User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:08:30 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most popular articles of child pornography are "Vicky" videos, a series of tapes made by a police officer who was ritually sexually abusing his 10 year old daughter, Kylie Freeman. If you saw the videos you would instantly recognize that the girl was nowhere near being a consenting adult, and that she was under the influence of some form of intoxicant. That's the shit CP freaks are into trading. Sometimes worse. A ring of CP traders actually had a contest going to see who could assault the youngest victim. The winner was a dude who posted video of himself raping an infant. As for the rest of what you typed...Jesus H. Christ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The most popular articles of child pornography are "Vicky" videos, a series of tapes made by a police officer who was ritually sexually abusing his 10 year old daughter, Kylie Freeman. If you saw the videos you would instantly recognize that the girl was nowhere near being a consenting adult, and that she was under the influence of some form of intoxicant. That's the shit CP freaks are into trading. Sometimes worse. A ring of CP traders actually had a contest going to see who could assault the youngest victim. The winner was a dude who posted video of himself raping an infant. As for the rest of what you typed...Jesus H. Christ. +1 I prosecuted cases involving child pornography for years. It was the most horrible part of my job. I would much rather go through gruesome photos of a murder scene than have to look at the images and videos I was exposed to during those days. It haunts me still. People generally don't understand how young some the children are in these videos. We aren’t talking about a 15 or 16 year old that may pass for 18. Most of the time I was dealing with children well under 10 yrs old, and sometimes toddlers and infants. As for the cash value they put on the images, well that doesn’t really matter since most child pornographers tend to trade material instead of selling it. That creates the demand for new pictures/videos. Which is why I always want to punch people in the eye who say that it is a victimless crime. Also taught me how we throw the word pedophile around a bit too much. People tend to use it to describe someone who is looking at a teenage girl who has developed features. True pedophiles are the ones that like children who have not developed yet. There are monsters in this world that find infants, toddlers and very young children sexually arousing. They will justify their desires in any way they can, and will prey on children whenever they get the chance. You cannot cure these people, other than taking them out of the gene pool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:08:49 AM EDT
[#2]
Execute her, she can't be fixed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:10:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Damn, that's too bad! She is smokin' hot! I wish she were not guilty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:20:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Her husband is a lawyer. He'll probably get a better divorce settlement with his wife in prison... but that's just a coincidence, I'm sure. What's the odds that he knew about this "hobby" of hers? This story has my b.s. detector pegged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:22:18 AM EDT
[#5]
get a rope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:23:01 AM EDT
[#6]
What a sick, twisted freak.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:24:46 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What a sick, twisted freak.
Wonder if she takes it analy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:25:29 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonder if she takes it analy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What a sick, twisted freak.
Wonder if she takes it analy? You are too old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:26:50 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: $50 Billion?   One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:34:23 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the apologist has made an appearance. There's always one in these threads. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past And the apologist has made an appearance. There's always one in these threads. I am not an apologist.. but there was a case a few years ago wear a young 20 something porn star that looked young made porn...some guy had it on his pc and was arrested and charged with it... they had to get the porn star to come testify that she was of age before the case got dropped... the DA would not drop charges until after the porn star testified...so his fears are not that far off... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:36:29 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not an apologist.. but there was a case a few years ago wear a young 20 something porn star that looked young made porn...some guy had it on his pc and was arrested and charged with it... they had to get the porn star to come testify that she was of age before the case got dropped... the DA would not drop charges until after the porn star testified...so his fears are not that far off... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past And the apologist has made an appearance. There's always one in these threads. I am not an apologist.. but there was a case a few years ago wear a young 20 something porn star that looked young made porn...some guy had it on his pc and was arrested and charged with it... they had to get the porn star to come testify that she was of age before the case got dropped... the DA would not drop charges until after the porn star testified...so his fears are not that far off... Case in Puerto Rico. Little Lupe. Who later got arrested and deported back to Columbia to face charges of recruiting minors for and producing child porn there. