(cache) calherがUpdates - I was being groomedについて記入したコメント

149

150

151

Updates - I was being groomed (self.ainbow)

throwaway16_12987398 が 23時間前投稿

トップ新着論争中古い順 Q&A

あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]calherKinky gay furry nerd -96ポイント-95ポイント-94ポイント 20時間前* (29子コメント)

[–]safewoodchippermoo 50ポイント51ポイント52ポイント 19時間前 (17子コメント)

[+]calherKinky gay furry nerd スコアが基準値未満のコメント-41ポイント-40ポイント-39ポイント 15時間前 (16子コメント)

"witch-hunt" would imply that OP's uncle did nothing wrong. In this scenario he clearly did, he's not being arrested for his feelings here.

He did trick someone into sexual activity, and that should be punished, but not with the severe punishments thought up by people who want to see child-lovers die slow, painful deaths.

Since the lying is probably not illegal, he was likely arrested just for the underage pornography and:

Copying Is Not Theft. By extension, Copying Is Not Rape.

Having graphic pics and vids is not wrong. Watching videos of army violence does not make the army kill more.

I was discussing this comment with someone else, and they said this:

He did not do anything worth being in prison for.

And he should not be punished more just because the stuff he did was done to a minor.

Nor should he be judged for just being attracted to minors.

And viewing CP even if not consensual is not that bad. It is a violation of privacy (assuming a face is shown), and may support the making of more CP, but most people do the former (that is not an excuse for it, but it shows that it hypocriticial to single-out paedophiles), and supporting the producing of more unethically made CP was possibly not done directly.

Also, another thing about supporting the making of more unethical CP: I suppose in many cases the kids would be being abused anyways; there is the question of whether they would be being abused in that particular case, though.

Most CP is not bought. And if the person did not signify in any way to the original producer of the CP that it was viewed, then the only way it supports the making of more unethically made CP is extremely indirectly: the fact that there are people out there that are willing to view it and if that was not the case and people knew that, no one would bother to make the unethical CP (though if that was the case, people would probably not be making the stuff in the first place, since they would likely believe that to be wrong too).

[–]safewoodchippermoo 28ポイント29ポイント30ポイント 14時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]IllCaesar 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 14時間前 (1子コメント)

...all CP is unethical. There is no such thing as ethically made CP.

You know, for a moment I felt the need to point out loli and shota. Its illustrated pornography that depicts minors, but since its illustrated children aren't being violated in its production. Then I remembered that we have words to describe that - loli and shota. Some people still feel strongly against it and its legality is questionable in some areas and illegal in others but I felt the need to bring this up because some people seem to fail to realize that CP is unethical not because it depicts children, which is revolting to most people, but because its unquestionably abusive to one of the most vulnerable groups of people in society.

I feel that when people lose sight and focus on the "icky" part of it instead of the sexual violation that it disregards the feelings of the victims and ends up dehumanizing them because you're looking at how it hurts them because of what they are instead of who they are. They're not a child, they're a victim of sexual abuse who happens to be a child and, sadly, a lot of people lose sight of that.

[–]safewoodchippermoo 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 11時間前* (0子コメント)

Ah it appears we are using different operational definitions for CP then. I do not consider loli or shota to meet the colloquial definition of CP online since it's illustrated, and have no ethical qualms with it. So just so we're on the same page, when I said that "there's no such thing as ethically made CP" what I meant was "there's no such thing as ethically made live-action CP."

I feel that when people lose sight and focus on the "icky" part of it instead of the sexual violation that it disregards the feelings of the victims and ends up dehumanizing them because you're looking at how it hurts them because of what they are instead of who they are. They're not a child, they're a victim of sexual abuse who happens to be a child and, sadly, a lot of people lose sight of that.

I agree, which is the point I was making in previous comments. I find live action CP unethical not because of the "ickiness" of the affair but because the fact that it involves children precludes the possibility of consent.

[+]calherKinky gay furry nerd スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 13時間前* (6子コメント)

The person I was talking to earlier is reading this more than I am. I put their response below. I will most likely edit this post to add my own thoughts later, when I am not so tired.

It is a violation of privacy (assuming a face is shown), and may support the making of more CP

That i think is enough to call the practice immoral and rightfully illegal. Even if there is no monetary exchange, owning and consuming CP is still perpetuating a system that lends to its production.

It may support the making of more unethically made CP, but it some cases only extremely indirectly, as I explained later (this is all assuming the guy was viewing unethically made CP, though). As for the privacy violations, freedom of speech is valued over privacy by the US Government (and I think rightfully so) in all other cases that I know of: CP is an exception. Also, I should have said it can violate privacy, since it does not have to.

unethically made CP

...all CP is unethical. There is no such thing as ethically made CP.

