Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#1  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 7:13 pm

Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Eric Pepke

#2  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 13, 2016 7:45 pm

The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10514
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#3  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 13, 2016 7:48 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:If someone has actually been charged with possession of child pornography for having Napalm Girl saved on their computer, that needs to be discussed.

Is that what's happened?

I doubt it has, and I doubt what Eric possessed was as innocent as that. But, it may also not have been as messed up as you think. You seem to be thinking about literal children, but someone who's 17 is under the age of consent in Virgina.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10514
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#4  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 8:39 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?


Anybody who gets off on such images is a disgusting human being. If you do not judge people based on their mind then what do you judge them on? The colour of their skin perhaps?
"What's it like to be rich? You can't have two lunches." - some famous musician.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 3371
Age: 36
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#5  Postby Corneel » Dec 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?


Anybody who gets off on such images is a disgusting human being. If you do not judge people based on their mind then what do you judge them on? The colour of their skin perhaps?

Their acts.
"Damn it! Why am I arguing shit on the internet again!?"
"'cuz sometimes you just need a cumshot of stupid to the face?"

(from Something Positive)

The best movie theme ever

Ceterum censeo Praesidem Anguimanum esse demovendum
User avatar
Corneel
 
Posts: 1687
Age: 46
Male

Country: Mali
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#6  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 8:49 pm

Jerking off is an act. All acts derive from the mind. Judge on the source of acts.
"What's it like to be rich? You can't have two lunches." - some famous musician.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 3371
Age: 36
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#7  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 8:51 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?

Clearly, I don't think it's "kinda ridiculous", do I?

People tend to do those things that they think are normal behavior, don't they? I've lived long enough and seen enough of human behavior to know that some one who is sexually gratified by naked nine year old girls with half their skin burned off is going to have even fewer problems with much less horrific situations than that one. Situations that are still beyond any standard of acceptable behavior.

You feel free to explain how that fantasy, as I've described it above, is in any way a harbinger of model citizenry.

Are you laboring under the impression that such thought policing, as you put it, doesn't already exist? Let's talk about that, in context of what's going on with Eric.

Did Eric commission the images for which he was convicted? Probably pretty safe to assume not. Surely someone did, though. Someone compelled those minors to be photographed, didn't they? Once done, once that image is captured, is that minor injured in any way by further distribution of that image? The injury was when they were compelled to be photographed, wasn't it?

The argument will then be that mere possession of child pornography fuels the situation. It motivates those who do it to do more of it. That's certainly true. What that boils down to is punishing others for motivating some child pornographer to do something they have not yet done.

Oh, but wait. Didn't you just say that was thought police? Just because those child pornographers have these fantasies, it doesn't mean they are going to act on them? Is that what you are saying?

We both know better, don't we?

This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Eric Pepke

#8  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 9:18 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.


Exactly. People don't fantasise about things unless a part of them thinks the act would be ok. It's gotta feel ok or there is no gratification; there is revulsion.
"What's it like to be rich? You can't have two lunches." - some famous musician.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 3371
Age: 36
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#9  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 9:34 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?


Anybody who gets off on such images is a disgusting human being.

Hello 1948.

Keep It Real wrote: If you do not judge people based on their mind then what do you judge them on? The colour of their skin perhaps?

How about their actions?
You know, the things that have an actual effect on the world. :nono:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#10  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 9:40 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?

Clearly, I don't think it's "kinda ridiculous", do I?

People tend to do those things that they think are normal behavior, don't they?

Bein a paedophile =/= thinking paedophelia is normal.
Nor acceptable for that matter.

The_Metatron wrote: I've lived long enough and seen enough of human behavior to know that some one who is sexually gratified by naked nine year old girls with half their skin burned off is going to have even fewer problems with much less horrific situations than that one.

That's an incredibly vague non-sequitur.

The_Metatron wrote: Situations that are still beyond any standard of acceptable behavior.

Just because someone might be sexually predisposed to those kinds of scenario doesn't mean they'll actually act on it.