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:37:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past Yes girls are developing at a younger age. However, if your brain can't disengage your dick after age verification.. then perhaps your dick isn't the real problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:38:56 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People generally don't understand how young some the children are in these videos. We aren’t talking about a 15 or 16 year old that may pass for 18. Most of the time I was dealing with children well under 10 yrs old, and sometimes toddlers and infants. ... Also taught me how we throw the word pedophile around a bit too much. People tend to use it to describe someone who is looking at a teenage girl who has developed features. True pedophiles are the ones that like children who have not developed yet. There are monsters in this world that find infants, toddlers and very young children sexually arousing. They will justify their desires in any way they can, and will prey on children whenever they get the chance. You cannot cure these people, other than taking them out of the gene pool. I think most people fixate on the slightly under legal age but fully developed teens because frankly we can't comprehend somebody actually being attracted to prepubescent children. It's too revolting for the brain to process. So we go back and forth on whether 17 but looks like 21 should be wrong if both parties consented. Yeah, that's surely bad, but IMO not even in the same category. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:40:05 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, like my Mom said years ago when I thought my next store neighbor might be running a "House" upstairs. "Work at Home"! I don't know if the figure is correct or not but I'm not surprised by it. Usually, when things are illegal and the dealings are under the table, it will be more costly, regardless of what is being traded. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ("Welcome to our Branch Office"--title, (w,stte), "Hawaii 5 0") Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, like my Mom said years ago when I thought my next store neighbor might be running a "House" upstairs. "Work at Home"! Quoted:
From the article: "She is not charged with actually creating child porn. Court documents never make clear whether she sold any of the images, or simply collected and traded them with other kiddie porn enthusiasts. Experts estimate that the sale of sexually graphic images of children brings in $50 billion per year worldwide." WTF!!?? I don't know if the figure is correct or not but I'm not surprised by it. Usually, when things are illegal and the dealings are under the table, it will be more costly, regardless of what is being traded. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ("Welcome to our Branch Office"--title, (w,stte), "Hawaii 5 0")
" I'm not sure if it is wet or dry, but it wouldn't surprise me". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:42:25 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes girls are developing at a younger age. However, if your brain can't disengage your dick after age verification.. then perhaps your dick isn't the real problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past Yes girls are developing at a younger age. However, if your brain can't disengage your dick after age verification.. then perhaps your dick isn't the real problem. I have not found the study, but my sister that is up on all things medical says they have pretty much determined that girls are fully grown biologically at about menarche + 36 months. So yes, it is possible for mid teens to be full size little women. You still need to leave them alone. Not so long ago, they were married and running households. Children have it pretty good nowadays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:43:26 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past Well, uh...wow! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:43:45 AM EDT
[#17]
****WARNING UNPOPULAR OPINION****
Possession of a picture of a crime should not be a crime. We should <insert most brutal punishment imaginable> to the people who hurt children. If somebody is sexually gratifying themselves to pictures of a murder they are sick fucks but should possession of pictures of the dead person be viewed as just as bad as the murder? I do not condone that shit at all, and yes the people who look at those pictures are disgusting, society would be better without them and I would not feel anything if they all died in a house fire tomorrow. If somebody is paying money for those pictures, you could probably convince me that they are creating a demand to be filled by those who would hurt children and are part of the criminal enterprise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:44:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Those shots look disturbingly similar to one of my wife's former friends who turned into a crazy bitch and accused me of stalking her online. In. Not same person, just the type and manner of the pictures posted in the OP are similar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:46:39 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
****WARNING UNPOPULAR OPINION**** Possession of a picture of a crime should not be a crime. We should <insert most brutal punishment imaginable> to the people who hurt children. If somebody is sexually gratifying themselves to pictures of a murder they are sick fucks but should possession of pictures of the dead person be viewed as just as bad as the murder? I do not condone that shit at all, and yes the people who look at those pictures are disgusting, society would be better without them and I would not feel anything if they all died in a house fire tomorrow. If somebody is paying money for those pictures, you could probably convince me that they are creating a demand to be filled by those who would hurt children and are part of the criminal enterprise. I disagree. There is a big difference. This is not like having crime scene photos, this is basically commissioning the work by creating the demand. It is much more similar to murder for hire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:46:50 