So you think even if the kid himself/herself made it, it is still unethically made? Not to mention child modelling agencies that pay the kid/family to model. Unfortunately, though, in our society that oppresses minors, the kid could have been forced by the parents.

[APPEND] In the case of self-made CP, it might be non-consensually shared even though it was made ethically, but that is a different issue.

[–]NatsumeAshikagaMtF | Ace | Panromantic 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 11時間前 (1子コメント)

[+]calherKinky gay furry nerd スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 10時間前 (0子コメント)

They responded, saying:

There is no ethically made child pornography, because children cannot consent, they do not have the legal knowledge, nor experience to consent.

I do not see why anyone would need legal knowledge to consent. And what kind of experience would they need to consent? If you think that they need sexual experience, then that would mean that everyone was raped the first time they had sex. I explained why children can consent in a separate comment.

Aside from that there is no ethical reason for an adult to have such material, along with that an adult cannot have the material without violating the child's privacy.

If the face is not shown and/or the CP was shared consensually, then it would not be a privacy violation. And as I said, it is generally agreed that free speech trumps privacy. Do you disagree that free speech trumps privacy? Note that just because something ought to be legal does not mean that it is ethical.

Even self made child porn is illegal, even if only children have access to it.

It is illegal, but that does not mean it is unethical. Some unethical things are legal while some things that are ethical/ethically neutral are illegal.

Most minors if left on their own would end up dead in short order, because of their inability to care for themselves.

Live Free or Die.

OK, I'm really tired. Bye-bye. (I think they made some changes so expect edits when I wake up.)

[–]safewoodchippermoo 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 10時間前* (3子コメント)

As I've pointed out with IllCaesar, my operational definition for "CP" is live-action child pornography.

It may support the making of more unethically made CP, but it some cases only extremely indirectly, as I explained later (this is all assuming the guy was viewing unethically made CP, though). As for the privacy violations, freedom of speech is valued over privacy by the US Government (and I think rightfully so) in all other cases that I know of: CP is an exception. Also, I should have said it can violate privacy, since it does not have to.

This is a jumbled mess and hard to follow. But I find the way in which consuming/copying CP supports a cycle of producing more CP enough to deem it unethical and illegal. It being anonymously shared doesn't make it any less so, as generating interest in the content itself lends itself to being produced. You need only look to the rich meme culture of 4chan to see that sort of mechanism in action, alive and well, reproducing without the incentives of money or even credit. Even though there's no monetization and no credit given to the creators, it's way more of a direct method of reproduction than you think.

Furthermore exploiting the likeness of these children for sexual gratification is a violation of privacy, even if you're blocking out the faces, and I find it rightly unethical. If you don't agree on that point then there really is nothing else that I have to say in the matter.

So you think even if the kid himself/herself made it, it is still unethically made? Not to mention child modelling agencies that pay the kid/family to model. Unfortunately, though, in our society that oppresses minors, the kid could have been forced by the parents.

Now if we're talking about the case of adolescents sharing snapchats of their naughty bits for their adolescent BF's and GF's, then that represents a fringe case that I really don't feel strongly about either way. However in any other case children are not experienced enough in the concept of sexuality to be able to give consent in the first place. Even if they are making the content themselves, there is no such thing as consensual sharing in that regard.

[–]calherKinky gay furry nerd -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 1時間前* (2子コメント)

The other person (same as before) said:

As I've pointed out with IllCaesar, my operational definition for "CP" is live-action child pornography.

I understand.

It may support the making of more unethically made CP, but it some cases only extremely indirectly, as I explained later (this is all assuming the guy was viewing unethically made CP, though). As for the privacy violations, freedom of speech is valued over privacy by the US Government (and I think rightfully so) in all other cases that I know of: CP is an exception. Also, I should have said it can violate privacy, since it does not have to.

This is a jumbled mess and hard to follow. But I find the way in which consuming/copying CP supports a cycle of producing more CP enough to deem it unethical and illegal.

I explained how it might support it only in a very indirect way. And if the CP was ethically made, sharing it would not support molestation, though if it was shared in a privacy-violating manner, it might support violating privacy. Here was the explanation from another post:

Most CP is not bought. And if the person did not signify in any way to the original producer of the CP that it was viewed, then the only way it supports the making of more unethically made CP is extremely indirectly: the fact that there are people out there that are willing to view it and if that was not the case and people knew that, no one would bother to make the unethical CP (though if that was the case, people would probably not be making the stuff in the first place, since they would likely believe that to be wrong too).

