Ironic because you keep posting what you think on here for us to give a shit about.
Just because I post something, doesn't mean I give a shit what you think about it.
Tell me, if the point of this site is to submit content and create discussion, what is the point of submitting if you don't care about the ensuing debate and the ideas put forward by others.
I'd love to feel shocked by your egocentricity, but frankly after having been here for so long and having read so much from you, it really is no surprise.
Edited comment.
And? You think self-editing in order to look better achieves anything? What I now find amusing is how you must be in "a pretty sore spot to give a fuck about what some douche bags think".
Ironic because you keep posting what you think on here for us to give a shit about.
Just because I post something, doesn't mean I give a shit what you think about it.
Tell me, if the point of this site is to submit content and create discussion, what is the point of submitting if you don't care about the ensuing debate and the ideas put forward by others.
I'd love to feel shocked by your egocentricity, but frankly after having been here for so long and having read so much from you, it really is no surprise.
Nah Tories wouldn't just go for chavs they'd love to punish single mothers too.
Point is there's a lot of chavs who don't work and could but just can't be arsed.
I seem to remember these same lines of thinking being used to constantly target single mothers throughout the early 90s... Back to Basics... you still see similar ranting headlines in the Daily Mail.
Personally, although I'm aware that there are many 'chavs' out there who fit the stereotype perfectly, I think you also have to look at the wider social, structural and economic issues which have allowed a generation of youths to grow up in the manner they have. Why do they adopt the roles they do? What social and economic forces are at work which have led to this situation. Looking at, and purely blaming, the individual without accepting the wider social context seems to be a bit, I dunno, lazy. That said, when I worked in management we did see a significant problem with regard to our ability to hire and retain young workers... but, then again, the jobs were shit, the pay was shit, and you were generally treated like shit... what reason did we give for people to stay... very little looking back on it, apart from a pitiful wage at the end of the week. I hear the political classes go on about how work provides a sense of meaning and well-being, and how it improves self-esteem. All these may be true to an extent, by by fuck, the jobs we shovel people into are pretty soul destroying for the most, so much so that our only escape at the end of the week is to get fucked out of our faces... so many issues, such a complex interplay of relationships.
^Spoken like a true left winger. They all believe the death penalty is nothing more than vengeful retribution.
Really? So where in your rages against tyranny and injustice is there room for the idea that a form of punishment which accepts that as much as 10% of those convicted and sentenced to death may be innocent... I should have thought that the idea of a branch of government murdering innocents would be something that made your blood boil, such is the afront to liberty, freedom, justice and all those things on which you so eloquently wax lyrical. But, no, apparently your only voiced concern is that any opposing view is 'typically socialist'. For shame, Wolffee, for shame.
^ barely. If I remember correctly I came back on hotdog johnny because some people were throwing some serious accusations at me that needed to be addressed.
^ Well bigler forced me back, so instead of my deleted account being resurrected but then remain inactive i thought it'd be best if i just took over for wolffe once again. You are right though. No one leaves. No one.
No-one forced you back, even when your account was 'terminated' you couldn't stop yourself from logging on as hotdogjohnny. It's like you're some kind of masochistic attention whore.
I doubt the kids could get any stupider these days.
Well, if you're an example of the latest generation, I concur, it would be nigh on impossible for future generations to become any dumber.
Wolffe wrote:
I personally believe we have the carefully controlled government public schools to thank for the abysmal stupidity of children these days.
Ha! After the apologist bullshit you were spewing regarding the legality of direct and 'indirect' acts of child abusers, I don't think you have any credibility with regard to the issuance of blame.
I doubt the kids could get any stupider these days.
Well, if you're an example of the latest generation, I concur, it would be nigh on impossible for future generations to become any dumber.
Wolffe wrote:
I personally believe we have the carefully controlled government public schools to thank for the abysmal stupidity of children these days.
Ha! After the apologist bullshit you were spewing regarding the legality of direct and 'indirect' acts of child abusers, I don't think you have any credibility with regard to the issuance of blame.
I personally believe we have the carefully controlled government public schools to thank for the abysmal stupidity of children these days.
To be fair, you also personally believe that a guy who thought that the aliens in Alien Nation were real was one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century...
Otester, if you had a child, and your child had a babysitter, and your child's babysitter was part of a paedophile ring, and your child's babysitter was asked by another member of the ring to take pictures or videos of the sexual abuse of your child, and that ring member took images for the community of the abuse of your child, in your opinion would the person commissioning those images be involved in criminal behaviour?