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
****WARNING UNPOPULAR OPINION**** Possession of a picture of a crime should not be a crime. We should <insert most brutal punishment imaginable> to the people who hurt children. If somebody is sexually gratifying themselves to pictures of a murder they are sick fucks but should possession of pictures of the dead person be viewed as just as bad as the murder? I do not condone that shit at all, and yes the people who look at those pictures are disgusting, society would be better without them and I would not feel anything if they all died in a house fire tomorrow. If somebody is paying money for those pictures, you could probably convince me that they are creating a demand to be filled by those who would hurt children and are part of the criminal enterprise. It isn't about money. Sexual compulsion drives the demand which in turn drives the production. Sexual compulsion causes otherwise rational people to do all sorts of irrational stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:55:22 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the article: "She is not charged with actually creating child porn. Court documents never make clear whether she sold any of the images, or simply collected and traded them with other kiddie porn enthusiasts. Experts estimate that the sale of sexually graphic images of children brings in $50 billion per year worldwide." WTF!!?? The blackest of black markets. There's lots of money to be made there, if you have no soul.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:58:23 AM EDT
[#22]
I think this lady was very sexually active. Probably had done some stuff most people never even heard of. Got bored with normal pornography or while looking at pornography came across child pornography. Suddenly she felt rejuvenated and got addicted to the point it dominated her life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 6:59:32 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
****WARNING UNPOPULAR OPINION**** Possession of a picture of a crime should not be a crime. We should <insert most brutal punishment imaginable> to the people who hurt children. If somebody is sexually gratifying themselves to pictures of a murder they are sick fucks but should possession of pictures of the dead person be viewed as just as bad as the murder? I do not condone that shit at all, and yes the people who look at those pictures are disgusting, society would be better without them and I would not feel anything if they all died in a house fire tomorrow. If somebody is paying money for those pictures, you could probably convince me that they are creating a demand to be filled by those who would hurt children and are part of the criminal enterprise. They fuel the fire of making child porn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:06:01 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the article: "She is not charged with actually creating child porn. Court documents never make clear whether she sold any of the images, or simply collected and traded them with other kiddie porn enthusiasts. Experts estimate that the sale of sexually graphic images of children brings in $50 billion per year worldwide." WTF!!??
It surprises me even when regular legal porn brings in those kinds of dollars. It's like paying for air in this day and age of the internet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:08:16 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a Traci Lords video. There's a good reason for that. Most of you have never actually seen child pornography, so I can understand how you might not understand how this works. CP cases are not being made on 17 year old victims who look fully grown, at least not until some retarded prosecutors decided to have a zero tolerance policy on sexting by minors. The most popular articles of child pornography are "Vicky" videos, a series of tapes made by a police officer who was ritually sexually abusing his 10 year old daughter, Kylie Freeman. If you saw the videos you would instantly recognize that the girl was nowhere near being a consenting adult, and that she was under the influence of some form of intoxicant. That's the shit CP freaks are into trading. Sometimes worse. A ring of CP traders actually had a contest going to see who could assault the youngest victim. The winner was a dude who posted video of himself raping an infant. As for the rest of what you typed...Jesus H. Christ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a Traci Lords video. There's a good reason for that. Most of you have never actually seen child pornography, so I can understand how you might not understand how this works. CP cases are not being made on 17 year old victims who look fully grown, at least not until some retarded prosecutors decided to have a zero tolerance policy on sexting by minors. The most popular articles of child pornography are "Vicky" videos, a series of tapes made by a police officer who was ritually sexually abusing his 10 year old daughter, Kylie Freeman. If you saw the videos you would instantly recognize that the girl was nowhere near being a consenting adult, and that she was under the influence of some form of intoxicant. That's the shit CP freaks are into trading. Sometimes worse. A ring of CP traders actually had a contest going to see who could assault the youngest victim. The winner was a dude who posted video of himself raping an infant. As for the rest of what you typed...Jesus H. Christ. That's fucked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:10:03 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fucking 13'r. And I guess we could take that a couple different ways from that post
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past Fucking 13'r. And I guess we could take that a couple different ways from that post
I always seem to have the retards like this on ignore already. I usually only put LEO haters on ignore. Strange........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:11:34 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, that's too bad! She is smokin' hot! I wish she were not guilty.