I suppose some things could be amended to that. If you signify somewhere that you view unethically made CP and especially if it is similar to the specific child porn in question, even if not to an original producer about his specific CP then you are more directly supporting the making of more than if you simply passively view it. If you simply signify that you view CP but not a certain type or unethically made child porn in general, then someone might wrongfully assume that you will view his work, but I do not think the person should be blamed for those wrong assumptions.

Some child pornography should probably be boycotted to an extent, but I do not think it should be illegal. I think it would be more immoral to punish someone for simply supporting something than it would be to imprison them over it. Are we to punish some for simply saying 'MOAR!' in a child pornography thread? How is that not a violation of free speech? Simply consuming it does very little. And the biggest bad guy in all of this is the person that actually forced the kid into making the child pornography (assuming the kid was forced); rape and molestation would be illegal regardless of any child pornography laws, including laws against producing child pornography (which are really punishments that are added on for filming or taking a photo of it, despite such extra crimes not existing for any other unethical act). Furthermore, criminalising all CP simply because some is unethically made and because it might support the making of more unethically made CP in a way more direct than the extremely indirect way I described above is anti-due process.

It being anonymously shared doesn't make it any less so, as generating interest in the content itself lends itself to being produced. You need only look to the rich meme culture of 4chan to see that sort of mechanism in action, alive and well, reproducing without the incentives of money or even credit. Even though there's no monetization and no credit given to the creators, it's way more of a direct method of reproduction than you think.

So if I passively browse 4chan memes, you think that will have a significant effect on the making of more memes? I doubt whether that is the case. All the OP said was that child porn was found, not what kind it was or any other information on it.

Furthermore exploiting the likeness of these children for sexual gratification is a violation of privacy, even if you're blocking out the faces, and I find it rightly unethical.

Interesting that you say 'for sexual gratification'. So people can take as many photos of kids as they want and share them as long as faces are blurred, except in the case that it is for sexual gratification? Also, you say 'the likeness of these children', so do you apply the same to adults, or did you simply say that because we are referring to children? The original production might have been a violation of privacy, but I was talking about simply viewing/downloading the child porn after it is already made. There are issues like birthmarks or other identifying features, but as long as none of those are seen, I do not see why simply viewing it is much of a privacy violation. And if it is, then it likely should be applied to things other than images that are for sexual gratification.

Now if we're talking about the case of adolescents sharing snapchats of their naughty bits for their adolescent BF's and GF's, then that represents a fringe case that I really don't feel strongly about either way.

It is unfortunate that you do not feel strongly about their rights being violated.

I was not talking specifically about 'adolescents' sharing images with their sexual partners. I rather had in mind minors live streaming for strangers, and some of the minors can be quite young.

For example, Smosh joked that the popular streaming site Stickam was where pedophiles "go to find soft core".

However in any other case children are not experienced enough in the concept of sexuality to be able to give consent in the first place.

As I pointed out elsewhere, if they need sexual experience to consent to sex, then everyone would have been raped the first time they had sex, no? I am not sure what you mean by the 'concept of sexuality', though. If they do not have to engage in sex acts to get the experience, how do they get it? Simply by becoming older in age? It is possible for a ten-year-old to have more 'life experience' than a twenty-year-old.

[–]safewoodchippermoo [スコア非表示] 26分前 (1子コメント)

[–]calherKinky gay furry nerd [スコア非表示] 4分前 (0子コメント)

[–]IllCaesar 22ポイント23ポイント24ポイント 14時間前 (5子コメント)

[+]calherKinky gay furry nerd スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 13時間前* (4子コメント)

The person I was talking to earlier is reading this more than I am. I put their response below. I may edit this post to add my own thoughts later, when I am not so tired.

He did not do anything worth being in prison for.

There's no other way to interpret this than apologia for the sexual abuse of children, period. This isn't about attraction, this isn't about images, this is about taking sexual advantage of somebody who is unable to consent.

Lying to someone about a massage course to get them naked is unethical, because all lying is, but I do not think lying should be illegal. In case you did not see the original post, the OP is sixteen, which is the age of consent in several US states and is the federal age of consent, so even parts of the Establishment think sixteen-year-olds can consent (Establishmentarians generally act like eighteen is the age of consent in the US, period, though). That being said, consenting to sex and wanting to have sex is [sic] [recte are] different: in the case of prepubescents, it seems they often do not want to have sex (pubescents, who are generally around eleven or older, often do want to have sex though; I did).

