|
On October 12 2012 08:56 eg9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:32 goldenwitch wrote:
If what they were doing wasn't wrong in their own eyes then why would they be against having their names associated with it? It's like the nazi concentration camps sending fake postcards to the relatives of their detainees. If they really believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't try to cover it up. This might be something they just did to derp arround. If people make their name, adress etc public it will be the first thing that shows up if someone googles your name. Would you like to have your family/friends/future kids seeing people calling you a creep or predator or maybe even pedophile? Also, try getting a job if the first impression your employer gets of you (the google search) is that you are a creep, predator etc... Annonymity on the internet is a beautiful concept. The only people who should be able to violate it is the authorities imo, yet i find it important that the authorities are not able to abuse that power. To be honest; if people find this to be so wrong they should attempt to get it embeded into the law of their respective country. I belive it is illegal to post pictures of people without their consent in Norway at least.
there is no "derp" around in real life. what you do has consequences,if what you do involves others then deal with what happens to you.
and we all know that law is a very shallow thing in the web. the easiest and fairest thing to do is fight fire with fire.
also honestly, the idea of a stalking pervert that secretly takes photos of others,puts em on the web and then gets mad when people link that action to pictures/info he himself willingly put in the web (facebook) is so hilarious to me.
|
On October 12 2012 07:31 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Decided to check out what Reddit was. Clicked through some front page hot topics. Seems to be lots of memes and pics. How's this different from 4chan?
4chan is a lot funnier and doesn't have karmawhores
|
On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +I realize that I'm dealing with a forum full of gigantic fucking internet nerds Probably the only problem with your entire post. You go onto rage by generalizing the entire community? Especially in a derogatory fashion? Common....
I edited it out of OP since you're the second person to bring it up, perhaps I should have put in parenthesis "(I am one)".
On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +"But Samantha (OP note: the creator of the Predditor tumblr) believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous hobbies. Fetishizing non-consent "indicates [that CreepShots posters] don't view women as people, and most will not be satisfied with just that level of violation," she said. "I want to make sure that the people around these men know what they're doing so they can reap social, professional, or legal consequences, and possibly save women from future sexual assault. These men are dangerous." Though I agree that the process of illegaly photographing another individual should be punished and I have no issue with them being tracked down I highly doubt it requires the buzz word "gateway drug" to be associated with it to spur fear in the minds of ignorant people. Her entire viewpoint is an assumption and a fallacy, she's making a claim from ignorance where she just makes a conclusion off subjective predetermined characteristics she already came up with. Perhaps it's true but quoting that as any authority on the issue is poorly thought out, especially while leading into an irrational outburst. TLDR: People who take privacy invading pictures should be punished but this line is grey because in court the definition will have to be set in stone, probably the showing of any underwear etc because frankly taking a picture of a girl from a non-comp. position these days is comprimising just based on the little clothing they're wearing. OP should stop throwing so much personal bias into his OP and make it so we can have a discussion without his tone being spewed all over it.
Of course the line is grey, and of course this issue may never be solved if the mission is continue to let people enjoy the same degree of freedom that they have now. It's a very difficult issue and hence I never made any statements regarding this -and-that should be outlawed or forbidden.
I did raise the fact that out of respect for some of the people you love and care about (who would not appreciate knowing a stranger is taking suggestive photos for their or others' enjoyment, unless they have a voyeur fetish) who could be affected by this, we should rail against the idea of a mainstream website like Reddit with so many users and so many good qualities having places where people like this can congregate. It makes it seem socially acceptable.
And it obviously attracts REAL sexual predators. There is nothing biased about that.
edit: editsss
|
I found the Predditors far creepier. Their intentions are clear. They want people to know this info about these people so other people can do things to them.
Also, I'm not sure people who have been excited to see a paparazzi photo have adequate standing to criticize.