Well, I doubt Otester really believes the full consequences of what he proposes... for some reason, he really wants to justify possession of Kiddie Porn.
And more than anything he has ever said on here, that worries me.
just to throw more fuel on the fire, what do people think of situations where an underage person lied about their age and engaged in pornography, especially when it was distributed to a large audience, perhaps even coupled on film with legitimate legal pornography. For example Traci Lords in the 80's. If someone had possession of video after it was revealed she had been underage, would they be liable for charge, and could it be argued they weren't aware of the revelation concerning said persons age? Also how would someone be able to prove or disprove the individual's knowledge concerning the actor/actresses age? (I was born in the late 80's so no I wasn't wanking to her cp) Also if this material was later found to be illegal, whom would be responsible for the financial compensation upon surrender of said illegal video (if compensation was deemed fit). Anyway, flame on, this post is getting to be entertaining to say the least
That is an interesing point, and one I was recently involved with, and it was with regard to Traci Lords. A friend who was new to the innernets asked if I'd be able to download some Traci Lords for him, and I, being a reader of video and dvd magazines in the past 20 years, was able to inform him of the illegality of much of such materials, and that although such materials were available, I wouldn't download them... the Lords case almost brought the American porn industry down, and though at the time she may have been able to pull the wool over the eyes of producers (who may not have asked as many questions as would be the case now), it is now widely known that much of her early material is 'out of bounds'. That said, there is a clear difference between the kind of thing Traci was producing and the images/videos of child abuse that people are being prosecuted for... once again the word 'voluntary' springs to mind.
these straw men keep being thrown up, but...there's no comparison...
^ Uh oh. You are changing the subject......you are losing it Otester. That Logic Bomb is going to go off in your face in only a few minuets.....
The idea is that only those involved directly should be held accountable.
So, again, as Eric pre-empted me earlier, if I hired someone else to shoot you, then I'm nto to be held accountable?... Yes?
Nope.
Explain.
You didn't take part in the physical attack, hence indirect.
So, in the example of the Nazis that I provided, the person who gave the order for a specific action is not legally responsible (culpable) for the act if they are not present when the act is committed?
Doesn't matter whether they're present or not, they didn't physically kill the other guy(s).
So.. if you're not physically present at an abuse you're not guilty of abuse. if you're not physically present at a killing you're not guilty of that killing..
So, the entire concept of chain of command is rent obsolete... yes?
Chain of responsibility?
I will ask again, is the chain or command (responsibility) rent obsolete?
Yes.
So, if a commander in chief, president, government, prime minister or whomever gives an order, no matter how important or insignificant, the implementation of that order is the ultimate responsibility of the person at the very bottom of the ladder?
Yes.
You have just excused every government - every political, social, religious and financial organisation of any responsibilty it has for any decision it has made ever.
So, just to make it clear, Otester believes that Reinhard Heydrich, Otto Hofmann... oh, fuck... these guys, these fucking guys, do not have anything to answer to with regard to the crimes perpetuated by the nazis...
^ Uh oh. You are changing the subject......you are losing it Otester. That Logic Bomb is going to go off in your face in only a few minuets.....
The idea is that only those involved directly should be held accountable.
So, again, as Eric pre-empted me earlier, if I hired someone else to shoot you, then I'm nto to be held accountable?... Yes?
Nope.
Explain.
You didn't take part in the physical attack, hence indirect.
So, in the example of the Nazis that I provided, the person who gave the order for a specific action is not legally responsible (culpable) for the act if they are not present when the act is committed?
Doesn't matter whether they're present or not, they didn't physically kill the other guy(s).
So.. if you're not physically present at an abuse you're not guilty of abuse. if you're not physically present at a killing you're not guilty of that killing..
So, the entire concept of chain of command is rent obsolete... yes?
Chain of responsibility?
I will ask again, is the chain or command (responsibility) rent obsolete?
Yes.
So, if a commander in chief, president, government, prime minister or whomever gives an order, no matter how important or insignificant, the implementation of that order is the ultimate responsibility of the person at the very bottom of the ladder?
Yes.
You have just excused every government - every political, social, religious and financial organisation of any responsibilty it has for any decision it has made ever.
And?
... really? From the guy who blames government for everything...
^ Uh oh. You are changing the subject......you are losing it Otester. That Logic Bomb is going to go off in your face in only a few minuets.....