If that's what you consider smokin hot...... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:11:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Yeah I was shocked by that number as well. For two reasons: One, because... 50 BILLION?? And two because that means there's a lot more of that out there than I had thought.
The terrible thing is that with that much money involved it becomes way more likely the problem is going to get worse and worse, regardless of the penalties. When the money gets into the billions there becomes a whole lot of people that suddenly don't care about the risk. This is REALLY bad news.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the article: "She is not charged with actually creating child porn. Court documents never make clear whether she sold any of the images, or simply collected and traded them with other kiddie porn enthusiasts. Experts estimate that the sale of sexually graphic images of children brings in $50 billion per year worldwide." WTF!!?? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:15:52 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not an apologist.. but there was a case a few years ago wear a young 20 something porn star that looked young made porn...some guy had it on his pc and was arrested and charged with it... they had to get the porn star to come testify that she was of age before the case got dropped... the DA would not drop charges until after the porn star testified...so his fears are not that far off... Lupe Fuentes a.k.a "Little Lupe". The prosecution declined to subpoena the records from her studio, didn't accept testimony by phone, they even had a pediatrician giving expert testimony that Fuentes was underaged in the video. Fuentes had to fly in personally and testify which saved the guy. It's either good law or bad law, I don't know where people are getting this notion that the police are only interested in the real sickos, that prosecutors will utilize their discretion and won't be trying to make felons out of everyone they can. If you have images or video of minors(or apparently grown women could could be mistaken for minors) then you're gonna get loved tenderly, it doesn't matter if you are a minor yourself or a parent taking a cute bath photo of one of your kids. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:17:16 AM EDT
[#30]
Off with her head.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:18:31 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:20:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah I was shocked by that number as well. For two reasons: One, because... 50 BILLION?? And two because that means there's a lot more of that out there than I had thought. Not to say that real money is not being made by bad people here, but the way they come of with that figure is questionable. For example, if two people trade videos. They will "value" the videos at some price, perhaps $100 and then call that a $200 transaction. No money has passed hands and the valuation of the video is rather arbitrary. This is similar to the way the computer industry calculate how much it loses due to software theft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:21:36 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fucking 13'r. And I guess we could take that a couple different ways from that post
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past Fucking 13'r. And I guess we could take that a couple different ways from that post
Yeah, a slippery slope with no grass on the field. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:41:12 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have. In Lords' book, "Underneath it All", there is mention of a subpena where someone tried to sell some tapes to an undercover officer. Of course, this was back in the 80's so in the current era, perhaps not.....but even that is certainly not the kind of thing I would take a risk on. Wow, I would hate to come across that "by accident". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a Traci Lords video. ....... I have. In Lords' book, "Underneath it All", there is mention of a subpena where someone tried to sell some tapes to an undercover officer. Of course, this was back in the 80's so in the current era, perhaps not.....but even that is certainly not the kind of thing I would take a risk on. Quoted:
On any given day there are tens of thousands of people sharing illegal CP content through any number of methods. IRC chat rooms, certain forums at specific times of the day, and other methods pose a moving target. From the looks of things this woman had a habit of using some sort of file sharing program (I can only assume it was some form of bit torrent, perhaps an IRC client) that landed her in the same place at the same time with an investigator looking for people trading illegal content. Likely she had little technical sophistication and didn't grasp that she was probably advertising her IP to anyone she was trading content with. Once the investigator has that, it's not hard to get a warrant. The police stumbled on her by accident. At this point the police are still only catching the stupid ones. Wow, I would hate to come across that "by accident". In order for it to be a criminal offense, you must knowingly possess it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 7:48:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think most people fixate on the slightly under legal age but fully developed teens because frankly we can't comprehend somebody actually being attracted to prepubescent children. It's too revolting for the brain to process. So we go back and forth on whether 17 but looks like 21 should be wrong if both parties consented. Yeah, that's surely bad, but IMO not even in the same category. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