|
On October 12 2012 08:50 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 08:11 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 08:06 oBlade wrote:On October 12 2012 07:56 Positronic wrote:
expose whoever is taking advantage of their position to take more pictures (the pedophile in the OP). That's not pedophilia. Rather, it's just what you described - a public schoolteacher taking advantage of a position of trust. For reference, the age of consent in Georgia is 16, which as usual in the United States, is after puberty (pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescents, which for all we know this guy may or may not have, or you or I may or may not have, but which isn't relevant in this case). I don't care to make the distinction between ephebophiles and pedophiles, personally, I think that's a bit of a euphemism but I do see your point A bit of a euphemism? Well clearly you are ignorant then, if you think pedophilia and every other type of chronophilia are somehow comparable at all. Pedophilia is the only one listed as a disorder by the DSM and the only one ever regarded as a pythopsychology by psychologists anywhere. What you are likely expressing is an emotional response which has been conditioned into you by a society which has arbitrarily chosen 18 as the age of consent. Actually what I'm expressing is derision and disgust at those who justify going after younger girls because it's "how humans work, we're supposed to be attracted to girls in their prime" (O_O), nice swing and a miss there champ. And yes, the term "ephebophile" can be used euphemistically Show nested quote +However, the term pedophilia is commonly used to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical, mental, or psychological development
As I pointed out earlier, the age of consent in Georgia is 16. You're not picking a relevant fight on this point.
|
On October 12 2012 09:20 Ettick wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:31 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Decided to check out what Reddit was. Clicked through some front page hot topics. Seems to be lots of memes and pics. How's this different from 4chan? 4chan is a lot funnier and doesn't have karmawhores
it has tripfags instead
|
On October 12 2012 09:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:50 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 08:11 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 08:06 oBlade wrote:On October 12 2012 07:56 Positronic wrote:
expose whoever is taking advantage of their position to take more pictures (the pedophile in the OP). That's not pedophilia. Rather, it's just what you described - a public schoolteacher taking advantage of a position of trust. For reference, the age of consent in Georgia is 16, which as usual in the United States, is after puberty (pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescents, which for all we know this guy may or may not have, or you or I may or may not have, but which isn't relevant in this case). I don't care to make the distinction between ephebophiles and pedophiles, personally, I think that's a bit of a euphemism but I do see your point A bit of a euphemism? Well clearly you are ignorant then, if you think pedophilia and every other type of chronophilia are somehow comparable at all. Pedophilia is the only one listed as a disorder by the DSM and the only one ever regarded as a pythopsychology by psychologists anywhere. What you are likely expressing is an emotional response which has been conditioned into you by a society which has arbitrarily chosen 18 as the age of consent. Actually what I'm expressing is derision and disgust at those who justify going after younger girls because it's "how humans work, we're supposed to be attracted to girls in their prime" (O_O), nice swing and a miss there champ. And yes, the term "ephebophile" can be used euphemistically However, the term pedophilia is commonly used to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical, mental, or psychological development As I pointed out earlier, the age of consent in Georgia is 16. You're not picking a relevant fight on this point.
Maybe in terms of the actual law yes, but I conceded that point. Believe it or not, I don't really ascribe to the idea of just setting an age on when it's okay to have sex and when it's not and having everything be called "normal" if it's after that age, in my honest opinion once you reach age 21 you're a creeper if you're with a 16 year old and worse if you're older. I still call 'em pedos if they're dating 14-16 year olds when you're way beyond drinking age, don't really care what each individual country's laws are personally.
|
On October 12 2012 09:20 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I realize that I'm dealing with a forum full of gigantic fucking internet nerds Probably the only problem with your entire post. You go onto rage by generalizing the entire community? Especially in a derogatory fashion? Common.... I edited it out of OP since you're the second person to bring it up, perhaps I should have put in parenthesis "(I am one)". Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:"But Samantha (OP note: the creator of the Predditor tumblr) believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous hobbies. Fetishizing non-consent "indicates [that CreepShots posters] don't view women as people, and most will not be satisfied with just that level of violation," she said. "I want to make sure that the people around these men know what they're doing so they can reap social, professional, or legal consequences, and possibly save women from future sexual assault. These men are dangerous." Though I agree that the process of illegaly photographing another individual should be punished and I have no issue with them being tracked down I highly doubt it requires the buzz word "gateway drug" to be associated with it to spur fear in the minds of ignorant people. Her entire viewpoint is an assumption and a fallacy, she's making a claim from ignorance where she just makes a conclusion off subjective predetermined characteristics she already came up with. Perhaps it's true but quoting that as any authority on the issue is poorly thought out, especially while leading into an irrational outburst. TLDR: People who take privacy invading pictures should be punished but this line is grey because in court the definition will have to be set in stone, probably the showing of any underwear etc because frankly taking a picture of a girl from a non-comp. position these days is comprimising just based on the little clothing they're wearing. OP should stop throwing so much personal bias into his OP and make it so we can have a discussion without his tone being spewed all over it. Of course the line is grey, and of course this issue may never be solved if the mission is continue to let people enjoy the same degree of freedom that they have now. It's a very difficult issue and hence I never made any statements regarding this -and-that should be outlawed or forbidden. I did raise the fact that out of respect for some of the people you love and care about (who would not appreciate knowing a stranger is taking suggestive photos for their or others' enjoyment, unless they have a voyeur fetish) who could be affected by this, we should rail against the idea of a mainstream website like Reddit with so many users and so many good qualities having places where people like this can congregate. It makes it seem socially acceptable. And it obviously attracts REAL sexual predators. There is nothing biased about that. edit: editsss
Yes it attracts predators, and so does the Jon Stewart show because they enjoy his comedy. Attracting predators and being a gateway to anything are two totally different terms.