The idea is that only those involved directly should be held accountable.
So, again, as Eric pre-empted me earlier, if I hired someone else to shoot you, then I'm nto to be held accountable?... Yes?
Nope.
Explain.
You didn't take part in the physical attack, hence indirect.
So, in the example of the Nazis that I provided, the person who gave the order for a specific action is not legally responsible (culpable) for the act if they are not present when the act is committed?
Doesn't matter whether they're present or not, they didn't physically kill the other guy(s).
So.. if you're not physically present at an abuse you're not guilty of abuse. if you're not physically present at a killing you're not guilty of that killing..
So, the entire concept of chain of command is rent obsolete... yes?
Chain of responsibility?
I will ask again, is the chain or command (responsibility) rent obsolete?
Yes.
So, if a commander in chief, president, government, prime minister or whomever gives an order, no matter how important or insignificant, the implementation of that order is the ultimate responsibility of the person at the very bottom of the ladder?
Yes.
You have just excused every government - every political, social, religious and financial organisation of any responsibilty it has for any decision it has made ever.
^ Uh oh. You are changing the subject......you are losing it Otester. That Logic Bomb is going to go off in your face in only a few minuets.....
The idea is that only those involved directly should be held accountable.
So, again, as Eric pre-empted me earlier, if I hired someone else to shoot you, then I'm nto to be held accountable?... Yes?
Nope.
Explain.
You didn't take part in the physical attack, hence indirect.
So, in the example of the Nazis that I provided, the person who gave the order for a specific action is not legally responsible (culpable) for the act if they are not present when the act is committed?
Doesn't matter whether they're present or not, they didn't physically kill the other guy(s).
So.. if you're not physically present at an abuse you're not guilty of abuse. if you're not physically present at a killing you're not guilty of that killing..
So, the entire concept of chain of command is rent obsolete... yes?
Chain of responsibility?
I will ask again, is the chain or command (responsibility) rent obsolete?
Yes.
So, if a commander in chief, president, government, prime minister or whomever gives an order, no matter how important or insignificant, the implementation of that order, and the responsibility for it's consequences is the ultimate responsibility of the person at the very bottom of the ladder?
^ Uh oh. You are changing the subject......you are losing it Otester. That Logic Bomb is going to go off in your face in only a few minuets.....
The idea is that only those involved directly should be held accountable.
So, again, as Eric pre-empted me earlier, if I hired someone else to shoot you, then I'm nto to be held accountable?... Yes?
Nope.
Explain.
You didn't take part in the physical attack, hence indirect.
So, in the example of the Nazis that I provided, the person who gave the order for a specific action is not legally responsible (culpable) for the act if they are not present when the act is committed?
Doesn't matter whether they're present or not, they didn't physically kill the other guy(s).
So.. if you're not physically present at an abuse you're not guilty of abuse. if you're not physically present at a killing you're not guilty of that killing..
So, the entire concept of chain of command is rent obsolete... yes?
Chain of responsibility?
I will ask again, is the chain or command (responsibility) rent obsolete?
^ Uh oh. You are changing the subject......you are losing it Otester. That Logic Bomb is going to go off in your face in only a few minuets.....
The idea is that only those involved directly should be held accountable.
So, again, as Eric pre-empted me earlier, if I hired someone else to shoot you, then I'm nto to be held accountable?... Yes?
Nope.
Explain.
You didn't take part in the physical attack, hence indirect.
So, in the example of the Nazis that I provided, the person who gave the order for a specific action is not legally responsible (culpable) for the act if they are not present when the act is committed?
Doesn't matter whether they're present or not, they didn't physically kill the other guy(s).
So.. if you're not physically present at an abuse you're not guilty of abuse. if you're not physically present at a killing you're not guilty of that killing..
So, the entire concept of chain of command is rent obsolete... yes?
^ Uh oh. You are changing the subject......you are losing it Otester. That Logic Bomb is going to go off in your face in only a few minuets.....
The idea is that only those involved directly should be held accountable.
So, again, as Eric pre-empted me earlier, if I hired someone else to shoot you, then I'm nto to be held accountable?... Yes?
Nope.
Explain.
You didn't take part in the physical attack, hence indirect.
So, in the example of the Nazis that I provided, the person who gave the order for a specific action is not legally responsible (culpable) for the act if they are not present when the act is committed?
"I was trying to point out that with a good community your hearsay would be enough (was gonna say herasay originally but that doesn't cover Beelzebub's crime)."
