 |
Sinfest
welcome to the fest
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2163
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | Because it's a fucking bullshit justification for allowing people to view child porn. YOU ARE LITERALLY DEFENDING REDDIT GIVING THOSE WHO VIEW CHILD PORN A FREE PASS UNDER THE GUISE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. PROTIP: CHILD PORN IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH |
*facepalm* Read it again. Please. |
| Quote: | | Yes, many of those pictures were not posted with the consent of the guardian of said child. |
|
Which pictures? From which section?
| Quote: | | Yes, posting video of children dancing provocatively a crime |
Buuuullshit.
| Quote: | | images sexualizing minors are directly classified as child pornography. |
Uh-huh. And how much of that is subjective? Parents taking pictures of their child in the tub, is that sexualising them?
| Quote: | | Sexualized drawn images of children are also illegal in many places. Yes, from an internet standpoint it is, if for no other reason than the moment it goes into your history, you are now "owning" pictures of child porn. |
Five, according to Wikipedia. And it's moronic. The reasoning they use is particulary obtuse.
| Quote: | | And again, child pornography is not protected speech, anywhere that i'm aware of, so...who fucking cares if it gets censored. |
Ehhhh...
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2729
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unfortunately the world doesn't run on your opinion of the law Guest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thy Brilliance
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3213
Location: Relative
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | CTrees wrote: | | Yeah... a lot of censorship is bad, but the sexual exploitation of minors is one place where I'm just fine with a little censorship. We can argue how high penalties should be set, etc., but I DEFINITELY think the distribution of CP should be quashed. Sorry guest. |
If it's actually child porn, yeah, sure. I don't think the subjective "sexually suggestive" pictures of children are an example of child porn, and even if people were looking at pictures of child porn -- which should be removed -- it shouldn't be a crime worthy of conviction except for the photographer. Now if Reddit had made it clear they wanted to remove this kind of content from the get-go, like how Tat removes porn peddlers and similar on the forum, that'd be fine, but they were coerced to do it by moral crusaders who found the content offensive. In other news, people can still watch snuff on Reddit. |
SA is well known for being very hypocritical, but that doesn't mean they can't be right once in a while.
Question: Do you find this offensive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul4CZrnEFxU
It's basically Snuff as far as I'm concerned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2163
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lasairfiona wrote: | | [color=indigo]I think it is art in that it was deliberately created to be pleasing to someone (even if only the artist). However, it being "art" can mean that it is exploitative and used in a manner that is not acceptable, and should not be acceptable, to society. So art or not, it should not exist. |
So the freedom to express yourself is limited? The land of the free, was it? Or should that be "the land of the free (unless we disagree with you)?
| Quote: | | An no, this won't stop people from trading child porn. However, it apparently wasn't going to be used as a trap which means it is better to just shut that avenue of child porn trafficking down. |
Listen to yourself. Child porn trafficking? Really?
| Quote: | | So, I am still not clear about what Guest is so up in arms about. |
No, I suppose not.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mizike
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5120
Location: Iowa City
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uhh, it was trafficking child porn. How is that controversial?
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2729
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes guest, really, as fucking admitted by the admins of reddit once they got around to looking at the inboxes of the users of those subreddits. They admitted they found child porn in there man. You're wrong, wrong in so many ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mizike
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5120
Location: Iowa City
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, how are the various sections labeled jailbait not highlighted as places that contain child porn. Especially since, y'know, they did
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CTrees
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3619
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | Fortunately the world doesn't run on your opinion of the law Guest. |
Fixed.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lasairfiona
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9616
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Lasairfiona wrote: | | I think it is art in that it was deliberately created to be pleasing to someone (even if only the artist). However, it being "art" can mean that it is exploitative and used in a manner that is not acceptable, and should not be acceptable, to society. So art or not, it should not exist. |
So the freedom to express yourself is limited? The land of the free, was it? Or should that be "the land of the free (unless we disagree with you)? |
And society _should_ restrict your freedom when it harms others. Society long ago agreed that it disagreed with exploiting children in a sexual way. I think that is a step forward. The definition of child has varied over the years but the idea of protecting those considered children hasn't changed.
