Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!not.news-service.com!not.alt.net!not.highwinds-media.com!t3!artnm!t4!feeder.news-service.com!news.k-dsl.de!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: jeanpauljesus <jeanpauljesus@heaven.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy
Subject: Re: A Friendly Warning to astraweb users
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:05:46 +0200 (CEST)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <gaphjr$cgi$1@aioe.org>
References: <6d241681f61c97a400c5386185f578fa@dizum.com>
<0mmtc4pkduo43kebh458o85prc6f7jmeal@4ax.com>
<Xns9B1B5E12D52FAutb@208.90.168.18>
<4n6vc457ks6ak7911ue3sjb9n2bprv5k2v@4ax.com> <gapgns$9k7$1@aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: FOAFNJdOfkxzcLeksGDxiQ.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-No-Archive: Yes
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy:1836
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:50:50 +0200, jeanpauljesus wrote:
> Have to agree with Vlad there.
>
> I'm always amazed how otherwise rational people cannot see that
> resources devoted to chasing what should be low priority bogies are
> resources that cannot be spent on truly high priority issues.
>
> The reason they cannot see this is because their claims to "protect"
> children in this way are - whether they are aware of this or not,
> usually not - actually come from their arbitrary morality and terror
> about sex and sexuality, and not so much from rational analysis of
> actual risks to children, especially in the case of boys. Yet
> pedophiles are the ones who are supposed to exhibit "cognitive
> distortion" (!).
>
> And of course, we have seen research that questions the assumptions and
> claims of the CA industry censured and its authors professionally
> ostracized - that's where such research isn't outright buried to begin
> with, that is. Why bother listening to that which you don't agree with?
>
> The assumption that photographing a child nude will "harm" children is a
> case in point. That assumption has been extended by the CA Industry to
> include a whole range of images that, until a few years ago, were never
> seen as "indecent" at all. It's arbitrary, and entirely culturally
> determined.
>
> But you're wasting your time Vlad on NB - he's just a troll and just
> spews whatever. I never read his posts.
Oh and I love that "US$20 billion industry worldwide" figure. Pray tell,
where did they get that number?
They made it up. Any commercial CP websites operating now, encouraging
people to enter credit card numbers, are almost certainly fbi/scotland
yard stings. That's how they catch most "offenders". Trying to
establish a business model based on child porn is a thing of the past,
yet they insist people are still doing it.
Any cp in circulation has either been circulated for free, or is re-
cycled from old pay sites (the bulk of which were softcore) from about 5
or more years ago.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|