Do not kill people for mental problems. Attraction to children is a mental problem. You kill people for actions that they take, not mental problems that they have. People have a choice, homosexuals and pedophiles may not choose to be attracted, but they do have the choice to follow that action. I'm not going to get into homosexuals, I think most of you think them acting on their attraction is ok. I'm sure we all agree that acting on attraction to children is wrong. These people know it's wrong too. They have the choice to do something wrong and view child pornography (child abuse), some of them go as far as abusing the children themselves. We must recognize the difference between pedophiles who make the right choice and suppress their unnatural feelings, and the pedophiles who act and commit crimes against humanity. These people are the enemy, and they should be brought to justice. I don't think they should be killed for viewing child pornography. I think these people should be punished in some way - restricted access to internet that can be monitored, and therapy that they must pay for, and if they don't or can't pay for it, then they go to jail. Pedophiles who take it a step further and directly abuse a child. Jail. Therapy that they must pay for, or more jail. Pedophiles who abuse many children, capital punishment. There is no need for society to be burdened by having to support a convict on a lifetime sentence. This pedophile gets ten years of prison time, and then gallows, not super expensive drugs or something less humane like an electric chair. We have to have some kind of balance between mercy, and justice. There gets to a point where mercy cannot be met, and justice must be carried out. Before then, mercy and justice can be achieved at the same time.
I had exactly the same kind of response earlier in the thread when I said: Yes, smoking and child abuse are poles apart; I even said as much myself: And that post was in response to: This is the point I was trying to support. The point I was trying to make was that it's not just paedophiles who would be going through the same mental processes. The same could also be said for any addict at all: the heroin user who has to fund his habit through petty crime very likely knows that petty crime is illegal, knows that heroin is extremely bad for you and knows that what he is doing is considered extremely unacceptable. But does that stop him? Of course it doesn't. Of course I'm not saying that paedophilia or child abuse is considered no less socially acceptable than smoking; nor am I saying that paedophilia is an addiction that can be given up. The only reason I brought up smoking was because it is the only addiction that I have struggled (and still struggle) with. I know it's all in my head - it confers no physical benefit other than placebo - and I know it's seriously bad for my health (and could end up killing me). But none of that stops me.
First of I want to say that I am all for this kind of hacking. Though there is a part of it that I see as a dark side for this story. I think many of those (I have no idea if it's a minority or a majority) found on those sites are there to watch those pictures and videos (that already exist) instead of acting it out in real life. A way for them to control their urges. I mean, pedophilia isn't a disease you contract, I am no psychologist but I believe it is hard to suppress. I think that if they use material that already exists (not producing their own hurting more children) instead of hurting more children then I am all for it. So instead of searching out those using the pictures. You should search for those who create this kind of material. And as another perspective in this discussion; In Sweden a man got convicted for drawing pictures that depicted small children.
Supply and demand dude, if these fcking scum balls didn't want to view child porn then there might be less people making the actual porn and thus less children being harmed.
The demand will probably exist even in the future. Logically, if there is no child porn the demand would be higher. So would the best way would be to create a legal site with ties to the government where you had to be registered to view anything? I have no idea, but if you went about making the punishment worse I think they only would retreat further into the dark. Children would still come to harm.
We realize this, but just because you can't completely stop something from happening does not mean you should back down and not fight against it.
It's hard to put into words, but this idea strikes me as morally wrong. I can see where you're coming from, the damage is done so make the best of it, but it seems horribly disrespectful towards the children involved. The damage is likely psychological and long lasting, just because the picture or video was shot perhaps years ago doesn't mean the child involved is likely still hurting. That's scary stuff. In my opinion, drawing is like speaking: people should be free to say or draw whatever they want, not matter how distasteful. Of course there are occasional exceptions, but in the case of drawings and pictures these would be things like not displaying lewd images in public. The content itself is still protected. This is just an assumption, but I think he's hinting at killing all paedophiles, not actually reducing the demand.
Have we got that little outburst over and done with now? Feeling better? Now, to reply to your emotive points. Firstly, I never suggested that it should be a free for all against paedophiles to be murdered. You are trying to exaggerate what I actually said. I said I would turn a blind eye to a nonce being given a good beating. If you find that disgusting, then I'm not going to lose any sleep over what someone thinks of me over the intertubes. At least I'm being honest and not trying to play the softly, softly liberal. I also never once claimed that I know who should live and who should die. You should really get off the homosexual comparisons as they are just extremely silly and do nothing to strengthen your arguments. As a parent, I dislike and distrust active paedophiles because they are predators, and abuse the weakest members of our society. What the hell has homosexuality got to do with that? Now let's turn to what I did say and you chose to ignore. I think it would be quite reasonable for any parent to feel that way if their child had been sexually assaulted. Where it becomes unreasonable is when the parent actually follows through, and tries to exact revenge. You obviously missed the part where I said: I would go so far as to say I don't know whether I could be trusted not to try and follow through on this....etc. That statement should imply that I have thought about this matter seriously, and would consider revenge to be wrong. Maybe it didn't come across like that to you. The temptation would be there, and who could blame anyone for having that temptation? I will leave you with this: Unless any of us are put into the situation of being a parent of an abused child, none of us can say with any certainty how we would react. We can say how we think we should, or how we would want to react, but the rest is just waffle.