It is absurd to say that children cannot consent though. If you have feelings about something one way or the other and you can communicate those feelings, you can consent; if you do not have feelings about something one way or the other, it is not unethical to do the thing to you. People regret their decisions quite often, regardless of whether they are a children or not. STIs should be disclosed to your sexual partner regardless of whether they are a child; biological children (i.e. prepubescents) cannot even get pregnant (pregnancy not being relevant to gay sex anyways). Regardless, once they are informed of the risks they can make informed consent anyways. Sure they may end up being some super religious Catholic later in life and feel bad about having sex outside of marriage or something, but a twenty-year-old can end up like that later in life too.

[–]NatsumeAshikagaMtF | Ace | Panromantic 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 11時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]calherKinky gay furry nerd -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 10時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]IllCaesar 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]calherKinky gay furry nerd [スコア非表示] 15分前 (0子コメント)

They responded, saying:

It is absurd to say that children cannot consent though.

Oh my god, what the hell? Is there a complete lack of understanding of what a child is? A child is a person who hasn't reached mental maturity. If you're mentally impaired, undeveloped or underdeveloped you cannot consent and children are by defintion undeveloped.

Biologically, a child is someone that has yet to reach puberty. Most males reach puberty at eleven or twelve; most females at ten or eleven. 'Mental maturity' seems like an arbitrary concept. Do you have a concrete definition of it? What is needed to consent besides be able to feel positively or negatively towards something about being able to communicate that? If the person is neutral towards the thing, it is not wrong to do it to him or her. What information do people really need to make 'informed consent' besides knowledge of any STIs the person might have (which should be disclosed anyways) and the possibility of getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant? Of course, if the person is prepubescent then pregnancy is irrelevant.

I'm flagging this post because this is nothing sort of advocating child rape.

PSA: Thank you for filling your daily quota of working for the Junior Anti-Sex-League! The Party is pleased!

In seriousness, reporting someone because you dislike his viewpoints makes you a cunt. Also, where has child rape been advocated? It is not rape if it consensual. Whether you believe children can consent or not, I do, so I am not advocating the rape of anyone. If I say that it is okay to have sex with children if the child consents, then if children cannot consent, it would still be wrong in my paradigm. What is in dispute is whether children can consent or not.

[–]IllCaesar 55ポイント56ポイント57ポイント 20時間前 (2子コメント)

[+]calherKinky gay furry nerd スコアが基準値未満のコメント-21ポイント-20ポイント-19ポイント 15時間前 (1子コメント)

However, subjecting your uncle to society's witch-hunt will not solve the problem.

He sexually abused a person

He did trick someone into sexual activity, and that should be punished, but not with the severe punishments thought up by people who want to see child-lovers die slow, painful deaths.

and supported the progation of sexual abuse of other minors via gathering child pornography.

This assumes too many things we do not know.

Also, viewing imagery of bad stuff does not make the bad thing happen. People watch videos of 9/11 and Nazi Germany without fear.

And let us not forget that Copying Is Not Theft and that, by extension, Copying Is Not Rape.

He wasn't just some innocent guy who never hurt anybody

Right. He tricked someone into having sex, and that hurt someone.

and has nasty thoughts he's trying to keep in check

Romantic, sexual thoughts about young people is not in itself "nasty".

What do you mean by "to keep in check"?

he's a flagrant child predator. He deserves nothing less than an extended stay in prison.

He needs to be punished for telling lies to someone to get what he wanted, but "extended stay in prison" is just the sort of emotional knee-jerk response that just delays the problem and does not fix it.

[–]IllCaesar 17ポイント18ポイント19ポイント 14時間前 (0子コメント)

He did trick someone into sexual activity, and that should be punished, but not with the severe punishments thought up by people who want to see child-lovers die slow, painful deaths.

Unless capital punishment is a possible sentence for the crimes he's being charged with (and if he's in the US its not) your fears are unfounded.

This assumes too many things we do not know.

People wouldn't make it and spread it if others didn't use it.

Also, viewing imagery of bad stuff does not make the bad thing happen.

Minors cannot consent, which means that any pornographic materials that they make are made without their consent. That is sexual abuse, plain and simple.

And let us not forget that Copying Is Not Theft and that, by extension, Copying Is Not Rape.

It doesn't matter if you pay for the materials or not, downloading them supports the proliferation of the materials. If you download a movie illegally then somebody is more likely to post a torrent for another movie. People see demand and they create a supply. There doesn't even need to be money exchanged because such things are often done for gratification not directly tied to one's bank account size.

