I don't even know where to begin with this one
-
@The_Quiet_One Is that necessarily why, though? Children are naturally curious about their bodies. Self-portraiture is a tool many people use to help build their self-esteem and become more comfortable with changing bodies, such as during puberty. It's entirely plausible that a 14 year old would take nude selfies for her own sake, and not for some hypothetical grown man.
-
@Yamikuronue said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@The_Quiet_One Is that necessarily why, though? Children are naturally curious about their bodies. Self-portraiture is a tool many people use to help build their self-esteem and become more comfortable with changing bodies, such as during puberty. It's entirely plausible that a 14 year old would take nude selfies for her own sake, and not for some hypothetical grown man.
Possibly. Especially now that'd be the case. However, in a hypothetical world where the act of distributing these photos after they're adults is accepted and profited from, there will start to be motivations from those who have heard of this lucrative business at a young age. Regardless of whether they follow through with it after they've turned 18, the fact that they're even thinking about that kind of thing at a younger age is a rather toxic thought process.
Look, this is where we start to get into weird dilemmas and paradoxes where it's hard to find a right answer. On one hand, I agree that it's ridiculous to put what we're talking about now in the same group as someone who exploits other people, and you get into slippery slopes where if this is wrong, then why isn't a 14 year old masturbating considered molestation, and so forth.
I just have a real hard time with any system that rewards perverts by providing them with explicit photos of real children, regardless of who took the photos.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
Regardless of whether they follow through with it after they've turned 18, the fact that they're even thinking about that kind of thing at a younger age is a rather toxic thought process
And how do you propose to help that? By jailing these kids? Or you'll wait and jail them after their 18th birthday?
-
@wharrgarbl said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
Regardless of whether they follow through with it after they've turned 18, the fact that they're even thinking about that kind of thing at a younger age is a rather toxic thought process
And how do you propose to help that? By jailing these kids? Or you'll wait and jail them after their 18th birthday?
If the person is still under 18, then nothing should happen to that person. If they're over 18, they made the conscious decision to break the law. Now, their punishment should be far more lenient. I'd even be okay with a mere fine. However, by distributing nude photos of themselves as children with the purpose of giving perverts what they want, I don't find that to be something which should be legalized.
However, in addition, the photos need to be removed from the sites that host them. Then the monetary motivation that I spoke of becomes far less of a concern. Again, the crime here isn't that the person in question was victimized per se, but more that they perpetuated and profited from a deviant culture which can foster illicit activities that promotes the grooming and exploitation of children. If we start to allow people to distribute explicit photos of themselves as children, then you get into a legal quagmire for a lot of child porn cases where it can be very difficult to prove whether one's kiddie porn was "legitimately" attained or was part of a more sinister plot. It'd become the go-to defense, because it's largely unprovable (the person in the photo isn't going to be on the witness stand very often), and could cast enough doubt to allow a pretty serious loophole and defense in what is a very serious crime if the child was truly exploited.
Basically, I'm against any kiddie porn industry that's legalized. It just opens too many grey areas and loopholes, promotes an acceptance of a deviant and predatory culture, and can undermine efforts to stop truly exploited children. It exposes children to the idea that it's okay if you take photos of yourself for perverts if you wait until you're 18 to distribute them. That's not a lesson I would want to teach children.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
If the person is still under 18, then nothing should happen to that person by the government/legal authorities.
FTFM. The kids' parents/legal guardians should still have some sort of response -- didactic, if not corrective or even disciplinary. I agree with the rest.
-
@djls45 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
If the person is still under 18, then nothing should happen to that person by the government/legal authorities.
FTFM. The kids' parents/legal guardians should still have some sort of response -- didactic, if not corrective or even disciplinary. I agree with the rest.
Well, what you put in green is implied. After all, there's tons of legal stuff kids can do already that aren't allowed by parents. Believe me if I found out my kid was doing that, I'd have a pretty long talk about it.
-
@The_Quiet_One I honestly think the stuff you're worried about is better handled in general by parents. If we're willing to adjust our culture to talk about sex and sexual topics more openly and honestly with our kids, starting young, we'll be able to instill in them some understanding of why you don't share those pictures. You know? But they have to trust you, and you can't get them to trust you while lying to them and/or omitting huge portions of their lived experiences from discussion. Teens know better than that.
