>doesn't want someone who knew them 5 years ago to save every photo to a hard drive categorically with your name on the folder
Then why did she add him? This isn't a situation where she has no choice and this just happens to her. She made it possible for him to do this because she's a dumb woman who doesn't think of the consequences. When you have hundreds of friends on fb (which she no doubt does if she had someone she briefly worked with and never talked to subsequently) a handful of them are bound to be weirdos. Once you post your images whatever people choose to do with them is out of your hands. Which is why facebook lets you choose who to share your pics with and what to upload. I refuse to believe that someone fapping to her images never crossed her mind. Every woman knows this behaviour exists and women in general post a lot of sexually suggestive pictures to entice Chad. If she's dumb enough to still accept people whom she doesn't want fapping to her shit or doesn't know for a fact that they won't do it then she deserves it. No one's making you accept the friend request of every beta, if you don't really know the person then you don't know if they're a weirdo or not, and if the possibility of them fapping to your pics doesn't sit well with you then don't accept them. You can even make a sharing preset that hides your post from specific people. She has all the tools to prevent thi, but of course as all women she wants some else to do something about it, she wants the whole world to change instead of accepting reality and planning her actions accordingly.
>pedofag
Some pedo that guy is for fapping to a 22 year old
>u-ur a loser bc u don't have friends on facebook
Exactly what I said. You would rather be considered "not a loser" by some arbitrary standard than not be fapped to by some degenerate. It's 100% your choice and this is what you choose. No gay faggot ever fapped to half naked pictures of me, so who really lost in this situation?
>>51593351
Other urls found in this thread:
Nah, women are just overconfident about this.
Why would a guy fap to your low lit blurry photoshopped fat ass when there's a million hotter and more explicit photos of women out there?
Nigger did you literally start a new thread?
It's fucking creep status to be categorically savong pictures from someone's facebook
>hurr durr shouldn't of added him
Pedophiles should not be downloading photos of you and your family to jerk it to. Especially when they're already available for viewing to the pedo.
The only reason you're defending such degenerate behavior is you probably jerk your dick to images of coworkers you've saved from their facebook. Stop doing it, it's fucking gross and weird, and you'll eventually have the entire town know that you're a fucking creep when you get arrested for child porn, you don't want to have to explain to the police why you were stalking someone AND storing child porn.
its worse to use face book than be a pedo
t. Baby dick diddling paedophile
I have every nude photo of my exes categorised and stored on dropbox, so I can go for that memory wank easily from any device.
Having said that, I'd never share them. Partially it's because it's not for me to share them, but mostly because I couldn't imagine justifying myself in case one of them DID find out.
Your privacy is your responsibility. Whether someone "should" download photos is irrelevant because if they can, they will and there's nothing you can do about it other than choose who has access to your content, in fact facebook has a plethora of features for this EXACT purpose.
Imagine making A whole new fucking thread just to convince yourself you're not being fucking weird. "dumb woman shouldn't have uploaded them" whatever lets you sleep at night creep
>there's nothing you can do about it
Except file stalking charges, as the original post heavily implied would occur.
Thanks for playing, creeper
>Nigger did you literally start a new thread?
Yes, I already typed that shit out when the janny deleted the thread and I wasn't going to let it go to waste.
>pedophiles should not be downloading photos
True, they shouldn't be. But will they? Yes because they're sexual deviants. Can you stop them from fapping to you? Yes by not adding them on facebook. I already told you that the only way you can reliably prevent this is by not enabling it, but you're still hung up on what people should and shouldn't do. Yeah they shouldn't do it but people do shit that they shouldn't all the fucking time. Like constantly. Why is it so difficult for you to accept reality and act accordingly? Should people break into your house? No. But will they do it if you don't lock your doors and don't have a security system? There's a pretty high chance that they will. Does it suck if it happens and is it unjust and objectively a bad thing? Yes. Is it your fault for being a dumb fuck who didn't lock the door and thought everyone was your friend and the world only consisted of good people? Also yes.
I would understand if she felt betrayed after finding out a close lifelong friend whom she trusted was fapping to her, but this was a random beta she only had watercooler convos with at work. When you accept someone as a friend on fb you accept that they will gain access to your photos. Why would you do that unless you trust them?
>u-ur only defending him because you're a big meanie poopyface and a pedo
I'm not defending anybody. Are you really so fucking dumb that you think for me to think she's an idiot I also have to think this guy is a saint? What a horrible existence it must be to have kindergarten tier name calling and constant black and white polarisation be your only way to make sense of the world.
>stalking charges for downloading legal mundane pictures from facebook
yeah I'm sure that's going to hold up in court
>Imagine making A whole new fucking thread
Oh yeah it took tremendous effort. I copied the text, pressed the back button, clicked on new thread and pasted it. Wow, I'm truly out of control.
>name calling
Whatever helps you sleep at night roastie
>file stalking charges
Lmao, get a load of this guy.
