, it makes you ignorant. This is akin to closing your eyes, covering your ears and screaming "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" at the top of your voice.
I'll never understand this desire people have to embrace ignorance and act as if its a virtue. It isn't.
On September 18 2012 05:18 Manit0u wrote: Let me ask again. What is this Reddit you speak of?
Somehow Reddit and Facebook have never captured my interest and I never visited those sites (I believe I even have facebook banned in my hosts file so no one using my computer can connect to it).
Edit: Indeed, facebook.com is returned as 127.0.0.1
That doesn't make you cool, it makes you ignorant. This is akin to closing your eyes, covering your ears and screaming "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" at the top of your voice.
I'll never understand this desire people have to embrace ignorance and act as if its a virtue. It isn't.
No, facebook is a massive waste of time and energy and I stand by this man 100%.
Only reason I use reddit is /r/dota2 for funny pictures, otherwise it is also a massive waste of time and energy.
Either improve the reporting system and after X amount of reports auto ban a sub-reddit with <Y amount of subscribers (to protect famous but unpopular sub-reddits from abuse) until an admin can verify if there's a problem or not, or just ban porn in general from reddit.
Because we should protect "innocent kids" who are working in a industry to achieve fame and fortune?
Uhm, yes? How is that even a question? If you had a child would you like him/her to be exploited? There's a lot of children in the fashion and music industry who get molested, sexually assualted and taken advantage of. Should you not care because they're getting fame and fortune?
Even if whatever subreddit you're speaking of isn't used for Child Pornography your post is just sad.
I fucking hate reddit, not just because they allow this, but because their userbase is complete shit (not to mention other site policies and the general design of the site). Thy try to act like white knights and the pinnacle of morality for various causes, yet they supported keeping those kinds of straight-up illegal boards open, and whenever I used to browse it, there was an insane number of straight-up misogynistic posts and other hateful material getting on the front page all the damn time. That site deserves the negative attention it gets from the media and much, much more.
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Everything and anything is paedophilia these days, I checked the majority of those subreddits, not a single child was seen, not a single fuck was given, moving along.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
back any of that up with facts?
On September 18 2012 10:42 IshinShishi wrote: Everything and anything is paedophilia these days, I checked the majority of those subreddits, not a single child was seen, not a single fuck was given, moving along.
I too speak in internet memes and sweeping generalizations
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
1. What you do in the privacy of your home matters.
2. My dislike for pedophilic behavior is irrational? What? You're seriously comparing disliking pedophilia to hating blacks?
3. You misunderstand me I think. I'm saying that using pictures of children is pedophilia, even if it isn't explicitly illegal.
The statement by the manager is a good one, and white knights here and in the media probably will still attack it regardless.
That said, I only go to Reddit if I absolutely have to; the site is ugly, unintuitive and annoying. That and I'll maybe be interested in one link out of an entire subreddit. Just not worth the time. Really never understood people's fascination with it.
On September 18 2012 11:09 divito wrote: The statement by the manager is a good one, and white knights here and in the media probably will still attack it regardless.
The one where he acknowledges that illegal things should be punished, while running a website that gives rapists the same free speech rights with their story as people who steal little kids' photobucket pictures?
One of those things is DEFINITELY illegal, and the other you can defend with a mile-long list of corner cases and legalese written by internet libertarians who have never been outside.
On September 18 2012 11:12 yeastiality wrote: The one where he acknowledges that illegal things should be punished, while running a website that gives rapists the same free speech rights with their story as people who steal little kids' photobucket pictures?
One of those things is DEFINITELY illegal, and the other you can defend with a mile-long list of corner cases and legalese written by internet libertarians who have never been outside.
Free speech is free speech, is free speech. Once you start bringing your perspective and bias into it, it ceases to be free.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
On September 18 2012 10:42 IshinShishi wrote: Everything and anything is paedophilia these days, I checked the majority of those subreddits, not a single child was seen, not a single fuck was given, moving along.
I too speak in internet memes and sweeping generalizations
rock on bros
Back any of that up with facts? Jailbait is not CP ... There is a big difference between the two and it would seem obvious that is the case because although the news might use them like synonyms they're not at all.
It's not about facts, it's about definition.
A young woman, or young women collectively, considered in sexual terms but under the age of consent.
Good lord, I had no idea it had gotten this bad....... wow.
Reddit is good as a community and indeed it's somewhat bad to come down on Reddit as a whole for the behavior of its subcommunities. However, it must be made very clear that these kinds of subcommunities must not and will not be allowed to exist. Reddit should be pressured to close all of these kinds of subcommunities because they are not only immoral but oftentimes illegal, apparently. Users should be dealt with severely. Just my two cents.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
1. What you do in the privacy of your home matters.
2. My dislike for pedophilic behavior is irrational? What? You're seriously comparing disliking pedophilia to hating blacks?
3. You misunderstand me I think. I'm saying that using pictures of children is pedophilia, even if it isn't explicitly illegal.
1) Why? If you aren't harming anybody by your behavior?
2) For many people it is irrational. First of all, because they do not draw a distinction between pedophilia and harmful behavior, such as child molestation. Second, because their hatred extends even to normal human behavior. And what I compared was the degree of hatred. The hatred of pedophiles is greater than the hatred for blacks, and more widespread as well.
3) I understand what pedophilia is, which is why I said that jailbait isn't. Maybe the hit piece in the OP had some good points actually, but they get completely ruined when you take the extreme stance as saying all of these subreddits are pedophiles and child pornography.
On September 18 2012 11:16 Aerisky wrote: Good lord, I had no idea it had gotten this bad....... wow.
Reddit is good as a community and indeed it's somewhat bad to come down on Reddit as a whole for the behavior of its subcommunities. However, it must be made very clear that these kinds of subcommunities must not and will not be allowed to exist. Reddit should be pressured to close all of these kinds of subcommunities because they are not only immoral but oftentimes illegal, apparently. Users should be dealt with severely. Just my two cents.
They have been pressured and they just respond with pseudointellectual garbage:
On September 18 2012 11:12 yeastiality wrote: The one where he acknowledges that illegal things should be punished, while running a website that gives rapists the same free speech rights with their story as people who steal little kids' photobucket pictures?
One of those things is DEFINITELY illegal, and the other you can defend with a mile-long list of corner cases and legalese written by internet libertarians who have never been outside.
Free speech is free speech, is free speech. Once you start bringing your perspective and bias into it, it ceases to be free.
On September 18 2012 01:57 Xiphos wrote: Isn't Anderson's sexuality belongs in the homo section?
I think that Reddit is a very nice form of technocracy. As matter of fact, it is a very simple medium of expressing one's opinionated thought(s).
I have been trying to figure out what this means for awhile... what does this have to do with andersons sexuality?
*Clear throat*, In terms of biology, the genders are separated by the fact that Women have different chromosomes than Men. A person of the homosexuality variety is more penchant to the lady counterpart. The generalization is that women are more emotional driven to men's physicality. Hypothetically Anderson could be gay (pff google it yourself for its authenticity), it could explain a tons on this vocalist attitude of his.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
You are still missing the distinction here.
It isn't the GROUPS that are the problem, it is the ABUSE that is the problem.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
You are still missing the distinction here.
It isn't the GROUPS that are the problem, it is the ABUSE that is the problem.
Like the abuse of language and laws that reddit people hide behind? You'll have to be more specific or I'll just make fun of you all day..
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
So the people who were racist against blacks, and homophobic when confronted with homosexuality, are now just taking out their hatred on pedophiles? Your logic is so twisted I don't even know where to begin with it. Being upset, angry, and hating a group of people whose mission to exploit those who are most vulnerable in our society is "sad and backwards"?
People judge others who do this harshly because they can form a mental image in their mind of a child they know, or love, being used for someone else's stimulation and find it absolutely repulsive, not because they are looking for someone to take their anger out on.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it with fellow abusers. For most of the Real child porn communities, you can't even gain access until you have yourself shared numerous amounts of original child pornography content.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
On September 18 2012 11:16 Aerisky wrote: Good lord, I had no idea it had gotten this bad....... wow.
Reddit is good as a community and indeed it's somewhat bad to come down on Reddit as a whole for the behavior of its subcommunities. However, it must be made very clear that these kinds of subcommunities must not and will not be allowed to exist. Reddit should be pressured to close all of these kinds of subcommunities because they are not only immoral but oftentimes illegal, apparently. Users should be dealt with severely. Just my two cents.
It's not "this bad". The OP is a hit piece written by moral crusaders. All of the subreddits listed were either closed down long ago, are troll subreddits meant satrically, or aren't what moral crusaders say they are.
ShitRedditSays is a subreddit for radical feminist extremists and is not taken seriously by anyone on Reddit for good reason. They're the same scumbags who started the false flag letter writing campaign to Root's sponsors that got Destiny fired.
On September 18 2012 01:57 Xiphos wrote: Isn't Anderson's sexuality belongs in the homo section?
I think that Reddit is a very nice form of technocracy. As matter of fact, it is a very simple medium of expressing one's opinionated thought(s).
I have been trying to figure out what this means for awhile... what does this have to do with andersons sexuality?
*Clear throat*, In terms of biology, the genders are separated by the fact that Women have different chromosomes than Men. A person of the homosexuality variety is more penchant to the lady counterpart. The generalization is that women are more emotional driven to men's physicality. Hypothetically Anderson could be gay (pff google it yourself for its authenticity), it could explain a tons on this vocalist attitude of his.
Hope you get that.
The 1960s called and want their understanding of what homosexuality means back.
But seriously speaking, that's a bit sensationalist. Regardless, as far as I see for the most part, reddit is pretty clean of anything overtly illegal (cp, etc) but I honestly don't dig for that stuff so maybe it's there and I don't notice *shrug* The whole jailbait thing was a few people getting mad and raising the knee-jerk panic of people to try and get reddit a bad name. There are more reasonable reasons to dislike reddit though if you really want to hate it, without grasping at straws.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
So the people who were racist against blacks, and homophobic when confronted with homosexuality, are now just taking out their hatred on pedophiles? Your logic is so twisted I don't even know where to begin with it. Being upset, angry, and hating a group of people whose mission to exploit those who are most vulnerable in our society is "sad and backwards"?
People judge others who do this harshly because they can form a mental image in their mind of a child they know, or love, being used for someone else's stimulation and find it absolutely repulsive, not because they are looking for someone to take their anger out on.
The people who exploit children and harm them should be hated. The people who masturbate on the internet should not. That's my opinion anyway. My morality is based upon harm, not upon some biological emotion of disgust.
On September 18 2012 11:16 Aerisky wrote: Good lord, I had no idea it had gotten this bad....... wow.
Reddit is good as a community and indeed it's somewhat bad to come down on Reddit as a whole for the behavior of its subcommunities. However, it must be made very clear that these kinds of subcommunities must not and will not be allowed to exist. Reddit should be pressured to close all of these kinds of subcommunities because they are not only immoral but oftentimes illegal, apparently. Users should be dealt with severely. Just my two cents.
It's not "this bad". The OP is a hit piece written by moral crusaders. All of the subreddits listed were either closed down long ago, are troll subreddits meant satrically, or aren't what moral crusaders say they are.
ShitRedditSays is a subreddit for radical feminist extremists and is not taken seriously by anyone on Reddit for good reason. They're the same scumbags who started the false flag letter writing campaign to Root's sponsors that got Destiny fired.
That's pretty smear-like, kind of like the hit piece in the OP huh?
On September 18 2012 01:57 Xiphos wrote: Isn't Anderson's sexuality belongs in the homo section?
I think that Reddit is a very nice form of technocracy. As matter of fact, it is a very simple medium of expressing one's opinionated thought(s).
I have been trying to figure out what this means for awhile... what does this have to do with andersons sexuality?
*Clear throat*, In terms of biology, the genders are separated by the fact that Women have different chromosomes than Men. A person of the homosexuality variety is more penchant to the lady counterpart. The generalization is that women are more emotional driven to men's physicality. Hypothetically Anderson could be gay (pff google it yourself for its authenticity), it could explain a tons on this vocalist attitude of his.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
So the people who were racist against blacks, and homophobic when confronted with homosexuality, are now just taking out their hatred on pedophiles? Your logic is so twisted I don't even know where to begin with it. Being upset, angry, and hating a group of people whose mission to exploit those who are most vulnerable in our society is "sad and backwards"?
People judge others who do this harshly because they can form a mental image in their mind of a child they know, or love, being used for someone else's stimulation and find it absolutely repulsive, not because they are looking for someone to take their anger out on.
The people who exploit children and harm them should be hated. The people who masturbate on the internet should not. That's my opinion anyway. My morality is based upon harm, not upon some biological emotion of disgust.
I'd like you to consider the possibility that when you create a market for things like this, people tend to exploit children or young kids or make it their mission to go out and snap creepy photos of what could be your daughter, or nephew, or little sister.
On September 18 2012 01:57 Xiphos wrote: Isn't Anderson's sexuality belongs in the homo section?
I think that Reddit is a very nice form of technocracy. As matter of fact, it is a very simple medium of expressing one's opinionated thought(s).
I have been trying to figure out what this means for awhile... what does this have to do with andersons sexuality?
*Clear throat*, In terms of biology, the genders are separated by the fact that Women have different chromosomes than Men. A person of the homosexuality variety is more penchant to the lady counterpart. The generalization is that women are more emotional driven to men's physicality. Hypothetically Anderson could be gay (pff google it yourself for its authenticity), it could explain a tons on this vocalist attitude of his.
Hope you get that.
The 1960s called and want their understanding of what homosexuality means back.
But seriously speaking, that's a bit sensationalist. Regardless, as far as I see for the most part, reddit is pretty clean of anything overtly illegal (cp, etc) but I honestly don't dig for that stuff so maybe it's there and I don't notice *shrug* The whole jailbait thing was a few people getting mad and raising the knee-jerk panic of people to try and get reddit a bad name. There are more reasonable reasons to dislike reddit though if you really want to hate it, without grasping at straws.
That's like saying "Oh Ima gonna place my hand in the fire because fuck it man, that concept is introduced during the Stone age!"
On September 18 2012 11:16 Aerisky wrote: Good lord, I had no idea it had gotten this bad....... wow.
Reddit is good as a community and indeed it's somewhat bad to come down on Reddit as a whole for the behavior of its subcommunities. However, it must be made very clear that these kinds of subcommunities must not and will not be allowed to exist. Reddit should be pressured to close all of these kinds of subcommunities because they are not only immoral but oftentimes illegal, apparently. Users should be dealt with severely. Just my two cents.
I don't think reddit, as a whole, censors things based on moral judgment. They only get rid of things that will get them in trouble legally. There are plenty of disgusting things on reddit that equally well deserve to be eliminated from a "moral" standpoint but are allowed to stand because of a lack of legal repercussions.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
So the people who were racist against blacks, and homophobic when confronted with homosexuality, are now just taking out their hatred on pedophiles? Your logic is so twisted I don't even know where to begin with it. Being upset, angry, and hating a group of people whose mission to exploit those who are most vulnerable in our society is "sad and backwards"?
People judge others who do this harshly because they can form a mental image in their mind of a child they know, or love, being used for someone else's stimulation and find it absolutely repulsive, not because they are looking for someone to take their anger out on.
I think his point was moreso that people actually abusing/raping/touching/etc children should be witch hunted. Though both groups (viewers and producers) are in ways related. I can also sympathize with the pedophile who does nothing wrong, but instantly gets hated for having a preference that he or she does not pursue or view.
It's a sad world we live in where people are fucking kids :/
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
I didn't understand most of this because I'm an adult with a job. If I was at a party and saw someone murder a transexual person, I'd be pretty offended. The fact that gloating about that on the internet is cool because of a bunch of disconnected words about FREEDOM!!!!!!11 and "CP" (internet codeword to reduce the meaning of the phrase child pornography) is exactly why things like reddit need to go away. Stop holding on to the old internet culture for dear life and grow the fuck up.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
So the people who were racist against blacks, and homophobic when confronted with homosexuality, are now just taking out their hatred on pedophiles? Your logic is so twisted I don't even know where to begin with it. Being upset, angry, and hating a group of people whose mission to exploit those who are most vulnerable in our society is "sad and backwards"?
People judge others who do this harshly because they can form a mental image in their mind of a child they know, or love, being used for someone else's stimulation and find it absolutely repulsive, not because they are looking for someone to take their anger out on.
I think his point was moreso that people actually abusing/raping/touching/etc children should be witch hunted. Though both groups (viewers and producers) are in ways related. I can also sympathize with the pedophile who does nothing wrong, but instantly gets hated for having a preference that he or she does not pursue or view.
It's a sad world we live in where people are fucking kids :/
I addressed this point: when you create a market as easily accessible as reddit for creepy things like posting pictures of kids who don't know their being photographed because that's a requirement of it being "sexy" enough, I think people who post there and the people who allow it to continue should be witch-hunted. Not to mention the users going out and finding more of that material on the Internet, or going and doing it themselves.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand) .
The OP of this thread has never had the content modified, I only added my thoughts, if that's what you were addressing
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand) .
The OP of this thread has never had the content modified, I only added my thoughts, if that's what you were addressing
I apologize someone edited the thread showing how wrong the op is then (I must have opened thinking it was the first page, let me scan back)
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
As a transsexual individual, I took a deep breath, then I took a peek--Yeah, that's a pretty silly/immature/fucked up subreddit. It's not very related to the "jailbait = cp" discussion, but I highly doubt anyone there would lay a finger on someone. People tend to act way differently behind a keyboard.
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go puke and cry for a bit o_O
This honestly doesn't change my few of Reddit (I am not a 'Redditer nor do I frequent the site outside of someone sending me a link)
Reddit... like many other technologies, is just a tool. I do not feel any type of anger or disgust towards Reddit, no more than I would blame google if people were finding child pornograhy using their search engine. Reddit's founders developed a way for people to connect and communicate.. and I do not hold them responsible for the way it is used.
A certain % of the population were pedophiles before Reddit existed.. and I'm sure that % will stay the same regardless if Reddit exists or not. Reddit has a very large user base... it seems only logical that the same % of people with 'pedo' tendancies (no more.. .no less) would exist on that site as would exist in the general population.
I feel what they are doing is the best that we can expect of them.. and that is to monitor their own website for illegal activity and report/remove such activity when they find it.. which is what they are doing.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
People used to think that sodomy, or homosexuality, was "morally questionable behavior." And that involved another person! What you are talking about is someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home, sorry, I don't agree that it's such a horrible thing. I honestly don't care what they get off to if they aren't harming anybody.
Society says it's no longer ok to hate gays. We say it's no longer ok to hate blacks. We say it's no longer ok to burn people at the stake because they were "witches." The people in our society who still harbor great hatred and anger and resentment in their hearts only have a couple socially sanctioned outlets left for their hatred, the primary being pedophiles. Their hatred is so great and irrational that it even spreads to people who are NOT pedophiles, such as those who look at jailbait. "Disgusting, you make me sick, these people should eliminated," those are the types of comments you hear even on a board as typically tolerant as teamliquid. I can't tell how much of it is just blind anger and hatred and how much is a need for people to prop up their own egos by judging others so harshly. Either way, it just comes across to me as sad and backwards.
So the people who were racist against blacks, and homophobic when confronted with homosexuality, are now just taking out their hatred on pedophiles? Your logic is so twisted I don't even know where to begin with it. Being upset, angry, and hating a group of people whose mission to exploit those who are most vulnerable in our society is "sad and backwards"?
People judge others who do this harshly because they can form a mental image in their mind of a child they know, or love, being used for someone else's stimulation and find it absolutely repulsive, not because they are looking for someone to take their anger out on.
I think his point was moreso that people actually abusing/raping/touching/etc children should be witch hunted. Though both groups (viewers and producers) are in ways related. I can also sympathize with the pedophile who does nothing wrong, but instantly gets hated for having a preference that he or she does not pursue or view.
It's a sad world we live in where people are fucking kids :/
I addressed this point: when you create a market as easily accessible as reddit for creepy things like posting pictures of kids who don't know their being photographed because that's a requirement of it being "sexy" enough, I think people who post there and the people who allow it to continue should be witch-hunted. Not to mention the users going out and finding more of that material on the Internet, or going and doing it themselves.
Are you arguing that distributors of child pornography should be taken down, I concur. I think reddit both removes that content and reports it to authorities though.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
I didn't understand most of this because I'm an adult with a job. If I was at a party and saw someone murder a transexual person, I'd be pretty offended. The fact that gloating about that on the internet is cool because of a bunch of disconnected words about FREEDOM!!!!!!11 and "CP" (internet codeword to reduce the meaning of the phrase child pornography) is exactly why things like reddit need to go away. Stop holding on to the old internet culture for dear life and grow the fuck up.
You get ad hominem because you're "grown the fuck up" ^^ Interesting, you seem to have quite the ideology. So is NASA a standardized code word to reduce the meaning? No it isn't, CP and Child Pornography mean the same thing because it's an acronym...
I don't even understand your argument, you're making claims about how you're and adult with a job which ... somehow gives you substance? The average TL user I'd bet is an adult with a job including myself so where does this even gain merit?
I didn't know freedom has become a disconnected word, the definition seems so concrete.
Maybe you should calm your passive aggressive posting down a smidgen and actually start reading what you're replying too. No need to get so fired up.
On September 18 2012 05:30 xBillehx wrote: So I decided to just go through the subreddits listed to confirm/deny whether or not it's stuff that should be taken care of.
girlsinschooluniforms - NSFW. Looks like college/private school/porn stars. Haven't seen anything resembling child porn though. volleyballgirls - Bunch of images of girls in volleyball outfits, usually focusing on their asses. Bearing in mind these uniforms are what they play in at public matches, again nothing resembling child porn. TeenSex -Banned subreddit. Seems like they do in fact clean up the messes they find. realteens -Banned subreddit. johnnybait -Banned subreddit. JailbaitPhotos - Troll subreddit with literally 7 posts. Not actual child porn Underage -Banned subreddit. Jail_bait - only one post linking to yet another Banned subreddit. Jailbaits -Banned subreddit. NSFW_JAILBAIT_TUBE -Banned subreddit. PregnantJailbait -Banned subreddit. PhotoPlunder -NSFW. Reposted pictures of women found on the internet. Has rules against underaged girls specifically. FacebookCleavage -NSFW. Essentially pictures women post on their facebooks for the public to see in dresses, bikini's etc showing cleavage. Also has rules against underaged girls. japanese_idols -Private subreddit. Unverifiable but I'm pretty sure Reddit Admins can see what's behind the door to make sure. AngieVerona - Private subreddit. Questionable because of it's name but again, Reddit Admins probably have access.
The Voyeurism stuff is something that should be investigated by the appropriate authorities, as well as the rape/incest stuff but I don't think reddit is responsible for looking up every single discussion to make sure people aren't talking about it. Finding something you think is illegal and reporting it is about the best you can do since some of the topics walk a thin line where discussion without necessarily committing criminal acts isn't grounds for deletion.
Ultimately it seems reddit does a damn good job at closing down subreddits that blatantly cross the line, so I don't believe outrage towards reddit is warranted. Yes, despite their efforts there are most certainly still sick people on reddit. Sick people exist in this world and they use the internet, it's just impossible to stop this, but it's not reddit's fault.
For the user above who commented how I made a mistake about the op being edited (Which I did, my apologies)
This was the post I was referring to which I actually thought was the OP as I scanned earlier today.
On September 18 2012 11:16 Aerisky wrote: Good lord, I had no idea it had gotten this bad....... wow.
Reddit is good as a community and indeed it's somewhat bad to come down on Reddit as a whole for the behavior of its subcommunities. However, it must be made very clear that these kinds of subcommunities must not and will not be allowed to exist. Reddit should be pressured to close all of these kinds of subcommunities because they are not only immoral but oftentimes illegal, apparently. Users should be dealt with severely. Just my two cents.
It's not "this bad". The OP is a hit piece written by moral crusaders. All of the subreddits listed were either closed down long ago, are troll subreddits meant satrically, or aren't what moral crusaders say they are.
ShitRedditSays is a subreddit for radical feminist extremists and is not taken seriously by anyone on Reddit for good reason. They're the same scumbags who started the false flag letter writing campaign to Root's sponsors that got Destiny fired.
That's pretty smear-like, kind of like the hit piece in the OP huh?
The difference is that my post is true, which can be verified by visiting ShitRedditSays and/or using Google (the Destiny part can be confirmed in the relevant thread here at TL).
By contrast, if you check out the subreddits listed in the OP (as has been done/discussed by multiple people on this thread already), it's readily apparent that there's a lot of exaggerations and outright falsehoods going on in the OP.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
On September 18 2012 11:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:29 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:26 skipgamer wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:21 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
I didn't understand most of this because I'm an adult with a job. If I was at a party and saw someone murder a transexual person, I'd be pretty offended. The fact that gloating about that on the internet is cool because of a bunch of disconnected words about FREEDOM!!!!!!11 and "CP" (internet codeword to reduce the meaning of the phrase child pornography) is exactly why things like reddit need to go away. Stop holding on to the old internet culture for dear life and grow the fuck up.
You get ad hominem because you're "grown the fuck up" ^^ Interesting, you seem to have quite the ideology. So is NASA a standardized code word to reduce the meaning? No it isn't, CP and Child Pornography mean the same thing because it's an acronym...
I don't even understand your argument, you're making claims about how you're and adult with a job which ... somehow gives you substance? The average TL user I'd bet is an adult with a job including myself so where does this even gain merit?
I didn't know freedom has become a disconnected word, the definition seems so concrete.
Maybe you should calm your passive aggressive posting down a smidgen and actually start reading what you're replying too. No need to get so fired up.
You really need to think about things in context, specifically about acronyms (euphemisms and code words are more like it). He isn't saying that acronyms reduce the meaning of anything, he was saying that some people will use slightly more neutral language, and at other times more inflammatory, to frame an argument in the way that helps their side. Take "Obamacare" for example. There is no law called "Obamacare". There is however the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which doesn't sound as good when using health care reform as a reason to vote the U.S. president out of office. This term was originally used SOLELY by Republicans to tie Obama to the law, and by doing so tie all of the other fabrications about his "not knowing how to be an American" (and being Muslim, and having "death panels", and...you get the idea) and delegitimize the law altogether.
Using CP as short hand can have the same effect. Since the full words are not written or spoken, people often don't FEEL the full impact of the words.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
On September 18 2012 11:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:29 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:26 skipgamer wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:21 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
I didn't understand most of this because I'm an adult with a job. If I was at a party and saw someone murder a transexual person, I'd be pretty offended. The fact that gloating about that on the internet is cool because of a bunch of disconnected words about FREEDOM!!!!!!11 and "CP" (internet codeword to reduce the meaning of the phrase child pornography) is exactly why things like reddit need to go away. Stop holding on to the old internet culture for dear life and grow the fuck up.
You get ad hominem because you're "grown the fuck up" ^^ Interesting, you seem to have quite the ideology. So is NASA a standardized code word to reduce the meaning? No it isn't, CP and Child Pornography mean the same thing because it's an acronym...
I don't even understand your argument, you're making claims about how you're and adult with a job which ... somehow gives you substance? The average TL user I'd bet is an adult with a job including myself so where does this even gain merit?
I didn't know freedom has become a disconnected word, the definition seems so concrete.
- Oh noooooo ad hominem. Next thing I know you'll be all over me with the wikipedia list of logical fallacies. All the high school debate classes in the world won't make up for your lack of argumentative rigor and evidence. This is why I make fun of you.