People generally don't understand how young some the children are in these videos. We aren’t talking about a 15 or 16 year old that may pass for 18. Most of the time I was dealing with children well under 10 yrs old, and sometimes toddlers and infants. ... Also taught me how we throw the word pedophile around a bit too much. People tend to use it to describe someone who is looking at a teenage girl who has developed features. True pedophiles are the ones that like children who have not developed yet. There are monsters in this world that find infants, toddlers and very young children sexually arousing. They will justify their desires in any way they can, and will prey on children whenever they get the chance. You cannot cure these people, other than taking them out of the gene pool. I think most people fixate on the slightly under legal age but fully developed teens because frankly we can't comprehend somebody actually being attracted to prepubescent children. It's too revolting for the brain to process. So we go back and forth on whether 17 but looks like 21 should be wrong if both parties consented. Yeah, that's surely bad, but IMO not even in the same category. You make an excellent point. Every dirty man is checking out teen girls at the mall. It's party of being a dirty old man... A man that looks at 7 year olds and becomes turned on by that isn't a dirty old man but a sick twisted fuck that deserves to be institutionalized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 8:04:38 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that's what you consider smokin hot...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Damn, that's too bad! She is smokin' hot! I wish she were not guilty.
If that's what you consider smokin hot...... No kidding. The good news is there are lots of girls he would consider smoking hot out there on Plenty of Fish or what have you. Most of them with the same photos even. I'd bet money that one has bigger arms than I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 9:12:56 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree. There is a big difference. This is not like having crime scene photos, this is basically commissioning the work by creating the demand. It is much more similar to murder for hire. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
****WARNING UNPOPULAR OPINION**** Possession of a picture of a crime should not be a crime. We should <insert most brutal punishment imaginable> to the people who hurt children. If somebody is sexually gratifying themselves to pictures of a murder they are sick fucks but should possession of pictures of the dead person be viewed as just as bad as the murder? I do not condone that shit at all, and yes the people who look at those pictures are disgusting, society would be better without them and I would not feel anything if they all died in a house fire tomorrow. If somebody is paying money for those pictures, you could probably convince me that they are creating a demand to be filled by those who would hurt children and are part of the criminal enterprise. I disagree. There is a big difference. This is not like having crime scene photos, this is basically commissioning the work by creating the demand. It is much more similar to murder for hire. This... by trading pictures a demand is created.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 10:42:10 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless it is a Congressman or Congresswoman on the appropriations committee..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NSA doesn't give a shit about child porn. Unless it is a Congressman or Congresswoman on the appropriations committee..... That, I am pretty sure of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:00:10 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not guilty, let me fuck her for her crimes. JUSTICE! You're a sick bastard. Seriously? This bitch needs to be put up. who gives a fuck what she looks like. She gets off on kids. That's as disgusting as it comes. 14 years is not long enough for this nasty woman. WTF is wrong with you?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:12:04 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless it is a Congressman or Congresswoman on the approiations committee..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NSA doesn't give a shit about child porn. Unless it is a Congressman or Congresswoman on the approiations committee..... Then they'll never bust them, just use it as leverage to get the funding they want pushed through. 
