Posts by Jamie Reyes6

silentpilot6, you’re out here throwing straw man arguments... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

☕

Quincy : Legion

Dennis Martin2 said:Quincy : Legion

You're still leaning on a flawed analogy.

Both photos of children and photos of weapons are uploaded specifically because people want to see them. Neither weapons nor children are being "produced" for the sake of being photographed.

Or maybe it's because people just love showing them off... ☕

Anyway, look, as a photographer myself, I get seriously triggered whenever the term "child pornography" gets thrown around loosely. It's wild how everyone turns into a mob against any "outsider" caught with a camera near a kid—I remember seeing these self-appointed "protective moms" on various forums making all sorts of threats toward photographers. Meanwhile, those same parents are out there flooding the internet with photos of their half-naked toddlers on Facebook or Instagram. And if we're being real, parents are often the most frequent abusers.

To make matters worse, nowadays, these amateur moral police don't even bother distinguishing between different types of images anymore. They just shove everything into the same bucket of sexual abuse and child pornography. Honestly, if you look at a photo of a kid playing at a beach or a park—with zero sexual context—and you see abuse or porn, you probably need serious professional help. Like, real clinical intervention. ☕

Quincy : Legion

silentpilot6 said:Quincy :
You are stubbornly clinging to the failed argument that looking at images isn't wrong... while throwing out links that have absolutely nothing to do with what we are actually discussing.

Just so you know, admitting you're wrong won't cause you to 🤣 lose anything in this debate...

But fine... if you still want to insist 😉, that viewing such images isn't an issue, then go ahead.

I believe I've presented enough arguments for any reasonable person to understand.

👋

Seriously though, since when did looking at an image become some kind of sin? Like, does someone just sitting there staring at a screen actually hurt the person in the photo? I don't see it.

silvercobra11 said:There’s an entire spectrum of severe personality disorders rooted in deriving pleasure from the suffering of others, with pedophilia being among the most extreme. Because these conditions are likely driven by genetic malfunctions, they aren't curable. These offenders are habitual recidivists who need to be kept isolated from society.

Comparing this to weapons or murder victims is fundamentally flawed. There is clear, well-documented evidence that pedophiles focus on collecting and trading illicit material, whereas that kind of connection just doesn't exist with killers.

😂 🤣 Honestly, you clearly don't even get the difference between pedophilia and sadism. 🤦 There's really no point in even arguing this further... ☕

You totally missed the point and botched the comparison. ☕

http://pedophileophobia.com/pedophilophobia.htm

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

Dude, you’re basically blurring the line between pedophilia and sadism. ☕

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

So by that logic, some guy collecting pictures of guns is a threat to everyone because, hey, who knows, maybe he'll start shooting people if the opportunity pops up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

That's not "basic common sense," that's just straight-up paranoia. ☕

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

What kind of acts? Threatening them with a look?

silentpilot6 said:Yes... that suits you perfectly. 😉.

Don't you realize that posting an image like that just encourages people to create more? The person being targeted isn't a Nazi or some deadbeat criminal—it’s just pure stupidity to celebrate that kind of behavior on a public forum. 👎

If you haven't realized it by now, you probably never will.

Total ad hominem attack. Honestly, we're done here. Nothing left to talk about. ☕

silentpilot6 said:I think you’re either missing the point or just refusing to see it...

The Nazis weren't killing people just so someone could take photos of it for entertainment.
The horrific things found on rotation sites weren't created for the sake of photography or being viewed by others.

Child abuse imagery exists solely for the purpose of distribution—essentially, children were victimized 😢 just so someone could document it for some degenerate to obsess over. 👎
If there weren't people watching this stuff, no one would be documenting it, and we'd be doing them a favor... 😢 whereas the Nazis would have kept killing regardless. Is that clear enough?

I don't see much point in commenting on the photographer's specific case because it's largely irrelevant to the main topic... that should be obvious.

Look, it’s clearly not clicking for you, but that’s exactly what’s happening—you’re just looking at a picture. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. ☕

I don't even know where to start with this one. Just looking at the thread and honestly? My head hurts. It’s like watching people walk straight into a brick wall and then acting surprised when they get a concussion. Anyway, what was I saying? Right. The whole situation is just... a lot. If you ask me, most of the noise coming out of the news lately feels like someone took a bunch of random headlines, threw them in a blender, and hit "pulse" without checking if the lid was on. It's messy. It's chaotic. And frankly, it's kind of hilarious if you have that dark sense of humor. I remember back when I was living in Chicago—actually, scratch that, it was more like a suburb outside of Des Moines, but whatever—I saw something similar happen with a local election. Everyone was screaming about nothing, making mountains out of molehills, and by the time the dust settled, nobody actually remembered why they were mad in the first place. We're doing the exact same thing here. We're all just spinning our wheels in the mud while thinking we're winning a race. Anyway, enough of my rambling. I'll stop talking now. Or maybe I won't. We'll see.

silentpilot6 said:I think you’re either missing the point or just refusing to see it...