- I've only ever seen reddit/4chan people say CP because it's part of their insular defensive culture. Lots of normal, right-thinking people say NASA, but they also say National Aeronautics and Space Administration because it doesn't evoke images of horrible indefensible acts. When someone says "lol i was on /b/ and there was CP wow 4chan is so crazzzyyy!!!" they immediately mark themselves as being a worthless human - "CP" is the first step toward this. Agree or disagree, but this pattern can be witnessed throughout history (and in other parts of reddit ... isn't there a list of approved acronyms in the RapingWomen section or something? a reddit historian will have to remind me here)
- My argument is that only basement nerds who spend all day on reddit will go to these great lengths to defend child pornography, rape, and beating transexuals to death in the name of 'freedom' (without any real education or effort to understand political concepts like libertarianism). It's not an argument for or against 'reddit as a haven for illegal content' - it's just me explaining why I don't you seriously when you go "FREEDOMMMMM" and think you're talking like a big boy. - You proposed that I might "need a lesson on the definition of freedom", and then didn't give me one. Do you need a lesson on the definition of beating transexuals to death and high-fiving one another in public view for it?
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
On September 18 2012 11:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:29 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:26 skipgamer wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:21 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
I didn't understand most of this because I'm an adult with a job. If I was at a party and saw someone murder a transexual person, I'd be pretty offended. The fact that gloating about that on the internet is cool because of a bunch of disconnected words about FREEDOM!!!!!!11 and "CP" (internet codeword to reduce the meaning of the phrase child pornography) is exactly why things like reddit need to go away. Stop holding on to the old internet culture for dear life and grow the fuck up.
You get ad hominem because you're "grown the fuck up" ^^ Interesting, you seem to have quite the ideology. So is NASA a standardized code word to reduce the meaning? No it isn't, CP and Child Pornography mean the same thing because it's an acronym...
I don't even understand your argument, you're making claims about how you're and adult with a job which ... somehow gives you substance? The average TL user I'd bet is an adult with a job including myself so where does this even gain merit?
I didn't know freedom has become a disconnected word, the definition seems so concrete.
Maybe you should calm your passive aggressive posting down a smidgen and actually start reading what you're replying too. No need to get so fired up.
You really need to think about things in context, specifically about acronyms (euphemisms and code words are more like it). He isn't saying that acronyms reduce the meaning of anything, he was saying that some people will use slightly more neutral language, and at other times more inflammatory, to frame an argument in the way that helps their side. Take "Obamacare" for example. There is no law called "Obamacare". There is however the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which doesn't sound as good when using health care reform as a reason to vote the U.S. president out of office. This term was originally used SOLELY by Republicans to tie Obama to the law, and by doing so tie all of the other fabrications about his "not knowing how to be an American" (and being Muslim, and having "death panels", and...you get the idea) and delegitimize the law altogether.
Using CP as short hand can have the same effect. Since the full words are not written or spoken, people often don't FEEL the full impact of the words.
Wow you got way off topic there. Obamacare simply seems easier to say than the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or even PPACA. But basically what you are saying is that you oppose using words for emotional impact when it comes to "Obamacare," but support using words for emotional impact when it comes to "CP."
On September 18 2012 08:49 Misanthrope wrote: "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women? are you fucking kidding me? it's about learning to man the fuck up and not be a whiny introverted pussy around people. that includes respecting women by treating them as human beings, not aliens, and learning to have fun together. what a fucking joke this shit is.
Typical feminist creep shaming attempts to control male sexuality. Nothing new.
SRS is a collection of anthropology/ african american studies/ women studies majors looking for purpose in life by finding things on reddit to be offended by.
Great debunking by xbillehx. Good points by sunprince.
These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
On September 18 2012 11:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:29 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:26 skipgamer wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:21 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
I didn't understand most of this because I'm an adult with a job. If I was at a party and saw someone murder a transexual person, I'd be pretty offended. The fact that gloating about that on the internet is cool because of a bunch of disconnected words about FREEDOM!!!!!!11 and "CP" (internet codeword to reduce the meaning of the phrase child pornography) is exactly why things like reddit need to go away. Stop holding on to the old internet culture for dear life and grow the fuck up.
You get ad hominem because you're "grown the fuck up" ^^ Interesting, you seem to have quite the ideology. So is NASA a standardized code word to reduce the meaning? No it isn't, CP and Child Pornography mean the same thing because it's an acronym...
I don't even understand your argument, you're making claims about how you're and adult with a job which ... somehow gives you substance? The average TL user I'd bet is an adult with a job including myself so where does this even gain merit?
I didn't know freedom has become a disconnected word, the definition seems so concrete.
Maybe you should calm your passive aggressive posting down a smidgen and actually start reading what you're replying too. No need to get so fired up.
You really need to think about things in context, specifically about acronyms (euphemisms and code words are more like it). He isn't saying that acronyms reduce the meaning of anything, he was saying that some people will use slightly more neutral language, and at other times more inflammatory, to frame an argument in the way that helps their side. Take "Obamacare" for example. There is no law called "Obamacare". There is however the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which doesn't sound as good when using health care reform as a reason to vote the U.S. president out of office. This term was originally used SOLELY by Republicans to tie Obama to the law, and by doing so tie all of the other fabrications about his "not knowing how to be an American" (and being Muslim, and having "death panels", and...you get the idea) and delegitimize the law altogether.
Using CP as short hand can have the same effect. Since the full words are not written or spoken, people often don't FEEL the full impact of the words.
I think your example is very out of place... Obamacare is a slander and it is not an acronym... CP spread apart is Child Pornography. I don't see how that can make anyone more neutral. I don't get more neutral about the KKK because I hear it as the KKK or Ku Klux Klan...
The argument does not seem valid, do you have a better example? Obamacare is actually a slander trying to mock the Act, it isn't the OC act. It would be like saying "well they called it the PPAACA to make it more neutral!" "pa-ka"
On September 18 2012 11:56 Sabu113 wrote: SRS is a collection of anthropology/ african american studies/ women studies majors looking for purpose in life by finding things on reddit to be offended by.
Great debunking by xbillehx. Good points by sunprince.
These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
It would be nice if SRS was only looking to be offended. In reality, though, they've engaged in a lot of despicable campaigns, including getting Destiny fired, using DMCA requests to take down videos of people they don't like, tearing down posters supporting mens rights, spreading the "misandry don't real" meme, etc.
SRS is nothing more than a subreddit extension of RadFem Hub.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
On September 18 2012 11:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:29 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:26 skipgamer wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:21 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
I didn't understand most of this because I'm an adult with a job. If I was at a party and saw someone murder a transexual person, I'd be pretty offended. The fact that gloating about that on the internet is cool because of a bunch of disconnected words about FREEDOM!!!!!!11 and "CP" (internet codeword to reduce the meaning of the phrase child pornography) is exactly why things like reddit need to go away. Stop holding on to the old internet culture for dear life and grow the fuck up.
You get ad hominem because you're "grown the fuck up" ^^ Interesting, you seem to have quite the ideology. So is NASA a standardized code word to reduce the meaning? No it isn't, CP and Child Pornography mean the same thing because it's an acronym...
I don't even understand your argument, you're making claims about how you're and adult with a job which ... somehow gives you substance? The average TL user I'd bet is an adult with a job including myself so where does this even gain merit?
I didn't know freedom has become a disconnected word, the definition seems so concrete.
Maybe you should calm your passive aggressive posting down a smidgen and actually start reading what you're replying too. No need to get so fired up.
You really need to think about things in context, specifically about acronyms (euphemisms and code words are more like it). He isn't saying that acronyms reduce the meaning of anything, he was saying that some people will use slightly more neutral language, and at other times more inflammatory, to frame an argument in the way that helps their side. Take "Obamacare" for example. There is no law called "Obamacare". There is however the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which doesn't sound as good when using health care reform as a reason to vote the U.S. president out of office. This term was originally used SOLELY by Republicans to tie Obama to the law, and by doing so tie all of the other fabrications about his "not knowing how to be an American" (and being Muslim, and having "death panels", and...you get the idea) and delegitimize the law altogether.
Using CP as short hand can have the same effect. Since the full words are not written or spoken, people often don't FEEL the full impact of the words.
I think your example is very out of place... Obamacare is a slander and it is not an acronym... CP spread apart is Child Pornography. I don't see how that can make anyone more neutral. I don't get more neutral about the KKK because I hear it as the KKK or Ku Klux Klan...
The argument does not seem valid, do you have a better example? Obamacare is actually a slander trying to mock the Act, it isn't the OC act. It would be like saying "well they called it the PPAACA to make it more neutral!" "pa-ka"
You should probably study the social effects of language in some way. I won't study it for you.
Your example of the KKK is flawed, in that the phrase evokes an organization, not a despicable act. When I say "nazi party", it actually does have a different meaning for people from "gas chambers". If 4chan existed in the 1940s, would Austrian people on it post about how "wacky" GCs are? (Get godwin'd, bro)
Forget about the Obamacare topic - why don't regular people say CP? Why is it only in 4chan/reddit culture? Forget everything I said and tell me why it's unique to them. Is it unique to them? Go visit some child pornographers on tor and tell me what codewords they use.
All this stuff is readily available for whenever you want to pull your head out.
On September 18 2012 11:56 Sabu113 wrote: These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
like this? please explain the validity of the beatingtrannies subreddit so that your massive generalization can hold.
Would you please stop straw manning every single poster you disagree with? You keep pushing these ridiculously broad moral brushstrokes with guilt by association. Literally not a single person here has argued that beating trannies is a good thing, okay? Stop with the one-liner ad hominem shit posts please.
On September 18 2012 11:56 Sabu113 wrote: These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
like this? please explain the validity of the beatingtrannies subreddit so that your massive generalization can hold.
Would you please stop straw manning every single poster you disagree with? You keep pushing these ridiculously broad moral brushstrokes with guilt by association. Literally not a single person here has argued that beating trannies is a good thing, mkay? Stop with the one-liner ad hominem shit posts please.
Well, the OP specifically mentions those subreddits, and then most of the replies dwell on the jailbait topic which has been done to death. You have to "strawman" somebody when they're completely avoiding the meat of the matter to make their own point (which is itself a strawman).
Just tell me why beating a transexual person to death is the kind of thing reddit should pride itself on, as the white knight of free speech. Just tell me. Forget debate class and tell me.
well the critzism presented in the video is over the top. Basically reddit just has a freeloader problem. Some users abuse the freedom the platform gives them. Should reddit try to do something about it? Yes of course, in a healthy society antisocial behaviour (exploiting children, beating up trannies etc) doesn't get tolerated. That is basically the reason why a society with limitless freedom won't work, because individuals within this society will abuse it to the maximum and thus limit the freedom of others against their will. This is one of the reason mankind developed behavioural, societal and personal norms.Reddit, as a platform should do it's best to enforce these norms.
Forbid reddit for it? No, would be useless, it just brings some sickos our societies unfortunately contain to the surface.
On September 18 2012 11:56 Sabu113 wrote: These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
like this? please explain the validity of the beatingtrannies subreddit so that your massive generalization can hold.
Would you please stop straw manning every single poster you disagree with? You keep pushing these ridiculously broad moral brushstrokes with guilt by association. Literally not a single person here has argued that beating trannies is a good thing, mkay? Stop with the one-liner ad hominem shit posts please.
Well, the OP specifically mentions those subreddits, and then most of the replies dwell on the jailbait topic which has been done to death. You have to "strawman" somebody when they're completely avoiding the meat of the matter to make their own point (which is itself a strawman).
Just tell me why beating a transexual person to death is the kind of thing reddit should pride itself on, as the white knight of free speech. Just tell me. Forget debate class and tell me.
The "meat" of the topic is that someone wrote an over the top hit piece which detracts from any legitimate points they actually have to make by stretching words to the extreme and making over the top exaggerations or generalizations.
On September 18 2012 12:03 AngryMag wrote: well the critzism presented in the video is over the top. Basically reddit just has a freeloader problem. Some users abuse the freedom the platform gives them. Should reddit try to do something about it? Yes of course, in a healthy society antisocial behaviour (exploiting children, beating up trannies etc) doesn't get tolerated. That is basically the reason why a society with limitless freedom won't work, because individuals within this society will abuse it to the maximum and thus limit the freedom of others against their will. This is one of the reason mankind developed behavioural, societal and personal norms.Reddit, as a platform should do it's best to enforce these norms.
Forbid reddit for it? No, would be useless, it just brings some sickos our societies unfortunately contain to the surface.
See this? This is what it looks like when someone knows more about political and social philosophy than what south park tells them.
On September 18 2012 11:56 Sabu113 wrote: These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
like this? please explain the validity of the beatingtrannies subreddit so that your massive generalization can hold.
Would you please stop straw manning every single poster you disagree with? You keep pushing these ridiculously broad moral brushstrokes with guilt by association. Literally not a single person here has argued that beating trannies is a good thing, mkay? Stop with the one-liner ad hominem shit posts please.
Well, the OP specifically mentions those subreddits, and then most of the replies dwell on the jailbait topic which has been done to death. You have to "strawman" somebody when they're completely avoiding the meat of the matter to make their own point (which is itself a strawman).
Just tell me why beating a transexual person to death is the kind of thing reddit should pride itself on, as the white knight of free speech. Just tell me. Forget debate class and tell me.
The "meat" of the topic is that someone wrote an over the top hit piece which detracts from any legitimate points they actually have to make by stretching words to the extreme and making over the top exaggerations or generalizations.
No, actually. The meat of the topic is that the grossness of reddit goes way beyond 'jailbait' to things that should make any sane person puke on command. And that people pretending to be smart or halfway qualified defend this with weak assertions of logical fallacies and sweeping generalizations (often in the same paragraph!)
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
On September 18 2012 11:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:29 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:26 skipgamer wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:21 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
Heres a better question that is rather straightforward. Do people do terrible things? Like if your argument here is that Reddit's job is to police a free forum then perhaps you need a better lesson on the definition of freedom. People want to be fucked up, they'll be fucked up and this conversation is on Reddit banning CP which time and time again they've proven to do so (look at the edit on the first page, if you saw it when it was originally made it was sensationalist as fuck with no actual knowledge of the topic at hand)
Reddit has clearly defined itself as a medium, not a supporter. You can say "the middle guy is at fault to" and for CP yes they would be but they don't have CP on their main forum and they hunt down CP as best as they can on the sub forums. Beating trannies ? I don't see the relation or importance of a fetish sub.
I didn't understand most of this because I'm an adult with a job. If I was at a party and saw someone murder a transexual person, I'd be pretty offended. The fact that gloating about that on the internet is cool because of a bunch of disconnected words about FREEDOM!!!!!!11 and "CP" (internet codeword to reduce the meaning of the phrase child pornography) is exactly why things like reddit need to go away. Stop holding on to the old internet culture for dear life and grow the fuck up.
You get ad hominem because you're "grown the fuck up" ^^ Interesting, you seem to have quite the ideology. So is NASA a standardized code word to reduce the meaning? No it isn't, CP and Child Pornography mean the same thing because it's an acronym...
I don't even understand your argument, you're making claims about how you're and adult with a job which ... somehow gives you substance? The average TL user I'd bet is an adult with a job including myself so where does this even gain merit?
I didn't know freedom has become a disconnected word, the definition seems so concrete.
- Oh noooooo ad hominem. Next thing I know you'll be all over me with the wikipedia list of logical fallacies. All the high school debate classes in the world won't make up for your lack of argumentative rigor and evidence. This is why I make fun of you.
- I've only ever seen reddit/4chan people say CP because it's part of their insular defensive culture. Lots of normal, right-thinking people say NASA, but they also say National Aeronautics and Space Administration because it doesn't evoke images of horrible indefensible acts. When someone says "lol i was on /b/ and there was CP wow 4chan is so crazzzyyy!!!" they immediately mark themselves as being a worthless human - "CP" is the first step toward this. Agree or disagree, but this pattern can be witnessed throughout history (and in other parts of reddit ... isn't there a list of approved acronyms in the RapingWomen section or something? a reddit historian will have to remind me here)
- My argument is that only basement nerds who spend all day on reddit will go to these great lengths to defend child pornography, rape, and beating transexuals to death in the name of 'freedom' (without any real education or effort to understand political concepts like libertarianism). It's not an argument for or against 'reddit as a haven for illegal content' - it's just me explaining why I don't you seriously when you go "FREEDOMMMMM" and think you're talking like a big boy. - You proposed that I might "need a lesson on the definition of freedom", and then didn't give me one. Do you need a lesson on the definition of beating transexuals to death and high-fiving one another in public view for it?
I've only ever seen reddit/4chan people say CP because it's part of their insular defensive culture.
Well I don't have a reddit account, but I have used(clarifying since I re-read it as "I've watched CP" in my mind as I scanned, I'm strictly speaking about the phrasing) CP and Child Pornography. So far that hasn't held up.
Agree or disagree, but this pattern can be witnessed throughout history (and in other parts of reddit ... isn't there a list of approved acronyms in the RapingWomen section or something? a reddit historian will have to remind me here)
Well if it's been proven then please provide that proof.. I mean "proven" things are the easiest to cite because someone else did the leg work for you. Or is this one of those things where you say it's proven and provide no evidence towards it as you continue to generalize everything.[/b]
Lots of normal, right-thinking people say NASA, but they also say National Aeronautics and Space Administration because it doesn't evoke images of horrible indefensible acts.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
My argument is that only basement nerds who spend all day on reddit will go to these great lengths to defend child pornography, rape, and beating transexuals to death in the name of 'freedom' (without any real education or effort to understand political concepts like libertarianism). It's not an argument for or against 'reddit as a haven for illegal content' - it's just me explaining why I don't you seriously when you go "FREEDOMMMMM" and think you're talking like a big boy.
I would like to have you note a single sentence where I defended the acts of child pornography, rape, beating transexuals to death in the name of freedom. You make more ad hominem attacks also which only weakens your argument I might add. I simply stated that Reddit is an internet medium. If the news paper comes out and it has an image of a dead body or on the news (or 60 minutes etc) you see another image of a German deathcamp and some freak is hammering off a nut to it should we close that news paper/article/video for showing it?
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys or the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
You proposed that I might "need a lesson on the definition of freedom", and then didn't give me one. Do you need a lesson on the definition of beating transexuals to death and high-fiving one another in public view for it?
I dunno, is that your general practice? Like honestly what is this suppose to get across? You're some big internet buff who has a job from 9-5 and comes onto TL to talk down to the other people with 9-5 jobs or juggling university + jobs?
You really should relax and take a load off, you're throwing so many ad hominems and slurs my way alluding that I practice these things that it's really making your argument into that of a child's slamming their fist into a wall and yelling loudly.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
I simply stated that Reddit is an internet medium. If the news paper comes out and it has an image of a dead body or on the news (or 60 minutes etc) you see another image of a German deathcamp and some freak is hammering off a nut to it should we close that news paper/article/video for showing it?
If the newspaper and the freak are the same, yes.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
I dunno, is that your general practice? Like honestly what is this suppose to get across? You're some big internet buff who has a job from 9-5 and comes onto TL to talk down to the other people with 9-5 jobs or juggling university + jobs?
No, it's to talk down people who juggle jobs and university, but still haven't grown up and learned how to research something, form an idea about it and discuss it.
You really should relax and take a load off, you're throwing so many ad hominems and slurs my way alluding that I practice these things that it's really making your argument into that of a child's slamming their fist into a wall and yelling loudly.
I'm not saying anyone here 'practices these things'. I just want to see someone tell me why these things are okay, without making a two cent 'freedom' post ripped from a stormfront libertarian blog.
If you want to see slurs, you should check out /r/BeatingTrannies, the hottest place on the web for sub-third world behaviour.
While I support shutting down child porn and other creepy/disgusting/illegal/hurting shit, r/SRS is probably the worst place on the internet, just a little ahead of maybe 4chans /b/. Regardless of the cause, I have a problem supporting a place (srs) which exist only to hunt, judge, and hurt people they dislike. This is the first good cause I've seen from them, but I feel its less the content they're hungry to remove moreso then just hungry for a new, bigger witchhunt.
On September 18 2012 11:56 Sabu113 wrote: These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
like this? please explain the validity of the beatingtrannies subreddit so that your massive generalization can hold.
Would you please stop straw manning every single poster you disagree with? You keep pushing these ridiculously broad moral brushstrokes with guilt by association. Literally not a single person here has argued that beating trannies is a good thing, mkay? Stop with the one-liner ad hominem shit posts please.
Just tell me why beating a transexual person to death is the kind of thing reddit should pride itself on, as the white knight of free speech. Just tell me. Forget debate class and tell me.
It's not something anyone (or society in general in which people, trans or not, are being beaten to death in) should pride themselves on. The argument is that people discussing such things that aren't illegal (at least, here in the U.S.) should be allowed to and it doesn't damn the medium. As far as I'm aware, reposting gore images and saying "death to all trannies" isn't something that's against the law ( perhaps unfortunately... ) and as such the reddit owners are not required to remove this material. Of course, it's very different if someone actually suggests they have committed such a crime, and should definitely be investigated and prosecuted if they did.
It disgusts the fuck out of me, and makes me feel like I'll forever be an inferior individual within the eyes of society, but if it's not illegal then it's their choice to allow it or not. The people involved in such advocating and spreading of images should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope to god they someday see the error of their ways (or walk ten inches in my shoes for a day before saying trans people aren't humans.)
After defending such material though, it makes me strongly consider whether freedom of speech is really fucking worth it or not.
On September 18 2012 11:56 Sabu113 wrote: These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
like this? please explain the validity of the beatingtrannies subreddit so that your massive generalization can hold.
Would you please stop straw manning every single poster you disagree with? You keep pushing these ridiculously broad moral brushstrokes with guilt by association. Literally not a single person here has argued that beating trannies is a good thing, mkay? Stop with the one-liner ad hominem shit posts please.
Just tell me why beating a transexual person to death is the kind of thing reddit should pride itself on, as the white knight of free speech. Just tell me. Forget debate class and tell me.
After defending such material though, it makes me strongly consider whether freedom of speech is really fucking worth it or not.
That's the first sign that this topic shouldn't need to exist.
Freedom of speech has obvious benefits. The really famous dictators throughout history who petitioned against it were often the same people 'beating trannies' (or the equivalent in their time). It's a confusing topic to debate, for sure!
Part of growing up is that you stop making every topic into an intellectual exercise, and admit that some things are more trouble than they're worth. I'm sure a lot of people out there right now are getting freedomboners over /r/BeatingTrannies, but that doesn't mean you would be doing a disservice to anyone (who counts) by just quietly removing it. Like with the much less revolting closed subreddits mentioned earlier.
I feel like a lot of people should go study something in the humanities, and debate these things in a controlled setting, without having to expose everyday people like myself to it.
SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
edit: Trans violence, if it's an active instigation to violence or plotting violence then it is bad. It should be shut down. Just as any reddit that aided and abetted in planning acts of violence or crime.
It's when SRS goes after racy jokes that it gets ridiculous. Being offended by something doesn't validate your cause.
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
If Osama bin Laden returned from his watery grave to preach about wanting to clean the oceans he'd been rotting in, we wouldn't debate the health of the ocean, we'd be talking about an undead Osama.
Basically I'm saying r/srs is the undead osama of the internet.
On September 18 2012 11:56 Sabu113 wrote: These people do a lot to delegitimize and turn atleast me personally off potentially valid causes.
like this? please explain the validity of the beatingtrannies subreddit so that your massive generalization can hold.
Would you please stop straw manning every single poster you disagree with? You keep pushing these ridiculously broad moral brushstrokes with guilt by association. Literally not a single person here has argued that beating trannies is a good thing, mkay? Stop with the one-liner ad hominem shit posts please.
Just tell me why beating a transexual person to death is the kind of thing reddit should pride itself on, as the white knight of free speech. Just tell me. Forget debate class and tell me.
After defending such material though, it makes me strongly consider whether freedom of speech is really fucking worth it or not.
That's the first sign that this topic shouldn't need to exist.
Freedom of speech has obvious benefits. The really famous dictators throughout history who petitioned against it were often the same people 'beating trannies' (or the equivalent in their time). It's a confusing topic to debate, for sure!
Part of growing up is that you stop making every topic into an intellectual exercise, and admit that some things are more trouble than they're worth. I'm sure a lot of people out there right now are getting freedomboners over /r/BeatingTrannies, but that doesn't mean you would be doing a disservice to anyone (who counts) by just quietly removing it. Like with the much less revolting closed subreddits mentioned earlier.
I feel like a lot of people should go study something in the humanities, and debate these things in a controlled setting, without having to expose everyday people like myself to it.
In that sense, I do greatly concur. If given the power to, I'd close that subreddit and all relating to violence/gore in a heart beat. I must ponder if freedom of speech in a modern American sense hasn't simply evolved into a blanket to hide behind to spout hate speech.
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills got this poster riled up, because some people in this thread are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really be able grasp this concept.
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
Here we are, discussing whether it's appropriate to use the acronym CP or not in the thread about reddit, while there is no child porn there. And someone even wages a moral crusade against the defenders of beatingtrannies, while no one actually said that this subreddit is any good.
On September 18 2012 13:03 Evilmystic wrote: Here we are, discussing whether it's appropriate to use the acronym CP or not in the thread about reddit, while there is no child porn there. And someone even wages a moral crusade against the defenders of beatingtrannies, while no one actually said that this subreddit is any good.
This thread isn't about logic or sense, it's about senseless moral outrage at everything wrong with the world. You can tell there's a clear division between the people posting emotionally and those posting rationally, and nothing will ever bridge the gap between emotion and reason.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills got this poster riled up, because some people in this thread are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really be able grasp this concept.
I think the point of the analogy is just that there are other terms used online or in certain sub-groups for no real intended purpose. Things like "pwn" came about just because of a common mispelling. Nothing to do with whether the term is good bad, or whether the abbreviation is good or bad. It's just a simple example that shows that there exist terms used in online instances which aren't used elsewhere. Sometimes words/abbreviations pop up and get used and not necessarily because of any intent of the people it originates from. Yeastly is saying that CP is for sure an internet "codeword" used to diminish the harshness of "child porn". It may be true that it indeed does that, but that's quite possibly an unintended consequence of the people that started using it originally.
On September 18 2012 12:53 Headshothank wrote: Uhh are you sure you didn't get reddit mixed up with 4chan? Jk though I didn't know that site actually had all that shit 0_o
Have you ever actually been to 4chan? 4chan is INCREDIBLY strict with removing and reporting any child porn to the police.
4chan is one of the best communities on the internet because they don't give a shit.
Reddit is terrible, I don't get why people continue to support them in any way. They have the least likeable hivemind of any large internet "community"
On September 18 2012 13:03 Evilmystic wrote: Here we are, discussing whether it's appropriate to use the acronym CP or not in the thread about reddit, while there is no child porn there. And someone even wages a moral crusade against the defenders of beatingtrannies, while no one actually said that this subreddit is any good.
This thread isn't about logic or sense, it's about senseless moral outrage at everything wrong with the world. You can tell there's a clear division between the people posting emotionally and those posting rationally, and nothing will ever bridge the gap between emotion and reason.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills got this poster riled up, because some people in this thread are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really be able grasp this concept.
It may be true that it indeed does that, but that's quite possibly an unintended consequence of the people that started using it originally.
why couldn't they just say child pornography? why invent a codeword?
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
I actually disagree. Because a website is different than the internet in general (that is, it is privately owned) it is well within the moral rational, I believe, to discontinue use and advocate against a website because you disagree with its limitations (or lack there of) on content.
To use an analogy (probably not the best, but give me a bit of slack here) it would be like a Cafe that allowed its employees to do something that you dislike (leaving this ambiguous, be it racism, sexism, whatever.) It would be acceptable, I believe, if you ceased to go to that Cafe because of the lack of action by the business owners to adequately police their staff.
As such, I think villainizing it would be fine if you find something objectable about it and wished to discontinue going there. It would be sad to not consider the positive aspects of it as well in your decision ( science, worldnews, etc that are very informative) but that does not allow you to disagree with the website owners moderation decisions.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills can get you riled up, if they are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really grasp this concept.
I would contend that the source of my revulsion for child pornography is not the "antagonism" between the words but what it actually IS.
I don't see where you're going with your example of talking about "raping monkeys" on the job. My employer can fire me for making offensive comments, and that's his decision. TL can ban me for making offensive posts, and that's their decision. Reddit chooses not to, and that's their decision. You can argue that reddit is a worse community for it, but ultimately it's up to them whether it needs to be addressed through moderation.
