Thank You to Whoever is in charge!!!!

[nothingtaboo]

Just wanted to say Thank you for ending the post about child pornography.Normally we wouldnt have responded with such negativity but that one struck a chord with us.Thanks again S&G.

[Doggie_Wood]

Yes Drew - Thanks buddy. muaahhhh!!

[Skater Boy]

Well, I'm a "reasonably" liberal and tolerant man, who believes that its important to discuss even things which may be difficult or controversial, at times. But I just couldn't see the point of that guy's post. The answer WAS pretty self-explanatory, IMO. Still, lets move on...

[DeleteAccount1234]

Yay! THANKS DREW :) :) :)

It sickens me that people do child porn and some get off on it. Its DISGUSTING.

[12voltman59]

I really don't understand what his point was---he seemed to not be totally against it---as far as the post I put up on that thread--I did not address his question directly but talked about the possible consequences of possession of child porn---he sure did get pissed off at some of the comments about what he had said.

[DeleteAccount1234]

Ya, I know volt.

Maybe he was hoping for answers people weren't giving him??

Then got pissed cause he didn't like the answers? I don't know.

[ambi53mm]

Maybe I read more into it than what was there,but right off the bat his screen name seem to put his intent across very clearly

king of the jung (young) lists

ambi

[raistkit]

thanx drew, you hit the nail on the head. can we please just excise that thread. it sickened me to read it, and i read it after it had been locked out.

kit

[the mage]

Cencorship hurts everyone

Awareness is key.
Do not cencor.

Outing the ignorant and evil is always good, talk about it do NOT cencor!

[Bluebiyou]

Yeah, the topic was borderline. Ambi and NiceQuietGirl nailed it with 'the guy's a perv fishing for fellow pervs' with a ... borderline topic.
I think most understood the topic as posed regarding borderline porn. I had similar trouble myself as I downloaded tons of porn years ago on file sharing. I was amazed as to how much borderline porn there was. I deleted half of the files (100s, perhaps a couple 1000s) because (from my aged -40s- perspective) one of the people depicted MIGHT POSSIBLY have been under 18. You know, how can I say for sure that this or that person isn't just an extremely well developed 17 years, 364 days - old? So, to be safe, I deleted everything that I thought someone might possibly be under 21. Now I've got lots of porn of women with sagging boobs and men with bellies and balding! LOL
I did ONCE come across true (preadolescent) kiddie porn in file sharing... that shocked me. I turned the pics into the cops of course, but prior to that I thought... you'd have to be in some secret criminal association and know double passworded back doors (deliberate intent) to do that. That put a severe damper on my porn file sharing.
Post adolescent kids taking pictures of each other doesn't bother me morally. Hell, if I was 15, had a digital cam, and a willing naked girl, I'd be posting the pics up for all the world to see! LOL When I saw crap like that (post adolescent might-be-under-18), I just deleted it... just kids exploring their newfound sexuality...
But because there is harm which does come from underage porn, I now use mainly purchased sources with the '2257' stamp on it. Although my age perception must not be very good. I went to (unnamed) straight porn web site with 2257 stamp, and I would have deleted all of the pics as they all looked as if they might be under 18.
And "kingofthejunglists" (I don't think he was referring to Karl Jung) was probably a perv looking for other pervs, or a cop looking for pervs. Either way, okay to lock and kill thread! Good idea. I hope you banned his ass off bisexual.com as well.

[12voltman59]

Part of the whole problem is our society's worship of "youth culture"--as if the only time of life when things are good and worthwhile is when people are young---and the age keeps going down.

I have this idea for a cartoon----over the course of several episodes-it tells the same story over a period of time--

It starts out where someone who is like 60 finally realizes he or she is being "put out to pasture" as we used to say by someone younger--like say someone who is in his or her late 40s or 50s--

Move ahead in time---the same scenario gets played out but this time the person being told they are out of date and its "time to go" is the 40 or 50 year old---

The scene gets played out to finally---the person getting the boot for being too old and unhip is a ten year old being replaced by a four or five year old!!

Maybe not too funny--but I think it kind of proves the point.