-
@Yamikuronue said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
I honestly think the stuff you're worried about is better handled in general by parents.
It is -- except for the significant number of parents who think that it's better handled in general by someone else, and just plain flat-out refuse to act like parents because parenting is too much damn work and that's the state's job. Send 'em to school and let the education system try to parent them.
Sure, sending kids back home with a note for their parent(s) that says "YOU'RE THE PARENT -- DO YOUR DAMN JOB" sounds great, but it really won't help.
-
@anotherusername said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
It is -- except for the significant number of parents who think that it's better handled in general by someone else, and just plain flat-out refuse to act like parents because parenting is too much damn work and that's the state's job. Send 'em to school and let the education system try to parent them.
And at the weekends, sit them in front of the TV and give them an Xbox.
-
@anotherusername Yeah, but is that a problem the law should be fixing?
It's like No Man's Sky -- that whole thing was a debacle, but trying to craft legislation to prevent it from happening is a doomed idea. Better to let the bad reviews, loss in sales, and general loss of reputation from the developers stand as a warning.
-
@Yamikuronue said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
It's like No Man's Sky -- that whole thing was a debacle, but trying to craft legislation to prevent it from happening is a doomed idea. Better to let the bad reviews, loss in sales, and general loss of reputation from the developers stand as a warning.
In the UK we have advertising standards authority which means you can't outright bullshit about the product.
Apple was taken to task about the fact the original iPhone was seen to be loading pages too quickly.
Advertising Standards rules No Man's Sky Steam page did not mislead consumers
The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled No Man's Sky's controversial Steam page did not mislead consumers.Its dec…
I am really surprised they didn't get taken to task in the UK.
-
@Yamikuronue said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@anotherusername Yeah, but is that a problem the law should be fixing?
It's like No Man's Sky -- that whole thing was a debacle, but trying to craft legislation to prevent it from happening is a doomed idea. Better to let the bad reviews, loss in sales, and general loss of reputation from the developers stand as a warning.
Well, I think the general consensus is "if the parents won't then the public school system ought to do something and hopefully something halfway effective". It's really stupidly hard for the schools to parent kids when their parents at home won't, though.
Ask pretty much any teacher; their worst horror stories are about dealing with parents. With parents like those, it's no wonder a lot of the kids are as screwed up as they are.
-
@anotherusername said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@Yamikuronue said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@anotherusername Yeah, but is that a problem the law should be fixing?
It's like No Man's Sky -- that whole thing was a debacle, but trying to craft legislation to prevent it from happening is a doomed idea. Better to let the bad reviews, loss in sales, and general loss of reputation from the developers stand as a warning.
Well, I think the general consensus is "if the parents won't then the public school system ought to do something and hopefully something halfway effective". It's really stupidly hard for the schools to parent kids when their parents at home won't, though.
Ask pretty much any teacher; their worst horror stories are about dealing with parents. With parents like those, it's no wonder a lot of the kids are as screwed up as they are.
One problem I see with this (as a teacher) is that this becomes a feedback loop. Parents don't do anything, so the school starts taking over, so parents do less... Etc. Since I teach at a private school, I've also seen the flip side: parents crowding their kid out of the learning process and trying to do everything for them so they never make any mistakes from which to learn.
-
@Khudzlin said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@The_Quiet_One said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
trafficking rings
There's very little proof of the existence of such things. And no, runaway teenagers who turn to prostitution to get money because they can't get a legal job don't count.
This one, in particular is no more!
Police arrest 104 men in massive multi-year child prostitution investigation in Ontario | Globalnews.ca
Police have arrested 104 men for attempting to have sex with children forced into prostitution, following a four-year undercover human trafficking investigation in which 85 underage victims were found and 49 pimps charged in York Region since 2012.
-
@boomzilla Quote from the article:
“There’s no actual child victims in this project,” he said. “If you look at it from another perspective, from a preventative measure, we’ve stopped 104 men from purchasing 104 children.”
-
@lucas1 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
people have got a lot better at cleaning up evidence
@lucas1 said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
CSI
ENHANCE
Uh, yea right, sure they have
-
@sloosecannon Yes I know every bad tv show and movie think that computers are somehow magic. Die Hard 4.0 being the worst perpetrator.