The Nazis weren't killing people just so someone could take photos of it for entertainment.
The horrific things found on rotation sites weren't created for the sake of photography or being viewed by others.

Child abuse imagery exists solely for the purpose of distribution—essentially, children were victimized 😢 just so someone could document it for some degenerate to obsess over. 👎
If there weren't people watching this stuff, no one would be documenting it, and we'd be doing them a favor... 😢 whereas the Nazis would have kept killing regardless. Is that clear enough?

I don't see much point in commenting on the photographer's specific case because it's largely irrelevant to the main topic... that should be obvious.

Yeah, okay, so that’s got absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually talking about... but whatever. ☕

silentpilot6 said:It’s not quite that simple... ultimately, even just possessing those images is a crime.

We could argue that "just looking at pictures" is the least harmful part of pedophilia, but let's think about it... as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
Now... if we were just talking about kids being photographed secretly at a beach, maybe we could say "it's not that bad," but how many children are kidnapped, abused, raped, or coerced into these situations only to have it all filmed and distributed...

That's the point. Some creep might just be "looking at pictures" of naked kids, but how were those photos taken? What happened to those specific children during and after the filming... does "looking at pictures" still seem so "innocent" to you? 🙄 👎

Classic case of switching the blame around. You see some dealer trying to push junk on a kid, and instead of doing your job, you go ahead and arrest the kid. Real genius move right there. ☕

silentpilot6 said:It’s not quite that simple... ultimately, even just possessing those images is a crime.

We could argue that "just looking at pictures" is the least harmful part of pedophilia, but let's think about it... as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
Now... if we were just talking about kids being photographed secretly at a beach, maybe we could say "it's not that bad," but how many children are kidnapped, abused, raped, or coerced into these situations only to have it all filmed and distributed...

That's the point. Some creep might just be "looking at pictures" of naked kids, but how were those photos taken? What happened to those specific children during and after the filming... does "looking at pictures" still seem so "innocent" to you? 🙄 👎

Look, let’s be real here. There is zero connection between taking a photo of kids playing at the beach or splashing around and someone filming child abuse behind closed doors in their own house. Like, seriously? Taking a picture of a kid at the shore isn't inherently pornographic—unless you're intentionally framing it so their genitals take up the whole shot, which obviously nobody is doing. At the end of the day, if you look at everything through a lens of perversion, you're just going to see perversion everywhere. It's all about how you're wired.

Ever heard of Miti Vesović? He’s this photographer who, like twenty years ago, snapped a shot of this little kid just running around the room naked holding a bouquet of flowers. It was one of those classic, artistic shots that sat in galleries for two decades without anyone batting an eye. Then, out of nowhere a few years back, some child advocate types decide they need to play hero and demand a full-blown police investigation. Apparently, looking at a photo of a naked kid with some flowers somehow constitutes child pornography and "encourages pedophilic behavior" or whatever nonsense they're preaching now. It’s wild. Even the kid in the photo—who’s a grown man now, by the way—basically told them to get lost, saying the only people seeing anything sexual in that picture are the ones with seriously broken brains.

silentpilot6 said:It’s not quite that simple... ultimately, even just possessing those images is a crime.

We could argue that "just looking at pictures" is the least harmful part of pedophilia, but let's think about it... as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
Now... if we were just talking about kids being photographed secretly at a beach, maybe we could say "it's not that bad," but how many children are kidnapped, abused, raped, or coerced into these situations only to have it all filmed and distributed...

That's the point. Some creep might just be "looking at pictures" of naked kids, but how were those photos taken? What happened to those specific children during and after the filming... does "looking at pictures" still seem so "innocent" to you? 🙄 👎

So, look, those photos only exist because someone happened to mash the shutter button at the right moment. As for what was actually going down with those kids? That’s anyone's guess depending on the context. Maybe they were just tearing it up on the beach, or maybe someone was out there filming something much darker. It really just depends on the situation.

So, I was scrolling through some morbid stuff on Rotten.com the other day—you know, just looking at photos of corpses and then eventually spiraling into those horrific images from Nazi concentration camps. Honestly? It was pretty gripping. But now I'm sitting here wondering... should I be worried? Like, am I gonna get picked up by the FBI or something under some charge of being a murderer or a freaking Nazi just because I clicked on those links? 😂 🤣

rapidgull3 said:Either those people are clueless, or they’re living such comfortable lives that they have zero empathy for anyone else's struggles. Telling someone dealing with mental health issues that they're just being lazy or incompetent is incredibly tactless and shows a complete lack of compassion.