I know this is a bit :offtopic: but my real point is--why can we not just accept the fact--we age and people can be just as beautiful, sexy, vital and alll of that at nearly any age--

I say it is time to stop this mindless worship of youth---and we learn to accept people at any age---and if anything---the very young should not be the object of a healthy and sane adult's sexual lusts and desires---

As far as people being concerned with censorship--this is a privately owned and operated web site---the owners have a right to have the sort of content on here that they may wish or not wish to be on it--and when it comes to things like sexual matters--especially when it comes to sexual matters and those who are underage---they cannot take any chances----all it takes is one mistake for an ambitious prosecutor somewhere to make life hell for Drew and his partners and kill this site in the meantime---

A righteous prosecutor might know that he or she may not prevail in having a successful prosecution of the owners of this site because it had unwittingly had something bordering on "child porn" or the like----but they would get their real aim accomplished--closing down another website with "perverted and dangerous material" or something like that.

Drew was right to close that thread and to ban that guy---

[elian]

I say it is time to stop this mindless worship of youth---and we learn to accept people at any age---and if anything---the very young should not be the object of a healthy and sane adult's sexual lusts and desires---


Oh Geesh - I have to admit to looking in the general direction of the senior high cross country team while they are jogging down the road - but would I want to be 18 again? - no way - age does have some benefits - at a little over 30 I know a lot more - and I can still only imagine what I'll know at 50.

It's totally an ignorant value judgment on my part but I've noticed over the years that some people are just too "logical" - they argue the point on some ephemeral objective philosophical notion.

[12voltman59]

Oh Geesh - I have to admit to looking in the general direction of the senior high cross country team while they are jogging down the road - but would I want to be 18 again? - no way - age does have some benefits - at a little over 30 I know a lot more - and I can still only imagine what I'll know at 50.

It's totally an ignorant value judgment on my part but I've noticed over the years that some people are just too "logical" - they argue the point on some ephemeral objective philosophical notion.

I am not saying you can't look--you just don't touch!!!:tongue::tongue::bigrin::bigrin::bigrin::b igrin::bigrin::bigrin::cool::cool:;););)

[Bluebiyou]

It's totally an ignorant value judgment on my part but I've noticed over the years that some people are just too "logical" - they argue the point on some ephemeral objective philosophical notion.

Pardon me, could you pass the plain yellow mustard?
Wouldn't "ephemeral subjective philosophical notion" be more appropriate being this is clearly more of a sliding age perspective (subjective) than absolute goal(objective)?
I'd never dream of ending a sentence in a preposition.
:rotate:
I'm just trying to be a smart ass! Did I reach my (drum roll please) objective? (snare drum please!)
I really do need to cut down on my caffeine consumption... feeling a little loony... let's hope the loon likes it! ... Oh sweet Jesus, I need to go to bed...
Say goodnight Dick.
Goodnight Dick.

[elian]

Yes, that's what I meant.. Sorry, I got my objectives confused.


Pardon me, could you pass the plain yellow mustard?
Wouldn't "ephemeral subjective philosophical notion" be more appropriate being this is clearly more of a sliding age perspective (subjective) than absolute goal(objective)?
I'd never dream of ending a sentence in a preposition.
:rotate:
I'm just trying to be a smart ass! Did I reach my (drum roll please) objective? (snare drum please!)
I really do need to cut down on my caffeine consumption... feeling a little loony... let's hope the loon likes it! ... Oh sweet Jesus, I need to go to bed...
Say goodnight Dick.
Goodnight Dick.

[Moto1]

I think there was a severe overreaction to the topic, even though the overreaction was to be expected. It is a topic that a large number of people feel very strongly about, with VERY good reason. What I believe was trying to be questioned was not the ethical correctness (which was stated to be indisputably morally wrong, enough to hit the mythical 'evil'), but of legal practices pertaining the punishment of it. The question (as I understood it) was: Should we violate legal tradition and rights, by punishing the consumer? This question, and ones like it, SHOULD be asked! Lashing out against something which we emotionally have an issue with, without rationally considering the possibilities is not a safe practice.

I would like to say here that I do not necessarily feel that people shouldn't be severely punished for possession, however I feel that these topics should be debated thoroughly, before we violate a legal tradition and a principle of our democracy by making this law. The decision should be made with the force of rationality behind it, not merely emotional disgust.

However I do agree that it is Drew's right to delete it if he so wishes, and certainly this forum is not really the place for a debate about legal practices.

[darkeyes]

Actually dus agree wiv ya Moto.. me intial explosive reaction wos not outrage at the question wos asked but at the fact that the poster thot it necessary 2ask it.. bitta common ya can work the wy out.. fact that e was wrong in is premise ne way that, its the only kinda pics ya can b criminalised for jus havin..cos it aint.. ther r quite a few examples not all 2 do wiv pronography eitha...