Ever see House of Cards on HBO? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:12:44 AM EDT
[#41]
I draw the line at child porn.. Set her on fire!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:42:44 AM EDT
[#42]
Give her to me....she will be the sex slave to a wrinkly old man....she will wash, cook and clip my toenails
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:25:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lupe Fuentes a.k.a "Little Lupe". The prosecution declined to subpoena the records from her studio, didn't accept testimony by phone, they even had a pediatrician giving expert testimony that Fuentes was underaged in the video. Fuentes had to fly in personally and testify which saved the guy. It's either good law or bad law, I don't know where people are getting this notion that the police are only interested in the real sickos, that prosecutors will utilize their discretion and won't be trying to make felons out of everyone they can. If you have images or video of minors(or apparently grown women could could be mistaken for minors) then you're gonna get loved tenderly, it doesn't matter if you are a minor yourself or a parent taking a cute bath photo of one of your kids. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am not an apologist.. but there was a case a few years ago wear a young 20 something porn star that looked young made porn...some guy had it on his pc and was arrested and charged with it... they had to get the porn star to come testify that she was of age before the case got dropped... the DA would not drop charges until after the porn star testified...so his fears are not that far off... Lupe Fuentes a.k.a "Little Lupe". The prosecution declined to subpoena the records from her studio, didn't accept testimony by phone, they even had a pediatrician giving expert testimony that Fuentes was underaged in the video. Fuentes had to fly in personally and testify which saved the guy. It's either good law or bad law, I don't know where people are getting this notion that the police are only interested in the real sickos, that prosecutors will utilize their discretion and won't be trying to make felons out of everyone they can. If you have images or video of minors(or apparently grown women could could be mistaken for minors) then you're gonna get loved tenderly, it doesn't matter if you are a minor yourself or a parent taking a cute bath photo of one of your kids. Otherwise the cases where some 17 year old girl sends a picture of herself in a sexual and nearly unclothed pose, to her 17 year old boyfriend... they wouldn't get arrested or charged. Yet, this happens quite frequently. Folks that think the police and DA's aren't just there for arrest and conviction numbers, the bigger profile the better, are DELUDED.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:38:22 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes girls are developing at a younger age. However, if your brain can't disengage your dick after age verification.. then perhaps your dick isn't the real problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? Should these 'offenders' be put in the same group as those who are looking at pictures of little girls who are you know undeveloped.. not even remotely looking like a woman yet... I'm just saying my dick was programmed to be aroused by female parts... it cannot distinguish between ages.. it just says either it looks like a woman or it doesn't.. now my brain says make sure she is LEGAL.. but I'm so old now that I don't date girls that young anyways... but I just don't like how they group these people all into one category because I see a HUGE difference in a girl that is underage who is developed and one who is underage and is also basically an infant or child physically speaking.. that's just straight up SICK in the head. I've seen girls at age 12 who are more developed than my 30+ XGF was...I think studies have shown that girls are developing at younger ages now than in the past Yes girls are developing at a younger age. However, if your brain can't disengage your dick after age verification.. then perhaps your dick isn't the real problem. I have no problem 'disengaging' that is not the point.. the point is there is no AGE INDICATOR on pictures... how do you know how old the girl is.. she could have tit's and be 15.. maybe wearing a lot of makeup, etc... all I am saying is that it's a HUGE difference between someone having sexual relations with a minor who looks like a little boy.. than it is to having sexual relations with someone who is FULLY developed and somewhere around 18 years old. Think about Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Hurricanes... are they all the same? Someone who rapes an infant is CLEARLY different than someone who met a hot 'woman' with C-cups, a landing strip, makeup who never declares her age and you never ask.. then later her parents find out and even though the girl consented you are now labeled a sex offender... I don't have any worries on any of this.. I'm just saying I've heard a lot of this.. there was a guy at my old job that the way people talked about him made him sound like an infant rapist.. when I finally looked up his record he had pictures of a girl who was not 18 on his PC.. he wasn't looking at 'little girls' he was looking at a girl who wasn't of legal age and who was fully developed.. way different IMO |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:43:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 I prosecuted cases involving child pornography for years. It was the most horrible part of my job. I would much rather go through gruesome photos of a murder scene than have to look at the images and videos I was exposed to during those days. It haunts me still. People generally don't understand how young some the children are in these videos. We aren’t talking about a 15 or 16 year old that may pass for 18. Most of the time I was dealing with children well under 10 yrs old, and sometimes toddlers and infants. As for the cash value they put on the images, well that doesn’t really matter since most child pornographers tend to trade material instead of selling it. That creates the demand for new pictures/videos. Which is why I always want to punch people in the eye who say that it is a victimless crime. Also taught me how we throw the word pedophile around a bit too much. People tend to use it to describe someone who is looking at a teenage girl who has developed features. True pedophiles are the ones that like children who have not developed yet. There are monsters in this world that find infants, toddlers and very young children sexually arousing. They will justify their desires in any way they can, and will prey on children whenever they get the chance. You cannot cure these people, other than taking them out of the gene pool. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The most popular articles of child pornography are "Vicky" videos, a series of tapes made by a police officer who was ritually sexually abusing his 10 year old daughter, Kylie Freeman. If you saw the videos you would instantly recognize that the girl was nowhere near being a consenting adult, and that she was under the influence of some form of intoxicant. That's the shit CP freaks are into trading. Sometimes worse. A ring of CP traders actually had a contest going to see who could assault the youngest victim. The winner was a dude who posted video of himself raping an infant. As for the rest of what you typed...Jesus H. Christ. +1 I prosecuted cases involving child pornography for years. It was the most horrible part of my job. I would much rather go through gruesome photos of a murder scene than have to look at the images and videos I was exposed to during those days. It haunts me still. People generally don't understand how young some the children are in these videos. We aren’t talking about a 15 or 16 year old that may pass for 18. Most of the time I was dealing with children well under 10 yrs old, and sometimes toddlers and infants. As for the cash value they put on the images, well that doesn’t really matter since most child pornographers tend to trade material instead of selling it. That creates the demand for new pictures/videos. Which is why I always want to punch people in the eye who say that it is a victimless crime. Also taught me how we throw the word pedophile around a bit too much. People tend to use it to describe someone who is looking at a teenage girl who has developed features. True pedophiles are the ones that like children who have not developed yet. There are monsters in this world that find infants, toddlers and very young children sexually arousing. They will justify their desires in any way they can, and will prey on children whenever they get the chance. You cannot cure these people, other than taking them out of the gene pool. Not sure why I am in the qoute tree here? And I agree that guys fapping or whatever to 0-10 year old girls that have not sign of being a woman.. is extremely messed up.. someone raping an infant should just be taken out back and shot...pretty sure some dude walked in on some guy raping his young infant-like daughter and beat him to death.. the JURY let the Father off the hook.. I have no problem with that..would do the same thing if I was on the Jury.. but I don't think all women/girls develop the same and 18 is a hard line rule that is made by civilization not by nature..some girls don't develop until their 30's or pregnancy.. some girls are developed by age 12 and sagging by age 18... just don't think grouping all sex offenders in the same pool is a good idea! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:50:08 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a Traci Lords video. There's a good reason for that. Most of you have never actually seen child pornography, so I can understand how you might not understand how this works. CP cases are not being made on 17 year old victims who look fully grown, at least not until some retarded prosecutors decided to have a zero tolerance policy on sexting by minors. The most popular articles of child pornography are "Vicky" videos, a series of tapes made by a police officer who was ritually sexually abusing his 10 year old daughter, Kylie Freeman. If you saw the videos you would instantly recognize that the girl was nowhere near being a consenting adult, and that she was under the influence of some form of intoxicant. That's the shit CP freaks are into trading. Sometimes worse. A ring of CP traders actually had a contest going to see who could assault the youngest victim. The winner was a dude who posted video of himself raping an infant. As for the rest of what you typed...Jesus H. Christ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
$50 Billion?