So yes, the land of the free unless we disagree with you. I think everyone has a right to argue with what society disagrees with (and should!) but you won't find much support for loosening restrictions where there is child porn going around.
| Quote: | | Listen to yourself. Child porn trafficking? Really? |
Yes, they were a location where child porn was going around. This was reported back in October.
So, if there was child pornography going around what should Reddit have done?
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2163
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | Unfortunately the world doesn't run on your opinion of the law Guest. |
And here comes the strawmen.
| Quote: | | Yes guest, really, as fucking admitted by the admins of reddit once they got around to looking at the inboxes of the users of those subreddits. They admitted they found child porn in there man. You're wrong, wrong in so many ways. |
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I'm chastising Reddit for banning the sections they did based on coercion, on the bigger question whether any child porn was actually in there, and on the moral question whether merely looking at it should be a crime (which I know isn't based on my opinion, thank you) and you're saying they found child porn in the users' inboxes. So why are you on my case again?
| Mizike wrote: | | Also, how are the various sections labeled jailbait not highlighted as places that contain child porn. Especially since, y'know, they did |
Because it was labeled "jailbait"? May I remind you that the age of consent in America is 18, which is two years short of England's, three years of Sweden and a whopping six of the Vatican. So "jailbait", again, is subjective. The only reason I'd agree on it being child porn is if they were visibly children in a sexual situation.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thy Brilliance
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3213
Location: Relative
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Lasairfiona wrote: | | [color=indigo]I think it is art in that it was deliberately created to be pleasing to someone (even if only the artist). However, it being "art" can mean that it is exploitative and used in a manner that is not acceptable, and should not be acceptable, to society. So art or not, it should not exist. |
So the freedom to express yourself is limited? The land of the free, was it? Or should that be "the land of the free (unless we disagree with you)?
| Quote: | | An no, this won't stop people from trading child porn. However, it apparently wasn't going to be used as a trap which means it is better to just shut that avenue of child porn trafficking down. |
Listen to yourself. Child porn trafficking? Really?
| Quote: | | So, I am still not clear about what Guest is so up in arms about. |
No, I suppose not. |
How do you have the audacity to defend Reddit?
They attack people if they show any adherence to almost any religion.
I thought people came to "America" to not be persecuted for their beliefs.
You will be ridiculed, downvoted, etc, there if you try.
And here, you are claiming that they are a bastion for freedom of expression?
Are you joking?
I can't really take you seriously when you defend something that reeks of blatant hypocrisy while completely ignoring the context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2729
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because people went to the admins months ago and said...hey...people are trading child porn here, and in some cases posting it openly, and then they did nothing.
Yknow if you can't be assed to look at the case the reddit bomb made in the first place how the fuck do you get off arguing any of this?
You're in here arguing, completely ignorant of the entire history of the situation.
You have no fucking clue what the guidelines and boundaries are in defining child pornography, you have no fucking clue the kind of liability a site incurs by acting as a "facilitator" in situations like this, and you have no fucking clue what steps were taken to alert them that it was going on, despite all this being readily available elsewhere. This isn't tell Guest a story time, go fucking educate yourself on the situation and hopefully come back and post something worth a shit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mizike
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5120
Location: Iowa City
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do we really have to explain what child porn is and why it's illegal to you? I tend to think that some things are obvious, but maybe you don't get it.
Let me help.
THEY WERE TRAFFICKING CHILD PORN
Better?
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lasairfiona
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9616
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | The only reason I'd agree on it being child porn is if they were visibly children in a sexual situation. |
It was. Read the article I linked. It was a 14 year old (or younger) giving a blow job. 14 may be the age of consent in many countries, the pictures of that sex is still illegal in most countries.
It ended up in inboxes because it was originally posted, though edited, to the regular board. Then people begged for the unedited image.
Reddit should do something about that. They did though only after a lot of outrage. It seems to me that the original situation should have been enough for Reddit to crack down.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2163
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mizike wrote: | Do we really have to explain what child porn is and why it's illegal to you? I tend to think that some things are obvious, but maybe you don't get it.
Let me help.
THEY WERE TRAFFICKING CHILD PORN
Better? |
Have you read anything I've posted? Have I actually tried to redefine child porn? Well, have I? No? Oh.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