Can I throw something at you? If two 15 year olds have sex, both are below the age of consent so it's a sexual offence with a child for both of them. Would you put both in prison for life or would you like to rethink what you've suggested?
No I don't need to reconsider as I was referring to non consensual child abuse, committed by adults. I thought that was what we were all talking about here after all?
I don't know any specific government's laws off the top of my head, but you might want to see if the law in your area indeed allows this. Most age of consent laws are more than just a flat line age, it might be that in your area (or any area you feel like discussing) the law allows for two people to consent provided they are within an allowed age range of each other. Typically they exist to allow couples of ages 15 and 16 to consent where the AoC is otherwise 16 (for example) but there might also exist one for both partners being below the AoC.
Don't know how the law is where you live but that would just be called sex in Denmark, age of consent 15.
Society wasn't always so outraged, Colour climax (a well known porn producer) used to make child porn before it was made illegal in the 60's. Underage stuff was their biggest seller, of course it's wrong and should be illegal but talking about killing people for watching an mpeg is stupid.
I assume people are talking about people that directly abuse children, by creating child porn, when they mention wanting to kill them, not that the distributors such as website creators or torrent seeders, etc, deserve to be treated any better. Things like slavery used to be legal you know I'm posting about both aspects. It's hard for people to quit an addiction, when many or even some of their peers encourage it. If you had enough will power, then sure, you'd quit. If everyone or at least most people were telling you to give up cigarettes, mentioning how disgusting they were, encourage enjoyable alternatives such as gum or some tea, etc, then with just a little will power, you'd give up very quickly. Do smoker's deserve to be killed? No, because they are only harming themselves - PROTIP If a smoker was forcing a child to smoke cigarettes, well then they'd be a child abuser, and could be vaguely compared to a paedophile.
For the sake of argument, and because I have an inhaler SPECIFICALLY for it, secondhand smoke is a lot like forcing a kid to smoke.
This is very true, and yes, parents that smoke around their kids aren't acting in the child's best interests, and yes, if anything done to or around people is bad enough, it's abusive. When things are really bad, such as molesting kids, people see red. Molestation is bad mmmkay?!
After re-reading some of this it may be a good idea for us to remember to distinguish between paedophiles and Child molesters, can see I have been guilty of using the wrong word several times. paedophile: a person who is sexually attracted to children Child molesting: a crime involving a range of indecent or sexual activities between an adult and a child
To think that governmental agencies weren't aware of this is, well, naive. But intelligence is a two edged sword. any action taken on it reveals our knowledge of it and it's source. So, you have to balance action versus developing more leads and generally mapping the network. Often times leaving something like this in place develops into a more complex investigation that moves past it's original source and allows police to act in a manner that will stand up in a court of law. When you find a fly, you don't destroy the honey pot. You wait and see if there are more flies, where they go, where they feed, who they are feeding with, and see if you can find more honey pots. Anon's actions have most likely wrecked a few months, if not years, of a network intel operation that was slowly linking online and offline activities. Worse, imo, is the fact that there is a rather large chance that a whole lot more was going on then just kiddie porn. And this will have alerted all kinds of people to the fact that they have been or were close to being compromised.
And I honestly think you're not giving them enough credit. Child pornography is taken extremely seriously by our various law enforcement agencies who have these crimes under their remit, and I would be willing to stake anything on the suggestion that they use websites which peddle child pornography for intelligence gathering. There have been several rings broken internationally as a direct result of this type of intelligence. Just a couple of examples: http://news.sky.com/home/article/1036613 http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/05/21/child-porn-ring-exposed/ The action taken by Anon could seriously hamper the existing efforts of our law enforcement agencies, and it doesn't take a genius to realise that. As I said before, any active paedophiles exposed by Anon could end up walking free, as evidence gained by employing illegal means cannot be used as evidence in a court of law against them. They will probably just go deeper underground than they already were, and this could also hamper any future efforts of our law enforcement agencies. I honestly think the actions of Anon were irresponsible, childish and also extremely arrogant. I would love to see every active paedophile exposed for what they are, and suffer the consequences of their actions. The actions of Anon may mean they have been publicly shamed, but they could walk away once the dust has settled, and carry on regardless.