>yes your honor, I gave him unlimited access to those files
>no your honor, no one forced me
>n-no your honor, I wasn't coerced or tricked into giving him access
>b-but I don't like what he did with them and I want him to face criminal charges despite not doing anything illegal with the files
>stalking charges for categorical downloading and storage of images in the same manner that child porn is stored
>dating the saves
Mate, there's a reason the police asked for a statement from the person whose photos were downloaded. Nice bait.
>True, they shouldn't be. But will they? Yes because they're sexual deviants. Can you stop them from fapping to you?
This is not what the woman posted abour, red herring.
>Yes by not adding them on facebook. I already told you that the only way you can reliably prevent this is by not enabling it, but you're still hung up on what people should and shouldn't do
The only reliable way to prevent firearm deaths is to ban firearms and prevent them from being obtained. The purpose in not adding someone because they might download your photos is a greater hindrance to your well-being than feeling guarded against coworkers
>Why is it so difficult for you to accept reality and act accordingly?
Why is it so difficult for you to accept responsibility for stalking someone?
>Should people break into your house? No. But will they do it if you don't lock your doors and don't have a security system?
Just security and locked doors? Faggot, you're practically begging for a home invasion. Why do you live in a house that doesn't have retinal scanners and 6feet of concrete fencing around?
>I would understand if she felt betrayed after finding out a close lifelong friend whom she trusted was fapping to her, but this was a random beta she only had watercooler convos with at work. When you accept someone as a friend on fb you accept that they will gain access to your photos. Why would you do that unless you trust them?
Access to photos does not mean you agree to categorical storage. You have an issue understanding consent.
>I'm not defending anybody.
You're defending the categorical downloading of photos of coworkers. You're horribly unrealistic.
Nice cope. Police interviewed the woman in question for a reason, retard
>The only reliable way to prevent firearm deaths is to ban firearms and prevent them from being obtained. The purpose in not adding someone because they might download your photos is a greater hindrance to your well-being because you're feeling guarded against coworkers
(Fixed this section)
>there's a reason the police asked for a statement
Yes because they busted a pedo for CP possession, and they're trying to find out if he abused anybody by asking people whom he saved pictures of. They will get a statement and move on to the next girl if there's one. They might use it as a character attack in court if the judge says it's admissible, but it's not a charge or a case in itself.
>accept responsibility
What are you talking about? I'm not stalking anybody. Why are you doubling down on this black and white false dichotomy that if I think she's a retard I must also think there's nothing wrong with what the guy did? I've already addressed this and you just keep repeating it. Why?
>gun bans
Gun bans have broad consequences while not accepting the friend request of someone you don't trust is just that. It takes no effort and has no downsides. Besides, you obviously support gun bans and if the two situations are the same in your mind, then why don't you also advocate for responsible social media use?
>retinal scanners and concrete fence
You're trying to make it sound like clicking the decline button on a computer screen requires as much effort as installing a concrete fence. He didn't have to get around any defences or hack anything, which is what you're implying by saying locking your doors and installing a security system isn't enough.
>access to photos does not mean you agree to categorical storage
It is consent in the legal sense. I'm calling her a retard because I know she didn't want this to happen but she still agreed to it. And even if it didn't mean legal consent she still knows that there's nothing stopping someone from doing this, just like you know there's nothing stopping someone from stealing your jewelries if you let them into your house, which is why you onl let trustworthy people in.
>defending
I'm saying it will always happen as long as stalkers exist, and the way to deal with it is by only adding people you trust.
>categorical downloading and storage of images
It's literally not illegal to download facebook photos, you absolute fucking retard.
>in the same manner that child porn is stored
What the fuck does this mean? Literally any type of file can be downloaded and dated.
>Mate, there's a reason the police asked for a statement from the person whose photos were downloaded. Nice bait.
They were interviewing her because the guy was busted for CP and she might potentially have been involved as a victim, not because it's illegal to catalogue someone's social media photos. You're an absolute fucking spastic holy shit.
>They will get a statement and move on
The behavior, in connection with the child porn, shows malicious intent
You are making defenses on the downloading of, categorical storage of, and masturbation to Facebook photos. The post in question specifically mentions the photos had family members. The implication is that he was saving photos of not just her but her family, the police would interview because those photos are related to child pornography, not just because he downloaded some photos. As you said, downloading isn't illegal, police would not interview based solely on that.
Actual charges were not listed in the post THAT YOU TOOK FROM FUCKING REDDIT YOU CANCER but were likely to do with distribution, hence him being caught. He was using her photos for a purpose, whether masturbatory or as advertisement, it is likely to show intent that he was interested in children related to coworkers
>Gun bans have broad consequences while not accepting the friend request of someone you don't trust is just that.
She did trust him, he was a coworker. The broad consequence of not being able to trust a coworker due to their degenerate behavior is (A) workplace productivity is damaged (B) workplace integrity is damaged (C) company reputation is damaged
All of these cause ripple effects.
You keep saying, "people do this anyways," as though it justifies the action. Which you do in the exact next response that I won't bother quoting
>I'm saying it will always happen as long as stalkers exist, and the way to deal with it is by only adding people you trust.
She did trust him, he was a coworker. You are fucking autistic if you don't understand the concept of being friends with your coworkers.