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
I actually disagree. Because a website is different than the internet in general (that is, it is privately owned) it is well within the moral rational, I believe, to discontinue use and advocate against a website because you disagree with its limitations (or lack there of) on content.
To use an analogy (probably not the best, but give me a bit of slack here) it would be like a Cafe that allowed its employees to do something that you dislike (leaving this ambiguous, be it racism, sexism, whatever.) It would be acceptable, I believe, if you ceased to go to that Cafe because of the lack of action by the business owners to adequately police their staff.
As such, I think villainizing it would be fine if you find something objectable about it and wished to discontinue going there. It would be sad to not consider the positive aspects of it as well in your decision ( science, worldnews, etc that are very informative) but that does not allow you to disagree with the website owners moderation decisions.
Ya that analogy is off. The people who post disgusting stuff on reddit are not employees, they would be more akin to customers. Now I suppose you could complain to the manager, but imagine being the manager and having millions of customers. You can't police all of that.
Anyway the whole argument is silly. If you want to use a website analogy, just look at Google. If we should ban reddit because it gives access to inappropriate links then we should do the same for google because it does the same thing
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills can get you riled up, if they are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really grasp this concept.
I would contend that the source of my revulsion for child pornography is not the "antagonism" between the words but what it actually IS.
I don't see where you're going with your example of talking about "raping monkeys" on the job. My employer can fire me for making offensive comments, and that's his decision. TL can ban me for making offensive posts, and that's their decision. Reddit chooses not to, and that's their decision. You can argue that reddit is a worse community for it, but ultimately it's up to them whether it needs to be addressed through moderation.
that's fine, but in the real world outside forces address stupid things that go on for too long
this is part of why countries with long-term genocides and other state-supported human rights abuses generally get blown up by someone representing a coalition of developed countries
reddit is different because, as I said, no one knows how to police the internet properly
if reddit was a torrent site it would be gone. if there was a major industrial power that had a stake in monetizing child pornography they would be all over you guys.
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
I actually disagree. Because a website is different than the internet in general (that is, it is privately owned) it is well within the moral rational, I believe, to discontinue use and advocate against a website because you disagree with its limitations (or lack there of) on content.
To use an analogy (probably not the best, but give me a bit of slack here) it would be like a Cafe that allowed its employees to do something that you dislike (leaving this ambiguous, be it racism, sexism, whatever.) It would be acceptable, I believe, if you ceased to go to that Cafe because of the lack of action by the business owners to adequately police their staff.
As such, I think villainizing it would be fine if you find something objectable about it and wished to discontinue going there. It would be sad to not consider the positive aspects of it as well in your decision ( science, worldnews, etc that are very informative) but that does not allow you to disagree with the website owners moderation decisions.
Anyway the whole argument is silly. If you want to use a website analogy, just look at Google. If we should ban reddit because it gives access to inappropriate links then we should do the same for google because it does the same thing
actually, YOUR argument is silly
you know google is a search engine, and reddit is more than a search engine. you know this. everyone knows this.
On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote: K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit.
Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook.
No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it.
Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography.
okay, skip the children part for a moment
/r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images?
remember: this question is extremely straightforward.
I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately.
take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
What immature thinking? I did not address beating transsexuals/transvestites because I have 0 experience with it and honestly have no interest. I definitely didn't defend it.
I've only looked in to child pornography because I think child abuse is the most abhorrent activity. And on the scale of things, reddit is definitely on the milder side, I wouldn't even relate it to abuse at all.
off-topic, but cp is an outdated term for child porn btw. it's much more commonly used for the (ironically) childrens game club penguin now in the wider internet community.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills can get you riled up, if they are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really grasp this concept.
I would contend that the source of my revulsion for child pornography is not the "antagonism" between the words but what it actually IS.
I don't see where you're going with your example of talking about "raping monkeys" on the job. My employer can fire me for making offensive comments, and that's his decision. TL can ban me for making offensive posts, and that's their decision. Reddit chooses not to, and that's their decision. You can argue that reddit is a worse community for it, but ultimately it's up to them whether it needs to be addressed through moderation.
The talk about raping monkeys was taken out of a post you quoted, it shows the difference between being legal and being accepted. The rotten shit you partially get on reddit is an automatic consequence of the failure to enforce norms which apply in every other aspect of our daily lives, the typical freeloader problem. Terms like CP and other euphemisms for other sick shit are a sure sign of desentisizing of the community. In this thread you had some guys who told everybody where to find the sickest shit. This widely known access blinds people from the severity of the problem.
And again, no reddit should of course not be forbidden, but it must start enforcing basic rules and stop hiding behind thought terminating cliches.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected.
Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious, like this:
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected.
Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this:
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
cu@highschool
I keep hoping it's hour long lag.
This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
I actually disagree. Because a website is different than the internet in general (that is, it is privately owned) it is well within the moral rational, I believe, to discontinue use and advocate against a website because you disagree with its limitations (or lack there of) on content.
To use an analogy (probably not the best, but give me a bit of slack here) it would be like a Cafe that allowed its employees to do something that you dislike (leaving this ambiguous, be it racism, sexism, whatever.) It would be acceptable, I believe, if you ceased to go to that Cafe because of the lack of action by the business owners to adequately police their staff.
As such, I think villainizing it would be fine if you find something objectable about it and wished to discontinue going there. It would be sad to not consider the positive aspects of it as well in your decision ( science, worldnews, etc that are very informative) but that does not allow you to disagree with the website owners moderation decisions.
Ya that analogy is off. The people who post disgusting stuff on reddit are not employees, they would be more akin to customers. Now I suppose you could complain to the manager, but imagine being the manager and having millions of customers. You can't police all of that.
Anyway the whole argument is silly. If you want to use a website analogy, just look at Google. If we should ban reddit because it gives access to inappropriate links then we should do the same for google because it does the same thing
Sure, then modify the analogy to them being other customers. Should a place allow someone to come inside and start spouting hateful stuff without management/owners doing anything, I don't see why it would be morally questionable to simply stop visiting a website.
Now, of course, the mass of users does come into effect, but the website owners have said themselves that anything that isn't directly illegal goes. As such, it seems reasonable to not give them traffic if you do not wish to because of that.
Anyway the whole argument is silly. If you want to use a website analogy, just look at Google. If we should ban reddit because it gives access to inappropriate links then we should do the same for google because it does the same thing
It's not quite the same, as a search engine indexes the web itself--it does not house the content. Google itself also has search filters that removes much of the profane/offensive material (gore, pornography, etc) though.
Why do people consider reddit "a" website? It's a link aggregation site split into many subforums. The only thing similar between r/gaming and r/football is that it is hosted by www.reddit.com
Each subreddit is basically a free domain rental. You could make your own subreddit dealing with how much you love carrots.
If you host CP, it will get deleted. r/jailbait was doing nothing illegal when it was removed (clothed pictures of 15 year olds is not illegal, real illegal submissions were removed). It was only acted upon because the reddit website was losing money due to the shitstorm somethingawful made about it.
Besides that, the admins literally do nothing to stop what you do on your subbredits, be it porn, gore, etc.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials.
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected.
Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this:
On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
cu@highschool
I keep hoping it's hour long lag.
This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying
I've literally not said a single word about freedom of expression or speech. You clearly are confusing me with someone else.
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected.
Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this:
On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
cu@highschool
I keep hoping it's hour long lag.
This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying
I've literally not said a single word about freedom of expression or speech. You clearly are confusing me with someone else.
Yeah sorry, I confused you with starfries, because he is a dark templar, too and I find his posts in this topic highly annoying, sorry
Hmm, I certainly don't find value in the site and am greatly annoyed by the general attitude of the community. But I'm not sure what the story is here. It sounds like they ban this stuff relatively efficiently. I suppose we could ask them to be quicker about it, but it seems like they're on the correct path.
Though, I must say the pseudointellectual, elitist, anti-establishment attitude of people trying so hard to fight for useless causes using absurd hyper-rationalism is getting so old on this general board. It makes it difficult to discuss things when we don't ground ourselves in reality, and instead try as hard as we can to attempt to prove the rest of the world is dumb and we are smart.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials.
Difference of opinion I guess. I don't think people under a certain age and some even over that age are capable of making consentful decisions in their lives yet and shouldn't be grouped with everyone else yet.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials.
Difference of opinion I guess. I don't think people under a certain age and some even over that age are capable of making consentful decisions in their lives yet and shouldn't be grouped with everyone else yet.
definitely agree with this. it screws up the rest of their lives, and they (we ) are unable to understand that/ forsee consequences you gotta do what you gotta do
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials.
Difference of opinion I guess. I don't think people under a certain age and some even over that age are capable of making consentful decisions in their lives yet and shouldn't be grouped with everyone else yet.
definitely agree with this. it screws up the rest of their lives, and they (we ) are unable to understand that/ forsee consequences you gotta do what you gotta do
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected.
Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this:
On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
cu@highschool
I keep hoping it's hour long lag.
This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying
I've literally not said a single word about freedom of expression or speech. You clearly are confusing me with someone else.
Yeah sorry, I confused you with starfries, because he is a dark templar, too and I find his posts in this topic highly annoying, sorry
I didn't say anything about freedom of expression or speech, either.
edit: I don't even know why you think we disagree.
I haven't visited any of these new subreddits nor did I even know they exist, but I did check the old jailbait one during the last reddit fuss and it wasn't child porn, child porn is something far more brutal than teen girls taking slutty pictures of themselves.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills got this poster riled up, because some people in this thread are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really be able grasp this concept.
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though.
I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit.
Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society.
The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills can get you riled up, if they are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really grasp this concept.
I would contend that the source of my revulsion for child pornography is not the "antagonism" between the words but what it actually IS.
I don't see where you're going with your example of talking about "raping monkeys" on the job. My employer can fire me for making offensive comments, and that's his decision. TL can ban me for making offensive posts, and that's their decision. Reddit chooses not to, and that's their decision. You can argue that reddit is a worse community for it, but ultimately it's up to them whether it needs to be addressed through moderation.
The talk about raping monkeys was taken out of a post you quoted, it shows the difference between being legal and being accepted. The rotten shit you partially get on reddit is an automatic consequence of the failure to enforce norms which apply in every other aspect of our daily lives, the typical freeloader problem. Terms like CP and other euphemisms for other sick shit are a sure sign of desentisizing of the community. In this thread you had some guys who told everybody where to find the sickest shit. This widely known access blinds people from the severity of the problem.
And again, no reddit should of course not be forbidden, but it must start enforcing basic rules and stop hiding behind thought terminating cliches.
Please elaborate on how blind conformity and peer pressure are an expression of intelligence. I disagree quite strongly here and think it is obvious that it's the exact opposite of it, taking the place in decision-making processes that should be occupied by rationality instead. The urge to conform is instinctive behavior for social animals. It is emotion and thus about as far from an indicator for intelligence as you will get.
On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote: SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue.
SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE"
Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected.
Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this:
On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote: This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
cu@highschool
I keep hoping it's hour long lag.
This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying
I've literally not said a single word about freedom of expression or speech. You clearly are confusing me with someone else.
Yeah sorry, I confused you with starfries, because he is a dark templar, too and I find his posts in this topic highly annoying, sorry
I didn't say anything about freedom of expression or speech, either.
edit: I don't even know why you think we disagree.
He's just throwing shit at the walls hoping it will stick. It's not as bad as Yeastiality though "CU @ highschool" -.-?
Reddit is great, and I'm sure this is way smaller than it appears here. Sensationalized news everyday.
Of course that kind of shit is wrong but really, I don't think reddit protects pedophiles at all.
I'd rather have a free website where people can post what they want and discuss what they want like reddit and 4chan than there be nothing out there to do that at all. It should be addressed but it shouldn't be news like this, it should be reddit moderators discussing it in-house and trying to clean it up. They probably already try, but to be honest who wants to spend their free time going through child-porn and banning people?
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials.
Difference of opinion I guess. I don't think people under a certain age and some even over that age are capable of making consentful decisions in their lives yet and shouldn't be grouped with everyone else yet.
definitely agree with this. it screws up the rest of their lives, and they (we ) are unable to understand that/ forsee consequences you gotta do what you gotta do
Well, why not let people fuck up their lives? Why should we care? In my opinion, most (80%+) of the human beings on the planet can't make "good decisions", look at the politicians being elected everywhere, look at populat shows on TV and so on, the fact that someone is 6, 12, 18 or 60 years old doesn't mean anything about their ability to make rational decisions, only the probability of that.
the article is so full of shit, lots of those subreddits don't even have pictures.
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Simply 100% false. Unless you call pickup artists rapists? I read that subreddit sometimes and it's basically the same as the "PUA Community" thread here on TL. Tips on how to pickup chicks, if that's teaching men how to rape women ?!
i never visit reddit, dont understand the page but things like jailbait / pedo etc, if that is on that side its retarded and people defending it should get a reality check
shitredditsays is the one beacon of reason to be found on reddit. i dont mind that its over the top, thats the point. it both draws attention to and rejects reddits prevalent sexism and xenophobia while at the same time taking the circlejerk mentality to its extreme, in essence showing other reddit users what they look like to outsiders. awesome. i hope they wreck the whole fucking thing
On September 18 2012 21:39 Dundron2000 wrote: shitredditsays is the one beacon of reason to be found on reddit. i dont mind that its over the top, thats the point. it both draws attention to and rejects reddits prevalent sexism and xenophobia while at the same time taking the circlejerk mentality to its extreme, in essence showing other reddit users what they look like to outsiders. awesome. i hope they wreck the whole fucking thing
SRS are not showing what other redditors look like to outsiders, they're showing how they don't understand the meaning of irony.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
Absolutely agree. I want to make sure people understand that liking "jailbait" and having sex with a 15 year old girl are 2 different things. One is biology expressing itself, the other is illegal (in some places obviously), and has the potential to screw up a young life.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
Absolutely agree. I want to make sure people understand that liking "jailbait" and having sex with a 15 year old girl are 2 different things. One is biology expressing itself, the other is illegal (in some places obviously), and has the potential to screw up a young life.
It's biologically normal for any sexually mature individual to have sex and saying that it may screw up her life is a pretty baseless claim. That's unless the girl's boyfriend is thrown in jail for statutory rape, then it's possibly two young lives screwed. The age of consent is set either just above the highest age when normally developing humans reach sexual maturity to avoid using the term "sexually mature" in laws (as it may sound vague for non-specialists) or completely arbitrarily because of some backward morality, possibly of religious origin.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
Absolutely agree. I want to make sure people understand that liking "jailbait" and having sex with a 15 year old girl are 2 different things. One is biology expressing itself, the other is illegal (in some places obviously), and has the potential to screw up a young life.
Illegal where? We need to realize this is also a global forum where the drinking age isn't always 21 and the sexual consent age isn't always 18.
I would arguably agree that having sex with someone at the age of 15 could be detrimental to their mental state (trust issues etc) but as stated time and time again biology expressing itself isn't just in the image, our sexual drive is for that age of 15-17 where fertility is at its purest.
So I guess I just want us to clarify that depending on nationality we paint a very different picture on "right and wrong" and that "right and wrong" is also debatable with respect to the age at which the young women reaches a mature enough age to consent to sex without any possible mental (or phyiscal) harm. I do agree though that having sex with a 15 year old and thinking jailbait is attractive are different things and should not be compared but everything isn't so black and white "this is bad". Some things are though, like CP. <--- In case anyone feels desensitized, this stands for Child Pornography. Just clearing that up for the few TL users who have issues with acronyms.
For instance Canada's age of consent is 16 as is the United States.
Oh also, Japan has an age of consent of 13. It's a first world nation at the top percent of most human health surveys and just general comparisons between nations. This doesn't entirely mean anything but it at least gives something to the fact "jailbait" and CP (note above for what this acronym turns into) are completely different.
While a lot of the original news piece is sensationalist shit, there is a lot of horrible stuff on Reddit and Reddit doesn't seem to give half a fuck most of the time. It's why I skip 99% of the stuff that gets linked to me on Reddit, even if it's news for something I really care about like StarCraft, Reddit kills brain cells.
On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness.
Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.'
Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
Absolutely agree. I want to make sure people understand that liking "jailbait" and having sex with a 15 year old girl are 2 different things. One is biology expressing itself, the other is illegal (in some places obviously), and has the potential to screw up a young life.
Illegal where? We need to realize this is also a global forum where the drinking age isn't always 21 and the sexual consent age isn't always 18.
I would arguably agree that having sex with someone at the age of 15 could be detrimental to their mental state (trust issues etc) but as stated time and time again biology expressing itself isn't just in the image, our sexual drive is for that age of 15-17 where fertility is at its purest.
So I guess I just want us to clarify that depending on nationality we paint a very different picture on "right and wrong" and that "right and wrong" is also debatable with respect to the age at which the young women reaches a mature enough age to consent to sex without any possible mental (or phyiscal) harm. I do agree though that having sex with a 15 year old and thinking jailbait is attractive are different things and should not be compared but everything isn't so black and white "this is bad". Some things are though, like CP. <--- In case anyone feels desensitized, this stands for Child Pornography. Just clearing that up for the few TL users who have issues with acronyms.
For instance Canada's age of consent is 16 as is the United States.
Actually, in the United States it varies between 16 to 18, depending on state.
On September 18 2012 23:51 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Oh also, Japan has an age of consent of 13. It's a first world nation at the top percent of most human health surveys and just general comparisons between nations. This doesn't entirely mean anything but it at least gives something to the fact "jailbait" and CP (note above for what this acronym turns into) are completely different.
Not to mention the fact that Japan has one of the world's lowest rates of sexual assault at 0.014 per 1,000 people, compared to 27.3 per 100,000 people for the United States or 63.5 per 100,000 in Sweden (though the latter is of course slanted upwards by feminist influence over the legal system).
I check out reddit every day for the interesting stuff posted. You can't blame Reddit if you don't like the content shown in a subreddit you subscribed to. If you don't like jailbait, go to /funny and have a laugh or just leave reddit instead of forcing your opinion on everyone.
Also, rereading the OP, this guy/girl sounds like just another religious bigot.
That's kind of the issue with Jailbait as a topic though. The whole point is that it's a technique for internet users to explore a gray area. It's NOT child pornography, it's as close as people can get to CP without anyone authorative being able to clamp down on them (without a large amount of work verifying images that do indeed infringe on legal grounds anyways).
Reddit has weakly made the stance that they are now against the propagation of such material which may or may not be within the realm of legality. I think, considering the gravity of the site being a multi-hundreds of millions of participants within, and a very small official moderation team, that alone is an admirable quality.
It's kind of like blaming New York for there being pedophiles there. It's not really the fault of New York for who is allowed to live there or not live there.
An impressive way to attempt to discredit the whole website. It's sort of a reminder that most of us don't really believe in free speech, we like to say, "yeah-- oh, unless it's harming/vulgar/dangerous/offensive/etc."
I wouldn't tolerate some of these postings were I in charge, but that's why I don't own/run an incredibly successful online phenomenon, so good for them for choosing to not step onto the slippery slope.
On September 19 2012 13:38 MountainDewJunkie wrote: An impressive way to attempt to discredit the whole website. It's sort of a reminder that most of us don't really believe in free speech, we like to say, "yeah-- oh, unless it's harming/vulgar/dangerous/offensive/etc."
I wouldn't tolerate some of these postings were I in charge, but that's why I don't own/run an incredibly successful online phenomenon, so good for them for choosing to not step onto the slippery slope.
They stepped into it. They banned /r/jailbait, but they're still wearing spiked shoes. From my perspective, they can't remove child porn from Reddit any more than New York police can remove murder from New York, it's unfair to expect otherwise from them. Their track record in general is already quite admirable from my perspective.
Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
I don't see a point to this thread. OP doesn't seem to realize reddit is a link aggregation site and /r/starcraft is completely different than say /r/spaceclop . This isn't even news, just a post on SRS
On September 19 2012 16:22 Epithet wrote: I don't see a point to this thread. OP doesn't seem to realize reddit is a link aggregation site and /r/starcraft is completely different than say /r/spaceclop . This isn't even news, just a post on SRS
Dude General forum ....usually it has about 3 threads in regards to scientific research about Vaginas on the main page.. I mean ofcause vagina over anything but still hope you get my point
As far as to OP I simply fail dont really understand the issue again (not the fact that people are having an issue but the actual issue), like most of these "touchy feely dont hurt my feelings" subjects now days. like wtf.. i mean really why would i be concerned if some sick perv is jerking over a photo of me in which I'm 5 years old, 15 or 27..
Guess what.. sick c***ts can see you child on the street then pop into a public toilet use their wicked imagination and completly rape your kid.. who you gonna take court then? God?
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Simply 100% false. Unless you call pickup artists rapists? I read that subreddit sometimes and it's basically the same as the "PUA Community" thread here on TL. Tips on how to pickup chicks, if that's teaching men how to rape women ?!
More sensationalist bullshit, what's new.
That thread was closed in part because it was so sleezy no one wanted to moderate it. Not exactly a good example even if your point is still clear.
I agree with many of the posts saying; Hating on Reddit for people posting CP and the likes, is like hating starcraft because it uses the same medium as the CP posters... Hell.. You can even pull it further and say you dont want to take the bus anymore, because some CP people take busses too... Or blaming camera's, because those devilish products film these things...
On September 19 2012 16:16 wozzot wrote: Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
On September 19 2012 16:16 wozzot wrote: Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
WTF, guys? I thought you were better than this
Hey, you are free to get off your moral highground and try to accept the world as it is. I'd address your "criticisms" even though you've failed to give any arguments in defense of your position.
Sex is no big deal, teenagers have sex all around the globe both with other teenagers and with adults. No one cares about "justification" as long as it's legal (either above the age of consent or both parties are underage).
You don't have to justify it, you are free to do anything you want in the privacy of your home.
Some people in the US tend to forget that the things are often done differently in other countries. When someone starts to argue that having sex is harmful for everyone below 18 years (because it's the age of consent in place where they live) showing them that there developed countries where the age of consent is much lower seems to be a good counterargument.
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
There is a specific thread called "What is rape?", discussing it here would be complete off topic.
You don't have to justify posting "borderline illegal" material anyhow, it's borderline for a reason.
People who mix up CP and jailbait and then go on a moral crusade are indeed zealots, no offense, that's simply how it is.
The only mention of the word "slut" was some guy saying "child porn is something far more brutal than teen girls taking slutty pictures of themselves." While I myself won't use the word "slutty" to describe these images, it's still far away from actually calling these teenagers sluts.
Privately owned websites are free to have any sort of moderation policy as long as the content that is illegal in the country where the website hosted and/or registered is removed within a legally specified time after they receive a formal complaint about it.
Well, I think the argument is actually pretty good. Both wanking material and freezed peaches are completely OK, so banning either of them would be pretty ridiculous.
I enjoy /r/asksience, politics, europe, fuuu, adviceanimals and many more. I believe reddit is a good source of entertainment, news, discussions and ideas. I have absolutely no problem with any of their subreddits. If there's subreddits i don't like, i just don't go there.
They forgot to mention /r/trees in the list, lol.
I think they have banned a shitload of subreddits which they deemed to have inappropriate content but seeing as it's a community driven and community content produced website, it's no wonder they'll pop up again.
All this tells me is that Reddit's moderation staff is lazy, freedom of speech isn't the bloody principle that they should be exercising or concerning themselves with if they do take it for granted, any discussion should have guide lines and simple principles established by the parties if it's to have any goal. If you are providing a domain for people to do things on, while the views of the posters do not represent the views of the moderators or staff, they are still responsible to police their own web space for their own interests. This idea that if we uphold freedom of speech then any opinion is valid and untouchable is just bull shit, slander, lying, purposefully offensive, or obscene material all have their proportional consequences and no one is free from that personal responsibility regardless of freedom of speech. Freedom comes with bloody responsibility.
On September 19 2012 19:10 Pika Chu wrote: I enjoy /r/asksience, politics, europe, fuuu, adviceanimals and many more. I believe reddit is a good source of entertainment, news, discussions and ideas. I have absolutely no problem with any of their subreddits. If there's subreddits i don't like, i just don't go there.
They forgot to mention /r/trees in the list, lol.
I think they have banned a shitload of subreddits which they deemed to have inappropriate content but seeing as it's a community driven and community content produced website, it's no wonder they'll pop up again.
it's not about you, it's never just about you. for every 1 that can and does turn away from that kind of shit there are 12 that don't and you're responsable for them too just 'cause you knew better and did nothing about it.
if one of those 12 end up jacking up your soon to be daughter what then?. it'll be your wake up call?. nope, it'll be to late.
but overall, the fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything arround them and still end up fine; them or/and their loved ones.
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
For the record the minimum prefectural age of consent is 16, and is on average 17. There's been a lot of talk about increasing the federal MAOC to 17 by the recently formed PLF party, and it's got support among members of the DPJ.
Back to Reddit and child porn, illegal content and the "Aggregate Website" excuse. It's pathetic. Moot manages to keep illegal content off of 4chan with a team of volunteers and the website has been losing him a large amount of money for 10 years. Reddit has like what, 40-50 paid staff and makes a good amount of money off of adds? It's inexcusable, and that "Aggregate Website" crap is semantics and you know it.
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
For the record the minimum prefectural age of consent is 16, and is on average 17. There's been a lot of talk about increasing the federal MAOC to 17 by the recently formed PLF party, and it's got support among members of the DPJ.
Back to Reddit and child porn, illegal content and the "Aggregate Website" excuse. It's pathetic. Moot manages to keep illegal content off of 4chan with a team of volunteers and the website has been losing him a large amount of money for 10 years. Reddit has like what, 40-50 paid staff and makes a good amount of money off of adds? It's inexcusable, and that "Aggregate Website" crap is semantics and you know it.
Do you see any actual child porn or otherwise illegal content in the opening post of this thread or on reddit.com itself? Because if you don't, you just made a giant straw man, ignoring the discussion and contributing nothing to the thread derailing it instead.
Also, there are reasons for which you might want to consider limiting freedom of speech, for example the perpetuation and propagation of misinformation and lies and thus manipulation of people for personal gain (effective limitation of people's freedom of self-determination) such as some media outlets and politicians as well as the original poster of this thread are guilty of, which are more worthwhile targets of opposition by an order of magnitude. That, at least, wouldn't be based purely on some people's desire to impose their views on others because they have nothing better to do than to act offended all day in an effort to find some emotional satisfaction and purpose in their lives.
A person's fragile emotional state should not be solid enough ground to force other people into compliance with what that person's perception of a perfect world looks like. An emotional response is not reason. An emotional response is no rational argument. Reflex is not deliberation, and good will alone is not enough to be doing actual good and justify every means.
On September 19 2012 19:10 Pika Chu wrote: I enjoy /r/asksience, politics, europe, fuuu, adviceanimals and many more. I believe reddit is a good source of entertainment, news, discussions and ideas. I have absolutely no problem with any of their subreddits. If there's subreddits i don't like, i just don't go there.
They forgot to mention /r/trees in the list, lol.
I think they have banned a shitload of subreddits which they deemed to have inappropriate content but seeing as it's a community driven and community content produced website, it's no wonder they'll pop up again.
it's not about you, it's never just about you. for every 1 that can and does turn away from that kind of shit there are 12 that don't and you're responsable for them too just 'cause you knew better and did nothing about it.
if one of those 12 end up jacking up your soon to be daughter what then?. it'll be your wake up call?. nope, it'll be to late.
but overall, the fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything arround them and still end up fine; them or/and their loved ones.
Exactly, it's not about me just like it's not about you or your ethics or points of view.
Chances are someone will be jerking off in their bedroom thinking about your daughter, who's colleague she is. Or jerking off to the pictures she sent to her crush. Or they might rape your daughter even though they didn't see one damn picture of her or other 12 year olds. So what the heck are you trying to achieve by forbidding the showing of pictures? Decrease criminality? Decrease the chance someone will bone your daughter? Because there's a major flaw in your logic if that's the case.