E neva sed e approved of such pics or of child abuse or owt else, an also if memory serve me correctly e stated quite the opposite in no uncertain terms... but peeps do overreact at times..an sumtimes has even been known for me 2 fly off handle.. but the reactions seemed 2 b to the subject matta an wot wos thot 2 hav been sed not to the reality of the content...

Do howeva disagree that forums aint the place for us 2 b debatin legal practices...we been doin that since Drew opened up the site..an will continue 2..afta all..its legal practice an social attitudes we believe shud b changed innit? They r political issues decided by an elite based on wot they think peeps shud b doin..not wot peeps actually do want.. an they r arguably very often an instrument for formin those social attitudes but without doubt controllin em...

[Moto1]

Actually dus agree wiv ya Moto.. me intial explosive reaction wos not outrage at the question wos asked but at the fact that the poster thot it necessary 2ask it.. bitta common ya can work the wy out.. fact that e was wrong in is premise ne way that, its the only kinda pics ya can b criminalised for jus havin..cos it aint.. ther r quite a few examples not all 2 do wiv pronography eitha...

E neva sed e approved of such pics or of child abuse or owt else, an also if memory serve me correctly e stated quite the opposite in no uncertain terms... but peeps do overreact at times..an sumtimes has even been known for me 2 fly off handle.. but the reactions seemed 2 b to the subject matta an wot wos thot 2 hav been sed not to the reality of the content...

Do howeva disagree that forums aint the place for us 2 b debatin legal practices...we been doin that since Drew opened up the site..an will continue 2..afta all..its legal practice an social attitudes we believe shud b changed innit? They r political issues decided by an elite based on wot they think peeps shud b doin..not wot peeps actually do want.. an they r arguably very often an instrument for formin those social attitudes but without doubt controllin em...

You could well be right about what laws are already in place that criminalize the possessor, I don't know the legal system well enough to be able to speak with certainty either way.

You are definately right that this is the place for debate, having re-read I don't think I made clear my thoughts. This is most certainly the place for debate on any topic, however it is likely that there would be assumptions about the content of his question (as there have been) on this forum that there might not be on others. This might make this a questionable place to ask such an inflammatory question. I could be wrong however!

[the mage]

I think there was a severe overreaction to the topic, even though the overreaction was to be expected. It is a topic that a large number of people feel very strongly about, with VERY good reason. What I believe was trying to be questioned was not the ethical correctness (which was stated to be indisputably morally wrong, enough to hit the mythical 'evil'), but of legal practices pertaining the punishment of it. The question (as I understood it) was: Should we violate legal tradition and rights, by punishing the consumer? This question, and ones like it, SHOULD be asked! Lashing out against something which we emotionally have an issue with, without rationally considering the possibilities is not a safe practice.

I would like to say here that I do not necessarily feel that people shouldn't be severely punished for possession, however I feel that these topics should be debated thoroughly, before we violate a legal tradition and a principle of our democracy by making this law. The decision should be made with the force of rationality behind it, not merely emotional disgust.

However I do agree that it is Drew's right to delete it if he so wishes, and certainly this forum is not really the place for a debate about legal practices.

................you already live under a punitive system of prohibition which is based on no fact whatsoever, that being your "War on drugs"
It is not a war, it is simple banishment of an item because it is not favored by corporate interest.

Why not debate legal practice here?
It not illegal to do so.
It will create some rational thought perhaps, not "gut" reaction.
The mans point is "why?"
The simple reason is that there are innocent victims of child porn who do not yet understand the acts they perform. It is imperative on society that we protect our children from harm. The physical, emotional result of sex is extremely damaging to children. That is the reason.

Adults who pursue children are causing massive harm and they must be stopped.

There are imperatives in life, recognize the simplicity of it.

[darkeyes]

................you already live under a punitive system of prohibition which is based on no fact whatsoever, that being your "War on drugs"
It is not a war, it is simple banishment of an item because it is not favored by corporate interest.

Why not debate legal practice here?
It not illegal to do so.
It will create some rational thought perhaps, not "gut" reaction.
The mans point is "why?"
The simple reason is that there are innocent victims of child porn who do not yet understand the acts they perform. It is imperative on society that we protect our children from harm. The physical, emotional result of sex is extremely damaging to children. That is the reason.

Adults who pursue children are causing massive harm and they must be stopped.

There are imperatives in life, recognize the simplicity of it.

Why aint a point its a question.. a rite stupid question but then ther a rite loada stupid arsehole about who don undastand that sum things r of necessity illegal...