Did not say it was illegal to download photos from facebook, you low-IQ, 1st grade english failing, strawmanning, incel redditor faggot.
The same manner child porn is stored means the photos were related to childporn charges you absolute fucking mongoloid. How would she be involved as a victim if he only downloaded photos legally and stored them legally? Maybe it has to do with "these were innocent photos of my family," what the fuck does that tell you you goddamned retard? Here, let's use context clues.
>child porn storage
>saves photos of coworkers family
>families have kids
>saving photos of particular kids for 5+ years
"It'S nOt IlLeGaL tO fAp To PhOtOs oF cHiLdReN" in 3...2...
The police interviewed her because they don't know where the pictures came from or her age in any of them.
Him having pictures of her that she doesn't remember being posted (i.e., he took them) is a different pattern of behaviour than someone downloading pictures from social media.
Him having sexy/naked pictures of her that she provided is completely unremarkable if she's over 18, but is another dozen charges if shes
>Did not say it was illegal to download photos from facebook
You have argued this several times, stop gaslighting faggot.
>context clues
"Context clues" don't hold up in court, I don't think you understand how the law works at all. The guy in question was being tried for CP, not the pictures he had saved of another girl.
>"It'S nOt IlLeGaL tO fAp To PhOtOs oF cHiLdReN" in 3...2...
Imagine accusing someone of strawmanning and then writing this shit.
>this level of reading comprehension
Take a remedial course on language arts.
He had photos of her family saved, she did not mention photos of exclusively her, and I have made all my posts purposely include the fact that the photos had family as well as the coworker.
I have not said saving photos is illegal. Stoage of photos in the same manner as child porn, especially categorically (regular and dated) shows intent, esp. when the photos are (likely) of her children.
At this point, you're just trying to defend pedophilia like a little faggot.
>He had photos of her family saved, she did not mention photos of exclusively her
You are just making shit up at this point. You're the one who needs reading comprehension.
>At this point, you're just trying to defend pedophilia like a little faggot.
Another strawman.
Hey you forgot to underline these parts
>I was 17
>my friends
>my life
There you go, PedoKnight
>malicious intent
It's futile to try to prove that in court. Stop pretending you know anything about the law.
>you're making defenses
Okay, I'm going to stop trying because you're detached from reality and when it doesn't fit your worldview you change your perception so that it does. I already told you a million times that I'm not defending him.
>all caps about reddit
What are you on about? I wasn't the OP of that thread and even if I was what's your point?
>it is likely to show intent that he was interested in children related to coworkers
Which like I said might be used as a character attack. If he has a good lawyer it won't be used because it's very plain speculation and doesn't actually prove or aggravate the actual charges. If he has a shitty one it might be. But this all has nothing to do with responsible social media use.
>she did trust him
That just proves how stupid she is. Why would you trust someone you've never even talked to once after leaving your work. This isn't like trusting a coworker not to murder you or rob you, you're trusting this person with every detail you decide to post about your life, which in her case seems to be a lot.
>workplace integrity
It's perfectly healthy not to want a random coworker to know intimate details about your life. Just because you trust them to be civil and not harass you doesn't mean you have to trust them like you trust a close friend.
>as though it justifies the action
When did I ever say it was justified? I'm saying she's dumb for not using readily available and nearly 100% effective tools to prevent this if she didn't want it to happen. She didn't even say she'll put more thought into her facebook usage which tells me she doesn't understand that this could potentially happen again and again as long as she lets it. Who's to say she doesn't have 10 other former coworkers who are perverts who just haven't been caught yet?
>more name calling all the while unironically using the spongebob meme
Embarrassing
>police cannot confirm if they were distributed
Hmmmm, I wonder why the police would want to know if photos of a 17 year old were distributed by a pedophile.
Maybe it's just to get a statement, right PedoKnight?
Tl;dr
Here ya go since you're retarded
>didn't read
Then whatever you have to say is meaningless. If I wrote a critique of a movie I haven't seen would you read it? I've addressed all of your name calling and logical fallacies and you have nothing left to say so you resort to continued name calling and repeating the same refuted points. It's pointless to post at that point, just close the thread and calm down.
She never mentions pictures of her family or her kids (at 22?) in the entire post, nice backtrack. Saving mundane photos of a minor is creepy but not illegal. If you want to prove me wrong then show me a legal precedent. If you can't then you're talking out of your ass.
>Hmmmm, I wonder why the police would want to know if photos of a 17 year old were distributed by a pedophile.
Probably to see if he was also exchanging CP with these people.
>responds for another (you)
PedoKnight the purpose of looking for distribution is because it would be used for child pornography. You're right, she didn't say "family" she said "friends" (underaged girls) which is why the police talked to her.
Sorry, PedoKnight, I didn't have your screencap from Reddit as a reference.