On September 19 2012 16:16 wozzot wrote: Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
WTF, guys? I thought you were better than this
... This is a serious post? I enjoy the term "borderline" illegal content. So it is legal? Rally against the government for allowing such unjust things then, not the companies abiding by the law.
It would take me the better part of 30 minutes to reply to that shitstorm of a post, I'm not going to waste my time and I have Cal in 15 minutes.
Try to allow less ridiculous bias and generalizations like "People are allowing Child Pornography" ... No one has said anything along the lines of allowing CP content on Reddit. But I guess over arching generalizations are the main stay of a bad poster.
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
For the record the minimum prefectural age of consent is 16, and is on average 17. There's been a lot of talk about increasing the federal MAOC to 17 by the recently formed PLF party, and it's got support among members of the DPJ.
Back to Reddit and child porn, illegal content and the "Aggregate Website" excuse. It's pathetic. Moot manages to keep illegal content off of 4chan with a team of volunteers and the website has been losing him a large amount of money for 10 years. Reddit has like what, 40-50 paid staff and makes a good amount of money off of adds? It's inexcusable, and that "Aggregate Website" crap is semantics and you know it.
Can you possibly post any of this "illegal" content that Reddit seems to be allowing? I mean apparently Reddit is a bastion of child porn. The answer will most likely be no, because they do actively close illegal portions of their site because they would get fined if they did not. Unless you can provide data to back your claims, stop making them.
On September 19 2012 19:10 Pika Chu wrote: I enjoy /r/asksience, politics, europe, fuuu, adviceanimals and many more. I believe reddit is a good source of entertainment, news, discussions and ideas. I have absolutely no problem with any of their subreddits. If there's subreddits i don't like, i just don't go there.
They forgot to mention /r/trees in the list, lol.
I think they have banned a shitload of subreddits which they deemed to have inappropriate content but seeing as it's a community driven and community content produced website, it's no wonder they'll pop up again.
it's not about you, it's never just about you. for every 1 that can and does turn away from that kind of shit there are 12 that don't and you're responsable for them too just 'cause you knew better and did nothing about it.
if one of those 12 end up jacking up your soon to be daughter what then?. it'll be your wake up call?. nope, it'll be to late.
but overall, the fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything arround them and still end up fine; them or/and their loved ones.
What does this post even mean? You try to drag away any personalization by saying "it's not about you" and then add "what if it was you!". For every one there is twelve? Another random generalization by someone talking about something he knows nothing about?
The fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything around them and still end up spouting total bullshit.
Reddit does not endorse CP, it does not allow CP and closes it whenever it is brought up or found, why is this even a debate? There is nothing "illegal" on Reddit that I've ever seen, nor has anyone ever presented. Provide proof or gtfo with your rash claims of the devil at work.
Again if you can provide proof that CP or illegal content is on Reddit then please provide said proof. Tired of hearing wolf and finding nothing.
On September 19 2012 16:16 wozzot wrote: Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
WTF, guys? I thought you were better than this
... This is a serious post? I enjoy the term "borderline" illegal content. So it is legal? Rally against the government for allowing such unjust things then, not the companies abiding by the law.
It would take me the better part of 30 minutes to reply to that shitstorm of a post, I'm not going to waste my time and I have Cal in 15 minutes.
Try to allow less ridiculous bias and generalizations like "People are allowing Child Pornography" ... No one has said anything along the lines of allowing CP content on Reddit. But I guess over arching generalizations are the main stay of a bad poster.
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
For the record the minimum prefectural age of consent is 16, and is on average 17. There's been a lot of talk about increasing the federal MAOC to 17 by the recently formed PLF party, and it's got support among members of the DPJ.
Back to Reddit and child porn, illegal content and the "Aggregate Website" excuse. It's pathetic. Moot manages to keep illegal content off of 4chan with a team of volunteers and the website has been losing him a large amount of money for 10 years. Reddit has like what, 40-50 paid staff and makes a good amount of money off of adds? It's inexcusable, and that "Aggregate Website" crap is semantics and you know it.
Can you possibly post any of this "illegal" content that Reddit seems to be allowing? I mean apparently Reddit is a bastion of child porn. The answer will most likely be no, because they do actively close illegal portions of their site because they would get fined if they did not. Unless you can provide data to back your claims, stop making them.
On September 19 2012 19:10 Pika Chu wrote: I enjoy /r/asksience, politics, europe, fuuu, adviceanimals and many more. I believe reddit is a good source of entertainment, news, discussions and ideas. I have absolutely no problem with any of their subreddits. If there's subreddits i don't like, i just don't go there.
They forgot to mention /r/trees in the list, lol.
I think they have banned a shitload of subreddits which they deemed to have inappropriate content but seeing as it's a community driven and community content produced website, it's no wonder they'll pop up again.
it's not about you, it's never just about you. for every 1 that can and does turn away from that kind of shit there are 12 that don't and you're responsable for them too just 'cause you knew better and did nothing about it.
if one of those 12 end up jacking up your soon to be daughter what then?. it'll be your wake up call?. nope, it'll be to late.
but overall, the fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything arround them and still end up fine; them or/and their loved ones.
What does this post even mean? You try to drag away any personalization by saying "it's not about you" and then add "what if it was you!". For every one there is twelve? Another random generalization by someone talking about something he knows nothing about?
The fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything around them and still end up spouting total bullshit.
Reddit does not endorse CP, it does not allow CP and closes it whenever it is brought up or found, why is this even a debate? There is nothing "illegal" on Reddit that I've ever seen, nor has anyone ever presented. Provide proof or gtfo with your rash claims of the devil at work.
Again if you can provide proof that CP or illegal content is on Reddit then please provide said proof. Tired of hearing wolf and finding nothing.
I hope my mother never hears about this controversy. She is still frightened about my playing online games, what with all the predators around. If she discovers that I visit reddit, the internet's bastion of child porn, she might have to take drastic measures. :o
On September 19 2012 16:16 wozzot wrote: Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
WTF, guys? I thought you were better than this
... This is a serious post? I enjoy the term "borderline" illegal content. So it is legal? Rally against the government for allowing such unjust things then, not the companies abiding by the law.
It would take me the better part of 30 minutes to reply to that shitstorm of a post, I'm not going to waste my time and I have Cal in 15 minutes.
Try to allow less ridiculous bias and generalizations like "People are allowing Child Pornography" ... No one has said anything along the lines of allowing CP content on Reddit. But I guess over arching generalizations are the main stay of a bad poster.
On September 19 2012 19:35 Kaal wrote:
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
For the record the minimum prefectural age of consent is 16, and is on average 17. There's been a lot of talk about increasing the federal MAOC to 17 by the recently formed PLF party, and it's got support among members of the DPJ.
Back to Reddit and child porn, illegal content and the "Aggregate Website" excuse. It's pathetic. Moot manages to keep illegal content off of 4chan with a team of volunteers and the website has been losing him a large amount of money for 10 years. Reddit has like what, 40-50 paid staff and makes a good amount of money off of adds? It's inexcusable, and that "Aggregate Website" crap is semantics and you know it.
Can you possibly post any of this "illegal" content that Reddit seems to be allowing? I mean apparently Reddit is a bastion of child porn. The answer will most likely be no, because they do actively close illegal portions of their site because they would get fined if they did not. Unless you can provide data to back your claims, stop making them.
On September 19 2012 19:35 xM(Z wrote:
On September 19 2012 19:10 Pika Chu wrote: I enjoy /r/asksience, politics, europe, fuuu, adviceanimals and many more. I believe reddit is a good source of entertainment, news, discussions and ideas. I have absolutely no problem with any of their subreddits. If there's subreddits i don't like, i just don't go there.
They forgot to mention /r/trees in the list, lol.
I think they have banned a shitload of subreddits which they deemed to have inappropriate content but seeing as it's a community driven and community content produced website, it's no wonder they'll pop up again.
it's not about you, it's never just about you. for every 1 that can and does turn away from that kind of shit there are 12 that don't and you're responsable for them too just 'cause you knew better and did nothing about it.
if one of those 12 end up jacking up your soon to be daughter what then?. it'll be your wake up call?. nope, it'll be to late.
but overall, the fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything arround them and still end up fine; them or/and their loved ones.
What does this post even mean? You try to drag away any personalization by saying "it's not about you" and then add "what if it was you!". For every one there is twelve? Another random generalization by someone talking about something he knows nothing about?
The fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything around them and still end up spouting total bullshit.
Reddit does not endorse CP, it does not allow CP and closes it whenever it is brought up or found, why is this even a debate? There is nothing "illegal" on Reddit that I've ever seen, nor has anyone ever presented. Provide proof or gtfo with your rash claims of the devil at work.
Again if you can provide proof that CP or illegal content is on Reddit then please provide said proof. Tired of hearing wolf and finding nothing.
I hope my mother never hears about this controversy. She is still frightened about my playing online games, what with all the predators around. If she discovers that I visit reddit, the internet's bastion of child porn, she might have to take drastic measures. :o
I can't imagine what parents think of professional gaming with all of the CNN smear articles. They must just think of the internet like this
On September 19 2012 19:24 Caihead wrote: All this tells me is that Reddit's moderation staff is lazy, freedom of speech isn't the bloody principle that they should be exercising or concerning themselves with if they do take it for granted, any discussion should have guide lines and simple principles established by the parties if it's to have any goal. If you are providing a domain for people to do things on, while the views of the posters do not represent the views of the moderators or staff, they are still responsible to police their own web space for their own interests. This idea that if we uphold freedom of speech then any opinion is valid and untouchable is just bull shit, slander, lying, purposefully offensive, or obscene material all have their proportional consequences and no one is free from that personal responsibility regardless of freedom of speech. Freedom comes with bloody responsibility.
Have you ever been on Reddit? Right on the sidebar there is a giant list for each subreddit which outlines whats ok and whats not ok to talk about as well as how to use the site. Moderation being lazy? I wouldn't say so its a very high population site. TL staff does a terrific job with monitoring, because TL isn't nearly as large as Reddit.
Its a site run by popular demand so if people want something enough it will eventually pop back up. They can't do a temp ban and expect the person to not back another account.
On September 19 2012 19:10 Pika Chu wrote: I enjoy /r/asksience, politics, europe, fuuu, adviceanimals and many more. I believe reddit is a good source of entertainment, news, discussions and ideas. I have absolutely no problem with any of their subreddits. If there's subreddits i don't like, i just don't go there.
They forgot to mention /r/trees in the list, lol.
I think they have banned a shitload of subreddits which they deemed to have inappropriate content but seeing as it's a community driven and community content produced website, it's no wonder they'll pop up again.
it's not about you, it's never just about you. for every 1 that can and does turn away from that kind of shit there are 12 that don't and you're responsable for them too just 'cause you knew better and did nothing about it.
if one of those 12 end up jacking up your soon to be daughter what then?. it'll be your wake up call?. nope, it'll be to late.
but overall, the fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything arround them and still end up fine; them or/and their loved ones.
Exactly, it's not about me just like it's not about you or your ethics or points of view.
Chances are someone will be jerking off in their bedroom thinking about your daughter, who's colleague she is. Or jerking off to the pictures she sent to her crush. Or they might rape your daughter even though they didn't see one damn picture of her or other 12 year olds. So what the heck are you trying to achieve by forbidding the showing of pictures? Decrease criminality? Decrease the chance someone will bone your daughter? Because there's a major flaw in your logic if that's the case.
nope, all you do, all you need to do, is delay the time it takes for the highly impressionable peanut brains out there to get in contact with this shit. in that time they'll eventually outgrown it. and don't even get me started about the 'social' aspect of this. kids, yea kids, grow up with this shit and look at it as a joke. they get encouraged by their entourage, they get acceptance from their 'e-social circle' and they don't even know it's bad .
you can look at it as an evolutionary thing. in life, the sooner you get exposed to shit (good or bad), the further you'll take it and consequently (in this case) the worse everyone will get. talking about numbers only, the amount of people looking at 12yr old pics or jerking off to them will be, in the future, x*times higher and then it won't be a case of chance for your daughter to be jacked up, it'll be a sure thing.
im not fond of reddit in general (and least of all ShitRedditSays, for that matter. worst subreddit i've ever been to), but making a big stink out of this and blaming reddit is like getting mad at a country because there are criminals residing in it. i mean what can you do? not everyone abides by the same moral high horse that CNN and other news sites are on, and it's pathetic that they make this into a thing. who are they to tell reddit how to run their website?
I might be wrong but arent there discussion wherever jailbait is the same as child porn ? I mean I thought jailbait was actually 18+ dressed like teens, so I dunno only forums I see there are gw2 and d3 ...
On September 19 2012 16:16 wozzot wrote: Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
WTF, guys? I thought you were better than this
Hey, you are free to get off your moral highground and try to accept the world as it is. I'd address your "criticisms" even though you've failed to give any arguments in defense of your position.
Sex is no big deal, teenagers have sex all around the globe both with other teenagers and with adults. No one cares about "justification" as long as it's legal (either above the age of consent or both parties are underage).
You don't have to justify it, you are free to do anything you want in the privacy of your home.
Some people in the US tend to forget that the things are often done differently in other countries. When someone starts to argue that having sex is harmful for everyone below 18 years (because it's the age of consent in place where they live) showing them that there developed countries where the age of consent is much lower seems to be a good counterargument.
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
There is a specific thread called "What is rape?", discussing it here would be complete off topic.
You don't have to justify posting "borderline illegal" material anyhow, it's borderline for a reason.
People who mix up CP and jailbait and then go on a moral crusade are indeed zealots, no offense, that's simply how it is.
The only mention of the word "slut" was some guy saying "child porn is something far more brutal than teen girls taking slutty pictures of themselves." While I myself won't use the word "slutty" to describe these images, it's still far away from actually calling these teenagers sluts.
Privately owned websites are free to have any sort of moderation policy as long as the content that is illegal in the country where the website hosted and/or registered is removed within a legally specified time after they receive a formal complaint about it.
Well, I think the argument is actually pretty good. Both wanking material and freezed peaches are completely OK, so banning either of them would be pretty ridiculous.
You didn't argue anything he said merely talked about it in a different light. Everything he said is clearly true and that was all his point was. I sincerely hope there isn't anyone whom actually believes humanity is okay the way it is. If you have seen this and believe Reddit is not providing a place for delinquents to validate their infringement on others rights then I consider you not only intellectually beneath me but also a contribution to the continued resistance for equality of rights to all humankind.
Im absolutely shocked and disgusted to see most of those CP defending arguments.
You can even pull it further and say you dont want to take the bus anymore, because some CP people take busses too...
How are busses actualy helping CP-people like giving them a space to support each other, share their stuff, exchange tips and howtos???
who are they to tell reddit how to run their website?
We as users, citizens, witnesses can not stand beside and watch how ppl systematicaly violate other ppls rights without making ourselves complices. I refuse to be one and am disgusted of the portion of TL-users actualy kicking human rights / dignity with their feet. Ur freedom has to end where u violate the freedom / rights of others. I really thought better of this community!
who are they to tell reddit how to run their website?
We as users, citizens, witnesses can not stand beside and watch how ppl systematicaly violate other ppls rights without making ourselves complices. I refuse to be one and am disgusted of the portion of TL-users actualy kicking human rights / dignity with their feet. Ur freedom has to end where u violate the freedom / rights of others. I really thought better of this community!
i personally dont see the big deal here. these pictures arent something you couldnt find on a typical teenager's facebook. correct?
On September 19 2012 16:16 wozzot wrote: Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
WTF, guys? I thought you were better than this
Hey, you are free to get off your moral highground and try to accept the world as it is. I'd address your "criticisms" even though you've failed to give any arguments in defense of your position.
Sex is no big deal, teenagers have sex all around the globe both with other teenagers and with adults. No one cares about "justification" as long as it's legal (either above the age of consent or both parties are underage).
You don't have to justify it, you are free to do anything you want in the privacy of your home.
Some people in the US tend to forget that the things are often done differently in other countries. When someone starts to argue that having sex is harmful for everyone below 18 years (because it's the age of consent in place where they live) showing them that there developed countries where the age of consent is much lower seems to be a good counterargument.
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
There is a specific thread called "What is rape?", discussing it here would be complete off topic.
You don't have to justify posting "borderline illegal" material anyhow, it's borderline for a reason.
People who mix up CP and jailbait and then go on a moral crusade are indeed zealots, no offense, that's simply how it is.
The only mention of the word "slut" was some guy saying "child porn is something far more brutal than teen girls taking slutty pictures of themselves." While I myself won't use the word "slutty" to describe these images, it's still far away from actually calling these teenagers sluts.
Privately owned websites are free to have any sort of moderation policy as long as the content that is illegal in the country where the website hosted and/or registered is removed within a legally specified time after they receive a formal complaint about it.
Well, I think the argument is actually pretty good. Both wanking material and freezed peaches are completely OK, so banning either of them would be pretty ridiculous.
You didn't argue anything he said merely talked about it in a different light. Everything he said is clearly true and that was all his point was. I sincerely hope there isn't anyone whom actually believes humanity is okay the way it is. If you have seen this and believe Reddit is not providing a place for delinquents to validate their infringement on others rights then I consider you not only intellectually beneath me but also a contribution to the continued resistance for equality of rights to all humankind.
I decided to venture into your link hoping for the first bit of evidence as to Reddit having illegal content on it What I saw? Mainly bondage videos with couples who are consenting. Do I think it is disgusting? Absolutely. Is it illegal? Absolutely not. It isn't Reddit's job to police lawful acts so your point is not only out of context in a thread regarding CP but also with regards to trying to defame Reddit.
Mod edit: image removed
This was the most disturbing image I found through that link that made me shudder and yet it is not illegal for people to exploit these images. Is it wrong? Surely, but we aren't having an ethical debate and Reddit isn't Socrates or Plato. Reddit's job is to maintain a medium for information, ban any illegal information and try to shut down abuse of the system. It's job is NOT to stop lawful acts and that is what we're debating.
So if you want this to change, lobby your representative and have them pass laws with regards to mutilated bodies or things of that nature but don't get mad at Reddit for abiding by the law.
On September 20 2012 02:14 Jabbo wrote: Im absolutely shocked and disgusted to see most of those CP defending arguments.
who are they to tell reddit how to run their website?
We as users, citizens, witnesses can not stand beside and watch how ppl systematicaly violate other ppls rights without making ourselves complices. I refuse to be one and am disgusted of the portion of TL-users actualy kicking human rights / dignity with their feet. Ur freedom has to end where u violate the freedom / rights of others. I really thought better of this community!
I completely agree with you, you as a citizen and a user should lobby a representative and make it illegal. Freedom does end when you violate the freedom of others, explain to me how that is occurring? And if it IS occurring then I can't see why it would be hard to ram through the legal system, or is that to difficult for you to do and you'd rather point at Reddit and say "bad reddit bad".
EDIT: Sorry about the image, I didn't know there was a big difference between linking images, and then linking a portal to see those images but apparently one is warnable and the other isn't... In the future I'll keep it in mind T.T
On September 19 2012 19:10 Pika Chu wrote: I enjoy /r/asksience, politics, europe, fuuu, adviceanimals and many more. I believe reddit is a good source of entertainment, news, discussions and ideas. I have absolutely no problem with any of their subreddits. If there's subreddits i don't like, i just don't go there.
They forgot to mention /r/trees in the list, lol.
I think they have banned a shitload of subreddits which they deemed to have inappropriate content but seeing as it's a community driven and community content produced website, it's no wonder they'll pop up again.
it's not about you, it's never just about you. for every 1 that can and does turn away from that kind of shit there are 12 that don't and you're responsable for them too just 'cause you knew better and did nothing about it.
if one of those 12 end up jacking up your soon to be daughter what then?. it'll be your wake up call?. nope, it'll be to late.
but overall, the fuck is wrong with all of these people thinking they can live in their own buble, not give a shit about anything arround them and still end up fine; them or/and their loved ones.
Exactly, it's not about me just like it's not about you or your ethics or points of view.
Chances are someone will be jerking off in their bedroom thinking about your daughter, who's colleague she is. Or jerking off to the pictures she sent to her crush. Or they might rape your daughter even though they didn't see one damn picture of her or other 12 year olds. So what the heck are you trying to achieve by forbidding the showing of pictures? Decrease criminality? Decrease the chance someone will bone your daughter? Because there's a major flaw in your logic if that's the case.
nope, all you do, all you need to do, is delay the time it takes for the highly impressionable peanut brains out there to get in contact with this shit. in that time they'll eventually outgrown it. and don't even get me started about the 'social' aspect of this. kids, yea kids, grow up with this shit and look at it as a joke. they get encouraged by their entourage, they get acceptance from their 'e-social circle' and they don't even know it's bad .
you can look at it as an evolutionary thing. in life, the sooner you get exposed to shit (good or bad), the further you'll take it and consequently (in this case) the worse everyone will get. talking about numbers only, the amount of people looking at 12yr old pics or jerking off to them will be, in the future, x*times higher and then it won't be a case of chance for your daughter to be jacked up, it'll be a sure thing.
What is this theory based on because i think it's totally wrong.
We're being exposed (ever since we go on the internet) to the most horrible stuff ever, snuffs, real death clips, killings, rapes and what not. The apparition of the internet should've grown the criminality rate at least 10 times if your theory would've been true.
This argument is the same argument that people who keep weed illegal, for example, cite almost always. "If we let people smoke weed they will develop into hardcore heroine users, because evolution!".
Beside, let's just think of the many rape videos (the fake rapes) out there. We know rape is the most fantasized sexual encounter, did the apparition of such videos increase the number of rapes? I doubt it. People will just watch it, fap to it and then get back to their business. Just as those viewing jailbait (and keep in mind that's not CP) will just fap to it and move on.
On September 19 2012 16:16 wozzot wrote: Aaaaaaaaand people in this thread continue to be weirdos. In the past two pages alone, you've got posters:
Citing biotruths to justify boning teenagers (Apparently, menstruating automatically makes someone emotionally mature enough to consent to having sex with adults)
Citing biotruths to justify jerking off to pics of teenagers ripped from the Internet
Engaging in heaps of creepy sperging over ages of consent
Throwing out the factually incorrect JAPAN LETS PEOPLE SCREW 13 YEAR OLDS IT'S OKAY argument
Some tangential "PUA ain't rapists" bullshit (whats last minute resistance lol)
Using the classic "Just ignore people openly posting disgusting things online if you don't like it" argument to justify the posting of borderline illegal material on the Internet
Accusing people who oppose the posting of CP of being of moralistic religious zealots
Calling teenagers who get posted on jailbait subreddits sluts
Asserting that a privately owned website is either somehow not allowed or able to moderate borderline illegal content (you know, because 4chan can't, either)
Equating banning the posting of wank material to restricting freezed peaches
WTF, guys? I thought you were better than this
Hey, you are free to get off your moral highground and try to accept the world as it is. I'd address your "criticisms" even though you've failed to give any arguments in defense of your position.
Sex is no big deal, teenagers have sex all around the globe both with other teenagers and with adults. No one cares about "justification" as long as it's legal (either above the age of consent or both parties are underage).
You don't have to justify it, you are free to do anything you want in the privacy of your home.
Some people in the US tend to forget that the things are often done differently in other countries. When someone starts to argue that having sex is harmful for everyone below 18 years (because it's the age of consent in place where they live) showing them that there developed countries where the age of consent is much lower seems to be a good counterargument.
In Japan indeed the age of consent is different in different prefectures, only the minimum is 13. But then there is Spain for example, where it's 13 in the whole country and there are a lot of countries where it's 14.
There is a specific thread called "What is rape?", discussing it here would be complete off topic.
You don't have to justify posting "borderline illegal" material anyhow, it's borderline for a reason.
People who mix up CP and jailbait and then go on a moral crusade are indeed zealots, no offense, that's simply how it is.
The only mention of the word "slut" was some guy saying "child porn is something far more brutal than teen girls taking slutty pictures of themselves." While I myself won't use the word "slutty" to describe these images, it's still far away from actually calling these teenagers sluts.
Privately owned websites are free to have any sort of moderation policy as long as the content that is illegal in the country where the website hosted and/or registered is removed within a legally specified time after they receive a formal complaint about it.
Well, I think the argument is actually pretty good. Both wanking material and freezed peaches are completely OK, so banning either of them would be pretty ridiculous.
You didn't argue anything he said merely talked about it in a different light. Everything he said is clearly true and that was all his point was. I sincerely hope there isn't anyone whom actually believes humanity is okay the way it is. If you have seen this and believe Reddit is not providing a place for delinquents to validate their infringement on others rights then I consider you not only intellectually beneath me but also a contribution to the continued resistance for equality of rights to all humankind.
I decided to venture into your link hoping for the first bit of evidence as to Reddit having illegal content on it What I saw? Mainly bondage videos with couples who are consenting. Do I think it is disgusting? Absolutely. Is it illegal? Absolutely not. It isn't Reddit's job to police lawful acts so your point is not only out of context in a thread regarding CP but also with regards to trying to defame Reddit.
Mod edit: image removed
This was the most disturbing image I found through that link that made me shudder and yet it is not illegal for people to exploit these images. Is it wrong? Surely, but we aren't having an ethical debate and Reddit isn't Socrates or Plato. Reddit's job is to maintain a medium for information, ban any illegal information and try to shut down abuse of the system. It's job is NOT to stop lawful acts and that is what we're debating.
So if you want this to change, lobby your representative and have them pass laws with regards to mutilated bodies or things of that nature but don't get mad at Reddit for abiding by the law.
On September 20 2012 02:14 Jabbo wrote: Im absolutely shocked and disgusted to see most of those CP defending arguments.
who are they to tell reddit how to run their website?
We as users, citizens, witnesses can not stand beside and watch how ppl systematicaly violate other ppls rights without making ourselves complices. I refuse to be one and am disgusted of the portion of TL-users actualy kicking human rights / dignity with their feet. Ur freedom has to end where u violate the freedom / rights of others. I really thought better of this community!
I completely agree with you, you as a citizen and a user should lobby a representative and make it illegal. Freedom does end when you violate the freedom of others, explain to me how that is occurring? And if it IS occurring then I can't see why it would be hard to ram through the legal system, or is that to difficult for you to do and you'd rather point at Reddit and say "bad reddit bad".
User was warned for this post
you managed to not address anything i said and also inaccurately tell me what my argument was about. you've also taken it upon yourself to dictate what this thread is discussing. why are you defending the existence of that place? because its legal?
Firstly - yes there are pornographic illegal images of underage women on Reddit. (i didn't ask you how many images were legal or consensual) (you want evidence? you need to get invited to the worst ones by initiation such as posting pictures of your nude young daughter so i cant provide any for you but your ignorant disbelief is shocking in light of Reddit's history) Secondly - Reddit provides a place that people share videos/stories of them raping and hurting women against their will. (these images are not illegal but the acts themselves are. This place allows them to feel validated for their disgusting infringement on the rights of others)
The only thing I hate about reddit is their desire to shed responsibility for their site. I don't think the developers/mods are rapists and child molesters. I just think its despicable to prefer that rapists and child molesters have free reign to advertise their en-devours on your site versus actively trying to remove something that is wrong and disgusting on a fundamental level.
My point comes down to the fact that people like you and the moderators of reddit are actively arguing for the existence of something that degrades people and their rights while propagating rape culture. You seem to be capable of realizing its wrong which is a step in the right direction. Wanting to stop things that are wrong would probably be the next step.
If your self entitled proclamation that this thread is solely about the legality of the issue then the posts i quoted are responsible for my digression.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
No apparently child pornography means teenage girls with their clothes on that people use as pornography. Those sickos.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
No apparently child pornography means teenage girls with their clothes on that people use as pornography. Those sickos.
so your defending people that jerk off to children / minors?
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
No apparently child pornography means teenage girls with their clothes on that people use as pornography. Those sickos.
so your defending people that jerk off to children / minors?
