Agree Zilla.
Why then doesn't society ban all violent computer games because the next American high school mass shooter may be just honing their skills in Counterstrike?

Sure, they are just mentally ill.
How can we differentiate between the mental ones and those just having some fun?
Isn't it safer to ban them all "just in case"?

(April 5, 2018 at 6:56 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

---

(April 5, 2018 at 6:47 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: @Gawdzilla Sama - I don't understand why you quoted me with this? Makes no sense, when I was just agreeing with Aegon's post.

Nothing intended by it, I just thought you didn't understand the reference I made.

Okay.

(April 5, 2018 at 5:08 pm)Khemikal Wrote: That may be so, but the shame and concealment of mental disorders isn't limited to kiddie fucking.  

I'm not on the other side of anything,. here, in thinking that we should just swallow it and get our loved ones the help they need..but..on the other hand., the help they need is often not available, even though the punitive consequences are. Throwing your cousin under the nutbus is more likely to end in punitive measures than useful treatment.  Obviously, a problem.....but yet another example of taboo breeding perversion.

My little brother is fucked up.  Just to bring it home.  He could use some help....the best help he (or I) can expect for him..at present, is simply that I keep his ass contained.  I would blow a hard whistle if anyone asked for a non-consequential reference...but I won't commit him nor will I contribute to anything that would lead to him being processed in-system.  I do worry, ofc, that if something happens to me...then he'll end up in a situation in which he might hurt someone (or himself, or both)....but I have to weigh that against the certain knowledge that disclosing that information officially will certainly hurt him and..likely, help no one.  Too many people, in our current system, are faced with the same decision.

Yeah, I wouldn't just have a family member committed for a mental illness. I specifically meant that I would fucking roll right over a kiddie toucher, no matter who they were.

(April 5, 2018 at 6:08 pm)wallym Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Hammy Wrote: I'm guessing me and Deidre are missing a reference required to get the joke lol.

Movie/Sci-fi book, Ready Player One.  It's about a Virtual reality world, mostly.

Would that Sci-Fi movie/book appeal to huge fans of retro video games like me? The name "Ready Player One" sounds retro!!!

(April 5, 2018 at 9:43 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 6:08 pm)wallym Wrote: Movie/Sci-fi book, Ready Player One.  It's about a Virtual reality world, mostly.

Would that Sci-Fi movie/book appeal to huge fans of retro video games like me? The name "Ready Player One" sounds retro!!!

I would say it was written/made specifically with retro video game fans in mind.

(April 5, 2018 at 2:13 pm)Shell B Wrote: So, in the case of the superimposing of a child's face over an adult pron star, I don't think that's victimless. If by some freak accident that kid some day sees that, it's fucked up. Using real people's faces, especially those who didn't consent, is an issue. Fake shit, as long as it's not disseminated, is no problem for me. It would seriously fuck with my head to see it or hear about it. I'd probably react very emotionally in the case of a realistic bot, but I don't think it harms anyone. Now, there may be such a thing as harming a robot on a human level in the future. I don't know. If there is, I'll reassess.

If a freak accident is required to hurt someone, its a victimless crime. Now, if the person getting off on this stuff leaves it laying around, or posts it on the net, or uses the face of someone in and out of his home, then, it begins to be a problem.

(April 5, 2018 at 7:17 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Agree Zilla.
Why then doesn't society ban all violent computer games because the next American high school mass shooter may be just honing their skills in Counterstrike?

Sure, they are just mentally ill.
How can we differentiate between the mental ones and those just having some fun?
Isn't it safer to ban them all "just in case"?

I don't think most people play call of duty because they wish they could be shooting real people. 
I do think people watch kiddie porn because they'd like to fuck a real kid.

And the problem with not making someone with this mental illness a victim, is that it risks making children a victim.  So it makes sense that the line is drawn nowhere near actual fucking a real kid.  Requiring people with this mental illness to demonstrate a high level of control is really important, because a slip up hurts a kid.

I'd say the gun argument should probably be similar.  If you commit a violent crime, you shouldn't have a gun.  Once you demonstrate that lack of control, it's time to start thinking about protecting everybody else.

(April 5, 2018 at 9:43 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 6:08 pm)wallym Wrote: Movie/Sci-fi book, Ready Player One.  It's about a Virtual reality world, mostly.

Would that Sci-Fi movie/book appeal to huge fans of retro video games like me? The name "Ready Player One" sounds retro!!!

Dude, go watch that movie now. Like, drop everything and go see it.

---

(April 5, 2018 at 10:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 2:13 pm)Shell B Wrote: So, in the case of the superimposing of a child's face over an adult pron star, I don't think that's victimless. If by some freak accident that kid some day sees that, it's fucked up. Using real people's faces, especially those who didn't consent, is an issue. Fake shit, as long as it's not disseminated, is no problem for me. It would seriously fuck with my head to see it or hear about it. I'd probably react very emotionally in the case of a realistic bot, but I don't think it harms anyone. Now, there may be such a thing as harming a robot on a human level in the future. I don't know. If there is, I'll reassess.

If a freak accident is required to hurt someone, its a victimless crime.  Now, if the person getting off on this stuff leaves it laying around, or posts it on the net, or uses the face of someone in and out of his home, then, it begins to be a problem.

Noticing that someone made porn with images of you isn't really a freak accident. I worded it poorly. Sure, leaving it around or posting it on the net would have to take place. So, I guess, if the guy was burning the images after using them to wank, it's basically victimless. On a personal level, I don't like it at all. Draw a cartoon or use your imagination. There are all kinds of deviant sexual things I'm sure I would enjoy (nothing even close to the level of what this discussion is getting at, but my own sexual appetite is my only barometer). I don't go around creating questionable or creepy-ass porn or forcing people into my fantasies. I keep it in my head like a normal pervert.

Can we address how fucking weird cutting off a person's head in a photo and pasting it on another body is, even without the pedo aspect?

I think we should disband the Thought Police and reorganise a new Thought Deathsquad.

Just like those in South America.

(April 5, 2018 at 11:46 pm)Shell B Wrote: I keep it in my head like a normal pervert

Isn't differentiating between a normal pervert and an abnormal pervert cutting it pretty fine?
Do we all agree that any/all sexual fantasies we carry out in the privacy of our homes either alone or with consent of other adult(s) is perfectly acceptable to society as long as no-one is getting hurt. Including animals. What about vegetables? Do they have a voice in this?