>types a paragraph
>still wants attention
PedoKnight you're not even trying
>sorry I talked out of my ass and didn't even read the thing I was arguing about
Apology accepted retard
>PedoKnight still trying to defend the downloading of images of minors to jerk off to
>doesn't realize 17 year olds take photos of their family "my life"
See you in prison faggot. Don't worry, we can keep going back and forth. I know you started a new thread to get the "last word," so once I break you of the delusion that you'll get the last word, maybe you'll fuck off and be a kid-diddler apologist somewhere else
>I know you started a new thread
I didn't start this thread, believe it or not there are multiple, individual people who think you're a retard because, well, you are.
Pedophiles are A-OK with me.
The roast shouldnt share pics of herself online.
>believe it or not there are multiple people here who will defend pedophilia
I'm absolutely shocked, Kid Diddler
There are 3 posters here. Me and 2 PedoKnight Kid Diddlers. You're not me. QED of course you're okay with kid diddling
There are 9 IPs in this thread, can you even count? Jesus.
>IP means a different person
Lurk moar PedoKnight
lmao what a schizo
>Me and 2 PedoKnight Kid Diddlers. You're not me.
well its obvious you are not me as I am me.
>QED
What did you mean?
I am not fine with fucking kids but being a pedo is fine
>lmao what a schizo
he has a point, i can change my IP fairly fast if I want.
It's not even summer yet and you fags are INFESTING
Google QED I don't have time to explain pre-2000 abbreviations
>everyone who disagrees with me is just one guy switching IPs
anything to avoid admitting you got BTFO
Sure, kiddo. Gonna reply to this one to get the last word still or can I finally close your failed thread?
what do you disagree about?
megu user here
I disagree that downloading images of underage girls and possibly distributing them is legal.
Also disagree that being Facebook friends with coworkers is "stupid"
>Unattractive man gets off in a way that doesn't affect anyone at all
>Is somehow evil
Women have so much vitriol for us that it's almost unfathomable
I'm new in this thread.
You're projecting.
Stop it, it's far more telling about you than OP, you are not being reasonable or consistent with your arguments.
You're too emotionally charged up about this, implying a personal connection to the topic. So you call people the worst thing you can imagine being called yourself..
Fucking Pedo
>disagree that being Facebook friends with coworkers is "stupid"
it is stupid.
>I disagree that downloading images of underage girls and possibly distributing them is legal.
if you hacked their PC to do it sure but DL off facebook should be fine man.
New guy again.
Please shut the fuck up.
Yes this behaviour is harmful, you're justifying illegal and immoral behaviour because you want to normalise this.
CP or underage attraction isn't something to be normalised. It's something to be recognised as a symptom of mental/social disorders and requires personal understanding, acceptance of the issue and seeking treatment and help.
>Please shut the fuck up.
You completely ignored all my points.
being a pedo is fine.
fapping to lolis 2D is fine.
You can even argue that fapping to 3D CP in some cases is fine but thats complicated and its best to not fap to 3D anyway.
pedos I have met have all been chill
So chill they'd be open and honest in a public place about this without fear of reprisal?
No I don't need to address your points because for 1 they're invalid generally and 2 you simply refuse to address the core of the issue.
I'm in the middle ground between you two and you're both wrong.
Please dont imply you're being intellectual or logical.. you're a pedophile denialist there's no rationalising that logically cardinal.
>I'm new to this thread
This is OP's second thread of the same subject.
>making emotional/charged statements
In response to an emotional and charged OP. I don't care to make emotionally consistent posts toward a troll. Do you follow?
And this post shows that you're on the same standing/opinion that I am.
>So chill they'd be open and honest in a public place about this without fear of reprisal?
people get their lives ruined for being a pedo why would they tell anyone IRL?
>reddit spacing
>hates pedos
Why do you hate people for their thoughts?
>I've met chill pedos
>pedos don't tell people irl
Interesting
>Interesting
people know I am cool with them being pedo and they chat to me on discord.
Also used to know edgy pedos part of some cult that ran CP servers on discord and they were not so cool as they would doxx people and I think some of them actually raped kids as one told me when you fuck a really young girl like 8yo or younger you have to do anal as it will hurt them too much if you try vaginal sex....
I am cool with pedos not child abusers
That's my point.
You still refuse to address the core of the points.
Can't be a good person if you know you have to hide what you really are.
If i am wrong, name a single "good guy/girl" who is a pedo?
What positivity comes from any of this?
>I am cool with pedos not child abusers
>I took part in a pedo and CP distribution discord
Dude you are a pedo, and I'm fucking laughing at the new poster, now.
Called it from the start kek
The actual difference between the two of us is that I believe in rehabilitation. I believe pedophiles should be fixed via forced rehabilitation rather than serve a prison sentence and come back to child abuse. I don't believe in excusing pedophilic behavior.
Generally on the important points I agree.
But you're unreasonable about the distribution of publically available information, I dislike that you're attempting to create analogous situations when this is a unique problem.
I dislike that your tone implies censorship.
There's a middle ground but it's not nessicarily a compromise. This is a big topic that won't be solved by scaring people underground for their thoughts, in fact ostracising people is why the problem is so bad now (churches/schools/families etc)
You're making imaginary demons.
Trust me gu s still exist when you ban them, it's now only criminals and authorities who have them.