The_Metatron wrote:You feel free to explain how that fantasy, as I've described it above, is in any way a harbinger of model citizenry.

Just like KIR you're conflating attraction, ie thoughts/emotions, with actions.



The_Metatron wrote:Are you laboring under the impression that such thought policing, as you put it, doesn't already exist?

I can't speak to your area, but over here, no-one's arrested or put into a mental treatment facility, just for being a paedophile.
Nor for any other thoughts that don't necessarily result in actions.

The_Metatron wrote: Let's talk about that, in context of what's going on with Eric.
Did Eric commission the images for which he was convicted? Probably pretty safe to assume not. Surely someone did, though. Someone compelled those minors to be photographed, didn't they? Once done, once that image is captured, is that minor injured in any way by further distribution of that image? The injury was when they were compelled to be photographed, wasn't it?

The argument will then be that mere possession of child pornography fuels the situation. It motivates those who do it to do more of it. That's certainly true. What that boils down to is punishing others for motivating some child pornographer to do something they have not yet done.

There's a big difference between having attractions/thoughts and buying into a product and thereby stimulating actions based on said thoughts.


The_Metatron wrote:
Oh, but wait. Didn't you just say that was thought police? Just because those child pornographers have these fantasies, it doesn't mean they are going to act on them? Is that what you are saying?

But they are acting on them. They are producing child pornopgraphy ffs.

The_Metatron wrote:We both know better, don't we?

I should hope so, but that's not apparent from your post.

The_Metatron wrote:
This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.

And we persecute people for their actions not their thoughts.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#11  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 9:41 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.


Exactly. People don't fantasise about things unless a part of them thinks the act would be ok.

Are you shitting me?

Keep It Real wrote: It's gotta feel ok or there is no gratification; there is revulsion.

Please stop posting PRATTs.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#12  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 9:43 pm

I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 43961
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#13  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 9:46 pm

Fallible wrote:I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#14  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 9:51 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

The_Metatron wrote:
Oh, but wait. Didn't you just say that was thought police? Just because those child pornographers have these fantasies, it doesn't mean they are going to act on them? Is that what you are saying?

But they are acting on them. They are producing child pornopgraphy ffs.

...

No, all we know is that they produced them.

So, what you're really saying here is that once a person has done a thing, they are certain to do it again, right?
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#15  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 9:52 pm

Fallible wrote:I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.

Naked, half burnt nine year old girls isn't among them. Not even close.
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Eric Pepke

#16  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 9:54 pm

Well, I don't think I believe you. You've already expressed a willingness to kill someone for thinking the wrong thing.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 43961
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#17  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 9:56 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

The_Metatron wrote:
Oh, but wait. Didn't you just say that was thought police? Just because those child pornographers have these fantasies, it doesn't mean they are going to act on them? Is that what you are saying?

But they are acting on them. They are producing child pornopgraphy ffs.

...

No, all we know is that they produced them.

Please explain how your answer is anything but an affirmation of the point you quoted?
IOW why start your answer with "No" if you're going to affirm what I already said?

The_Metatron wrote:So, what you're really saying here is that once a person has done a thing, they are certain to do it again, right?

No what I am pointing out, is that a buisiness can't thrive if they have no paying customers.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#18  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 9:58 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Fallible wrote:I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.

Naked, half burnt nine year old girls isn't among them. Not even close.

You do realise this does nothing to negate the point, right?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#19  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 13, 2016 9:59 pm

Keep It Real wrote:Jerking off is an act. All acts derive from the mind. Judge on the source of acts.


It's an act done in private that harms no one. Therefore it is unreasonable to judge someone for it. For what purpose would it serve?
'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man
knows himself to be a fool.'
- As You Like It - William Shakespeare
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 11845
Age: 50
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#20  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 10:08 pm

That they're completely wrong in the head? Imagine a racist who would never act on their racism. Would they be ok or would you have hatred for them?
"What's it like to be rich? You can't have two lunches." - some famous musician.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 3371
Age: 36
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest