Bitcoin Forum

Have you ever read something that makes you so angry you can barely see straight?

One thing that always makes me blind with rage is sexual abuse of little kids. I'm a dad of two little ones, and stories like this make me ready to commit murder:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/child-porn-ring-put-kids-obvious-intentional-pain/story?id=14222833


I know this forum is frequented by some people who are very into privacy and freedom of speech, and consider this sort of "speech" an unfortunate evil which must be tolerated in order to obtain the capability for dissidents to speak out against repressive regimes.

However, from a morality standpoint, if you are aware of something like this going on, and you don't do your part to help put a stop to it, these children's blood and tears are on your head too.

Alternately, if you don't think justice can reach the perpetrator for some reason, I also approve of cold-blooded murder of these perpetrators. This is one case where a bitcoin-powered assassination market could actually do the world some good, although I doubt it would actually be used for purposes that noble.

Anyone defending child pornography as protected "speech" makes me sick. I can't imagine a punishment cruel enough for these guys. At the very least they should be killed.

</vent>

Define children. I already saw many things around to come up with "blood and tears" out of young folks and sex.

News also tend to input drama, as subtle headlines such as "man of 18 rapes child of 13" over consented sex. It's the sensationalist way to generate people "who can't see straight" onwards.
IMO, "sex" isn't a crime, I don't see any crime on it. Rape and/or force someone into it is, at no matter age, as that's a form of violence.

When talking about really damn young children, ~< 12 on most cases (not linear, not everybody develops the same way, age markers are somewhat fallacious), I really wonder what's in those guys brains, as those children are anatomically unsuitable for such thing.

From my experience, my g/f ranges -8 years than me (33/25) to +18 (17/35), but already got some oddities on the way, like a 14 yo girl saying stuff like "I'm not virgin, already f***d. Want to f*** with me?" (yes, with these exact manners and words - and no, I didn't f*** her; but if I did, as I was 30 at such time, you probably would come out as if I was a "rapist pedophile"...).

Agree that statutory rape laws can be weird, with prosecutions of 19y/o with a 16y/o as almost happened to a relative of mine who got his girlfriend pregnant (he married her to avoid parents pressing charges, which didn't work out, as you can imagine). I'm not totally against laws like this, but they are more crimes of youthful foolishness, and they don't make me any more angry than other similar crimes (like graffiti tagging, for instance).

Read the articles about this case (if you can stomach it) these children were nearly infants in some cases, and were being tortured for the sexual pleasure of others. There's no comparison in the severity of these crimes to something like a consensual "statutory rape" crime, even if they are covered by the same or similar laws.

I see, that annoying ABC site starts the video without request, even if you press "no auto" it will load anyway. Annoying!

For the topic; I don't have stomach issues, I know the humanity and what it is capable of enough to not be surprised anymore; pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia... weird species we are, uh?
The most curious there is where were them getting the children to produce so many videos?! And how didn't it raise any flags somewhere in order to be stopped earlier?!
Still the article is vague, like saying "some under 12". For the so called "super-hardcore", yes, that's shocking by the violence implied.

About sex, and even if I'm not amazed by it, I'm having a hard time to understand what happened the last years. There were pedophiles back in the 80's, and back in times before I born. But to the late news it all goes around more brutality, exposure - as in porn -, "super-hardcore"... My guess is that porn is so widely available nowadays, internet is filled up with it, that ends up working like drugs for those addicted to it; the "regular" is no longer enough or is banal, so they go after oddities.

I cannot see how visual depiction of a non-consenting person in sexual acts/poses would fall under free speech (which is essentially what we are talking about when talking about child porn) - my definition of 'non-consenting person' being someone who either did not agree with it happening regardless of age, or someone who does not fully understand what he is doing (which is for example the case with pre-pubescent kids). I do however feel that most of the psychological consequences of this 'abuse' are not due to what actually happened, but due to their environment telling them it is bad, and making a fuss out of it.

That being said, 'child porn', and generally pedophilia/ephebophilia (for the record, that is not equal to a child molester) in general, have become a scare tactic like terrorism is. A way to push regulations that otherwise noone would agree with. The entire 'your child may be next!' crusade by governments around the world is simply sickening, as it is essentially manipulating people by exploiting their moral judgment. A very good example of people being influenced by this is the very first post in this topic:
The abuse that children undergo does not become worse or less worse depending on whether you have kids or not. All you are doing is falling for the 'your kid is next' fearmongering.

Some of the issues arising as a consequence of this, are that for example stories or drawn/animated porn involving minors (where is the injured/abused party?) have also become socially unacceptable and in many cases illegal. Another issue is that the very moment you do NOT condemn pedophiles and child porn completely and entirely, and you do not call them monsters... you are immediately labelled a pedophile yourself. "If you're not against them, you're one of them."

People have to realize that logically reasoning about a situation does not mean that you morally approve of every aspect of it. People have to realize that a pedophile is someone with a love/sexual interest in prepubescent kids, that an ephebophile is someone with an interest in pubescent kids, and that neither has actually abused anyone until they engage in non-consentual sex, at which moment they are a child molester. The terms are not interchangeable. Pedophile and ephebophile signify an interest, a sexual orientation (one that, for the record, you are born with and do not have a choice in), something that is (thankfully) not illegal yet (thoughtcrimes anyone?) - whereas child molester signifies an actual action. There are plenty of pedophiles and ephebophiles who do absolutely nothing wrong, who try to suppress their feelings and fall back to animated/drawn porn and stories to satisfy their feelings without actually hurting or abusing any real live person - yet they are automatically labeled monsters of society, thanks to these scare tactics employed by governments.

People also have to realize that nature doesn't listen to man-made numbers called 'age'. Children are sexually mature when they are sexually mature, and no matter how much you would want it to be, 18 years old (in some jurisdictions 15, 16, 21) is not some magical age barrier where someone is suddenly aware of who they are, what they want (both sexually and in other areas) and can act for himself. Children will be curious, and try things. If you do some actual research into the history of things like age of consent, child pornography, and such, you will find that at some points in time this was just a way 'to earn an extra buck', and that many 'children' (teenagers) engaged in child porn production as actors, entirely voluntary.

As a final note I wish to say that I would not approve of killing any person, regardless of situation. In my opinion not a single person on this earth (or any other planet, if you happen to know any aliens) has the authority to take anothers life without consent.

TL;DR: If you are reading this line first you either do not care about the post, or you are looking for the easy way and only skimmed the text. I suggest you read the actual post entirely before raging at me :)

Wow! I normally avoid to use that argument, because people tend to start to look at you in a strange way, but I think exactly the same way. The so called "trauma" is actually an input from outside, rarely developed from within, unless the child got physically hurt. This said, I once told my best friend a personal experience on the subject (on short; one of my mother's employee used to "babysit" me and bring me to the warehouse to get me licking her when I was 4~6), he promptly jump that "I must be traumatized", when I replied "no I'm not", my friend started to look at me as if I was a complete freak.
Yup, this what most implicitly do on this subject: "Hey kid! You have to be traumatized! If you're not than we redirect our blindfolded rage against the pedo towards you."

Proof is, on many cultures, like in the Japanese feudalism, it was common for teenagers to engage in sex with adults and they don't get traumas.

BTW, I'm father of two little ones too, but I don't fall that easy to news "fascist mind-control methods".

I have to agree with this 100%. Apart from Japan (which I did not even know about), there's also the Greeks where it, as far as I know, was perfectly normal for teenagers to engage in sex with adults.

In a quick search:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan#Historical_sources

Actually the ideology which "demonizes" sex comes from the Jews and derivate religion as Islam and Christianity. These 3 religions are castrating societies for quite a while now...

Just to sum up my position in this issues:

1 - Violence must be punished no matter from and to what age.
2 - Sex is no crime at no matter age, our parents didn't committed any felony or we when have children. It's about time to cut the crap and hypocrisy rooted by some sub-gypsy set of desert idiots 5000 years ago.

1+2 means violent and non consented sex must be punished for the violence implied, for sex alone I see no reason.

Speech and action are two different things as far as I'm concerned. There's a thin but very distinctive line between somebody who is writing out paedophilic or rape fantasy, or watching such porn and those who inflict physical suffering on a non-consensual victim.