So when someone holds a gun to my head, the cops won't arrive for an hour. I literally can only defend myself with words..
Nope. Not ok
How do you find these cunts when you e pushed them into underground cults as the pedos here will prove
>implies censorship
Where did I imply censorship? It is censorship to be against downloading and cataloguing images of a private citizen just because you're added on their social media?
My tone is necessarily combatative, especially given this dude's posts from the original thread into this one.
>types a paragraph
Mate you've been shitting out litanies of word salads for like three hours while unironically convincing yourself everyone else is just one guy, because surely you're important enough for someone to switch IPs 9 times for. Take a look in the mirror holy shit.
I left the thread to play metro exodus since you lost the argument but this is just too ridiculous to ignore. Take your fucking meds.
>You're making imaginary demons. Trust me gu s still exist when you ban them, it's now only criminals and authorities who have them.
Nigger this is not a gun control debate
>So when someone holds a gun to my head, the cops won't arrive for an hour. I literally can only defend myself with words.. Nope. Not ok
If you have a gun to your head your firearm is already useless, what the fuck are you talking about?
>How do you find these cunts when you e pushed them into underground cults as the pedos here will prove
You find them the way authorities do - infiltrate their ranks, discover their plans/issues, arrest them, rehabilitate them. Not rocket science
>comes back to reply to old post
Bye bye PedoKnight, I'm sure you'll "go away" again
I understand the points you made now.
But you've tacitly implied permissions to anyone with access.
Tell me how does your browser view an image without downloading any data? It downloads the data and displays it in a certain format.
But you're arguing the you can't do it intentionally..? It makes no sense.
I dont like it either, it's weird, creepy etc but not illegal generally.
I can also take photos of peoples feet in public for my fetishes (as an example) by my intent with the picture isn't at question at any point unless I actively link that material to illegal activity
You're actually a schizophrenic. I can't believe I even tried to have a civil discussion with you and explain my point when you're this insanely unreasonable and you think the whole world is out to get you. I told you about 10 times now that I'm not supporting the guy but you're so full of incoherent rage that your brain can't even comprehend someone not condoning pervert behaviour while also recognizing that it could have easily been prevented had the woman in question not been a mindless normalshit who uploads everything to facebook without a second thought.
To anyone else reading this, please take a step back and think about how fucking stupid this person is for failing to understand such a simple concept.
Wow.
I've never met a stupider twelve year old in my life desu..
This doesn't warrant addressing your comments. You're simply rehashing simple points that go nowhere.
If you were right you'd be able to debate with points that stand on their own merit
>I took part in a pedo and CP distribution discord
I didnt take part but I knew them and chatted to them.
I do not snitch it goes against my values.
I would leave the group chat when they would post CP.
It is sometimes beneficial to have good relations with people who are doxxfags but a brainlet like you wouldnt do that
I understand.
But vitriol is not the way to debate.
Muh feels, do not matter.
Only the points that will progress a situation are relevant, everything else is dissuasion and distraction.
You need to focus if you want to convince people.
Banning shit and forcing thought control has never ever once worked in the real world.
Every time something is banned a problem gets worse. Show me one example where more control has made people better off, without uni tended consequences exsaserbating an already bad situation
Yes pedos are bad. But you will only make more of them with your methods and ideas.
The pedos in this thread feel more emboldened in their thoughts. You arguing with them and forcing them to use mental gymnastics to justify it actually strengthenes their resolve that they're right in their twisted thinking.
Oh lawd what's going on here, can someone give me a quick rundown?
Making my first post in this thread to say that fapping to dumb cunt's photos she posts online is not a big deal. In fact, it's so uninteresting, it's not even a small deal. Giving half a shit about that is laughable. This girl is just making it a whole spectacle for attention.
discord
=|+|--|317|--|+|=
.gg/Bsyufq6
Here's all my claims available in thread, including the screencap of me at the OP. I have not included most homs (if you can't tell the ad homs are trolling, welcome to Jow Forums)
>woman doesn't want a pedophile masturbating to her pictures of her/family (taken when she was 17)
I admit to fault in saying "family," although saying "my life" implies that photos had family in them.
>It's creepy, pedophiles should not be doing this. Being defensive of this behavior appears like a guilty conscience. the original post implies stalking charges could be filed
It's correct that stalking might not have a legal precedent here, however that would be a case of the law being late to adapting to the internet.
>the police asked for a statement because of possible other charges. Not befriending coworkers just because you don't see them outside of work is a social hindrance. Having photos that friends can store is not consent to having people store the photos. You're defending this storage.
Not a legal issue, an ethical issue, but I'm not claiming illegality in the downloading of the photos.
>the categorical downloading shows malicious intent, because the photos are (ostensibly) of the same nature, i.e. satisfies a pedophilic urge. The actual charges were probably related to distribution and not stalking/downloading. (Although I heavily imply stalking should be a charge here). There are consequences to someone downloading images in this way thay extend beyond the abuser/victim
I'm willing to defend that intent should be a what makes this a crime. Beyond these claims, it's just me being purposely argumentative/combative because it's outrageous to even defend the behavior. Do you disagree with any of these?
