Chldren addicted to internet porn

[Tommo68]

Your opinion makes no sense. You say that society should prosecute people who publish child porn, but that no censorship should exist.

What do you think prosecution (and the removal of the published material) is, if not censorship?

 

I'm stating to wonder how simple I have to make this.

 

I do not believe in state censorship. Let anyone post whatever they want on the internet and if it does happen to be child porn lock the buggers up without food or water.

 

And BTW I have not mentioned removing anything. Again it seems obvious you either did not read my post properly or failed to assimilate it. If you do have challenges in that regard then I apologise, perhaps you caould ask someone to help you with posts you wish to comment on.

[Cyclone]

So I'll say again, your opinion makes no sense.

 

You'd lock them up, but you'd leave the child porn where it is, not remove it.

 

You'd also not attempt to block child porn that was hosted outside the UK?

 

And if you're going to make digs at my reading ability, it would perhaps be best to correct your spelling first.

[Tommo68]

So I'll say again, your opinion makes no sense.

 

You'd lock them up, but you'd leave the child porn where it is, not remove it.

 

You'd also not attempt to block child porn that was hosted outside the UK?

 

And if you're going to make digs at my reading ability, it would perhaps be best to correct your spelling first.

 

 

This forum has no spell checker that I know of and I have before pointed out thatin regard to my spelling I do try to make no mistakes for the pedantic and small minded to fret about but I am dyslexic and don't really care about your or anyone else's opinion on that.

 

Incidently there is no correct spelling only accepted spelling.

 

English is currently the most widely-spoken language on the planet, yet it is the only language among the top ten most spoken that lacks an official regulatory academy to approve spelling.

Pointless sidetrack ....to divert attention away from the fact that you did not either read or assimilate mu original post .. is now dealt with.

 

 

 

Yes I'd lock up the posters of child porn and in partnership with other nations do the same for child porn posters and creators elsewhere.

 

Yes I'd leave it on the net what better way to catch these people, don't forget every key press you make whilst hooked up to the net is still viewable by someone if they have the equipment and the will, even if it has been deleted.

 

So it should be no problem to a government if it actually so desired (so it would seem that perhaps not a labour one) to go on these sites (I like many others believe they do track everything) and track who was viewing that kind of material on a regular or frequent basis.... anyone can hit on a site they would rather not by accident which is why I say regular or frequent basis.

.

.

[Cyclone]

I did read and understand your post thanks, you're claiming that I didn't because you didn't like my response.

 

I think your stance on child porn is extremely bizarre. You'd leave it on the net once posted. And you couple that with some monitoring fantasy about tracking everyone all the time.

 

You'd imprison the people that posted it though, but claim this isn't censorship. That's just wrong.

[Tommo68]

I did read and understand your post thanks, you're claiming that I didn't because you didn't like my response.

 

I'm claiming that you didn't because if you had your comment makes no sense.

 

I think your stance on child porn is extremely bizarre. You'd leave it on the net once posted.

 

And you couple that with some monitoring fantasy about tracking everyone all the time.

 

Justify if you will why you can claim my belief is a fantasy. I consider your apparent beliefs about internet monitoring as being at best ...naive.

 

You'd imprison the people that posted it though, but claim this isn't censorship.

 

Yes I would they are sick and perverted people and or exploiting children ..and of course its not censorship if you remove nothing and don't restrict access. (try looking up some definitions of words now and then)

 

Suffice to say on this topic let you and I just agree to differ.

 

Your pretence of not understanding has become tedious.

Though I doubt you will take full advantage of it, do feel free to have the last word if you want,

.

 

.

.

[Cyclone]

You prove that monitoring everything is possible, that's how assertions work, you make the assertion, you have to provide proof.

 

How can you claim that imprisoning people isn't censorship? Censorship includes stopping people producing material for fear of punishment (we both agree that child porn should be stopped). What I don't understand is why once it is produced, you want to have it left available.

You tell me to look up the words, but you clearly don't understand what censorship is.

 

I have no interest in having the last word. Please explain why you think that leaving child porn on the internet is a good thing, and also explain how it isn't censorship to have laws stating that the production of something will result in jail time?

[Halibut]

 

Yes I'd lock up the posters of child porn and in partnership with other nations do the same for child porn posters and creators elsewhere.

 

Yes I'd leave it on the net what better way to catch these people, don't forget every key press you make whilst hooked up to the net is still viewable by someone if they have the equipment and the will, even if it has been deleted.

 

So it should be no problem to a government if it actually so desired (so it would seem that perhaps not a labour one) to go on these sites (I like many others believe they do track everything) and track who was viewing that kind of material on a regular or frequent basis.... anyone can hit on a site they would rather not by accident which is why I say regular or frequent basis.

.

.

 

Then you'd be complicit in, you'd be aiding and abetting, the sexual abuse of children.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 10:03 ----------

 

Yes I'd leave it on the net what better way to

 

...further the distress and sense of helplessness of the victims of rape.