Yeah that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm defending them. People who jerk off to teenagers aren't pedophiles. I also think there is a difference between a child and a minor.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
No apparently child pornography means teenage girls with their clothes on that people use as pornography. Those sickos.
so your defending people that jerk off to children / minors?
Yeah that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm defending them. People who jerk off to teenagers aren't pedophiles. I also think there is a difference between a child and a minor.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
No apparently child pornography means teenage girls with their clothes on that people use as pornography. Those sickos.
so your defending people that jerk off to children / minors?
Yeah that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm defending them. People who jerk off to teenagers aren't pedophiles. I also think there is a difference between a child and a minor.
As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty varies). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
your actually doing it right now. stop digressing. why do you hate a group of people pointing out archaic views of women and social minorities more than pictures of naked children.
I'm not too sure the owners of the website are able to monitor 100% of the content within the subreddits. It's up to the users to report this misconduct, but in all honestly, if you aren't spending your time looking for the shit how are you really supposed to find and report it? I guess the alternative is some kind of invasive internet censorship that auto-flags files with a certain digital signature and allows police and feds to track offenders more easily. I'm just not too sure it's worth it. Will this actually reduce the victimization that is associated with this or punish curious teenagers' parents who own their internet connection?
Maybe the fact of the matter is the people who run reddit are happy to have the traffic to their site and not too concerned about the legality of the content. Who knows?
EDIT: It's times like this that I'm happy I get my SC2 community fix from TL.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
your actually doing it right now. stop digressing. why do you hate a group of people pointing out archaic views of women and social minorities more than pictures of naked children.
Reddit doesn't have pictures of naked children. Another strawman. I think he might have been 100% right about you.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
No apparently child pornography means teenage girls with their clothes on that people use as pornography. Those sickos.
so your defending people that jerk off to children / minors?
Yeah that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm defending them. People who jerk off to teenagers aren't pedophiles. I also think there is a difference between a child and a minor.
As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty varies). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.
Now what?
now im glad you read it and understand how at least some of the users on jailbait etc are clearly pedophiles
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
your actually doing it right now. stop digressing. why do you hate a group of people pointing out archaic views of women and social minorities more than pictures of naked children.
Reddit doesn't have pictures of naked children. Another strawman. I think he might have been 100% right about you.
omg seriously?! he said
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate
therefore he hates srs more than naked pictures of children there is no strawman. EDIT a better example:
While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
[quote]
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
your actually doing it right now. stop digressing. why do you hate a group of people pointing out archaic views of women and social minorities more than pictures of naked children.
Reddit doesn't have pictures of naked children. Another strawman. I think he might have been 100% right about you.
While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
I think you use straw men so much you literally can't tell them apart from legitimate arguments any more. I'm simply not going to respond to you until you can form a coherent argument. See you in a few years(decades?).
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
[quote]
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
your actually doing it right now. stop digressing. why do you hate a group of people pointing out archaic views of women and social minorities more than pictures of naked children.
Reddit doesn't have pictures of naked children. Another strawman. I think he might have been 100% right about you.
While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
If I was given the choice between banning srs and banning a jailbait reddit thread, I'd choose srs. And I don't visit either. People who defend it such as yourself seem to be very angry and judgmental individuals.
On September 18 2012 02:01 Parlortricks wrote: Time to contact Reddit's sponsors.
ppftttthahahahahaha I sort of despise reddit I'm not really sorry they're getting some bad publicity for these boards they haven't closed. Would it really inconvenience them so much to just remove these weird boards?
On September 20 2012 12:14 ComaDose wrote: [quote] So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
your actually doing it right now. stop digressing. why do you hate a group of people pointing out archaic views of women and social minorities more than pictures of naked children.
Reddit doesn't have pictures of naked children. Another strawman. I think he might have been 100% right about you.
omg seriously?! he said
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate
therefore he hates srs more than naked pictures of children there is no strawman. EDIT a better example:
While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
If I was given the choice between banning srs and banning a jailbait reddit thread, I'd choose srs. And I don't visit either. People who defend it such as yourself seem to be very angry and judgmental individuals.
wow and you insulted my ability to debate. you:
changed subjects without addressing what I said
used a straw man to attack me personally (ironically because you failed at calling me out on that?)
claimed to know little about the discussion you butted in on that i was having with someone else but still offered your uneducated opinion.
and the other guy just gave up and left after attacking me and never addressed any of my points. but ill refrain from making any broad statements about people who defend pedophiles.
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
your actually doing it right now. stop digressing. why do you hate a group of people pointing out archaic views of women and social minorities more than pictures of naked children.
Reddit doesn't have pictures of naked children. Another strawman. I think he might have been 100% right about you.
omg seriously?! he said
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate
therefore he hates srs more than naked pictures of children there is no strawman. EDIT a better example:
While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
If I was given the choice between banning srs and banning a jailbait reddit thread, I'd choose srs. And I don't visit either. People who defend it such as yourself seem to be very angry and judgmental individuals.
wow and you insulted my ability to debate. you:
changed subjects without addressing what I said
used a straw man to attack me personally (ironically because you failed at calling me out on that?)
claimed to know little about the discussion you butted in on that i was having with someone else but still offered your uneducated opinion.
and the other guy just gave up and left after attacking me and never addressed any of my points. but ill refrain from making any broad statements about people who defend pedophiles.
Do you even know what a straw man is? A personal attack is called ad hominem. Straw man is when you criticize an argument your opponent never even made. You also love the "loaded question" fallacy, for example by saying "oh so you are defending pedophiles?" Or "Oh so you have no problems with pictures of naked children?" Now I really AM insulting your ability to debate, unlike before.
I love how every thread in the general section on TL seems to have at least 5 people bitching at each other about "straw men". People go to community college and suddenly they think they're experts at debating.
On September 20 2012 13:04 GohgamX wrote: Reddit is a great site but I didn't even know those existed.... Reddit why!? XD
Do you think reddit created them? Like one of the founders of reddit said, "you know what we need? A subreddit dedicated to bashing trannies." If you have a problem with a subreddit, then DONT VISIT IT.
Long story short: People on the internet who pretend to be outraged about internet regulation and censorship go ape-shit insane when reddit doesn't excessively censor and regulate their domain.
On September 20 2012 12:25 ComaDose wrote: [quote] Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
Do you always try to argue against things people aren't saying? If so, you should probably know it's a logical fallacy(called a strawman). Try to attack my post again, and this time don't use logical fallacies.
justify your passionate hate. you said you hate everything about srs more than child pornography. i listed what srs is about.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen you reply to anyone without a strawman yet. You did it to my post again.
Let's try a game I used to love back when I was a kid: it's called "Spot the Logical Misargument". Can YOU see the logical misargument in your post?
your actually doing it right now. stop digressing. why do you hate a group of people pointing out archaic views of women and social minorities more than pictures of naked children.
Reddit doesn't have pictures of naked children. Another strawman. I think he might have been 100% right about you.
omg seriously?! he said
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate
therefore he hates srs more than naked pictures of children there is no strawman. EDIT a better example:
While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
If I was given the choice between banning srs and banning a jailbait reddit thread, I'd choose srs. And I don't visit either. People who defend it such as yourself seem to be very angry and judgmental individuals.
wow and you insulted my ability to debate. you:
changed subjects without addressing what I said
used a straw man to attack me personally (ironically because you failed at calling me out on that?)
claimed to know little about the discussion you butted in on that i was having with someone else but still offered your uneducated opinion.
and the other guy just gave up and left after attacking me and never addressed any of my points. but ill refrain from making any broad statements about people who defend pedophiles.
Do you even know what a straw man is? A personal attack is called ad hominem. Straw man is when you criticize an argument your opponent never even made. You also love the "loaded question" fallacy, for example by saying "oh so you are defending pedophiles?" Or "Oh so you have no problems with pictures of naked children?" Now I really AM insulting your ability to debate, unlike before.
okay what do you call attacking srs instead of addressing where i quoted where you were clearly wrong? and what do you call addressing only one of three points i made?
On September 20 2012 13:05 ayaz2810 wrote: I love how every thread in the general section on TL seems to have at least 5 people bitching at each other about "straw men". People go to community college and suddenly they think they're experts at debating.
You're right. This thread seems to have degraded to a mass debate.
What's amazing is that CNN must have actually thought they are changing the world with their journalism. I suppose they've realized that Anderson Cooper doesn't even hold enough weight to clean up reddit. This kind of news seems like it gets people's feathers a bit ruffled and accomplishes nothing.
On September 20 2012 13:04 GohgamX wrote: Reddit is a great site but I didn't even know those existed.... Reddit why!? XD
Do you think reddit created them? Like one of the founders of reddit said, "you know what we need? A subreddit dedicated to bashing trannies." If you have a problem with a subreddit, then DONT VISIT IT.
Long story short: People on the internet who pretend to be outraged about internet regulation and censorship go ape-shit insane when reddit doesn't excessively censor and regulate their domain.
Its more so the fact that something I support can now be criticized and judgement passed because of the impression that Mr. Copper gives people who don't know how the internet is suppose to work. The Why?! was meant more to represent the inner conflict I feel between my love for Reddit and my hate for theses creepers looking at peoples daughters etc.
On September 18 2012 02:01 Parlortricks wrote: Time to contact Reddit's sponsors.
ppftttthahahahahaha I sort of despise reddit I'm not really sorry they're getting some bad publicity for these boards they haven't closed. Would it really inconvenience them so much to just remove these weird boards?
It's obviously not about convenience...
The boards in question walk a fine line between legality and illegality. When CP does pop up, Reddit always removes it. When something questionable comes up, they just don't automatically take it down, and thats what everyone is all hooha about.
Okay, I just visited /r/srs for the first time and what is up with those people? They are all so angry and have so many weird rules, phrases, memes they use. Who are they?
Has anyone watched the CNN clip? "Needless to say, these are not their real names, not even IamAnonymousCoward". Really, Mr. Cooper? Can you simplify it more for me, please? I don't feel patronized enough.
The other clip is pretty spot on, in that that people don't understand how Reddit works. Whoever created a sub-reddit is its owner and can do with it whatever the hell he wants. Reddit is truly a free speech site.
As far as creeps, voyeurs etc. are concerned, I would never go into those forums - you don't seriously think police is ignoring them and letting mass of easy busts go to waste? Hell, some of those might even be started by the FBI, to attract perverts. Like moths to the flame...
On September 20 2012 20:22 Grumbels wrote: Okay, I just visited /r/srs for the first time and what is up with those people? They are all so angry and have so many weird rules, phrases, memes they use. Who are they?
Oh, I figured it out. I discovered this article which said something that I felt before: /r/srs is supposed to be deliberately abusive and mocking towards white males. If they become a target then it can make people think about how minorities are less privileged constantly having to put up with such things.
It sounds like a bad excuse for being hateful to me though.
On September 20 2012 07:30 WarSame wrote: While I do agree that a lot of the subreddits on there are messed up, this one is pretty funny:
A subreddit called "seduction" devoted to teaching men how to rape women
Here is the link for that subreddit. Tell me, is that about rape? Seriously, look at the subreddit and tell me that with a straight face.
On a related note, fuck SRS. While I mildly hope CP subreddits get banned, I'd much prefer SRS get banned. Now THAT is a disgusting subreddit.
So you mildly disagree with abusing children sexually but dildo jokes disgust you? + Show Spoiler +
I'm assuming it must be the dildo jokes because i cant imagine calling out bigotry to be disgusting
Nope, I disagree strongly with abusing children sexually, but only mildly with CP.
And I find them disgusting human beings. Pretty much every aspect of that /r/ is something I hate.
Okay so you only mildly disagree with pictures of naked minors but you hate people pointing out racism sexism and homophobia? EDIT: and so you learn something today ill let you know that child pornography is abusing children sexually.
No apparently child pornography means teenage girls with their clothes on that people use as pornography. Those sickos.
so your defending people that jerk off to children / minors?
Jerking off to children and minors(minors implying 16-17 with regards to jailbait) are two completely different things, and pornography and pictures of 16 + year olds (age of consent in most places) are not equatable.
I have trouble understanding why you might find that so hard to understand.
Reddit is big, very big. So yes there are some weird subreddits here and there. But posting pictures of teenagers (with clothes!) is not pornography. If you jerk off to it, well, it s weird, but it's not illegal.
Reddit also have a lot of regular users, and a lot of interesting content. It s like someone else said here before me, you could say "i m against using the internet because there is child porn on it".
On September 20 2012 21:39 WGT-Baal wrote: Reddit is big, very big. So yes there are some weird subreddits here and there. But posting pictures of teenagers (with clothes!) is not pornography. If you jerk off to it, well, it s weird, but it's not illegal.
Reddit also have a lot of regular users, and a lot of interesting content. It s like someone else said here before me, you could say "i m against using the internet because there is child porn on it".
It's illegal in the United States to possess photos of young teenagers in sexually suggestive positions even with clothes, and if you get charged with violating child pornography laws, jacking off to clothed teens is going to be pretty damning evidence.
On September 20 2012 13:05 ayaz2810 wrote: I love how every thread in the general section on TL seems to have at least 5 people bitching at each other about "straw men". People go to community college and suddenly they think they're experts at debating.
You're right. This thread seems to have degraded to a mass debate.
What's amazing is that CNN must have actually thought they are changing the world with their journalism. I suppose they've realized that Anderson Cooper doesn't even hold enough weight to clean up reddit. This kind of news seems like it gets people's feathers a bit ruffled and accomplishes nothing.
Mostly it will result in overly protective parents to ban Reddit from sites allowed on. I hardly see an FBI investigation of Reddit, i mean if 4chan is still up Reddit is pretty damn safe.
The president visited the site and did an AMA is Anderson Cooper now going to say "Well it looks like Obama supports a CP site"
On September 18 2012 01:51 KwarK wrote: It's a broad means of communication between people and some people are bad. Saying I don't like using the sc2 reddit because of jailbait reddits is like saying I don't like playing computer games online because the internet has child porn on it. They're not endorsing it or encouraging it, the people who are posting about it do that. Go after the people, not the medium. It's probably helpful that they're all posting about it online anyway given the difficulty of staying anonymous on the internet these days.
You don't think the admins have a responsibility to maintain order? In much the same way TL maintains order here? I guess you could say that TL maintains "order" moreso to keep posts of higher quality whereas Reddit doesn't necessarily care. But I was just curious, how far that could be taken.
That is an interesting point though. Your last two sentences. I didn't think about that before.
On September 20 2012 20:22 Grumbels wrote: Okay, I just visited /r/srs for the first time and what is up with those people? They are all so angry and have so many weird rules, phrases, memes they use. Who are they?
Oh, I figured it out. I discovered this article which said something that I felt before: /r/srs is supposed to be deliberately abusive and mocking towards white males. If they become a target then it can make people think about how minorities are less privileged constantly having to put up with such things.
It sounds like a bad excuse for being hateful to me though.
I understand where you are coming from. The posters in SRS certainly have their collection of "inside jokes" including slang and memes such as "freezed peaches"(slang for free speech which many people hide behind as justification for their bigotry) semen robbing turkey basters, and dildos which is a satire on the weapon one would assume an extreme feminist would wield. Its VERY VERY satirical(very very very) and not targeted towards recruiting or appeasing anyone. hell its called shit reddit says its obviously not trying to get reddit to like it.
Navigating to it now with no context would probably look like a lot of angry women hating white males. The comments are mostly their own brand of dildo wielding vagina laser shooting humor. But you only need to read the front page to understand what its actually about. + Show Spoiler +
(Picture of a black child in a cage) "Gotta get them used to being behind bars when they're young." [+73]
"there is nothing wrong with rape jokes." [+7]
"I work in an arcade. Please tell me when the machines don't work rather than kicking the machine. These are expensive pieces of equipment, you can't hit it to make it do what you want, these aren't your spouses."[+156]
"Also people who use Samsungs have bigger dicks and people who use iPhones love to have black dicks in their butts." [406]
"Kudos to France for telling these quran muttering shitheads to piss off, enough is enough!" (+326)
Father has sex with daughter: "[...] it's not like there was any sick childhood brainwashing going on. I went into this article thinking I would feel very sorry for her, but i just didn't. It's really hard for me to see her as a victim when she apparently consented to it all." [+466]
"Oprah is not a philanthropist. She just does it for publicity."[+380]
That's obviously cherry picked to prove my point but its true that as i write this those are all the title of threads on the front page. We can see they only target upvoted bigots. Not even downvoted bigots. It would be difficult to go into a thread in r/gaming titled something like "all women are attention whores" and argue against it without being lynched. SRS is a safe place for like minded people to make jokes about bashing the author of that thread to death with their dildos. Its not so much an excuse for being hateful. Its more a place to rage in a satirical manner which would put the comment into perspective (if the poster ever read it)
But its not just about womens rights. Its not an extremist feminist movement (although that's one of the funniest jokes). Its just as much about racism and LGBT rights as it is about womens rights. I have never posted there but I sure did learn and laugh a lot reading through it every day. I laugh A LOT.
In a place where people think there is nothing wrong with taking upskirt down blouse pictures of strangers in highschools and putting them on the internet (which actually made friends of mine so scared they never wore a skirt to school again (obviously infringing on peoples rights)) a certain niche of satirical people would like to joke about how the perps penis is more important than feeling safe in your school and how strait white males are more oppressed than everyone else.
But its definitely not for everybody even well educated feminists could find it abrasive. But they don't give a fuck what you think and if you disagree then stay out or get benned by a big picture of a bunch of dildos spelling it out. They are under constant attack and they're constantly viewed under shade. They are not the face of feminism nor the poster for equal rights. They are reddit users with crude humour who hate on people whoes archaic opinions are upvoted a lot. And I personally find the majority of them hillarious.
On September 20 2012 20:22 Grumbels wrote: Okay, I just visited /r/srs for the first time and what is up with those people? They are all so angry and have so many weird rules, phrases, memes they use. Who are they?
Oh, I figured it out. I discovered this article which said something that I felt before: /r/srs is supposed to be deliberately abusive and mocking towards white males. If they become a target then it can make people think about how minorities are less privileged constantly having to put up with such things.
It sounds like a bad excuse for being hateful to me though.
I understand where you are coming from. The posters in SRS certainly have their collection of "inside jokes" including slang and memes such as "freezed peaches"(slang for free speech which many people hide behind as justification for their bigotry) semen robbing turkey basters, and dildos which is a satire on the weapon one would assume an extreme feminist would wield. Its VERY VERY satirical(very very very) and not targeted towards recruiting or appeasing anyone. hell its called shit reddit says its obviously not trying to get reddit to like it.
Navigating to it now with no context would probably look like a lot of angry women hating white males. The comments are mostly their own brand of dildo wielding vagina laser shooting humor. But you only need to read the front page to understand what its actually about. + Show Spoiler +
(Picture of a black child in a cage) "Gotta get them used to being behind bars when they're young." [+73]
"there is nothing wrong with rape jokes." [+7]
"I work in an arcade. Please tell me when the machines don't work rather than kicking the machine. These are expensive pieces of equipment, you can't hit it to make it do what you want, these aren't your spouses."[+156]
"Also people who use Samsungs have bigger dicks and people who use iPhones love to have black dicks in their butts." [406]
"Kudos to France for telling these quran muttering shitheads to piss off, enough is enough!" (+326)
Father has sex with daughter: "[...] it's not like there was any sick childhood brainwashing going on. I went into this article thinking I would feel very sorry for her, but i just didn't. It's really hard for me to see her as a victim when she apparently consented to it all." [+466]
"Oprah is not a philanthropist. She just does it for publicity."[+380]
That's obviously cherry picked to prove my point but its true that as i write this those are all the title of threads on the front page. We can see they only target upvoted bigots. Not even downvoted bigots. It would be difficult to go into a thread in r/gaming titled something like "all women are attention whores" and argue against it without being lynched. SRS is a safe place for like minded people to make jokes about bashing the author of that thread to death with their dildos. Its not so much an excuse for being hateful. Its more a place to rage in a satirical manner which would put the comment into perspective (if the poster ever read it)
But its not just about womens rights. Its not an extremist feminist movement (although that's one of the funniest jokes). Its just as much about racism and LGBT rights as it is about womens rights. I have never posted there but I sure did learn and laugh a lot reading through it every day. I laugh A LOT.
In a place where people think there is nothing wrong with taking upskirt down blouse pictures of strangers in highschools and putting them on the internet (which actually made friends of mine so scared they never wore a skirt to school again (obviously infringing on peoples rights)) a certain niche of satirical people would like to joke about how the perps penis is more important than feeling safe in your school and how strait white males are more oppressed than everyone else.
But its definitely not for everybody even well educated feminists could find it abrasive. But they don't give a fuck what you think and if you disagree then stay out or get benned by a big picture of a bunch of dildos spelling it out. They are under constant attack and they're constantly viewed under shade. They are not the face of feminism nor the poster for equal rights. They are reddit users with crude humour who hate on people whoes archaic opinions are upvoted a lot. And I personally find the majority of them hillarious.
Come on, SRS are free to do anything they want and no one would care much about their bigotry and extremist views, as long as freedom of speech exists.
On September 20 2012 20:22 Grumbels wrote: Okay, I just visited /r/srs for the first time and what is up with those people? They are all so angry and have so many weird rules, phrases, memes they use. Who are they?
Oh, I figured it out. I discovered this article which said something that I felt before: /r/srs is supposed to be deliberately abusive and mocking towards white males. If they become a target then it can make people think about how minorities are less privileged constantly having to put up with such things.
It sounds like a bad excuse for being hateful to me though.
I understand where you are coming from. The posters in SRS certainly have their collection of "inside jokes" including slang and memes such as "freezed peaches"(slang for free speech which many people hide behind as justification for their bigotry) semen robbing turkey basters, and dildos which is a satire on the weapon one would assume an extreme feminist would wield. Its VERY VERY satirical(very very very) and not targeted towards recruiting or appeasing anyone. hell its called shit reddit says its obviously not trying to get reddit to like it.
Navigating to it now with no context would probably look like a lot of angry women hating white males. The comments are mostly their own brand of dildo wielding vagina laser shooting humor. But you only need to read the front page to understand what its actually about. + Show Spoiler +
(Picture of a black child in a cage) "Gotta get them used to being behind bars when they're young." [+73]
"there is nothing wrong with rape jokes." [+7]
"I work in an arcade. Please tell me when the machines don't work rather than kicking the machine. These are expensive pieces of equipment, you can't hit it to make it do what you want, these aren't your spouses."[+156]
"Also people who use Samsungs have bigger dicks and people who use iPhones love to have black dicks in their butts." [406]
"Kudos to France for telling these quran muttering shitheads to piss off, enough is enough!" (+326)
Father has sex with daughter: "[...] it's not like there was any sick childhood brainwashing going on. I went into this article thinking I would feel very sorry for her, but i just didn't. It's really hard for me to see her as a victim when she apparently consented to it all." [+466]
"Oprah is not a philanthropist. She just does it for publicity."[+380]
That's obviously cherry picked to prove my point but its true that as i write this those are all the title of threads on the front page. We can see they only target upvoted bigots. Not even downvoted bigots. It would be difficult to go into a thread in r/gaming titled something like "all women are attention whores" and argue against it without being lynched. SRS is a safe place for like minded people to make jokes about bashing the author of that thread to death with their dildos. Its not so much an excuse for being hateful. Its more a place to rage in a satirical manner which would put the comment into perspective (if the poster ever read it)
But its not just about womens rights. Its not an extremist feminist movement (although that's one of the funniest jokes). Its just as much about racism and LGBT rights as it is about womens rights. I have never posted there but I sure did learn and laugh a lot reading through it every day. I laugh A LOT.
In a place where people think there is nothing wrong with taking upskirt down blouse pictures of strangers in highschools and putting them on the internet (which actually made friends of mine so scared they never wore a skirt to school again (obviously infringing on peoples rights)) a certain niche of satirical people would like to joke about how the perps penis is more important than feeling safe in your school and how strait white males are more oppressed than everyone else.
But its definitely not for everybody even well educated feminists could find it abrasive. But they don't give a fuck what you think and if you disagree then stay out or get benned by a big picture of a bunch of dildos spelling it out. They are under constant attack and they're constantly viewed under shade. They are not the face of feminism nor the poster for equal rights. They are reddit users with crude humour who hate on people whoes archaic opinions are upvoted a lot. And I personally find the majority of them hillarious.
Come on, SRS are free to do anything they want and no one would care much about their bigotry and extremist views, as long as freedom of speech exists.
They only appreciate freedom of speech when it suits them. I tried to give them a chance and check out what they were all about. All I saw was rampant hypocrisy and people quoting "Shakesville" as if it was an authoritative academic source.
Edit: I even saw posts from people that used to be SRS regulars talking about how insane it has become.
On September 20 2012 20:22 Grumbels wrote: Okay, I just visited /r/srs for the first time and what is up with those people? They are all so angry and have so many weird rules, phrases, memes they use. Who are they?
Oh, I figured it out. I discovered this article which said something that I felt before: /r/srs is supposed to be deliberately abusive and mocking towards white males. If they become a target then it can make people think about how minorities are less privileged constantly having to put up with such things.
It sounds like a bad excuse for being hateful to me though.
I understand where you are coming from. The posters in SRS certainly have their collection of "inside jokes" including slang and memes such as "freezed peaches"(slang for free speech which many people hide behind as justification for their bigotry) semen robbing turkey basters, and dildos which is a satire on the weapon one would assume an extreme feminist would wield. Its VERY VERY satirical(very very very) and not targeted towards recruiting or appeasing anyone. hell its called shit reddit says its obviously not trying to get reddit to like it.
Navigating to it now with no context would probably look like a lot of angry women hating white males. The comments are mostly their own brand of dildo wielding vagina laser shooting humor. But you only need to read the front page to understand what its actually about. + Show Spoiler +
(Picture of a black child in a cage) "Gotta get them used to being behind bars when they're young." [+73]
"there is nothing wrong with rape jokes." [+7]
"I work in an arcade. Please tell me when the machines don't work rather than kicking the machine. These are expensive pieces of equipment, you can't hit it to make it do what you want, these aren't your spouses."[+156]
"Also people who use Samsungs have bigger dicks and people who use iPhones love to have black dicks in their butts." [406]
"Kudos to France for telling these quran muttering shitheads to piss off, enough is enough!" (+326)
Father has sex with daughter: "[...] it's not like there was any sick childhood brainwashing going on. I went into this article thinking I would feel very sorry for her, but i just didn't. It's really hard for me to see her as a victim when she apparently consented to it all." [+466]
"Oprah is not a philanthropist. She just does it for publicity."[+380]
That's obviously cherry picked to prove my point but its true that as i write this those are all the title of threads on the front page. We can see they only target upvoted bigots. Not even downvoted bigots. It would be difficult to go into a thread in r/gaming titled something like "all women are attention whores" and argue against it without being lynched. SRS is a safe place for like minded people to make jokes about bashing the author of that thread to death with their dildos. Its not so much an excuse for being hateful. Its more a place to rage in a satirical manner which would put the comment into perspective (if the poster ever read it)
But its not just about womens rights. Its not an extremist feminist movement (although that's one of the funniest jokes). Its just as much about racism and LGBT rights as it is about womens rights. I have never posted there but I sure did learn and laugh a lot reading through it every day. I laugh A LOT.
In a place where people think there is nothing wrong with taking upskirt down blouse pictures of strangers in highschools and putting them on the internet (which actually made friends of mine so scared they never wore a skirt to school again (obviously infringing on peoples rights)) a certain niche of satirical people would like to joke about how the perps penis is more important than feeling safe in your school and how strait white males are more oppressed than everyone else.
But its definitely not for everybody even well educated feminists could find it abrasive. But they don't give a fuck what you think and if you disagree then stay out or get benned by a big picture of a bunch of dildos spelling it out. They are under constant attack and they're constantly viewed under shade. They are not the face of feminism nor the poster for equal rights. They are reddit users with crude humour who hate on people whoes archaic opinions are upvoted a lot. And I personally find the majority of them hillarious.