I'm somewhat interested in the topic due to the potential ramifications..
For example, if I view your logs and see thumbs from 4chans containing illegal material. By definition that is possession and you are culpable for that IP crime.
However the intent is important. But also realistically impossible to prove 100%..
Like how this information travels, means technically everyone online could be implied in one way or another. If you use a VPN and someone sends through you as a node etc.. you are a carrier service for the distribution and transmission of illicit materials..
I could bring a fraudulent case against anyone and win on technicalities in a criminal court.. simply due to the nature of the digital structures we use.
If you've seen CP youre technically in possession forever for the life of that log, if you clear browsing history you're destroying evidence, if you report it, technically you are transmitting and distributing this information..
The controls applied to correct have so fundamentally crippled our structures I'm amazed we function as well as we do.
It was a 17 year old. A 17 year old adding coworkers from their entry level job (either retail or food work, let's be honest) is not stupid nor abnormal, it is the socially accepted and typical response.
>schizophrenic
No, I just meet outrageous posts with outrageous claims. I'm playing DK64 on an emulator right now and pausing it to respond. Aggressive posts do not imply anger, are you new?
>addresses no points made
>paragraph 1 ad hom, paragraph 2 fails to address anything said, paragraph 3 is incredibly funny given your failure to address any of my responses.
GG
>I don't snitch because it goes against my values
Reporting pedophiles does, as well, clearly.
>it's beneficial to befriend pedophiles that can doxx
The fact that you see it as what you can get from a doxxer says a lot about you.
>so who really lost in this situation?
the faggot who never got ur pics bby
>I understand. But vitriol is not the way to debate. Muh feels, do not matter.
Do you understand that you just dismissed vitriol as a method, then used vitriol (bitter criticism). Also, never said "muh feels," this thread has been completely devoid of my actual emotional state until about 2 posts ago. Notice that those posts are flat.
>Only the points that will progress a situation are relevant, everything else is dissuasion and distraction. You need to focus if you want to convince people.
You don't convince disingenuous people. It's the same reason you can't "debate" Steven Crowder. He is not debating, there is no reason for you to engage in debate. You do not owe anyone a debate. I am granting you it because you are not disingenuous. Do you see the difference in my response to you and my previous posts? It's a choice.
>Banning shit and forcing thought control has never ever once worked in the real world.
Strawman argument.
>Every time something is banned the problem gets worse. Show me one example where more control has made people better off, without unintended consequences exacerbating an already bad situation
You are generalizing and using loaded statements this entire argument. What is it helpful to ban? Murder. Does that have unintended consequences? Do people still do it? Sure. But it allows us to identify and separate murderers from the herd.
>Yes pedos are bad. But you will only make more of them with your methods and ideas.
Pedophilia is a psychological condition, not something one is "pushed" to by being called mean names on Jow Forums. I'm stsrting to take back my comments on you being genuine
>The pedos in this thread feel more emboldened in their thoughts. You arguing with them and forcing them to use mental gymnastics to justify it actually strengthenes their resolve that they're right in their twisted thinking.
This is a huge claim that would require citation.
Again I understand the points.
I do not believe condoning pedophelia has any place ever.
But I think the only actions that can be taken, should be to ensure that those who are ill realise it and are able to go and receive treatment.
If you condemn them they cluster.
As stated far earlier in the thread, I agree on. OST points.
But you are as culpable as he technically.
Because of a system that attempts to negatively control a process.
It's a naturally occurring problem that HAS to be treated or it will have consequences? So treatment HAS to be widely availible.
We're already in 1984, but it's set to get worse. I'd like to avail ourselves of whatever problems wherever possible. Moving forward should be the only goals here.
>Reporting pedophiles does, as well, clearly.
reporting people is snitching I do not do that.
>The fact that you see it as what you can get from a doxxer says a lot about you.
I am against doxxing and people already know I am a piece of shit that likes to hurt people for fun.
If they get burned by me it is their fault although I dont try scam or hurt people anymore
My posts are flat.
>my tone is necessarily combatative
Muh feels literally refers to MY feelings not your butthurt.
A straw man that I asked for a single example in the history of the UNIVERSE and you cannot bring one. It's not a fallacy if it's reality.
Lol, you refuse to admit that social stigmatisation creates ostrosisation despite an ACTUAL PEDO telling you directly ITT.
You're so admittedly emotionally charged on the topic you aren't even reading the points. You've made up your mind. Much like Steven crowder..
Please re-read this thread, you obviously haven't yet..
>Again I understand the points. I do not believe condoning pedophelia has any place ever.
Pedophilia is attraction to children. Condone means to accept and allow to continue. You are arguing for acceptance of attraction to minors, which I don't disagree with. (Attraction does not mean engagement of activity)
>But I think the only actions that can be taken, should be to ensure that those who are ill realise it and are able to go and receive treatment.
Social ostracization is a method of this.
>If you condemn them they cluster. As stated far earlier in the thread, I agree on. OST points.