 

You really have no concern for the victims of child pornography if you want to keep footage of their abuse available for other sexual predators to masturbate over.

 

 

Disgustingly callous attitude to helpless victims of appalling crimes.

 

 

You're such a nice man.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 10:06 ----------

 

Furthermore, imagine if a child of yours was raped for child porn. Still saying 'Yes I'd leave it on the net'?

Edited May 2, 2015 by Halibut

[skinz]

 

I firmly believe that there should be no censorship od the internet, and that the government should have no control over what information we all wish to be able to share. We should all be free to view whatever is on it, whenever we want.

 

Yes I'd leave it on the net what better way to catch these people

 

 

 

I disagree with using victims as a honeytrap. Using victims or sexually abused infants isn't right. I would hate to think if my child was abused and filmed then paraded on the internet in order to reduce numbers. The police need a strategy that doesn't include using victims. The police certainly need to have their funding up'd in this sector, apparently it's very poor. If they had a small percentage of financial resources the porn industry has we probably wouldn't be having this debate.

 

Using victims is a political and moral minefield. They've already been abused, your logic would be to let it continue, in the name of censorship.

 

Would you allow your infant to be used as bait?

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2015 at 01:03 ----------

 

Yes I would they are sick and perverted people and or exploiting children ..and of course its not censorship if you remove nothing and don't restrict access. (try looking up some definitions of words now and then)

 

They to a point have an excuse..they are sick. I'm trying to grasp the idea "sick people" exploiting infants and the "system" exploiting infants as a honeytrap for the perps is somehow different. Both are exploiting children for a result.

 

Maybe your 'right-on' attitude towards censorship is clouding your judgement as to the already vulnerability of infants.

 

.........................................................................

 

Nice one messing with page layout phany.

Edited May 7, 2015 by skinz

[Magilla]

Yeah, "the paper" is the Daily Mail, which loves to keep its readers living in fear.

 

Correct The report has been completely discredited:-

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nspcc-accused-of-risking-its-reputation-and-whipping-up-moral-panic-with-child-porn-addiction-study-10171195.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2015/apr/13/children-addicted-porn-shouldnt-believe-surveys

 

The company that carried out the NSPCC-commissioned survey is a group called OnePoll, which specialises in generating “news angles and exposure for your brand”. OnePoll is part of South West News Service (SWNS), a media group that offers “heartbreaking, random and shocking” content.

 

OnePoll was behind a recent survey revealing that “20% of people believe that smoking has improved their career opportunities”. This one was commissioned by an E-cigarette company. A poll commissioned during National Ferry Fortnight for Discover Ferries – which had just “invested heavily in improved seating” – revealed that travellers really hate aircraft seats. You get the picture.

[Tommo68]

Welcome back Halibut someone told me you had been forum kicked.

 

Then you'd be complicit in, you'd be aiding and abetting, the sexual abuse of children.

 

Interesting that you'd accuse me of something for inaction in a situation where I have no power to take action.

 

Would you care to think that through; by your method of judgement then you are aiding and abetting all crime everywhere

 

 

..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

.

I disagree with using victims as a honeytrap. Using victims or sexually abused infants isn't right. I would hate to think if my child was abused and filmed then paraded on the internet in order to reduce numbers.

 

As would I, but with cgi the kids could be made to all look like the same one and that being one does not actually exist.

 

The police need a strategy that doesn't include using victims.

Ideally yes they do.

 

The police certainly need to have their funding up'd in this sector, apparently it's very poor. If they had a small percentage of financial resources the porn industry has we probably wouldn't be having this debate.

 

Totally agree .. has anyone ever considered asking the porn industry to contribute towards ridding ther net of pedos and their crap.

 

 

Using victims is a political and moral minefield. They've already been abused, your logic would be to let it continue, in the name of censorship.

 

I have stated from the outset I am opposed to all censorship.

I do not think I could have expressed that any better.

 

Would you allow your infant to be used as bait?

 

See my point above on cgi. I think the end justifies the means once the pedos know that posting ALWAYS leads to jail, castration, labotomies what ever the problem will start to go away to a very large extent.

 

They to a point have an excuse..they are sick. I'm trying to grasp the idea "sick people" exploiting infants and the "system" exploiting infants as a honeytrap for the perps is somehow different. Both are exploiting children for a result.

 

They are sick but its pretty well extablished I believe that there is no real cure for them that would render them safely back in society.

 

Maybe your 'right-on' attitude towards censorship is clouding your judgement as to the already vulnerability of infants.

 

With the advances in facial recognition software and surveillance cameras and the prolific numbers of cameras it should be a lot easier to identify and locate these children and then the people that are both abusing and exploiting them

 

On reflection I'm very comfortable with my attitude towards removing all censorship, though there is perhaps the consideration of respecting other people's privacy and of course security.

 

.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Tommo68