However a lot of people are now aware of things like DNA evidence, GSR etc.
-
@Khudzlin said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
There's very little proof of the existence of such things. And no, runaway teenagers who turn to prostitution to get money because they can't get a legal job don't count.
You're trolling or completely delusional, it's all time in the news here.
-
@wharrgarbl said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@Khudzlin said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
There's very little proof of the existence of such things. And no, runaway teenagers who turn to prostitution to get money because they can't get a legal job don't count.
You're trolling or completely delusional, it's all time in the news here.
And the news never lie, and always fact-check, it is known.
-
@Jaloopa Studies can and have been falsified, though. Or they can be simply inaccurate with no malicious intent. The idea that child pornography "sates" the urge of an individual who might otherwise be dangerous is really little more than pure speculation.
The glaring idiocy of the radio station owner is that he does not understand basic economics. If there is a demand for images of children being abused and it's high enough, then there will be some unscrupulous individuals who will fill that demand. You can't just assume that because there are some images of minors being abused that every pedophile will be totally satisfied with that -- like I said that's total speculation and a gray area. What we do know are the basic laws of economics. Without demand, there won't be a supply. So, in this case, it's bad to support the demand.
Ultimately, though, penalizing the consumers of those images doesn't solve the problem. There will be more to take their place and more children who are being abused, because not every family can be saved. It's probably worth it if an individual who has such images in their possession is given a lenient sentence or set free, given that they can provide the FBI with definite information that leads to the capture and prosecution of the actual child abusers. They've set up plans and deals like this in the past.
-
@CrazyEyes Well, part of the problem is the absolute demonization of pedophiles as the lowest of the low.
Which means that even those who have the urges (which are both incurable and involuntary) but are not "symptomatic" yet will have next to no incentive to come forward to get help.
What is needed are preventative programs where those individuals are provided help in an anonymous manner.
-
@CrazyEyes said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
Without demand, there won't be a supply.
This is not always true.
One of the most infamous cases is Listerine. It was originally created for sterilizing medical equipment, but when the market for that stopped growing and they still had excess supply, they decided to manufacture growth by running ad campaigns to convince the general public that this medical-equipment sterilizer it was something they needed in their personal lives.
How? By inventing "bad breath." It might seem strange today, but before Listerine advertisements made it into something no one wanted to be caught dead afflicted with, this was something nobody cared about.
-
@masonwheeler said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@CrazyEyes said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
Without demand, there won't be a supply.
This is not always true.
One of the most infamous cases is Listerine. It was originally created for sterilizing medical equipment, but when the market for that stopped growing and they still had excess supply, they decided to manufacture growth by running ad campaigns to convince the general public that this medical-equipment sterilizer it was something they needed in their personal lives.
How? By inventing "bad breath." It might seem strange today, but before Listerine advertisements made it into something no one wanted to be caught dead afflicted with, this was something nobody cared about.
Wot?
The earliest known mention of bad breath occurs in ancient Egypt, where detailed recipes for toothpaste are made before the Pyramids are built. The 1550 BC Ebers Papyrus describes tablets to cure bad breath based on incense, cinnamon, myrrh and honey.[31] Hippocratic medicine advocated a mouthwash of red wine and spices to cure bad breath.[32] Note that alcohol-containing mouthwashes are now thought to exacerbate bad breath as they dry the mouth, leading to increased microbial growth. The Hippocratic Corpus also describes a recipe based on marble powder for female bad breath sufferers.[33] The Ancient Roman physician Pliny wrote about methods to sweeten the breath.[34]
-
@masonwheeler said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
How? By inventing "bad breath." It might seem strange today, but before Listerine advertisements made it into something no one wanted to be caught dead afflicted with, this was something nobody cared about.
You should try my father. Sometimes his breath is bad enough to kill horses at 20 paces.
:(
-
@Rhywden Probably not literally, but stuff like this has happened before. Body odor was seen as normal until the Victorian era, when the first deodorants that actually worked well became available. When only poor people smelled bad, suddenly nobody would be caught dead smelling bad if they could help it. It's real easy to create a demand if you convince people everyone's secretly judging you based on your use or not use of the product: pimple cream, dieting, hair straighteners, waxing, eyebrow sculpting....