All I was saying is that your reasoning is why family members of a murdered son/daughter aren't permitted to be the judge and executioner. Irrational emotions are a very tedious and subjective thing thus using "if it was your mother/sister/cousin" is a poor argument in general.
|
On October 12 2012 09:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:20 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I realize that I'm dealing with a forum full of gigantic fucking internet nerds Probably the only problem with your entire post. You go onto rage by generalizing the entire community? Especially in a derogatory fashion? Common.... I edited it out of OP since you're the second person to bring it up, perhaps I should have put in parenthesis "(I am one)". On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:"But Samantha (OP note: the creator of the Predditor tumblr) believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous hobbies. Fetishizing non-consent "indicates [that CreepShots posters] don't view women as people, and most will not be satisfied with just that level of violation," she said. "I want to make sure that the people around these men know what they're doing so they can reap social, professional, or legal consequences, and possibly save women from future sexual assault. These men are dangerous." Though I agree that the process of illegaly photographing another individual should be punished and I have no issue with them being tracked down I highly doubt it requires the buzz word "gateway drug" to be associated with it to spur fear in the minds of ignorant people. Her entire viewpoint is an assumption and a fallacy, she's making a claim from ignorance where she just makes a conclusion off subjective predetermined characteristics she already came up with. Perhaps it's true but quoting that as any authority on the issue is poorly thought out, especially while leading into an irrational outburst. TLDR: People who take privacy invading pictures should be punished but this line is grey because in court the definition will have to be set in stone, probably the showing of any underwear etc because frankly taking a picture of a girl from a non-comp. position these days is comprimising just based on the little clothing they're wearing. OP should stop throwing so much personal bias into his OP and make it so we can have a discussion without his tone being spewed all over it. Of course the line is grey, and of course this issue may never be solved if the mission is continue to let people enjoy the same degree of freedom that they have now. It's a very difficult issue and hence I never made any statements regarding this -and-that should be outlawed or forbidden. I did raise the fact that out of respect for some of the people you love and care about (who would not appreciate knowing a stranger is taking suggestive photos for their or others' enjoyment, unless they have a voyeur fetish) who could be affected by this, we should rail against the idea of a mainstream website like Reddit with so many users and so many good qualities having places where people like this can congregate. It makes it seem socially acceptable. And it obviously attracts REAL sexual predators. There is nothing biased about that. edit: editsss Yes it attracts predators, and so does the Jon Stewart show because they enjoy his comedy. Attracting predators and being a gateway to anything are two totally different terms. All I was saying is that your reasoning is why family members of a murdered son/daughter aren't permitted to be the judge and executioner. Irrational emotions are a very tedious and subjective thing thus using "if it was your mother/sister/cousin" is a poor argument in general.
I'm not really sure I get the Daily Show joke/analogy.
Of course, you're right, I am making the assumption that one loves their sister/mother/cousin, and wouldn't want to see their body exploited by total stranger and that activity promoted on a major website
|
On October 12 2012 09:41 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:30 oBlade wrote:On October 12 2012 08:50 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 08:11 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 08:06 oBlade wrote:On October 12 2012 07:56 Positronic wrote:
expose whoever is taking advantage of their position to take more pictures (the pedophile in the OP). That's not pedophilia. Rather, it's just what you described - a public schoolteacher taking advantage of a position of trust. For reference, the age of consent in Georgia is 16, which as usual in the United States, is after puberty (pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescents, which for all we know this guy may or may not have, or you or I may or may not have, but which isn't relevant in this case). I don't care to make the distinction between ephebophiles and pedophiles, personally, I think that's a bit of a euphemism but I do see your point A bit of a euphemism? Well clearly you are ignorant then, if you think pedophilia and every other type of chronophilia are somehow comparable at all. Pedophilia is the only one listed as a disorder by the DSM and the only one ever regarded as a pythopsychology by psychologists anywhere. What you are likely expressing is an emotional response which has been conditioned into you by a society which has arbitrarily chosen 18 as the age of consent. Actually what I'm expressing is derision and disgust at those who justify going after younger girls because it's "how humans work, we're supposed to be attracted to girls in their prime" (O_O), nice swing and a miss there champ. And yes, the term "ephebophile" can be used euphemistically However, the term pedophilia is commonly used to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical, mental, or psychological development As I pointed out earlier, the age of consent in Georgia is 16. You're not picking a relevant fight on this point. Maybe in terms of the actual law yes, but I conceded that point. Believe it or not, I don't really ascribe to the idea of just setting an age on when it's okay to have sex and when it's not and having everything be called "normal" if it's after that age,
Okay, that's a reasonable position to have.