Condemn means to not accept. I'm not saying their attraction shouldn't be accepted, but that it should be treated via catching them and rehabilitation. They cluster with or without condemnation.
>But you are as culpable as he technically. Because of a system that attempts to negatively control a process. It's a naturally occurring problem that HAS to be treated or it will have consequences? So treatment HAS to be widely availible.
I am not equally culpable, and you have failed to (successfully) establish such a narrative. Treatment should occur via revamping the prison system into a rehabilitation system. I never discussed actual treatment of pedophilia, this discussion is entirely separate from the rest of the thread (the thread's topic is that a 17 year old girl is culpable for adding a coworker on Facebook)
>We're already in 1984, but it's set to get worse. I'd like to avail ourselves of whatever problems wherever possible. Moving forward should be the only goals here.
Well, George Orwell would not fit your libertarian perspective, as Orwell was a "Democratic Socialist" (1946 "why I Write" by Orwell)
1984 is not about what you think it was about, and I highly recommend you read "Why I Write," reread 1984 and then read about Orwell's frustration with interpretations of 1984
Also what you see as bitter criticism was actually earnest hyperbolic point in order to make you engage with the points but you simply refuse.
I'm sorry but I'm not having a debate with a deaf man, I can't speak sign language. I'm sure you feel the same.
I wish you all the best.
I've convinced people to seek help and accept it is a mental illness.
You've only convinced themto be scared of society and that they can only be their true selves in the company of the same ilk.. lest they be branded and tarnished.. (which I agree with emotionally and vitriolically, but we can't run society with extremist ideals)
>I am a piece of shit that likes to hurt people for fun
Why should anything you say be taken with any sincerity, then? Do you see why I treat you as disingenuous?
>My posts are flat.
This was in reference to my last couple posts. Could you use a full quote or are you just being disingenuous?
>A straw man that I asked for a single example in the history of the UNIVERSE and you cannot bring one. It's not a fallacy if it's reality.
I never advocated for "banning shit," that's a loaded question. The ban on a president being under 35 is a reasonable ban. The ban on murder is a reasonable ban. Neither of these have resulted in "bad".
>Lol, you refuse to admit that social stigmatisation creates ostrosisation despite an ACTUAL PEDO telling you directly ITT. You're so admittedly emotionally charged on the topic you aren't even reading the points. You've made up your mind. Much like Steven crowder..
Ostracization is a form of condemnation which is known to be effective at preventing the majority of behaviors. I am not advocating it as the sole method.
>Please re-read this thread, you obviously haven't yet..
I literally went through the thread to surmise my own points, you have failed to address the vast majority or otherwise mischaracterized me. Again, wonder about your genuineness.
Yes, those are the definitions of condemn and condone.
Rephrase my point to show me you understand please.
Then you may argue.
Right now you're imagining opinions for me and they aren't correct
You have read the words alone, but definitions do not make for reading comprehension.
What is my point, show me you understand please.
>Also what you see as bitter criticism was actually earnest hyperbolic point in order to make you engage with the points but you simply refuse.
I engaged in all your points in the last 5-6 posts, in the very post you quoted you made strawman arguments
>I'm sorry but I'm not having a debate with a deaf man, I can't speak sign language. I'm sure you feel the same.
"Why won't you address my arguments"
"I refuse to address your arguments"
Yep, leaning toward you're disingenuous about "debate," that's what I get for engaging a troll.
>I've convinced people to seek help and accept it is a mental illness.
I literally have been saying that pedophilia is a mental illness, I've been attacking the engagement and use of child pornography. Being attracted to minors does not mean engaging in child pornography. The action and the illness are separable and should be distinguished.
>You've only convinced themto be scared of society and that they can only be their true selves in the company of the same ilk.. lest they be branded and tarnished.. (which I agree with emotionally and vitriolically, but we can't run society with extremist ideals)
Yeah, no, I don't agree with branding and tarnishing pedophiles. I agree with rehabilitating them. Yet I'm the one who is "making them scared of society" by trolling a person who tries to shift the blame from the perpetrator to a 17 year old girl.
Yes, you're right, I don't wish to debate the deaf. If I wished to, though, they could use sign language and reading to respond and understand what they're responding to. I only wish you would do the same courtesy, after insisting that courtesy be extended to you.
>Yes, those are the definitions of condemn and condone.
Then you realize that I have not condemned attraction to children. Unless you can point me to a sentence where I said otherwise.
>Rephrase my point to show me you understand please. Then you may argue.
Your argument is that pedophilia is a mental illness and should be treated voluntarily. I have not argued anything outside of this, which you are not comprehending. Show me that you comprehend this.
>Right now you're imagining opinions for me and they aren't correct
I could literally say the same thing
>You have read the words alone, but definitions do not make for reading comprehension.
I could literally say the same thing.
Your point is below the second green text. If you mean the entire point of all your posts? You believe my anonymous ad hominems on Jow Forums are ostracizing pedophiles to the point where they will justify their actions, and that instead of condemning them we should treat them, which requires them to feel safe in talking about their issues. The word you're consistently using is treat.
Now establish that you understand my point, because you've yet to do so.