Come on, SRS are free to do anything they want and no one would care much about their bigotry and extremist views, as long as freedom of speech exists.
They only appreciate freedom of speech when it suits them. I tried to give them a chance and check out what they were all about. All I saw was rampant hypocrisy and people quoting "Shakesville" as if it was an authoritative academic source.
Edit: I even saw posts from people that used to be SRS regulars talking about how insane it has become.
Looks like I should have added irony tag to my previous post.
On September 20 2012 20:22 Grumbels wrote: Okay, I just visited /r/srs for the first time and what is up with those people? They are all so angry and have so many weird rules, phrases, memes they use. Who are they?
Oh, I figured it out. I discovered this article which said something that I felt before: /r/srs is supposed to be deliberately abusive and mocking towards white males. If they become a target then it can make people think about how minorities are less privileged constantly having to put up with such things.
It sounds like a bad excuse for being hateful to me though.
I understand where you are coming from. The posters in SRS certainly have their collection of "inside jokes" including slang and memes such as "freezed peaches"(slang for free speech which many people hide behind as justification for their bigotry) semen robbing turkey basters, and dildos which is a satire on the weapon one would assume an extreme feminist would wield. Its VERY VERY satirical(very very very) and not targeted towards recruiting or appeasing anyone. hell its called shit reddit says its obviously not trying to get reddit to like it.
Navigating to it now with no context would probably look like a lot of angry women hating white males. The comments are mostly their own brand of dildo wielding vagina laser shooting humor. But you only need to read the front page to understand what its actually about. + Show Spoiler +
(Picture of a black child in a cage) "Gotta get them used to being behind bars when they're young." [+73]
"there is nothing wrong with rape jokes." [+7]
"I work in an arcade. Please tell me when the machines don't work rather than kicking the machine. These are expensive pieces of equipment, you can't hit it to make it do what you want, these aren't your spouses."[+156]
"Also people who use Samsungs have bigger dicks and people who use iPhones love to have black dicks in their butts." [406]
"Kudos to France for telling these quran muttering shitheads to piss off, enough is enough!" (+326)
Father has sex with daughter: "[...] it's not like there was any sick childhood brainwashing going on. I went into this article thinking I would feel very sorry for her, but i just didn't. It's really hard for me to see her as a victim when she apparently consented to it all." [+466]
"Oprah is not a philanthropist. She just does it for publicity."[+380]
That's obviously cherry picked to prove my point but its true that as i write this those are all the title of threads on the front page. We can see they only target upvoted bigots. Not even downvoted bigots. It would be difficult to go into a thread in r/gaming titled something like "all women are attention whores" and argue against it without being lynched. SRS is a safe place for like minded people to make jokes about bashing the author of that thread to death with their dildos. Its not so much an excuse for being hateful. Its more a place to rage in a satirical manner which would put the comment into perspective (if the poster ever read it)
But its not just about womens rights. Its not an extremist feminist movement (although that's one of the funniest jokes). Its just as much about racism and LGBT rights as it is about womens rights. I have never posted there but I sure did learn and laugh a lot reading through it every day. I laugh A LOT.
In a place where people think there is nothing wrong with taking upskirt down blouse pictures of strangers in highschools and putting them on the internet (which actually made friends of mine so scared they never wore a skirt to school again (obviously infringing on peoples rights)) a certain niche of satirical people would like to joke about how the perps penis is more important than feeling safe in your school and how strait white males are more oppressed than everyone else.
But its definitely not for everybody even well educated feminists could find it abrasive. But they don't give a fuck what you think and if you disagree then stay out or get benned by a big picture of a bunch of dildos spelling it out. They are under constant attack and they're constantly viewed under shade. They are not the face of feminism nor the poster for equal rights. They are reddit users with crude humour who hate on people whoes archaic opinions are upvoted a lot. And I personally find the majority of them hillarious.
Come on, SRS are free to do anything they want and no one would care much about their bigotry and extremist views, as long as freedom of speech exists.
They only appreciate freedom of speech when it suits them. I tried to give them a chance and check out what they were all about. All I saw was rampant hypocrisy and people quoting "Shakesville" as if it was an authoritative academic source.
Edit: I even saw posts from people that used to be SRS regulars talking about how insane it has become.
Looks like I should have added irony tag to my previous post.
I read your post as being sarcastic. I'm sorry if I misunderstood it. It's been a long night, haha.
On September 20 2012 13:05 ayaz2810 wrote: I love how every thread in the general section on TL seems to have at least 5 people bitching at each other about "straw men". People go to community college and suddenly they think they're experts at debating.
I'm not in philosophy(or anything related remotely). However, that is what the logical fallacy is called. And I'm just not going to respond to people who can't use logically sound arguments. I was hoping it would look up the fallacy, understand what it means, correct it, and come up with a proper argument. Clearly that's not going to happen.
On September 18 2012 02:20 bOneSeven wrote: Any1 with a brain should fight "for" the ability to post child porn in there[...]
What? That's not freedom of speech, that's distributing the product of maybe the sickest and most vile industry on the planet.
Please put more consideration into such extreme statements, I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, since you condemn the producers and consumers.
How do I condemn the producers If I said they should be seriously taken care of ? By posting material, I didn't say "produce" material. If I post a picture of the holocaust does it make me a nazi ? You need to "kill" the producting entity, not the consumer.
I said 1. freedom of speech 2. imprison the guys who BENEFIT from this/hurt children 3. messed up people will be messed up people, unless they don't hurt anyone and don't BUY ( as in SUPPORT THE CHILD PORNOGRPAHY INDUSTRY ) but download for free, let them alone.
You know how this lack of freedom of speech begins right ? We don't like nazis, let's ban nazi symbols. That's still "abusing" power because if you say no to this you can say no to other non-popular things.
One guy flame me and said I should die in fire for advocating freedom of information. You shouldn't ever watch the TV or read a book or stay on the internet. That same guy will fight for the system who basically enslaves him - why ? Well it's profitable, no need for some nefarius conspiracy. Say hello to slavery in 2012 when you look at the private prison industry.
And if solo girls who post themselves videos or picture of themselves nude or doing whatever can be called child pornography... Wow, just wow. That's called stupidity first of all. You know that the sick guy who will watch that is less likely to go and rape a young girl ? Or should we ignore the studies that connected porn with less rape ?
We have kinks in us, and we supress them, thus there is rape and all those weird fetishes.
One more "clishee" "brain-wash" reply with why I am wrong without comming with strong facts and I won't EVER post on anything in TL other than SC2/BW/DOTA2 related.
^ boneseven, that is damn near my philosophy on it.
I mildly disagree with people watching CP, but only really because it helps support the people who MAKE CP. I feel that the people who watch CP are going to get their fix somehow, and if they use CP, like you said, watching porn correlates with a decrease in rape.
What I do have the problem with is the people who make CP. Clearly that's really fucked up.
However, realistically, the only way to really fight the people making CP is by reducing/removing the market it can be bought/sold on.
On September 22 2012 00:10 WarSame wrote: ^ boneseven, that is damn near my philosophy on it.
I mildly disagree with people watching CP, but only really because it helps support the people who MAKE CP. I feel that the people who watch CP are going to get their fix somehow, and if they use CP, like you said, watching porn correlates with a decrease in rape.
What I do have the problem with is the people who make CP. Clearly that's really fucked up.
However, realistically, the only way to really fight the people making CP is by reducing/removing the market it can be bought/sold on.
No you can't and shouldn't do that, it's like saying let's kill all human beings because some of them directly harm the environment. Or let's ban ideologies because we had fascism. Life is good and bad, in all of us there is good and bad. All we can do is try to let the good in us help others and fight the bad in us without hurting anyone. Also, let's say, if I'm 19 and I watch a 17 yr girl masturbate on camera should I be imprisoned for posesing child pornography ? It is common today that young girls from highschool go date college guys => a 17 yr old girl will most likely have sex with a 19-21 yr old guy. This is the reality.
This magic number thing is ridiculuos as well. It is hard to really see the wrong in this unless you have a 15 yr old girl entertaining a 25+ year old guy. We need a revamp of the system and a better understading of what "abuse" really means. I gave poor example of 15/25, but still, when I was in gymnasium and highschool, 90% of girls were already dating older guys, and in highschool from 10-11th grade, chick would have sex with "adults", even tho let's face it, just turning 18 won't make u an adult, it will just make you well enough to serve in the military or be imprisoned ( this is the basic concept ). I'm 21 and I still consider myself a "kid", and I rarely take myself seriously - this is one of the rare case I take myself seriously - freedom, I'm all about freedom as long as you don't hurt anyone else. Will freedom cause bad things? Sure. But without freedom you won't have the internet, you won't have books, you won't have anything.It's easy to see this if you use your brain -__-.
Also don't forget, there is money to be made in censorship.
Btw warsame, most reply isn't directed at yourself, just the "no you can't reduce the market" thing. My opinion is not 100% on that particular issue, but I don't see how you can completely stop child pornography or snuffs ( haven't seen one of each yet and I intend to die without seeing one - however I can't have nothing against psychopats or sociopaths, they are unlucky first of all, yes they should be discarded from society, but the last thing you should do is hate them. ) without seriously taking HUGE blows at freedom of information/privacy.
I dont see the problem with jailbait; most people are attracted to girls below the legal age, its not illegal, its not explicit, its not condoning, advocating, or helping to spread illegal pictures, movies or behaviour. Its just, in the eyes of a self denying mainstream culture, pervy.
Here's more for you guys, I didn't want to post another thread to take up more evidence of crazy Reddit users:
Teacher allegedly posts pictures of students on 'CreepShot' website Sep 26, 2012 11:38 p.m.
A substitute teacher in Coweta County is accused of taking pictures of students and posting them on a "Creeper" website.
Authorities are investigating after students at East Coweta High said their pictures ended up on the Reddit "Creepshot" web page. Some of the pictures are relatively innocent, but the captions and context are disturbing some parents.
The page contains thousands of pictures of unsuspecting women taken everywhere from Target to the beach. The women have no idea they are on the site.
School officials say they called in the Coweta County Sheriff's Office to investigate the substitute teacher. They say he hasn't been allowed in a classroom since the allegations.
"As a dad, I don't want to say too much of what I would like to do, but you know, you have to let the authorities, hopefully have confidence in them that they will do the right thing," said parent Steve Bedrosian.
School officials say substitute teachers go through background checks just like regular teachers and there were no red flags in this case.
The teacher is no longer employed by the school system.
On September 28 2012 03:35 Positronic wrote: Here's more for you guys, I didn't want to post another thread to take up more evidence of crazy Reddit users:
Teacher allegedly posts pictures of students on 'CreepShot' website Sep 26, 2012 11:38 p.m.
A substitute teacher in Coweta County is accused of taking pictures of students and posting them on a "Creeper" website.
Authorities are investigating after students at East Coweta High said their pictures ended up on the Reddit "Creepshot" web page. Some of the pictures are relatively innocent, but the captions and context are disturbing some parents.
The page contains thousands of pictures of unsuspecting women taken everywhere from Target to the beach. The women have no idea they are on the site.
School officials say they called in the Coweta County Sheriff's Office to investigate the substitute teacher. They say he hasn't been allowed in a classroom since the allegations.
"As a dad, I don't want to say too much of what I would like to do, but you know, you have to let the authorities, hopefully have confidence in them that they will do the right thing," said parent Steve Bedrosian.
School officials say substitute teachers go through background checks just like regular teachers and there were no red flags in this case.
The teacher is no longer employed by the school system.
Reddit's r/starcraft disappointed me a lot today. Generally like reddit but this is something I don't expect from one of the larger subreddits.
Context: Stephano's vague comment about a 14 year old gets posted on reddit and the ensuing comments are filled with people defending pedophilia.
Comments like "The age of consent in a lot of European countries is 14. It's dumb how people are only horrified because their government told them to be."
and
"I've seen quite a few 14 yo girls who I thought were older and looked good.. and let's be honest, the only reason I wouldn't bang them is because I don't want to go to jail.. I'm sure a lot of people are like "wtf you'd bang a 14 yo if it were legal, you're sick, blah blah blah".. but I'm sure most of these people would too and only say that because it's looked down upon to admit it.. but hey.. most men would bang a 14 year old given the chance if it were legal" (This comment being made by a 23 year old)
On October 07 2012 03:58 youngminii wrote: Comments like "The age of consent in a lot of European countries is 14. It's dumb how people are only horrified because their government told them to be."
And there is literally nothing wrong with this comment.
On October 07 2012 03:58 youngminii wrote: Reddit's r/starcraft disappointed me a lot today. Generally like reddit but this is something I don't expect from one of the larger subreddits.
Context: Stephano's vague comment about a 14 year old gets posted on reddit and the ensuing comments are filled with people defending pedophilia.
Comments like "The age of consent in a lot of European countries is 14. It's dumb how people are only horrified because their government told them to be."
and
"I've seen quite a few 14 yo girls who I thought were older and looked good.. and let's be honest, the only reason I wouldn't bang them is because I don't want to go to jail.. I'm sure a lot of people are like "wtf you'd bang a 14 yo if it were legal, you're sick, blah blah blah".. but I'm sure most of these people would too and only say that because it's looked down upon to admit it.. but hey.. most men would bang a 14 year old given the chance if it were legal" (This comment being made by a 23 year old)
You seem to be quite sheltered. The first comment is right about the age of consent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe The second comment matches with my personal experience. When I was 14 most kids around me were trying things out quite liberally. We all grew up to healthy (semi-) adults.
On September 19 2012 19:24 Caihead wrote: All this tells me is that Reddit's moderation staff is lazy, freedom of speech isn't the bloody principle that they should be exercising or concerning themselves with if they do take it for granted, any discussion should have guide lines and simple principles established by the parties if it's to have any goal. If you are providing a domain for people to do things on, while the views of the posters do not represent the views of the moderators or staff, they are still responsible to police their own web space for their own interests. This idea that if we uphold freedom of speech then any opinion is valid and untouchable is just bull shit, slander, lying, purposefully offensive, or obscene material all have their proportional consequences and no one is free from that personal responsibility regardless of freedom of speech. Freedom comes with bloody responsibility.
Have you ever been on Reddit? Right on the sidebar there is a giant list for each subreddit which outlines whats ok and whats not ok to talk about as well as how to use the site. Moderation being lazy? I wouldn't say so its a very high population site. TL staff does a terrific job with monitoring, because TL isn't nearly as large as Reddit.
Its a site run by popular demand so if people want something enough it will eventually pop back up. They can't do a temp ban and expect the person to not back another account.
It tells me that Reddit's owners are lazy by using the freedom of speech argument to defend the poor moderation job they are doing. The purpose of a forum is to harbour discussion, but the people who own and maintain it (in this case the reddit owners and staff) have a responsibility to themselves to moderate the discussion, as with any public forum in history. Doing a crappy job then saying that "Oh we just aren't moderating it because it would be an infringement on freedom of speech" is flat out lazy and making excuses period. If this was a freedom of speech issue there wouldn't be a bar outlining what is okay since everything should be okay given a completely un-monitored environment. You can't have it both ways.
On October 07 2012 03:58 youngminii wrote: Reddit's r/starcraft disappointed me a lot today. Generally like reddit but this is something I don't expect from one of the larger subreddits.
Context: Stephano's vague comment about a 14 year old gets posted on reddit and the ensuing comments are filled with people defending pedophilia.
Comments like "The age of consent in a lot of European countries is 14. It's dumb how people are only horrified because their government told them to be."
and
"I've seen quite a few 14 yo girls who I thought were older and looked good.. and let's be honest, the only reason I wouldn't bang them is because I don't want to go to jail.. I'm sure a lot of people are like "wtf you'd bang a 14 yo if it were legal, you're sick, blah blah blah".. but I'm sure most of these people would too and only say that because it's looked down upon to admit it.. but hey.. most men would bang a 14 year old given the chance if it were legal" (This comment being made by a 23 year old)
That's not pedophilia. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent kids. That is also why government does not claim it to be pedophilia, but rather a statutory rape.
On October 07 2012 03:58 youngminii wrote: Reddit's r/starcraft disappointed me a lot today. Generally like reddit but this is something I don't expect from one of the larger subreddits.
Context: Stephano's vague comment about a 14 year old gets posted on reddit and the ensuing comments are filled with people defending pedophilia.
Comments like "The age of consent in a lot of European countries is 14. It's dumb how people are only horrified because their government told them to be."
and
"I've seen quite a few 14 yo girls who I thought were older and looked good.. and let's be honest, the only reason I wouldn't bang them is because I don't want to go to jail.. I'm sure a lot of people are like "wtf you'd bang a 14 yo if it were legal, you're sick, blah blah blah".. but I'm sure most of these people would too and only say that because it's looked down upon to admit it.. but hey.. most men would bang a 14 year old given the chance if it were legal" (This comment being made by a 23 year old)
That's not pedophilia. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent kids. That is also why government does not claim it to be pedophilia, but rather a statutory rape.
It just depends on whether or not the individual is capable of being responsible or understanding all the implications of their actions, I know plenty of adults who still can't manage to control their sex drives, the age of consent or adult hood defined by law is just a general measure that the majority agree upon where you should be responsible and understand the implication of your actions. Children in general are not capable of doing so, thus it should be discouraged - by law and prosecution if necessary, as simple as that. If the parties are consenting and responsible for the consequences and implications it shouldn't matter if I'm offended or in congruence.
What exactly did Stephano say? I don't see the comment on Reddit.
Also, he gets away with whatever he is saying. EG will not fire him as long as he's worth the money. They would never have kicked Orb if he had been a more popular caster, no matter how terrible his comments.
On October 07 2012 03:58 youngminii wrote: Reddit's r/starcraft disappointed me a lot today. Generally like reddit but this is something I don't expect from one of the larger subreddits.
Context: Stephano's vague comment about a 14 year old gets posted on reddit and the ensuing comments are filled with people defending pedophilia.
Comments like "The age of consent in a lot of European countries is 14. It's dumb how people are only horrified because their government told them to be."
and
"I've seen quite a few 14 yo girls who I thought were older and looked good.. and let's be honest, the only reason I wouldn't bang them is because I don't want to go to jail.. I'm sure a lot of people are like "wtf you'd bang a 14 yo if it were legal, you're sick, blah blah blah".. but I'm sure most of these people would too and only say that because it's looked down upon to admit it.. but hey.. most men would bang a 14 year old given the chance if it were legal" (This comment being made by a 23 year old)
That's not pedophilia. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent kids. That is also why government does not claim it to be pedophilia, but rather a statutory rape.
It just depends on whether or not the individual is capable of being responsible or understanding all the implications of their actions, I know plenty of adults who still can't manage to control their sex drives, the age of consent or adult hood defined by law is just a general measure that the majority agree upon where you should be responsible and understand the implication of your actions. Children in general are not capable of doing so, thus it should be discouraged - by law and prosecution if necessary, as simple as that. If the parties are consenting and responsible for the consequences and implications it shouldn't matter if I'm offended or in congruence.
That doesn't change the definition of pedophilia, though, if that's what you're getting at.
On October 07 2012 03:58 youngminii wrote: Reddit's r/starcraft disappointed me a lot today. Generally like reddit but this is something I don't expect from one of the larger subreddits.
Context: Stephano's vague comment about a 14 year old gets posted on reddit and the ensuing comments are filled with people defending pedophilia.
Comments like "The age of consent in a lot of European countries is 14. It's dumb how people are only horrified because their government told them to be."
and
"I've seen quite a few 14 yo girls who I thought were older and looked good.. and let's be honest, the only reason I wouldn't bang them is because I don't want to go to jail.. I'm sure a lot of people are like "wtf you'd bang a 14 yo if it were legal, you're sick, blah blah blah".. but I'm sure most of these people would too and only say that because it's looked down upon to admit it.. but hey.. most men would bang a 14 year old given the chance if it were legal" (This comment being made by a 23 year old)
That's not pedophilia. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent kids. That is also why government does not claim it to be pedophilia, but rather a statutory rape.
It just depends on whether or not the individual is capable of being responsible or understanding all the implications of their actions, I know plenty of adults who still can't manage to control their sex drives, the age of consent or adult hood defined by law is just a general measure that the majority agree upon where you should be responsible and understand the implication of your actions. Children in general are not capable of doing so, thus it should be discouraged - by law and prosecution if necessary, as simple as that. If the parties are consenting and responsible for the consequences and implications it shouldn't matter if I'm offended or in congruence.
That doesn't change the definition of pedophilia, though, if that's what you're getting at.
People can't grasp the idea that pedophilia =/= attraction to girls sexually (possibly not mentally) able. They throw kids pre-puberty with the rest of the under 18 teenagers and clap their hands together and say "that's that".
On September 19 2012 19:24 Caihead wrote: All this tells me is that Reddit's moderation staff is lazy, freedom of speech isn't the bloody principle that they should be exercising or concerning themselves with if they do take it for granted, any discussion should have guide lines and simple principles established by the parties if it's to have any goal. If you are providing a domain for people to do things on, while the views of the posters do not represent the views of the moderators or staff, they are still responsible to police their own web space for their own interests. This idea that if we uphold freedom of speech then any opinion is valid and untouchable is just bull shit, slander, lying, purposefully offensive, or obscene material all have their proportional consequences and no one is free from that personal responsibility regardless of freedom of speech. Freedom comes with bloody responsibility.
Have you ever been on Reddit? Right on the sidebar there is a giant list for each subreddit which outlines whats ok and whats not ok to talk about as well as how to use the site. Moderation being lazy? I wouldn't say so its a very high population site. TL staff does a terrific job with monitoring, because TL isn't nearly as large as Reddit.
Its a site run by popular demand so if people want something enough it will eventually pop back up. They can't do a temp ban and expect the person to not back another account.
It tells me that Reddit's owners are lazy by using the freedom of speech argument to defend the poor moderation job they are doing. The purpose of a forum is to harbour discussion, but the people who own and maintain it (in this case the reddit owners and staff) have a responsibility to themselves to moderate the discussion, as with any public forum in history. Doing a crappy job then saying that "Oh we just aren't moderating it because it would be an infringement on freedom of speech" is flat out lazy and making excuses period. If this was a freedom of speech issue there wouldn't be a bar outlining what is okay since everything should be okay given a completely un-monitored environment. You can't have it both ways.
I don't even know what to say to a post this dumb. Reddit owners aren't lazy. Moderation is left to those who create the subreddits. There are subreddits that cover almost every topic you can think of and the moderation of them is delegated to to those who create them or are tasked to moderate them by their creators. Reddit is a forum allowing almost every aspect of speech and has a lot of users who will become extremely pissed off if the owners of the site were to shut down everything they personally disagreed with. They likely believe the internet should be an open forum for speech devoid of the nazi moderation like many other places on the web. They aren't moderating it because it isn't in their interests nor the interests of those who use the website. It seems to be in your interests, but anyone who enjoys the freedom that reddit provides for discussion doesn't care about your opinion on the subject. Reddit discussion is primarily controlled by the users via upvotes and downvotes, not moderation. Though these voting schemes appear to be controlled be cats rolling their faces across keyboards, it is still a system that works for the benefit of redditors.
You should at least make an attempt to understand why the site exists and how the creators intended it to be used before subjecting your opinion to be how it is supposed to be rather than what it actually is/
On October 07 2012 04:37 caruso wrote: What exactly did Stephano say? I don't see the comment on Reddit.
Also, he gets away with whatever he is saying. EG will not fire him as long as he's worth the money. They would never have kicked Orb if he had been a more popular caster, no matter how terrible his comments.
On October 07 2012 04:37 caruso wrote: What exactly did Stephano say? I don't see the comment on Reddit.
Also, he gets away with whatever he is saying. EG will not fire him as long as he's worth the money. They would never have kicked Orb if he had been a more popular caster, no matter how terrible his comments.
It sounds more like a language barrier than anything imo, I abused a 14yo? sounds a lot like he was trying to get across he was hitting on/dancing up on etc, I doubt he'd publically state "I was having sex with a minor". Dunno that's my take.
On October 07 2012 04:37 caruso wrote: What exactly did Stephano say? I don't see the comment on Reddit.
Also, he gets away with whatever he is saying. EG will not fire him as long as he's worth the money. They would never have kicked Orb if he had been a more popular caster, no matter how terrible his comments.
It sounds more like a language barrier than anything imo, I abused a 14yo? sounds a lot like he was trying to get across he was hitting on/dancing up on etc, I doubt he'd publically state "I was having sex with a minor". Dunno that's my take.
He probably didnt know that the person he was whispering was streaming atm, maybe.
I think the problem i had with a lot of people in that thread were the people who were saying that just because a government sets the age of consent at a certain age that it does not make it wrong to have sex with people younger then that, they then however defend having sex with a 14 year old by saying the age of consent laws are 14 in some countries. Do they not understand how dumb they sound when they make arguments like that.
On October 07 2012 03:58 youngminii wrote: Reddit's r/starcraft disappointed me a lot today. Generally like reddit but this is something I don't expect from one of the larger subreddits.
Context: Stephano's vague comment about a 14 year old gets posted on reddit and the ensuing comments are filled with people defending pedophilia.
Comments like "The age of consent in a lot of European countries is 14. It's dumb how people are only horrified because their government told them to be."
and
"I've seen quite a few 14 yo girls who I thought were older and looked good.. and let's be honest, the only reason I wouldn't bang them is because I don't want to go to jail.. I'm sure a lot of people are like "wtf you'd bang a 14 yo if it were legal, you're sick, blah blah blah".. but I'm sure most of these people would too and only say that because it's looked down upon to admit it.. but hey.. most men would bang a 14 year old given the chance if it were legal" (This comment being made by a 23 year old)
The rest of the world isn't as Puritan/socially conservative as the Anglosphere.
The reality is, most males do find mid-to-late adolescent females to be attractive. There's a reason why, unlike pedophilia, ephebophilia is not defined as a mental disorder or paraphilia by psychologists. Age of consent laws in most of the world used to reflect this, until feminist groups like the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (if the name sounds familiar, it's because they're the same group that got alcohol prohibited) fought to raise them to 16 and 18 in order to control male sexuality.
Human males have evolved to find youth attractive is sexually mature females, and your socially conditioned discomfort with that fact doesn't change that fact. That's not even getting into the double standards where people only have a problem because it's a 14-year-old girl, and would simply consider the teen lucky if the genders were reversed and it was a teen guy having sex with TossGirl.
Its pretty fucking sad that some of these Redditors think that most men would have sex with a 14 year old girl if it was legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think an underage girl is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it.
Of course, knowing Reddit, the whole thing was probably a misunderstanding, but the idiots there need some new reason to be outraged. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of teenagers (its not, by the way). Really makes you wonder how much better the Starcraft community would be if r/starcraft never existed.
On October 07 2012 06:25 MONXY FIST wrote: I think the problem i had with a lot of people in that thread were the people who were saying that just because a government sets the age of consent at a certain age that it does not make it wrong to have sex with people younger then that, they then however defend having sex with a 14 year old by saying the age of consent laws are 14 in some countries. Do they not understand how dumb they sound when they make arguments like that.
You have it backwards. The logic goes like this:
Person A comes in saying people shouldn't have sex with anyone under the age of 18 because it's illegal where Person A lives/it's against Person A's particular set of beliefs.
Person B notes that statutory rape laws are not uniform everywhere, and in fact have only existed in their current form recently, therefore Person A might want to reevaluate their beliefs in an actual critical manner. Person B's point is that if Person A tries to justify themselves with laws created by fallible human beings, their argument immediately falls apart because the laws of different places contradict each other. Then you can move to a rational discussion about what's right, after everyone realizes that repeating what some statute says isn't an argument.
On October 07 2012 07:12 iamho wrote: Its pretty fucking sad that some of these Redditors think that most men would have sex with a 14 year old girl if it was legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think an underage girl is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it.