And certainly the definition of "non-consensual" and "victim" is also a cause for debate. Like the others, I don't believe there's a hard age when and only when a person automagically becomes capable/able of agreeing to or enjoying a sexual experience. As for victims in videos, how do we know for sure they are really victims? I mean there are movies where people get "killed" and porn where people get "raped" too. But nobody's actually a victim in those.

But if proven that the victim indeed did suffer, and not because some psychiatrist insists that a young person must naturally suffer from a sexual experience (we get reports of some female teachers "raping" their teenage students but the school boys are going "WHY? why NOT me!?", sure doesn't sound like they are going to be traumatized...;) ) then I'd be more than happy to agree to "Kill the bastard!" :D

From the sounds of it, they either used freenet or Tor...  which are supposedly pretty darn near anonymous, which also makes me wonder if they posted things that identified them in anyway.

A clarification of my OP: My strong reaction to this news story was not out of fear for my own children (although I do what I can to keep them safe). However, I believe that being a parent makes you more sensitive to violence against ALL children.

Also, I should perhaps disclose that my political and moral beliefs place me in a tiny minority here on this forum. I am an extremely right-wing bible-thumping intolerant evangelical Christian, and believe that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. I love it when murders and rapists get the death penalty and I do what I can to see that unborn babies live. I would live in Texas if it wasn't so darn hot. I can't stand organic food (I miss the pesticides and hormones). I'm a wild-eyed Jesus freak, and I try to live my life in complete obedience to the Bible. I get annoyed because Republicans (and the tea party) are not conservative enough for my tastes. I'm that annoying goody two-shoes church-brainwashed killjoy who condemns your fun and tells you that you need Jesus to save you from your sins.

To many of you, I am the very face of evil, much more horrifying than the pedophiles in the article above.

As long as those remain as your opinions and not your acts...
One shall be judge by what he does, not by what he thinks.

I don't see how it would make you more sensitive to anything, other than in your own perception. Which essentially brings me back to my point about government fearmongering.

Not sure if srs...

I vote. That is an action. :)


OK, I don't actually miss the pesticides and hormones, but I REALLY like cheap food ("cheap" is my second-favorite seasoning, my favorite seasoning is "free"). Otherwise, it's a fairly accurate description of me.

Voting is opinion casting, not an action on itself. Unless you vote alone and don't want others to vote against you.

Then why the hell are you even associating with us infidels here? ;)

Don't forget porn and child porn are tags used by those in power as a means to an end very often. If they really want to go after somebody they always toss the child porn meme around. You also have the totally misnamed Children's Internet Protection Act which was named as such to get votes because what politician is going on record for voting against Child Protection.

Yes I am against Child Porn or any abuse of children but let's not take what mass media tells us as gospel all the time. Remember this would be the same mass media that totally ignores the legal rape of children in Islamic countries, oh wait that's not rape is it when the man is 50 and the girl is 13 and they get married first...

I think the person who votes alone and doesn't want others voting against them is called a dictator. Trust me, you don't want to see how I would use that power.


Bitcoin is just really darn interesting - it's like a combination of every interesting project I've ever had.

Also, Jesus was always getting in hot water for associating with sinners and infidels of every kind, even prostitutes. Trying to be like him should not involve cutting yourself off from people who think differently.

. . . I'd change my avatar picture to Ned Flanders if I didn't like this one so much.

Unless she's objecting to it, it isn't rape.

Which meant He was tolerant, so if you're trying to live your life by the Bible... ;)

Whether you agree or disagree with the morals/ethics of pedophilia, there is one thing we can probably all agree upon: Child pornography is a lot rarer than the media/government/etc. want you to think it is. Imagine the fairly small percentage of folks that would be sexually attracted to a small child. Now imagine the subset of that group that would actually act upon those urges regardless of the potential for punishment. Now imagine the subset of THAT group that would tape or take pictures of the act. NOW imagine the subset of THAT group that would be brave/stupid enough to post it online.

If you visit the "wrong" parts of the internet (as I'm sure many bitcoiners do) it's not hard to see that there is certainly a market for this stuff, but there aren't exactly a lot of producers. Unfortunately these same "wrong" parts of the internet are bringing freedom to those who would not otherwise have it - folks in oppressive countries, folks circumventing media controls, etc. all rely on FreeNet, I2P, TOR and other networks largely misused by child pornographers.

