Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[The_Metatron]

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.

[SafeAsMilk]

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?

[SafeAsMilk]

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.

[Keep It Real]

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?

[Corneel]

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.

[Keep It Real]

Jerking off is an act. All acts derive from the mind. Judge on the source of acts.

[The_Metatron]

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.

[Keep It Real]

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.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

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.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We both know better, don't we?

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

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.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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?

It's gotta feel ok or there is no gratification; there is revulsion.

Please stop posting PRATTs.

[Fallible]

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.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

[The_Metatron]

...

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?

[The_Metatron]

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.

[Fallible]

Well, I don't think I believe you. You've already expressed a willingness to kill someone for thinking the wrong thing.

[Thomas Eshuis]

...

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?

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.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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?

[CdesignProponentsist]

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?

[Keep It Real]

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?