-
@Yamikuronue said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@Rhywden Probably not literally, but stuff like this has happened before. Body odor was seen as normal until the Victorian era, when the first deodorants that actually worked well became available. When only poor people smelled bad, suddenly nobody would be caught dead smelling bad if they could help it. It's real easy to create a demand if you convince people everyone's secretly judging you based on your use or not use of the product: pimple cream, dieting, hair straighteners, waxing, eyebrow sculpting....
Again, the Egyptians and Romans (the latter made daily baths a thing) would disagree with you.
Also, the burning of incense might have been a bit reinforced by the (literally) unwashed masses' body odour overwhelming the priests.
And, of course, during the Dark Ages the Byzantine Empire kept the Roman practice alive.
-
@Rhywden said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
the Egyptians and Romans
You act like there's an unbroken line from here to there. There isn't, not in the same way there's a line from Victorian England to modern-day England. We re-discover things over and over throughout history. During the Regency era, bathing was thought to be dangerous to your health and thus undertaken as infrequently as possible; during the Victorian, it shifted again, and with the advent of Germ Theory, hopefully bathing is now here to stay.
-
@CrazyEyes said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
If there is a demand for images of children being abused and it's high enough, then there will be some unscrupulous individuals who will fill that demand.
It seems to me that the "demand" would be there on the part of the person doing the child abuse, whether someone else wants the pictures or not. I doubt that a non-child-molester would start doing it just to make spank material for others.
-
@Rhywden What @Yamikuronue said, basically. Yes, halitosis has been known for a long time, but the idea that it was something that could affect anyone in their day-to-day lives, and that they needed to take personal preventative action against it or risk social opproborium... that was invented by the Lambert Pharmacal Company, to sell Listerine.
-
@masonwheeler said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@Rhywden What @Yamikuronue said, basically. Yes, halitosis has been known for a long time, but the idea that it was something that could affect anyone in their day-to-day lives, and that they needed to take personal preventative action against it or risk social opproborium... that was invented by the Lambert Pharmacal Company, to sell Listerine.
Not buying it. Sorry, but if it makes actual history (as in: Found by archaeologists) then it's an issue which has been going on far longer than any single company can claim credit for.
I mean, those ancient recipes weren't invented just for shits'n'giggles.Also, please remember: Your original argument was "nobody cared about it". That is provably false.
-
@Rhywden Here, have a
. You know what I mean. (And apparently so does Yami, but she's taking the opposite course and not being a derp about it.)
-
@masonwheeler said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@Rhywden Here, have a
. You know what I mean. (And apparently so does Yami, but she's taking the opposite course and not being a derp about it.)If you restrict your statement to the early US you might have a point. For the rest of the world ... not so much.
-
@Rhywden said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@masonwheeler said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@Rhywden Here, have a
. You know what I mean. (And apparently so does Yami, but she's taking the opposite course and not being a derp about it.)If you restrict your statement to the early US you might have a point. For the rest of the world ... not so much.
Yeah, even then it's bullshit.
-
@boomzilla I find it hard to believe that anyone ever thought that tobacco could cure bad breath. Unless maybe they enjoyed the smell of tobacco-breath.
-
@anotherusername At one point in history, people painted radium on their teeth.
Anything's believable.
-
@RaceProUK yeah, but at least that doesn't cause the very thing that they thought it protected them from. And the thing that it did cause was something that they hadn't even identified as a thing.
-
@anotherusername said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@boomzilla I find it hard to believe that anyone ever thought that tobacco could cure bad breath. Unless maybe they enjoyed the smell of tobacco-breath.
It's always important to ask, "Compared to what?" In addition to "normal" bacteria, you're probably also dealing with lots of advanced gum disease and tooth decay.
-
@boomzilla I can't imagine that drinking tobacco tea helped much with that, either.
-
-
@anotherusername said in I don't even know where to begin with this one:
@boomzilla I can't imagine that drinking tobacco tea helped much with that, either.
The important thing is that @masonwheeler is wrong.
-
Cigars taste nice ...
Bad breath - Wikipedia