That doesn't even make any sense homie............
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
But, seriously, Otester, someone who has not only asked for CP, but asked for the generation of original CP pics, shouldn't be prosecuted? Even when he knows that the person he's asking has direct access to children, and is under his thrall and will do exactly as is required?
Indirect crimes should incur no time.
OK. Could you explain to me how asking someone to take original images of child abuse for your sole viewing pleasure is not a direct crime? How is the originator, the commissioner, of the request not complicit in the crime?
Crimes is obviously the wrong word to use in this thread so substitute it with "physically abusing a child".
WHAT?!
Are you suggesting that the SEXUAL abuse of a child is not a criminal act? You fucktard, you're still violating the rights, freedoms, liberties etc., of a child. Jesus Fuck, man.
Some people seem to be getting mixed up in the debate on what is currently considered a crime and what should/shouldn't be, I'm not saying physically abusing a child shouldn't be against the law, I'm saying how it should be labelled in the debate so people don't misunderstand as you just did.
Eg: Replace "indirect crime" with "indirectly physically abusing a child".
I'm following the thread fine, thanks. You, however, seem to want to redefine certain acts.
I'll make it easy for you by providing an example.
Bob meets someone called Kate who works in a care home for the under 12s and they strike up a relationship. Kate falls head over heels for Bob and would do anything for him, Bob knows this. Bob asks Kate to take pictures of her sexually abusing children in her care for his sexual gratification. Kate obliges and send the images to Bob.
The question is, is Bob guilty of a crime? Is he complicit in the violation of the rights, liberty, freedoms, etc., of the child?
I'll go a step further. Bob is on Kate's computer. Bob sees pictures of Kate sexually abusing children. Bob loves Kate. Bob does not report the pics or video to authorities. Is Bob guilty of accomplice?
With otester's line of thought, accomplices in any crime should be labelled differently and thus treated differently by the law system. Labels, Tables. I don't give a fuck, they're still criminally responsible regardless of where they stand in terms of direct or indirect actions based on any matter.
That's like saying a child pornography director should be nailed for the charges, and the guy requesting them should be labelled as an indirect criminal, and thus should be treated as such in court proceedings. Oh... wait....
"I was trying to point out that with a good community your hearsay would be enough (was gonna say herasay originally but that doesn't cover Beelzebub's crime)."
That doesn't even make any sense homie............
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
But, seriously, Otester, someone who has not only asked for CP, but asked for the generation of original CP pics, shouldn't be prosecuted? Even when he knows that the person he's asking has direct access to children, and is under his thrall and will do exactly as is required?
Indirect crimes should incur no time.
OK. Could you explain to me how asking someone to take original images of child abuse for your sole viewing pleasure is not a direct crime? How is the originator, the commissioner, of the request not complicit in the crime?
Crimes is obviously the wrong word to use in this thread so substitute it with "physically abusing a child".
WHAT?!
Are you suggesting that the SEXUAL abuse of a child is not a criminal act? You fucktard, you're still violating the rights, freedoms, liberties etc., of a child. Jesus Fuck, man.
Some people seem to be getting mixed up in the debate on what is currently considered a crime and what should/shouldn't be, I'm not saying physically abusing a child shouldn't be against the law, I'm saying how it should be labelled in the debate so people don't misunderstand as you just did.
Eg: Replace "indirect crime" with "indirectly physically abusing a child".
I'm following the thread fine, thanks. You, however, seem to want to redefine certain acts.
I'll make it easy for you by providing an example.
Bob meets someone called Kate who works in a care home for the under 12s and they strike up a relationship. Kate falls head over heels for Bob and would do anything for him, Bob knows this. Bob asks Kate to take pictures of her sexually abusing children in her care for his sexual gratification. Kate obliges and send the images to Bob.
The question is, is Bob guilty of a crime? Is he complicit in the violation of the rights, liberty, freedoms, etc., of the child?
I'll go a step further. Bob is on Kate's computer. Bob sees pictures of Kate sexually abusing children. Bob loves Kate. Bob does not report the pics or video to authorities. Is Bob guilty of accomplice?
... so, in Otester's world only the person who physically commits the act is a criminal, and the person who commissions that act is not, because he isn't physically present.
So, in a Otester's world, these men:
were all innocent of the crimes against humanity that were presented against them because they merely commissioned them, they weren't actually physically there when they were carried out, they never pulled a trigger or released the Zyklon B, other people did all that....
?? 
lol