I'm not re-stating simple points that have been stated in every post I've made.
I've adresssed them multiple times already.
You say the same thing after I post it.
Your last post is the only time you've made an opening for a possibility that there's other methods outside those you espoused.
I want the death penalty, but I will only ever advocate for treatment. Because they're a fucking cancer on this world. I want their population to decrease.
I'm ashamed that my neighbor is more likely than ever to be a pedo.
Yet there hasn't been a single action or step taken to reduce the quantity of these people.
The only thing that's never been tried is telling them that they're ill, it's ok to be ill if you get treatment.
There's no way for that to be a social norm in the climate we live in.
The only steps we take make more of them.
>I'm not re-stating simple points that have been stated in every post I've made. I've adresssed them multiple times already. You say the same thing after I post it.
"I addressed your points earlier, here's me addressing your points again"
"You're refusing to address points I refuse to restate them"
Ad fucking nauseum.
>Your last post is the only time you've made an opening for a possibility that there's other methods outside those you espoused.
Other methods for what? See, I haven't advocated any methods, unless you can point to such. I've literally only mentioned rehabilitation, not what that would entail
>I want the death penalty, but I will only ever advocate for treatment. Because they're a fucking cancer on this world. I want their population to decrease. I'm ashamed that my neighbor is more likely than ever to be a pedo.
You say that I'm scaring them and then go on to say you want them killed. I have no once advocated death as a penalty. Do you understand what my positions or points are?
>Yet there hasn't been a single action or step taken to reduce the quantity of these people. The only thing that's never been tried is telling them that they're ill, it's ok to be ill if you get treatment.
I literally advocated that in what you're responding to. What argument are you attempting to address here?
>There's no way for that to be a social norm in the climate we live in.
I don't disagree and haven't disagreed with these points.
>The only steps we take make more of them.
[Citation needed] you can't say mental illness is the cause and then say society causes the mental illness by ostracizing it. That's not how mental illness (typically) works.
No not voluluntary treatment. This is where you misunderstand me.
I feel like in this social climate, if I had thoughts of CP and I wanted help I would be terrified to talk to a shrink. I wouldn't go, the only people I'd admit it too are people who I know are guilty of the same.
If we had a social climate that conditioned pedos to accept and treat rather than hide I think it would be healthier.
Jow Forums itself is an example .
I have misunderstood your "combatative tone" as condemnation. I apologise.
I feel like we've attributed positions to each other and I'd simply like to clarify.
I'm just sick over people fighting fire with fire, my house has only ever burnt down from it, it's never built anything. (Yeah I whinged about the analogous gun argument and am now using another analogy)
I know, that's why I'm simply asking for clarification and attempting to provide it.
No, trolling pedophiles isn't shuttering them.
The fact that you and I and a pedo would mention in the street a desire to burn them alive while the pedo (whom is secretly a pedo to us non-pedos) present in the conversation saying "h-hah y-yeah we should burn them..." that pedo isn't walking out after that convo to a therapist. They're finding discord servers of people they can "relate" to..
To them we are normies does that make sense?
Now I understand you aren't simply condemning them without an ambition to further their treatment options, I agree. (It has to be voluntary sadly, other wise we could only forcibly treat the ones we catch and the unknowns will remain unknown until they fuck a kid or get caught with CP. which by that point is way too far gone for rehab) if you want to beat cancer you've got to get it early before it's seriously established
You refuse to take the point.
I don't care what you or I think, nor does anyone else, my point is the positions are normalised. It's a simple point, again you attribute something to me because you want it to be the case.
Read the words for what they are, not what you think they should be. Otherwise you're just arguing against yourself.
This is voluntary treatment, though. I get your argument on social climate and I don't disagreed with it.
I have been trying to be as precise as possible these last few methods. I don't treat OP or the majority of Jow Forums users as genuine, and you shouldn't, either. So there's probably a good chance I strawmanned your argument at some point. And for that I will apologize, that sort of thing is almost inevitable on this site.
Guns are a separate issue, I was using it as a disingenuous argument, so let's not worry about that. I don't agree with fighting fire with fire, but there are situations where I see it as the only alternative. I used Crowder to illustrate this, because Crowder is often just trying to "win" the "debate," and not to actually consider the points of each respective position. If you are OP, then I apologize for misreading you and for shitposting on you, but based on your posts I didn't see you as genuine.
I don't disagree. I understand the sensitivity in addressing the subject, I just don't use that sensitivity to someone on Jow Forums, especially not when the original post this was all started over was one condemning the 17 year old girl for posting photos to her personal account.
I don't disagree with all of this. A change in the social climate would bring about rehabilitation as a treatment. "Forced rehabilitation," was meant to be the replacement for prison. The prison system makes you better at avoiding the law, in my opinion, and not better at conforming to societal expectations.
>my point is the positions are normalized
And I have never once disagreed with that point nor that the "normal" position on pedophilia should be changed.
You keep adding way more to your argument than just "These things are normally condemned but they shouldn't be." You're adding extra hurdles, which I address, and then you say I don't address your point. Because I have agreed with your point. Jfc.