If you ask me, those people are just complete idiots. ☕

boldwalker12 said:🤦

Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.

Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.

Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦

Some people just can't grasp basic definitions, I guess. There's sexual orientation, and then there's sexual deviation. Orientation is straight, gay, or bi. Deviation is stuff like pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia, voyeurism... you get the idea.

boldwalker12 said:🤦

Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.

Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.

Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦

Thoughts don't hurt anyone. Actions do. But even then, you have to make a distinction; someone looking at a photo of a kid is just as much an abuser as a guy looking at a photo of a dead body is a murderer, or a terrorist looking at photos of weapons...

boldwalker12 said:🤦

Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.

Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.

Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦

What do you mean "not often enough"? If a case breaks and it's proven someone committed a crime, the court finds them guilty. The real issue is that some idiot wrote the criminal code, so there's this massive gap in sentencing. Like, someone might get hit harder for looking at illegal stuff online—which basically just harms themselves—than someone who actually physically assaults a child. It makes zero sense.

silentpilot6 said:Well, from what I understand, pedophiles specifically target those who haven't developed secondary sexual characteristics...
A 14, 15, or 16-year-old doesn't fall under that category anymore. There is a different term for it, but I can't recall it right now. 😁

Hmm... it depends on how the woman looks. If she's a total milfača 😬, I’d probably tell him, "Even your dad would approve," 😁 or "That's my boy." 😬
If it were some creep, though, I'd ask him if he's lost his mind.

I'm not sure what smart thing to say here... ultimately, you have to distinguish between situations involving coercion and those that are consensual.
Coercion is a criminal offense... but if it's voluntary, 🤔 I really don't know what to say. 🤷
Dammit... I can't help but imagine being a 15-year-old kid hooking up with that teacher 🙂 who was maybe 28 at the time. If someone found out and she got in trouble, I'd be the first one defending her.

Admittedly, we've drifted off-topic in recent posts... 15 years old isn't pedophilia.

There is absolutely no justification or mercy for pedophilia.
Since we don't have the death penalty or execution here, forty years in prison is the way to go... but you have to agree that when an older woman sleeps with a 15-year-old, it isn't the same thing as some 45-year-old jerk attacking a 9-year-old girl. 😢

Hebephilia ☕

Biologically speaking, pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children—basically before those secondary sexual characteristics kick in.

Legally, though, it all comes down to whatever age of consent is set by the state. In the US, it varies, but let's say it's 16 or 18 depending on where you are. So if a 16-year-old consents to someone who's 30, 40, or 50, as long as there’s no coercion involved (like assault), all those moral crusaders can cry about it all they want. But if we're talking about a 13-year-old, even if they "consent," the law sees it as child abuse, period. It's a crime.

silentpilot6 said:Well, from what I understand, pedophiles specifically target those who haven't developed secondary sexual characteristics...
A 14, 15, or 16-year-old doesn't fall under that category anymore. There is a different term for it, but I can't recall it right now. 😁

Hmm... it depends on how the woman looks. If she's a total milfača 😬, I’d probably tell him, "Even your dad would approve," 😁 or "That's my boy." 😬
If it were some creep, though, I'd ask him if he's lost his mind.

I'm not sure what smart thing to say here... ultimately, you have to distinguish between situations involving coercion and those that are consensual.
Coercion is a criminal offense... but if it's voluntary, 🤔 I really don't know what to say. 🤷
Dammit... I can't help but imagine being a 15-year-old kid hooking up with that teacher 🙂 who was maybe 28 at the time. If someone found out and she got in trouble, I'd be the first one defending her.

Admittedly, we've drifted off-topic in recent posts... 15 years old isn't pedophilia.

There is absolutely no justification or mercy for pedophilia.
Since we don't have the death penalty or execution here, forty years in prison is the way to go... but you have to agree that when an older woman sleeps with a 15-year-old, it isn't the same thing as some 45-year-old jerk attacking a 9-year-old girl. 😢

Look, pedophilia is classified as a psychological disorder (just like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or personality disorders, if I were to list them all), and people don't get thrown in prison for having a mental illness—they get locked up for committing a crime defined by the law.

silentpilot6 said:Well, from what I understand, pedophiles specifically target those who haven't developed secondary sexual characteristics...
A 14, 15, or 16-year-old doesn't fall under that category anymore. There is a different term for it, but I can't recall it right now. 😁

Hmm... it depends on how the woman looks. If she's a total milfača 😬, I’d probably tell him, "Even your dad would approve," 😁 or "That's my boy." 😬
If it were some creep, though, I'd ask him if he's lost his mind.