once you reach age 21 you're a creeper if you're with a 16 year old and worse if you're older. I still call 'em pedos if they're dating 14-16 year olds when you're way beyond drinking age, don't really care what each individual country's laws are personally.
I still call 'em pedos if they're dating 14-16 year olds when you're way beyond drinking age, don't really care what each individual country's laws are personally.
Nobody has been talking about 14-16 year olds. You're obscuring the point here. You called the guy a pedophile because some stuff in his phone goes down to 16 year olds. By both the psychological definition of pedophilia (prepubescents) or the social one (below age of consent), he doesn't qualify for pedophilia. You're now resorting to "well I call him that anyway because fuck being correct." You may have a problem with pedophiles. You may have a problem with what this guy did. That doesn't make this teacher a pedophile.
There are many interesting issues associated with pedophilia, like kidnapping, human trafficking, child sex tourism, the rights of rehabilitated people and the rights of parents, the rights of children not to be raped and photographed, but also their rights to give some form of sexual consent, social development in abusive families... however, the issue at hand here is not on this list. That is, the issue of pedophilia's is such a far proxy to this discussion that if it were a 2rax, it wouldn't hit before I had colossi out.
|
On October 12 2012 09:20 Ettick wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:31 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Decided to check out what Reddit was. Clicked through some front page hot topics. Seems to be lots of memes and pics. How's this different from 4chan? 4chan is a lot funnier and doesn't have karmawhores
Honestly I really come to love reddit for their medium to small subreddits. Stuff like r/League or r/DotA2 is too big for my taste but stuff like r/audioengineering is fun as hell. r/IAMA has awesome people in there lot of the time as well.
It kind of depends, the whole "karmawhoring" system has huge benefits and flaws.
|
"But Samantha (OP note: the creator of the Predditor tumblr) believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous hobbies.
THE ENTIRE INTERNET
|
On October 12 2012 10:02 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 09:20 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I realize that I'm dealing with a forum full of gigantic fucking internet nerds Probably the only problem with your entire post. You go onto rage by generalizing the entire community? Especially in a derogatory fashion? Common.... I edited it out of OP since you're the second person to bring it up, perhaps I should have put in parenthesis "(I am one)". On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:"But Samantha (OP note: the creator of the Predditor tumblr) believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous hobbies. Fetishizing non-consent "indicates [that CreepShots posters] don't view women as people, and most will not be satisfied with just that level of violation," she said. "I want to make sure that the people around these men know what they're doing so they can reap social, professional, or legal consequences, and possibly save women from future sexual assault. These men are dangerous." Though I agree that the process of illegaly photographing another individual should be punished and I have no issue with them being tracked down I highly doubt it requires the buzz word "gateway drug" to be associated with it to spur fear in the minds of ignorant people. Her entire viewpoint is an assumption and a fallacy, she's making a claim from ignorance where she just makes a conclusion off subjective predetermined characteristics she already came up with. Perhaps it's true but quoting that as any authority on the issue is poorly thought out, especially while leading into an irrational outburst. TLDR: People who take privacy invading pictures should be punished but this line is grey because in court the definition will have to be set in stone, probably the showing of any underwear etc because frankly taking a picture of a girl from a non-comp. position these days is comprimising just based on the little clothing they're wearing. OP should stop throwing so much personal bias into his OP and make it so we can have a discussion without his tone being spewed all over it. Of course the line is grey, and of course this issue may never be solved if the mission is continue to let people enjoy the same degree of freedom that they have now. It's a very difficult issue and hence I never made any statements regarding this -and-that should be outlawed or forbidden. I did raise the fact that out of respect for some of the people you love and care about (who would not appreciate knowing a stranger is taking suggestive photos for their or others' enjoyment, unless they have a voyeur fetish) who could be affected by this, we should rail against the idea of a mainstream website like Reddit with so many users and so many good qualities having places where people like this can congregate. It makes it seem socially acceptable. And it obviously attracts REAL sexual predators. There is nothing biased about that. edit: editsss Yes it attracts predators, and so does the Jon Stewart show because they enjoy his comedy. Attracting predators and being a gateway to anything are two totally different terms. All I was saying is that your reasoning is why family members of a murdered son/daughter aren't permitted to be the judge and executioner. Irrational emotions are a very tedious and subjective thing thus using "if it was your mother/sister/cousin" is a poor argument in general. I'm not really sure I get the Daily Show joke/analogy. Of course, you're right, I am making the assumption that one loves their sister/mother/cousin, and wouldn't want to see their body exploited by total stranger and that activity promoted on a major website
Like I agree with you, obviously no one would want that but that shouldn't the measure of an argument. I wouldn't want my sister becoming a talkshow host for the View because I think they're a bunch of imbeciles but that isn't a good arugment against it.