One Problem I have with this whole Sex Offender thing is they classify people as a Sex Offender and say they had child porn.. what if the offender is looking at pictures of girls who have large breasts and grass on the field.. BUT they happen to be 17 years old? I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for a Traci Lords video. There's a good reason for that. Most of you have never actually seen child pornography, so I can understand how you might not understand how this works. CP cases are not being made on 17 year old victims who look fully grown, at least not until some retarded prosecutors decided to have a zero tolerance policy on sexting by minors. The most popular articles of child pornography are "Vicky" videos, a series of tapes made by a police officer who was ritually sexually abusing his 10 year old daughter, Kylie Freeman. If you saw the videos you would instantly recognize that the girl was nowhere near being a consenting adult, and that she was under the influence of some form of intoxicant. That's the shit CP freaks are into trading. Sometimes worse. A ring of CP traders actually had a contest going to see who could assault the youngest victim. The winner was a dude who posted video of himself raping an infant. As for the rest of what you typed...Jesus H. Christ. In Michigan there was a case where a guy age 26? had consensual sex with a girl age 25? she testified that she was fully able to understand what it meant to have sex and that she in fact was able to decide for herself if she wanted sex or not.. the catch is she was 'somewhat retarded' she lived on her own but was still somewhat retarded.. they charged the guy with rape after creating some sort of law after-the-fact..stating something like she was not able to decide for herself.. he was somehow raping her because she is partly retarded.. if the state found her capable of living on her own.. shouldn't sex be a part of that package.. and how can the state create a law in 2013 and punish someone who violated that law in 2012 in other words he DIDN'T break the law in 2012 because it WASN'T a law.. yet he was convicted for it.. wish I could find that case.. it was in the newspaper in 2006-07? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:02:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In Michigan there was a case where a guy age 26? had consensual sex with a girl age 25? she testified that she was fully able to understand what it meant to have sex and that she in fact was able to decide for herself if she wanted sex or not.. the catch is she was 'somewhat retarded' she lived on her own but was still somewhat retarded.. they charged the guy with rape after creating some sort of law after-the-fact..stating something like she was not able to decide for herself.. he was somehow raping her because she is partly retarded.. if the state found her capable of living on her own.. shouldn't sex be a part of that package.. and how can the state create a law in 2013 and punish someone who violated that law in 2012 in other words he DIDN'T break the law in 2012 because it WASN'T a law.. yet he was convicted for it.. wish I could find that case.. it was in the newspaper in 2006-07? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:10:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
****WARNING UNPOPULAR OPINION**** Possession of a picture of a crime should not be a crime. We should <insert most brutal punishment imaginable> to the people who hurt children. If somebody is sexually gratifying themselves to pictures of a murder they are sick fucks but should possession of pictures of the dead person be viewed as just as bad as the murder? I do not condone that shit at all, and yes the people who look at those pictures are disgusting, society would be better without them and I would not feel anything if they all died in a house fire tomorrow. If somebody is paying money for those pictures, you could probably convince me that they are creating a demand to be filled by those who would hurt children and are part of the criminal enterprise. They should be burned at the stake. With a low fire like you'd use to smoke pork. But that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:12:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonder if she takes it analy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What a sick, twisted freak.
Wonder if she takes it analy? Shes fucked up. but kinda hot, I would totally congical visit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:15:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know if the figure is correct or not but I'm not surprised by it. Usually, when things are illegal and the dealings are under the table, it will be more costly, regardless of what is being traded. Your lackadaisical attitude towards this makes it sound as if you are advocating making child porn legal and taxing it, like marijuana proponents?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