I'm not sure what smart thing to say here... ultimately, you have to distinguish between situations involving coercion and those that are consensual.
Coercion is a criminal offense... but if it's voluntary, 🤔 I really don't know what to say. 🤷
Dammit... I can't help but imagine being a 15-year-old kid hooking up with that teacher 🙂 who was maybe 28 at the time. If someone found out and she got in trouble, I'd be the first one defending her.

Admittedly, we've drifted off-topic in recent posts... 15 years old isn't pedophilia.

There is absolutely no justification or mercy for pedophilia.
Since we don't have the death penalty or execution here, forty years in prison is the way to go... but you have to agree that when an older woman sleeps with a 15-year-old, it isn't the same thing as some 45-year-old jerk attacking a 9-year-old girl. 😢

You're kind of comparing apples to oranges there. A woman with a 15-year-old and a guy with a 15-year-old fall into the same legal bucket. But a woman with a 9-year-old? Yeah, that's straight-up pedophilia.

placidranger said:Teachers deserve medals, not just tenure 😁

But in all seriousness: male pedophiles—regardless of the victim's gender—need to be prosecuted with equal severity, primarily because there is almost always an element of FORCE involved.
On the flip side, female pedophiles, especially when targeting boys, tend to rely less on physical coercion. To me, that’s the fundamental distinction.

Wrong!

In the vast majority of child abuse cases, whether it's a guy or a woman doing it, physical force is actually pretty rare. And let's not forget that most of these predators are close family members or someone the kid actually trusts. It's usually more about manipulation or bribery—you know, the whole "here's a toy or some candy" routine. Physical violence? Hardly ever part of the equation.

Eric Jackson43 said:Exactly. Stop daydreaming about some hot teacher from a movie and start picturing a bloated old lady walking up to a twelve-year-old kid, slapping him across the face, and telling him to strip down before grabbing him—suddenly the whole vibe changes, doesn't it?

Honestly, you just have to look at the posters on a typical twelve-year-old girl's bedroom wall to see what's actually going on.

I'm with you there... I remember back in middle school, even by fifth or sixth grade, girls were already obsessing over guys (mostly rock stars and actors) who were easily 20 or even 30 years older than them...

rowdyridge3 said:I don't see male and female pedophilia as being the same thing. Look, girls at that age are mostly virgins, so sex—especially when it isn't consensual—causes actual physical pain and leaves them with deep trauma. But what about a 40-year-old woman messing around with a 13-year-old boy? It’s not like he’s going to be in physical pain; honestly, he'll probably enjoy it. 😁 In my view, they just aren't the same.

You’ve got it all wrong. Honestly, at the end of the day, when the law gets broken, it doesn't matter who's doing the breaking or how much they're actually pulling off. Like I said before, the only real difference here is just the gender of the person behind it. ☕

Peter Wright3 said:I mean, if I were just some twelve-year-old kid again, honestly? I wouldn't have had any complaints about a twenty-four-year-old woman being into me. Not even a little bit. 😁
Man... that was basically my entire dream back then. 😁

Man, back in elementary school, I was totally crushing on this one teacher. She was probably around 30 at the time... just one of those things, you know? 😍

goldencrane72 said:They locked me out of my thread on Reddit because apparently I need "professional help," so here we go again... 🙂
Alright, check this article first so you actually know what I'm talking about: http://news.com/world/article/2010...06.html?pos=n0

So, I’ve been thinking—why is it that most people read a story like this and just laugh it off? You see comments like, "Oh, look at him, little guy thinks he's a player," or "The old man is just jealous and reported him." Total nonsense. But if the roles were reversed—if it was a young girl being seduced by an older man—the reaction would be instant fury. It’d be: "Pedophile!" "He should be hanged!" "I'd castrate him myself!" "Poor little girl!"
What is the actual difference between these two scenarios when they are fundamentally the exact same thing?
Don't get me wrong, maybe I don't view this specific case as terrifyingly as I would if the genders were flipped, but I honestly can't wrap my head around why society acts this way. :O

It comes down to the co-perpetrator aspect of the crime. ☕

Basically, there's this lingering idea that women are the "softer" sex, right? So, for the same stuff that would get a guy publicly lynched by a medieval Inquisition squad, people tend to use these soft euphemisms for women. It’s like everyone just shrugs and waves it off because of this outdated notion that "women aren't capable of doing that"...