Of course, knowing Reddit, the whole thing was probably a misunderstanding, but the idiots there need some new reason to be outraged. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of teenagers (its not, by the way). Really makes you wonder how much better the Starcraft community would be if r/starcraft never existed.
"It's fucking sad that these men would have sex with a man if it's legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think a man is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of men (its not, by the way)."
"It's fucking sad that these men would have sex with a black girl if it's legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think a black girl is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of black girls (its not, by the way)."
"It's fucking sad that these men would have sex with a Jew if it's legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think a Jew is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of Jews (its not, by the way)."
Take a look at the above substitutions. Do you see why your post is self-righteous shaming and a complete logical fallacy?
On October 07 2012 07:12 iamho wrote: Its pretty fucking sad that some of these Redditors think that most men would have sex with a 14 year old girl if it was legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think an underage girl is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it.
Of course, knowing Reddit, the whole thing was probably a misunderstanding, but the idiots there need some new reason to be outraged. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of teenagers (its not, by the way). Really makes you wonder how much better the Starcraft community would be if r/starcraft never existed.
"It's fucking sad that these men would have sex with a man if it's legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think a man is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of men (its not, by the way)."
"It's fucking sad that these men would have sex with a black girl if it's legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think a black girl is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of black girls (its not, by the way)."
"It's fucking sad that these men would have sex with a Jew if it's legal. I wouldn't and neither would most normal men. Its one thing to think a Jew is attractive, but if you're an adult you should have the common sense and basic morality not to act on it. Also so certain people can defend why its they think its perfectly normal to jack off at pictures of Jews (its not, by the way)."
Take a look at the above substitutions. Do you see why your post is self-righteous shaming and a complete logical fallacy?
I think your analogies are kind of non-fitting. All of those (assuming they're of the age of consent) are apples while below the age of consent are oranges. I'm all for analogies and comparisons and his post was a bit ridiculous and self righteous but frankly your counter points were equally as bad.
The debate is about the age of consent and how that line is set, in Canada it is 16 and in some States it's 16 - 18. A better placement would be 14 yearold jew/blackwoman/boy. His argument is about age, not ethnic/racial/gender types.
All that being said.
I can't really make an ethical standpoint because frankly are morality and ethics is based off a religious society that set these ground rules around the time of burning witches and hanging scientists.
Human nature puts the average age of the most sexually attractive female age as 17 (around the most fertile age as well) but obviously if it's 17, how different are you from 16 to 17? or 17 to 18? Well by that measure what about 15-17 or 17-19? I know I look rather similar to how I looked in highschool as a undergraduate in university as do most of the girls I was around at the time. I think it's hard to really adjust or move the numbers around because they're all so different, some girls sexually mature later and some earlier and it causes a really tough line of sexual maturity vs sexual fertility.
Thus I kind of lean to 16 should be the age of consent (as is in Canada) and the idea of a sexually attractive 14 year old isn't awfully outlandish by that right but I think it's about sexual maturity and the idea that perhaps on a mental level that teenager isn't right for such conduct with piers 18+ but I would also argue that if they're taking pictures and posting them around for anyone to see makes things even more confusing because male attraction is highly biological and thus being attracted to said photos posted freely seems an odd thing to negate? As I said it's an odd ethical/moral line that we're drawing because every case is SO different from the next.
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, you have to actually explain yourself because in the past it has been illegal for men to have sex with men, and for people to have sex with blacks (and although I don't know of any laws against having sex with Jews in their thousands of years of history, I'd be surprised if one didn't exist at some point). These laws all did nothing but criminalize people's private lives.
Edit: Homosexuality is of course still criminalized in too many countries. Not just socially taboo. It carries criminal penalties.
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, you have to actually explain yourself because it has been illegal for men to have sex with men, and for people to have sex with blacks in the past (and although I don't know of any laws against having sex with Jews in their thousands of years of history, I'd be surprised if one didn't exist at some point). These laws all did nothing but criminalize people's private lives.
Read my comment above to see why. I'll try and make it short in this post if you don't want to read the first paragraph of so.
we're arguing age, not gender/race/ethnic origin. The differince is that age relates directly to sexual maturity/fertility where the other three relate to human beliefs on a subject not related to the biological way the body works and how the mind develops, you can ar gue that "anal sex isn't how the body was meant to work!" but in the world we see other animals act in the same fashion (giraffes) so perhaps that's a human belief? There is also a set of nerves there that make anal sex pleasurable for some (or so I've been told through various bio courses etc). Apples and oranges, a better way to put it would have been a "14-year old black/jew/gay" as it would have brought those subjects into the matter and related directly to the biological discussion on sexual fertility/maturity and the age of which a person can have full control of themselves to make such decisions and know the consequence, a fight against sexual ignorance if you will.
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, you have to actually explain yourself because it has been illegal for men to have sex with men, and for people to have sex with blacks in the past (and although I don't know of any laws against having sex with Jews in their thousands of years of history, I'd be surprised if one didn't exist at some point). These laws all did nothing but criminalize people's private lives.
I wasn't talking about the law. A 14 year old is still a child who doesn't understand anything about the world, and its wrong for an adult to take advantage of a child.
I find it wholly disturbing that people would waste their time trying to remove content from the internet, rather than trying to track down the criminals producing the content.
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, you have to actually explain yourself because it has been illegal for men to have sex with men, and for people to have sex with blacks in the past (and although I don't know of any laws against having sex with Jews in their thousands of years of history, I'd be surprised if one didn't exist at some point). These laws all did nothing but criminalize people's private lives.
I wasn't talking about the law. A 14 year old is still a child who doesn't understand anything about the world, and its wrong for an adult to take advantage of a child.
That is subjective, not objective. There are 14 year olds that are more mature than plenty of adults who are allowed to have sex. Are you telling me that a 14 year old who would go through the preparation of using birth control, practicing safe sex to prevent STD's and such, is somehow less understanding of sex than the couple on welfare having seven children and losing them all to foster homes?
There is no magic age where you just begin to understand sex. If sex isn't about physically being prepared, then make a test for licenses to see if you're mature enough to be having sex.
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, you have to actually explain yourself because it has been illegal for men to have sex with men, and for people to have sex with blacks in the past (and although I don't know of any laws against having sex with Jews in their thousands of years of history, I'd be surprised if one didn't exist at some point). These laws all did nothing but criminalize people's private lives.
I wasn't talking about the law. A 14 year old is still a child who doesn't understand anything about the world, and its wrong for an adult to take advantage of a child.
A fourTEEN year old is a TEENager. You can choose to call them children I guess, to try and imply that people who are attracted to post pubescent young adults are sicko pedophiles. Really though, all it takes is some basic knowledge of history, psychology, biology, to know how ridiculous such a claim is.
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, you have to actually explain yourself because it has been illegal for men to have sex with men, and for people to have sex with blacks in the past (and although I don't know of any laws against having sex with Jews in their thousands of years of history, I'd be surprised if one didn't exist at some point). These laws all did nothing but criminalize people's private lives.
I wasn't talking about the law. A 14 year old is still a child who doesn't understand anything about the world, and its wrong for an adult to take advantage of a child.
I think you are severely underestimating how much some 14 year olds know about the world.
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, because you're making a logical leap based on your own socialized biases. Please explain so you actually have a logical argument for me to tear apart, instead of saying "It's wrong, because, duh!"
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, you have to actually explain yourself because it has been illegal for men to have sex with men, and for people to have sex with blacks in the past (and although I don't know of any laws against having sex with Jews in their thousands of years of history, I'd be surprised if one didn't exist at some point). These laws all did nothing but criminalize people's private lives.
I wasn't talking about the law. A 14 year old is still a child who doesn't understand anything about the world, and its wrong for an adult to take advantage of a child.
If a 14-year-old male raped a woman, he is held criminally responsible, even in jurisdictions where he doesn't meet the age of consent. Do you find this morally objectionable too? Probably not, which reveals your double standards on the issue.
Most people would probably also find nothing objectionable about an adult woman having sex with a 14-year-old male, nor would anyone consider the woman to be taking advantage of the guy. This is, of course, in spite of the fact that on average males mature slower than females. Why do you think that male sexuality is considered exploitative, and female sexuality is not?
Simply put, you're making an assumption that 14-year-olds don't understand anything about the world. This would have been an inaccurate characterization of myself at 14, and I think a lot of people feel similarly. Not all 14-year-olds are mentally immature, and plenty of 16 or 18-year-olds are; the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that 14-year-olds are mentally immature in a way that 16-year-olds are not. Would you object to an adult having sex with a mentally mature 14-year-old? Somehow, I think the answer would still be yes.
Most 14 year old girls crave for sex with older men, if anything it's usually them that will try to push the sex. There are "predators" too I guess but they're the immense minority. Seriously have any decent-looking 20 year old showing at some gathering with lots of 14-15 year old girls and half of them will try to get him. Is it "morally wrong" for the older guy to do that ? In the vast majority of the cases 14 years old girls really look too young and not "women enough" for my taste, but in some case, especially if I didn't know the girl's age (famous "Angie Varona case" for instance, or the american gymnast more recently, mckayla marooney I think) I probably wouldn't resist much, if at all. Now people ACTIVELY seeking to have sex with 14 years old over older girls I'd consider weird, but as far as I'm concerned unless there is blatant abuse in some form from the guy, it should be allowed, if not necessarily "approved of".
And concerning Stephano I'm 99,9% sure he was trolling, perfectly knew bling was streaming and was doing all that shit on purpose to have some attention on Reddit & co.
FFS, 14 year olds cannot work, cannot drive, cannot vote, cannot fight in wars, cannot get rents, cannot get mortgages, cannot do anything in our society. They are still going through puberty and do not have anything close to physically developed brains. We do not live in caveman times, 14 year olds are more children than they are adults.
Regarding your point about the 14 year old having sex with an adult woman: Only teenage kids think this kind of shit is okay, it is disgusting and the woman should end up in jail. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of society would agree with me.
On October 07 2012 08:20 iamho wrote: FFS, 14 year olds cannot work, cannot drive, cannot vote, cannot fight in wars, cannot get rents, cannot get mortgages, cannot do anything in our society. They are still going through puberty and do not have anything close to physically developed brains. We do not live in caveman times, 14 year olds are more children than they are adults.
Regarding your point about the 14 year old having sex with an adult woman: Only teenage kids think this kind of shit is okay, it is disgusting and the woman should end up in jail. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of society would agree with me.
So your reason that having sex is wrong at the age of 14 is because it's illegal for 14 year olds to do a bunch of other things? Not exactly reasonable. But guess what: It's not illegal for a 14 year old to have sex in every country. Does that make those places morally bankrupt? Lawless havens where no child goes unraped? Of course not.
And there are plenty of 14 year olds that are more mature, mentally, than an adult. Again, I reiterate; do you think a 14 year old having consensual, safe sex is wrong?
If yes, how about two adults having sex, only to end up with seven children that they do not have the means to take care of? Is that somehow okay?
It's subjective. Entirely dependent on the individuals involved, not on some magic number that suddenly makes you more enlightened.
On October 07 2012 08:20 iamho wrote: FFS, 14 year olds cannot work, cannot drive, cannot vote, cannot fight in wars, cannot get rents, cannot get mortgages, cannot do anything in our society. They are still going through puberty and do not have anything close to physically developed brains. We do not live in caveman times, 14 year olds are more children than they are adults.
Regarding your point about the 14 year old having sex with an adult woman: Only teenage kids think this kind of shit is okay, it is disgusting and the woman should end up in jail. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of society would agree with me.
14 year olds can work, and in many nations around the world they do. 14 year olds can drive with a learners permit in some states in the US. 14 year olds and even younger have fought in wars around the world, even today. Maturity has nothing to do with this number we call age. You can find 14 year olds who are more mature than many 20+ year olds.
I'm quite shocked by the amount of tlers who think a 14 year old is mentally developed enough to make such a choice. Just because something is "natural" and "instinctual" doesn't make it right in our society. As an adult myself I recognize it's wrong to sleep with a 14 year old. Just because your mind finds them attractive doesn't make it ok. A 14 year old child is incredibly immature and almost completely oblivious to the negatives effects of a sexual relationship, especially with an adult who is likely taking advantage of them being so naive.
If you believe such a thing is ok as an adult you have a serious issue. There are more than enough older women to sleep with. I hate seeing an older loser take advantage of young women mostly because he's too stupid to attract a mate his age.
On October 07 2012 08:20 iamho wrote: FFS, 14 year olds cannot work, cannot drive, cannot vote, cannot fight in wars, cannot get rents, cannot get mortgages, cannot do anything in our society. They are still going through puberty and do not have anything close to physically developed brains. We do not live in caveman times, 14 year olds are more children than they are adults.
Regarding your point about the 14 year old having sex with an adult woman: Only teenage kids think this kind of shit is okay, it is disgusting and the woman should end up in jail. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of society would agree with me.
14 year olds can work, and in many nations around the world they do. 14 year olds can drive with a learners permit in some states in the US. 14 year olds and even younger have fought in wars around the world, even today. Maturity has nothing to do with this number we call age. You can find 14 year olds who are more mature than many 20+ year olds.
So your logic is because someone else took advantage of children in some ways its ok for you to also? That's incredibly pathetic. And the only persons you will find less mature than a 14 year old are likely developmentally handicapped or stunted in some way. A normal 14 year old brought up in a normal environment where she is not forced to mature early is not even close to mature enough to make such decisions.
On October 07 2012 08:20 iamho wrote: FFS, 14 year olds cannot work, cannot drive, cannot vote, cannot fight in wars, cannot get rents, cannot get mortgages, cannot do anything in our society. They are still going through puberty and do not have anything close to physically developed brains. We do not live in caveman times, 14 year olds are more children than they are adults.
Regarding your point about the 14 year old having sex with an adult woman: Only teenage kids think this kind of shit is okay, it is disgusting and the woman should end up in jail. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of society would agree with me.
Just one example, what do you think Child actors are doing then? Just to detract from what I think you are implying (that 14 year olds are just fucking babies), does this person seem utterly incapable of rational thought?
I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
On October 07 2012 07:34 iamho wrote: A 14 year old girl is not comparable to any of the things you named above. Do I seriously need to explain why?
Yes, you have to actually explain yourself because it has been illegal for men to have sex with men, and for people to have sex with blacks in the past (and although I don't know of any laws against having sex with Jews in their thousands of years of history, I'd be surprised if one didn't exist at some point). These laws all did nothing but criminalize people's private lives.
I wasn't talking about the law. A 14 year old is still a child who doesn't understand anything about the world, and its wrong for an adult to take advantage of a child.
Okay, let's run with this. We'll say 16 year olds are adults and below that are children. So a 16 year old can't take advantage of that 14 year old. Maybe when he turns 15? Wait, that still falls under "child." What if his birthday is Cinco de Mayo? Can they have sex on May 4th? No, that would be taking advantage... but one day later they both qualify as adults who fully understand all the consequences of all their actions perfectly.
But suppose they both become legal, and as it turns out, breathing air for a certain number of years doesn't necessarily make you brighter, and they feel bad about some of the consequences of their sex, like they both became pregnant. That's okay, because they were adults. Whether you know it or not, you're basically just repeating law. If you think there's NOBODY below whatever the miracle "adult" age who is responsible enough to control their own body, then you should justify that without being circular. If you believe that the person one day before their 16th or 18th or whatever birthday isn't responsible but a day later becomes responsible, I'd like you to explain why. If you believe the person actually could be mature enough, but they should just wait the extra day, then you're supporting an arbitrary law. In that case, I ask you, what is the law for?
Let alone the poor guy who the day before his 18th birthday is in a normal relationship with a peer but after turning 18 is suddenly in a position where he's just taking advantage of a child.
On October 07 2012 08:20 iamho wrote: FFS, 14 year olds cannot work,
Yep, they can.
cannot drive,
In parts of the US and Canada, they can get learner's permits.
cannot vote,
In a lot of cases they would probably vote the same way as their parents. This would bias the election towards a certain political group if they were causally linked to having more children. This is similar to adopting your parents' religion. Also, various countries have voting ages of 16.
cannot fight in wars,
Some countries go down to 16. At various points in history, armies have welcomed/forced youth into their ranks, but that's disanalogous, because nobody is advocating raping teenagers ad libitum. Both that and forced conscription are forms of abuse. Mainly, youth don't have the most robust bodies so government money is better spent creating a slightly older, but still highly impressionable, soldier.
cannot get rents, cannot get mortgages, cannot do anything in our society.
Those things all require income beyond the skill set of a 14 year old anyways. However, people have received bachelor's degrees at a younger age than that. Why does being unable to prove financial responsibility for a 30 year mortgage disqualify you from getting naked with someone else for 30 minutes?
They are still going through puberty and do not have anything close to physically developed brains.
Everybody grows as they get older. Lots of people who are adults are still imbeciles, but it's not illegal for them to have sex.
We do not live in caveman times, 14 year olds are more children than they are adults.
Puberty hits at different times, but mostly 14 year olds are sexually viable.
Regarding your point about the 14 year old having sex with an adult woman: Only teenage kids think this kind of shit is okay, it is disgusting and the woman should end up in jail.
Okay, you think it's disgusting. Noted. We won't send you invitations to be a part of it. That's not relevant to you wanting to tell other people what to do with their private lives. How about if they have sex with other "children?" Maybe someone one day before her 18th birthday?
I'm fairly certain the vast majority of society would agree with me.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Keep in mind in your future posts if this is the case debating with logic and reasoning is futile.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Sex is a part of growing up. Nobody has claimed 14 year olds' brains aren't changing.
The argument is similar to saying it's impossible to be a mature pianist unless you're an adult. That may be true, but you are going to be a damn sight worse than everyone else if you never practiced until your 18th birthday.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Sex is a part of growing up. Nobody has claimed 14 year olds' brains aren't changing.
The argument is similar to saying it's impossible to be a mature pianist unless you're an adult. That may be true, but you are going to be a damn sight worse than everyone else if you never practiced until your 18th birthday.
I have not made any stance besides I believe it's wrong for an emotionally developed adult to take advantage of a 14 year old girl. There is absolutely nothing wrong with children having sex with each other. Don't get the wrong idea I'm not some religiously motivated person. I just think the vast majority of 14 year olds are not fully capable of realizing the situation. And since that is the case there must be laws in place to protect them. Regardless of the fact that 14 year olds who do realize may or may not exist.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Sex is a part of growing up. Nobody has claimed 14 year olds' brains aren't changing.
The argument is similar to saying it's impossible to be a mature pianist unless you're an adult. That may be true, but you are going to be a damn sight worse than everyone else if you never practiced until your 18th birthday.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of kids who can sing, dance, and act on levels far beyond adults.
People really underestimate the youth. They do stupid things, but they're more than capable of critical thought.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Sex is a part of growing up. Nobody has claimed 14 year olds' brains aren't changing.
The argument is similar to saying it's impossible to be a mature pianist unless you're an adult. That may be true, but you are going to be a damn sight worse than everyone else if you never practiced until your 18th birthday.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of kids who can sing, dance, and act on levels far beyond adults.
People really underestimate the youth. They do stupid things, but they're more than capable of critical thought.
Prime example of a post that comes off as defensive. It's not that people underestimate the youth. It's that they have the benefit of once being a youth and also of being an adult. And as an adult they recognize the irrational mind set that comes with being a child.
Being talented in something has literally zero bearing on a persons ability to be developed emotionally. So I'm not sure why this is being brought up.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Sex is a part of growing up. Nobody has claimed 14 year olds' brains aren't changing.
The argument is similar to saying it's impossible to be a mature pianist unless you're an adult. That may be true, but you are going to be a damn sight worse than everyone else if you never practiced until your 18th birthday.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of kids who can sing, dance, and act on levels far beyond adults.
People really underestimate the youth. They do stupid things, but they're more than capable of critical thought.
Prime example of a post that comes off as defensive. It's not that people underestimate the youth. It's that they have the benefit of once being a youth and also of being an adult. And as an adult they recognize the irrational mind set that comes with being a child.
Being talented in something has literally zero bearing on a persons ability to be developed emotionally. So I'm not sure why this is being brought up.
Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Sex is a part of growing up. Nobody has claimed 14 year olds' brains aren't changing.
The argument is similar to saying it's impossible to be a mature pianist unless you're an adult. That may be true, but you are going to be a damn sight worse than everyone else if you never practiced until your 18th birthday.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of kids who can sing, dance, and act on levels far beyond adults.
People really underestimate the youth. They do stupid things, but they're more than capable of critical thought.
Prime example of a post that comes off as defensive. It's not that people underestimate the youth. It's that they have the benefit of once being a youth and also of being an adult. And as an adult they recognize the irrational mind set that comes with being a child.
Being talented in something has literally zero bearing on a persons ability to be developed emotionally. So I'm not sure why this is being brought up.
Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
As I told the other guy, you're attacking a straw man. No where did I say teens shouldn't be allowed to try out sex. I'm also not going to clarify myself again. Take a few minutes to read my last few posts to understand my stance instead of arguing with a make believe stance I have not taken. If you don't want to debate my views that's fine but don't pretend I'm saying something I'm not just to make it easier on yourself.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Sex is a part of growing up. Nobody has claimed 14 year olds' brains aren't changing.
The argument is similar to saying it's impossible to be a mature pianist unless you're an adult. That may be true, but you are going to be a damn sight worse than everyone else if you never practiced until your 18th birthday.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of kids who can sing, dance, and act on levels far beyond adults.
People really underestimate the youth. They do stupid things, but they're more than capable of critical thought.
Prime example of a post that comes off as defensive. It's not that people underestimate the youth. It's that they have the benefit of once being a youth and also of being an adult. And as an adult they recognize the irrational mind set that comes with being a child.
Being talented in something has literally zero bearing on a persons ability to be developed emotionally. So I'm not sure why this is being brought up.
Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
That's quite likely the case. I pondered the same thing before I finished my post. For anyone to seriously believe that a normal 14 year old female, or male for that matter is remotely finished developing mentally really confused me. And a lot of these posts are coming off defensive to me.
Sex is a part of growing up. Nobody has claimed 14 year olds' brains aren't changing.
The argument is similar to saying it's impossible to be a mature pianist unless you're an adult. That may be true, but you are going to be a damn sight worse than everyone else if you never practiced until your 18th birthday.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of kids who can sing, dance, and act on levels far beyond adults.
People really underestimate the youth. They do stupid things, but they're more than capable of critical thought.
Prime example of a post that comes off as defensive. It's not that people underestimate the youth. It's that they have the benefit of once being a youth and also of being an adult. And as an adult they recognize the irrational mind set that comes with being a child.
Being talented in something has literally zero bearing on a persons ability to be developed emotionally. So I'm not sure why this is being brought up.
Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it.
On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote: Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it.
On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote: correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it.
Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of?
... Am I the only one from a country with liberal thoughts on sex?
In Denmark the "legal" age is 15 (or 16... a few years it changed from one to the other) and tons of people have their sexual debuts in the ages 13-16 + Show Spoiler +
(danish source from the government) - basicly it says most people have had their sexual debuts before turning 17.
I don't see an issue with this if it was consensual. Who are you to judge wether this is right or wrong? The girl might have been better to decide it than you were when you had your debut - and even then... How would you feel about others judging you for it?
https://www.borger.dk/Sider/Sex-og-seksuelle-spoergsmaal.aspx?NavigationTaxonomyId=313d241f-a5a4-4a63-9a8e-e14d15d43d9d Ifølge straffeloven må du først gå i seng med andre, når du er 15 år. Men loven er ikke lavet for at undgå, at fx to på 14 år har sex. Den er lavet for, at voksne mennesker ikke skal have sex med børn under 15 år. Du skal altså ikke være bange for at blive straffet, hvis du har lyst til at gå i seng med din kæreste, selv om du ikke er fyldt 15 år endnu. Det vigtigste er, at du føler dig klar til det, og at du ikke bliver presset til at gøre noget, du ikke har lyst til.
According to the law, you can not have sex with others before turning 15. The law however is not designed to stop two 14 year olds from having sex. It is meant to prevent grown ups from having sex with children below the age of 15. This means you don't have to worry about sleeping with your boy-/girlfriend even though you haven't turned 15 yet. The most important thing is feeling ready and not being pushed into doing something you don't want to.
*BAM*... The danish system doesn't seem to have a problem with this
On October 07 2012 09:43 Xahhk wrote: Isn't Stephano only 18 anyway? And this is supposed to be an emotionally mature man?
And what exactly is your point?
I'm stating the facts because there are people that think that looking at ages of individuals is the be all end all in terms of appropriateness of private interactions.
On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote: Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it.
On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote: correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it.
Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of?
Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance.
Stupid discussion. Every man would like to fuck a 14-year old girl, of course! You only say, you won't because its not socially acceptable. We 24+ year old are from another generation. With the internet, the kids grow up faster. When I was 12 - there was no internet and I had never watched porn. When I look at 14-16y olds now I can't believe whats happening. There're 14yo old girls who use makeup, the fuck? Chloe Morez from the page before is the perfect example.
On October 07 2012 09:43 Xahhk wrote: Isn't Stephano only 18 anyway? And this is supposed to be an emotionally mature man?
And what exactly is your point?
I'm stating the facts because there are people that think that looking at ages of individuals is the be all end all in terms of appropriateness of private interactions.
The only thing you are doing is skirting around the actual debate going on at the moment because you have nothing to add. Your fact of him being young and not fully developed has zero bearing on the actual issue.
On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote: Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it.
On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote: correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it.
Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of?
Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance.
The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post.
On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote: Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it.
On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote: correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it.
Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of?
Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance.
The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post.
I only responded to the second part. I didn't want to quote half of your post. My point still stands unless you're willing to go back and read my last few posts and actually respond to MY views and opinions you're wasting both our time.
On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote: Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it.
On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote: correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it.
Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of?
Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance.
The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post.
I only responded to the second part. I didn't want to quote half of your post. My point still stands unless you're willing to go back and read my last few posts and actually respond to MY views and opinions you're wasting both our time.
I've read your posts. I'm not telepathic, that's why I'm still asking questions. You are conflating the issue by equating an "adult" (which you have yet to define) having sex with a "child" (which you have yet to define) as necessarily being a case of the adult taking advantage of the child.
Although that's a position you're allowed to have, when asked for justification as to why it's necessarily the case that when an adult has sex with a child, the child is taken advantage of, you reason something like this: Having sex with children is abuse. Oh heliusx, why is it abuse? Because you're having sex with them!
Or maybe you'd like to define a child specifically as someone who is only capable of being abused in a sexual relationship? In that case, we still have no definition (that isn't circular, anyways) of what an adult is that actually teaches us anything - like for instance, exactly what laws to make.
You bring up the age of consent and R&J laws in your area. Notice that they're different from the laws in other areas. My assumption is since these laws are different, some of them might be more correct than the others. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? If you can't, I'd like you to elaborate on why the elder person must universally be taking advantage of the younger. Otherwise, why is it categorized as statutory rape instead of taken in as a case of abuse depending on the circumstances? If you can imagine such a situation, can you for once clarify exactly what laws you'd write?
On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote: Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it.
On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote: correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it.
Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of?
Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance.
The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post.
I only responded to the second part. I didn't want to quote half of your post. My point still stands unless you're willing to go back and read my last few posts and actually respond to MY views and opinions you're wasting both our time.
I've read your posts. I'm not telepathic, that's why I'm still asking questions. You are conflating the issue by equating an "adult" (which you have yet to define) having sex with a "child" (which you have yet to define) as necessarily being a case of the adult taking advantage of the child.
Although that's a position you're allowed to have, when asked for justification as to why it's necessarily the case that when an adult has sex with a child, the child is taken advantage of, you reason something like this: Having sex with children is abuse. Oh heliusx, why is it abuse? Because you're having sex with them!
Or maybe you'd like to define a child specifically as someone who is only capable of being abused in a sexual relationship? In that case, we still have no definition (that isn't circular, anyways) of what an adult is that actually teaches us anything - like for instance, exactly what laws to make.