My reference to the Daily Show was that possible sex offenders may watch that to get a laugh, may bone off to skimp pictures to get a rush but just because a grouip of offenders is viewing something doesn't mean it's a gateway to anything. I don't feel compelled to make jokes because I watch comedy central nor do I want to cook meth because I like breaking bad or try heroine because I smoke pot. The "gateway" analogy is just a poor statement, just because some people are going to get a hardon to pictures of 17 year old teens wearing less clothing than a Malaysian prostitute doesn't mean they're going down some wicked patch of destruction and violence.
As I said before, obviously it's an invasion of privacy and it should be punishable (a lot of grey area, but the basic morale ground should be that invading someones privacy like that is punishable) but saying "what would your mother think!" or phrases like "What if it was your sibling/mother!" don't add anything to an argument, nor does making rash claims like "gateway" implying the mere act of seeing will induce some chemical effect that will turn the person to want more. Of course unless a study can prove that, it's simply an argument out of ignorance.
|
On October 12 2012 06:23 BlueLanterna wrote:
I love the irony in this situation, a bunch of creeps being angry about having their photos posted online when they've doing the same thing to hundreds of unaware girls for who-knows-how-long
Pretty much this. It's stupid and illogical for these clowns to complain about other people doing something similar back to them. However, with the idiocy of laws these days, it wouldn't surprise me if it is them who get protected and not the actual people whose photos were taken.
The best part about it all is how they're so tough doing shit from anonymity but when threatened with the possibility of having their entire families informed about their secret lives, they cower in fear. If it's so harmless as you say, then surely your family will take it lightly.
I hope they all get screwed big time.
|
now you just have to wait for the girls to upload their own shots on their facebook, which mostly are pretty damn sexual
|
i love it how the reddit users react with aggression and fear when their rl details leak into public, but have no problems with making nsfw photos of woman taken without permission public.
reddit is a big trashcan of the internet, and the day it is closed down will be a good day.
|
On October 12 2012 10:17 Mr.Faces wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:23 BlueLanterna wrote:
I love the irony in this situation, a bunch of creeps being angry about having their photos posted online when they've doing the same thing to hundreds of unaware girls for who-knows-how-long Pretty much this. It's stupid and illogical for these clowns to complain about other people doing something similar back to them. However, with the idiocy of laws these days, it wouldn't surprise me if it is them who get protected and not the actual people whose photos were taken. The best part about it all is how they're so tough doing shit from anonymity but when threatened with the possibility of having their entire families informed about their secret lives, they cower in fear. If it's so harmless as you say, then surely your family will take it lightly. I hope they all get screwed big time.
I wouldn't expect any other type of human being from the "creep" subreddit.
|
On October 12 2012 10:17 Mr.Faces wrote:
If it's so harmless as you say, then surely your family will take it lightly.
Nothing in my sex life is illegal/out of the ordinary but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want all of that publicized either.
I'd wager a fair amount of people have innocent activities they'd rather not display (we just had a thread about people hiding how much they play games, for instance).
|
Oh yeah because the fat nerds on reddit are totally the ones out raping people. *sarcasm*
|
Yeah, wouldn't this be better as a bump to one of the many general threads about reddit having creepy subcommunities? Whatever :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