Regardless of the moral or ethical stance you take on child abuse or pornography itself, it's not worth destroying or demonizing these bastions of free speech or violating the constitutional rights of an entire nation just to catch a tiny fraction of 1% of the populous. Child pornography is one of our government's favorite scare tactics. Few words conjure emotions as strong as "child pornography" or "terrorism" - and if they've got you thinking emotionally, you're no longer thinking rationally and are therefore easier to manipulate.

I definitely want to save me some babies - I love babies!

If I knew of a way to stop an abortion beyond voting (but short of murdering abortionists), I would totally do it.

A little of both, actually. I hope you'll reconsider. Won't you please be my friend? I so lonely . . .

That's easy, sponsor contraceptives, enhance their availability, ran comprehensive campaigns educating people about using contraceptives. :)

If they don't get pregnant, they won't need abortions.

A couple of bits of the bible that I am curious how you feel about.   The first is Acts 5, the second is Mathew 5:39

They both seem to be in contradiction to the Conservative approach, Acts 5 to the materialist approach that is opposed to taxes and Matt 5:39 to the harsh punishments approach.

I'm not Christian myself, but I am curious how someone who is very Christian reconciles these with Conservative beliefs.

Because 99,99% of them have no clue on what it's in the Bible (for good or for bad). Actually God is even friendly to incest, as in Loth's story.

I would say the biggest anti-abortion program in the US is welfare.  Having more babies means having more money, who would abort when that baby is a meal ticket?

I've been kind of silly in this thread, and have been admittedly talking about my controversial (but real) beliefs to get a rise out of people because it amuses me (trolling), but I'll try to give you a serious answer to this question.

Acts 5: I'm not sure that this is the chapter of the Bible I would use against materialism, but there are plenty of others. I'd probably go with I Timothy 6:10. Regardless, materialism is a nasty cancer in the church or anywhere else. As for taxes, Mark 12:13-17 makes it clear that Christians are to pay them, which is why I intend to pay taxes on my bitcoins as close to what the law says as possible. I do however vote for smaller government any time I'm given the chance.

As for Matt 5:39, a lot of Christians are pacifists, citing this verse. Others believe it is a prohibition against avenging ourselves for wrongs done against us, and should not be considered a prohibition against self-defense or the execution of justice. I'm in the latter camp, but certainly respect anyone who takes the former view.

LOL! Now THAT is trolling!

let em all rot in jail!

For what it is worth, Matt 5:39 was once explained to me as responding graciously to acts of provocation, which all of them were in historical cultural context. No idea how true it is, but for most people (right handed) to slap somebody on the right cheek involves a backhand which does sound like it might be an insulting pat rather than an act of violence.

Heh. I never expected I would be discussing and dissecting scripture on this forum of all places, even in the off-topic section.

Most of us are atheists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10338.0)
And many hate religion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29770.0)

I guess anything can happen.

Well I have this belief that the strongest opponents are often ex-believers (not necessarily religious). Just like I'm a cynic only because I was first an idealist.

I've got no problem with a troll playing devil's advocate.  Those conversations can be all sorts of fun.

I knew I know that monkey avatar from somewhere  ;D

Where is Dexter when you need him? Like for real...

That's Old Testament and other than the Creation and Moses it's not overly studied, read, or preached, at least at the churches I have attended and that's cross faith. The name is Lot and if anything Lot was Date Raped by his daughters. His daughters, thought all men were dead and it was their duty to procreate, their father being the only male they got him drunk and slept with him.

Now if you dig deeper you will find the sons of the daughters founded the tribes of Ammonites and Moabites, both enemies of the Hebrews. Back when I actually took Old Testament Literature it was put forth that the story of Lot or at least the incest was put in the Bible to justify the reason for the exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites.

Who gives a damn for the usual egocentric bullshit of the Bible?! God was supposed to know the future, so the "only worthy guy"'s action were unknown to God? So long for omniscience? And who wrote the story in the book of the Jews?
And I love the way his daughters get to be blamed, as usual in the machismo present at Middle East, it had to be the women's fault! Not to mention that Lot was up to give his virgin daughters (who magically turn into incest sluts in that other passage) for the people to not rape the angels...

That goofy part of the Bible is, at least, ancient porn.