You bring up the age of consent and R&J laws in your area. Notice that they're different from the laws in other areas. My assumption is since these laws are different, some of them might be more correct than the others. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? If you can't, I'd like you to elaborate on why the elder person must universally be taking advantage of the younger. Otherwise, why is it categorized as statutory rape instead of taken in as a case of abuse depending on the circumstances? If you can imagine such a situation, can you for once clarify exactly what laws you'd write?
The only opinion I put forward is that a 14 year old is not mature enough to understand the realities of having a sexual relationship with an adult. The only reason I brought up the laws is because someone was skirting actual debate by saying things like "BUT IF 17 + 18 SEX =JAIL OMGOMGOMG".
Obviously different people mature at different rates and that is why the law is what it is. It covers what the majority of people in that area feel is the generally accepted range. Of course you know all this because you read my previous posts so I'm not exactly sure why I'm bothering to repeat myself again.
Since you insist I answer that question I will though. Is a 20yo and 17yo wrong? Not necessarily but it could be in some situations. But you know what I do believe is wrong? A 18+ having a sexual relationship with a 14year old. I am not exactly a researcher on this subject so I'm not qualified to make such a cut off but if I did they sure as hell would not allow adults to have sex with a 14 year old. And on that note I should retire from this thread for today because I am become a bit buzzed.
On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote: Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners.
And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok.
Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it.
On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote: correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it.
Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of?
Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance.
The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post.
I only responded to the second part. I didn't want to quote half of your post. My point still stands unless you're willing to go back and read my last few posts and actually respond to MY views and opinions you're wasting both our time.
I've read your posts. I'm not telepathic, that's why I'm still asking questions. You are conflating the issue by equating an "adult" (which you have yet to define) having sex with a "child" (which you have yet to define) as necessarily being a case of the adult taking advantage of the child.
Although that's a position you're allowed to have, when asked for justification as to why it's necessarily the case that when an adult has sex with a child, the child is taken advantage of, you reason something like this: Having sex with children is abuse. Oh heliusx, why is it abuse? Because you're having sex with them!
Or maybe you'd like to define a child specifically as someone who is only capable of being abused in a sexual relationship? In that case, we still have no definition (that isn't circular, anyways) of what an adult is that actually teaches us anything - like for instance, exactly what laws to make.
You bring up the age of consent and R&J laws in your area. Notice that they're different from the laws in other areas. My assumption is since these laws are different, some of them might be more correct than the others. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? If you can't, I'd like you to elaborate on why the elder person must universally be taking advantage of the younger. Otherwise, why is it categorized as statutory rape instead of taken in as a case of abuse depending on the circumstances? If you can imagine such a situation, can you for once clarify exactly what laws you'd write?
The only opinion I put forward is that a 14 year old is not mature enough to understand the realities of having a sexual relationship with an adult. The only reason I brought up the laws is because someone was skirting actual debate by saying things like "BUT IF 17 + 18 SEX =JAIL OMGOMGOMG".
Obviously different people mature at different rates and that is why the law is what it is. It covers what the majority of people in that area feel is the generally accepted range. Of course you know all this because you read my previous posts so I'm not exactly sure why I'm bothering to repeat myself again.
Since you insist I answer that question I will though. Is a 20yo and 17yo wrong? Not necessarily but it could be in some situations. But you know what I do believe is wrong? A 18+ having a sexual relationship with a 14year old. I am not exactly a researcher on this subject so I'm not qualified to make such a cut off but if I did they sure as hell would not allow adults to have sex with a 14 year old. And on that note I should retire from this thread for today because I am become a bit buzzed.
You're acting awfully "defensive" there
But overall I think the larger issue that regardless of whether it's the healthiest situation or not, a lot of people are hesitant to to label every single instance of an above 18 person having sex with an under 18 as rape, abuse, taking advantage, or whatever. Unfortunately the law is a black and white solution to a gray problem, which is why we end up hearing cases of "17 + 18 SEX=JAIL OMGOMGOMG".
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote: Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote: Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so.
When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one.
Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote: Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
lmao, people defends him because he's stephano, what about if it would be Destiny, or Naniwa, or some other player, he would be in the jail already lol, sad community.
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote: Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so.
When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one.
Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
He could have posted that he assassinated JFK, that doesn't mean EG should fire him for being a murderer. The issue you're trying to get into isn't really related to the subjects at hand. Suffice it to say people had strong arguments to defend orb, IdrA (who always got brought into the discussion), and Destiny, so it actually shouldn't surprise you that there are people defending Stephano because he said some words on the internet (same situation everyone else was in).
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote: Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so.
When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one.
Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
Difference is that Orb was not a major asset, they really put nothing into him and losing him was completely acceptable. You;re equating the value of Jaedong to bitbybit. A company can take a financial hit if the asset is worth it, basic business.
Also we don't know and can never know (unless said girl comes forth) in what context he meant "abused". I've heard people, especially since I live in the international building on my campus refer in odd ways when it comes to english with dancing/grinding/flirting etc. "abused" could have mean't he was grinding on some girl really hard, could have meant he had sex with a 14 year old, could have meant he punched her in the face. The point is we have absolutely no context so equating "abused 14yo" with racial slurs is already treading a line because he can simply say "that's not what I meant" while "you fucking nigger grrrrr" is pretty hard to take in any other context than frustration.
Also you're acting a bit haste for something so vague, burn the witch at the stake on an instance?
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote: Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so.
When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one.
Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
Difference is that Orb was not a major asset, they really put nothing into him and losing him was completely acceptable. You;re equating the value of Jaedong to bitbybit. A company can take a financial hit if the asset is worth it, basic business.
Also we don't know and can never know (unless said girl comes forth) in what context he meant "abused". I've heard people, especially since I live in the international building on my campus refer in odd ways when it comes to english with dancing/grinding/flirting etc. "abused" could have mean't he was grinding on some girl really hard, could have meant he had sex with a 14 year old, could have meant he punched her in the face. The point is we have absolutely no context so equating "abused 14yo" with racial slurs is already treading a line because he can simply say "that's not what I meant" while "you fucking nigger grrrrr" is pretty hard to take in any other context than frustration.
Also you're acting a bit haste for something so vague, burn the witch at the stake on an instance?
so it's okay to admit to abusing a child, but not okay to say nigger out of anger? makes total sense. Are you helping Romney out with his campaign as well?
Also, if you notice in the chat, BlinG asks him "you fucked a 14yo?...." and he doesn't deny, he just says "14yo...", please - do tell me you're not gullible enough to believe he's telling his friend an "inside joke" about grinding on a 14yo, beating a 14yo at starcraft, or any other amazing dodge stephano fans are coming out with....
When you take on the position of a role model, you have to act like one. I believe innocent until proven guilty, so i'm not going to sit here and say he definitely had sex with a 14 year old girl, but irregardless he's suppose to be acting like a professional on a professional esports team....
I don't see how what orb did is nearly as bad as this.... he said something out of anger that is offensive, I hear offensive language all day at work - so what? If my coworker told me he abused a 14year old I don't think I would take it as lightly as if he said "fucking niggers didn't refill the water machine."
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
On October 07 2012 12:26 UNeeK wrote:
On October 07 2012 12:08 Ciryandor wrote:
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote: Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so.
When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one.
Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
Difference is that Orb was not a major asset, they really put nothing into him and losing him was completely acceptable. You;re equating the value of Jaedong to bitbybit. A company can take a financial hit if the asset is worth it, basic business.
Also we don't know and can never know (unless said girl comes forth) in what context he meant "abused". I've heard people, especially since I live in the international building on my campus refer in odd ways when it comes to english with dancing/grinding/flirting etc. "abused" could have mean't he was grinding on some girl really hard, could have meant he had sex with a 14 year old, could have meant he punched her in the face. The point is we have absolutely no context so equating "abused 14yo" with racial slurs is already treading a line because he can simply say "that's not what I meant" while "you fucking nigger grrrrr" is pretty hard to take in any other context than frustration.
Also you're acting a bit haste for something so vague, burn the witch at the stake on an instance?
so it's okay to admit to abusing a child, but not okay to say nigger out of anger? makes total sense. Are you helping Romney out with his campaign as well?
Also, if you notice in the chat, BlinG asks him "you fucked a 14yo?...." and he doesn't deny, he just says "14yo...", please - do tell me you're not gullible enough to believe he's telling his friend an "inside joke" about grinding on a 14yo, beating a 14yo at starcraft, or any other amazing dodge stephano fans are coming out with....
When you take on the position of a role model, you have to act like one. I believe innocent until proven guilty, so i'm not going to sit here and say he definitely had sex with a 14 year old girl, but irregardless he's suppose to be acting like a professional on a professional esports team....
I don't see how what orb did is nearly as bad as this.... he said something out of anger that is offensive, I hear offensive language all day at work - so what? If my coworker told me he abused a 14year old I don't think I would take it as lightly as if he said "fucking niggers didn't refill the water machine."
To be honest, I wouldn't take the nigger comment lightly at all. We're all missing context here. The message wasn't intended to be viewed by anyone other than bling, so one could safely assume that it was friendly banter. Stephano's 'oh shit' moment came when he realised how his message could be potentially interpreted by the masses. There's nothing in his word choice that actually confirms what bling asked him. You can say he alluded to it, but it's not solid evidence.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
What?
I see a bunch of people here practically defending pedophilia/ephebophilia/having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-minor/whatever the fuck else you want to call it and someone loses their cool because *newsflash* it's not fucking normal to defend something like that, and you say the ignorance is shameful?
I hope you're all defending Stephano by proxy because you love him so much, and that you're not a bunch of predators waiting to happen.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
What?
I see a bunch of people here practically defending pedophilia/ephebophilia/having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-minor/whatever the fuck else you want to call it and someone loses their cool because *newsflash* it's not fucking normal to defend something like that, and you say the ignorance is shameful?
I hope you're all defending Stephano by proxy because you love him so much, and that you're not a bunch of predators waiting to happen.
Well, it's not very bright to call people who disagree with you teenagers, then to say the only reason they think the way they do is because they're teenagers, and further, that because they're teenagers with some opinion, the opinion must therefore be wrong.
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to children, ephebophilia is sexual attraction to teenagers. Having sex with a 14 year old is an action that may or may not have attraction attached to it. There has been almost no effort in this thread to demonstrate that having sex with a 14 year old is necessarily predatory behavior. And if you're in a tizzy about something Stephano said, despite the large population of internet lawyers here, there's nothing we can do about it.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
What?
I see a bunch of people here practically defending pedophilia/ephebophilia/having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-minor/whatever the fuck else you want to call it and someone loses their cool because *newsflash* it's not fucking normal to defend something like that, and you say the ignorance is shameful?
I hope you're all defending Stephano by proxy because you love him so much, and that you're not a bunch of predators waiting to happen.
You're making ephebophilia sound like a bad thing when every man is genetically programmed to be attracted to adolescent girls. I'm not in favour of exploiting young girls, but you're simply warping things to fit your personal opinion and being highly irrational here.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
What?
I see a bunch of people here practically defending pedophilia/ephebophilia/having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-minor/whatever the fuck else you want to call it and someone loses their cool because *newsflash* it's not fucking normal to defend something like that, and you say the ignorance is shameful?
I hope you're all defending Stephano by proxy because you love him so much, and that you're not a bunch of predators waiting to happen.
No one is defending pedophilia here. But it's pretty normal to defend the rest of the things you've mentioned against the mainstream propaganda spreading ideas like "Having sex with anyone below 18 is fucking hideous predator behavior! Everyone doing that should be thrown in jail for life!".
What did they expect, there is always going to be a bunch of low life idiots who take joy into posting that shit, and even though I don't like it, it's the owner's fault for allowing it, and the users fault for putting it up there, and if other users do not support what is on that site, then they should either petition to get rid of it or just leave the site, leave all the legal shit to the government which will eventually take it down. Oh and I kind of think the owners are talking silly, there is a difference between freedom of speech and pictures of underage naked girls, but hell, let them ruin their own life.
Btw, even if any of you overaged "adults" were attracted to underage girls as young as 14, grow the hell up and realise what the hell is going through your head and control yourself, I'm 17 and even I know better not to do stupid shit with a CHILD!
I think consent laws should be like: 14 years old minimum if your partner is at most 4 years older than you, with a policy of tolerance for 5-6 years older if it's not abusive, otherwise 18. If you're 26 and want to sleep with a 14 year old girl you're sick and should know better.
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote: I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
On October 07 2012 12:26 UNeeK wrote:
On October 07 2012 12:08 Ciryandor wrote:
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote: Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so.
When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one.
Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
Difference is that Orb was not a major asset, they really put nothing into him and losing him was completely acceptable. You;re equating the value of Jaedong to bitbybit. A company can take a financial hit if the asset is worth it, basic business.
Also we don't know and can never know (unless said girl comes forth) in what context he meant "abused". I've heard people, especially since I live in the international building on my campus refer in odd ways when it comes to english with dancing/grinding/flirting etc. "abused" could have mean't he was grinding on some girl really hard, could have meant he had sex with a 14 year old, could have meant he punched her in the face. The point is we have absolutely no context so equating "abused 14yo" with racial slurs is already treading a line because he can simply say "that's not what I meant" while "you fucking nigger grrrrr" is pretty hard to take in any other context than frustration.
Also you're acting a bit haste for something so vague, burn the witch at the stake on an instance?
so it's okay to admit to abusing a child, but not okay to say nigger out of anger? makes total sense. Are you helping Romney out with his campaign as well?
Also, if you notice in the chat, BlinG asks him "you fucked a 14yo?...." and he doesn't deny, he just says "14yo...", please - do tell me you're not gullible enough to believe he's telling his friend an "inside joke" about grinding on a 14yo, beating a 14yo at starcraft, or any other amazing dodge stephano fans are coming out with....
When you take on the position of a role model, you have to act like one. I believe innocent until proven guilty, so i'm not going to sit here and say he definitely had sex with a 14 year old girl, but irregardless he's suppose to be acting like a professional on a professional esports team....
I don't see how what orb did is nearly as bad as this.... he said something out of anger that is offensive, I hear offensive language all day at work - so what? If my coworker told me he abused a 14year old I don't think I would take it as lightly as if he said "fucking niggers didn't refill the water machine."
so it's okay to admit to abusing a child, but not okay to say nigger out of anger? makes total sense. Are you helping Romney out with his campaign as well?
Generally ad hominem attacks come when irrationality is at its fullest. Firstly "a child" and "a teenager" are two specific things and it should be very easy to separate them as one is pre-puberty and the other post-puberty and thus they sit in different categories. Secondly our body is wired to be sexually attracted to girls from approximately 15 up (This is always roiugh because of the age at which maturity really comes into play is different for all girls and guys).
I've also said earlier that I believe 16 is a viable age of consent because the age of sexual maturity and age of sexual fertility are generally two different things where a female may simply not be mentally capable of contemplating the results of her actions such that we should allow her to "mature more" but I also said the idea of seeing an attractive 14-15 year old is simply biologically possible and not related to pedophilia at all so stop being so rash "pedos!!!!!!" .
When you take on the position of a role model, you have to act like one. I believe innocent until proven guilty, so i'm not going to sit here and say he definitely had sex with a 14 year old girl, but irregardless he's suppose to be acting like a professional on a professional esports team....
This is a very very odd way to look at things. Is he not acting like a professional? A "private" message was shown by mistake to the public, is Scarlett Johansson now suddenly unprofessional because a picture of her boob was sent viral and that's not a good role model!!!!!!!!!! Obviously not. Private messages should be relatively private and if they slip they slip but what's immature is getting so worked up for banter most of us have done before, you can say "I've never said I've absued a 14yo girl privately!" but somewhere down the line you have a skeleton in your closet where you said something offensive that you'd not want public, we all have.
I'm glad you are following the innocent until proven guilty mantra though, seeing as we have absolutely no idea in what context that was meant so I'll leave that as is.
Also, if you notice in the chat, BlinG asks him "you fucked a 14yo?...." and he doesn't deny, he just says "14yo...", please - do tell me you're not gullible enough to believe he's telling his friend an "inside joke" about grinding on a 14yo, beating a 14yo at starcraft, or any other amazing dodge stephano fans are coming out with...
I quoted your 3rd paragraph over your second becasue you go "innocent until proven guilty" after saying "Y u so gullable he obviously had sex with a 14yo!". I'm not a "Stephano fan" ... You've been generalzing this entire post from "romney" to "fan" and it's very tiresome to see so many straws in your argument simply falling out because they're not true. Why not formulate a strong argument instead of just going "GRR GRR GRR" and hoping the shit makes sense.
Since you said "innocent until proven guilty" I'll assume you meant it and won't reply to your subjective assumptions based off pre-dispositions and faulty reasoning.
I don't see how what orb did is nearly as bad as this.... he said something out of anger that is offensive, I hear offensive language all day at work - so what? If my coworker told me he abused a 14year old I don't think I would take it as lightly as if he said "fucking niggers didn't refill the water machine."
You misunderstand business. Whether or not Stephano meant it or not has no effect on him being "let go". In business you measure your assets and if your assets take hits and aren't worth a marketable enough value to be worth it you let it go. Orb was worth relatively nothing, they have casters who play that are better and a lot of the community already disliked Orb to begin with so EG simply clapped their hands together and said "That's that" but with Stephano he's a multi-tournament winning foreigner and one of the last of his kind who brings in IMMENSE viewership and ratings. No one gives a shit if a few angry people start shitting on the walls of the EG castle yelling "pedo pedo pedo!" because a) It'll go away and b) there was no context so they can just defend his actions by placing any context they want.
Also nothing in life matters from your perspective, you're subjective and your morale compass is singular. In 500 years society might look back and go "I can't believe they were throwing people in jail for having sex with fertile women, absolutely barbaric practice!" and you'd be sitting there in that society going "absolutely! barbaric!" because you're trained to think what way is up and how to walk. Now I've already pointed out that I think that there are limits to the differences of sexual fertility and maturity and we should cap the age based on THAT but even that's subjective.
On October 07 2012 21:35 Grumbels wrote: I think consent laws should be like: 14 years old minimum if your partner is at most 4 years older than you, with a policy of tolerance for 5-6 years older if it's not abusive, otherwise 18. If you're 26 and want to sleep with a 14 year old girl you're sick and should know better.
Most countries have that kind of buffer, I believe Canada has a 2 year policy to 5 year where 13-15, 14- 16, 15-17, 16-21 17-22. These numbers might be off but I remember it going something like that in an old sex ed class (where they said that was Canada's new standard).
I also am inclined to believe that as humans our conscience should place limits over our animal desires but I would argue that the idea of finding an attractive minor in that age isn't devilish at all. I would however say that only the sexually immature would chase the sexually immature and that we should have laws (like you said) as a buffer to protect such things.
On October 07 2012 22:01 FFGenerations wrote: is it ok for a sexually mature 14yo to pursue a sexually immature 26yo? or is that abuse
I think the main argument there is what is "sexually mature" and how do we define it? We could counter that argument and say 26yo's can be sexually immature but on average teenagers in their younger teens are, by today's standards, immature. Frankly even on a mental scale your brain continues to grow on average until 18 (and even past that it can develop obviously) but the age between 13-18 is ripe with instability and irrationality "teen years" so how can we tell if that decision is made rationally from a mature individual or irrationally from a sexually immature one?
I would agree the whole thing is a very hard line to place a stake in though.
On October 07 2012 20:48 PiPoGevy wrote: What did they expect, there is always going to be a bunch of low life idiots who take joy into posting that shit, and even though I don't like it, it's the owner's fault for allowing it, and the users fault for putting it up there, and if other users do not support what is on that site, then they should either petition to get rid of it or just leave the site, leave all the legal shit to the government which will eventually take it down. Oh and I kind of think the owners are talking silly, there is a difference between freedom of speech and pictures of underage naked girls, but hell, let them ruin their own life.
Btw, even if any of you overaged "adults" were attracted to underage girls as young as 14, grow the hell up and realise what the hell is going through your head and control yourself, I'm 17 and even I know better not to do stupid shit with a CHILD!
Just a point I'd like to add: Grade 9 = 14, grade 11/12 = 17/18 in most Canadian highschools (possibly states too??). The way school gets divided up here, grade 12's dating grade 9's was not common but certainly not "grow the hell up stupid shit" type behaviour : \
The mindset, at least where I live, is if you're in the same bracket (schoolwise) it's fine to date and whatever else. A bit strange for 18 to 14 from other 18's perspectives but for the 14...all her friends will be buzzing about how amazing it is for their friend to be dating 18. Once you hit 19, you can drink here too. You begin to think...if you didn't see them at a bar, you shouldn't talk to them. AKA highschoolers who can't legally drink.
Same goes for Uni/college. Dating a highschooler was kinda weird unless they were already dating or the highschooler was going back for a 5th year.
Now that I'm done university, I wouldn't dream of dating anyone that was in first or 2nd year of university, maybe not even 3rd year. The brackets change as you get older but the mindset does not; stay in your bracket.
To be crystal clear, I know what you're all talking about is 19 and 14. But what I wanted to address was the different social rules in other places.
All i can say is, being a person who knows a lot about this from both sides, don't be too harsh on him, even if this is true, which i hope is not. I believe stephano is totally capable of knowning that bling streams
On October 07 2012 20:48 PiPoGevy wrote: What did they expect, there is always going to be a bunch of low life idiots who take joy into posting that shit, and even though I don't like it, it's the owner's fault for allowing it, and the users fault for putting it up there, and if other users do not support what is on that site, then they should either petition to get rid of it or just leave the site, leave all the legal shit to the government which will eventually take it down. Oh and I kind of think the owners are talking silly, there is a difference between freedom of speech and pictures of underage naked girls, but hell, let them ruin their own life.
Btw, even if any of you overaged "adults" were attracted to underage girls as young as 14, grow the hell up and realise what the hell is going through your head and control yourself, I'm 17 and even I know better not to do stupid shit with a CHILD!
Just a point I'd like to add: Grade 9 = 14, grade 11/12 = 17/18 in most Canadian highschools (possibly states too??). The way school gets divided up here, grade 12's dating grade 9's was not common but certainly not "grow the hell up stupid shit" type behaviour : \
The mindset, at least where I live, is if you're in the same bracket (schoolwise) it's fine to date and whatever else. A bit strange for 18 to 14 from other 18's perspectives but for the 14...all her friends will be buzzing about how amazing it is for their friend to be dating 18. Once you hit 19, you can drink here too. You begin to think...if you didn't see them at a bar, you shouldn't talk to them. AKA highschoolers who can't legally drink.
Same goes for Uni/college. Dating a highschooler was kinda weird unless they were already dating or the highschooler was going back for a 5th year.
Now that I'm done university, I wouldn't dream of dating anyone that was in first or 2nd year of university, maybe not even 3rd year. The brackets change as you get older but the mindset does not; stay in your bracket.
To be crystal clear, I know what you're all talking about is 19 and 14. But what I wanted to address was the different social rules in other places.
Hmm that's not really a "social rule" it's just an opinion you have. I do agree though and that's what I personally tend to follow, a sort of bracket system but I wouldn't think differently of a 26 yo dating a 18-20. Who am I to make such claim on love, especially with two sexually mature individuals.
On October 07 2012 21:35 Grumbels wrote: I think consent laws should be like: 14 years old minimum if your partner is at most 4 years older than you, with a policy of tolerance for 5-6 years older if it's not abusive, otherwise 18. If you're 26 and want to sleep with a 14 year old girl you're sick and should know better.
Better option: do away with statutory rape entirely, and let courts determine whether it was reasonable to believe that the alleged victim in question was mentally mature enough to give consent.
We don't (and shouldn't) have maximum ages of consent, even though on average most people start major mental decline in their later years; we simply let courts decide in individual rape cases whether or not an elderly party was capable of giving consent. Same thing goes with alcohol: we don't (and shouldn't) assume the inability to consent at certain blood alcohol percentages; we let the courts decide in each particular case.
Case-by-case adjudication is the only logical way to handle issues of class-based consent; anything else is an arbitrary line that invites potential injustice.
On October 07 2012 21:35 Grumbels wrote: I think consent laws should be like: 14 years old minimum if your partner is at most 4 years older than you, with a policy of tolerance for 5-6 years older if it's not abusive, otherwise 18. If you're 26 and want to sleep with a 14 year old girl you're sick and should know better.
Better option: do away with statutory rape entirely, and let courts determine whether it was reasonable to believe that the alleged victim in question was mentally mature enough to give consent.
We don't (and shouldn't) have maximum ages of consent, even though on average most people start major mental decline in their later years; we simply let courts decide in individual rape cases whether or not an elderly party was capable of giving consent. Same thing goes with alcohol: we don't (and shouldn't) assume the inability to consent at certain blood alcohol percentages; we let the courts decide in each particular case.
Case-by-case adjudication is the only logical way to handle issues of class-based consent; anything else is an arbitrary line that invites potential injustice.
Too many case-by-base rules => make more laws to make it easier for the courts to determine the outcome without an expensive or long case => more silly cases due to poorly made laws => movement for more case-by-case rules
On October 07 2012 21:35 Grumbels wrote: I think consent laws should be like: 14 years old minimum if your partner is at most 4 years older than you, with a policy of tolerance for 5-6 years older if it's not abusive, otherwise 18. If you're 26 and want to sleep with a 14 year old girl you're sick and should know better.
Better option: do away with statutory rape entirely, and let courts determine whether it was reasonable to believe that the alleged victim in question was mentally mature enough to give consent.
We don't (and shouldn't) have maximum ages of consent, even though on average most people start major mental decline in their later years; we simply let courts decide in individual rape cases whether or not an elderly party was capable of giving consent. Same thing goes with alcohol: we don't (and shouldn't) assume the inability to consent at certain blood alcohol percentages; we let the courts decide in each particular case.
Case-by-case adjudication is the only logical way to handle issues of class-based consent; anything else is an arbitrary line that invites potential injustice.
You want courts to determine mental maturity? Oh boy...
For everyone else, I have a huge newsflash:
90% of people have sex before they are mentally mature. Think about the people you went to high school with, seriously. The argument here is boiling down to: "It's better to have BOTH parties immature when sex is first had!"
On October 07 2012 21:35 Grumbels wrote: I think consent laws should be like: 14 years old minimum if your partner is at most 4 years older than you, with a policy of tolerance for 5-6 years older if it's not abusive, otherwise 18. If you're 26 and want to sleep with a 14 year old girl you're sick and should know better.
Better option: do away with statutory rape entirely, and let courts determine whether it was reasonable to believe that the alleged victim in question was mentally mature enough to give consent.
We don't (and shouldn't) have maximum ages of consent, even though on average most people start major mental decline in their later years; we simply let courts decide in individual rape cases whether or not an elderly party was capable of giving consent. Same thing goes with alcohol: we don't (and shouldn't) assume the inability to consent at certain blood alcohol percentages; we let the courts decide in each particular case.
Case-by-case adjudication is the only logical way to handle issues of class-based consent; anything else is an arbitrary line that invites potential injustice.
You want courts to determine mental maturity? Oh boy...
They already do in many aspects of consent, sexual and otherwise.
On October 09 2012 01:15 jdseemoreglass wrote: For everyone else, I have a huge newsflash:
90% of people have sex before they are mentally mature. Think about the people you went to high school with, seriously. The argument here is boiling down to: "It's better to have BOTH parties immature when sex is first had!"
Mental maturity isn't a binary state that applies to everything. It is possible to be sufficiently mentally mature to give informed consent for sex, despite not reaching some vague level of "adult-level maturity".
maturity, mental or otherwise, should never be the deciding factor here. to subjective, to prone to outside factors and to hard to actually measure/determine it for legal purposes. the arbitrary age limit worked fine so far. perhaps add more limits and thats it. 13 - 16, 16 - 19, +19
Teenagers in high school use facebook. They are usually under 18 when they are in high school, for the majority of time at least. Child pornography is a very loose term because that could mean like a 17 year old with cleavage can be considered as child pornography...
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/526/southparkwow.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XJZUA.jpg)