Romantic, sexual thoughts about young people is not in itself "nasty".

They can't consent so they're nasty thoughts. I don't condemn them for having these thoughts, that would be the antithesis of justice. I simply expect them to recognize that these thoughts have no ethical applicibility in the real world. They can wank to their own fantasies as much as they want, just leave actual children out of it. Same reason I don't give a shit about loli or shota.

What do you mean by "to keep in check"?

Everybody has impulses. Some impulses are to commit immoral actions and they must be kept in check. For example, I have impulses to shoplift constantly. My likely kleptomania is harmless as I've never once done so, and I'd like to keep it that way. While its unrealistic to expect people to never give into negative impulses one is held to the standard to never give into impulses that harm another.

He needs to be punished for telling lies to someone to get what he wanted, but "extended stay in prison" is just the sort of emotional knee-jerk response that just delays the problem and does not fix it.

He's a predator and law-abiding citizens are his prey, young people who have almost no means to defend themselves in particular. He needs to be removed from the population until he's no longer a likely threat to them or any others. I don't care how much time he gets. If he is in prison for a mere two months but is completely reformed by the time he gets out and never harms another person in such ways again then justice was had and the system worked. Likewise, if he's completely hopeless then he should stay in prison for the rest of his life, however long that may be. I'm not really concerned with inflicting vengeneance upon somebody I never met and never will meet for an ill that they inflicted upon another person that I never met and never will meet, I'm concerned about them not harming another person again.

[–]that_one_white_girl 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント 19時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]calherKinky gay furry nerd -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 13時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]GrandWizardMrFunk 30ポイント31ポイント32ポイント 20時間前 (4子コメント)

[+]calherKinky gay furry nerd スコアが基準値未満のコメント-16ポイント-15ポイント-14ポイント 14時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]NatsumeAshikagaMtF | Ace | Panromantic 20ポイント21ポイント22ポイント 14時間前 (2子コメント)

Yes, if he is a real pedophile (child lover) with real challenges, and not just an opportunistic rapist.

That's dressing things up in flowery language, pedophiles are not child lovers, they're at best people who lust after children.

Maybe, but that does not change the fact that punishments are being made for emotional reasons.

Sexual abuse of children who cannot protect themselves physically, nor emotionally, is an understandably emotional subject. It also doesn't change that people who sexually abuse others, are also most likely to be repeat offenders.

Absolutely! But getting the police involved is a little much.

No it wasn't, it showed admirable restraint on the father's part. Most parents, especially a father, would have made a physical confrontation. This person is getting exactly what he deserves for abusing children, while also partaking of media that requires the abuse of children.

[+]calherKinky gay furry nerd スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 12時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]NatsumeAshikagaMtF | Ace | Panromantic 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 11時間前 (0子コメント)

Did you mean ephebophilia, a nearly ubiquitous condition? The OP is sixteen. And pedophilia is about people who haven't even reached puberty; certainly not sixteen-year-olds.

For one it depends on how old said sixteen year old looks, there are plenty who look far younger. At any rate the uncle is also family which makes it incest, plus there was child pornography present on the uncle's hard drive. Edit: I still pass for a teen despite being near the end of my twenties for example. I've been hit on by people, who when they found out my actual age, lost interest.

Also, I do not know why minor-attraction is of any relevance to judging this matter. The OP satisfies the age of consent; the case should be evaluated as is typical between legal adults who are in a similar situation.

You assume the OP requires the legal status of age of consent you mean. Many places including a large portion of the US considers the age of consent to be 18. Further more many places have laws against adults over the age of around 20 from pressuring those younger than 18 into sex. Further more the age of consent may be 16, but that's not the age of majority. When it comes to someone 20 or older, generally one has to be the age of majority, which is 18, the minimum age at which one can enter a legally binding contract of their own accord. Regardless the uncle used a position of power in an attempt to have a younger relative to perform sexual activities. So that's at the minimum coercion and incest, also there's the little fact of apparent child pornography in the possession of the uncle.

The OP is certainly not a child; he is near age of majority and has reached the age of consent in many countries.

A moot point unless the OP lives in an area where he is of age of consent. There's still coercion, attempted rape, incest, and possession of illicit materials regarding underage children on the uncle's part. Face it you're grasping at straws in order to justify a seriously screwed up situation and a the actions of a person who is indeed a danger to others.

[–]TotesMessenger 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

π Rendered by PID 23682 on app-287 at 2016-03-19 22:40:42.045232+00:00 running 51e0011 country code: JP.

ainbow

Want flair?

A note on moderation

調停者